sustainability

Article
Green Infrastructure Planning Principles: Identification of
Priorities Using Analytic Hierarchy Process
Renato Monteiro 1, * , José Carlos Ferreira 1 and Paula Antunes 2

1 MARE—Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering,
Campus de Caparica, NOVA School of Science and Technology, NOVA University Lisbon,
2829-516 Caparica, Portugal; [email protected]
2 CENSE—Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, Department of Environmental Sciences and
Engineering, Campus de Caparica, NOVA School of Science and Technology, NOVA University Lisbon,
2829-516 Caparica, Portugal; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Green infrastructure planning has been receiving great attention since the end of the last
century. Although green infrastructure has been known for its ability to respond to a wide range
of environmental, social, and economic challenges, the concept and associated implementation
measures are still being discussed among researchers, decision-makers, and practitioners. To help
these discussions, several authors have identified green infrastructure planning principles to help
these professional with planning procedures. However the perception of practitioners regarding
these principles was never taken into consideration. Because of this, the purpose of this research is to
learn about the priorities of urban planners regarding green infrastructure planning principles and
their integration into spatial planning. To achieve this, an Analytic Hierarchy Process methodology
was applied to urban planners working in the 17 municipalities of Lisbon Metropolitan Area, in order
to prioritize the green infrastructure planning principles influencing GI design and development in
Citation: Monteiro, R.; Ferreira, J.C.; urban areas. Experts were asked to prioritize eight primary green infrastructure planning principles:
Antunes, P. Green Infrastructure connectivity, multi-functionality, applicability, integration, diversity, multiscale, governance, and
Planning Principles: Identification of continuity. The results show that the most important green infrastructure planning principle for
Priorities Using Analytic Hierarchy practitioners is connectivity, followed by multifunctionality and applicability. Both integration
Process. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170. and multiscale principles were considered more important in municipalities with predominantly
https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095170 urban features.
Academic Editors:
Muhammad Shafique Keywords: green infrastructure; spatial planning; analytic hierarchy process; Lisbon Metropolitan
and Muhammad Rafiq Area; urban planners; Portugal; ecosystem services

Received: 19 March 2022

Accepted: 22 April 2022
Published: 25 April 2022
1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Green and blue areas—green-blue infrastructure—have been highlighted by several
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
authors as important assets that contribute to sustainable development [1–3]. Although
published maps and institutional affil-
they are often explored for their aesthetics and recreational features, these areas have
iations.
recently shown their true potential in enhancing urban and rural resilience, improving
public health, and contributing to wellbeing. So, to face the intense environmental threats
urban and rural areas are facing—mainly due to climate change—green infrastructure
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
(GI) planning has become a priority for decision makers and practitioners around the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. world. However, due to its ambiguity, practitioners and decision makers still struggle to
This article is an open access article understand its true benefits and the best practices for its implementation and management
distributed under the terms and at local level [4,5].
conditions of the Creative Commons In order to address this issue, several authors have tried to identify multiple green
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// infrastructure planning principles to help practitioners during green infrastructure planning
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ procedures, including implementation and management. These principles, which are
4.0/). predominantly based on those of geography, ecology, and landscape ecology [6], try to

Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095170 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170 2 of 16

incorporate both ecological, social and economic concerns into the decision-making and
implementation process in green areas. However, most of these principles focus only on the
urban dimension of green infrastructure planning and do not consider the challenges rural
areas face regarding these concerns. Additionally, there are no inputs from practitioners
whatsoever regarding which principles are the most relevant for each territory, depending
on its typology—urban or rural.
For these reasons, the purpose of this research is to learn about the priorities of prac-
titioners and urban planners regarding the integration of green infrastructure planning
principles into spatial planning. With this research, we hope to understand if there are any
differences in the views of these professionals depending on the characteristics of the terri-
tory they work i.e., urban or rural municipalities. To achieve this, weights and ranks were
assigned to the green infrastructure planning principles being considered, which included
the establishment of a hierarchical structure and an analysis of pairwise comparisons using
an Analytic Hierarchy Process. The respondents consisted of urban planners working for
the municipalities of Lisbon Metropolitan Area (LMA), including, engineers, architects,
geographers, etc. The green infrastructure planning principles considered in this analysis
were those proposed by Monteiro et al. [7]: connectivity, multi-functionality, applicability,
integration, diversity, multiscale, governance, and continuity. This paper starts with a brief
overview of green infrastructure planning principles, as well as its concept evolution; then
the methods section highlights the case study and the Analytic Hierarchy Process. The
paper continues with a description and analysis of the results sample, and concludes with
final remarks, research gaps and future research directions.

2. Framework: Green Infrastructure Planning Principles

Green infrastructure is a concept that has burst onto the academic, political, and policy-
making scenes since its first appearance in the literature, in the 1990s [8–11]. Due to its
flexibility and integrative perspective, green infrastructure has become an important tool
for environmental land-use planning at various scales, as well as a strategy for enhancing
urban sustainability and resilience [10,12,13]. As a result, hundreds of scientific papers,
empirical and practical studies, guidelines, reports, and evaluations outlining more or
less detailed conceptualizations and definitions of green infrastructure have been pub-
lished worldwide [14]. However, despite the substantial literature on this topic, there
are still a variety of definitions of green infrastructure, which add some complexity to its
understanding [9,11].
According to Wright [9], the concept of green infrastructure is used loosely by many
actors, which results in vast and diverse interpretations depending on the sector and context
in which the concept has been developed [4,15]. In addition, the geographical location and
culture dynamics in which green infrastructure is being used also influences the different
concepts found in the literature [7,13]. This is evident in the two different interpretations
that prevail in the green infrastructure literature: one that frames green infrastructure as an
engineered technology to manage stormwater flow or water quality, highly influenced by
the North American planning practices; and another that highlights the role of green and
blue spaces in providing a wide range of ecosystem services [7,12,13]. The latest concept
highlights the use of nature-based solutions (considered multi-functional, more affordable,
and socially inclusive) in contrast with grey infrastructure (that typically is limited to one
purpose) [15,16].
Although there are several definitions of green infrastructure, the one suggested by the
European Commission (EC) in 2013 seems to be, nowadays, the one that most represents
what a it truly is. Green infrastructure is defined in the EC communication as “a strategically
planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features
designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. It incorporates
green spaces (or blue if aquatic ecosystems are concerned) and other physical features
in terrestrial (including coastal) and marine areas. On land, GI is present in rural and
urban settings” [17]. This definition not only captures the role that green and blue spaces
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170 3 of 16

