GREENSURGE Guide Sep 2018 Digital

June 2017
URBAN GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE
PLANNING
A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS
Practitioners’ guide to
urban green
infrastructure planning,
based on research in
European cities as part
of the EU FP7 project
GREEN SURGE.
URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING – A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS
Suggested citation:
Hansen, R., Rall, E., Chapman, E., Rolf, W., Pauleit, S. (eds., 2017). Urban Green Infrastructure
Planning: A Guide for Practitioners. GREEN SURGE. Retrieved from http://greensurge.eu/
working-packages/wp5/
GREEN SURGE Deliverable 5.3

Work Package 5: Green Infrastructure Planning and Implementation
Partners Involved: TUM, UNIBA, FFCUL, MRI, UCPH, UH, WU, SRC, FCRA, ICLEI, ULOD, UL,
PROF (see List of Contributors, pages 94-95 for full names of organisations)
The content of this report is based on the results of research on green infrastructure planning
and implementation in Europe as part of the EU FP7 project GREEN SURGE (ENV.2013.6.2-5-
603567; 2013-2017)
See more at www.greensurge.eu
Editors: Rieke Hansen, Emily Rall, Eleanor Chapman, Werner Rolf, Stephan Pauleit (TUM)
Review: Bianca Ambrose-Oji (FCRA), Barbara Anton (ICLEI)
Layout: Eleanor Chapman, Rieke Hansen (Basic Layout: Scandinavian Branding)
Principal Contributors:
Rieke Hansen, Emily Rall, Stephan Pauleit, Werner Rolf, Sandra Fohlmeister and Sabrina
Erlwein (TUM)
Artur Santos, Ana Catarina Luz, Margarida Santos-Reis, Cristina Branquinho (FFCUL)
Éva Gerőházi, Luca Száraz, Iván Tosics (MRI)
Daniel Brinkmeyer (TUB)
Alexander van der Jagt (FCRA)
Ole H. Caspersen, Anton Stahl Olafsson, Sandra Gentin (UCPH)
Clive Davies, Yole DeBellis and Raffaele Lafortezza (UNIBA)
Kati Vierikko (UH)
Erik Andersson (SRC) and Jakub Kronenberg (ULOD)
Rozalija Cvejić, Špela Železnikar, Mojca Nastran, Marina Pintar (UL)
Tim Delshammar (City of Malmö)
Freising / Munich, June 2017
Image credits:
Icon from www.flaticon.com, licensed under CC BY 3.0
Title page: Aerial view of Parco Nord Milano, Italy. Courtesy of ERSAF - Regional Agency for
Agriculture and Forestry Services, Milan
Other credits listed with associated images

URBAN GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE
PLANNING
A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS

PREFACE
There has been much research in recent This guide is a product of GREEN SURGE
years focusing on how green space can Work Package 5 ‘Green infrastructure
contribute to health, quality of life and planning and implementation’ and is the
economic growth in cities. Emerging from result of three consecutive phases of
some of this research is a new concept: research: 1) analysis of the current state-
urban green infrastructure (UGI) planning of-the-art in planning practice across
– an integrated approach to strategically 20 European cities, 2) analysis of good
planning green spaces. This guide practices in 10 of those cities, and 3) tool
presents this new approach as well as and strategy development in selected
offering guidance and inspiration for the Urban Learning Labs. The research
planning and governance of cities around included literature reviews, analysis of
the world. planning documents and other written
material, field visits, observation of meet-
The content of this guide is based on the ings, stakeholder workshops, interviews
results of research on current knowledge with municipal officials and other
and practice of green infrastructure plan- experts, as well as theme-specific
ning and implementation in Europe, as research. Scientific reports detailing the
part of the project Green Infrastructure first two phases of this work can be
and Urban Biodiversity for Sustainable found on the project website at http://
Urban Development and the Green greensurge.eu/working-packages/wp5/.
Economy (2013-2017) – GREEN SURGE
for short. The project is a collaboration A first draft edition of this guide was
between 24 partners in 11 countries and shared with GREEN SURGE partners in
is funded by the European Commission’s different European cities for review and
Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). field testing in 2016. This edition incor-
Overall, GREEN SURGE aims to identify, porates their feedback. We would like to
develop and test ways of linking green warmly thank all those who shared
spaces, biodiversity, people and a green their experience and ideas as part of
economy, in order to meet major urban this process!
challenges related to land use conflicts;
climate change adaptation; demographic
changes; and human health and wellbeing.
The GREEN SURGE project team in Edinburgh, 2014. Many of the people pictured were involved in developing this guide.
Credit: GREEN SURGE
i URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of case studies iii

Highlights iv
How to use this guide? vi
What is UGI planning and why do it? 1
A An overview
Green space typology
3
6
Urban challenges 7
Core principles of UGI planning 21
B Green-grey integration: combining green and grey infrastructure

Connectivity: creating green space networks
23
27
Multifunctionality: delivering and enhancing multiple functions and services 31
Social inclusion: collaborative and participatory planning 36
Making it happen! 43
C Embedding UGI in the planning process

Assessing UGI networks: uncover value and opportunities
45
46
Developing plans: coordinate planning strategies 50
Engaging stakeholders: cross-sectoral and inclusive UGI planning 52
Implementation: take action and monitor impacts 55
Conclusion and next steps 57
D Conclusion
Reflecting on UGI planning in your city
59
60
Rapid UGI planning checklist 61
Detailed UGI planning checklist 62
Cross-cutting case studies from six European cities 69
E
Toolbox 83
T1: Tools for Protecting Biodiversity 85
T2: Tools for a Green Economy 86
T3: Tools for Social Cohesion 87
T4: Tools for Green-Grey Integration 88
T5: Tools for Connectivity 89
T6: Tools for Multifunctionality 90
T7: Tools for Social Inclusion 91
T8: Funding Tools and Mechanisms 92
Appendix 93
List of contributors 94
URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE · June 2017 ii

LIST OF CASE STUDIES
Box City, Country Description Page
A1 Almada, Portugal Climate change adaptation strategy 9

A A2 Helsinki, Finland A UGI network for forest biodiversity 12
A3 Edinburgh, Scotland Edible Edinburgh 15
A4 Edinburgh, Scotland Granton Community Gardeners 18
B
B1 Copenhagen, Copenhagen Cloudburst Plan 24
Denmark
B2 Szeged, Hungary Integration during urban renewal 25

B3 Berlin, Germany Increasing connectivity at the city level 29
B4 Malmö, Sweden Multifunctional urban green spaces in Malmö 33
B5 Ljubljana, Slovenia Beyond the Construction Site 37
B6 Budapest, Hungary Teleki Square and Helmholtz Square 38
Berlin, Germany
B7 Lisbon, Portugal PPGIS as a tool for participation 40
C1 Berlin, Germany Assessing the social value of green space with PPGIS 47
C C2 Malmö, Sweden The role of peri-urban farmland in UGI planning 49
C3 Utrecht, Neighbourhood Green Plans 50
The Netherlands
C4 Malmö, Sweden Malmö’s Green-Blue Plan 51
C5 Milan, Italy Urban reforestation with local residents 53
C6 Berlin, Germany UGI development with the help of social workers 54
C7 Lodz, Poland A PPP for green space renewal 55
C8 Ljubljana, Slovenia Testing new urban green partnerships 56
E1 Malmö, Sweden Integration for stormwater management 70
E E2 Milan, Italy Milan’s Regional Ecological Network 72
E3 Aarhus, Denmark Renewal of the Gellerup housing complex 74
E4 Edinburgh, Scotland Edinburgh’s Open Space Strategy 76
E5 Lisbon, Portugal Action planning for biodiversity 78
E6 Berlin, Germany Enhancing UGI through DIY 80
iii URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE

HIGHLIGHTS
WHAT IS URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING?
Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) planning is a strategic planning

approach that aims to develop networks of green and blue spaces in
urban areas, designed and managed to deliver a wide range of
ecosystem services and other benefits at all spatial scales.
WHY IS URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE SO IMPORTANT?
UGI is capable of addressing a broad range of urban challenges, such

as conserving biodiversity, adapting to climate change, supporting
the green economy and improving social cohesion. To capture this
potential, local governments need to plan carefully and holistically.
CORE PRINCIPLES
A sound UGI planning approach is based on four principles:

• Green-grey integration – combining green and grey infrastructures
• Connectivity – creating green space networks
• Multifunctionality – delivering and enhancing multiple functions and
services
• Social inclusion – collaborative and participatory planning
Barcelona has plans to invest

considerably in urban green
infrastructure. The city’s
‘Green Infrastructure and
Biodiversity Plan’ is an
ambitious strategic tool to
increase connectivity in the
densely-built Mediterranean
metropolis. Available in
English www.barcelona.cat
Credit: Rieke Hansen
URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE · June 2017 iv

HIGHLIGHTS
KEY MESSAGES
For best results, UGI planners should:

• Embrace the full diversity of urban green – and blue! All types of green and blue
spaces, regardless of ownership or origin, can be considered part of a UGI network.
• Consider the full spectrum of benefits: ecological, social AND economic.
• Use a mix of assessment tools to raise awareness of the diverse values of
UGI and its related benefits, and to gain support for these.
• Seek support to develop UGI planning strategies, for example, through
mandates or advocates, or by identifying windows of opportunity.
• Coordinate plans, policies and instruments at multiple scales, ranging from
metropolitan regions to individual sites.
• Cooperate with other departments and external experts.
• Collaborate with civil society groups, citizens and the private sector.
• Develop strong, but flexible, frameworks and mix ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ instru-
ments for planning and implementation, adopting a long-term outlook.
• Start with pilot projects to test strategies and build support.
• Unlock additional resources by collaborating, pooling knowledge and
accessing external funding.
• Identify less vocal groups and use appropriate tools and strategies to
engage them, recognising skill and resource barriers for participants.
• Look for potential links, synergies and/or conflicts between planning objectives.
Self-evaluation and tools:

• Complete the checklists (Part D) to evaluate your organisation’s current UGI
planning efforts and see the Toolbox for ways to put UGI planning into practice.
WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Reports from other work packages referred to in this guide are listed below and available on the GREEN SURGE website.
Deliverable 3.1 Deliverable 5.2 Deliverable 6.2

Cvejić, R., et al., 2015. A typology of Hansen, R., et al., 2016. Advanced Buijs, A., et al., 2016. Innovative
urban green spaces, ecosystem services Urban Green Infrastructure Planning Governance of Urban Green Spaces:
provisioning services and demands. and Implementation: Innovative Learning from 18 innovative examples
Functional linkages. GREEN SURGE D3.1 Approaches and Strategies from Euro- around Europe. GREEN SURGE D6.2
pean Cities. GREEN SURGE D5.2.
Deliverable 4.1 Milestone 32
Andersson, E., et al., 2015. Integrating Deliverable 6.1 Kronenberg, J., Andersson, E., 2016.
Green Infrastructure Ecosystem Services Buizer, M., et al., 2015. The govern- Integrated Valuation: Integrating Value
into Real Economies. GREEN SURGE D4.1. ance of urban green spaces in selected Dimensions and Valuation Methods.
EU-cities: Policies, Practices, Actors, GREEN SURGE Milestone MS32.
Deliverable 5.1 Topics. GREEN SURGE D6.1
Davies, C., et al., 2015. Green Infrastructure
Planning and Implementation. The status of
European green space planning and imple-
mentation based on an analysis of selected
European city-regions. GREEN SURGE D5.1.
v URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE

HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE
Who should use this guide? local conditions, such as the planning cooperative tool and strategy develop-
This guide is designed primarily for system, available resources, relevant ment with three of the GREEN SURGE
planners and local government deci- actors, and the most pressing social, Urban Learning Labs (Berlin, Malmö
sion-makers who are interested in environmental and economic chal- and Ljubljana), as well as research
ways to better plan and maintain urban lenges. undertaken in Lisbon.
green space networks. Allied profes-
sionals working in the broader field of What’s inside? Navigating the guide
urban planning, land management or This guide offers inspiration and advice The guide is divided into seven parts,
sustainable urban development may to support local green space planning, designed for easy navigation between
also find it of use. based on the findings of GREEN SURGE them. Parts A, B and C correspond to
research. It includes 25 brief overviews the context, core principles and prac-
Although this publication is focused on of case studies from 13 different Euro- tice of UGI planning, including case
European cities, much of it may be pean cities. Most cases are examples of studies related to each theme. Part D
useful for practitioners in other parts of good practice and all provide lessons looks at next steps, and Part E contains
the world, too. All guidance needs to be for practitioners across Europe (also additional case studies that cut across a
considered in light of its applicability to see Deliverable 5.2). Six are based on range of the themes presented.
A What is UGI planning - and why do it?

Introduces UGI planning and its importance for tackling
global urban challenges.
B Core principles of UGI planning

Unpacks the four inter-linked principles that underpin best
practice UGI planning.
C Making it happen! Zooms in on ways to better plan for UGI on the ground.
D Conclusion and next steps

Sums up and provides checklists to take the next step and
kickstart your own UGI planning evaluation.
E Cross-cutting case studies

Presents in detail additional, cross-cutting case studies that
span several themes.
Provides an overview of tools and methods for imple-

Toolbox
menting UGI planning.
Appendix Lists contributors to the guide.
LEGEND
⇱ Indicates a cross-link between the key themes and case
studies explored in Parts A, B, C and E.
Indicates a clickable hyperlink to a resource available online.
Directs you to the toolbox, where you can find practical

tools and methods to implement UGI planning.
URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE · June 2017 vi

A WHAT IS UGI PLANNING -
AND WHY DO IT?
An overview
Green space typology
Urban challenges
1
AN OVERVIEW A
Planning Urban Green Infrastructure
URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE (UGI) PLANNING –

A DEFINITION
UGI planning is a strategic planning approach that aims to develop networks of green
and blue spaces in urban areas, designed and managed to deliver a wide range of
ecosystem services and other benefits at all spatial scales.
Due to its integrative, multifunctional approach, UGI planning is capable of addressing

a broad range of urban challenges, such as conserving biodiversity, adapting to
climate change, supporting the green economy and improving social cohesion.
We are in the middle of an urban era. the functioning of cities and regions – and
Worldwide, more than half of us live in mainstream it in EU policy areas2. The
cities, and the number is rising – making strategy notes the potential for green
urbanisation a fundamental reality of our spaces to make a major contribution to
common future. There can be little doubt sustainable development, by enhancing
that cities are where ‘our struggle for global social cohesion, supporting the economy,
sustainability will be won or lost1’. and adapting to a changing climate, and
highlights the importance of green infra-
Meanwhile, in the urban context and structure solutions in cities, where more
beyond, concerns have grown regarding than 60% of the EU population lives3.
loss of biodiversity and degradation of
natural resources – giving rise to recogni- To harness the full potential of urban green
tion of the central role that green space spaces, however, a carefully conceived,
networks have to play in cities and city- evidence-based approach is required. This
regions. In May 2013, the European guide aims to support such an approach by
Commission published a strategy to providing advice on how to plan for and
promote green infrastructure – essential to develop urban green infrastructure (UGI).
The Schöneberger Südgelände

in Berlin is part of an urban
green corridor and exemplifies
an innovative green space
combining recreation, art
installations, urban wilderness
and biodiversity protection.
REFERENCES
1 United Nations, 2012. Our Struggle for Global 2 European Commission, 2013. Building a Green 3 See European Commission, 2013.
Sustainability Will Be Won or Lost in Cities,’ Says Infrastructure for Europe. Luxembourg. Available
Secretary-General, at New York Event [Press release]. from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
Available from: un.org/press/en/2012/sgsm14249.doc.htm TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0249
URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE · June 2017 3

Urban Green Infrastructure planning…
…can help to tackle key urban challenges that cities face
Here in Part A, we explore how UGI planning, taking into account the potential of a range of
green space types (see Green Space Typology on page 6) can address four important urban
challenges:
1. Adapting to climate change
2. Protecting biodiversity
3. Promoting a green economy
4. Increasing social cohesion
These are explored in more detail here in Part A.
…is based on four core principles
1) Green-grey integration – combining green and grey infrastructure

UGI planning seeks the integration and coordination of urban green spaces with other infra-
structure, such as transport systems and utilities.
2) Connectivity – creating green space networks

UGI planning for connectivity involves creating and restoring connections to support and
protect processes, functions and benefits that individual green spaces cannot provide alone.
3) Multifunctionality – delivering and enhancing multiple functions and services

UGI planning aims at combining different functions to enhance the capacity of urban green
space to deliver multiple benefits – creating synergies, while reducing conflicts and trade-offs.
4) Social inclusion – collaborative and participatory planning

UGI planning aims for collaborative, socially inclusive processes. This means that planning
processes are open to all and incorporate the knowledge and needs of diverse parties.
All four principles are explored in Part B.
…must be translated to practical actions on the ground
Such actions concern all phases of the planning process, involving engaging stakeholders,
early assessment, developing plans, and implementation. They are explored in Part C.
4 URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE

A
Framework for UGI planning
UGI planning offers a conceptual framework to be adapted to your local context, as illustrated below. This framework is
driven by the four core principles. Combined, the principles act in two directions: 1) to respond to the particular urban
challenges your city faces and 2) to underpin practical actions on the ground.
BIODIVERSITY
IO N
R AT
INTEG
CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION
TY
IVI
ECT
NN
CO
BIODIVERSITY
ITY
AL
I ON
N CT
FU
ULTI
M
SOCIAL COHESION
GREEN ECONOMY
N
SIO
CLU
L IN
CIA
SO
URBAN CHALLENGES
(PART A)
PRINCIPLES
T
EN (PART B)
SSM S
SE N
AS PLA MAKING IT HAPPEN
G S
I N ER
LO P OL D (PART C)
VE H N
DE TAKE TATIO
G S E N
M
GIN LE
GA IMP
EN
SUPPORTING PRINCIPLES
While the four core principles provide a fundamental basis for UGI planning, certain supporting principles should be also
taken into account:
• Multi-scale: UGI planning aims to link different spatial levels, ranging from metropolitan regions to individual sites.
• Multi-object: All types of urban green and blue spaces, regardless of ownership and origin, can be considered as part of
a green infrastructure network.
• Inter- and transdisciplinary: UGI planning aims at linking disciplines, as well as science, policy and practice. It integrates
knowledge and demands from different fields, such as landscape ecology, urban and regional planning, and landscape
architecture, and is ideally developed in partnership between local authorities and other stakeholders.

