greta - green infrastructure: enhancing biodiversity and

GRETA - “GReen infrastructure:

Enhancing biodiversity and

ecosysTem services for territoriAl

development”

Séminaire ESPON “Renforcer les infrastructures vertes pour le developpement territorial / Namur / 04 Feb 2020

Mirko Gregor, space4environment

Literature review

on GI and ES

benefits and

challenges and

economic

valuation

methods

Spatial distribution of

GI in Europe

• Characterization in

physical terms at

landscape and city

level

• Characterization in

functional terms

at landscape level

Spatial analysis

of ES

synergies and

trade-offs,

accessibility,

supply and

demand for GI

to inform

planning

decisions

Analysis of policy

context, strategies

and planning

instruments in

Europe in support

to GI

implementation and

management

32 NFS

12 Case studies

and 25 good

practice

examples

Policy guidelines

and practice briefings

Applied research results

Green Infrastructure:

the concept and the

socio-ecological system

for implementation

2/4/2020GRETA (ESPON Seminar Wallonie, Namur, 04 Feb 2020)3

1

GRETA adopts the Green

Infrastructure (GI) definition

proposed by the European

Commission (EC) in 2013 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”.River and

riparian

vegetation

Wetland Green roofs Urban trees Hedgerow

bordering and

agricultural field

What is Green Infrastructure?

Figure 1. conceptual illustration of strategically planned green infrastructure across spatial

scales. Elaboration by GRETA research team. Icons from https://thenounproject.com/.

Benefits of GI in Europe (and

elsewhere)

The multifunctional character of GI

elements provides a range of benefits by

means of a variety of Ecosystem Services

(ES), which often appear in bundles, and

under certain circumstances, are mutually

reinforcing.

Figure 2. Summary of main benefits provided by Green

Infrastructure at different scales. Elaboration by GRETA

research team. Icons from https://thenounproject.com/.

But, green infrastructure also has potential

side effects that are important to be aware of,

like risk of invasion by alien species, eco-

gentrification or higher start-up costs to

initiate GI.

Attributing monetary values to the

benefits of GI

The findings from a consultation with case

study stakeholders determined that cost-benefit

analysis (CBA) is currently not a widespread

tool used in GI decision making, and when

implemented, its implementation is

heterogeneous and the benefits that are

accounted for vary widely across the case

studies. Most studies measure the monetary

value of forests and parks, but other types of GI

are still understudied.

Across the studies, we find that the general

public:

(i) seem to value GI more if the GI includes

water elements and forests;

(ii) have preferences for GI providing, from

highest to lowest, flood control, recreation

services and then biodiversity support.

These preferences, however, vary across the

GRETA case studies.

Geographical distribution

of Green Infrastructures

and Ecosystem Services


2

To what extent

can the ES of

each GI

component

support specific

policies?

Multifunctionality

Recreation potential

Food

production

Water retention

Ma

ps o

f e

co

syste

m

se

rvic

es

▪ Standardized

comparison of

“potential” GI

▪ Evaluation of

the ability of GI

to serve

different policy

objectives: i.e.

biodiversity,

climate change

and water

management.

▪ Transferable

methodology

Innovative spatial analysis for physical

and multifunctional mapping of GI in

European regions (NUTS2/3)

Two contrasting patterns:

• Low percentage. north-

western France and

Germany, south-eastern

UK and Ireland, and

Denmark;

• Very high percentage. the

Nordic countries, the

Balkan countries along the

Adriatic Sea and the

eastern Alpine region

The physical characteristics

of potential GI

The functional performance of

potential GI

• GI shows high multifunctional

performance in most Italian

regions, central Germany and

northern France, and a few regions

in Romania, Bulgaria and Greece

• The GI for Alpine, Boreal and

Eastern Continental regions, as

well as most of Iberian Peninsula

is providing bundles of two

ecosystem services that benefit

mainly a single policy

• A few exceptions to this pattern

occur only in the North of Portugal

and Western Poland regions,

where bifunctional bundles serve

the aims of two or more policies.

The geographic distribution of

potential GI in European cities

• Central and north-western Europe

demonstrate relatively stable green/blue

spaces over time. (in particular Belgium,

Germany and the United Kingdom, but

also the Alpine countries)

• Eastern and southern European

countries demonstrate a large

proportion of decreasing green/blue

spaces, likely due to urbanisation

processes resulting from economic

development after the accession of the

countries to the EU (eastern Europe) or

due to tourism development (southern

Europe).

• On the other end of the spectrum, only

three cities show an increase in urban

green spaces: Faro, Portugal; Nice,

France; and Capelle aan den Ijssel,

Netherlands.

How do European regions fare in meeting the

existing demand for regulating, provisioning

and cultural services offered by GI

The map presents a semi-quantitative

balance between supply and demand for

the example of flood protection quantified

by the Water Retention Index:

• Positive balance is found, mainly on

the Northern part of Europe: Some

parts of Finland, Estonia, Northern

Scotland, Northern Ireland, and some

parts of France.

• The other regions that are still green

could be considered areas where the

balance tend to be positive, dominant

in Spain, Southern Ireland, and part of

Scotland. These are areas where

there is a need to reinforce GI with the

objective of water retention.

• Finally, the extreme deficit (low supply

with high demand) is only found in

Hungary.

How do European regions fare in

offering access to GI

• Cities with higher accessibility are

scattered throughout Europe, although

tend to be dominant in Sweden,

Finland, Baltic countries, the Czech

Republic, Austria, Germany and

Portugal.

• On the other hand, cities in Ireland,

Denmark, and UK are on the lower

range of the accessibility scale.

• Differences in accessible GI depend

on several factors such as quantity of

GI, its distribution (concentrated,

patchy, dispersed, etc.), proximity to

roads and trails, to name the most

relevant ones.

Where are the dominant patterns

of interactions between ES

• Strong synergistic relationship amongst

ES in Italy, France, part of Germany, and

Poland which in practical terms means

that the improvement of certain ES has a

multiplier effect on other ES, always

(increasing the provision of ES).

• Neutral relations are shown in dispersed

regions in Spain, England, Finland and

Sweden. In practical terms, it is likely that

improving ES will not have effects.

• Trade-offs with a clear regional pattern,

dominated by Eastern countries.

Management of GI requires a further

understanding of these trade-offs and the

need to identify alternatives to minimise

side effects.

• Trade-offs with low ecosystem provision

are the dominant pattern in Ireland. These

regions would require special attention.

Governance, policy and

planning contexts for

Green Infrastructure

implementation in Europe


3

How European countries implement

the European GI strategy

To assess if and how European countries implement the European GI Strategy

(2013), National Policy Factsheets have been created for each country in the

ESPON space based on a desk study and questionnaire. The 32 National

policy factsheets describe the policy and planning contexts for GI.

Strategies and policies for GI in Europe:

▪ 11 of the 32 ESPON countries have GI specific policies on national levels.

▪ GRETA research results indicate that in those countries where the national

level have established GI specific policies and action plans, the

implementation of GI is more in progress.

▪ All countries, however, include GI in one or more policy sectors.

In Europe, some policy sectors

are more clearly including GI

principles.

• Land use and spatial

development planning

• Water management

• Agriculture, Forestry and

Fisheries

• Climate change mitigation and

adaptation

• Environmental protection

• Rural development

This suggests that GI is

perceived as broader than

biodiversity protection, which is

what the European Green

Infrastructure Strategy from

2013 intended.

In other policy sectors principles

of GI are not prominent.

• Finance

• Health

• Social Services

Key messages from the

National Fact Sheets

What do case studies reveal?


4

GRETA investigated 12 case studies that

represent different spatial, institutional

and governance settings and that range

from urban centres to rural countryside.

• Generally speaking, the case studies have adopted GI – to

different extent – as an intrinsic part of spatial and urban

planning,

• Although ES are not always formally recognised, it seems

that they are implicitly assessed in the GI approach, with a

special emphasis on ecological connectivity, biodiversity,

recreation, culture and wellbeing.

• Main challenges for GI implementation are transport,

boundary issues, demographic pressure, climate related risk,

agriculture and non-sustainable forest management and

forest drainage.

• Lack of high-level guidelines on zoning and land use

management in the planning instruments alongside political

commitment and financial and economic investment

constitute also key constraints.

• Ecosystem based territorial planning for GI is recognized as a

potential opportunity to utilize cross-border cooperation

Messages from the

case study analysis

There is no one-size-fits-all solution

Zoom in to GRETA spatial analyses

The GRETA methodological approach can be

adapted and downscaled to produce detailed

input information for strategic planning

purposes if local level data is available.

The maps tell us a full narrative on the GI

phenomena and its implications for

planning and management

Good practices, examples

on local and urban level

Strategic good practice example:

Implementing GI in urban spatial planning

via four step national criteria legitimised in

planning legislation, and driven via bottom

up approach within which the municipality

apply for being a National Urban Park (as

Hämeenlinna in Finland)

Detailed good practice example:

Implementing GI in urban areas through

green roofs. For Mediterranean

environments use the best practices

developed by the University of Malta in the

LifeMedGreenRoof project.

Recreational areas are located around the medieval Tavastia Castle and along the Vanajavesi waterway in Hämeenlinna National Urban Park (Photo: The City of Hämeenlinna)

Green roofs have the potential to meet environmental and energy targets (Photo: The University of Malta).

Policy

recommendations and

Future Research for

Territorial Development


5

General policy

recommendations across levels

❖ Adopt a GI approach in planning.

❖ Integrate GI planning across policy

areas.

❖ Identify your existing assets and

opportunities for GI.

❖ Identify benefits and challenges of GI.

❖ Take the context into account.

❖ Identify GI “hot-spots”.

❖ Combine private and public funding

mechanisms for GI implementation.