take regarding ecosystem services provision at different spatial scales [18], but takes into
consideration the connections that exist between urban and rural areas and the component
of planning and management [16]. As a concept for strategic spatial planning through
the provision of ecosystem services, green infrastructure is able to respond to a wide
range of environmental, social and economic challenges [2,3]. These include climate
change mitigation and adaptation, wildlife habitat protection, air pollution mitigation,
social inclusion or increase of recreation opportunities [4,19–21], among others. Green
infrastructure is, thus, extremely relevant for quality of life, not only in urban areas, but in
all regions [2].
Because of its multi-sectorial nature, green infrastructure is intended to be a systematic
and holistic spatial planning approach. Green infrastructure also represents a solution-
oriented and cross-sectoral instrument that can be reinforced through strategic initiatives
oriented to maintaining, restoring and connecting existing areas and features, as well as
creating new ones [4,22]. However, according to Campagna et al. [4], there is still no
global recognized consensus regarding green infrastructure design and implementation.
Moreover, green infrastructure has been studied recently from the perspective of its benefits,
while its potential value has not been fully examined at the planning level [19]. For
these reasons, several authors have tried to develop different approaches to integrate
green infrastructure in decision-making processes concerning spatial planning. Despite
the fact that numerous papers have been published proposing new green infrastructure
methodologies and theoretically highlighting the role of green infrastructure in the planning
field [23–26], limited studies have studied in depth the integration of green infrastructure
principles in spatial planning [25,27] the practitioners’ views.
At a conceptual level it is possible to identify in the literature several green infras-
tructure planning principles, which are predominantly based on geography, ecology and
landscape ecology [6]. These proposed principles try to incorporate both ecological, social
and economic concerns into the decision-making and implementation process of green
areas, in order to support the design and planning of a functional green infrastructure [6,27].
Nevertheless, as much as various green infrastructure planning principles have surfaced
in the literature—since the term was first coined in the 1990’s—a question prevails: what
exactly are green infrastructure planning principles? Within this debate, Monteiro et al. [7]
tried to answer this question by explaining that green infrastructure planning principles
are “underlying grounds that help guide and facilitate the planning procedures of green
infrastructure, in order to ensure that it contributes to a network of quality and functional
green spaces, capable of meeting the needs of a determined urban area, contributing in the
best way to the sustainability of a given region or local area, depending on its scale”. This
definition highlights the promotion of sustainability as an integrated approach to green
infrastructure planning and serves as a starting point to practitioners and decision makers
to understand and decide how they develop and manage the landscape.
Scholars have proposed a set of different green infrastructure planning principles. In
the Green Surge project, Hansen et al. [28,29] identified four core principles that should be
integrated into green infrastructure planning; green-gray integration; ecological network
and connectivity; multi-functionality; and social inclusion. Roe and Mell [6] go further
and propose more principles, including evidence-based approach, importance of scale,
and a long-term approach, among others. Gradinaru and Hersperger [27] outlined six
principles (coordination, multi-functionality, connectivity, multi-scale planning, diversity,
and identity) and conducted an evaluation to understand which of these principles of green
infrastructure planning are followed in strategic plans for urban regions in Europe. Kim
and Tran [19] also conducted an evaluation of local comprehensive plans for sustainable
green infrastructure; however, their case study focuses on the United States alone, and the
principles suggested focused more on stormwater management. In this study, we decided
to concentrate on the principles proposed by Monteiro et al. [7], identified in an integrative
literature review of 104 documents, including peer review papers. These principles inte-
grate both ecological and social components into green infrastructure planning and intend
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170 4 of 16

to promote the development of green infrastructure by different organizations. The prin-

ciples are connectivity, multifunctionality, multiscale, integration, diversity, applicability,
governance, and continuity, and a detailed description can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Green infrastructure planning principles *.

Principles Description
Connectivity aims to create a well-connected green space network
Connectivity that can serve both humans (recreation) and other species, namely
fauna and flora (migrations and interactions).
Multifunctionality directly connects green infrastructure with the
Multifunctionality provision of a wide number of ecosystem services, namely
provision, regulation, support, and cultural.
Multiscale relates to the different scales at which green
Multiscale infrastructure can be planned, so that interactions between and in
these spaces can be enhanced.
Integration mainly concerns the interactions and links between
Integration green infrastructure and other urban
structures (grey infrastructure).
Diversity enhances the different existing structures
Diversity (managed/artificial or natural), their size (small or large), and the
nature of the areas (green or blue).
Applicability considers if the green infrastructure is realistic, can be
Applicability implemented and developed, and if the solutions presented are
adaptable to the considered area or not.
Governance aims at the collaboration between government actors
Governance (practitioners and policymakers) and citizens in the green
infrastructure planning processes.
Continuity relates to a monitoring system of green infrastructure
Continuity throughout time, which can (or not) include periodic evaluation
reports/communications
* Adapted from Monteiro et al. [7].

Green infrastructure planning principles are relevant at the international level because
they help guide practitioners and decision makers during the design and implementation
of strategic plans. Additionally, these principles can be used to evaluate spatial planning
in areas with different features (urban and/or rural), as stated previously [25,28–31]. Still,
these principles are not widely discussed among professionals (as well as citizens) in some
European countries, including Portugal. So, understanding which green infrastructure
planning principles are being taken into consideration in spatial planning and which of
them are considered most important for practitioners is crucial in order to improve planning
approaches. Only with this knowledge can we influence the conservation of green spaces
and the functionality of green infrastructure, in order to achieve sustainability in urban and
rural areas.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Methodological Framework
This research aims to understand which green infrastructure planning principles are
more important to urban planners, using the AHP approach. To achieve this, this study
has four main steps, as seen in Figure 1. The first consists of the establishment of the
criteria we are trying to evaluate, i.e., the green infrastructure planning principles. These
principles were selected based on previous work developed by Monteiro et al., 2020 [7]
and are connectivity, multifunctionality, multiscale, diversity, integration, applicability,
governance, and continuity. The second step focused on the selection of the study area and
the respective stakeholders. Because the core of this study is to evaluate the perceptions
urban planners have of each green infrastructure planning principle, the study area should
contemplate a variety of landscapes, including rural and urban features. For this reason,
the LMA was chosen to be the case study, because it contemplates these criteria. After the
 teria we are trying to evaluate, i.e., the green infrastructure planning principles. These
principles were selected based on previous work developed by Monteiro et al., 2020 [7]
and are connectivity, multifunctionality, multiscale, diversity, integration, applicability,
governance, and continuity. The second step focused on the selection of the study area
and the respective stakeholders. Because the core of this study is to evaluate the percep-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170
tions urban planners have of each green infrastructure planning principle, the study5 area
of 16

should contemplate a variety of landscapes, including rural and urban features. For this
reason, the LMA was chosen to be the case study, because it contemplates these criteria.
study areastudy
After the was area
chosen,
wasthe stakeholders
chosen, (urban planners
the stakeholders from each
(urban planners municipality
from of the
each municipality
LMA) were contacted
of the LMA) and invited
were contacted to participate
and invited in the AHP.
to participate in the AHP.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Research
Research methodological
methodological framework.
framework.

