**2. Integration between green infrastructure, ecosystem services, and ecosystem restoration**

The concept of structure in landscape architecture is necessarily related to spatialization. In this structure, relationships between ecosystems or elements are expressed [24]. The structure integrates the landscape system's objective and subjective components, articulating significant features that relate to each other [11]. Infrastructure is a structure that serves as the base for something to be developed. Thus, when we refer to green infrastructure, we are talking about a planned network of structural spaces rather than a network of spaces disconnected from the biophysical structure of the territory. The concept of green infrastructure is broad and varied, but it is considered the one summarized by Naumann [25], whose definition is frequently used:

*Green infrastructure is the network of natural and semi-natural areas, features and green spaces in rural and urban, terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine areas, which together enhance ecosystem health and resilience, contribute to biodiversity conservation and benefit human populations through the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services. Green infrastructure can be strengthened through strategic and coordinated initiatives that focus on maintaining, restoring, improving and connecting existing areas and features as well as creating new areas and features [25].*

Green infrastructure planning involves an assessment of the types of natural and cultural resources available and a prioritization of the resources most important to present and future needs [14]. Therefore, a green infrastructure strategy includes the process of identifying, assessing, and prioritizing areas that are critical to preserving a healthy community. In addition to prioritizing areas, there is also a need to implement actions to ensure their conservation [14]. Mapping natural resources are thus the first step in building a green infrastructure map to inform which areas need conservation actions and which need restoration actions.

The European Biodiversity Strategy for 2020 [26] highlighted the importance of using green infrastructures in landscape planning since it can ensure the "best functional connectivity between ecosystems within and between Natura 2000 areas and in the wider countryside" ([27]: 6). The indication in a European document of the importance of ensuring functional connectivity between ecosystems, even outside protected areas, through landscape planning was a crucial step towards elevating nature conservation to a more comprehensive status than protecting particular species. Recently, the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 [28], as a core part of the European Green Deal, defines an action plan towards protecting nature and reversing the degradation of ecosystems.

Green infrastructure is also a tool to achieve economic and social benefits through natural solutions. This concept of natural solutions (or nature-based solutions) was further developed by the working groups of the European Commission [27] as a solution inspired, supported or copied from nature. The green infrastructure strategy itself states that "Green infrastructure can make a significant contribution to the effective implementation of all policies where some or all of the desired objectives can be achieved in whole or in part through nature-based solutions." ([29]: 3).

The scientific community widely refers to ecosystem services as benefits that a population acquires, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions [16]. Ecosystem services result from flows of materials, energy, and information from natural capital stocks capable of producing human well-being [16]. Their monetary quantification [30], with specific units [31] or measured through indicators [32] as well as a qualitative assessment [33] has been addressed in the last decades.

#### *Contributing to Healthy Landscapes by Sustainable Land Use Planning: A Vision for Restoring... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99666*

These services were categorized into several typologies by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [34]: supporting (services required to produce all other ecosystem services); provisioning (products obtained from ecosystems); regulating (benefits obtained through the regulation of ecosystem processes); and cultural (non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems). The landscape is intended to be one where ecosystem services are provided in balance with the physical structure that supports them, so the various actors dealing with land-use planning must understand the support structure of the landscape.

To contribute to a consistent definition of ecosystem services, Fisher [35] introduces the importance of ecosystems' structure and their processes and functions. In this approach, ecosystem services are characteristics of ecosystems used directly or indirectly by humans to produce well-being. Accordingly, ecosystem structure is itself a service because it provides a platform for ecosystem processes. Related to this idea, the same authors say that the configuration of ecosystem structure and processes is necessary for the healthy functioning of ecosystems and their services, relating them to the concept of (green) infrastructure. The spatial characteristics of ecosystems are also a way to classify their services, so it will be important in planning to know what services are available and how they flow through the landscape. In this way, it is important to understand the relationships between the production of the service and the place where the benefit occurs, recognizing the dynamic characteristics of ecosystems. In this regard, [35] propose a system for classifying ecosystem services into three categories: (1) in situ (services produced and benefits provided occur at the same location); (2) Omni-directional (where services are provided at a single location, but the benefit occurs in the landscape surrounding the service production with no defined direction); (3) directional - where service provision benefits from a specific location due to the direction of flow.

The Ecosystem services were also an integral part of the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2020 [26]. According to this strategy, ecosystems and their services would be maintained and enhanced by creating green infrastructure and restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems. Ecosystem services were then identified through indicators associated with each ecosystem, assessed according to the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services [36]. The European methodologies followed for mapping ecosystems [36] use the interpretation of different land use and land cover classes and relate them to the European Habitat Classification (EUNIS). As a result, the analysis of ecosystem services while assessing land-use mapped ecosystems tends to present itself transformed into an "in situ" category, in the sense of [36], where the production of the service and the benefit are located in the same place. Another consequence of a methodology based on current land use mapping is to assess the use and service regardless of whether it is in an area of greater ecological suitability. Such is the example of forests that are all converted into ecosystems capable of producing the same services regardless of the type of forest species. This is an incorrect approach since it is well known that different forest trees or stands provide different ecosystem services. In Portugal, this is very relevant since most of the forest stands are not native (maritime pine, eucalyptus) providing poorer ecosystem services when compared with native stands (oak).

