Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104923 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan Research Paper Urban resilience through green infrastructure: A framework for policy analysis applied to Madrid, Spain Marta Suárez a, b, *, Amaya M. Rieiro-Díaz c, David Alba d, Johannes Langemeyer e, f, Erik Gómez-Baggethun g, h, Ibone Ametzaga-Arregi a a UNESCO Chair on Sustainable Development and Environmental Education, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Leioa, Spain b Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain c Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, Logroño, Spain d Asociación Ecología y Educación para una Ciudad Sostenible – Transitando, Madrid, Spain e Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain f Department of Geography, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Germany g Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway h Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Oslo, Norway H I G H L I G H T S • Impact of green infrastructure policies on resilience measured through an index. • Planning instruments foster resilience more than other types of policies. • Policies that focus on vulnerable neighbourhoods have better resilience results. • Citizen engagement is key for urban resilience. • Financing and political will are main challenges for implementation. A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: Urban resilience and how to assess it have become main policy objectives in the face of accelerated climate and Policy analysis other global environmental change. We develop a conceptual framework and an assessment tool to analyse how Social-ecological justice green infrastructure policies contribute to urban resilience and discuss barriers and opportunities for imple­ Urban green infrastructure mentation. The conceptual framework is designed to analyse how resilience is fostered through six resilience Urban resilience index factors: diversity, self-sufficiency and autonomy, polycentric governance, social cohesion, learning and inno­ vation, and social-ecological justice. The assessment tool consists of a resilience index composed of 30 indicators. We use the capital city of Madrid, Spain, as a case study. Our results suggest that planning policies that focus on vulnerable neighbourhoods and include mechanisms for citizen engagement are the policies that most effectively foster urban resilience. We also identified that financing and political will are major barriers for the imple­ mentation of resilience policies. We assume that the proposed framework is suitable to assess to what extent local policies foster urban resilience and suggest further testing in other cities. 1. Introduction as the ability of an urban area to maintain or rapidly recover desired functions in the face of disturbance; it is characterised by the capacity to Projected increases in hazards from climate and other global envi­ adapt to change and to transform those aspects that hinder adaptive ronmental changes have sparked policy interest in urban resilience capacity (Meerow et al., 2016). Resilience is often seen as a system (Moser et al., 2019; Andersson et al., 2021). Urban resilience is defined property that can be intentionally fostered through adequate practices * Corresponding author at: UNESCO Chair on Sustainable Development and Environmental Education, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Barrio Sarriena s/n, 48940 Leioa, Spain. E-mail address: msuarez023@ikasle.ehu.eus (M. Suárez). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104923 Received 13 December 2022; Received in revised form 27 September 2023; Accepted 7 October 2023 Available online 17 October 2023 0169-2046/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc-nd/4.0/). M. Suárez et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104923 and policies (Elmqvist et al., 2019; Andersson et al., 2021). urban resilience index composed of 30 indicators based on the frame­ Over the last decade, growing interest has been paid to the role of work by Suárez et al. (2016) and Suárez, Gómez-Baggethun et al. (2020) urban green infrastructure in enhancing adaptive capacities (Andersson to assess social-ecological resilience in cities. This framework assumes et al., 2015; Green et al., 2016; De Luca et al., 2021). Green infra­ that resilience can be fostered through six factors (i.e., diversity, structure (GI) is defined as a ‘strategically planned network of natural modularity, feedbacks length, social cohesion, learning and innovation and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed to and equity) in five urban dimensions (i.e., social, economic, ecological deliver a wide range of ecosystem services’ (European Commission, infrastructure, grey infrastructure and governance). The framework 2013). These ecosystem services contribute to urban resilience in a va­ rests on the idea that a comprehensive set of resilience indicators should riety of ways (McPhearson et al., 2015). For example, urban agriculture measure all these factors and dimensions. We use this assessment tool to increases social cohesion and learning (Camps-Calvet et al., 2016), and evaluate the degree to which GI policies foster resilience in Madrid, represents a local source of food, reducing dependence on external Spain. supply sources and increasing the resilience of the city in the face of The paper is organised in five main sections. Following this intro­ possible economic or energy crises (Langemeyer et al., 2021). Urban duction, we first explain the methodology used to assess to what extent vegetation provides multiple regulating ecosystem services, such as GI policies increase urban resilience. Second, we describe the results of water flow, runoff, or urban temperature regulation (Gómez-Baggethun applying this methodology to Madrid, Spain. Third, we discuss which & Barton, 2013), these, in turn, increase resilience to climate change. type of GI policies foster urban resilience the most, the main barriers and Green space, if well-designed and fairly distributed (Kabisch & Haase, opportunities for GI implementation, how justice issues are addressed 2014), can enhance social cohesion (Konijnendijk et al., 2013) and sense and the methodological limitations of the proposed framework. Based of place (Łaszkiewicz et al., 2018), which are attributes that foster on our results, we propose policy recommendations to foster urban resilience (Townshend et al., 2015; Winstanley et al., 2015). Green resilience through green infrastructure policies. infrastructure, therefore, can enhance urban resilience to a wide variety of disturbances: extreme weather events (Voskamp & Van de Ven, 2. Methodology 2015), economic crises (Langemeyer et al., 2021) or even health emer­ gencies such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic (Labib et al., 2022). 2.1. Study area Specific policies to foster resilience through green infrastructure can be locally developed. They can be directed to specific kinds of disturbances Our case study area comprises the municipality of Madrid. Madrid is or can promote general resilience, that is, the capacity to adapt and Spain’s capital and largest city. With more than 3 million people and transform in response to a wide variety of unfamiliar and unexpected 5512 inhabitants per km2 (INE, 2021; ALMUDENA, 2020), Madrid is shocks (Carpenter et al., 2012; Bouska et al., 2019; Yumagulova & also a very densely populated urban area. Vertinsky, 2021). In this paper we focus on general resilience, consid­ Madrid has a relatively high ratio of green space (18.3 m2 per ering a wide variety of disturbances such as those mentioned above. inhabitant) and trees (1.4 trees per 3 inhabitants) per inhabitant as Local governments can enhance GI to foster resilience through policy compared to the 15 m2 per inhabitant and 1 tree per 3 inhabitants instruments (Conway et al., 2020). Mendonça et al. (2021) differentiate recommended as a minimum by the World Health Organization (Madrid three types of policy approaches: planning/legislative, economic or City Council, 2018b). Moreover, these numbers only include green space market-based, and citizen engagement and information policies. The and trees managed by the City Council, therefore the actual ratio is first category of policies may consist of formally sanctioned rules, (e.g., higher. Green space in Madrid is comprised of urban parks (more than laws or regulations), or of guidelines, (e.g., local GI strategies). Eco­ 90 %), but also includes botanical and zoological gardens, sports and nomic policies aim to encourage behaviour shifts, discouraging partic­ leisure facilities, building plots, community gardens and landscaped ular practices by charging fees or taxes, or incentivising GI through areas in streets. Peri-urban green space covers more than 25 % of the subsidies and similar instruments. Citizen engagement and information municipality and is mainly composed by herbaceous vegetation associ­ policies include training and education, communication processes and ations, arable land, pastures, and forests (Fig. 1). This space consists stakeholder engagement (Zuniga-Teran, Gerlak et al., 2020; Mendonça mostly of natural protected areas located at the north and south-east of et al., 2021). the municipality. However, they are not managed by the City Council How can we measure the degree to which GI policies increase urban and therefore not analysed in this paper. resilience? Which kind of GI policies are more effective on fostering The municipality is divided into 21 districts. As in most other cities resilience? To our knowledge, there are no studies that directly analyse (see e.g., Suárez, Barton et al., 2020), GI is unevenly distributed. how GI policies can increase urban resilience, but several frameworks Following the common pattern, the central districts are, in general, and methodologies to analyse the degree to which GI fosters resilience to densely urbanised with a scarcity in green space and trees, whereas more a wide variety of disturbances have been developed in the last decades. peripheral districts have higher ratios of green space per inhabitant For instance, Biggs et al. (2012) approached the theme developing a (Madrid City Council, 2018b). framework that enumerates and explains principles to enhance the The main watercourse of the municipality is the Manzanares river. resilience of ecosystem services. These, included diversity, learning and The Manzanares is 92 km long and drains a water basin of 52,796 ha. It experimentation, and polycentric governance systems (see also De Luca crosses the western and southern districts of the municipality and three et al., 2021). Calderón-Contreras & Quiroz-Rosas (2017) analysed urban of the most important green spaces in Madrid (El Pardo, Casa de Campo, resilience through ecosystem services, using as proxies the scale, quality and Madrid Río), hence acting as an important ecological corridor. and diversity of green infrastructure. Rayan et al. (2021) developed a Previous studies (Suárez & Alba, 2017) suggest that policies between model composed of a set of GI planning indicators to build climate- 2003 and 2015 have been dominated by a focus on urban development, resilient urban regions in Pakistan. Karabakan & Mert (2021) assessed at the expense of GI. In 2015, a citizen platform gathering diverse social the role of green infrastructure in resilience, in terms of changes that movements won the local elections, replacing the political party gov­ could potentially take place, using Geographic Information Systems. erning the City Council for the previous 24 years. During this office term Bănică et al. (2020) assessed the statistical relationship between in­ (2015–2019), the Madrid City Council promoted GI and biodiversity in dicators of green infrastructure and different proxies for urban the municipality through several policy initiatives. For example, the resilience. Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan and the Madrid + Natural Building on the above-cited work, we propose a complementary Program (whose aim is to improve climate change adaptation through methodology to measure to what extent GI policies promote urban so-called nature-based solutions). resilience to a wide variety of disturbances. To this aim, we develop an 2 M. Suárez et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104923 Fig. 1. Green infrastructure in the municipality of Madrid. Source: Own design based on Urban Atlas (EU Copernicus Programme, 2012). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) 3 M. Suárez et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104923 2.2. Green infrastructure policies review resilience. The whole process was developed through an expert consultation. In the following subsections we explain how the expert We conducted a search in the official website of Madrid City Council consultation was conducted, the revision of the conceptual framework, to identify ongoing and planned GI policies. We selected all plans, the resilience indicators, the urban resilience index and the evaluation of programs, and budgets that included objectives or actions to improve the degree to which GI policies and actions foster urban resilience. the GI through direct interventions (e.g., developing green spaces, planting trees, and creating green roofs) and carried out by the Madrid 2.3.1. Expert consultation City Council, either totally or partially, during the term of office We carried out an expert consultation applying a Delphi approach extending from 2015 to 2019. We excluded those policies that affect GI (Hasson et al., 2000) consisting in two rounds of on-line surveys, as but do not explicitly include objectives or actions to improve it (e.g., Delphi technique is commonly used to reach a consensus. The first round urbanization plans that reduce green space area). We also excluded included questions about the consistency of the conceptual framework, budgets and some plans that are part of strategic plans. Overall, we the suitability of the pre-selected indicators and the templates to assess identified 27 GI policies that match these criteria (Table A.1 in Appendix to what extent GI policies and actions promote urban resilience (see A). details in sections 2.3.2, 2.3.3 and 2.3.5). It also included questions We carried out a double evaluation. First, we assessed the degree to about the experts’ profile (academic background, current occupation, which GI policies foster resilience. Second, we assessed to what extent and fields of knowledge). It was sent to 63 experts on resilience, green specific actions included in GI policies increase resilience. Six of the infrastructure, ecosystem services, public policy, environmental justice, selected policies consisted of a compilation of specific actions, therefore, or sustainability indicators. 25 % (12 academics and 4 private consul­ they only were included in the second assessment (see column “Type of tants with different backgrounds, see Appendix B for further details) assessment” in Table A.1 in Appendix A). completed the online survey in October 2019. The second round of To assess to which degree GI policies foster resilience, we reviewed surveys was specifically focused on the relevance of indicators to mea­ all the related documents and summarise each plan or program in a pre- sure each resilience factor (see details in section 2.3.4). The survey was designed template. This template included relevant information to sent to the same 16 experts who participated in the first round. By evaluate how given policies were expected to affect urban resilience, February 2020, we obtained 7 responses. The conceptual and method­ and descriptors such as policy name, type of policy, brief description, ological framework, the set of resilience indicators and the urban spatial location, date of approval, date of execution, local government resilience index were constructed following experts’ responses. The department, main objectives, GI elements affected by the policy, main process is explained in the following subsections and summarised in actions, participatory process, monitoring plan and related policies. Fig. C.1 in Appendix C. Policies were reviewed only when all their objectives were specifically directed to improve GI. When only specific parts of the policy included 2.3.2. Revision of the conceptual framework objectives or actions to improve GI, only those parts were assessed. Before expert consultation, Suárez, Gómez-Baggethun et al.’s (2020) To analyse to what extent GI actions foster resilience, we identified framework to assess urban resilience was revised by the research team. specific actions included in the selected GI policies. The following ac­ The proposed assessment tool is designed to help urban planners and tions were excluded because of the difficulty to assess them: i) actions policymakers to foster urban resilience through GI policies directed at with a vague description; ii) actions that are preliminary studies to specific or multiple shocks and stresses. Therefore, some terms were analyse the viability to develop specific actions; iii) education or com­ replaced by more understandable concepts. Thus, we replaced the fac­ munity actions; and iv) actions without a specified location. All actions tors feedbacks length and modularity with self-sufficiency and decentrali­ were geolocated using ArcGIS 10.7. When an action was carried out in sation, that are intrinsically related (see Suárez et al., 2016), and the more than one district, we split it into the same number of sections as dimension ecological infrastructure with green infrastructure. Although districts were affected. Each section is counted as one action. Overall, we some authors argue that ecological infrastructure is more comprehensive identified 620 actions. (Childers et al., 2019), urban planners in our study area are more fam­ To complete missing information on the reviewed documents, we iliarised with green infrastructure. Finally, we replaced equity with envi­ interviewed seven officials and policymakers of the Madrid City Council ronmental justice. Equity, in the context of GI, usually refers to equal involved in the development of GI policies between May and June 2019. distribution, whereas the concept of environmental justice also includes The Madrid City Council is structured in government departments (Áreas recognition of the diversity of participants and potential users, and fair de gobierno) and subdepartments. We interviewed one policymaker from integration of all affected groups into the planning and decision process the government department of Territorial Coordination and Public-Social (Schlosberg, 2004; Kabisch & Haase, 2014). Cooperation; two officials from the government department of Sustain­ The framework to assess urban resilience was modified following able Urban Development and the subdepartment of Strategic Planning; and experts’ opinion in the first round of the survey. Experts were asked four officials from the government department of Environment and about the relevance of urban dimensions and resilience factors. Answers Transport and the subdepartments of Water and Green Spaces, Energy and covered a wide range of suggestions to adapt the conceptual framework. Climate Change and Environmental Education. We modified the conceptual framework following experts’ comments Policies were finally classified following Mendonça et al.’s (2021) backed up by the literature. The final urban dimensions and the resil­ categories: i) planning/legislative; ii) economic or market-based, iii) and ience factors are described in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. citizen engagement and information (see Table A.1 in Appendix A). Regarding urban dimensions, several experts suggested including the Although each policy falls into a single category some policies can cultural dimension as the society’s form of expression. Therefore, we include instruments of the two other categories. changed the social dimension by socio-cultural. The term green infra­ structure was widely criticised. Some consulted experts, who were not 2.3. Assessment of urban resilience familiar with the concept, highlighted the difficulty to understand its meaning. Furthermore, they also pointed out that green infrastructure is a The methodology developed in this paper to assess to what extent GI reductionist term, and it does not include all environmental aspects, policies foster urban resilience to a wide variety of disturbances, such as such as city’s metabolism. Hence, we substituted green infrastructure for climate change, extreme weather events, and economic or energy crises, the ecological dimension, to refer to green space, the services it provides follows four steps: i) revision of the conceptual framework; ii) selecting and city’s material, water, and energy flows (McPhearson et al., 2015; resilience indicators; iii) building the urban resilience index; and iv) Meerow et al., 2016). Following experts’ comments, the dimensions grey evaluating the degree to which GI policies and actions foster urban infrastructure and governance were also replaced with more 4 M. Suárez et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104923 Table 1 Table 2 Urban dimensions following the opinion of consulted experts. Resilience factors following the opinion of consulted experts. Urban Description References Resilience Factor’s description and how References dimension factor it fosters resilience Socio-cultural The social dimension refers to Adger, 2003; Walker & Salt, Diversity Diversity includes three Rosenfeld, 2002; Stirling, the way human beings interact 2006; Carpenter et al., 2012; properties: variety, balance, 2007; Biggs et al., 2012; with each other. It includes all Meerow et al., 2016 and disparity. The former refers Carpenter et al., 2012 aspects that affect social justice, to the number of different equity, and social cohesion. It is elements and it provides closely linked to community different kinds of functions. resilience. The cultural Balance answers the question dimension refers to the form of how many of each element we expression and representation of have, that is, components with human relationships. Social and similar functions but different cultural aspects are strongly responses to disturbance. connected; therefore, we Disparity refers to how consider them jointly as the different elements are from one socio-cultural dimension. another. Economic It refers to the economic system, Hopkins, 2008; Cato, 2013 Self-sufficiency Self-sufficiency refers to the Rees & Wackernagel, 1996; which has a strong influence on and consumption rates of materials Folke et al., 1997; Walker the resilience of the whole urban autonomy and energy. Although a city et al., 2004; Hopkins, 2008 system. cannot be self-sufficient, Ecological It includes all GI elements (e.g., McPhearson et