In the
In the third
third step,
step, the
the hierarchical
hierarchical structure
structure of
of the
the problem
problem was was developed
developed and and the
the
pairwisecomparison
pairwise comparisonwas wascompleted.
completed. Stakeholders
Stakeholders werewere contacted
contacted by email
by email to request
to request their
their participation,
participation, and anand an online
online interview
interview was conducted
was conducted to complete
to complete the pairwise
the pairwise com-
comparison.
parison. Some stakeholders decided to conduct the AHP during the online
Some stakeholders decided to conduct the AHP during the online interview, others chose interview, oth-
ersconduct
to chose to conduct
the analysisthe analysis afterwards
afterwards and send the and sendathe
results fewresults a fewInterviewees
days later. days later. Inter-
were
vieweesinwere
experts experts
the fields in the planning
of urban fields of urban planningarchitecture
and landscape and landscape andarchitecture and in-
included architects,
cluded architects,
environmental environmental
engineers, engineers,
geographers, geographers,
and landscape and and
architects landscape
workedarchitects
mainly in andthe
worked
urban mainly in
planning andthe urban planning
environment and environment
department. department.
Data collection Data collection
was carried out over twowas
carried out
months, over two
between months,
November between
2021 November
and January 2022.2021
Afterand January
all the 2022.
answers After
were all the
gathered,
the validation
answers were of the responses
gathered, was conducted
the validation through the
of the responses wascalculation
conducted ofthrough
consistency index
the calcu-
(CI) and
lation ofconsistency
consistencyratio
index(CR),
(CI)stated previously.ratio
and consistency The fourth and last
(CR), stated step consisted
previously. of the
The fourth
assignment
and last stepofconsisted
weights toof each green infrastructure
the assignment of weightsplanning principle
to each green and the ranking
infrastructure planningof
each of them.
principle and the ranking of each of them.

3.2. Study Area

Lisbon Metropolitan Area (LMA), located on the Atlantic coast of Portugal, is the
third-largest urban region in the Iberian Peninsula in terms of population, after Madrid and
Barcelona [32]. LMA covers an area of approximately 3015 km2 , corresponding to almost
3.4% of Portugal’s mainland territory, and encompasses 18 municipalities including the
country’s capital Lisbon [33]. According to the preliminary results of Census 2021, LMA
had about 2,870,770 inhabitants, around 27.7% of the Portuguese population, the most
densely populated metropolitan area in the country [34]. LMA is a NUTS II region divided
into two large areas by the Tagus estuary, each of them composed of nine municipalities:
(a) Greater Lisbon (on the northern side of the estuary), which includes the municipalities of
Amadora, Cascais, Lisbon, Loures, Mafra, Odivelas, Oeiras, Sintra and Vila Franca de Xira;
and (b) the Setúbal Peninsula (on the southern side), which encompasses the municipalities
 the country’s capital Lisbon [33]. According to the preliminary results of Census 2021,
LMA had about 2,870,770 inhabitants, around 27.7% of the Portuguese population, the
most densely populated metropolitan area in the country [34]. LMA is a NUTS II region
divided into two large areas by the Tagus estuary, each of them composed of nine munic-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170 ipalities: (a) Greater Lisbon (on the northern side of the estuary), which includes the6 mu-
of 16
nicipalities of Amadora, Cascais, Lisbon, Loures, Mafra, Odivelas, Oeiras, Sintra and Vila
Franca de Xira; and (b) the Setúbal Peninsula (on the southern side), which encompasses
theAlcochete,
of municipalities of Barreiro,
Almada, Alcochete, Almada,
Moita, Barreiro,
Montijo, Palmela,Moita,
Seixal, Montijo,
Sesimbra Palmela, Seixal,
and Setúbal [33],
Sesimbra and Setúbal
as seen in Figure 2. [33], as seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Lisbon
Lisbon Metropolitan Area (Data
Metropolitan Area (Data from:
from: CAOP
CAOP 2012).
2012).

characteristics in its 18 municipalities, which gives

LMA includes distinct biophysical characteristics
it great
great territorial
territorial complexity.
complexity.WhereasWhereasininitsitssouthern
southernarea rural
area ruralfeatures
featuresprevail,
prevail,including
includ-
agricultural land, forests, and wetlands, which are reflected in its lower
ing agricultural land, forests, and wetlands, which are reflected in its lower population population density,
in the northern
density, area the area
in the northern opposite occurs, and
the opposite urban
occurs, andfeatures are much
urban features more
are much evident. As
more evi-
seen
dent.in AsTable
seen 2,inonly
Table one out ofone
2, only sixout
municipalities with more
of six municipalities than
with 50%than
more of their
50%territory
of their
dedicated to urban areas
territory dedicated to urbanis located
areas isin located
the Setúbal Peninsula,
in the i.e., Almada.
Setúbal Peninsula, i.e.,The remaining
Almada. The
five are all located
remaining five areon allthe northern
located on theside of LMA,
northern with
side of four
LMA, ofwith
themfourhaving morehaving
of them than 60%more of
their territory urbanized. In contrast, the municipalities with lower urban
than 60% of their territory urbanized. In contrast, the municipalities with lower urban density are those
that present
density a higher
are those thatpercentage of agricultural
present a higher percentage andofnatural areas, and
agricultural including
natural forests
areas,andin-
water bodies. In fact, despite the presence of major urban areas, the
cluding forests and water bodies. In fact, despite the presence of major urban areas, LMA includes eight
the
areas
LMA of natureeight
includes protection
areas ofthat are part
nature of the Natura
protection that are2000
partnetwork [35], as2000
of the Natura wellnetwork
as nine
national protected
[35], as well as nine areas, covering
national aroundareas,
protected 15% of the region’s
covering aroundarea15%
[32,36]. LMA
of the climate
region’s is
area
classified as Mediterranean (Csa, according to the Köppen-Geiger classification), having
dryer and warmer summers and mild and wet winters.

3.3. The Lisbon Metropolitan Area Planning System

The Metropolitan Areas of Lisbon and Porto were only legally defined in the 1990s,
along with the introduction of Municipal Master Plans, which aim to establish the rules to
be followed for the occupation, use, and transformation of the territory at the municipal
level. The introduction of Master Plans in Portugal coincides with several reforms in terms
of planning and land management in the country, including the Regional Plan for Land Use
Planning of the LMA (PROT-AML). The reforms aimed, for example, to introduce greater
agility into processes and the articulation of different levels of territorial management
instruments, as well as new concerns, forms, and methods for a better understanding of
the dynamics of the territory. This legislative framework also introduced clear objectives
for controlling dispersed buildings, for containing urban perimeters, and for framing and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170 7 of 16

valuing natural, landscape, and heritage resources, to be adopted in the different territorial
management instruments. The LMA Regional Pl5an has as its main development strategies
international economic competitiveness and local regional development, environmental
sustainability with an emphasis on the issue of urban fragmentation and the protection of
natural resources, and social and territorial cohesion [37,38].

Table 2. Characterization of the municipalities of LMA according to area, population and percentage
of urban area, agriculture, forest, and water bodies *.

Water
Population Urban Area Agriculture Coastline
Municipality Area (km2 ) Forest (%) Bodies
(Inhab) (%) (%) (km)
(%)
Alcochete 128.36 19,148 6.9 30.2 31.0 31.8 30.3
Almada 70.01 177,400 54.0 14.3 31.4 0.3 47.1
Amadora 23.78 171,719 68.9 7.8 23.2 0.0 -
Barreiro 36.39 78,362 41.1 14.2 30.3 14.3 29.9
Cascais 97.40 214,134 54.3 11.3 34.3 0.1 39.7
Lisboa 100.05 544,851 70.3 1.9 14.2 13.6 34.7
Loures 167.24 201,646 27.1 37.4 33.9 1.6 6.9
Mafra 291.65 86,523 14.5 48.3 37.1 0.1 20.1
Moita 55.26 66,326 22.7 40.3 11.3 25.7 47.4
Montijo 348.62 55,732 7.4 33.2 56.8 2.6 51.0
Odivelas 26.54 148,156 60.5 15.2 24.3 0.1 -
Oeiras 45.88 171,802 63.4 16.6 19.8 0.3 14.6
Palmela 465.12 68,879 9.4 49.6 38.8 2.2 30.5
Seixal 95.45 166,693 46.3 6.8 37.0 9.9 88.4
Sesimbra 195.72 52,465 15.1 12.5 70.9 1.5 67.3
Setúbal 230.33 123,684 17.0 19.8 33.0 30.3 222.6
Sintra 319.23 385,954 28.5 37.6 33.8 0.1 32.5
Vila Franca de Xira 318.19 137,659 10.6 57.8 11.3 20.3 93.6
* Data from Census 2021, Official Administrative Map of Portugal 2018—CAOP 2018, and Land Cover Map of
Portugal COS 2018.