It is essential to consider that the landscape has different capabilities to provide specific ecosystem services [33], being of a more profound complexity than just an assessment by current land use. The structure of the ecosystem assumes a vital role in supporting the very functioning of the ecosystem. Interestingly, authors such as Burkhard [33] consider that the typology of supporting ecosystem services (defined in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), is understood as those that ensure ecological integrity. However, supporting services are considered difficult to map [37], and it is considered that the link between supporting services and human well-being occurs indirectly [34]. Therefore, supporting services have received much less attention among four types of ecosystem services. Despite European recommendations to map ecosystems and their services, recent publications have failed to include supporting services [38].

In this sense, it is considered that by mapping green infrastructure, the supportive services are provided in conjunction with other ecosystem services. Incorporating structural components of ecosystems also allows for a complete approach to mapping ecosystems and their services by encompassing the various relationships between the area of production of the service and the site of benefit from that service.

Including ecosystem services in landscape planning will need to go through defining the goal of achieving multiple ecosystem services [39]. However, the function of an ecosystem must be ensured in planning regardless of the benefit it may provide [40]. Maximizing one ecosystem service may jeopardize the balance of all other ecosystem services, as exemplified by Dosskey [39] in the US Green Belt region, where agricultural productivity was put as a priority at the expense of water quality and wildlife. It should be desirable for public policy to seek a degree of multifunctionality across cultural landscapes and to achieve the greatest degree of multifunctionality in green infrastructure [40]. The same author considers that monofunctional landscapes will require greater inputs to continue to provide values and functions and are likely to become unsustainable and require restoration.

Ecosystems are naturally multifunctional, making available services determined by landscape structure [39]. Modifying landscape structure can rebalance the services available. Thus, the landscape planning process will need to include an understanding of the current functioning of the landscape and an assessment of whether changing the landscape structure can affect the ecological functions and services provided [39]. Ecologically based planning aims to define the best use which implicitly includes the best use of natural resources without compromising their existence and their stability in the system [41]. This applies both to landscapes dominated by native vegetation, forming a dense woodland, and to agricultural or production forest areas properly integrated into the landscape and its structure with good management practices and appropriate design.

Ecosystem restoration is often focused on the recovery of a particular plant or animal community, often appearing related to landscape fragmentation [42]. The restoration of an ecosystem, which is itself a complex system, will involve the recovery of the ecological functions of the system. The functions that are easily altered by the degradation of an ecosystem are soil structure, nutrient flow, and water cycling [43]. The restoration of an ecosystem will mainly involve the recovery of the lost functions, because this loss has also contributed to its own degradation:

*When a reintegrated landscape is achieved, it will be a landscape that is a mosaic of agricultural, natural, and semi natural systems, which together maximize biodiversity and economic returns by maintaining the landscape amenity function (minimizing the loss of landscape qualities through soil salinization of water and wind erosion) and so make possible a sustainable agriculture and a functional diverse natural system [43].*

The ecosystem restoration will involve the recovery of its ecological integrity. The integrity of an ecosystem includes the integrity of the system's structure and function, the maintenance of its components and its dynamic interactions [44]. From this perspective, any loss of system components leads to a loss of system integrity. According to Forman [45] and Thorn [46] a system with ecological integrity exhibits natural conditions of productivity, biodiversity, soil and water conservation, which are the goal of any sustainable environment [47]. The integrity

#### *Contributing to Healthy Landscapes by Sustainable Land Use Planning: A Vision for Restoring... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99666*

of an ecosystem includes an adequacy of uses to the ecological characteristics of the system, meeting the dynamic stability of the landscape, making it resilient.

Ecosystem restoration is defined by the Society for Ecological Restoration as the process of supporting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed [48]. These last three states can be equated to various states of morphogenesis, where an imbalance of landscape stability occurs. A morphogenesis ecosystem can be at different levels of imbalance from degradation to complete destruction. When ecosystems are being overexploited or degraded the health of the ecosystem goes into decline as well as its integrity and resilience [49]. This state of decline can be reversed with recovery actions, which in turn lead to ecosystem rebalance in Tricart's [3] interpretation of dynamic equilibrium. An ecosystem in equilibrium provides a greater number or a higher quality of services.

