Recently I was faced with an issue that has been a subject of discussion since I joined. Each time, it is answered for a new cohort of members, but we somehow do not seem to maintain that corporate knowledge or convey it effectively.

Green infrastructure is becoming a prominently used term in planning, policies, and goals at all levels of government and throughout the country. But the term means different things to different people. In fact, there is enough variety in the green infrastructure concepts being bantered about that the definition of green infrastructure is a main tenant of one article (Allen 2012) in this special issue of Environmental Practice. The use of the term can indeed become very confusing among the uninitiated. Green washing is a term used to describe services or products that make an unsubstantiated claim of being green. Thus, it is important, as several of our authors note in this special issue, to be clear about what is meant by green infrastructure so as to not end up with it on the heap of green washing or discarded buzzwords.

This research is part of an ULTRA NSF-US Forest service research grant addressing urban ecosystem metabolism in Syracuse, New York. This project explores local stakeholders' perceptions of green infrastructure (GI) and ecosystems services from both positive and detracting perspectives. Focus groups were used to elicit responses for a thematic analysis. Respondents displayed confusion about what ecosystems services are, as well as what GI is. Implementation barriers include costs (who pays), what the benefits are, unanticipated impacts, and scale of implementation.

Environmental Practice 14:6–16 (2012)

Over the past decade, green infrastructure has evolved from a novel buzzword into a recognized planning practice. Definitions of green infrastructure inevitably have been tailored to appeal to diverse constituents with message points that address a particular professional discipline or resource issue. Commonly accepted definitions emphasize the interconnected network concept and are mostly differentiated by the scale at which green infrastructure planning is implemented. This commentary lays out an operational framework for green infrastructure that can be advanced at all scales, from the largest landscape to the smallest site, and illustrates examples of operationalizing the framework at each scale. What is ultimately needed is a seamless quilt of planning and implementation across scales and jurisdictional boundaries that make sense in terms of their benefits but also in terms of their economics, and every one can play a part in making that a reality in their communities.

Environmental Practice 14:17–25 (2012)

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that the climate is changing and that the changes are largely due to increased levels of carbon emissions into the atmosphere that are caused by human activities. The recommended response from society to climate change involves two sets of activities: mitigation and adaptation. Adaptation includes activities that attempt to adjust or respond to changes to the environment caused by climate change. For wildlife, a consensus is forming around an approach to adaptation planning that would improve the ability of an ecosystem to resist dramatic changes to habitats; build resilience into the ecosystem to recover from extreme weather events and changes in temperature and precipitation that may cause increased floods, wildfires, insect outbreaks, etc.; and lastly build realignment into our ecosystems through wildlife corridors or other connections through matrix landscape types that allow species to shift their ranges and transition into new areas when the need becomes inevitable. This commentary outlines a climate change adaptation strategy for wildlife within an eight-state region (Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio) of the Midwest United States (US) focused on the design of an interconnected green infrastructure network of natural areas that helps refine future wildlife habitat conservation priorities while also providing other natural and human benefits to residents of the Midwest US. A landscape-scale green infrastructure network will be developed for this area within the next 18–24 months thanks to a grant from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to the eight Midwest states, and the strategy outlined here serves as the foundation for implementing effective wildlife habitat protection projects in response to climate change.

Environmental Practice 14:45–56 (2012)

Green infrastructure at the parcel scale provides critical ecosystem goods and services when these services (such as flood mitigation) must be provided locally. Here we report on an approach that encourages suburban landowners to mitigate impervious surfaces on their properties through a voluntary auction mechanism. We used an economic incentive to place rain gardens and rain barrels onto parcels in a 1.8-km2 watershed near Cincinnati, Ohio. A comprehensive hydrologic, water-quality, and ecological monitoring campaign documented environmental conditions before and after treatment. In 2007 and 2008, we engaged private landowners through a reverse auction to encourage placement of one rain garden and up to four rain barrels on their property. The program led to the installation of 83 rain gardens and 176 rain barrels onto more than 20% of the properties, and preliminary analyses indicate that the overall discharge regime was altered by the treatments. The length of the study (six years) may have precluded observation of treatment effects on water quality and aquatic biological communities, as we would expect these conditions to respond more slowly to management changes. These distributed storm-water installations contributed to ecosystem services such as flood protection, water supply, and water infiltration; provided benefits to the local residents; and reduced the need for larger, expensive, centralized retrofits (such as deep tunnel storage).

Environmental Practice 14:57–67 (2012)

What's beyond oil? This question is leading to one of the most important debates these days. Even if oil resources are only decreasing slowly (but surely), other options to power the future are essential in consideration of climate changes due to greenhouse gas emissions. An obvious solution can be found looking at the perpetual solar energy supply, especially in regions with high availability of sun irradiation. Converting this renewable energy with wind turbines or photovoltaic or solar power plants is common by now. But storing and using the electric energy generated with these technologies is quite difficult because of low energy densities obtained from current battery technologies. By contrast, hydrogen energy storage has the advantage of its higher energy density. It can be used, for example, for auxiliary power units (APUs) in combination with fuel cell systems, for powering automotive fuel cell–based drivetrains, or for local energy supply in fuel cell power plants. Additionally, hydrogen can be transported easily by trucks or pipelines even over long distances and can be distributed and sold. From the economic perspective, with hydrogen and fuel cells some interesting business models can be developed. Investing in hydrogen production and storage equipment, fuel cell systems for APUs and vehicle drivetrains, or a hydrogen infrastructure, return on invest can be seen some years ahead by selling hydrogen or fuel cell systems to national and international customers with increased ecologic responsibility. Finally, in spite of the longer energy conversion chain for hydrogen compared to pure electrical energy storage, hydrogen with the described advantages generated from renewable energies used in fuel cells is definitely an economic and ecologic chance for a greener future.

Sustainability has become a guiding principle, a goal, and, in many cases, a standard for businesses, governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), institutions of higher education, and environmental practitioners alike. Over the last quarter century, a widespread flurry of action in the name of sustainability has been burgeoning in a variety of settings and nations. A simple Internet news search reveals literally thousands of examples of different actors and organizations taking action in the name of sustainability. From the development of new university curricula to corporate sustainability reports, sustainability is invoked as a driving force for an ever-increasing number of organizations. The concept has become a rallying cry for a new way of operating and functioning. Like the environmental movement of the 1970s, the sustainability movement is marked by mobilization and an increased awareness of the challenges facing our current generation, as well as those who will come after us. Yet, it is not clear that actions taken in the name of creating a sustainable future are all based upon a consistent understanding of the concept of sustainability. In other words, are we all speaking the same language when it comes to the concept of sustainability and, similarly, sustainable development?