GREEN SPACE TYPOLOGY
Urban green (and blue) spaces are GREEN SURGE has contributed to While all these elements can and
incredibly diverse, ranging from this knowledge gap by developing a should be considered in UGI planning,
urban forests to rooftop gardens. green space typology made up urban green infrastructure is more
Some of these spaces are already of 44 elements, in eight groups, and than simply a new name for existing
typically considered in planning linking them to scientific evidence on green space elements. Using the prin-
practice, but others (particularly their corresponding ecosystem ciples of connectivity and multifunc-
private green spaces such as gardens, services (see Deliverable 3.1). This tionality, it is possible to determine
but also urban farmlands) have provides an important basis for which of these spaces form part of the
received less attention in research understanding the functional city’s UGI network (see Part B) and
and practice. Often, their contribu- connections between green spaces where it is necessary either to
tion to UGI networks is not so well and the surrounding built environ- improve the quality of existing
understood. ment. An overview of the elements is elements, or invest in new ones and
provided below. strengthen linkages (see Part C).
Blue spaces
• lake, pond
• river, stream
Allotments and • dry riverbed
community • canal
Natural, semi-natural and feral areas • estuary
gardens
• forest (e.g., remnant woodland,
managed forests, mixed forms) • delta
• shrubland • coast
• abandoned areas Riverbank
• rocks green
• sand dunes
• sand pit, quarry, open cast mine
• wetland, bog, fen, marsh
Private, commercial, industrial and
Building greens institutional green space/green space
• balcony green
connected to grey infrastructure
• ground-based green wall • bioswale
• facade-bound green wall • tree alley and street tree, hedge
• extensive green roof • street green and green verge
• intensive green roof • private garden
• atrium • railroad embankment
Parks and recreation • green playground, schoolground
• large urban park
• historical park/garden
• pocket park
• botanical garden/arboretum
• zoological garden Agricultural land
• neighbourhood green space • arable land
• institutional green space • grassland
• cemetery and churchyard • tree meadow/orchard
• green sport facilities • biofuel production/
agroforestry
• camping areas • horticulture
Green space typology, made up
of 44 green space types •
clustered in eight groups.
Image credits: Rieke Hansen

URBAN CHALLENGES A
Green space planners are typically well severe flood events, also open the door to
aware of the potential of urban green testing new ways of planning and
spaces to contribute to challenges such as managing UGI (see Deliverable 5.2). In this
human health, species protection and way, adopting a UGI planning approach
adaptation to climate change. When can assist practitioners to productively
CLIMATE CHANGE understood as part of a UGI planning link urban challenges with the unrealised
ADAPTATION framework, these and other emerging potential of green spaces, in the interest of
challenges and trends are not just obsta- gaining support for planned measures and
cles to be overcome, they can also form achieving policy objectives.
important drivers for investing in green
space – especially when a challenge is high In the following pages, we look at the
GREEN ECONOMY on the political agenda. potential contribution of UGI to two well-
known challenges – biodiversity protec-
For instance, urban growth can present a tion and climate change adaptation. In
threat to urban green spaces, but also a addition, we explore two that tend to be
chance to recognise UGI’s importance for lesser-known in planning circles –
BIODIVERSITY
human welbeing and develop corre- increasing social cohesion and promoting
sponding planning strategies. Economic a green economy (see Deliverable 5.2 for
crises and environmental hazards, such as more details).
SOCIAL COHESION
WELLBEING
URBANISATION
HEALTH
Parco Nord Milano is a

regional park within Milan’s
metropolitan green belt.
Protecting such green spaces
on the city outskirts can be
part of a strategy to counter
urban sprawl.
Credit: Courtesy of ERSAF -
Regional Agency for Agriculture
and Forestry Services, Milan

Urban Challenge: Adapting to Climate Change
Cities are increasingly facing the risks and house gas emissions and enhance carbon
consequences of climate change; among storage2. Both mitigation and adaptation
them, coastal erosion, flooding from heavy strategies are needed to address the
rainfall, heat extremes, drought, effects on impacts of climate change, however, it is
health, higher energy demand for heating important to be aware that they do not
and cooling, and reduced availability of always work in harmony with one another.
water and food1. This situation presents an For instance, increasing green space may
urgent imperative to both mitigate the reduce overall urban density and thus
UGI planning can play effects of climate change and adapt to them. create less energy-efficient cities, whereas
a significant role in urban densification may reduce the adap-
adaptation to climate Climate change adaptation involves making tive capacity of cities.
change, for example, changes to existing systems – whether
by regulating the natural, built or social. This means antici- UGI can play a key role in strategies for
urban climate or pating adverse effects and taking appro- climate change adaptation and – to a lesser
reducing stormwater priate action to prevent or minimise the degree – mitigation, by delivering
flooding. corresponding damage, as well as seizing ecosystem services (⇱Multifunctionality).
opportunities that may arise. Adaptation Importantly, planned adaptation is more
differs from mitigation, which concerns cost effective than emergency measures
efforts to reduce current and future green- and retrofitting (⇱Green Economy).
Their importance will

increase in the future:
trees offer shade to buffer
the urban heat island
effect in Munich.
Credit: Stephan Pauleit

A
BOX A1: CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION STRATEGY, ALMADA

Almada is a dense city in the Lisbon tored climate change impacts, and
Metropolitan Area, Portugal. Its modelled scenarios.
extensive coastline attracts about
8 million visitors annually, but the Success factors
area also faces many challenges The establishment of DEGAS, its clear
related to climate change, such as focus and its multi-skilled team have
landslides, rising sea levels, drought, been key to Almada’s success so far.
flash floods, salinisation, forest fires, A multiscale and multifunctional
and biodiversity loss. In response, approach was also important, using
Almada has developed an adaptation the concepts ‘ecosystem services’ and
strategy that aims to create a ‘urban resilience’ to assess and reduce
healthier, safer and more resilient city. vulnerabilities related to climate
Example project: Dune restoration on the
change. In practice, this involved S. João da Caparica beaches, increasing
Strategy development mapping and visualising the range of sand capture and retention capacity and
enhancing resilience to erosion.
In 1999, the municipality of Almada functions (existing and potential) Credit: Almada City Council
established the Department of Sustain- provided by green spaces throughout
able Environmental Strategy and the city and their capacity to reduce Find out more...
Management (DEGAS) to address risks. Moreover, participation in EU Estratégia Local para as
existing environmental problems. Cities Adapt and other EU projects cata- Alterações Climáticas no Município
Additional funds were secured in 2012 lysed efforts through funding, capacity de Almada (in Portuguese). Câmara
from the ‘EU Cities Adapt’ project, building and knowledge exchange. Municipal de Almada, 2007.
which enabled further integration of Coastal hazard mapping as an
its adaptation strategies into other The strategy has resulted in a range of adaptation planning tool: Almada’s
departments’ plans and projects. implemented projects that incorporate Local Strategy for Climate Change.
DEGAS led the strategy development adaptation measures across mobility, Lopes, N. et al, 2014. 5th Global
Forum on Urban Resilience and
and implementation and invited urban agriculture, coastal restoration, Adaptation. Bonn.
selected stakeholders to collaborate, and reducing the heat island effect.
including university research groups Funding and human resource constraints EU Cities Adapt - Adaptation
Strategies for European Cities: Final
and the Energy Agency of Almada, are, however, considered a potential
Report. Ricardo-AEA, 2013.
which assessed vulnerabilities, moni- bottleneck for its further development.
Urban climate regulation allow cool, unpolluted air to penetrate lieu of conventional stormwater
The intensity, frequency and length of the city from the surrounding country- disposal systems (⇱Integration).
summer heatwaves is expected to side (⇱Connectivity).
increase in the future. Urban areas are Adaptation to sea-level rise
hit particularly hard due to their high Control of riverine flooding and Cities in low-elevation coastal zones
concentration of impervious surfaces. local stormwater floods face the threat of rising sea-levels, with
There is evidence that increasing the Intense rainfall events are likely to associated risks of submergence and
quantity of UGI elements can play a increase in frequency and magnitude coastal erosion and flooding. Among
role in countering the urban heat island because of climate change4 and lead to possible solutions are the maintenance
effect3. However, as individual parks a demand for improved stormwater and restoration of coastal landforms
have limited cooling capacity on their management. Here, ‘greening’ grey and ecosystems, including increasing
own, they should ideally form part of a infrastructure can play a role, e.g., vegetation so as to stabilise sand
network, including green corridors that utilising bioswales or rain gardens in dunes5 (⇱Box A1 Almada).

KEY MESSAGES: UGI FOR ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Identify windows of opportunity

Where urban challenges are widely recognised, and the need to act upon them has
gained legitimacy among decision-makers, they can be useful triggers for transforming
the status quo. Identifying issues of a high political priority, reviewing corresponding
plans and policies, and highlighting the range of benefits UGI is capable of delivering in
this context can support a case for investing in UGI. For instance, the prominence that
climate change has gained in many cities has helped some cities to secure support for
related initiatives, such as green-grey integration (⇱Box B4 Malmö, A1 Almada, and
B3 Berlin).
Assess vulnerabilities to increase resilience

Effective strategies for climate change adaptation require continuous monitoring of the
urban system in focus and an understanding of its specific vulnerabilities6 (⇱Assessing
UGI networks). Therefore, UGI planning needs to draw on an integrated vulnerability
assessment, targeting the reduction of risks and strengthening of resilience. Such an
assessment should also take into account the synergies and potential conflicts between
mitigation and adaptation strategies, as well as issues of distributional justice, given
that socio-economically disadvantaged areas are often most vulnerable to climate
change effects (⇱Social Cohesion).
Coordinate efforts
While mitigation strategies often focus on specific sectors such as housing, transport or
industries, adaptation strategies are cross-sectoral. This creates a particular imperative
for collaborative strategy development and implementation processes that actively
include relevant stakeholders7 (⇱Integration, ⇱Social Inclusion). Universities and other
research institutions can support assessment and monitoring processes (⇱Box A1
Almada and B1 Szeged).
REFERENCES
1 Wilby, R. L., 2007. A review of climate 3 Shaw, R., et al., 2007. Climate change 5 See IPCC, 2014.
change impacts on the built environment. Built adaptation by design: a guide for sustainable
Environment 33, 31–45. communities. TCPA, London. 6 United Nations Human Settlements
Programme (UN-Habitat), 2014. Planning for
2 IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Climate Change: A Strategic, Values-based
Change, 2014. Summary for policymakers. In: 4 Tebaldi, C., et al., 2006. Going to the Approach for Urban Planners – Toolkit. UN-
Field, C.B., et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2014: extremes – an intercomparison of model- Habitat, Nairobi, Kenya. Available from: https://
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. simulated historical and future changes in unhabitat.org/books/planning-for-climate-
Contribution of Working Gr oup II to the Fifth extreme events. Climatic Change 2006, 79 change-a-strategic-values-based-approach-for-
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental (3–4), 185–211. urban-planners-cities-and-climate-change-
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University initiative/
Press, Cambridge, New York, 1–32.

A
Urban Challenge: Protecting Biodiversity
Loss of biodiversity is a major threat ties both for biodiversity protection and
worldwide, requiring attention from for people to experience nature. Through
policy-makers at the local, regional, strategic, integrated coordination and
national and global levels. Support for management, UGI planning seeks to
halting biodiversity loss has gained enhance these opportunities and others.
increasing attention since the release of For instance, setting aside areas for ‘wild
the United Nation’s Convention on Biolog- nature’ may result in lower management
ical Diversity in 1992. Major recent initia- costs, while people in regular contact with
Biodiversity can be tives include the UN’s Strategic Plan for species-rich environments may experi-
understood as the Biodiversity 2011-20201 and its Intergov- ence fewer allergies5.
variation among living ernmental Science-Policy Platform on
organisms and the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Tools and indicators for biodiversity
ecological complexes (IPBES)2, as well as the EU’s Biodiversity assessment
of which they are part. Strategy to 20203, in addition to hundreds Tools for assessing and valuing biodiver-
UGI planning seeks to of plans at the local and regional levels. sity can generally be divided into two cate-
enhance opportunities gories: a) eco-spatial indicators and
to protect biodiverse Biodiversity includes diversity within and b) certification systems. The indicator
environments and between species, the variety of original, approach tends to be expert-oriented and
bring people into semi-natural and man-made biotopes rely on remote sensing and field observa-
contact with them. (such as forests, dry meadows or private tions for verification, but some measures
gardens) and, at a larger scale, the diver- are useful for planners. For instance, at the
sity of ecosystems themselves4. Although site level, green area factors6 can be
urbanisation often negatively impacts a useful tool to calculate green space
upon biodiversity, urban areas can also requirements for new developments.
harbour significant numbers of species A range of other tools and indicators is
and habitat types, thus offering opportuni- outlined in ⇱Toolbox T1.
Forests are important native

habitats in Helsinki. Fiddlehead
ferns awakening in a seashore
wetland in early spring, on
Helsinki’s Vartiosaari island.
Credit: Kati Vierikko

A
BOX A2: A UGI NETWORK FOR FOREST BIODIVERSITY, HELSINKI

The proportion of original natural proposed site according to standardised
green spaces in Helsinki, Finland, is criteria (consistent with METSO The
one of the highest among European Forest Biodiversity Programme for
capitals. However, they are under Southern Finland8), and gathered
increasing pressure from population supporting material, including GIS data.
growth. This threat has given rise to a
combination of grassroots and Lessons learnt
governmental efforts to protect and Both the formal and informal processes
enhance the city’s biodiversity. drew upon research provided by the
University of Helsinki, and the NGOs’
Formal and informal efforts proposal influenced parts of the official
Biodiversity support has evolved in Nature Conservation Programme. Field inventories undertaken by local NGO
Helsinki along two largely independent Overall, this is a successful example of experts produced valuable information on
biodiversity and identified several
paths: a formal one led by the city the ability of bottom-up and top-down endangered species to support a forest
council, and another led by local processes to interact. Yet it also indi- conservation network proposal.
Credit: Kati Vierikko
conservation NGOs. The formal process cates the limits of these interactions.
resulted in an update of the Nature Two-directional communication
Conservation Programme (2015-2024), between the parallel processes was
proposing 47 new forest areas to be relatively low and the influence of local
conserved – almost double the total conservation groups remains fragile.
area currently protected. The plan was The City Master Plan does not include Find out more...
integrated with the broader City Master quantitative green space targets or
Plan, however, it was not fully guidance on how to integrate biodiver- Sustainable green
supported by local conservation NGOs, sity with grey infrastructure, and more infrastructure of Helsinki – urban
ecological research report and
who outlined their own proposal for a work is needed to improve long-term recommendations for the Helsinki
forest conservation network7. They management of natural habitats, as master plan 2014. Vierikko et al.,
prepared field inventories identifying well as to raise awareness among resi- 2014 (in Finnish with English
summary).
endangered species, documented each dents of the importance of biodiversity.
Support a green Improve human Bring people into Provide diverse Understand and Protect rare,
Beneﬁts to economy and health and contact with ecosystem adapt to endangered or Beneﬁts to
sustainable wellbeing nature and services and environmental otherwise
humans lifestyles educate them other functions changes, e.g., important species nature
about the climate change
environment and other
external stressors
There are many motives for protecting urban biodiversity, with benefits for both nature and humans.
Credit: Design by Eleanor Chapman, adapted from Kati Vierikko, 2015, based on Dearborn and Kark, 20099.