A Landscape-scale ecosystem restoration involves restoring a set of ecosystems to recover natural and cultural values and ecosystem service flows [49]. Hobbs [50] argues that the recovery of ecosystems should not focus on replicating the conditions prior to disturbance, but should be managed in a future perspective, not forgetting that the landscape is temporally and spatially dynamic. Besides, there are two types of recovery [51]: one in which the goal is the recovery of biotic continuity, and another, corresponding to more severe situations of degradation, will involve the physical recovery of the ecosystem. An example of the latter is the case of the obstruction of a river, where the goal will be to recreate the continuity of water flow. According to those authors, there are thus two thresholds that, if crossed, imply different interventions, the biotic threshold, and the abiotic threshold. The least severe situation of degradation of an ecosystem will thus imply changes in land use.

The ecosystem restoration can integrate cultural values, for example, an agricultural area located on productive soils and with good management practices (including compartmentalization hedges, contour farming) contributes to increased productivity, biodiversity, and soil and water conservation. Designing green infrastructure with planned land uses, consistent with its different ecological characteristics, guarantee the ecosystem's integrity and allow it to assess restoration needs.

## **3. The need for a restoration solution: centre region of Portugal**

The absence of an ecological-based landscape and land-use plan can have severe consequences in the increase of soil degradation and floods, decrease of biodiversity, and increased fire risk. This landscape degradation is present in several areas of Portugal. Also, a consequence of the set of policies followed since the beginning of the 20th century. In the 1930s, Portugal went through a wheat campaign that destroyed the fertility of the soil. Later, the monoculture campaigns of maritime pine and eucalyptus continue the degradation of the soil and the destruction of the landscape, which we still see happening, especially in the north of the Tagus river, in the Centre and North regions.

The Centre Region (**Figure 1**) corresponds to a Statistical Territorial Unit (NUT) and comprises about 2,819,936 hectares. This region includes different landscape typologies, such as the southwest western zone with fruit productivity, the coastal zone with low and high coastlines, and an inland zone dominated by maritime pine and eucalyptus in formations of schist and granite. This area is characterized by a rugged relief in the most central location, such as Serra da Estrela, where Rio Mondego begins, the Serra da Lousã and the Serra do Açor. The Natura 2000 network includes 21 Special Areas of Conservation.

In an evaluation of land use from the 1990s to the present, it was possible to understand the evolution of the different land uses (**Figure 2** and **Table 1**).

**Figure 1.** *Location of the Centre region in Portugal.*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Evolution of the main land use classes in the Centre region, between 1995 and 2018 (data base: DGT, land use and land cover map).*


#### **Table 1.**

*Evolution of the main land uses in the Centre region, between 1995 and 2018.*

This analysis was done with the interpretation and reclassification of the Land-Use and Land Cover maps produced by DGT (1995, 2007, 2010, 2018) [52]. In this period of 24 years, there is an oscillation of maritime pine, which tends to stabilize at 22%. The percentage of eucalyptus in the central zone has increased since 1995, from

### *Contributing to Healthy Landscapes by Sustainable Land Use Planning: A Vision for Restoring... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99666*

9.7% of the total area, to 17% in 2018, i.e., it has practically doubled. On the other hand, the area occupied by agriculture has decreased since 1995. Native species include cork oak, holm oak, other oaks and also chestnut stands (archaeophyte), and oscillate between the years analyzed, with occupations between 6 and 9%.

There is in fact a very serious problem of inappropriate land uses that lead to the destruction of landscapes with negative consequences for those who live there, but also for those who live further away, for example, the impacts derived from water quality. Since the end of the 19th century, the oaks and chestnut trees and the traditional pastures, were replaced, first by maritime pine, which were planted on the community lands ("Baldios"), and then by eucalyptus. Land property fragmentation and, consequently, the landowners' increase also aggravated the land management problem.

A balanced landscape constituted by agriculture on the best soils, mixed woodland complementing agriculture and all its by-products, pastoralism in articulation with woodland and agriculture, villages, towns, and cities strategically located in situations of greater comfort and proximity to the food and materials produced was replaced by a landscape ecologically degraded, humanely depopulated and which burns extensively and repeatedly.


#### **Table 2.**

*Fire frequency between 1990 and 2017, area and percentage of case study.*

**Figure 3.** *Fire frequency between 1990 and 2017.*

The policies disconnected from the ecological capacity of the land, led to the current situation of mega-fires, with loss of life and property and land abandonment. Analyzing the centre region in terms of burnet areas, 40% of the region was burned between 1995 and 2017. About 25% of the Centre Region burned once (**Table 2**), but 11% burned twice (**Figure 3**). In the megafires from 2017, the Centre Region was the most affected, representing 15% of total region area (416 thousand hectares). It is very urgent to develop adequate land-use plans for the rural areas.

The creation of a healthier landscape implies the conservation of natural resources, the creation of a balanced, multifunctional system with landscape recovery using native species. This will lead to creation of different economies, where ecosystem services payment can also take place.