Regarding environmental sustainability and protection of natural resources, the LMA

Regional Plan proposes a Regional Environmental Protection and Enhancement Structure,
which is implemented/materialized in the territory by the Metropolitan Ecological Network
(MEN). This ecological network aims at the preservation of biodiversity and the increase
of urban green space in the metropolitan area; however, it is the responsibility of the
municipalities to implement this territorial model at a local scale through a territorial
strategy adjusted to the guidelines defined by the regional spatial plan. Although the
MEN stands as the main tool that guides the development of the green infrastructure at the
municipal level in the LMA, there is still ambiguity regarding the exact procedures and
implementation measures for green infrastructure among practitioners and policymakers
in this region. This is due to the fact that the regional spatial plan of the LMA is vague
and ambiguous regarding environmental sustainability and the ecological network, as
well as outdated, since the plan was released in 2002 and is still extant. Because of this,
different green infrastructure planning approaches have been followed in the LMA, which
compromises the efficient integration of the ecological and social components in the land-
use planning and policymaking processes of this region.
The fact that the LMA is such a complex territory, with a diversity of landscape features
(including rural and urban) poses serious challenges in terms of green infrastructure
planning. Additionally, the lack of strong and focused spatial planning regulations in
the region makes it more challenging for the development and implementation of green
infrastructure strategies at the municipal and local levels. For these reasons, the LMA was
chosen to be the case study for evaluating the different priorities each municipality has
regarding green infrastructure planning principles.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170 8 of 16

3.4. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

This study proposes the use of the Analytical Hierarchy Process to determine the
weights of green infrastructure planning principles in a multicriteria inventory classification.
The AHP method was developed by Saaty and is a multi-criteria approach based on math
and psychology [39,40], used to organize and analyze complex problems and unpredictable
situations that require multiple evaluation standards and understandings [41]. The AHP
method helps simplify criteria by clarifying the overall goal of the problem and organizing
the criteria into a hierarchical structure, and relies on the establishment of priorities through
weights and ranks on a pairwise comparison [41–45].
The AHP contemplates the numerous layered dimensions of the decision-making
processes [41] and has the ability to handle stakeholder involvement and integration of
qualitative judgments in a variety of fields and applications, such as operations, economics,
and planning [46], among others. Although this method relies on complex matrix manipu-
lation, it can be applied effectively without requiring the involved stakeholders to possess
an in-depth knowledge of multi-criteria decision-making theory [44]. This method can also
rely on the judgments of experts from different backgrounds (such as those involved in
this study), so the problem that is being addressed can be evaluated easily from different
perspectives and aspects [47].
The AHP provides an easy applicable decision-making method that helps the decision
maker to precisely make decisions and judgments regarding a specific problem, and
both objective or subjective considerations play an important role during the decision
process [47]. The AHP process involves identifying the overall goal, choosing evaluation
criteria, selecting stakeholders followed by their criteria evaluation, validating the results,
and establishing weighted values and ranks for the criteria considered in the process [39,41].
The first step of the AHP involves structuring the problem into a hierarchy where
the goal is established at the top level and a connection is made between the top and the
bottom elements [43]. For this study, the overall goal is to understand which GI planning
principles—previously considered—are the most important for practitioners and which of
them should be considered in spatial planning. For this, an AHP hierarchical structure was
established, where the top layer highlighted the primary objectives of the research, and
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 ofthe
17
first (and only) tier had the GI planning principles as judgment criteria (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) hierarchical structure (Source: created by the authors).
Figure 3. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) hierarchical structure (Source: created by the authors).

The second
The second step step involves
involves aa pairwise
pairwise comparison
comparison of of the
the decision
decision elements
elements by by the
the
stakeholders selected, represented in a square matrix where all the elements
stakeholders selected, represented in a square matrix where all the elements are compared are compared
with themselves.
with themselves. Each Each comparison
comparison represents
represents the
the dominance
dominance of of an
an element
element in in the
the column
column
on the left over an element in the row on the top. To obtain the
on the left over an element in the row on the top. To obtain the weight of the decisionweight of the decision
element, we
element, we can can ask
askwhich
whichofofthe theelements
elements is is
more
more important
important andandhow how strongly
stronglythatthat
im-
portance is, is,
importance using
usinga nine-point
a nine-point scale proposed
scale proposed by by
Saaty
Saaty[39][39]
(Table 3). 3).
(Table If the element
If the element on
thethe
on leftleft
is less important
is less important thanthan
the the
oneone
on the
on top of the
the top of matrix, the reciprocal
the matrix, the reciprocal valuevalue
is cho-
is
sen in the
chosen corresponding
in the corresponding position
position inin
the
thematrix.
matrix.IfIfboth
bothelements
elementshave haveequal
equal importance,
importance,
the attributed value is 1. The result of comparing the elements can be obtained with the
comparison matrix 𝐴 = 𝑎 , in Equation (1).
1 ⋯ 𝑎
𝐴= ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ (1)
𝑎 … 1

𝑖, 𝑗 = 1,2, … , 𝑛

Table 3. Comparison scale for AHP *.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170 9 of 16

the attributed value is 1. The

result of comparing the elements can be obtained with the
comparison matrix A = aij , in Equation (1).

· · · a1n
 
1
 .. .. .. 
A= . . .  (1)
an1 ... 1

i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n

Table 3. Comparison scale for AHP *.

Scale Definition Explanation

Two criteria contribute equally
1 Equal importance
to the objective
Judgment moderately favors
3 Moderate importance
one criterion over another
Judgment strongly favors
5 Strong importance
one criterion over another
One criterion is
7 Very strong importance
favored very strongly over another
There is evidence favoring one criterion
9 Extreme importance that is of the highest
possible order of affirmation
Immediate values between
2, 4, 6, 8 When a compromise is required
those of the above scale
Compared to activity ‘b’, if any of the above numbers is assigned to
Reciprocals
element ‘a’, ‘b’ is the reciprocal of ‘a’
* adapted from Saaty 1994 [39].

The third step involves validating the results obtained by the stakeholders, by deleting
inconsistent values through consistency verification. The consistency test is used to verify
whether respondents consistently respond to pairwise comparison questions, in order
to avoid conflicting phenomena in the judgments [43,48]. To do this, the consistency
index (CI) and consistency ratio (CR) are employed. If the CR is smaller than 0.2, the
results are considered reasonable and acceptable [41,43], although the smaller the CI,
the more consistent are the stakeholders’ responses. The CI and CR can be obtained by
Equations (2) and (3), and RI (Table 4) is the random consistency index which depends on
the number of elements compared.