A
KEY MESSAGES: UGI FOR PROTECTING BIODIVERSITY
Consider the full spectrum of urban biodiversity

Efforts to promote biodiversity need to be designed based on local conditions and
consider the variety of urban biodiversity. In some cases it might be more appropriate
to protect or enhance biotopes for locally-evolved and introduced flora and fauna
(⇱Box E5 Lisbon) rather than (or as well as) habitats for native species (⇱Box A2
Helsinki).
Plan at multiple scales and beyond administrative boundaries

The spatial scale and boundaries relevant for biodiversity are often not the same as
those that inform the planning and management of cities. This means planning
decisions can inadvertently disrupt ecosystem processes and functions such as nutrient
flow and evapotranspiration, reducing ecological resilience and impeding the
operation of ecosystem services (⇱Connectivity, ⇱Multifunctionality). This obstacle can
be reduced or overcome by multi-scale planning that reaches beyond city boundaries
and links site development to city-wide UGI planning strategies.
Involve and promote benefits to locals to gain support

Local residents often benefit from living in or near species-rich environments, but this is
not necessarily widely understood. Municipalities can take a more active role in raising
awareness of the benefits of biodiversity, and in turn involving citizens in contributing
to its protection.
⇱Toolbox T1 for a range of criteria and indicators to evaluate biodiversity.
“Nearly all urban green infrastructure has some benefit to biodiversity. Developments
can and should incorporate elements suitable for wildlife: in addition to birds and
plants, mammals, insects, fungi and fish can all benefit from well-designed green infra-
structure.”10
REFERENCES
1 United Nations Environment Programme, 4 Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992. 8 See more on the Ministry of Agriculture and
n.d. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. Section I. 3rd Edition. Available from: www.cbd. Forestry website at http://mmm.fi/en/forests/
Available from: www.cbd.int/sp int/convention/ refrhandbook.shtml biodiversity-and-protection/metso-programme
2 See more on the IPBES website at www. 5 Hanski, I., et al., 2012. Environmental 9 Dearborn, D. C., Kark, S., 2010. Motivations
ipbes.net biodiversity, human microbiota, and allergy are for Conserving Urban Biodiversity. Conservation
interrelated. PNAS. Biology 24, 432–440
3 European Commission, 2011. Our life
insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity 6 See more at: www.integratedstormwater. 10 Forest Research n.d. Evidence Note:
strategy to 2020. Communication from the eu/content/green-area-factor-and-other-tools Ecological benefits of urban green
Commission to the European Parliament, the infrastructure, p1.
Council, the Economic and Social Committee 7 Helsingin luonnonsuojeluyhdistys, 2014.
and the Committee of Regions. 3 May 2011, Arvometsäaloite 17th June 2014. Proposal for
Brussels. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/ forest conservation network in Helsinki made by
environment/nature/biodiversity/strategy/ five nature conservation organizations.
index_en.htm#stra Available from: http://helsinginmetsat.fi/about/#

Urban Challenge: Promoting a Green Economy
The recent global economic crisis and Attractive urban green spaces can not only
ongoing environmental challenges, such as improve a city’s competitiveness as a desti-
climate change, have sparked a renewed nation for new residents, businesses and
interest in alternative economies and forms tourists, but also help generate income, e.g.,
of growth. Of these, green growth and the in the food and service industries, through
transition to a green economy are the most leisure activities and special events5. For
widely discussed2. local business owners, greenery has been
linked to positive shopper perceptions, lower
UGI planning can A holistic approach to sustainability under- stress levels and increased foot traffic:
contribute to a green pins the green economy concept, which aims encouraging sales, while also increasing staff
economy that aims to for simultaneous environmental, social and motivation. UGI can also support local food
improve human well- economic benefits. Alongside the conven- production and sale at farmers markets.
being and social equity, tional fiscal goals of avoiding costs and Importantly, a green economy would see all
while significantly fostering economic efficiency, competitive- such economic benefits weighed up against
reducing environ- ness and business opportunities, a green their corresponding social and environ-
mental risks and economy seeks to improve the quality of mental impacts in evaluating their net effect.
depletion of natural urban environments, reduce resource
resources1. consumption by creating synergies between Economic efficiency – avoided costs
functions, and provide opportunities for In addition to generating income, UGI
people to engage with each other and with planning can also help to avoid costs, e.g.,
their environment. It is an emerging concept by creating healthier communities or
yet to be fully embraced by green space plan- avoiding the damage caused by natural
ners, although many cities already have plan- disasters. A cost-benefit analysis demon-
ning objectives tied to related concepts like strating such costs avoided through UGI
sustainable planning, green jobs, a low can make a compelling case for invest-
carbon economy, or attractive public spaces. ment in green space (⇱Box B1 Copen-
hagen). One study estimated the average
Making the case for a green economy4 avoided costs from flood damage to
Economic benefits housing in a 100 mile-long greenway
UGI planning can benefit cities’ economies in along the Meramec River in the USA to be
a range of ways, both directly and indirectly. $7.7 million per year6 (⇱Integration).
Community gardening can

help to avoid costs through
increased self-sufficiency, but
also offers potential for social
encounters and improved
wellbeing. Raised beds at
Lochend Community Growing
Project, Edinburgh.
Credit: Edible Edinburgh 2015

A
BOX A3: EDIBLE EDINBURGH

In 2014, the City of Edinburgh Council, strategy. Initially, monthly seminars were framework that requires local authori-
Scotland, launched the Edible Edin- organised for a one-year period, where ties to collaborate with other depart-
burgh Sustainable Food City Plan, with aims, objectives, actions and ways of ments and the third sector, as well as
a vision for good food available to all, working together were discussed. At the the objective of the Community
healthy, thriving communities and a final session, the coalition agreed that Empowerment Act (passed in 2015) to
sustainable environment. there were sufficient synergies to strengthen community influence over
formally endorse ‘Edible Edinburgh’. By development decisions.
The plan emerged from a cross-sector autumn 2013, a common vision had
partnership. It aims, among other things, been formulated and was released for Find out more...
to achieve sustainable food procurement consultation. Over 400 responses were
A Sustainable Food City Plan.
in the three largest public sector organi- taken into account in the final version. Edible Edinburgh, 2014.
sations of the city so as to: develop the
local, independent food sector, support The coalition is independent, yet linked Joint Statement on Food
to existing governance structures, since Poverty. Published by the Leaders
skills training, make more land available
of Edinburgh and Glasgow City
for food production, minimise the city’s it is chaired by a councillor, and aims to Councils, 2015.
ecological footprint, improve health and influence political agendas. It encoun-
wellbeing, and strengthen communities tered two main challenges: firstly,
and their relationship to food. coming to an agreement about the
aims and objectives of the initiative,
Developing the strategy with broad support from the range of
The impetus for the plan emerged in actors and interests present, and
2011, after consultation for another secondly, getting buy-in from council-
strategic plan ‘Sustainable Edinburgh lors and key organisations in order to
2020’ revealed food to be a major influence decision making. Today, both
community concern. A coalition of 12 these hurdles have been overcome –
organisations from the public, private for example, the group successfully
and civil society sectors (including petitioned the leaders of Edinburgh and
nonprofits, universities, restaurants and Glasgow City Councils to issue a joint
business associations) formed to pledge on food poverty. These achieve- Picky Eaters Workshop at Lochend
Community Growing Project.
explore possibilities for a local food ments have been supported by a policy Credit: Edible Edinburgh 2015
Health benefits the workplace and the attitudes and open to all, encouraging a mix of
Access to green space in cities has stress levels of employees. people with varied backgrounds to
been shown to positively affect interact (⇱Social Cohesion). Lastly,
health in a range of ways, among The social impetus for a green green spaces can provide opportuni-
them longer lives, quicker recovery economy ties for direct engagement with the
from surgery, reduced stress, mental A green economy can also be a environment, whether through
health benefits and improved self- powerful tool to support more farming, gardening, volunteering, or
reported perceptions of health – all socially engaged and equitable informal creative ventures. These
of which translate into greater well- communities7. Where people feel experiences can contribute to indi-
being and reduced health care costs. attached to their local urban green vidual wellbeing, learning and the
Employee health is also relevant for spaces, they may be inspired to development of social and profes-
businesses. A significant relationship become more actively involved in sional skills (⇱Box A3 Edinburgh, C6
has been found to exist between related planning processes. Green Milan, and E6 Berlin).
access to green space in and around spaces are also generally free and

KEY MESSAGES: UGI FOR PROMOTING A GREEN ECONOMY
Collaborate with non-governmental actors

Promoting a green economy usually requires engaging with a wide range of actors
(⇱Box A3 Edinburgh and E6 Berlin). The challenges introduced by a diverse range of
interests may also be offset by costs saved through reduced municipal management
expenditure and a healthier, more socially cohesive community.
Balance private and public interests

A green economy must consider the distribution of benefits, for example by
implementing measures to prevent residents from being displaced through
gentrification (⇱Social Cohesion). When engaging the private sector as a partner, it is
particularly important to ensure that incentives and regulations are carefully balanced
between private profit, on the one hand, and public needs and benefits on the other8.
Consider the full spectrum of benefits: ecological, social AND economic

Accounting for the social and ecological benefits of green spaces, alongside their
potential to generate income and indirect economic benefits, demands an integrated
approach to planning. While priorities will vary depending upon the context, a green
economy seeks to maximise each of these three dimensions to the degree possible in
the interest of long-term sustainability, rather than prioritising monetary gains.
⇱Toolbox T2 for approaches to mapping and assessing economic benefits.
For a detailed study on the economic

and health benefits of UGI, see
Integrating green infrastructure
ecosystem services into real econo-
mies. Deliverable 4.1.
REFERENCES
1 UNEP, 2012. Measuring Progress towards an 5 Rolls, S., Sunderland, T., 2014. 8 Merk, O., et al, 2012. Financing Green
Inclusive Green Economy. Nairobi, Kenya. Microeconomic Evidence for the Benefits of Urban Infrastructure (OECD Regional
Investment in the Environment 2 (MEBIE2), Development Working Papers). OECD, Paris.
2 Simpson, R., 2013. ‘Introduction: A Green Natural England Research Reports. Natural Available from: www.oecd.org/cfe/regional-
Economy for Green Cities’, in Simpson, R. and England, Bristol. Available from: http:// policy/WP_Financing_Green_Urban_
Zimmermann, M. (eds.). The Economy of Green publications.naturalengland.org.uk/ Infrastructure.pdf
Cities. Springer Netherlands, 13–16. publication/6692039286587392
3 UNEP, 2011. Green Jobs: Towards a green 6 Kousky, C., Walls, M., 2014. ‘Floodplain
economy: pathways to sustainable development conservation as a flood mitigation strategy:
and poverty eradication. Kenya, p16. Examining costs and benefits’, Ecological
Economics 104, 119–128.
4 A detailed literature review on the
economic benefits of UGI can be found in 7 Dunn, A.D., 2010. Siting green
Andersson, E., et al. (eds.), 2015. Integrating infrastructure: Legal and policy solutions to
green infrastructure ecosystem services into alleviate urban poverty and promote healthy
real economies. Report of the GREEN SURGE communities, Boston College Environmental
project (Deliverable 4.1), Copenhagen Affairs Law Review 37, 41–66.

A
Urban Challenge: Increasing Social Cohesion
While ethnic and cultural diversity are on cities, and to experience limits in the
the rise throughout Europe, local govern- extent to which they can travel beyond
ments also have to respond to aging popu- these areas3. This means that the quality
lations and growing social inequalities. All of their neighbourhoods, and the interper-
of these factors are expected to increase sonal relationships within them, are of
social exclusion. Countering this trend, vital importance. In addition, since many
and its associated negative effects, is a key urban areas (such as malls or pedestrian
priority on European, national, and local zones in commercial districts)carry the
Social cohesion can be political agendas. Social cohesion is based expectation that users will spend money,
understood as the on the principle that people from different cost-free green spaces are of particular
capacity of a society backgrounds should have similar life importance to lower-income groups4.
to ensure the welfare opportunities and access to services,
of all its members, including green spaces1. UGI can counter social exclusion, and like-
minimising disparities wise build social cohesion, in different
and avoiding At highest risk of social exclusion are ways, such as by being free and accessible
inequality. UGI can those who are different from the majority to all, providing space for social interac-
play an important role of the population, whether through tion, and fostering opportunities for
in fostering inter- income level, ethnicity, nationality, volunteerism. Evidence also exists that
actions between language, religion, age or health status; or UGI can relieve stress and fatigue, and
different social groups, who are otherwise vulnerable2. For a facilitate attachment to specific places,
and in turn improving variety of reasons, such people tend to promoting feelings of comfort and further
social cohesion. both be concentrated in specific areas of adding to social cohesion5,6.
Urban green spaces offer

opportunities for relaxation,
social contact and interaction.
Get-together at an
intercultural garden in
Freising, Germany.
Credit: Emily Rall

A
Improved social cohesion through UGI
can result in a range of avoided costs
and other economic benefits. For
instance, around high-rise apartment
buildings, numerous studies have
linked UGI to higher levels of social
interaction and less crime and
vandalism. A 2009 study in the UK esti-
mated that a 1% reduction in crime as
a result of increased social cohesion in
England and Wales would save
between €267-733 million7. Using
monetary assessments of this kind to
demonstrate the crime-reduction
potential of UGI could convince govern-
ments struggling with limited financial The Highline in New York City is a well-known example of an unusual green corridor on an
resources to invest in UGI planning and elevated former railroad spur. It became a major tourist attraction within just a few years of
opening. On the downside, it tends to be crowded and has been criticised for boosting property
implementation for social cohesion. prices in the area – contributing to gentrification and displacing poorer residents.
(⇱Green Economy, Assessing UGI Credit: Rieke Hansen.
networks). A range of assessment tools
exists (⇱Toolbox T3). were targeted as beneficiaries in the projects are shaped by local commu-
first place. Here, supporting ‘anti- nity concerns rather than market-
Counterbalancing exclusionary effects gentrification’ policies such as rent driven urban design conventions, and
Improving neighbourhood character stabilisation, housing trusts and local are modest enough not to attract
through UGI can result in gentrifica- employment quotas have an impor- speculative investment9. Striking this
tion, with rising housing costs and tant role to play. Another strategy that balance requires community involve-
property values ultimately displacing planners can adopt is the ‘just green ment in design and planning (⇱Social
the disadvantaged social groups who enough’ approach8, where UGI Inclusion).
BOX A4: GRANTON COMMUNITY GARDENERS

Granton Community Gardeners (GCG) Since starting out, the group has grad-
is a grassroots community gardening ually expanded activities from a single
initiative in a disadvantaged part of garden to nearly ten, involving people
northern Edinburgh. It was started in from a large range of cultural back-
2010 by locals living in flats without grounds who work together, some-
gardens who wanted to grow vegeta- times across different plots, and share
bles close to home. the produce.
GCG operates largely independent of Success factors include powerful

grant funding, and as a result is not community buy-in, an explicit focus on
Volunteers in a GCG street corner garden.
bound by externally-imposed require- intergenerational and intercultural Credit: Granton Community Gardeners 2015
ments. The City of Edinburgh Council cooperation; a flexible, independent
does, however, provide ongoing, approach; and use of various commu- Find out more...
in-kind support in the form of land, nication channels and events (such as
Community Gardening overview
and has given the group a letter of workshops and community meals) to and map on the Edinburgh & Lothians
comfort approving their ongoing engage local residents. Greenspace Trust website
management of the spaces.

A
KEY MESSAGES: UGI FOR INCREASING SOCIAL COHESION
Access
Access to UGI includes both geographic proximity to green space (e.g., Natural
England’s Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard recommends a distance of no more
than 300 metres from one’s home, ⇱Toolbox T3) and access to it via public transport,
especially for vulnerable residents (⇱Connectivity).
Welcoming places
Visitors must feel safe and welcome, and find green spaces attractive and of interest
for use. Careless planning and management may neglect the many gender-based,
ethnic, and disability-related barriers to use. For instance, ethnic minorities and
women may feel more threatened or unsafe in secluded spaces10. Planners need to
take into account the needs, motivations and preferred uses of a range of groups
(⇱Multifunctionality). To ensure these interests are represented, different user groups
need to be engaged in UGI planning (⇱Social Inclusion). Communication with and
outreach to local communities can be decisive factors for attracting people from a
range of socio-economic backgrounds (⇱Box A4 Edinburgh and C6 Milan).
Space for social encounters

Urban green spaces can provide a platform for social contact and interaction, which
helps to prevent loneliness and to extend social networks11, and may reduce social
tensions12. To really be successful, however, UGI must provide adequate amenities in
connection to existing economic and social networks, instead of being limited to
design. Local attachments to existing spaces should also be considered, instead of
trying to solve perceived ‘anti-social’ behaviour by displacing it elsewhere13.
Fostering engagement and self-regulation

Bringing people together for a common purpose, whether through cultural events,
volunteer activities, or even by providing some basic amenities, can catalyse social
interactions. Active engagement in the design and/or management of UGI can help to
See Toolbox T3 build local skills and lead to cleaner, safer, active spaces14. Local governments can act
for exemplary as facilitators and support bottom-up initiatives by promoting self-management and
methods and defining framing conditions (⇱Box C3 Utrecht). UGI designs should be flexible, leaving
tools to increase room for self-organisation and initiative (⇱Box E6 Berlin). Urban gardening is a good
social cohesion example (⇱Box A4 Edinburgh and B5 Ljubljana).
REFERENCES
1 Council of Europe, 2004. Strategy for Social Cohesion 6 Peters, K., et al., 2010. Social interactions in 10 See Ward Thompson, 2002.
(Revised). European Committee for Social Cohesion, p1. urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban
For Urban Green. 9, 93-100. 11 Kaźmierczak, A., 2013. The contribution of
2 Kazmierczak, A.E., James, P., 2007. The role of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landscape
urban green spaces in improving social inclusion. 7 Department for Communities and Local and Urban Planning 109, 31-44.
Presented at the 7th International Postgraduate Government: Annual Report 2009. Community,
Research Conference in the Built and Human opportunity, prosperity. Available from: www.gov. 12 Oliver, J.E., Wong, J., 2003. Intergroup
Environment, University of Salford, Manchester. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ Prejudice in Multiethnic Settings. American Journal
attachment_data/file/228792/7598.pdf of Political Science 47, 567-582.
3 Kemperman, A., Timmermans, H., 2014. Green
spaces in the direct living environment and social 8 Curran, W., Hamilton, T., 2012. Just green enough: 13 Worpole, K., Knox, K., 2007. The social value of
contacts of the aging population. Landscape and Contesting environmental gentrification in Greenpoint, public spaces. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
Urban Planning 129, 44-54. Brooklyn. Local Environment 17, 1027-1042.
14 Forest Research, n.d. Social interaction,
4 Ward Thompson, C., 2002. Urban open space in the 9 Wolch, J. R., et al., 2014. Urban green space, inclusion and community cohesion (Evidence
21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 60, 59-72. public health, and environmental justice: The Note). Available from: forestry.gov.uk
challenge of making cities “just green enough”.
5 See Kazmierczak et al., 2007. Landscape and Urban Planning 125, 234–244., p241.

FURTHER READING
PRACTICAL GUIDANCE
Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe: Challenges and opportunities for

cities together with supportive national and European policies. European Environ-
CLIMATE CHANGE
ment Agency (EAA), Copenhagen. EEA Report No 2/2012. EEA, 2012.
Climate change adaptation by design: a guide for sustainable communities. London.

Shaw, R., Colley, M., and Connell, R., 2007.
Planning for Climate Change: A Strategic, Values-based Approach for Urban Plan-
ners – Toolkit. UN-Habitat, Nairobi. United Nations Human Settlements Programme
(UN-Habitat), 2014.
The Green Leap. A Primer for Conserving Biodiversity in Subdivision Development.

University of Californian Press. Hostetler, M. E., 2012.
BIODIVERSITY
biodiverCities: A Primer on Nature in Cities. ICLEI—Local Governments

for Sustainability (Management) Inc., Toronto. ICLEI, Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority, 2014.
Biodiversity by Design: A guide for sustainable communities. Town and Country

Planning Association (TCPA), London. URBED (the Urban and Economic Development
Group), the TCPA and ALGE for the TCPA, 2004.
Financing Green Urban Infrastructure (OECD Regional Development Working

Papers). OECD, Paris. Merk, O. et al., 2012.
GREEN ECONOMY
Microeconomic Evidence for the Benefits of Investment in the Environment 2

(MEBIE2), Natural England Research Reports. Natural England, Bristol. Rolls, S.,
Sunderland, T., 2014.
The social value of public spaces. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Worpole, K.,
SOCIAL COHESION Knox, K., 2007.

B CORE PRINCIPLES OF UGI
PLANNING
Green-grey integration
Connectivity
Multifunctionality
Social inclusion
21
PRINCIPLE GREEN-GREY INTEGRATION B
Combining green and grey infrastructure
KEY OBJECTIVES
Green-grey integration…
…aims at physical and functional synergies between urban green space and other kinds
of infrastructure.
…not only targets primary infrastructural needs, but also seeks to provide wider
environmental, social and economic benefits.
“Integration concerns
…is based on sound knowledge from different disciplines and sectors, and on
the interaction and
cooperation between them.
links between urban
green infrastructure
and other urban UGI planning seeks to integrate and can improve aesthetics and reduce noise and
structures. [...] the coordinate urban green spaces with air pollution, while dispersed planting strips
new approach means other infrastructure, such as transport or rain gardens in high flood-risk neighbour-
that these are systems and utilities. hoods can enhance the stormwater manage-
increasingly viewed as ment capacity of conventional grey systems
integrated partners.”1 In contemporary cities, many urban issues, and buffer climate change effects (⇱Climate
including mobility and the management of Change Adaptation).
storm- and wastewater are addressed
through engineered or ‘grey’ infrastructure, Green-grey integration in UGI planning is
such as canals, pipes or asphalted streets. most prominently related to stormwater
UGI planning for integration considers urban systems. However, it can also apply to
green spaces as another kind of infrastruc- other kinds of infrastructure, e.g., bike
ture, with the potential to complement or paths along rights-of-way below power-
even replace this grey infrastructure. lines, gardens along railways, and street
trees that reduce the heat island effect.
Integrating infrastructure can lead to multi- While there are other possible applications
functional solutions which provide various of integration, this guide focuses on two
benefits simultaneously (⇱Multifunction- major areas: stormwater management and
ality). For example, vegetated road buffers sustainable mobility.
The Water Square

Benthemplein in Rotterdam
looks much like a conventional
plaza for playing sports and
hanging out, but doubles as a
water collection system
during rain.

B
UGI in stormwater management streams, but also longer-term nega-
Managing stormwater is one of the tive effects on water quality, human KEY TERMS 2,3
biggest challenges faced by cities health and ecosystems. Bioswales, Biofiltration swales:
around the world. Due to the high shallow conduits/trenches filled
amount of impervious surfaces, Both centralised and decentralised with vegetation resistant to
stormwater cannot infiltrate and is green-grey solutions are available: erosion and flooding, designed
sent straight to the sewage system. the former using large, singular to slow stormwater runoff and
Depending on the age, design and elements such as wet or dry ponds improve water quality through
capacity of this system, there is a risk adjacent to development, the latter infiltration.
of overflows during heavy rain seeking to capture, detain and filter
events. The potential consequences runoff at the source, through Low Impact Development
are not only local flooding and pollu- elements such as pervious paving (LID): land development
tion of nearby lakes, rivers and and bioswales (⇱Box E1 Malmö). strategy for managing storm-
water at the source with decen-
tralised micro-scale control
measures.
BOX B1: COPENHAGEN CLOUDBURST PLAN
Copenhagen’s Cloudburst Manage- that the costs for implementing Stormwater Control Measures
ment Plan (2012) demonstrates an these measures in the inner city (SCM): measures such as biore-
integrated approach to intermediary between 2013 and 2033 would be tention systems (structural
stormwater storage in streets and approximately €500 million, approach) and programmes to
conveyance to the main sewage compared to €800 million of disconnect residential down-
pipes, offering substantial long-term flooding damage caused by a single pipes (non-structural
cost savings. major rainstorm in 2011. Implemen- approach).
tation of the plan is underway.
Redesigning the streets offers Sustainable Urban Drainage
opportunities to enhance their Find out more... Systems (SUDS): technologies
aesthetic and recreational quality as for sustainable stormwater
Copenhagen Cloudburst
well as to promote biodiversity by Management Plan. City of drainage, usually organised to
introducing trees and other vegeta- Copenhagen, 2012. work together in sequence.
tion. A cost-benefit-analysis showed
The 1.5km-long linear Hans-Baluschek-

Park in Berlin is popular for biking and
inline skating. It belongs to Berlin’s city-
wide bike network and is also part of the
long-distance Leipzig-Berlin bike trail.
Credit: Emily Rall

B
BOX B2: INTEGRATION DURING URBAN RENEWAL, SZEGED

In the City of Szeged, Hungary, inte- residents, tourists and businesses, and awarded a Public Space Renewal
gration of grey and green infrastruc- a public procurement process reliant Award of Excellence by the Hungarian
ture is reflected in everyday urban on the lowest-price principle. Urbanistic Association and UNESCO.
planning practice rather than formal-
ised in planning documents. The Some of these issues were partly over-
Dugonics Square renewal (2009-2013) come by good cooperation between
involved a major upgrade of existing departments within the municipality.
utilities, integrated with greenery to Other issues provide lessons that will
calm traffic and improve both the be useful for future projects. For
quality of public space and the city’s instance, the municipality has now
micro-climate. created a checklist of stakeholders to
guide which of them should be
A range of challenges emerged in the involved at each stage of a redevelop-
course of the project, including ment process. Further, it has actively
constraints imposed by outdated engaged a local university department
building regulations, a lack of data on to prepare a tree cadastre, supporting Children playing in fountain, following
the urban renewal (Árpád Square,
the location of underground utilities, future monitoring of the micro-climate
adjacent to Dugonics Square).
conflicts between the interests of local city-wide. In 2014, the project was Credit: Luca Száraz
Retention ponds and bioswales can UGI in sustainable mobility Green-grey integration in planning
retain heavy rainfall over short Integrating vegetation and green practice
periods and are usually most effec- spaces into transportation networks In general, the need to shift towards
tive at managing stormwater, is not a new concept, however, it has more efficient and integrated systems,
although individual elements such as experienced a resurgence around incorporating UGI, has been globally
trees may also have an impact. In the world in the past few decades. recognised6 and in some cases trans-
regard to stormwater management Increasingly, local governments are lated into legislation, e.g., the US Envi-
overall, UGI can offer: seeking to draw on the approach to ronmental Protection Agency’s Clean
create more attractive and environ- Water Act or the EU Water Directive.
• Not only aesthetic, but also func- mentally sustainable mobility The challenge is to translate these high-
tional value over grey infrastruc-
routes, e.g., pedestrian-friendly level agendas to the local level and into
ture, e.g., improved urban climate
through increased evapo-transpi- urban spaces (⇱Box B2 Szeged). concrete measures. Barriers to imple-
ration, reduced material corrosion mentation exist in many cities,
through removal of pollutants At the community and neighbour- including a lack of funding, lack of
from water runoff, and less hydro- hood level, too, interest is growing in access to land, low levels of citizen
logical strain on receiving water green, walkable streets that integrate engagement, and administrative frag-
bodies in dry periods.
transit, safe pedestrian access and mentation. Nonetheless, there are good
• Substantial longer-term cost stormwater management – known as examples of municipal policies for
savings for city authorities ‘green streets’ or ‘complete streets’. green-grey integration available (⇱Box
(⇱Green Economy, ⇱Box B1 There is evidence that even simple B1 Copenhagen and E1 Malmö). If such
Copenhagen).
measures such as landscaping along ‘hard’ instruments are absent, incen-
• Significant reductions in storm- roadsides can help to calm traffic, tives, voluntary rating schemes (e.g.,
water runoff, from anywhere block wind, increase driver alertness Leadership in Energy and Environ-
between 7 and 56% depending and lower stress5. mental Design, LEED for short7) or
upon context, quality and mainte- guidelines can also encourage inte-
nance of UGI systems4.
grated approaches.

KEY MESSAGES FOR GREEN-GREY INTEGRATION
Good cooperation
Cooperation among urban planners, green space planners and grey infrastructure
planners is an important factor of success for green-grey solutions. Since government
administration is often fragmented across many departments, overcoming
uncooperative or even adversarial departmental relationships is an important starting
point. Political leadership, early departmental involvement, use of a common
terminology, and an emphasis on synergies and shared goals can help.
Learn from local pilot projects

Pilot projects can promote awareness of green-grey measures and their potential, as
well as cooperation between departments, enabling continuous learning and paving
the way to implement similar solutions in other parts of the city (⇱Box E1 Malmö).
Combine ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ instruments for implementation

Legislation can provide a powerful mandate and fiscal support to green-grey
integration. Examples are provisions in building and planning legislation (⇱Box
Malmö) or using environmental impact charges to landowners to fund green-grey
measures. In the absence of sufficient legislation, and where municipal budgets are
constrained, ‘soft’ instruments like incentives or voluntary rating schemes can provide
a way forward.
Multifunctional UGI designs

If UGI designs are to capture the full potential of integration, multiple functions and
the specific context of designs should be taken into account (⇱Multifunctionality). A
substantial evidence base of benefits (including often overlooked social benefits), and
UGI performance is still in development, but some guidance is available8.
⇱Toolbox T4 for methods and tools to help integrate green and grey infrastructure.
REFERENCES
1 Pauleit, S., et al., 2011. Multifunctional 3 Fletcher, T.D., et al., 2014. SUDS, LID, BMPs, 5 Dixon, K., Wolf, K., 2007. Benefits and Risks
Green Infrastructure Planning to Promote WSUD and more – The evolution and application of Urban Roadside Landscape: Finding a Livable,
Ecological Services in the City, in: Breuste, J.H., of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Balanced Response, in: Proceedings of the 3rd
et al. (eds.), Urban Ecology: Patterns, Processes, Urban Water Journal. 0, 1–18. Urban Street Symposium, Washington D.C.
and Applications. Oxford University Press, p272.
4 Autixier, L., et al., 2014. Evaluating rain 6 UNEP, 2014. Green Infrastructure Guide for
2 Ahiablame, L.M., et al., 2012. Effectiveness gardens as a method to reduce the impact of Water Management. Ecosystem-based
of Low Impact Development Practices: sewer overflows in sources of drinking water. management approaches for water-related
Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Science of the Total Environment. 499, 238–247. infrastructure projects.
Research. Water Air and Soil Pollution. 223,
4253–4273. 7 See more at www.usgbc.org/leed
8 See Ahiablame et al., 2012.

PRINCIPLE CONNECTIVITY B
Creating green space networks
KEY OBJECTIVES
Connectivity…
…involves both structural and functional connections between green spaces, in order
to create added value from an interlinked system.
...targets clearly defined functions and benefits for humans and wildlife, recognising
the different kinds of connectivity (ecological, social and abiotic) and the potential for
“The strategic synergies between them.
connection of
…matches aims and strategies to different spatial scales – regional, city and local – and
ecosystem components ideally is integrated across them.
– parks, preserves,
riparian areas,
wetlands, and other UGI planning aims to create a well- vance to more direct human benefits, such
green spaces – is connected green space network that as improved movement between homes
critical to maintaining serves humans and other species. This and recreational spaces, e.g., via safe and
the values and services involves creating and restoring connec- attractive bicycle paths, and other modes
of natural systems.”1 tions to support and protect processes, of sustainable mobility. UGI networks are
functions and benefits that individual not just important for enabling the move-
green spaces cannot provide alone2. ment of people and wildlife, they can also
support abiotic flows, such as of energy,
Landscape connectivity can be broadly water and air5. Ventilation corridors
defined as the extent to which movement improve the supply of fresh air and reduce
and flow is enabled or inhibited by the pollution, while the cooling effect of urban
landscape3. It has played a central role in parks is enhanced when these form part of
the field of landscape conservation for a network. In this way, interconnected
some time, for instance in countering the green spaces can minimise environmental
negative impacts of wildlife habitat frag- risks and the impacts of climate change
mentation4. Yet connectivity is also of rele- (⇱Climate Change Adaptation).
The Isar river in Munich

serves as a central urban
recreation space and an
important regional ecological
corridor. The riverbanks also
act as a green corridor for
walking and biking.

B
Structural and functional connectivity In addition, the kind of connectivity Measuring and assessing connectivity
Common approaches to connectivity purposes must be clearly defined, Numerous quantitative approaches
emphasise its ‘structural’ dimension, ideally encompassing ecological, have been developed to measure and
i.e., the spatial structure of the land- social and abiotic movement, and map connectivity. Measures of struc-
scape and physical relationships seeking synergies between them10 tural connectivity are often based on
between green spaces6. However, such (⇱Multifunctionality). concepts such as presence or
an emphasis fails to take into account absence; or the size, form and shape
the ‘functional’ dimensions of the land- Connectivity in planning practice of corridors and stepping-stones
scape, i.e., the attributes and behaviour The value of linking green spaces is (see illustration below). Connectivity
of the wildlife and humans that interact already widely recognised in Euro- can be calculated using various
with the overall landscape structure. pean planning (see Deliverable 5.1). indices such as distances, frequency,
Functional connectivity considers However, the level of understanding density, or cost distance analysis
these behavioural aspects, including of connectivity’s objectives and (based on graph theory principles).
habitat preferences, patterns of move- benefits differs between cities. Aerial photography archives and GIS
ment and ability to adapt to changes in Structural connectivity issues tend software can assist in visualising
the environment7. to be more prominent than func- changes to green corridors over time.
tional ones, while ecological and
While structural impacts on connec- social connectivity objectives in Often, such data is used as a surrogate
tivity, e.g., a road through a nature local and regional plans are not for the functional elements of connec-
reserve, tend to be visible and readily always directly integrated with tivity, based on assumptions. However,
understood, wider social and ecolog- another, with some exceptions there are additional measures to assess
ical effects can only be fully grasped (⇱Box B3 Berlin). Still, some functional connectivity that consider
by considering functional connec- municipalities are recognising the the probability of organism movement
tivity, too8. Failing to do so may result importance of coordinating connec- between patches; dispersal ability and
in inappropriate planning strategies9. tivity plans at multiple scales and rate; and the permeability of the land-
This means that successful planning according to a long-term timeframe scape/urban matrix. Overall, a range of
for connectivity relies on a holistic (⇱Box E2 Milan and B3 Berlin). measurement and assessment tools are
consideration of functional and available (⇱Toolbox T5).
structural aspects.
Large natural
area (hub)
Core
Backyard
(stepping stone) Green shared
foot/bikepath
(corridor)
Green roof Pond (stepping

(stepping stone) stone)
Riverbank green
(corridor)
Green shared
foot/bikepath
(corridor)
Park (site)
River (corridor)
River
(corridor)
Green belt Pocket park
(corridor - link to other hubs) (stepping stone)
An urban green infrastructure network is
made up of many elements that together
Tree lined street for
facilitate movement through the bikes and cars
city landscape. (corridor)
Design: Eleanor Chapman

B
BOX B3: INCREASING CONNECTIVITY AT THE CITY LEVEL, BERLIN

Against a backdrop of rapid popula- Achievements and lessons areas has been identified as a more
tion growth, the city-wide Landscape Combining strategic planning with legisla- relevant target in dense areas, since the
Programme (LaPro) has been an tion for impact compensation has helped previously-determined minimum
important strategic instrument for to continuously improve connectivity in standard for green area per inhabitant
promoting social and ecological Berlin’s green space network. In addition, cannot realistically be met. Further,
connectivity in Berlin, Germany. a major success factor has been good growing awareness of the limits of corri-
cooperation between different units dors for urban cooling has stimulated a
The LaPro is a binding plan for the within the (former) Senate Department shift to focus also on targeted greening in
public administration and closely for Urban Development and the Environ- the dense areas. However, implementa-
linked to the city’s land use plan. Its ment, and the related building of linkages tion of these objectives still often relies
objectives are tied to four key between policies and projects. There has on external funding as municipal budgets
themes: natural environment also been successful cooperation with are limited.
including urban climate, habitat and non-state actors within the ’20 Green
species protection, recreation, and Walks’ project: a collaboration between The Schöneberg Loop
landscape aesthetics. These are the state of Berlin, multiple NGOs and One celebrated outcome of Berlin’s
supported by the ‘General Urban over 100 volunteers to better link neigh- efforts to increase connectivity is the
Compensation Plan’ (GAK). The GAK bourhoods with green areas, resulting in ‘Schöneberger Schleife’, a seven
identifies gaps in the city’s green about 550km of networked green km-long, car-free green corridor, which
space network and suggests priority corridors for recreation and everyday connects Potsdamer Platz with
measures, while funding for imple- mobility on foot or bike. Südkreuz train station, as well as with
mentation is provided through existing parks in-between. The project
mandatory impact mitigation and The LaPro has been updated at broadly was funded mainly by Federal
compensation regulations for devel- ten year intervals since it was established programme ‘Urban Renewal West’ and
opment projects. If environmental in the 1980s, with the current version aims for greater supply of, and
impact mitigation is not possible from 2016 drawing on new scientific connectivity to, green and recreational
within a given site, developers pay for findings and Berlin’s changing character areas, for the benefit of both residents
compensatory measures in to refine strategies and targets. For and tourists. The corridor has been
other places. instance, the accessibility of recreation heavily used since phased works began.
Find out more...

Landscape Programme for the
City of Berlin (in German)
Article ‘A project celebrates

its 25th birthday: The Landscape
Programme including Nature
Conservation for the City of Berlin’.
Cloos, 2004.
20 Green Walks in Berlin
Finalised part of the Schöneberg Loop.


KEY MESSAGES FOR CONNECTIVITY
Clearly define the kind of connectivity, functions and aims
Increasing connectivity requires planning on large spatial scales and consideration of
different kinds of connectivity, such as for humans, for biodiversity, or for urban
climate. Practitioners should clearly define these functions and relevant actors in
developing a plan for connectivity.
Think long-term and integrate objectives at multiple levels

Connectivity objectives are best achieved when a long-term outlook is adopted,
combined with regular monitoring and updates to incorporate new scientific
knowledge and implementation strategies. Planning guidance at a particular spatial
scale should additionally be ‘nested’ with related policies and instruments (including
incentives and regulations) at multiple scales and across sectors (⇱Box E2 Milan and
B3 Berlin).
⇱Toolbox T5 for tools to evaluate social and ecological connectivity.
REFERENCES
1 Benedict, M. A., McMahon, E. T., 2006. Green 5 Bagstad, K.J., et al., 2014. From theoretical 8 Auffret, A. G., et al., 2015. The spatial and
infrastructure: Linking landscapes and to actual ecosystem services. Mapping temporal components of functional connectivity
communities. Washington, D.C. Island Press, p37. beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem in fragmented landscapes. AMBIO 44 (Suppl 1).
service assessments. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 51-59.
2 Ahern, J., 2007. Green Infrastructure for art. 64.
cities: The spatial dimension. In: Novotny, V. 9 See Taylor et al., 2006.
(ed). Cities of the future: Towards integrated 6 Tischendorf, L., Fahrig, L., 2000. On the
sustainable water and landscape management. usage and measurement of landscape 10 Fumagalli, N. & Toccolini, A., 2012.
London. IWA Publications. connectivity. Oikos 90, 7-19. Relationship between greenways and ecological
network: A case study in Italy. International
3 Taylor, P.D., et al., 2006. Landscape 7 Baudry, J., Merriam, G., 1988. Connectivity Journal of Environmental Research 6(49), 903-
connectivity: a return to the basics. In: Crooks, K.R., and connectedness: functional versus structural 916.
Sanjayan, M. (eds). Connectivity Conservation. patterns in landscapes. In: Schreiber, K.F. (ed).
Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Connectivity in landscape ecology, 2nd
International seminar of the International
4 Jongman, R.H.G., et al., 2004. European Association for Landscape Ecology.
ecological networks and greenways. Landscape Münstersche Geogr. Arbeiten 29, 23-29.
and Urban Planning 68 (2-3), 305-319.

PRINCIPLE MULTIFUNCTIONALITY B
Delivering and enhancing multiple functions and services
KEY OBJECTIVES
Multifunctionality…
…aims to secure and increase the multiple ecological, socio-cultural and economic
benefits of UGI.
…considers interrelations between different functions and services and the capacity of
different urban green spaces to provide them, while avoiding trade-offs.
“Multifunctionality
…targets the social questions of demand for and access to UGI and its benefits.
can apply to individual
sites and routes, but it
is when the sites and
links are taken UGI planning aims at intertwining or bance. These kinds of conflicts can some-
together that we combining different functions to times be avoided by physically separating
achieve a fully enhance the capacity of urban green incompatible uses (e.g., through zoning,
multifunctional green space to deliver multiple benefits. Plan- visitor management or agreements with
infrastructure ning for multifunctionality seeks to land users), or by planning them so as not to
network.”1 create synergies between functions, happen at the same time (e.g., when
while reducing conflicts and trade-offs. breeding or flooding is expected). This
means it is not only the functions themselves
Multifunctionality concerns the ability of UGI and the associations between them that are
to provide several ecological, socio-cultural, important, but also their spatial and
and economic benefits concurrently. A UGI temporal dimensions.
planning process expressly considers how to
deliver these benefits instead of leaving it to Further, the benefits of multifunctionality
chance. This is not simply a case of ‘the more should be considered in relation to who
functions the better’. Potential trade-offs and needs them and who has access to them.
conflicts between functions need to be Otherwise, UGI planning could deliver bene-
assessed, as well as the capacity of different fits only relevant or accessible to certain
UGI elements2. For instance, using land for groups in society3 (⇱Social Cohesion). To
intensive recreation may conflict with the avoid this trap, a strong element of public
protection of species sensitive to distur- participation is critical (⇱Social Inclusion).
Park Transwijk, Utrecht is a

redesigned public park that
supports structural diversity
and many recreational uses,
including learning facilities
such as an urban farm and
educational garden.
Credit: Sabrina Erlwein

B
Multifunctionality and ecosystem ecosystem services, such as economic characteristics of a city or
services supporting mobility (⇱Connectivity), region. The spatial scale that is
An important concept that has structuring the urban surroundings considered also matters. For
emerged in relation to multifunction- or conserving local flora and instance, it is more relevant to eval-
ality is ecosystem services. Broadly fauna(⇱Biodiversity). This means uate provisioning services such as
speaking, ecosystem services are the that the full spectrum of green space supply of food and raw materials
benefits that functioning ecosystems functions and services is much from a city-regional perspective,
deliver to people4. They can be broader than conventional defini- rather than at the level of a densely
classified in four general categories: tions of ecosystem services allow, built-up neighbourhood.
provisioning, regulating, habitat encompassing more than 30 possi-
(biodiversity), and cultural services5, bilities (see illustration below). Multifunctionality in planning
which together represent the ecolog- practice
ical, socio-cultural, and economic Priority functions and services Though municipalities often consider
dimensions of multifunctionality. In urban green space planning, recre- the multiple ecological and social
ational and other cultural functions benefits that UGI provides,
Yet, in urban areas these different and services are usually in focus, as enhancing multifunctionality has so
services are usually provided not well as functions that contribute to far received less explicit attention
only by natural elements, but also biodiversity. Those ecosystem (see Deliverable 5.1). In general,
man-made ones, e.g., paths and services with a direct impact on there seems to be uncertainty about
benches; sports facilities and play- people’s health and wellbeing, such how to actively plan and design for
grounds; historic monuments; or as air purification, noise reduction, multifunctional green infrastruc-
sewer systems that combine green urban cooling and runoff mitigation ture7. A more proactive approach to
spaces and technical elements for are also of particular relevance6. multifunctionality is likely to be
stormwater control (⇱Integration). needed in light of trends such as
Of course, the types of functions and climate change and urbanisation,
Additionally, green spaces provide a services that UGI can provide, and both of which are increasing the
number of important functions that their relevance, largely depend on pressure on UGI.
cannot strictly be categorised as the environmental and socio-
Cul
tur
es al
vic fun
er cti
gs
tion
ts
on
an
pla
in
sa
ion
e
pl
ag
em
ild
nd
vis
rit
, pulp
ation
w
ont
he
r
ser
Pro
ate
Medicine
le
e,
cs
Ae ture c
ab
rs
ac
vice
Co sh w
ts
Recre
te
Wood
ns eti
pl
m
uc
n
ou
h od
u
Se sth
of
is
e
s
nc enc
ns
r
e
f
Na
p ts
e
e, ing
Sci
Fr
am den pro
duc
i a le +
c on
So ucati
G ar a l l
ur
G ricult
Ed ation
Inspir
Ag tion
Pollina
Erosion control Urban Structure
Mobilit
Flood
To y
Ha urism
Wa contr
ol
Ve ter fl
H bit
ab at
nt ow
N emp clima
ila reg
ita (c
o
W uctu
T
om
tio ula
i
Str e biodiver
Glo
s era
t
ild
Nativ
Regu
tion
Wilderness
mo
e
n/W
(r
m
ar ns
life
ind
b
iti
e pe
a
sp cie
g
bu
mo
l
a
la
ec s)
t
f fe
tio
ral
Bio
ur
ti
ie
ve
r
n
s)
o
er
ces
div
me
di
n
eg
te
v
of air
rvi
ers
nt
e
u
rsi
r
e
lat
e
gs
ity
sity
ty
gul
ion
fu
tin
quality
Urban green spaces provide a range of nc

atio
ula tio
functions and services which can be Re
g ns
n
grouped into four broad types.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

B
BOX B4: MULTIFUNCTIONAL URBAN GREEN SPACES IN MALMÖ

As part of a GREEN SURGE Urban Learning of the Riseberga Creek, Skogholms ängar in use as a military zone and also acts as
Lab in Malmö, Sweden, the multifunction- has been developed into an area with a recreation corridor between Malmö
ality of the city’s green spaces was open storm water retention ponds. The and the proposed Almåsa nature
discussed in workshops and meetings site has been designed to host high reserve. The vegetation is characterised
between researchers and city staff. structural and plant diversity and the by grasslands formed through traditional
Through strategic planning, the city is retention facilities contribute to the pasturing and hay production, which
aiming to increase the quality of its UGI in water balance of the wetland biotopes. provide a habitat for many species.
terms of social benefits, biodiversity and While not all parts of the site are easily Several land uses are accommodated on
regulating ecosystem services (mainly accessible, paths for walking and horse- the site, including nature conservation,
water management) as well as provi- back riding bring people into contact recreation and low-intensity grazing.
sioning services (taking into account with the area’s rich biodiversity.
surrounding farmland). Four examples of
different green spaces and their functions
and services are outlined below.
Pildammsparken: classic park

At a size of 45ha, this roughly 100 year
old park is the city’s largest. It includes
several ponds, meadows, an amphithe-
atre for cultural events, and woodland Credit: Werner Rolf (all others, Rieke Hansen)
areas, and is popular for picnics and Ekostaden Augustenborg: eco-district
running, as well as hosting many bird The Ekostaden Augustenborg housing
species. Due to its size and path network, area has been progressively redeveloped Assessment of selected services
the park provides ample space for recre- since the late 1990s with the objective of
Cultural
ation and biodiversity. Some activities improving social, ecological and
• Recreation (active)
have resulted in minor impacts on the economic sustainability (⇱Box E1 • Nature contemplation (passive)
environment, include trampled vegeta- Malmö). Measures have included reno- • Aesthetics
• Social encounters
tion and reduced water quality from visi- vation of buildings and redesign of parks • Mobility
tors’ enjoyment of feeding the ducks. and traffic areas, including an open
Biodiversity
stormwater system and green roofs. This
• Habitat for rare species
has improved the usability, aesthetics • Structural diversity
and biodiversity of the site, as well as • Native biodiversity
local social stability. Regulating

• Urban temperature regulation
• Noise mitigation
• Run-off mitigation
• Flood control (water retention)
• Pollination
Provisioning
• Farming/Gardening products
• Consumable wild plants
Skogholms ängar: semi-natural green
space High provision
This 45ha industrial area in south- Medium provision
eastern Malmö has been developed as a Robotfältet: grassland Low provision
semi-natural green space as part of an With a size of about 110ha, the Robotfältet
EU LIFE+ Project. To reduce the flooding area is located east of the city. It is partly still

B
One initial step can be to develop a Gathering knowledge on local citi- that all elements deliver a broad
city-wide planning strategy that zens’ needs requires time, resources array of benefits, as long as the UGI
highlights the different functions and and an array of carefully selected network as a whole provides a
services provided by UGI (⇱Box C4 participatory methods to make sure sufficient level of all important
Malmö). Such a strategic plan needs that the voices of all relevant groups services, and in those areas where
to ensure that UGI services are considered (⇱Box E4 Edinburgh). they are needed.
contribute to an array of policy
objectives (such as ⇱Climate Change Assessing multifunctionality Developing multifunctional green
Adaptation, ⇱Biodiversity). Two A systematic spatial assessment, spaces
further components are also impor- providing knowledge about UGI’s Alongside knowledge of multiple
tant. First, taking into account the different functions and services, can be functions at the city level, it is crucial
interests and needs of all citizens helpful to communicate the multiple to consider the site level, since trade-
(⇱Social Inclusion), and second, values of UGI to decision-makers. offs or conflicts usually occur when
promoting collaboration with Mapping and assessment tools can be functions within the same area are
experts from different fields. The used to quantify functions and services not compatible. The capacity to
latter ‘multifunctional thinking’ and reveal their spatial distribution deliver multiple services on one site
approach is important to counter the within a city (⇱Assessing UGI often depends on its size. While
‘silo thinking’ that can be a barrier to networks, Toolbox T6). larger sites tend to have greater
cross-departmental collaboration. It capacity than smaller ones, several
may also open the door to synergies, The provision of and demand for functions and services can usually be
for example, between recreation, different functions and services can provided by the same area, even on
climate change adaptation, and be analysed to identify areas where small sites. Good design can help to
biodiversity conservation multifunctionality needs to be avoid conflicts and increase
(⇱Integration, Box E3 Aarhus). enhanced. It is not always essential synergies (⇱Box B4 Malmö).
Tanner Springs is a small city park in downtown Portland, Oregon, that provides multiple benefits. It collects and cleans stormwater,
offers space for recreation, and provides a habitat for wetland species.

B
KEY MESSAGES FOR MULTIFUNCTIONALITY

Support multifunctionality at different planning levels
Increasing multifunctionality should be included as an objective in strategic green
space plans, supported by the assessment of different functions and services, including
demand for them and their spatial distribution. Clever design and visitor management
can help to maximise synergies at the site-level.
Use tools to identify functions and benefits

Tools such as multifunctionality inventories or ecosystem services assessments are
useful to identify multiple green space functions and benefits (⇱Toolbox T6). However,
they should be supported by a sound understanding of the kind of interrelations,
synergies and trade-offs that exist between these.
Support participation to raise awareness of demands and needs

Actively involving a diverse group of local residents in UGI planning makes it more
likely that outcomes will increase UGI benefits and their accessibility for a wide range
of people (⇱Social Inclusion).
Foster inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration

Multifunctional thinking and planning requires cross-sectoral and cross-departmental
cooperation to integrate expertise from different professions. Thus, silo-thinking must
be overcome to successfully plan for multifunctionality, e.g., by sharing tools and
outputs between departments and communicating the benefits of working together
(⇱Engaging Stakeholders).
⇱Toolbox T6 for exemplary methods and tools to identify and assess multiple green
space functions and benefits.
REFERENCES
1 Natural England, 2009. Green Infrastructure 4 TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and 7 Sussams, L. W., et al, 2015. Green
Guidance, p22. Available from: http:// Biodiversity, 2011. TEEB Manual for Cities: infrastructure as a climate change adaptation
publications.naturalengland.org.uk/ Ecosystem Services in Urban Management. policy intervention: Muddying the waters or
publication/35033 Available from: www.teebweb.org clearing a path to a more secure future? Journal
of Environmental Management 147, 184-193.
2 Hansen, R., Pauleit, S., 2014. From 5 Kumar, P., 2010. The economics of
Multifunctionality to Multiple Ecosystem ecosystems and biodiversity. Ecological and
Services? A Conceptual Framework for economic foundations. In: TEEB: The Economics
Multifunctionality in Green Infrastructure of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Earthscan,
Planning for Urban Areas. AMBIO 43, 516-529. London.
3 Rodriguez, J.P., et al, 2006. Trade-offs 6 Gómez-Baggethun, E., et al, 2013. Urban
across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 175–251. In: T. Elmqvist, et
Ecology and Society 11 (1), art. 28. al (eds). Urbanization, biodiversity and
ecosystem services: challenges and
opportunities. Springer, Dordrecht.

PRINCIPLE SOCIAL INCLUSION
Collaborative and Participatory Planning
KEY OBJECTIVES
Social inclusion…
…aims at including all social groups in the planning process of UGI, while putting a
special emphasis on the most vulnerable ones.
…seeks not only to ascertain the interests of different stakeholders but also to balance
them.
“In many countries the
…intends to facilitate more equitable access to green space services.
main tendency in
recent years has been
to shift the balance UGI planning aims for collaborative, and not others, by further empowering those
between government socially inclusive processes. This means in advantaged positions, or encouraging
and society away from that planning processes are open to all resistance from narrow interest groups to
the public sector and incorporate the knowledge and policies designed for the public interest2. In
towards doing things interests of diverse parties. order to avoid these pitfalls, it is essential
together instead of that governing institutions are capable of not
doing them alone.”1 Social inclusion in general refers to the only listening to a range of interests, but also
involvement of a wide range of social groups channelling and balancing them.
(including vulnerable ones that are often
excluded) in all spheres of life. Making UGI Social inclusion is related to social cohesion,
planning socially inclusive demands atten- yet these are not the same. The latter
tion to the needs of these different groups. Of concerns the outcome of UGI planning with
particular concern are those with the most regard to its social effects (⇱Social Cohe-
difficulties accessing information and articu- sion), while socially inclusive UGI planning is
lating their interests, such as immigrants or instead a process of including all social and
ethnic minorities; or people who are home- cultural groups people in decision-making –
less, unemployed or poor. If not carefully one end goal of which is UGI that is equally
managed, initiatives to involve citizens in accessible to them and meets their various
planning produce results that favour some needs (⇱Multifunctionality).
Working group at the

XII. Kunbábonyi Summer
University, Hungary, exploring
spatial development from the
community perspective.
Credit: Hajnal Fekete

B
BOX B5: BEYOND THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, LJUBLJANA

Beyond the Construction Site (BCS) is by ensuring that all contributions participatory urban planning and
a project facilitating local resident were valued. In this way, coordinating governance. Other factors have been
involvement in planning and roles were gradually transferred to the commitment of local citizens, as
governing an abandoned urban the users, demonstrating that citizens well as the practical aspect of land
construction site in Ljubljana, are capable of taking on responsibility availability. In Ljubljana, abandoned
Slovenia. for both the planning and the ongoing sites can remain unused for lengthy
management of an urban green periods – sometimes up to 20 years –
Grassroots beginnings space. creating a particular opportunity (and
BCS was kick-started in 2010 by neigh- imperative) for locally-driven uses.
bourhood activists from the NGOs Actors and support channels
KUD Obrat and Bunker Institute as The site is used by immediate neigh- Results
well as voluntary facilitators with bours and residents from other parts The process has brought new value to
backgrounds in sociology and design. of the city. The city council enables a derelict site, improved neighbour-
Initiators called for the public to use of the land at no cost, through a hood relationships and, importantly,
‘co-create’ the site. An offer of urban yearly contract with KUD Obrat. been carried beyond the site. As a
gardening proved successful in Council also provides some material result of the project’s successful
attracting interest, appealing to an support (e.g., water supply), while engagement with the city council, a
existing Slovenian cultural attachment other small donations have come temporary use amendment has been
to community gardens. A socially from the European Fund for Regional introduced to local planning
inclusive planning process was then Development, the national Ministry regulations: paving the way for the
facilitated using methods such as for Culture, and a seed company. possibility of similar initiatives to take
interviews and focus groups to deter- off in the future.
mine the site’s use as a community Success factors
garden and event space. The project’s success was aided by
the facilitators’ good working relation- Find out more...
As the development process went on, ship with the city council (based on Project summary in English. KUD
facilitators encouraged users to take experience with similar initiatives) as Obrat, 2010.
on increasing levels of responsibility well as ongoing political support for
Beyond the Construction Site facilitators

used various methods to encourage
project participants to co-create the site.
Credit: KUD Obrat Archive

B
The place of social inclusion in Even though governance is emerging UGI planning, working together with
planning across Europe, recognition of the members of civil society who are
Social inclusion is often talked about concept does not automatically lead empowered not only to participate,
in association with the term ‘govern- to the involvement of all population but also to take action4.
ance’, a concept entailing a widening groups and equal consideration of
of focus from state-centric govern- their interests, nor does it mean that
ment, to further include the role of social considerations are always
non-state actors. The concept of given high priority. Recent studies on
WHY GOVERNANCE?
For more on UGI governance,
governance has emerged in a context peri-urban development in Europe
see Innovative Governance
where the distinction between ‘top- found that economic growth motives
of Urban Green Spaces –
down’ and ‘bottom-up’ is becoming continue to dominate land use plan-
Learning from 18 innovative
increasingly harder to see. Instead, ning decisions, and, while ecological
examples across Europe.
both approaches are often in play at protection is of growing policy
Deliverable 6.2.
the same time, e.g., when a local interest, social justice concerns
government authority moves to insti- receive very little attention3. Local
tutionalise a grassroots initiative authorities have a crucial role to play
(see Deliverable 6.1). in mainstreaming social inclusion in
BOX B6: TELEKI SQUARE, BUDAPEST AND HELMHOLTZ SQUARE, BERLIN

Two public space redevelopments in Equity planning in Berlin A participatory planning process is a good
Berlin, Germany and Budapest, The regeneration of Helmholtz Square start, but will not in itself foster a socially
Hungary, reveal the dramatically was initiated in the early 2000s, as part cohesive public space. Actively identi-
different outcomes that can result of a district funding program for fying and engaging all user groups and
from a participatory planning process. deprived neighbourhoods (⇱Box C6 supporting their ongoing coexistence
Both originated in disadvantaged Berlin). The funding paid for a commu- in the same space are important
parts of each city. nity office, which initiated a planning further steps.
process involving representatives of all
Advocacy planning in Budapest groups using the square, and resulted
The redesign of Teleki Square, Buda- in a genuinely inclusive design. Since
pest, was initiated by a group of young then, however, the impact of gentrifi-
planners, who, with the consent of the cation has threatened these achieve-
local government, successfully ments. The area lost its funding
engaged residents in the process. As a priority status, and likewise its commu-
result, a residents’ association formed nity office. Some marginalised groups
to manage the square’s ongoing main- who had occupied central parts of the
tenance. However, the new design and square are now facing less tolerance
operation of Teleki Square clearly from middle class groups, whose
reflect the aspirations of some resi- voices are growing increasingly domi-
dents, while excluding others. Street nant. How this mounting conflict will
The redesigned Teleki Square is an
furniture was designed to prevent be solved is not yet clear. attractive place, yet some groups no
sleeping; eating and drinking are longer feel welcome there.
Credit: Iván Tosics
forbidden; guards monitor the space While the two approaches differ (the
and remove anyone who disobeys the first being a good example of advocacy
Find out more...
rules. The result can be interpreted as planning, and the second of equity plan-
a new exclusion for already-disenfran- ning – see Key Terms Box over page), URBACT article ’Participation or
chised groups (such as the Roma, their shortcomings highlight the distinc- Inclusion?’ Tosics, 2015.
homeless people and alcoholics). tion between inclusion and cohesion.

B
Levels of participation: from rewarded with increased influence the planning process (⇱Toolbox T7,
information to empowerment over decision-making processes and Box E3 Aarhus).
Many levels of participation in plan- outcomes, while governments may
ning are possible and these have often benefit from building trust with citi-
been represented along a spectrum, zens and accessing non-traditional KEY TERMS8
starting at one end with simply forms of local knowledge. Examples Advocacy planning: attempts to offer
informing citizens, all the way to in practice have included participa- residents opportunities to take part in
complete citizen control in decision- tory budgeting or public-led priority negotiations with private developers.
making at the other end – with green space projects for neighbour- and public authorities.
several steps in between (e.g., see the hood plans (⇱Box E5 Lisbon and C3
IAP2 Public Participation Utrecht). Empowerment planning: seeks to
Spectrum5). enable community organisations to
Allowing for and considering citizens’ influence investment decisions by
In European cities, information and concerns and ideas in the planning bringing together the concepts of
consultation processes are usually process is a step towards more socially participatory action research, direct
dictated by laws or regulations. Despite inclusive planning, especially if action organising (where those
their formality, these processes can included in a co-governance frame- affected by a problem mobilise to
help to reveal citizens’ concerns and work. Yet, there is more a practitioner find a solution), and popular educa-
ideas. However, ensuring that they can do to improve inclusivity in the tion (raising critical consciousness
sufficiently reflect all residents’ inter- planning process. In recent decades, among disadvantaged groups) as part
ests requires different efforts to engage even more radical approaches to of a process to redress power rela-
people. Further, trust is built when citizen participation have been formu- tions and bring about social change9.
participants feel that their voices are lated, such as advocacy, empowerment
actually being considered instead of or equity planning (see Key Terms Box, Equity planning: involves planners
just heard. ⇱Box B6 Budapest and Berlin)7. working inside government who use
their position and expertise to influence
Consultation tends to be less formal When it comes to realising social inclu- views, mobilise groups that are under-
in cities where citizens’ demands are sion in UGI planning practice, there are represented, and advance policies
part of the public policy culture and many ways to increase the willingness with the aim of redistributing
strengthened by bottom-up initia- of citizens to express their preferences resources to the poor.
tives. To promote collaborative deci- and participate in different stages of
sion-making, some cities, such as
Aarhus, have agreed on guidelines for
citizen involvement from the outset of
all municipal plans, strategies and
projects6.
Co-governance
Another way to think about participa-
tion is in terms of co-governance,
where power is distributed between
authorities and citizens (see Delivera-
bles 6.1 and 6.2). Citizens can be
One of Berlin’s most well-known

community gardens, the
Prinzessinnengarten is co-managed by a
small team of employees and hundreds of
volunteers on land rented from the
Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg municipality.

B
BOX B7: PPGIS AS A TOOL FOR PARTICIPATION, LISBON

Although urban planning has tradition- assessing and planning urban green “Do you have ten minutes to evaluate
ally been top-down in practice, many spaces, e.g., through mapping the uses Lisbon’s green spaces?”
cities are moving to adopt more partici- of such spaces, their perceived envi- In 2017, as part of GREEN SURGE
patory methods: gathering residents’ ronmental quality or ecosystem research, a PPGIS survey was
knowledge, ideas, values, and needs to services (⇱Box C1 Berlin). PPGIS can conducted in Lisbon, Portugal, with the
inform decision-making processes. It is be used at different planning stages: aim of supporting local UGI planning
also increasingly recognised that infor- during a visioning exercise or baseline and management (see map below).
mation about citizens’ perceptions, assessment (e.g., to determine the The survey assessed those green
experience and use of spaces can help to existing or preferred uses of a place), spaces frequently visited, those
achieve better planning outcomes, espe- or to evaluate or monitor a project avoided, and those perceived as
cially when spatially-focused methods upon implementation. having high levels of cultural diversity
are employed. or biodiversity. It was led by the Centre
Low-tech and high-tech options for Ecology, Evolution and Environ-
To meet this demand, a group of tools There are two main types of mental Changes (cE3c) at the Univer-
has emerged in the last two decades, approach: 1) hardcopy maps or aerial sity of Lisbon, in collaboration with the
known as Public Participatory images, where participants mark municipality of Lisbon. At the time of
Geographic Information Systems points or areas of interest with pens, writing, analysis of the survey
(PPGIS). In essence, PPGIS integrates markers or stickers, and 2) digital responses was still in progress. Prelim-
geospatial technologies with public mapping, typically using web-based inary results showed that about 70%
knowledge (belonging to individuals, mapping software (including many of respondents were not aware of the
local groups or communities) to free programs, ⇱Toolbox T7). Some municipality’s strategies and plans for
produce spatial assessments and help platforms also combine PPGIS with its green infrastructure, indicating
planners to make better decisions web-based survey tools, so that the more work is needed to raise local
about land-use, management and spatial information can be comple- awareness of UGI planning.
resource allocation. Such tools can also mented with information about
support greater citizen involvement in survey participants. Advantages of PPGIS in
promoting public participation
1. Enables many residents and

stakeholders to more easily
participate in planning processes,
especially those without the time
or confidence to attend tradi-
tional forums.
2. Can promote dynamic interaction

between stakeholders.
3. Is relatively inexpensive and easy

to conduct.
4. Offers maps as a tangible

outcome to support planning and
Green spaces most frequently visited
management decisions.
City parks
Lisbon municipal boundary
Map showing the results of the PPGIS
0 1 2 3 4 5 km survey in Lisbon.
Credit: Ana Catarina Luz

B
KEY MESSAGES FOR INCREASING SOCIAL INCLUSION

Match the level of participation to the scale, context and intended
outcome
A voluntary, bottom-up initiative can empower local people and, in some cases, result
in local residents taking responsibility to manage an urban green space (⇱Box B5
Ljubljana). However, this approach may not be suitable at a much larger-scale, where
participatory methods need to complement, rather than supplant, conventional
planning approaches.
Identify under-represented groups and appropriate tools and

strategies to engage them
Participatory approaches can easily lead to an unbalanced level of involvement, excluding
less powerful groups. These groups need to be identified and a bundle of dedicated tools and
strategies employed to involve them, such as special participatory offers for young people,
women, or ethnic minorities (⇱Box E3 Aarhus). One of the easiest ways is to increase citizen
involvement is to decrease the burdens of participation, i.e., to make it as simple as possible
for people to get involved. ⇱Toolbox T7 provides a range of tools that can help.
Address skill and resources barriers

To move from formal consultation to strategic involvement, barriers to efficient public
participation need to be dealt with. These might be lack of financial and human
resources, time constraints, insufficient representation of interest groups, lack of social
facilitation skills among city officials and/or non-governmental actors, or the
limitations of policy frameworks. To this end, possible strategies are engaging a
dedicated facilitator, or advocating to higher political levels and other departments for
more policy mechanisms and resources to support participatory planning.
Social inclusion goes beyond the planning process

After plans are developed and implemented with an inclusive approach, ongoing investment
is needed to ensure that green spaces continue to be available for the use of all groups. This
may include physical maintenance programmes, but also social work (⇱Social Cohesion).
⇱Toolbox T7 for methods and tools to help foster social inclusion.
REFERENCES
1 Kooiman, J., 1993. Modern Governance: 4 Baker, S., Eckerberg, K. (eds). 2008. In 7 Bratt, R.G., Reardon, K.M., 2013. Beyond
New Government-Society Interactions. Sage, Pursuit of Sustainable Development, New the Ladder: New Ideas About Resident Roles in
London. governance practices at the sub-national level in Contemporary Community Development in the
Europe. Routledge, p91. United States. In: Carmon, N., Fainstein, S. (eds.).
2 Cook, B., Kothari, U. (eds), 2001. Policy, Planning, and People. Promoting Justice
Participation: the new Tyranny? Zed Books Ltd. 5 IAP2 International Federation, 2012. IAP2 in Urban Development. University of
New York. Spectrum of Public Participation. Available from: Pennsylvania Press, p359.
www.iap2.org/?page=A5
3 Aalbers, C., Eckerberg, K., 2013. Governance 8 See Bratt et al., 2013.
and Sustainability of Peri-Urban Areas: A 6 See more at City of Aarhus website: https://
Comparative Analysis of the PLUREL Case www.aarhus.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/ 9 Reardon, K.M., 2000. An Experiential
Studies. In: Nillson, K., Pauleit, S., et al. (eds). CityOfAarhus/Home/The-City-Council/The- Approach to Creating a Community/University
Peri-urban futures: Scenarios and models for Aarhus-model.aspx?sc_lang=da Partnership That Works: The East St. Louis
land use change in Europe. Springer, p367. Action Research Project. Cityscape: A Journal of
Policy Development and Research 5-1, 59-74.

FURTHER READING
PRACTICAL GUIDANCE
Enhancing Sustainable Communities With Green Infrastructure. EPA, 2014.
Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater

with Green Infrastructure. EPA, 2010.
Green Infrastructure Guidance (No. NE176). Natural England, 2009.
The Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure. Science for Environmental Policy,

In-depth Report. DG Environment, 2012.
TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management. TEEB – The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, 2011.
Consultation and community involvement in forest planning. Forest Research

Agency, UK. Tabbush, P., 2005.
The URBACT II Local Support Group Toolkit. URBACT, 2013.
SCIENTIFIC TEXTS
Green Infrastructure for Landscape Planning: Integrating Human and Natural
Systems. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Austin, G., 2014.
An Integrated Framework for the Development of Green Infrastructure: A Literature

Review. European Journal of Sustainable Development 2, 1-24. Beauchamp, P.,
Adamowski, J., 2013.
Establishing green roof infrastructure through environmental policy instruments.

Environmental Management 42, 151–164. Carter, T., Fowler, L., 2008.
Effectiveness of Low Impact Development Practices: Literature Review and

Suggestions for Future Research. Water, Air and Soil Pollution. 223, 4253-4273.
Ahiablame, L.M. et al., 2012.
The aesthetic performance of urban landscape-based stormwater management

systems: a review of twenty projects in Northern Europe. Journal of Landscape Archi-
tecture, 8(2), 52-63. Backhaus, A., Fryd, O., 2013.
Design, implementation and cost elements of Green infrastructure projects. Final

report to the European Commission. DG Environment, Ecologic institute and GHK
Consulting. Naumann, S., et al., 2011.
Greenways as a planning strategy. Landscape and Urban Planning 33, 131-155. Ahern,
J., 1995.
Relationship between greenways and ecological network: A case study in Italy.

International Journal of Environmental Research 6(49), 903-916. Fumagalli, N. &
Toccolini, A., 2012.
Ecological Networks and Greenways: Concept, Design, Implementation. Cambridge

University Press, New York, N.Y. Jongman, R.H.G., Pungetti, G., 2004.

C MAKING IT HAPPEN!
Embedding UGI in the planning process

Assessing UGI networks
Developing plans
Engaging stakeholders
Implementation
43
EMBEDDING UGI IN THE PLANNING C
PROCESS
Although the social, environmental and GREEN SURGE (see matrix below). Green-
regulatory context varies from city to city, grey integration, whether for stormwater
GREEN SURGE findings offer some clues management or urban cooling, is directly
about where and how it might be possible connected to climate change adaptation;
to influence planning processes, regard- while enhancing ecological connectivity
less of where they take place, in order to relates closely to protecting biodiversity.
support urban green infrastructure. Finally, a socially inclusive planning
process might not guarantee a socially
This section is about So far, we have looked at UGI planning in cohesive community – but it is an
the practicalities of relation to urban challenges and four core important step towards one.
embedding the UGI principles. Importantly, these are funda-
approach in the mentally inter-linked with one another. The next pages offer further insights across a
planning process, in Each of the UGI planning principles can, to range of practical planning aspects –
other words, making it varying degrees, contribute to addressing assessing a UGI network, developing plans,
happen on the ground! the urban challenges investigated for engaging stakeholders and implementation.
INTEGRATION CONNECTIVITY MULTIFUNCTIONALITY SOCIAL INCLUSION
LINKING UGI PRINCIPLES WITH URBAN CHALLENGES

Green-grey measures Connected green Regulating services Inclusion of groups
CLIMATE CHANGE for flood retention or structures that that contribute to vulnerable to climate
urban cooling. enhance natural climate change adap- change impacts in
ventilation and tation as an integral UGI planning.
cooling. part of planning for
multifunctionality.
Habitat provision, Networks for Protecting ecological Fostering awareness

BIODIVERSITY supporting native ecological functions and among all groups of
plants as one of the connectivity. habitat as an integral the value of
co-benefits of green- part of planning for biodiversity.
grey solutions. multifunctionality.
Reduced manage- Promotion of Cost effective UGI Promotion of a green

GREEN ECONOMY ment costs through sustainable transport solutions through economy, through
integrated green-grey systems, e.g., providing multiple co-creation,
systems; avoided walking and biking to benefits in the same co-management and
costs through risk lessen environmental space. co-governance of
mitigation. impacts. urban green spaces.
Consideration of the Provision of Provision of UGI to Consideration of

SOCIAL COHESION usability and amenity equitable access to meet identified vulnerable and less-
values of integrated urban green spaces. demands and needs vocal groups’ needs
The four core principles of UGI measures to of all groups. and their empower-
UGI planning can each help
to address a range of promote social ment through collab-
challenges, including those cohesion. orative planning.
examined in GREEN SURGE.

ASSESSING UGI NETWORKS
Uncover value and opportunities
Systematic assessment of existing
UGI is an essential precursor to the KEY MESSAGES
development of any sound UGI
plan, but assessments are also Assessing UGI, including quantity, quality, supply and demand, is
tools to raise awareness of UGI’s critical for defining action areas.
multiple benefits. Quantifying
these benefits can be an effective Use assessment to raise awareness for the value of UGI and
strategy to promote investment in related benefits, as well as to create investment opportunities.
UGI, if communicated well to the
public and decision-makers. A multitude of assessment tools exist for different aspects of UGI
planning – it is best to use a mix of them.
Quantity AND quality
Identifying and quantifying a broad
range of UGI elements (⇱Green should first consider a broad spec- Supply and demand
Space Typology, Part A) is a first step trum of functions and services Alongside information about existing
in understanding the shortcomings before identifying priorities green and blue spaces, both demand
and potential of a UGI network, but it (⇱Multifunctionality). An for and access to them need to be
is also important to assess the ecosystem services approach is one considered. Top-down assessments
quality of these elements and their means of doing so. The TEEB (The can also help determine priority
connections to each other (⇱Connec- Economics of Ecosystems and actions, such as a green space audit,
tivity). Quality in its simplest form Biodiversity) initiative suggests a which assesses and maps city green
can be assessed by gathering data on stepwise procedure to identify and spaces along with their shortcom-
the benefits provided by different assess benefits and stakeholder ings, potential and accessibility for
UGI elements. Any qualitative assess- needs in a given urban area residents in different parts of the city
ment as a basis for UGI planning (⇱ TEEB Box on page 48). (⇱Box E4 Edinburgh).
To develop a city’s green infrastructure, planners need to identify not only the valuable green spaces but also those areas that hold
hidden potential for improvement. The city of Lisbon, for example, is turning wastelands into green corridors.

C
BOX C1: ASSESSING THE SOCIAL VALUE OF GREEN SPACE WITH PPGIS, BERLIN
Ways to assess resident perceptions city-wide. Results from a PPGIS survey of general uses and perceptions of needs,
and uses of green space are of can greatly enhance the ability of plan- the PPGIS survey provided much richer
growing interest in many cities, where ners and managers to understand how detail about specific parks. The survey
municipalities often need to balance parks are used, the needs and prefer- responses revealed locations experi-
limited resources with resident satis- ences of park-goers, the benefits encing problems like overcrowding or
faction. In this context, Public Partici- (ecosystem services) that such spaces lack of maintenance, the kinds of activi-
patory Geographic Information provide, and conflicts that may arise. ties taking place and where, and the
Systems (PPGIS) can improve on tradi- Also, because the information is entered cultural values respondents associated
tional surveying methods, capturing into a GIS, it can be overlaid with map with particular green spaces. This kind of
the social value of green spaces. layers traditionally used by planners and information can serve a variety of plan-
compared with ecological assessments ning, management and design applica-
Advantages over traditional surveys (e.g., of habitat quality), fostering more tions (see inset below).
Resident satisfaction has traditionally holistic thinking about socio-ecological
been assessed either through postal challenges and making it easier to iden- Potential applications of PPGIS
surveys inquiring about resident use of tify where interventions may be needed.
and satisfaction with parks in the city in Planning
general, or through on-site, one-on-one Assessing cultural ecosystem services 1. Identify hotspots of value and
questionnaires. These same methods in Berlin uses
have also been used to assess cultural As part of GREEN SURGE, an online PPGIS
2. Identify potential development
ecosystem services such as recreation, study was conducted in Berlin to explore
and/or redevelopment areas
aesthetic appreciation, social and educa- uses of green spaces and how the
tional opportunities and inspiration. cultural ecosystem services they provide 3. Anticipate how people may
While both methods can provide much are perceived (see map below). Although react to planning and manage-
useful information, PPGIS allows cities to results were comparable to the city’s last ment decisions
obtain this data across entire districts or green space satisfaction survey in terms
Management
1. Pinpoint anti-social activity
2. Better allocate resources for

maintenance
3. Better target communication

activities (e.g., related to
perceived biodiversity)
Design
1. Protect especially loved features
in a park redesign
2. Redesign areas experiencing

conflicts or other shortcomings
Hotspot map of favourite green spaces in

Berlin that are also perceived as
inspirational. The hotspots, shown in red,
are centred around the public parks
0 5 10 20 km
Tiergarten, Tempelhofer Feld, Treptower
Park and Volkspark Friedrichshain.
Credit: Emily Rall

C
TEEB (THE ECONOMICS OF ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSITY) STEPWISE APPROACH1

The TEEB stepwise approach is one possible means of identifying and assessing both the needs of stakeholders and the
functions and benefits of UGI, as well as prioritising actions.
Step 1: Specify and agree on a problem or policy issue with stakeholders that can be tackled through ecosystem services
(ESS), such as adaptation to climate change.
Step 2: Identify which ESS are most relevant in this context (e.g., regulating services).
Step 3: Determine what information is needed and select suitable assessment methods for the ESS under consideration.
Step 4: Implement methods to assess (future changes in) ESS and their values.
Step 5: Identify and assess policy, planning or management options in order to increase or secure ESS provision and design/
develop tools to set the options in motion.
Step 6: Assess the social, economic and environmental impacts of the policy options on stakeholders.
Economic assessments Ecological assessments can look at citizens. Some expert-based studies,
Translating UGI benefits into the quantity and quality of green such as Edinburgh’s Open Space
economic values can be a particu- spaces in general, of ecosystems, or Audit, can also be considered a form
larly convincing strategy to persuade of particular components of ecosys- of social assessment (⇱Box E4 Edin-
decision-makers. For instance, the tems. For example, a vulnerability burgh).
City of Edinburgh assessed the social assessment can identify areas which
return on investment of its urban are more exposed to hazards from Integrated assessments
green space, showing that, for every climate change and/or have less Finally, integrated assessments bring
single GBP spent, 12-14GBP are adaptive capacity (⇱Box A1 Almada). together the ecological, economic
generated in social-economic and and/or social dimensions. In their
environmental benefits2. Similarly, Social assessments concern the simplest form, individual results of
illustrating the costs of NOT perceptions, values and goals of indi- the different assessment types can
investing in UGI can be equally viduals or groups, and their relation- be discussed alongside one another,
persuasive (⇱Box B2 Copenhagen). ships with green space. This type of recognising that each is important to
assessment is more useful for intan- consider. Depending upon the
Social and ecological assessments gible services, like spirituality or consistency and comparability of
Many UGI services and benefits inspiration; for green spaces which methods, there are also integrated
cannot be easily translated into mone- are likely to have very different assessment tools that allow better
tary values, or it may simply not make meanings for various user groups; or side-by-side comparisons, such as
sense to do so. Examples include a for potentially controversial green multi-criteria analysis. See Toolboxes
powerful place identity, inspiration space-related actions. Tools such as T1, T2, T6 and T7 for a range of
received from green spaces, or the public participatory GIS (⇱Box B7 assessment tools and Milestone 32
value of biodiversity. Here, other Lisbon and C1 Berlin on PPGIS) can for more information on integrated
kinds of assessment come into play. help to reveal what matters most to valuation methods for UGI.
REFERENCES
1 TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and 2 Reil, A., 2015. 1st Stakeholder Dialogue
Biodiversity, 2011. TEEB Manual for Cities: Forum - “Green Infrastructure for and with
Ecosystem Services in Urban Management. citizens: How can local governments make it
See more at www.teebweb.org happen?” Brussels, 13 October 2015. GREEN
SURGE joint milestone “Workshop on good
practice in UGI planning and green space
governance” (MS35).

C
BOX C2: ASSESSING THE ROLE OF PERI-URBAN FARMLAND IN UGI PLANNING, MALMÖ
Urban green space planning tends to This presents the imperative to formu- biotopes and linear structures, so as to
focus on public spaces such as parks or late new planning goals for the land, improve connectivity for wildlife and
urban forests, with less attention paid and also the opportunity to consider it recreation, and (b) facilitating multiple
to privately-owned or leased sites such as part of a UGI network. The assess- on-site functions, such as combining
as farmland. However, land used for ment framework includes: market-oriented production with
farming has the potential to make a recreation (e.g., berry-picking fields or
significant contribution to urban green 1. The capacity for economic bene- community vegetable gardens).
infrastructure. Farmers should be fits, such as production value,
considered important partners for UGI employment and self-sufficiency; Strategy 2: Assist less-productive
planning and development, and their farmland to contribute to UGI
2. Social and cultural benefits, such
interests and perspectives combined primarily through low-intensity
as recreation, education, social
with broader planning objectives. management, so as to maintain and
connectivity, cultural activities,
enhance ecological, historic and
inclusion and participation;
As part of the GREEN SURGE Urban cultural value with the potential for
Learning Lab in Malmö, Sweden, an 3. Environmental resources and fostering biodiversity and recreation
assessment framework for the city’s regulating functions; and opportunities.
peri-urban farmland was developed by
4. Biodiversity.
an interdisciplinary team, made up of These strategies may help expand the
researchers and staff from five munic- The framework also includes site condi- implementation of Malmö’s Green-
ipal departments. The City of Malmö tions such as soil, hydrology and topog- Blue Plan (⇱Box C4 Malmö) to agri-
owns about half of the farmland within raphy, in the interest of maintaining farm- cultural land. While the situation in
its city limits – about 2,200 ha in total land productivity. The assessment has Malmö is unique, the assessment
– and another 1,500 ha in adjacent resulted in two main proposed strategies. framework approach might also be
municipalities. The city purchased this applicable to other cities looking to
land for urban expansion purposes, Strategy 1: Assist highly-productive consider the potential role of peri-
but has since changed policy direction farmland to contribute to UGI by urban farmland in their UGI
towards compact urban development. (a) increasing the number of small networks.
Malmö’s eastern landscape is heterogeneous, hilly and dominated by semi-natural grassland. It has great cultural heritage and biodiversity value,
and also offers recreation opportunities. Less-productive farmland is used for traditional, low-intensity purposes, such as grazing sheep.
Credit: Werner Rolf.

DEVELOPING PLANS
Coordinate planning strategies
A large variety of plans and policies
can be used to support UGI, such as KEY MESSAGES
comprehensive urban development
strategies, green space plans or Get support through mandates and advocates.
thematic strategies on biodiversity,
urban water or climate. A strategic Develop strong but flexible frameworks and mix instruments
perspective at the city-wide or city- for implementation.
regional level is important to ensure
that the whole network is taken into Coordinate plans, policies and instruments for achieving
account. goals, also at different spatial scales.
Coordinate planning instruments
and other mechanisms mechanisms, as well as instruments compensate costs with other benefits
Strategic UGI plans should be long- such as pilot projects and dialogue (⇱Multifunctionality, ⇱Integration,
term instruments, modified and forums, within a framework to also Box E1 Malmö).
updated regularly in order to provide involve non-government actors to
an accurate and useful framework develop the city’s UGI (⇱Box E6 Legislating and advocating
for action (⇱Box B3 Berlin and E2 Berlin). Legal requirements and political
Milan). Often multiple instruments mandates are often a powerful driver
are needed, including at different Planning for an uncertain future for a UGI strategy, since they constitute
spatial scales, and these need to be In the face of the uncertainties that a commitment on a higher legal or
coordinated with one another. There- current urban challenges create, political level. However, even without
fore, it is important that UGI plans especially climate change, the key an official mandate, decision-makers
are embedded in the city’s planning requirement for planning is to adopt such as local politicians can sometimes
system and linked to other planning ‘no-regret’ or ‘low-regret’ strategies secure enough political support to
instruments (⇱Box C4 Malmö). over ‘hard’ adaptation (e.g., early trigger concrete actions (⇱Box B1
Berlin’s Urban Landscape Strategy is warning systems, insurance, dykes). Szeged), while NGOs can use evidence-
a good example of a strategic plan No/low-regret strategies are designed based proposals to influence policy
coordinated with other planning to increase robustness at low costs, or (⇱Box A2 Helsinki).
Edinburgh’s Open Space Strategy involved

consultation with many departments (⇱Box E4).
Credit: City of Edinburgh Council
BOX C3: NEIGHBOURHOOD GREEN PLANS, UTRECHT

Citizens are important stakeholders city. For each of the city’s ten
who can be mobilised to take part neighbourhoods, a budget of
in shaping plans. Often it is easier €500,000 has been made available
to engage people at a neighbour- to realise ‘green’ ideas brought
hood level, when the area they live forward by locals. These ideas were
in is directly concerned, rather than assessed by the municipality, and
the whole city. In Utrecht, The those considered feasible bundled
Netherlands, Neighbourhood together to form a Green Plan.
Green Plans have proved to be a After implementation, the munici-
successful instrument to engage pality plans to further involve
citizens in contributing ideas for citizens in self-management of the
green space projects across the spaces concerned.

C
BOX C4: MALMÖ’S GREEN-BLUE PLAN

The city of Malmö, located in the fast- grated into the city’s Web-GIS plat- documents concerning the integration
growing Öresund region, is experi- form, enabling easy access to them. of ecosystem services into the planning
encing rapid urban changes. Spatial process (the MEST and BEST plans).
planning objectives are driven by the Teaming up for innovation While none of these are legally-binding,
‘compact city’ concept, with housing To develop the plan in a cooperative they have been adopted by political
needs to be met through inner city way, several thematic working groups decision-makers at the highest level.
densification, instead of expansion were set up, crossing the traditional For implementation purposes, the
into the surrounding countryside. To boundaries between nine different Green-Blue Plan will be supplemented
support these aims, and to preserve administrative units (including the later on with a detailed action plan.
and develop its blue-green infrastruc- Streets and Parks Department, City
ture, the city is preparing a ‘Green Planning Office, Real Estate Depart-
and Blue Plan’ to replace the previous ment, as well as the Culture Depart-
The plan’s objectives
Green Plan (2003). ment and Leisure Department). This
approach promoted knowledge 1. In Malmö, everyone has
Using ecosystem services to highlight sharing between local experts. Addi- access to recreational and
green blue benefits tionally, universities (including GREEN healthy green and blue spaces
The new plan recognises the impor- SURGE researchers) have been in their everyday life
tance of multifunctional and high involved to discuss ideas and strate-
quality green-blue infrastructure for gies, e.g., the strengths and weakness 2. In Malmö, green and blue
the benefit of citizens, for biodiversity of current green planning approaches space have a quantity, quality
protection, and to minimise the effects and potential ways forward. This inter- and distribution that promotes
of climate change. To increase aware- and transdisciplinary exchange helped high biodiversity
ness of UGI’s importance among to create a cutting-edge plan. 3. In Malmö, green and blue
administrative staff, politicians and citi- space is used for climate adap-
zens, the concept of ecosystem Integration into the city’s strategic tation and purification of air
services has been introduced, illus- planning framework and water
trating the value of the city’s green The Green-Blue Plan is just one of the
and blue spaces for human well-being city’s spatial planning strategies, which 4. In Malmö, the agricultural
by providing cultural, regulative and include the Comprehensive Plan landscape is developed long-
provisioning services (see inset below). (2014), a number of thematic plans, term in a sustainable way
Maps illustrating the plan will be inte- e.g., the Water Plan (2016) and other 5. In Malmö, ecosystem services
and biodiversity are considered
Comprehensive Plan
in all economic positions, polit-
ical considerations and other
NATIONAL municipal decisions
POLICIES AND
LEGISLATION
Nature
Cloud-
Green-Blue Plan burst
Conservation Plan Find out more...
Water Plan Plan Stormwater
Plan Malmö’s Comprehensive Plan
(English summary).
The Green-Blue Plan is embedded in the

planning system and coordinated with a
Ecosystem services in number of other documents.
the planning process Credit: City of Malmö

ENGAGING STAKEHOLDERS
Cross-sectoral and inclusive UGI planning
UGI planning requires the involve-
ment of a variety of actors, not only KEY MESSAGES
public authorities but also busi-
nesses, civil society and citizens. Cooperate with other departments and external experts.
Active engagement can promote a
sense of shared responsibility for Collaborate with non-governmental stakeholders and support
local green spaces, towards co-crea- co-governance arrangements.
tion, co-management and
co-governance arrangements Partner-up with a variety of stakeholders and find meaningful
(⇱ Social Inclusion). ways for them to become engaged.
Cooperation with other departments
and external experts engaging graphics and collages has sectors and integrating (external)
Interdisciplinary cooperation between promoted cooperation with other experts early-on can also be especially
urban planners, green space planners, departments, because the plan content helpful for developing UGI strategies at
infrastructure planners and others is a was presented in an unusual and easily the city level. Effective local responses
critical aspect of UGI planning and an accessible way (⇱Box E6 Berlin). Else- require knowledge of the context and
especially important success factor for where, there is evidence that collabora- potential paths forward as well as
green-grey integration approaches, tion between planners social workers motivated actors to implement actions.
where the complexity involved cannot may be a productive avenue (⇱Box C6 Universities and other scientific institu-
be effectively addressed by a single Berlin, ⇱Social cohesion). tions can also play a role in providing
discipline alone (⇱Integration). In the relevant knowledge and measures
Berlin, an informal planning strategy Networking, forming partnerships (⇱Box A1 Almada, A2 Helsinki, and B1
illustrating a vision through visually- between different departments and Szeged).
Staff from various departments in the City of Malmö discuss UGI strategies for Malmö’s peri-urban farmland with a GREEN SURGE
researcher and other external experts.
Credit: Anders Mårsén

C
Collaboration with non-governmental safe and accessible. Such an can be a reliable partner in fostering
stakeholders approach requires a framework, a new approach, engaging individ-
Fostering co-governance arrange- rules and sufficient resources for uals in new roles. The extra efforts
ments can lead to new roles for local implementation (see Deliverable required can foster beneficial
government, e.g., as a facilitator and D6.2). In Berlin, the Urban Land- two-way learning processes, can
supporter responsible for enabling scape Strategy built upon an existing lead to unexpected planning solu-
frameworks and funding ‘DIY’-culture to engage citizens in tions and often unburden local
programmes, but also providing pilot projects (⇱Box E6 Berlin). authorities from the full scope of
ongoing oversight and guidance to Where such a culture does not monitoring or instructing tasks
ensure that public spaces remain already exist, an external facilitator (⇱Box B5 Ljubljana, C5 Milan).
LESSONS FOR UGI DEVELOPMENT WITH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS

Based on the experience of organizing DIY-projects on public green space, city officials in Berlin gained practical lessons
that may be of relevance for other cities.
• Determine rules for public access far in advance and review these periodically to balance public and private/user
needs.
• Concentrate projects in areas which have good infrastructure and that are close to a potential base of users.
• Cluster and advertise temporary uses so people are aware of them.
• Factor in a lot of coordination, discussion, and oversight of projects.
BOX C5: URBAN REFORESTATION WITH LOCAL RESIDENTS, MILAN

Boscoincittà (The Forest in the City) is The project is managed by the non-
an urban reforestation project located profit organization Italia Nostra (Our
in Milan, Italy, conceived to counter Italy) and supported by thousands of
the negative effects of urbanisation volunteers involved in planting, main-
and to foster community well-being. tenance and other initiatives. This has
reduced the maintenance burden on
Established in 1974 on 35ha of aban- the municipality of Milan (which owns
doned farmland, Boscoincittà has the land) and enabled the project to
since grown to over 120ha. The site expand, It has also fostered opportu-
offers 150 allotment gardens, avail- nities for local citizens to grow food,
able to local citizens upon application. and to interact with nature and with
There are also bike and footpaths and each other. The positive results for
Before (top) and after (bottom). Buildings
horseback riding trails; recreation the local economy, for citizens’ health on the site have been transformed
areas; and event spaces available for and for community ties (⇱Social through community-driven management.
Credit: Centro Forestazione Urbana archive
local community hire. Hiking and Cohesion, Green Economy) have
cycling tours take place regularly, as inspired a new generation of parks
Find out more...
well as workshops for schools and (e.g., Giretta Park) in the surrounding
community groups. green belt of Milan. Italia Nostra website (in Italian)

C
BOX C6: UGI DEVELOPMENT WITH THE HELP OF SOCIAL WORKERS IN BERLIN
Since 1999, the City of Berlin has been neighbourhood greening projects. convinced, tenants are sometimes less
running an urban regeneration Investigating these cases showed that interested in bottom-up neighbour-
endeavour called the Neighbourhood greening can improve social conditions hood improvement initiatives than
Management Programme as part of in dense inner-city areas where public owners, resident councils often
the national ‘Social City’ initiative. or semi-public spaces are scarce. become dominated by ‘middle-class
Re-greening an inner courtyard, a ideas’ in their decisions, while plan-
Programme overview public square or a playground offers a ning departments are often too
Right now, 34 deprived areas of the chance to involve residents in the bureaucratic and not open to innova-
city are being assisted through neigh- design and maintenance of the space, tive approaches. However, in this
bourhood management offices, which as well as creating a new meeting context, social workers can play a key
usually employ between two and four place. For instance, the neighbour- role in identifying and counteracting
social workers. These offices are well- hood management office in Berlin- such challenges before they become
informed about the problems of their Neukölln initiated a programme called major problems. In addition, estab-
local residents and some also have ’Hidden Places – Beautiful Courtyards’ lished links between the social workers
considerable experience with different encouraging both landlords and and local residents with various demo-
types of green interventions, such as tenants to re-green their courtyards graphic and cultural backgrounds are
nature-based educational programmes with the help of planners and some often crucial to the longer term
or contests for small green projects financial assistance. These opportuni- sustainability of greening projects.
within their neighbourhoods. Most ties can be particularly valuable for low
projects aim to make direct contact income residents, who are often The cases studied here reveal that
with residents on-site. socially segregated. social workers can help UGI planners
to achieve positive social impacts with
Social effects of local greening The role of social workers in small, up-scalable green projects, acti-
projects overcoming obstacles vating different groups and engaging
GREEN SURGE analysed the role of six Obviously, a number of challenges are them in the design and long-term
neighbourhood management offices in likely to arise: landlords need to be management of local green spaces.
Find out more...
Neighbourhood Management
Programme
Hidden Places - Beautiful

Courtyards. Video about the project
(in German).
Otto Park in the very dense Moabit-West

neighbourhood management area.
Credit: Iván Tosics

IMPLEMENTATION
Take action and monitor impacts
Making the leap from paper to prac-
tice is a challenge for any policy or KEY MESSAGES
plan. A range of tools are available
to help implement UGI planning Create a framework for regular monitoring of UGI resources.
(e.g., ⇱Toolbox T7 to increase
participation), but a key question is Start with pilot projects in order to adapt strategies and build
usually how to get the resources. public and political support.
Collaboration and sharing knowledge Unlock additional resources by collaborating, pooling

can be an effective way to better deal knowledge and accessing external funding.
with resource constraints. This
includes, in particular, collaboration at
the expert level and pooling knowl- Unlock alternative resources
edge from various partners GREEN SURGE research found external BOX C7: A PPP
(⇱Engaging stakeholders). In addition, funding to be a major factor for FOR GREEN SPACE
the involvement of citizens can help supporting UGI (see Deliverable 5.1). RENEWAL
planning to better correspond to local Access to European and national
Lisciasta Park Residence is a
needs and to target investments more funding programmes is very important
housing complex in the north of
efficiently (⇱Assessing UGI networks). for implementing innovative strategies
Lodz, Poland, and bordered by
on larger scales and testing new
green spaces to the south and
Learning by doing approaches that require time and
east – including a park, the
Pilot projects have been shown to be (human) resources. However, funds
Sokolowka stream and several
an effective means of testing new from developers or other private actors
reservoirs. In 2006, the City Office
approaches. They can encourage can also support implementation
rehabilitated the stream and
similar initiatives and convince deci- (⇱Box B3 Berlin, C7 Lodz), provided
created the Teresa Reservoir, but
sion-makers that an idea is worth there is a framework to ensure that
there were no funds to improve
pursuing. A pilot project focusing on private profit is not prioritised over the
the surrounding green spaces.
a key issue or objective of broad rele- public interest, and benefits distributed
vance can help to gain interest and equally (⇱Green Economy). Impor-
When the Residence was
support across different depart- tantly, resources are not only mone-
constructed soon after (2010-
ments (⇱Box E1 Malmö). Learning tary! Volunteerism and citizens’ knowl-
2013), a Public-Private-Partner-
from these examples can also help to edge count among the resources that
ship was arranged between the
adjust and refine a planning strategy local governments can harness to get
developer and the municipality.
before it is expanded to other areas. things done (⇱Box C8 Ljubljana).
The developer cleaned and reha-
bilitated the adjacent land; partly
as mandatory compensation for
their removal of local trees, and
partly to maximise the positive
influence of the green surround-
ings on prospective sales. The
rehabilitated green space remains
in public ownership and manage-
ment, and the City Office hopes
to enable similar private invest-
ment in improving green space.
Liciasta Park Residence and its

regenerated green spaces, Lodz.
Credit: Budomal

C
BOX C8: TESTING NEW URBAN GREEN PARTNERSHIPS, LJUBLJANA

The City of Ljubljana, Slovenia, is governance model on a 0.6ha public local food production to education
aiming to find new ways to engage space. According to one of the city offi- about the rare biodiversity present at
with citizens and, at the same time, to cials involved, bringing researchers and the site. This pilot project has inspired
develop a financially sustainable practitioners together was a key the city to explore whether to intro-
governance model for urban green success factor for this project, enabling duce the same governance model for
space, avoiding increased public the stakeholder landscape to be other public green spaces.
expenditure on maintenance as a comprehensively mapped and
result of greening the city. analysed. “This approach helped to
identify a very good local NGO partner,
In response to these goals, a GREEN Zavod BOB, to develop the site with
SURGE Learning Alliance partnership us” she says. The partner NGO drove a
between the municipality, planners, focus on involving high school drop-
researchers and non-state actors inves- outs who are often particularly under-
tigated new partnership models with represented in green space projects.
businesses and NGOs. The resulting
collaboration has influenced Ljublja- Putting ideas into practice – together
na’s new Sustainable Urban Strategy Through team-building efforts, the
2014-2020: engaging the public to researchers facilitated discussion of
‘promote participatory planning and various practical questions concerning Opening of the LivadaLAB with volunteers
and the Mayor of Ljubljana, during EU
governance of urban green, especially the demonstration site, e.g., the site’s Green Week 2016.
with vulnerable groups’ is now at the ecological potential, how ecosystem Credit: Anja Manja Segulin
core of the strategy. services could be integrated into the
local economy, and how citizens could
Find out more...
How to partner be best engaged. In the end, a largely
The partnership also resulted in a unused green space was transformed Ljubljana Sustainable Urban
demonstration project, ‘LivadaLAB’, into one offering multiple benefits, Strategy 2014-2020 (in Slovenian)
testing an alternative planning and ranging from sports to culture; from
Non-state financing Deliverable 4.1. protections for existing trees in

A wide range of instruments and Monitoring certain types of development are
approaches can be used to secure Monitoring is essential to ensure necessary, or more incentives to
financing and resources from non- that UGI is not only maintained in a encourage tree planting.
state actors. These include: good state but ideally regularly
improved. It is also a mechanism to Monitoring is often undervalued
• Taxes and other regulatory check if targets are being met or and underfunded in many cities.
instruments strategies need to be adjusted. For However, there are cases of munici-
instance, a UGI strategy for climate palities successfully partnering with
• Partnerships (⇱Box C7 Lodz)
change adaptation may involve university researchers to monitor
• Incentives targets to protect and increase tree UGI or its benefits (⇱Box E5
• Corporate social responsibility and cover, in order to moderate the Lisbon). Monitoring goes hand-in-
social entrepreneurship urban heat island effect, reduce hand with a commitment to regu-
stormwater runoff, sequester larly updating plans; ensuring that
carbon, and reduce cooling energy goals and strategies remain in line
⇱Toolbox T8 offers a detailed list of demands. Regular tree audits could with the reality on the ground
funding mechanisms, as does help to determine if stronger (⇱Box B3 Berlin, E4 Edinburgh).

D CONCLUSION AND NEXT
STEPS
Conclusion
Reflecting on UGI planning in your city
Rapid UGI planning checklist
Detailed UGI planning checklist
57
CONCLUSION D
This guide has outlined the fundamentals Bringing things together – a holistic
for planning and developing urban green approach to UGI planning
infrastructure – whether it be to kickstart The underlying principles and practical guid-
a new UGI planning strategy in your city, ance offered here need to be understood as
or to improve an existing approach. part of a holistic approach – one that will
Ultimately, it provides a framework for need to be adapted to suit your local context:
getting started, with insights from case the planning system, social, economic and
studies throughout Europe. More specific environmental
practical tools and guidance are available conditions, as well as the available actors. In
in the ⇱Toolbox section. addition, successfully planning UGI requires
a strategic approach. Once clear priorities
Priorities for local UGI planning and objectives are established, the linkages,
Before developing a UGI planning strategy, synergies and potential conflicts between
local priorities need to be defined. Such these should be taken into account.
priorities are often driven by widely-
recognised urban challenges. Hence, these Importantly, the four UGI principles are
challenges may present windows of fundamentally inter-linked. For instance,
opportunity for UGI planning to play a improving connectivity within a green
greater role in urban development and network can increase the provision of
decision-making overall. In this guide, four ecosystem services, which in turn
key urban challenges have been examined enhances multifunctionality. Solutions for
for their relevance to UGI planning: green-grey integration likewise provide
climate change adaptation, biodiversity multiple benefits beyond the mono-func-
protection, promoting a green economy tionality of conventional solutions for
and increasing social cohesion. While transport routes and stormwater disposal.
these are growing in importance, they are In parallel to these three principles, it is
not the only ones that cities face. You may essential to involve different groups in UGI
identify others that are more pressing for planning in order to ensure equitable
your local community – a declining manu- recognition of their needs and distribution
facturing sector, for instance, or rising of benefits – in other words, to incorpo-
public healthcare costs. rate the principle of social inclusion.
The city of Essen in the Ruhr

district was the European Green
Capital in 2017. It has built up a
network of green and blue
corridors and high quality parks,
such as Krupp Park.
Credit: Johannes Kassenberg

REFLECTING ON UGI PLANNING IN
YOUR CITY
To help you evaluate your current required? Do additional stakeholders list, nor one that will necessarily
planning approaches and to iden- need to be involved?). suit every situation. For each
tify priorities and action steps for measure, consider its relevance and
implementing UGI planning, we The suggested measures listed in adequacy for the given context in
have prepared two evaluation the detailed checklist are the result your city. Either evaluation can be
checklists – one rapid, and one of research conducted throughout undertaken for:
detailed (see illustration below for GREEN SURGE, including a litera-
how they work). ture review of identified urban chal- 1. Existing plans, strategies and
lenges and core UGI planning princi- policies relevant to urban green
Both checklists are tailored to stra- ples, as well as experiences from space planning, in order to
tegic planning at the city-level (such cities across Europe that have been identify gaps and potential for
as green space plans or open space studied in-depth (see Deliverable improvement;
plans), but they might also provide 5.2). The listed measures include
2. Plans, strategies and policies that
insights for regional planning or planning objectives and actions that
are in an early stage of develop-
local, site-specific projects. The aim could be included in a strategic
ment, in order to identify specific
is to identify the potential to advance plan; as well as ideas for initiatives,
needs and priorities for action.
or update existing practices, plans regulatory and financial instru-
and policies by adopting the UGI ments, and participatory engage-
planning approach (e.g., Are there ment policies that require broader Both evaluations begin with the
gaps to be filled? Are action steps action. This is neither an exhaustive one-page rapid checklist.
Detailed checklist What for? Who?
Rapid checklist A B To trigger discussion For completing either checklist,

or to identify topics your planning team should
of interest for the be involved (at a minimum).
detailed evaluation. Representatives of other
relevant departments would
Urban challenges A ideally also be part of the
discussion, and you even may
wish to consider inviting key
To undertake a more non-government stakeholders.
thorough evaluation,
going into more detail
UGI principles B on each main theme How?
in the guide and
considering a range of
potential measures. Either checklist could form the
basis for a simple face-to-face
discussion, while the detailed
Making it happen! C checklist could also be used to
guide an extended workshop
(with or without an external
moderator). