While the concept of green infrastructure (GI) is increasingly popular, definitions, terminology, and goals differ based on geographic and disciplinary context. This paper examines these differences through a three-part systematic review: 1) content analysis of academic GI review publications, 2) bibliometric review of academic publications focusing on GI and GI-associated terms, and 3) an online search for grey GI literature. Parsing out conceptualizations of GI, and the agendas they support, helps us better understand its probable outcomes in different contexts. We find that urban planning, urban forestry, ecology, engineering, landscape architecture, and law have epistemic claims to GI, and use divergent conceptualizations to implement the concept. Moreover, there are a number of related concepts, each of which is associated with a distinct scholarly community. These different conceptualizations and terms can be grouped into three primary categories: GI as 1) a greenspace planning concept, 2) an urban ecology concept, and 3) a water/stormwater management concept. Cutting across these categories we find the ecosystem services concept, a focus on specific engineered facility types, and a gradient of implicit GI definitions. A surprising number of publications (41% of those reviewed here) do not define GI, which can cause confusion or lead to implementation of GI projects that fail to meet expectations. We therefore argue that scholars and practitioners need to be explicit and specific about how they are defining GI and its purpose to avoid the siloing of research and practice and to take advantage of opportunities to address multiple agendas simultaneously.

虽然绿色基础设施 (GI) 的概念越来越受欢迎，但定义、术语和目标因地理和学科背景而异。本文通过三部分系统评价来检验这些差异：1) GI 学术评论出版物的内容分析，2) 关注 GI 和 GI 相关术语的学术出版物的文献计量学评论，以及 3) 灰色 GI 文献的在线搜索。解析 GI 的概念及其支持的议程，有助于我们更好地了解其在不同背景下的可能结果。我们发现城市规划、城市林业、生态学、工程、景观建筑和法律对 GI 有认知要求，并使用不同的概念来实现这一概念。此外，还有一些相关的概念，每一个都与一个独特的学术社区相关联。这些不同的概念和术语可以分为三个主要类别：GI 为 1) 绿地规划概念，2) 城市生态概念，以及 3) 水/雨水管理概念。跨越这些类别，我们发现生态系统服务概念、对特定工程设施类型的关注以及隐含 GI 定义的梯度。数量惊人的出版物（此处评论的 41%）没有定义 GI，这可能会导致混淆或导致 GI 项目的实施未能达到预期。