λmax − n
CI = (2)
n−1
CI
CR = (3)
RI

Table 4. Random consistency index.

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Random Consistency Index 0 0 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.49
Adapted from Saaty 1994 [39].

The λmax corresponds to the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix and is given by
Equation (4), where W is the weight attributed to each element (priorities). To obtain the


priorities of the elements we calculate the geometric means of the rows of the matrix W i ,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170 10 of 16

and normalize it using Equation (5) [48,49]. After that, if the answers are valid, the elements
are ranked based on the results obtained.
n
( AW )i
λmax = ∑ nWi
(4)
i =1

Wi
Wi = n
(5)
∑ j =1 W j
i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n
After each stakeholder comes to his independent AHP based ranking, the resulting
individual priorities (Wa ) are aggregated using a (weighted) arithmetic mean [50,51], given
by Equation (6).
n
W
Wa = ∑ i (6)
i =1
n
i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n

4. Results and Discussion

For the purpose of this research, all 18 municipalities of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area
were contacted and invited to participate in this study. The invitations were addressed to
one specific person, but it was open to more than one person to participate in the exercise.
In total, 17 completed AHP analyses were collected, one from each municipality, with the
exception of Montijo, which, after innumerous contacts, did not respond to any of our
attempts. Some of the received AHPanalyses had inputs from only one practitioner, while
some considered inputs were from two or more practitioners. Next, the received answers
were validated according to the consistency ratio (CR). All 17 answers had a CR below 0.2,
therefore all of them were consistent and considered in our analysis. The individual results
for each municipality, as well as the aggregated results, are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Outcome of the Analytic Hierarchy Process analysis.

Municipalities

Vila Franca de Xira

Alcochete

Sesimbra
Amadora

Odivelas
Barreiro

Montijo

Palmela
Almada

Setúbal

Overall
Cascais

Loures
Lisboa

Oeiras
Mafra

Seixal

Sintra
Moita

Connectivity 0.23 0.32 0.23 0.17 0.21 0.12 0.22 0.26 0.17 NDA 0.16 0.21 0.22 0.29 0.33 0.19 0.13 0.26 0.22
GI Planning Principles

Multifunctionality 0.25 0.32 0.23 0.21 0.13 0.14 0.19 0.16 0.18 NDA 0.09 0.05 0.15 0.19 0.18 0.09 0.06 0.31 0.17
Multiscale 0.07 0.15 0.10 0.08 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.08 0.11 NDA 0.09 0.03 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.09
Integration 0.05 0.13 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.15 0.09 0.13 0.12 NDA 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.17 0.05 0.11
Diversity 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.18 0.07 0.06 0.12 0.12 NDA 0.05 0.03 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.08
Applicability 0.04 0.03 0.16 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.09 NDA 0.26 0.28 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.29 0.20 0.03 0.13
Governance 0.27 0.03 0.04 0.15 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.11 NDA 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.09 0.13 0.14 0.27 0.11
Continuity 0.08 0.02 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.12 0.09 NDA 0.11 0.29 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.06 0.09

By examining the results, we can see that, in the aggregated results, the green infras-
tructure planning principle with the highest weight is connectivity, followed by multifunc-
tionality, with 0.22 and 0.17, respectively. These results are in accordance with the findings
of Monteiro et al. [7], where connectivity and multifunctionality are the most commonly
mentioned green infrastructure planning principles in the literature, often considered by
several authors as the core elements of green infrastructure [52–54]. In addition, an as-
sessment of green infrastructure planning principles integration into strategic planning in
European regions, developed by Grădinaru and Hersperger [27], also showed how connec-
tivity and multifunctionality are at the core of planning strategies across Europe, in which
Lisbon Metropolitan Area in included. Results from a study from Shin et al. [41], where the
AHP methodology was applied to examine the decision criteria of GI experts in terms of
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170 11 of 16

design priorities, showed that ecological functions (connectivity) were also considered by
most experts to be the key priority for UGI development. This was followed by air quality
improvement, providing nature within urban areas, climate control, conservation of urban
ecology, and stormwater management (multifunctionality).
Connectivity and multifunctionality have been used as key principles for green spaces
and greenways development worldwide since the beginning of green infrastructure re-
search. In Portugal, and especially the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, the same is true. Ac-
cording to Ribeiro and Barão [55], the first Portuguese attempts at landscape planning
demonstrate a certain awareness concerning the protection of resources based upon linear
territorial patterns, and plans developed for the region are major evidence of the use of
linear structures to improve landscape connectivity. The development of legal planning
instruments such as RAN and REN (National Agriculture Reserve and National Ecological
Reserve, respectively), also fostered the creation of green structures at a regional scale,
as a way of linking green urban systems with the surrounding rural landscape. These
legal instruments, as well as the development of a greenway plan for the Lisbon Region
in 1994 [56,57], anticipated the greenway concept, and identified the importance of green
corridors in Portugal, which may explain why the connectivity principle is considered
the most important for spatial planners in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area. Looking at the
individual results, connectivity is the most important principle for 8 out of the 17 mu-
nicipalities considered—Almada, Amadora, Cascais, Loures, Mafra, Palmela, Seixal and
Sesimbra—and the highest weight (0.33) was recorded by the municipality of Sesimbra. The
second highest weight for connectivity was from Almada (0.32); however, together with
Amadora (0.23), these two municipalities considered connectivity and multifunctionality to
have the same importance. Although it is not possible to identify a specific pattern among
rural and urban municipalities regarding the connectivity principle, it is interesting to
see that, in addition being the most important principle for the majority of municipalities,
connectivity also had the highest weight value of all weight value entrances.
Apart from Almada and Amadora—which both considered connectivity and multi-
functionality of equal importance—surprisingly, multi-functionality only acquired great
relevance for four municipalities: Vila Franca de Xira (0.31), Alcochete (0.25), Barreiro
(0.21) and Moita (0.18). These results can also be explained by the landscape planning
history in Portugal. According to Jongman et al. [58], the first greenway plans in Portugal
were mainly destined to ecological and recreational purposes, which included river sys-
tems. These plans’ approaches were initiated by universities and NGOs in co-operation
with urban authorities, to address the existing gap concerning protected areas and areas
to be protected for both biodiversity conservation and cultural and recreational values.
So, as expected other environmental, economic, and social functions (multifunctionality)
were not considered in those plans, including the Regional Environmental Protection and
Enhancement Structure plan, which is implemented/materialized in the territory by the
Metropolitan Ecological Network (MEN). Because of this, most municipalities in LMA do
not consider multi-functionality to be a GI planning principle of high priority.
It is also important to recognize that the multifunctionality principle itself has changed
in the last decades. Even though greenways started as being “networks of land containing
linear elements that were planned, designed and managed for multiple purposes, such as
ecological, recreational, cultural, aesthetic, and the ones compatible with the concept of sus-
tainable land use” [59], only when the ecosystem services concept emerged in the literature
has the multi-functionality principle started to become more relevant in green infrastructure
planning. Ecosystem services is, nowadays, a concept that is well established within the
scientific community and decision-makers are starting to pay more and more attention
to this topic. Besides being responsible for providing countless benefits to society and
contributing to human well-being, ecosystem services have also been recognized recently
as a useful approach to deal with climate change and other risks in urban areas [60,61]. Yet,
despite receiving great attention from decision-makers, there is limited awareness of the
relevance of ecosystem services for several policy goals as well as a lack of knowledge and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170 12 of 16

