Green Infrastructure (GI) has been predominately researched as an urban concept. However, it can be argued that its principles of promoting connected networks of green and blue spaces to support multi-functional landscapes has significant value in rural as well as urban locations. Rural GI is under researched with limited consideration within the wider discussion of environmental praxis. Other activities, i.e., agriculture, forestry and conservation, dominate management discourses in rural environmental thinking limiting opportunities for a more holistic approach to GI thinking to be tested in these places. Moreover, land use in rural areas, especially at the landscape scale, is subject to complex ownership and management issues. Changes in legislation focussed on “nature” recovery and landscape functionality further complicate these debates. There is though a growing recognition within both traditional rural land and in contemporary ecological advocacy that the restoration of nature can be politically, socio-economically, and environmentally positive.

To examine this process the requires an unpacking of the visible changes in rural land use policy to refocus debates from a GI perspective. Such an approach offers insights into how the principles of GI can be used to address climate change, biodiversity, food security, and changing rural livelihoods on current land use. By arguing that the focus of policy on nature positive planning with designations and policy initiatives promotes the use of GI it remains uncertain whether this translates into resilient landscape scale land management. The outcomes of this discussion illustrate that GI in rural contexts constitutes a distinctly different approach to those applied in urban areas, and is characterised by landscape-scale management issues and reflections of existing livelihood practices. Positive uses of GI is supported through dynamic institutional arrangements, diverse governance options, and local socio-economic conditions. Thus, by reflecting on the governance of GI in rural areas it provides scope to move beyond static assessments of functionality towards an understanding of the institutional environments and local social structures within which GI is embedded.

With the profound and accelerating decline of urban centres as places for retail traditionally
supported by high levels of footfall and chain retailers, there is an emerging trend of urban areas introducing urban greening as a way to try to improve a range of environmental and social factors including increasing dwell time, socialisation and footfall alongside people’s physical and mental wellbeing. This paper, which focuses on the findings from a BBSRC-funded impact project alongside a recently submitted ESRC New Investigator Grant, critically evaluates the economic and environmental impacts of urban greening in a postindustrial landscape (West Bromwich). Additionally, it explores the different typologies of funding of greening interventions including public sector funded (West Bromwich), private sector funded (Colmore Business Improvement District) and mixed funding (Coventry City Centre). It examines the emerging implications for theory and practice and develops policy recommendations whilst reflecting on the broader changes in the funding landscape for the repurposing of urban centres.

Access to greenspace is unequal across England. Recently, there has been a lot of attention on the lack of access to greenspace in new developments despite Natural England’s Greenspace Standards setting the expectation for access. This study explores the extent to which new developments across England meet these standards, focusing on Doorstep, Local and Neighbourhood Greenspaces. The analysis uses spatial data to generate approximate major development sites completed between 2000 and 2024, which are then compared to the standards for Doorstep, Local or Neighbourhood greenspace. Land Cover data from 2000 was also used to explore whether development on more urban land fared differently from those on less urban land. Overall, around 66% of sites completed after 2000 have access to Doorstep Greenspace (0.5ha within 200m), 60% have access to Local Greenspace (2ha within 300m) and 61% have access to Neighbourhood Greenspace (10ha within 1km). Furthermore access to all types of greenspace appears to have decreased by around 15% between 2000 and 2024; down to 47%, 42% and 50% for access to Doorstep, Local and Neighbourhood Greenspaces respectively. Access to greenspace on the ‘discontinuous urban fabric’ landcover is greater than overall at 69%, 64% and 66% for Doorstep, Local and Neighbourhood Greenspaces respectively compared with sites on ‘non-built’ landcover at 57%, 46% and 40%. This suggests a worrying trend where increasing numbers of new homes are being built without good access to greenspaces and that this is particularly stark for greenfield developments that do not benefit from access to existing greenspaces.