al., 2015; minimising consumption trees and plants, parks, green Meerow et al., 2016 reduces the system’s roofs…), but it also refers to the dependency from other city metabolism, such as ecosystems and increases its material, water and energy resilience. The concept of flows and the ecosystem services autonomy refers to city’s supplied by GI. capacity to provide all the Physical and It refers to the built environment Meerow et al., 2016 necessary services (i.e., public technological and human-made infrastructure, services, water and energy such as buildings and transport, networks…), throughout the energy, and water networks. whole city, to guarantee Governance It is defined by ‘the exercise of Biggs et al., 2012, p. 437 citizens’ well-being. system deliberation and decision Polycentric In a polycentric governance Ostrom, 2005; Folke et al., making among groups of people governance system, different institutions 2007; Biggs et al., 2012 who have various sources of participate at different scales. authority to act and may be Each governance unit is practiced through a variety of independent from each other organizational forms’ such as within a geographic area or local governments, NGOs or domain of authority, but they organized citizen groups. collaborate among them horizontally and are nested within broader governance understandable terms namely, physical and technological dimension and units vertically. Social cohesion Trust, social networks, sense of Adger, 2003; Berkes et al., governance system. belonging and leadership are 2003; Walker & Salt, 2006 Regarding resilience factors, self-sufficiency was renamed self-suffi­ components of social cohesion, Goldstein, 2009; Cutter et al., ciency and autonomy. Self-sufficiency refers to the consumption rates of and they increase the capacity 2010; Carpenter et al., 2012 materials and energy (i.e., minimising their consumption to reduce de­ of community response to pendency from other ecosystems) (Walker et al., 2004; Hopkins, 2008). disturbances. Learning and Learning is ‘the process of Walker & Salt, 2006; The concept of autonomy is complementary to self-sufficiency. As one innovation modifying existing or acquiring Goldstein, 2009; Ernstson expert explained, it refers to the city’s capacity to provide all the new knowledge, behaviours, et al., 2010; Biggs et al., 2012 necessary services, throughout the whole city, to guarantee citizen well- skills, values, or preferences’ ( being. Biggs et al., 2012, p. 434). One expert argued that the diversity of independent stakeholders is Learning and innovation allow creating new ways to respond beneficial for urban resilience but also a coordinating entity with a to changes. comprehensive vision. Therefore, it is not clear which is the optimum Social- Social-ecological justice is the Aguado Caso, 2016; degree of decentralisation. Instead, some experts suggested including a ecological right of coexistence of human Washington et al., 2018; resilience factor related to the adaptation capacity of the governance justice societies and non-human Yaka, 2019; Pineda-Pinto ecologies within a common et al., 2021; Pope et al., 2021 system. Therefore, we replaced decentralisation with polycentric gover­ planetary social-ecological nance in which different and independent institutions participate at system. It encompasses social, different scales, collaborating among them horizontally and nested environmental, and ecological within broader governance units vertically (Biggs et al., 2012). justice and recognizes intra- Finally, some experts pointed out that temporal and spatial trade-offs generational, inter- generational, and multi-species were not explicitly included in the framework (i.e., increasing resilience rights. in one spatial or temporal scale can diminish resilience in other scales, for example, in other ecosystems or human communities) (Chelleri et al., 2015). We replaced environmental justice with social-ecological justice to recognises intra-generational, inter-generational, and multi-species include these aspects. Social-ecological justice is the right of coexistence rights. Therefore, it presents a spatial and temporal amplification in of human societies and non-human ecologies within a common plane­ relation to the concept of environmental justice (Pope et al., 2021). tary social-ecological system (Yaka, 2019). It encompasses social, environmental, and ecological justice (Aguado Caso, 2016) and 5 M. Suárez et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104923 2.3.3. Selection of resilience indicators where In are the indicators. We followed Suárez, Gómez-Baggethun et al.’s (2020) framework to select resilience indicators. A literature review was conducted searching 2.3.5. Assessment of the degree to which green infrastructure policies foster for indicators to assess how policies can foster each resilience factor in urban resilience each dimension. We pre-selected 23 indicators. We assessed the degree to which GI policies and actions enhance Experts were asked, in the first round of the consultation, to value to urban resilience in the scenario that all policies would have been fully what extent the 23 pre-selected indicators explain urban resilience using implemented. First, we designed a template based on experts’ sugges­ a 5-point scale, 1 being very little and 5 a lot. We considered that an tions to guide the process of evaluating the degree to which GI policies indicator explains urban resilience in a significant way when it obtained foster resilience indicators (Appendix D). Although GI policies are ex­ a weighted average higher than 3. The weighted averages for the 23 pected to increase resilience, they may have a negative effect on specific indicators were higher than 3, therefore, we did not remove any of them indicators. Therefore, each indicator was scored using a scale between (indicators 1–23 in Table 3). We also asked experts to propose new in­ − 2 and +2, where − 2 means a strong negative effect on urban resilience dicators if they thought the 23 indicators were not enough to explain and +2 means a strong positive effect. Second, we followed the template how GI policies might foster urban resilience. They suggested 7 more to assess to what extent GI policies foster urban resilience, assigning indicators that were valued by the experts in the second round using the values to the indicators. Third, we calculated the average values and same 5-point scale. The 7 indicators obtained weighted averages higher rounded them to whole numbers if the difference between the assigned than 3, therefore, they were also included in the indicators system (in­ values by each member of the research team were no higher than 1. dicators 24–30 in Table 3). When the difference was higher than 1, they were reviewed and dis­ Experts were also asked to indicate which urban dimensions and cussed until consensus was reached by the research team. Fourth, we resilience factors each indicator explains. We considered that an indi­ calculated the resilience index for each policy. Following Nardo et al.’s cator explains a particular dimension or factor when more than 50 % of (2005) methodology, the results were re-scaled between 0 and 10, the consulted experts referred to their link. where higher values mean that the policy increases urban resilience in Fig. 2 represents the framework to assess to what extent GI policies high degree. promote urban resilience, based on the opinion of the consulted experts. We followed the same procedure to assess the degree to which spe­ Local governments can enhance urban resilience through policies that cific GI actions enhance urban resilience. However, in this case, instead improve green infrastructure. These policies can modify the five urban of assessing action by action, we classified the actions into different dimensions and the six resilience factors to foster resilience. The degree categories, and assigned values to each category (see Appendix E for to which they foster the resilience factors in the different dimensions can more details). Unlike in the policy assessment, each indicator was valued be measured by the 30 resilience indicators. using a scale between − 1 and +1 following a similar template (Appendix F). This template was also designed following experts’ opinion. There­ 2.3.4. Urban resilience index fore, we only evaluated if each category of actions has a negative, Following Nardo et al. (2005) and advice from consulted experts (see neutral, or positive effect on each indicator, but we did not distinguish Appendix C), the 30 indicators were weighted and aggregated into an between different degrees of negative or positive effect. The urban urban resilience index. resilience index was calculated for each category and the obtained To decide the weighting coefficients of the factors, we used a budget resilience values were assigned to the respective actions. To assess to allocation approach (Nardo et al., 2005). Experts were given a ‘budget’ what extent GI actions foster resilience in each district we added the of 10 points and were asked to distribute them over the 6 resilience resilience values of all the actions proposed in each district. factors, ‘paying’ more for those indicators whose importance they Finally, we analysed if some social groups (defined by age, gender, wanted to stress. The coefficient is the average of the points given to origin, level of education, and income) benefited more than others from each factor. The urban resilience index equation with the resulting green infrastructure policies. To this end, we carried out bivariate weighing coefficients is: Pearson correlations between resilience values for the actions that were planned in the 21 districts and the following socio-economic variables: URI = 2D + 1.7SA + 1.6PG + 2.1SC + 1.7LI + 1.7SJ percentage of i) children younger than 14 years old; ii) elderly over 65; where URI is the urban resilience index, D is diversity, SA self-sufficiency iii) women; iv) people with not Spanish nationality; v) people over 25 and autonomy, PG polycentric governance, SC social cohesion, LI years of age who are illiterate, have no primary education or only have learning and innovation and SJ social-ecological justice. compulsory education (population with low educational level or Each factor is calculated through the weighted addition of all the without education); and vi) average household income. These variables indicators that explain that factor. To decide the weighting coefficients were selected because several studies have found that GI is commonly of the indicators we also used the budget allocation technique. In this unevenly distributed depending on ethnicity, age, education level or case, given the high number of indicators that explain some resilience gender (see e.g., Suárez, Barton et al., 2020). Research has found that factors, we asked the experts to distribute 20 points over the indicators low-income people is the main excluded group in most cases, but also, that explain each factor in the second round of the consultation. The migrants, less educated, elderly, youth or females have recently been weighting coefficients are the average score (see details in Fig. C.1 in identified as less benefited groups from GI (Zuniga-Teran et al., 2021). Appendix C). Finally, the urban resilience index equation is: Statistical analyses were carried out with SPSS v27. We previously checked that the data were normally distributed. URI = 