❖ Facilitate cross-scale and cross-stage

collaboration.

❖ Monitor progress and adapt to change.

Financing in Practice:

* Cyprus and Slovakia combine national environmental funds

with European structural funds (i.e. ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD,

EMFF).

* Belgium used the EAFRD for agro-environmental subsidies

to enhance agricultural lands.

* Denmark improved environmental quality of Natura 2000

areas using EARFD funding mechanism.

* Slovenia used Cohesion Funds for enhancing urban green

* The European Fund for Strategic Investments have strict

targets for climate-smart investments to ensure reaching the

Paris agreement.

Policy Integration in Practice:

In some Swedish regions the health and social

service sector can prescribe ‘green care’ to

rehabilitate people that have been outside job

market for a long time. These jobs are on

appointed farms, in forestry and in park

management.

❖ Integrate GI across policy areas.

❖ Develop national GI policies and action plans.

❖ Increase awareness about GI.

❖ Ensure the availability of data.

❖ Provide training on economic valuation methods and on

spatial analysis methods.

❖ Learn and be inspired from existing good practice.

Policy recommendations at

the national scale

Policy recommendations at

the regional and local scale

The regional scale

❖ Plan strategically.

❖ Take into account the synergies and trade-

offs between ecosystem services.

❖ Plan for GI implementation in adaptive

cycles.

The local scale

❖ Plan strategically.

❖ Facilitate cooperation between actors.

❖ Create a shared vision.Cities in eastern and southern Europe, the

Netherlands and Finland have experienced a strong

loss of green spaces between 2006 and 2012. In the

context of climate change mitigation and adaptation,

these cities must focus on strategic, cross-sector

planning to reverse these critical development trends

and cater for their sustainable development.

• Potential for GI is lower in north-western France and

Germany, south-eastern UK, Ireland, and Denmark. This

makes the maintenance of existing GI, the improvement

of connectivity between protected areas and restoration

of natural and semi-natural areas are particularly

important in these areas.

• The Nordic countries, the Balkan countries along the

Adriatic Sea and the eastern Alpine region display the

highest potential for GI networks but have the lowest

share of protected core areas. This calls for attention to

the unprotected links in those regions.

• In Italy, France, parts of Germany, and Poland, most of

the ecosystem services analysed have strong synergistic

relationships.

• In Eastern countries there are trade-offs between

ecosystem services provided.

Policy Briefings


6

This briefing aims to provide a resource for those

interested in understanding and integrating the

benefits and challenges of green infrastructure into

decision making. It is of relevance for individuals

making decisions for the monitoring, planning, and

development of GI at all scales - urban, peri-urban

and rural settings.

• Navigates the concept and different components of

green infrastructure

• Provides an overview of main environmental,

social and economic benefits at different spatial

scales, and

• Reflects on the side effects from green

infrastructure.

Unpackaging Green

infrastructure

Relating Green Infrastructure to

the Strategic Environmental

Assessment

• How to think more strategically about green

infrastructure and ecosystem services to inform spatial

and urban planning.

• How to consider green Infrastructure as an integrated

concept and approach towards knowledge- based

decision making.

• Providing insights on how the GRETA methods on

green infrastructure and ecosystem services mapping

and assessment could be operationalized in the

scheme of the Strategic Environmental Assessment.

Sector policies which can be supported by Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

Assessing the potential for green infrastructure

1) Physical Mapping Method – Assessing and connecting

valuable natural areas

2) Ecosystem Service Base Mapping Method – Assessing

multifunctionality

3) Enabling Factors and Dependencies Method – Causal Loop

Diagram

Moving from potential green infrastructure to real

opportunities– assessing and measuring the potential for

multiple benefits

4) Accessibility Method – Mapping distance

5) Economic Valuation Method- Stated and revealed

preference

6) Economic Valuation Method - Direct use and consumption

valuation

Tools to aggregate information and support decision-

making

7) Economic Valuation Method – Cost benefit analysis

8) Supply and Demand Protocol – Mapping

9) Synergies and Trade-offs Method – Statistical graphical

analysis

Planning for green infrastructure:

methods to support practitioners

and decision-making

For further information and all documents visit:

https://www.espon.eu/green-infrastructure

https://www.espon.eu/green-infrastructure

Icons used: Food Production Made from Noun Project; Air Pollution Amos Kofi

Commey from Noun Project; Carbon sequestration ProSymbols from Noun

Project; Connectivity Populat from Noun Project; Education, Tourism and Flooding

Adrien Coquet from Noun Project; Health and Wellbeing Rediffusion from Noun

Project; Job creation Dan Hetteix from Noun Project; Supporting Identities

myiconfinder from Noun Project; Water Retention Carlos Dias from Noun Project;

Land and Property values Luis Prado from Noun Project; Heat Island Effect

Vectors Market from Noun Project; Recreation Ben Davies from Noun Project;

Tourism

Image credits

https://thenounproject.com/

greta - green infrastructure: enhancing biodiversity and

Documents