knowledge exchange on this topic. In addition, the ecosystem services approach is still not
properly developed in Portuguese (and European) law, which, together with the already
established professional norms, competencies and codes of conduct, make practitioners rely
on traditional solutions, such as grey infrastructure instead of green-blue infrastructure [62].
Nowadays, multifunctionality is not just a principle that guarantees biodiversity
conservation and (some) cultural and recreational values, but a principle that promotes
the provision of ecosystem services and increases synergies within green spaces. As this
principle became more complex, the challenge to incorporate it into green infrastructure
planning processes increased. Because of this, practitioners have searched for ways to
implement green infrastructure strategies, and the applicability principle has gained rele-
vance among them, being the third most important principle, as seen in the results. This is
even more evident in municipalities with a substantial urban area, such as Setúbal, Oeiras,
Odivelas, Sintra and Amadora. Unlike connectivity and multifunctionality, applicability
is not considered a core green infrastructure planning principle and it is not easily found
in the literature [7]. However, it is, surprisingly, one of the most relevant principles for
the spatial planners included in this study. This may be explained be the limited atten-
tion in the literature regarding practical procedures and implementation strategies for
green infrastructure [63], and the lack of detailed action strategies or policies, as well as
implementation approaches, in existing plans [19]. This creates concerns regarding the
applicability of green infrastructure at local level, so practitioners struggle to find practical
examples of green infrastructure implementation strategies in spatial planning. Given
the current challenges urban areas are facing—environmental problems, climate change,
poverty, social inequality, unemployment, and crime—spatial planners are pressured to
abandon traditional solutions and to develop new integrative strategies in current and
future planning practices to address these concerns, such as green infrastructure.
Although multiscale, integration and diversity have been often considered important
elements in the green infrastructure planning by some authors [25,28], they were not given
high priority by the practitioners considered in this study. In fact, diversity was the principle
considered less important out of the eight considered. Nevertheless, the municipalities
where these principles, especially multiscale, have more importance are the ones where
more than 50% of territory is urban—Cascais, Lisboa and Almada. When it comes to the
integration principle, more urban municipalities still prevail, but semi-urban municipalities
(with around 20% of urban territory) also consider this principle quite important—Sintra,
Moita and Mafra. So, regarding both these principles, we can identify a pattern among
urban municipalities, which was expected. Due to rapid urbanization, urban areas are
becoming more and more compact and overpopulated, and the availability of green spaces
is decreasing, which puts ecological functions and ecosystem services provision at risk. In
places where space is scarce and much needed, every square meter counts. The need to
integrate nature-based solutions into the building environment and to consider multiscale
approaches in these areas has become more relevant and urgent.
Continuity is considered one of the least important green infrastructure principles for
the practitioners involved in this study. Although urban planners consider as important
post-implementation continuity of green infrastructure, as well as follow-up monitoring
processes to ensure planning consistency, unfortunately this can be hard to achieve, for vari-
ous reasons. First is the lack of funding to guarantee a continuous monitorization. Funding
is extremely important to guarantee the preservation, restauration, and development of
green infrastructure. Nevertheless, according to a study by Slätmo et al. [22], funding
flows mainly from public funding sources (national or European) to public actors and
institutions. Most funding programs fund the initial developments of green infrastructure
projects, but the monitoring phase is not considered afterwards. This creates enormous
pressures among local authorities who have limited financial resources to continue to
monitor green infrastructure projects. Second, the fact that local authorities have elections
regularly (ever four years), which may result in a change of local governments, leading
to an uncertainty regarding policies and action plans already approved and implemented
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170 13 of 16

by previous governments. So, because of these reasons, the continuity principle may be,
somehow, forgotten by local authorities and not be given the attention that it needs.
Even though governance was not the least prioritized principle, it still managed to
receive little attention from the participants of this study, which in coherent with the find-
ings of Monteiro et al. [7], that is, governance is not considered a key green infrastructure
planning principle in the literature. This may be one of the reasons for these results; how-
ever, the main reason may also be linked to the current public participation processes in
Portugal. According to Silva [64], Portugal has a vast corpus of national legislation on
citizen participation in public policy and is a member of international organizations that
encourage and stimulate the use of citizen participation as an instrument of good gover-
nance. Yet, because of the unclear formulation of some of those legal acts, associated with
the lack of proper knowledge of practitioners and lack of financial and human resources
of institutions, legislation is not always applied conveniently in all branches of public
administration. In addition, because public participation processes are usually complex
and time consuming, they are often undervalued in spatial planning. In other cases, the
reasons for this are related to the lack of political will of those in power to implement public
participation processes, as they could potentially undermine preferred decisions already
defined. These sort of reasons explain why citizen participation has been predominantly
passive in Portugal, and why the governance principle may be seen not as important as
the others considered in this study. Still, it is important to acknowledge that governance
has gained great attention in planning procedures in recent years, and some authors are
starting to consider it as a fundamental principle for green infrastructure planning.

5. Conclusions
Green infrastructure planning has been increasing worldwide since the end of last
century. However, there is still no consensus regarding its concept, its implementation
measures and which planning principles should be followed among researchers. This is
even more evident among political actors and practitioners. Several studies have pointed
out green infrastructure planning principles to follow in planning procedures; however,
there were no studies that focused on the perception of practitioners regarding these princi-
ples. So, the objective of this research was to learn about the priorities of urban planners
regarding green infrastructure planning principles and its integration into spatial planning,
namely: connectivity, multifunctionality, applicability, integration, diversity, multiscale,
governance, and continuity. To achieve this, weights and ranks were assigned to the green
infrastructure planning principles considered, which included the establishment of a hier-
archical structure and an analysis of pairwise comparisons using an Analytic Hierarchy
Process. The respondents consisted of urban planners working for the municipalities of
Lisbon Metropolitan Area (LMA), including, engineers, architects, geographers, etc., and,
in total, 17 completed AHP analyses were collected.
The green infrastructure principles with the highest weights were connectivity, fol-
lowed by multifunctionality, applicability and integration. Three of these principles are
usually considered core elements of green infrastructure planning in the literature, so these
results do not come as a surprise. On the other hand, the applicability principle, although
not very established in the literature, is, at the moment, one of the most important green
infrastructure principles for urban planners and practitioners, who are more and more
pressured to abandon traditional solutions and to develop new integrative strategies in
current and future planning practices. Multiscale, governance, continuity and diversity
were those that were considered the least important.
Contrary to our hypothesis, there was no specific pattern observed regarding rural
or urban municipalities, for any green infrastructure principle, with the exception of
the integration and multiscale principles. Both these principles were considered more
important for urban municipalities, probability due to the lack of space available for the
development of green infrastructure projects. In urban areas the availability of green spaces
is decreasing, which puts ecological functions and ecosystem services provision at risk.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170 14 of 16

Because of this, the integration of nature-based solutions into the building environment
has, possibly, become more relevant and urgent.
Understanding the perception of urban planners and practitioners regarding green
infrastructure planning is crucial to evaluate and understand their level of commitment
about this issue. This is the novelty of this research. As much as regional and national
entities, such as the European Environment Agency, are aware of the benefits of green
infrastructure, well as the best planning practices for this instrument, the same is not true
for local entities and local practitioners. Local territories are different and face different
challenges, so it is important to comprehend the views of local urban planners and practi-
tioners on green infrastructure planning principles, since there are still many questions to
be answered regarding this topic.
Although this study is important to help shape future green infrastructure planning
practices, there are some limitations that should be addressed in future studies. For
example, the AHP conducted could be complemented with some detailed interviews with
the practitioners, in order to understand some of their choices and points of view on
green infrastructure planning principles. As much as the results were enlightening, some
questions were not answered, such as why some green infrastructure planning principles
are more important in some municipalities than others. A wider sample and another case
study should be used to confirm our results, or, on the contrary, to understand if there is,
in fact, a pattern among rural and urban territories regarding these green infrastructure
planning principles.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology and writing was carried out by R.M.; J.C.F.
and P.A. reviewed and edited previous draft versions and provided supervision. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge and thank the support given by the Portuguese Foun-
dation for Science and Technology (FCT) to MARE through the strategic projects UIDB/04292/2020
and UIDP/04292/2020, and CENSE through the strategic project UIDB/04085/2020.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Madureira, H.; Andresen, T.; Monteiro, A. Green structure and planning evolution in Porto. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011,
10, 141–149. [CrossRef]
2. Wilker, J.; Rusche, K.; Rymsa-Fitschen, C. Improving Participation in Green Infrastructure Planning. Plan. Pract. Res. 2016,
31, 229–249. [CrossRef]
3. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P. Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: Growing resilience in Detroit. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 2017, 159, 62–75. [CrossRef]
4. Campagna, M.; Di Cesare, E.A.; Cocco, C. Integrating Green-Infrastructures Design in Strategic Spatial Planning with Geodesign.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1820. [CrossRef]
5. Llausàs, A.; Roe, M. Green Infrastructure Planning: Cross-National Analysis between the North East of England (UK) and
Catalonia (Spain). Eur. Plan. Stud. 2012, 20, 641–663. [CrossRef]
6. Roe, M.; Mell, I. Negotiating value and priorities: Evaluating the demands of green infrastructure development. J. Environ. Plan.
Manag. 2013, 56, 650–673. [CrossRef]
7. Monteiro, R.; Ferreira, J.C.; Antunes, P. Green Infrastructure Planning Principles: An Integrated Literature Review. Land 2020,
9, 525. [CrossRef]
8. Yacamán Ochoa, C.; Ferrer Jiménez, D.; Mata Olmo, R. Green Infrastructure Planning in Metropolitan Regions to Improve the
Connectivity of Agricultural Landscapes and Food Security. Land 2020, 9, 414. [CrossRef]
9. Wright, H. Understanding green infrastructure: The development of a contested concept in England. Local Environ. 2011,
16, 1003–1019. [CrossRef]
10. Benedict, M.A.; McMahon, E.T. Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century. Renew. Resour. J. 2002, 20, 12–17.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170 15 of 16

11. Ferreira, J.C.; Monteiro, R.; Silva, V.R. Planning a Green Infrastructure Network from Theory to Practice: The Case Study of
Setúbal, Portugal. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8432. [CrossRef]
12. Hoover, F.-A.; Meerow, S.; Grabowski, Z.J.; McPhearson, T. Environmental justice implications of siting criteria in urban green
infrastructure planning. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2021, 23, 665–682. [CrossRef]
13. Mell, I.; Clement, S. Progressing Green Infrastructure planning: Understanding its scalar, temporal, geo-spatial and disciplinary
evolution. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2020, 38, 449–463. [CrossRef]
14. Szulczewska, B.; Giedych, R.; Maksymiuk, G. Can we face the challenge: How to implement a theoretical concept of green
infrastructure into planning practice? Warsaw case study. Landsc. Res. 2017, 42, 176–194. [CrossRef]
15. Honeck, E.; Sanguet, A.; Schlaepfer, M.A.; Wyler, N.; Lehmann, A. Methods for identifying green infrastructure. SN Appl. Sci.
2020, 2, 1916. [CrossRef]
16. Liquete, C.; Kleeschulte, S.; Dige, G.; Maes, J.; Grizzetti, B.; Olah, B.; Zulian, G. Mapping green infrastructure based on ecosystem
services and ecological networks: A Pan-European case study. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 54, 268–280. [CrossRef]
17. European Comission Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Green Infrastructure (GI)—Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital.
Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:d41348f2-01d5-4abe-b817-4c73e6f1b2df.0014.03/DOC_
1&format=PDF (accessed on 14 August 2020).
18. Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Barton, D.N. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86, 235–245.
[CrossRef]
19. Kim, H.W.; Tran, T. An Evaluation of Local Comprehensive Plans Toward Sustainable Green Infrastructure in US. Sustainability
2018, 10, 4143. [CrossRef]
20. Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kaźmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human
health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178. [CrossRef]
21. Bolund, P.; Hunhammar, S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29, 293–301. [CrossRef]
22. Slätmo, E.; Nilsson, K.; Turunen, E. Implementing Green Infrastructure in Spatial Planning in Europe. Land 2019, 8, 62. [CrossRef]
23. Hasala, D.; Supak, S.; Rivers, L. Green infrastructure site selection in the Walnut Creek wetland community: A case study from
southeast Raleigh, North Carolina. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 196, 103743. [CrossRef]
24. Jeong, D.; Kim, M.; Song, K.; Lee, J. Planning a Green Infrastructure Network to Integrate Potential Evacuation Routes and
the Urban Green Space in a Coastal City: The Case Study of Haeundae District, Busan, South Korea. Sci. Total Environ. 2021,
761, 143179. [CrossRef]
25. Girma, Y.; Terefe, H.; Pauleit, S.; Kindu, M. Urban green infrastructure planning in Ethiopia: The case of emerging towns of
Oromia special zone surrounding Finfinne. J. Urban Manag. 2018, 8, 75–88. [CrossRef]
26. Wei, J.X.; Song, Y.; Wang, Y.C.; Xiang, W.N. Urban green infrastructure building for sustainability in areas of rapid urbanization
based on evaluating spatial priority: A ease study of fukou in China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2019, 39, 1178–1188. [CrossRef]
27. Gradinaru, S.R.; Hersperger, A.M. Green infrastructure in strategic spatial plans: Evidence from European urban regions. Urban
For. Urban Green. 2019, 40, 17–28. [CrossRef]
28. Hansen, R.; Rall, E.; Chapman, E.; Rolf, W.; Pauleit, S. Urban Green Infrastructure Planning—A Guide for Practitioners.
2017. Available online: https://ign.ku.dk/english/green-surge/rapporter/D5_3_Urban_GIP_-_A_guide_for_practitioners.pdf
(accessed on 6 March 2022).
29. Pauleit, S.; Ambrose-Oji, B.; Andersson, E.; Anton, B.; Buijs, A.; Haase, D.; Elands, B.; Hansen, R.; Kowarik, I.; Kronenberg, J.; et al.
Advancing urban green infrastructure in Europe: Outcomes and reflections from the GREEN SURGE project. Urban For. Urban
Green. 2019, 40, 4–16. [CrossRef]
30. Yirga Ayele, B.; Megento, T.L.; Habetemariam, K.Y. Governance of green infrastr ucture planning in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Land
Use Policy 2021, 111, 105777. [CrossRef]
31. Sandstrom, U.G. Green infrastructure planning in urban Sweden. Plan. Pract. Res. 2002, 17, 373–385. [CrossRef]
32. Mascarenhas, A.; Ramos, T.B.; Haase, D.; Santos, R. Participatory selection of ecosystem services for spatial planning: Insights
from the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 18, 87–99. [CrossRef]
33. Marat-Mendes, T.; Isidoro, I.; Catela, J.; Pereira, M.; Borges, J.; Silva Lopes, S.; Henriques, C. Drivers of change: How the
food system of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area is being shaped by activities, initiatives and citizens needs towards a sustainable
transition. Cid. Comunidades Territ. 2021, 21, 41–62. [CrossRef]
34. INE—Plataforma de Divulgação dos Censos 2021—Resultados Provisórios. Available online: https://www.ine.pt/scripts/db_
censos_2021.html (accessed on 6 March 2022).
35. European Environment Agency. Available online: https://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/# (accessed on 17 October 2021).
36. Mascarenhas, A.; Haase, D.; Ramos, T.B.; Santos, R. Pathways of demographic and urban development and their effects on land
take and ecosystem services: The case of Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 181–194. [CrossRef]
37. CCDR_LVT. Programa Regional de Ordenamento do Território da Área Metropolitana de Lisboa; Comissão de Coordenação e Desen-
volvimento Regional de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo: Lisboa, Portugal, 2002.
38. Abrantes, P. Ordenamento e Planeamento do Território; Instituto de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território da Universidade de
Lisboa: Lisboa, Portugal, 2016; p. 17.
39. Saaty, T.L. How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Inf. J. Appl. Anal. 1994, 24, 19–43. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 5170 16 of 16

40. Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83. [CrossRef]
41. Shin, Y.; Kim, S.; Lee, S.-W.; An, K. Identifying the Planning Priorities for Green Infrastructure within Urban Environments Using
Analytic Hierarchy Process. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5468. [CrossRef]
42. Xu, C.; Tang, T.; Jia, H.; Xu, M.; Xu, T.; Liu, Z.; Long, Y.; Zhang, R. Benefits of coupled green and grey infrastructure systems:
Evidence based on analytic hierarchy process and life cycle costing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104478. [CrossRef]
43. Park, Y.; Lee, S.-W.; Lee, J. Comparison of Fuzzy AHP and AHP in Multicriteria Inventory Classification While Planning Green
Infrastructure for Resilient Stream Ecosystems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9035. [CrossRef]
44. Young, K.D.; Younos, T.; Dymond, R.L.; Kibler, D.F.; Lee, D.H. Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Selecting and
Modeling Stormwater Best Management Practices. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 2010, 146, 50–63. [CrossRef]
45. Li, L.; Uyttenhove, P.; Van Eetvelde, V. Planning green infrastructure to mitigate urban surface water flooding risk—A methodol-
ogy to identify priority areas applied in the city of Ghent. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 194, 103703. [CrossRef]
46. Axelsson, C.; Giove, S.; Soriani, S. Urban Pluvial Flood Management Part 1: Implementing an AHP-TOPSIS Multi-Criteria
Decision Analysis Method for Stakeholder Integration in Urban Climate and Stormwater Adaptation. Water 2021, 13, 2422.
[CrossRef]
47. Oğuztï Mur, S. Why Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach for Transport Problems? ERSA Conference Papers ersa11p438,
European Regional Science Association. 2011. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa11p438.html
(accessed on 6 March 2022).
48. Chen, Z.-Y. Research on Comprehensive Evaluation Index System of Traffic Infrastructure Construction. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci.
Eng. 2019, 688, 22021. [CrossRef]
49. Saaty, R.W. The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Math. Model. 1987, 9, 161–176. [CrossRef]
50. Ossadnik, W.; Schinke, S.; Kaspar, R.H. Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network
Process: A Comparative Analysis. Group Decis. Negot. 2016, 25, 421–457. [CrossRef]
51. Yedla, S.; Shrestha, R.M. Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process to Prioritize Urban Transport Options—Comparative analysis
of group aggregation methods. World Rev. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 9, 15–33. [CrossRef]
52. Kim, D.; Song, S.-K. The multifunctional benefits of green infrastructure in community development: An analytical review based
on 447 cases. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3917. [CrossRef]
53. Hansen, R.; Pauleit, S. From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in
green infrastructure planning for Urban Areas. Ambio 2014, 43, 516–529. [CrossRef]
54. Kambites, C.; Owen, S. Renewed prospects for green infrastructure planning in the UK. Plan. Pract. Res. 2006, 21, 483–496.
[CrossRef]
55. Ribeiro, L.; Barão, T. Greenways for recreation and maintenance of landscape quality: Five case studies in Portugal. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 2006, 76, 79–97. [CrossRef]
56. Ahern, J. Greenways in the USA: Theory, trends and prospects. In Ecological Networks and Greenways; Jongman, R.H.G.,
Pungetti, G., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004; pp. 34–55. ISBN 978-0-511-60676-2.
57. Machado, J.R.; Ahern, J. Greenways Network for the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon. In Environmental Challenges in An Expanding
Urban World and the Role of Emerging Information Technologies; National Centre for Geographical Information: Lisbon, Portugal, 1997;
Available online: https://www.worldcat.org/title/environmental-challenges-in-an-expanding-urban-world-and-the-role-of-
emerging-information-technologies/oclc/1200081753 (accessed on 6 March 2022).
58. Jongman, R.H.G.; Külvik, M.; Kristiansen, I. European ecological networks and greenways. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 305–319.
[CrossRef]
59. Ahern, J. Greenways as a planning strategy. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995, 33, 131–155. [CrossRef]
60. Matthews, T.; Lo, A.Y.; Byrne, J.A. Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and
drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 138, 155–163. [CrossRef]
61. Fedele, G.; Locatelli, B.; Djoudi, H.; Colloff, M.J. Reducing risks by transforming landscapes: Cross-scale effects of land-use
changes on ecosystem services. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0195895. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Saarikoski, H.; Primmer, E.; Saarela, S.-R.; Antunes, P.; Aszalós, R.; Baró, F.; Berry, P.; Blanko, G.G.; Goméz-Baggethun, E.;
Carvalho, L.; et al. Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 579–598.
[CrossRef]
63. Lennon, M.; Scott, M. Delivering ecosystems services via spatial planning: Reviewing the possibilities and implications of a green
infrastructure approach. Town Plan. Rev. 2014, 85, 563–587. [CrossRef]
64. Nunes Silva, C. Citizen Participation in Spatial Planning in Portugal 1920–2020 Non-participation, Tokenism and Citizen Power
in Local Governance. In Contemporary Trends in Local Governance: Reform, Cooperation and Citizen Participation; Nunes Silva, C., Ed.;
Local and Urban Governance; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 241–276. ISBN 978-3-030-52516-3.