2(2.2I1 + 3.1I2 + 1.6I3 + 3.7I4 + 1.9I5 + 2I6 + 1.6I7 + 1.6I8 + 1.2I9 + 1.2I10 ) + 1.7(2, 9I16 + 3.3I17 + 3.3I18 + 2.6I19 + 7.9I30 ) + 1.6(4.3I11 + 4.2I12 + 7I14 + 4.5I25 ) + 2.1(5.47I13 + 10.3I24 + 4.3I29 ) + 1.7(7.6I20 + 6.9I21 + 5.5I26 ) + 1.7(2I15 + 5.6I22 + 4.3I23 + 4.7I27 + 3.3I28 ) 6 M. Suárez et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104923 Table 3 Indicators used to assess the degree to which GI policies foster urban resilience based on literature and the opinion of consulted experts. N◦ Indicator Definition Resilience factors Urban dimensions References explained by the explained by the indicator indicator 1 Diversity of people Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Diversity, social cohesion Socio-cultural, Adger, 2003; Hopkins, 2008; the diversity of users or beneficiary people by governance system Agencia de Ecología Urbana de green infrastructure, considering all the social Barcelona, 2012; Buijs et al., 2016; groups living in the intervention area. Cutter et al., 2016; Rieiro Díaz, 2018 2 Diversity of organised Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Diversity, social cohesion, Socio-cultural, Adger, 2003; Hopkins, 2008; citizen groups the diversity of users or beneficiary organised learning and innovation governance system Agencia de Ecología Urbana de citizen groups Barcelona, 2012; Buijs et al., 2016; Suárez et al., 2016; Rieiro Díaz, 2018 3 Diversity of businesses Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Diversity, self-sufficiency Economic, governance Adger, 2003; Agencia de Ecología the diversity of local businesses with socio- and autonomy system Urbana de Barcelona, 2012; environmentally sustainable principles. Hopkins, 2008; Suárez et al., 2016; Rieiro Díaz, 2018 4 Biodiversity Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Diversity Ecological Elmqvist et al., 2003; Agencia de biodiversity. Ecología Urbana de Barcelona, 2012; Leslie & McCabe, 2013; Suárez et al., 2016; Rieiro Díaz, 2018; 5 Diversity of green Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Diversity, social- Ecological McPhearson et al., 2015; Calderón- infrastructure the diversity of GI components. ecological justice Contreras & Quiroz-Rosas, 2017 6 Diversity of ecosystem Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Diversity, self-sufficiency Ecological McPhearson et al., 2015; Calderón- services the diversity of provisioning, regulating and and autonomy, social- Contreras & Quiroz-Rosas, 2017 cultural ecosystem services supplied by GI. ecological justice 7 Diversity of human- Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Diversity, polycentric Socio-cultural, physical McPhearson et al., 2015 made facilities the diversity of human-made facilities that governance, social and technological, improve the capacity to supply ecosystem cohesion governance system services. 8 Diversity of Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Diversity, social cohesion Socio-cultural, Adger, 2003; Buijs et al., 2016 participating people the diversity of people participating in the governance system different execution stages of GI (diagnosis, design, implementation, use, maintenance, monitoring and assessment). 9 Diversity of Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Diversity, social cohesion Socio-cultural, Adger, 2003; Agencia de Ecología participating the diversity of organised citizen groups governance system Urbana de Barcelona, 2012; Buijs organised citizen participating in the different execution stages of et al., 2016; Rieiro Díaz, 2018 groups GI (diagnosis, design, implementation, use, maintenance, monitoring and assessment). 10 Diversity of Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Diversity, self-sufficiency Socio-cultural, Agencia de Ecología Urbana de participating the diversity of economic sectors participating in and autonomy economic, governance Barcelona, 2012; Buijs et al., 2016; economic sectors the different execution stages of GI (diagnosis, system Suárez et al., 2016 design, implementation, use, maintenance, monitoring and assessment). 11 Diversity of Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Diversity, polycentric Governance system Suárez et al., 2016 participating public the diversity of public administrations governance administrations participating in the different execution stages of GI (diagnosis, design, implementation, use, maintenance, monitoring and assessment). 12 Diversity of Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Diversity, polycentric Governance system Suárez et al., 2016 participating the diversity of government departments governance government participating in the different execution stages of departments GI (diagnosis, design, implementation, use, maintenance, monitoring and assessment). 13 Social networks Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Social cohesion Socio-cultural, Villatoro & Ribera, 2007; Rieiro the creation or maintenance of social networks. governance system Díaz, 2018 14 Multilevel and Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Polycentric governance Governance system Buijs et al., 2016; Rieiro Díaz, 2018 decentralised the creation or maintenance of mechanisms that governance allow multilevel and decentralised governance. 15 Demand of Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Social-ecological justice Socio-cultural, McPhearson et al., 2015; Suárez provisioning the demand of provisioning ecosystem services. ecological et al., 2016 ecosystem services 16 Demand of regulating Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Self-sufficiency and Socio-cultural, McPhearson et al., 2015; Suárez ecosystem services the demand of regulating ecosystem services. autonomy, social- ecological et al., 2016; Fernández de Manuel ecological justice et al., 2021 17 Supply of provisioning Degree to which the policy affects or may affect GI Self-sufficiency and Ecological McPhearson et al., 2015; Suárez ecosystem services capacity to supply provisioning ecosystem autonomy, social- et al., 2016; Rieiro Díaz, 2018 services. ecological justice 18 Supply of regulating Degree to which the policy affects or may affect GI Self-sufficiency and Ecological McPhearson et al., 2015; Suárez ecosystem services capacity to supply regulating ecosystem services. autonomy, social- et al., 2016, Rieiro Díaz, 2018; ecological justice Fernández de Manuel et al. 2021 19 Supply of cultural Degree to which the policy affects or may affect GI Self-sufficiency and Socio-cultural, McPhearson et al., 2015; Suárez ecosystem services capacity to supply cultural ecosystem services. autonomy ecological, governance et al., 2016; Rieiro Díaz, 2018 system 20 Social innovation Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Social cohesion, learning Socio-cultural, Suárez et al., 2016; Rieiro Díaz, 2018 social innovation. and innovation governance system (continued on next page) 7 M. Suárez et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104923 Table 3 (continued ) N◦ Indicator Definition Resilience factors Urban dimensions References explained by the explained by the indicator indicator 21 Education Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Social cohesion, learning Socio-cultural, Biggs et al., 2012; Rieiro Díaz, 2018 the number of education projects and specific and innovation governance system tools to promote collective learning. 22 Equal distribution of Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Social-ecological justice Socio-cultural, Chelleri et al. 2015; Romero-Lankao green infrastructure the equal distribution of GI, with special focus on ecological, governance et al. 2016; Baró et al. 2019 the most vulnerable groups. system 23 Equal access to the Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Social-ecological justice Socio-cultural, Chelleri et al. 2015; Romero-Lankao benefits of green the fair access to the benefits provided by GI, with ecological, governance et al. 2016; Venter et al. 2020 infrastructure special focus on the most vulnerable groups. system 24 Sense of belonging Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Self-sufficiency and Socio-cultural Berkes et al., 2003; Goldstein, 2009 citizens’ sense of belonging. autonomy, social cohesion 25 Political innovation Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Self-sufficiency and Governance system Walker & Salt, 2006; Goldstein, political innovation. autonomy, polycentric 2009; Ernstson et al., 2010; Biggs governance, learning and et al., 2012 innovation 26 Technical innovation Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Self-sufficiency and Physical and Ernstson et al., 2010; Walker & Salt, technical innovation. autonomy, learning and technological 2006 innovation 27 Temporary impact Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Social-ecological justice Socio-cultural, Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Chelleri resilience on the short- and long-term. economic, ecological et al., 2015 28 Universal accessibility Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Social cohesion, social- Socio-cultural, Chelleri et al., 2015; Romero-Lankao to green infrastructure universal accessibility to GI. ecological justice ecological et al., 2016 29 Social conflicts Degree to which the policy affects or may affect Social cohesion Socio-cultural, Adger, 2003; Walker & Salt, 2006 social conflicts. governance system 30 Economic autonomy Degree to which the policy has economic Self-sufficiency and Economic, governance Sharifi & Yamagata, 2014 of the policy resources to be implemented. autonomy, polycentric system governance Fig. 2. Conceptual and methodological framework to assess to what extent GI policies foster urban resilience following the opinion of consulted experts. Arrows show the relationship between factors, urban dimensions, indicators, and urban resilience. Arrows’ thickness shows the degree to which GI policies promote resilience on urban dimensions. 3. Results resilience value of 0.98, re-scaled between 0 and 2), learning and innovation (0.98) and diversity (0.95) were found to be the most Our results indicate that all analysed policies increase urban resil­ strongly favoured by GI policies, whereas weaker effects were obtained ience to different degrees (Fig. 3) and that some resilience factors are for social cohesion (0.81), self-sufficiency and autonomy (0.76) and fostered more than others (Fig. 4). Social-ecological justice (average polycentric governance (0.69). 8 M. Suárez et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104923 Fig. 3. Urban resilience index results for Madrid City Council’s GI policies. Colour arrows join the strategic plans and the plans or programs that specify actions of the strategic plans. Dashed lines join policies that shared specific actions. citizen engagement in a great extent. Therefore, they mainly promote diversity, learning and innovation, and social-ecological justice (Fig. 5, policies GIB_plan and GS_plan). Other policies with resilience values higher than 5 include other planning instruments and one economic policy. The main objectives of these policies are not specifically designed to enhance GI, but they include some actions that directly improve GI to pursue some of their objectives and, therefore, foster most resilience factors in low degree (Fig. 5, policies MR_plan, MF_plan, RC_econ, MCC_plan and AQC_plan). All policies with resilience values lower than 5 were plans or pro­ grams that specify actions of the strategic plans. In general, their impact in the resilience factors is low (equal or lower than + 1), and some factors are more favoured than others. For example, Urban Community Gardens Municipal Program (resilience value of 4.9) was found to have a strong influence on social cohesion (see also Camps-Calvet et al., 2016) but weak on diversity (Fig. 5, policies UCG_info and PT_econ), whereas Fig. 4. Combined resilience scores of Madrid City Council’s GI policies in the Madrid + Natural program (resilience value of 4.4) was found to have a resilience factors. Factors’ scores were re-scaled between 0 and 2. The black line strong influence on diversity and weak on social cohesion and poly­ is the average score. centric governance (Fig. 5, policy MN_plan). Madrid Tree Management Plans is the only policy that does not in­ The three policies with the highest resilience values (7.5, 6.8 and 6.6, crease urban resilience, according to our framework (resilience value of re-scaled between 0 and 10) are mainly focused on vulnerable neigh­ 0, Fig. 5, policy MTM_plan). It focuses on pruning and planting of trees bourhoods and emphasise citizen participation. They better integrate and has a neutral effect on most indicators. There are two reasons for the social aspects of GI, such as citizen participation, diversity of users, this. First, there are resilience factors that are not considered by this and universal accessibility to green space, and have a strong positive policy (e.g., social cohesion, learning and innovation, or social- influence on social-ecological justice, learning and innovation, social ecological justice). Second, the positive effect on some indicators is cohesion, and polycentric governance (Fig. 5, policies HI_plan, MD_info, compensated by a negative effect on the same or other indicators (e.g., MI_plan). planting trees increases the supply of ecosystem services or biodiversity The two policies with a resilience value of 6.4 are the main strategic but pruning decreases them). planning instruments to manage GI in Madrid. One of their main ob­ Outlying districts seem to be more favoured by GI policies than jectives is to rebalance GI throughout the city but they do not promote central districts (Fig. 6). Bivariate Pearson correlations show that, in 9 M. Suárez et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104923 Fig. 5. Individual resilience scores of Madrid City Council’s GI policies in the resilience factors. Graphs are ordered by resilience results. Factors’ scores were re- scaled between 0 and 2. D is diversity, SA self-sufficiency and autonomy, PG polycentric governance, SC social cohesion, LI learning and innovation and SJ social-ecological justice. The policy with (*) obtained negative values (-0.1) for self-sufficiency and autonomy and social-ecological justice. 10 M. Suárez et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104923 Fig. 6. Resilience index (A) and percentage of population with low educational level or without education by districts (B). Variables are classified following the Natural Breaks (Jenks) method. relation to the social groups analysed, there is only significant moderate et al., 2016; Seiwert & Rößler, 2020). Second, the supply of ecosystem positive correlation between the urban resilience index and percentage services is only considered a main objective in one of its policies. of population with low educational level or without education (p < 0.05, Although the absence of explicit references to the term ecosystem ser­ r = 0.569). vices does not necessarily mean that it is not recognised (Nordin et al., 2017), in this case it results in actions that poorly increase ecosystem 4. Discussion service supply. Third, multifunctionality, a common principle in GI planning (Lafortezza et al., 2013; Monteiro et al., 2020; Seiwert & 4.1. Green infrastructure policies to foster urban resilience Rößler, 2020), is not one of the policies’ main objectives, as it happens in other urban areas (e.g., Pozoukidou, 2020), and only regulating Planning instruments are the most numerous and have in general the ecosystem services that increase resilience to climate change and some highest resilience scores in Madrid. Planning and legislative policies cultural ecosystem services are implicitly recognised. Fourth, partici­ comprise the first step in integrating the concept of GI in decision- pation of other government departments and civic organizations was making and are fundamental in supporting its implementation (Men­ only considered in the framework and guidance plans that obtained donça et al., 2021). In line with this, the strategic plans are in general the higher resilience values. The lack of appropriate mechanisms to allow planning instruments with the highest resilience scores. These strategic and integrate the participation of civil society in GI policies, as well as plans lay the foundations of GI management, comprise multiple objec­ different experts’ opinion, has also been noted in other urban areas (Yao tives and encompass the whole city. Therefore, they foster a wider range et al., 2019; Vaňo et al., 2021). In contrast, multifunctionality of GI and of resilience indicators and factors. However, some authors (Slovic & citizen engagement and participation processes have been better Ribeiro, 2018; Mendonça et al., 2021) argue that, although this type of incorporated in Sustainable Urban Development’s policies. policies constitute a first step for GI implementation, they need to be We detected some barriers for the implementation of GI in Madrid complemented by other approaches. Our findings support this statement when we interviewed the officials and policymakers involved in the because the planning policies with the highest resilience scores are those development of GI policies. Most policies are interrelated and have been that also incorporate citizen engagement and information instruments. developed in collaboration with other government departments, Envi­ The analysed policies belong to the government departments of ronment and Transport and Sustainable Urban Development being the most Environment and Transport (9 policies), Sustainable Urban Development actively involved (Fig. 3). However, in line with the findings from (9), Territorial Coordination and Public-Social Cooperation (2), and Health, Davies and Lafortezza (2017) and Di Marino et al. (2019), most of the Security and Emergencies (1) (see Table A.1 in Appendix A). Although the interviewed Madrid City Council’s officials agree that they usually work department of Environment and Transport is the only one that has in their own silos because the departmental Council’s structure makes explicitly incorporated the concept of GI in its policies, they have ob­ collaboration across administrative entities difficult. Collaboration tained lower average resilience scores than, for example, the policies of across government departments, although necessary (Davies & Lafor­ the department of Sustainable Urban Development. There are a few tezza, 2017; Zuniga-Teran, Staddon et al., 2020), mainly occurs because possible reasons for this. First, Environment and Transport’s policies Madrid City Council’s officials have the interest to collaborate with mainly focus on green space and natural or semi-natural elements as part other departments. A common objective of both departments’ frame­ of an infrastructure that requires care and maintenance (Garmendia work policies and the programs that develop them, is climate change 11 M. Suárez et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104923 adaptation through nature-based solutions, especially to heat waves. Moreover, the proposed methodology could also be useful during the Both, GI and nature-based solutions are closely related boundary con­ designing process of GI policies and not only in the execution phase. cepts (Potschin et al., 2016) that allow understanding and cooperation The second consideration concerns how the term resilience can be among different disciplines (Garmendia et al., 2016; Feria Toribio & understood very differently across consulted experts, potentially Santiago Ramos, 2017; Dorst et al., 2019; Hanson et al., 2020; Smets affecting the internal consistency of the obtained results. We used et al., 2020). It seems that the term nature-based solutions gained more resilience as a boundary concept to bring knowledge from different attention in Madrid City Council and allowed collaboration among disciplines (Brand & Jax, 2007; Davoudi, 2012; Moser et al., 2019). A government departments. However, it is a goal-oriented concept that panel of experts with different backgrounds reviewed the conceptual tends to focus on single-service delivery (Childers et al., 2019). If our framework. The result was a wide range of suggestions and comments focus is to promote general resilience to any kind of disturbance or that enriched the resilience framework. However, we also noticed that stress, we need a broader approach. Instead, although GI has been resilience was interpreted differently by experts. Although Delphi defined in multiple ways and sometimes is used in a similar way than the technique is commonly used to reach a consensus (Hasson et al., 2000), nature-based solutions concept (Mell, 2015; Grabowski et al., 2022), it the complexity of the framework, the method to carry out the consul­ usually implies multifunctionality and a broader focus on general tation (an online survey) and the impossibility of conducting a third resilience (Lafortezza et al., 2013; Garmendia et al., 2016; Feria Toribio round due to limited time and resources, did not allow to reach & Santiago Ramos, 2017; Monteiro et al., 2020; Seiwert & Rößler, 2020; consensus across consulted experts. Adding a deliberative element Zuniga-Teran, Gerlak et al., 2020). Therefore, we suggest using GI as a through workshops or focus groups with the participation of the experts boundary concept in multi-stakeholder participatory processes (Smets to discuss the resilience concept would help to construct a common and et al., 2020) to enable collaboration among departments but also, to more widely shared framework to assess urban resilience (Smets et al., better integrate multifunctionality in GI policies, or even more inclusive 2020). terms, e.g., urban ecological infrastructure (Childers et al., 2019). Third, the system of indicators and the urban resilience index The interviewed City Council’s officials also mentioned the high equation could also be improved. In this case, the authors had to take difficulty to carry out the proposed actions because they do not have an some decisions during the weighting and aggregation process when a assigned budget and their implementation mostly depends on political consensus was not reached (see Fig. C.1 in Appendix C). Increasing the will. Both financing and political will, are however common challenges number of rounds of the expert consultation could be useful to decide: i) for the effective implementation of GI (Zuniga-Teran, Staddon et al., if the list of indicators is representative and comprehensive enough to 2020; Mendonça et al., 2021). Resilience measures through GI are assess to what extent GI policies foster urban resilience; ii) whether some usually cheaper than grey infrastructure, but to carry out an economic indicators should be removed because they are redundant; and iii) the valuation of the multifunctionality of GI that allow their benefits to be weighting coefficients in the resilience equation. weighted on equal terms with those from grey infrastructure is a chal­ Fourth, although there are more robust weighting methods based on lenging task (Zuniga-Teran, Staddon et al., 2020). expert opinion, e.g., the Analytic Hierarchy Process (Saaty, 1980), we Equal distribution of GI is considered an environmental justice issue used a budget allocation approach to weight the resilience factors and in many urban areas (e.g., Wolch et al., 2014; Jennings et al., 2016). indicators because of its simplicity. Our objective was to encourage Migrants (Kabisch & Haase, 2014) and low-income residents are usually experts to answer the survey and to build an index easily understandable the most disadvantaged in several cities (Dai, 2011; Davis et al., 2012; by policymakers. To verify the stability of the model by changing the Ernstson, 2013). In Madrid, the social-ecological justice factor has ob­ weights allocated to the resilience indicators and factors, we suggest tained, in general, high resilience scores (Fig. 4) because a common carrying out sensitivity analysis in future research. objective found in many of the analysed policies is to re-balance GI, Fifth, we assessed the degree to which GI policies and actions focusing in the most vulnerable neighbourhoods. Madrid Restores Plan enhance urban resilience in the scenario that all policies would have considers vulnerable neighbourhoods those with a high percentage of been fully implemented. Therefore, results should be interpreted low-income households, and with high percentages of elderly popula­ considering the high degree of uncertainty concerning the imple­ tion and of population without education, among other indicators mentation of the analysed policies. Applying the framework and the (Madrid City Council, 2018b). Vulnerable neighbourhoods are usually urban resilience index in the future and considering only the policies and located at the surrounding districts, obtaining the highest resilience actions that were implemented, may bring less optimistic results. values (Fig. 6.A). In contrast, high-income central districts have fewer Moreover, the proposed methodology is based on a qualitative approach green spaces and street trees (Madrid City Council, 2018a; 2018b). where the research team valued the resilience indicators following a pre- Therefore, our results suggest that some vulnerable groups would be the designed template. Therefore, results can be somewhat biased. Quanti­ most benefited by GI policies and actions, but the re-balancing objective tative approaches can complement this study, for example, measuring to would not be achieved. However, uneven distribution of GI does not what extent GI fosters resilience through the provision of ecosystem necessarily mean unequal access (Suárez, Barton et al., 2020). On the services (Calderón-Contreras & Quiroz-Rosas, 2017). one hand, central districts are well connected to green space in other Finally, results can be highly sensitive to the scale of analysis. To districts by public transport. On the other hand, it is common for high- analyse how GI policies affect different social groups statistical analysis income residents living in Madrid to own a second home next to the at the neighbourhood or census tract level could be carried out (Baró countryside where they spend the weekends or holidays. Further et al., 2019). We only found a significant moderate positive correlation research could explore why high-income neighbourhoods are less between the resilience index and percentage of population with low “green” and why Madrid City Council’s GI policies do not focus on educational level or without education (Fig. 6) at the district level, but increasing GI and resilience in these neighbourhoods. different results could be obtained if we carry out the analysis using smaller administrative units. 4.2. Methodological limitations 5. Conclusions Further research using and building on our index should have several considerations in mind. The first concern is the applicability of the index Green infrastructure and the ecosystem services that it provides are in other geographical and socio-cultural contexts. We believe that our increasingly seen as key elements to foster urban resilience. Because methodology can be safely applied in other urban areas but also that the local governments manage green spaces, parks, street trees and other GI level of accuracy in results will be higher if the framework is adapted in elements in public space, they have ample opportunities to enhance the light of the concrete local policies applied in different cities. resilience through GI policies. The application of the framework and the 12 M. Suárez et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104923 resilience index used in this research project allows to measure the de­ quality and sustainability in urban areas.) Ministerio de Fomento, Gobierno de España. gree to which Madrid City Council’s GI policies promote urban resilience Aguado Caso, M. (2016). Vivir bien en un planeta finito. Una mirada socio-ecológica al if they were fully implemented. concepto de bienestar humano (Living well on a finite planet. A social-ecological look at Based in our results we highlight the following policy recommen­ the concept of human well-being). [Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de dations to foster urban resilience through green infrastructure. We Madrid]. UAM repository. Retrieved from - https://repositorio.uam.es/handle/104 86/675536. believe these recommendations can be extrapolated to other urban ALMUDENA (Municipal and zonal data bank). (2020). Area. Retrieved from - htt areas: p://www.madrid.org/desvan/Inicio.icm?enlace=almudena. Andersson, E., Borgström, S., Haase, D., Langemeyer, J., Wolff, M., & McPhearson, T. (2021). Urban resilience thinking in practice: Ensuring flows of benefit from green • Comprehensive planning policies are the first step for GI imple­ and blue infrastructure. Ecology and Society, 26(4), 39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- mentation. However, they should incorporate citizen engagement 12691-260439 and information instruments to foster resilience in higher degree, as Andersson, E., McPhearson, T., Kremer, P., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Haase, D., Tuvendal, M., & Wurster, D. (2015). Scale and context dependence of ecosystem participatory processes that involve all stakeholders during the service providing units. Ecosystem Services, 12, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. design, implementation and monitoring of GI. Planning policies with ecoser.2014.08.001 citizen’s engagement mechanisms and that focus on vulnerable Bănică, A., Istrate, M., & Muntele, I. (2020). Towards green resilient cities in Eastern European Union countries. Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis, 12(1), 53–72. neighbourhoods, have not only higher overall resilience scores, but https://doi.org/10.37043/JURA.2020.12.1.4 also in the resilience factors polycentric governance, social cohesion, Baró, F., Calderón-Argelich, A., Langemeyer, J., & Connolly, J. J. T. (2019). Under one learning and innovation and social-ecological justice. canopy? Assessing the distributional environmental justice implications of street tree benefits in Barcelona. Environmental Science & Policy, 102, 54–64. https://doi.org/ • Self-sufficiency and autonomy is the resilience factor less frequently 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.016 addressed by GI policies. It mostly depends on the capacity of the Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.) (2003). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems. urban area to provide the necessary ecosystem services for citizens’ Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press. well-being. Policies should explicitly recognise the multi­ Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., Dakos, V., Daw, T. M., Evans, L. S., Kotschy, K., Leitch, A. M., Meek, C., Quinlan, A., Raudsepp- functionality of GI to provide a wide range of ecosystem services. Hearne, C., Robards, M. D., Schoon, M. L., Schultz, L., & West, P. C. (2012). Toward • Collaboration among government departments, backing actions with principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annual Review of appropriate budgets and political will are cross-cutting challenges Environment and Resources, 37(1), 421–448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- environ-051211-123836 for the implantation of all the proposed actions. To deal with these Bouska, K. L., Houser, J. N., De Jager, N. R., Van Appledorn, M., & Rogala, J. T. (2019). challenges, the concept of green infrastructure may allow under­ Applying concepts of general resilience to large river ecosystems: A case study from standing and cooperation among government departments. the Upper Mississippi and Illinous rivers. Ecological Indicators, 101, 1094–1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.02.002 Brand, F., & Jax, K. (2007). Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: Resilience as a We believe that the proposed framework is suitable to assess to what descriptive concept and a boundary object. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 23. Retrieved extent local policies foster resilience to a wide variety of disturbances in from - http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art23/main.html. Buijs, A. E., Mattijssen, T. J., Van der Jagt, A. P., Ambrose-Oji, B., Andersson, E., urban contexts and suggest further testing in other cities. Elands, B. H., & Steen Møller, M. (2016). Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: Fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through Declaration of Competing Interest mosaic governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 1–6. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.002 Calderón-Contreras, R., & Quiroz-Rosas, L. E. (2017). Analysing scale, quality and The authors declare that they have no known competing financial diversity of green infrastructure and the provision of Urban Ecosystem services: A interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence case from Mexico City. Ecosystem Services, 23, 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoser.2016.12.004 the work reported in this paper. Camps-Calvet, M., Langemeyer, J., Calvet-Mir, L., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2016). Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: Insights for Data availability policy and planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 14–23. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.007 Carpenter, S., Arrow, K., Barrett, S., Biggs, R., Brock, W., Crépin, A.-S., … Zeeuw, A. Data will be made available on request. (2012). General resilience to cope with extreme events. Sustainability, 4(12), 3248–3259. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4123248 Cato, M. S. (2013). The bioregional economy: Land, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Acknowledgements Routledge. Chelleri, L., Waters, J. J., Olazabal, M., & Minucci, G. (2015). Resilience trade-offs: This research is part of the project “Evaluación de la infraestructura Addressing multiple scales and temporal aspects of urban resilience. Environment and Urbanization, 27(1), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247814550780 verde de Madrid: Hacia una mejora de las políticas municipales para la Childers, D. L., Bois, P., Hartnett, H. E., McPhearson, T., Metson, G. S., & Sanchez, C. A. resiliencia socio-ecológica” funded by Madrid City Council in 2018 with (2019). Urban Ecological Infrastructure: An inclusive concept for the non-built urban a budget of 35,088.17€ and carried out by Asociación Ecología y Edu­ environment. Elementa, 7, 46. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.385 cación para una Ciudad Sostenible – Transitando. We thank Ayar Conway, T. M., Khan, A., & Esak, N. (2020). An analysis of green infrastructure in municipal policy: Divergent meaning and terminology in the Greater Toronto Area. Rodríguez de Castro and Ana Paula García-Nieto for their support with Land Use Policy, 99, Article 104864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. GIS and Jorge Cerezal for his support with the policy review. We also landusepol.2020.104864 thank the officials and policymakers of the City Council and the experts Cutter, S. L., Burton, C. G., & Emrich, C. T. (2010). Disaster resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency for their participation in the interviews and the consultation process. Management, 7(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1732 Open access funding provided by University of the Basque Country. Cutter, S. L., Ash, K. D., & Emrich, C. T. (2016). Urban-rural differences in disaster resilience. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(6), 1236–1252. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2016.1194740. Appendix A. Supplementary data Dai, D. (2011). Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene? Landscape and Urban Planning, 102(4), 234–244. Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.05.002 Davies, C., & Lafortezza, R. (2017). Urban green infrastructure in Europe: Is greenspace org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104923. planning and policy compliant? Land Use Policy, 69, 93–101. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.018 References Davis, A. Y., Belaire, J. A., Farfan, M. A., Milz, D., Sweeney, E. R., Loss, S. R., & Minor, E. S. (2012). Green infrastructure and bird diversity across an urban socioeconomic gradient. Ecosphere, 3(11), 105. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES12- Adger, W. N. (2003). Social capital, collective action and adaptation to climate change. 00126.1 Economic Geography, 79, 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92258-4_19 Davoudi, S. (2012). Resilience: A bridging concept or a dead end? Planning Theory & Agencia de Ecología Urbana de Barcelona. (2012). Guía metodológica para los sistemas Practice, 13(2), 299–307. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2012.677124. de auditoría, certificación o acreditación de la calidad y sostenibilidad en el medio urbano. (Methodological guide for auditing, certification or accreditation systems for 13 M. Suárez et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104923 De Luca, C., Langemeyer, J., Vaňo, S., Baró, F., & Andersson, E. (2021). Adaptive Konijnendijk, C. C., Annerstedt, M., Nielsen, A. B., & Maruthaveeran, S. (2013). Benefits resilience of and through urban ecosystem services: A transdisciplinary approach to of urban parks. A systematic review. The International Federation of Parks and sustainability in Barcelona. Ecology and Society, 26(4), 38. https://doi.org/10.5751/ Recreation Administration. Retrieved from - https://www.worldurbanparks.org/ ES-12535-260438 images/Newsletters/IfpraBenefitsOfUrbanParks.pdf. Di Marino, M., Tiitu, M., Lapintie, K., Viinikka, A., & Kopperoinen, L. (2019). Integrating Labib, S. M., Browning, M. H. E. M., Rigolon, A., Helbich, M., & James, P. (2022). green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning. Results from two Nature’s contribution in coping with a pandemic in the 21st century: A narrative Finnish case studies. Land Use Policy, 82, 643–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. review of evidence during COVID-19. Science of the Total Environment, 833, Article landusepol.2019.01.007 155095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155095 Dorst, H., van der Jagt, A., Raven, R., & Runhaar, H. (2019). Urban greening through Lafortezza, R., Davies, C., Sanesi, G., & Konijnendijk, C. C. (2013). Green infrastructure nature-based solutions – Key characteristics of an emerging concept. Sustainable as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions. IForest, 6(1), Cities and Society, 49, Article 101620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101620 102–108. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0723-006 Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., Langemeyer, J., Madrid-Lopez, C., Mendoza Beltran, A., & Villalba Mendez, G. (2021). Takeuchi, K., & Folke, C. (2019). Sustainability and resilience for transformation in Urban agriculture – A necessary path to urban resiliency and global sustainability? the urban century. Nature Sustainability, 2(4), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1038/ Landscape and Urban Planning, 210, Article 104055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. s41893-019-0250-1 landurbplan.2021.104055 Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nyström, M., Peterson, G., Walker, B., & Bengtsson, J. (2003). Łaszkiewicz, E., Kronenberg, J., & Marcińczak, S. (2018). Attached to or bound to a Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the place? The impact of green space availability on residential duration: The Environment, 1(9), 488–494. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0488: environmental justice perspective. Ecosystem Services, 30, 309–317. https://doi.org/ RDECAR]2.0.CO;2 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.002 Ernstson, H. (2013). The social production of ecosystem services: A framework for Leslie, P., & McCabe, J. T. (2013). Response diversity and resilience in social-ecological studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. systems. Current Anthropology, 54(2), 114–143. https://doi.org/10.1086/669563 Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Madrid City Council. (2018b). Plan de infraestructura verde y biodiversidad de la ciudad de landurbplan.2012.10.005 Madrid. Resumen ejecutivo del diagnóstico de situación del plan estratégico. (Green Ernstson, H., van der Leeuw, S. E., Redman, C. L., Meffert, D. J., Davis, G., Alfsen, C., & infrastructure and biodiversity plan for Madrid City. Executive summary of the situation Elmqvist, T. (2010). Urban transitions: On urban resilience and human-dominated diagnosis of the strategic plan). Retrieved December 13, 2022 from - https://www.mad ecosystems. Ambio, 39(8), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0081-9 rid.es/UnidadesDescentralizadas/ZonasVerdes/TodoSobre/PlanInfraestructuraVe European Commission. (2013). Communication from the Commision to the European rdeYBiodiversidad/DocumentacionAsociada/Resumen%20ejecutivo%20del%20dia Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee gn%C3%B3stico%20de%20situaci%C3%B3n.pdf. of the Regions. Green Infrastructure (GI) - Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. Retrieved Madrid City Council. (2018b). Madrid Recupera. Estrategia de Regeneración Urbana. from - http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/strategy/index_en.htm. (Madrid Restores Plan: Urban Regeneration Strategy). EU Copernicus Programme. (2012). Urban Atlas LCLU 2012. Retrieved from - https://la McPhearson, T., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Resilience of and nd.copernicus.eu/local/urban-atlas/urban-atlas-2012. through urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 12, 152–156. https://doi.org/ Feria Toribio, J. M., & Santiago Ramos, J. (2017). Naturaleza y ciudad. Perspectivas para 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.012 la ordenación de la infraestructura verde en los planes territoriales metropolitanos Meerow, S., Newell, J. P., & Stults, M. (2016). Defining urban resilience: A review. en España. (Nature and city. Prospects for green infrastructure planning in territorial Landscape and Urban Planning, 147, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. metropolitan plans in Spain.). Boletín de La Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, 74, landurbplan.2015.11.011 117–141. https://doi.org/10.21138/bage.2447 Mell, I. (2015). Green infrastructure planning: Policy and objectives. In D. Sinnett, Fernández de Manuel, B., Méndez-Fernández, L., Peña, L., & Ametzaga-Arregi, I. (2021). N. Smith, & S. Burgess (Eds.), Handbook on green infrastructure: Planning, design and A new indicator of the effectiveness of urban green infrastructure based on implementation (pp. 105–123). Edward Elgar Publishing. ecosystem services assessment. Basic and Applied Ecology, 53, 12–25. https://doi.org/ Mendonça, R., Roebeling, P., Fidélis, T., & Saraiva, M. (2021). Policy instruments to 10.1016/j.baae.2021.02.012 encourage the adoption of nature-based solutions in urban landscapes. Resources, 10 Folke, C., Jansson, A., Larsson, J., & Costanza, R. (1997). Ecosystem appropriation by (8), 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources10080081 cities. Ambio, 26(3), 167–172. Monteiro, R., Ferreira, J. C., & Antunes, P. (2020). Green infrastructure planning Folke, C., Pritchard, L. J., Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Svedin, U. (2007). The problem of fit principles: An integrated literature review. Land, 9(12), 525. https://doi.org/ between ecosystems and institutions: Ten years later. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 30. 10.3390/land9120525 Retrieved from - https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art30/. Moser, S., Meerow, S., Arnott, J., & Jack-Scott, E. (2019). The turbulent world of Garmendia, E., Apostolopoulou, E., Adams, W. M., & Bormpoudakis, D. (2016). resilience: Interpretations and themes for transdisciplinary dialogue. Climatic Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure in Europe: Boundary object or ecological trap? Change, 153(1–2), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2358-0 Land Use Policy, 56, 315–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.003 Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., & Giovannini, E. (2005). Goldstein, B. (2009). Resilience to surprises through communicative planning. Ecology Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide (No. 03; and Society, 14(2), 33. Retrieved from - https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/i OECD Statistics Working Papers). https://doi.org/10.1787/533411815016. ss2/art33/main.html. Nordin, A. C., Hanson, H. I., Alkan Olsson, J., & Olsson, J. A. (2017). Integration of the Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Barton, D. N. (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services ecosystem services concept in planning documents from six municipalities in for urban planning. Ecological Economics, 86, 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. southwestern Sweden. Ecology and Society, 22(3), 26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- ecolecon.2012.08.019 09420-220326 Grabowski, Z. J., McPhearson, T., Matsler, A. M., Groffman, P., & Pickett, S. T. A. (2022). Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton Univeristy Press. What is green infrastructure? A study of definitions in US city planning. Frontiers in Pineda-Pinto, M., Nygaard, C. A., Chandrabose, M., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2021). Mapping Ecology and the Environment, 20(3), 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2445 social-ecological injustice in Melbourne, Australia: An innovative systematic Green, T. L., Kronenberg, J., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2016). methodology for planning just cities. Land Use Policy, 104, Article 105361. https:// Insurance value of green infrastructure in and around cities. Ecosystems, 19(6), doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105361 1051–1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-016-9986-x Pope, K., Bonatti, M., & Sieber, S. (2021). The what, who and how of socio-ecological Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations justice: Tailoring a new justice model for earth system law. Earth System Governance, in human and natural systems. Island Press. 10, Article 100124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2021.100124 Hanson, H. I., Wickenberg, B., & Alkan Olsson, J. (2020). Working on the Potschin, M., Kretsch, C., Haines-Young, R., Furman, E., Berry, P., & Baró, F. (2016). boundaries—How do science use and interpret the nature-based solution concept? Nature-based solutions. In M. Potschin & K. Jax (Eds.), OpenNESS Ecosystem Land Use Policy, 90, Article 104302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ServicesReference Book. EC FP7 Grant Agreement no. 308428. landusepol.2019.104302 Pozoukidou, G. (2020). Designing a green infrastructure network for metropolitan areas: Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey A spatial planning approach. Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008–1015. https://doi.org/10.1046/ Integration, 5(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-020-00178-8 j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x Rayan, M., Gruehn, D., & Khayyam, U. (2021). Green infrastructure indicators to plan Hopkins, R. (2008). The transition handbook. From oil dependency to local resilience. Green resilient urban settlements in Pakistan: Local stakeholder’s perspective. Urban Books. Climate, 38, Article 100899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100899 INE (Spanish Statistical Office). (2021). Official population figures from Spanish Rees, W., & Wackernagel, M. (1996). Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be municipalities: Revision of the Municipal Register. Municipal breakdown. Retrieved from sustainable–And why they are a key to sustainability. Environmental Impact - https://ine.es/dyngs/INEbase/es/categoria.htm?c=Estadistica_P&cid=1254734 Assessment Review, 16, 223–248. 710990. Rieiro Díaz, A. M. (2018). Estrategias de construcción de resiliencia urbana en el sur de Jennings, V., Larson, L., & Yun, J. (2016). Advancing sustainability through urban green Madrid. Intervenciones en el sistema de espacios libres urbanos de Usera y Villaverde space: Cultural ecosystem services, equity, and social determinants of health. desde el punto de vista de la resiliencia urbana. (Urban resilience building strategies in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(2), 196. https:// south of Madrid. Interventions in the system of urban open spaces of Usera and Villaverde doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020196 from the point of view of urban resilience.). Madrid City Council. Retrieved December Kabisch, N., & Haase, D. (2014). Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green 13, 2022 from - https://patrimonioypaisaje.madrid.es/FWProjects/monu spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 129–139. https://doi. menta/contenidos/Ficheros/Estrategias de construcción de resiliencia urbana en el org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.016 sur de Madrid - Amaya Rieiro Díaz.pdf. Karabakan, B., & Mert, Y. (2021). Measuring the green infrastructure resilience in Romero-Lankao, P., Gnatz, D., Wilhelmi, O., & Hayden, M. (2016). Urban sustainability Turkey. Chinese Journal of Urban and Environmental Studies, 9(3), 1–20. https://doi. and resilience: from theory to practice. Sustainability, 8(12), 1224. https://doi.org/ org/10.1142/S2345748121500147 10.3390/su8121224 14 M. Suárez et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 241 (2024) 104923 Rosenfeld, J. S. (2002). Functional redundancy in ecology and conservation. Oikos, 98 income and race geographies in South Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning, 203, (1), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.980116.x Article 103889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103889 Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw Hill. Villatoro, P., & Ribera, E. (2007). La cohesión social en los países desarrollados: Schlosberg, D. (2004). Reconceiving environmental justice: global movements and conceptos e indicadores. (Social cohesion in developed countries: concepts and political theories. Environmental Politics, 13(3), 517–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/ indicators.) CEPAL. Retrieved from – https://www.cepal.org/sites/default/files 0964401042000229025 /publication/files/4759/S0700669_es.pdf. Seiwert, A., & Rößler, S. (2020). Understanding the term green infrastructure: Origins, Voskamp, I. M., & Van de Ven, F. H. (2015). Planning support system for climate rationales, semantic content and purposes as well as its relevance for application in adaptation: Composing effective sets of blue-green measures to reduce urban spatial planning. Land Use Policy, 97, Article 104785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. vulnerability to extreme weather events. Building and Environment, 83, 159–167. landusepol.2020.104785 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.07.018 Sharifi, A., & Yamagata, Y. (2014). Resilient urban planning: major principles and Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking. Sustaining ecosystems and people in a criteria. Energy Procedia, 61, 1491–1495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. changing world. Island Press. egypro.2014.12.154 Washington, H., Chapron, G., Kopnina, H., Curry, P., Gray, J., & Piccolo, J. J. (2018). Slovic, A. D., & Ribeiro, H. (2018). Policy instruments surrounding urban air quality: The Foregrounding ecojustice in conservation. Biological Conservation, 228, 367–374. cases of São Paulo, New York City and Paris. Environmental Science & Policy, 81, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.09.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.12.001 Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and Smets, J., De Blust, G., Verheyden, W., Wanner, S., Van Acker, M., & Turkelboom, F. transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5. Retrieved (2020). Starting a participative approach to develop local green infrastructure; from from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/inline.html. boundary concept to collective action. Sustainability, 12(23), 1–25. https://doi.org/ Winstanley, A., Hepi, M., & Wood, D. (2015). Resilience? Contested meanings and 10.3390/su122310107 experiences in post-disaster Christchurch, New Zealand. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology Journal of Social Sciences Online, 10(2), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/ and society. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 4(15), 707–719. https://doi.org/ 1177083X.2015.1066402 10.1098/rsif.2007.0213 Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and Suárez, M., & Alba, D. (2017). Urban ecosystem services assessment for urban and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough”. Landscape regional planning. A methodological framework for Madrid City. In M. González- and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Bereziartua, & I. Aseguinolaza Braga (Eds.), International research seminar in urban landurbplan.2014.01.017 processes and natural morphologies: 7–8 September, 2017 Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain Yaka, Ö. (2019). Rethinking justice: Struggles for environmental commons and the (pp. 195–212). Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, notion of socio-ecological justice. Antipode, 51(1), 353–372. https://doi.org/ Argitalpen Zerbitzua = Servicio Editorial. 10.1111/anti.12422 Suárez, M., Barton, D. N., Cimburova, Z., Rusch, G. M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Yao, N., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. C., Yang, J., Devisscher, T., Wirtz, Z., Jia, L., Onaindia, M. (2020). Environmental justice and outdoor recreation opportunities: A Duan, J., & Ma, L. (2019). Beijing’s 50 million new urban trees: Strategic governance spatially explicit assessment in Oslo metropolitan area, Norway. Environmental for large-scale urban afforestation. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 44, Article Science and Policy, 108, 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.014 126392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126392 Suárez, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Benayas, J., & Tilbury, D. (2016). Towards an urban Yumagulova, L., & Vertinsky, I. (2021). Managing trade-offs between specific and resilience index: a case study in 50 Spanish Cities. Sustainability, 8, 774. https://doi. general resilience: Insights from Canadas’s Metro Vancouver region. Cities, 119, org/10.3390/su8080774 Article 103319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103319 Suárez, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Onaindia, M. (2020). Assessing socio-ecological Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Gerlak, A. K., Elder, A. D., & Tam, A. (2021). The unjust distribution resilience in cities. In M. A. Burayidi, A. Allen, J. Twigg, & C. Wamsler (Eds.), The of urban green infrastructure is just the tip of the iceberg: A systematic review of Routledge Handbook of Urban Resilience (pp. 197–216). Routledge. place-based studies. Environmental Science and Policy, 126, 234–245. https://doi.org/ Townshend, I., Awosoga, O., Kulig, J., & Fan, H. (2015). Social cohesion and resilience 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.10.001 across communities that have experienced a disaster. Natural Hazards, 76, 913–938. Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Gerlak, A. K., Mayer, B., Evans, T. P., & Lansey, K. E. (2020). Urban https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1526-4 resilience and green infrastructure systems: Towards a multidimensional evaluation. Vaňo, S., Stahl Olafsson, A., & Mederly, P. (2021). Advancing urban green infrastructure Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44, 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. through participatory integrated planning: A case from Slovakia. Urban Forestry & cosust.2020.05.001 Urban Greening, 58, Article 126957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126957 Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Staddon, C., de Vito, L., Gerlak, A. K., Ward, S., Schoeman, Y., … Venter, Z. S., Shackleton, C. M., Van Staden, F., Selomane, O., & Masterson, V. A. (2020). Booth, G. (2020). Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built Green Apartheid: Urban green infrastructure remains unequally distributed across environment professions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(4), 710–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1605890 15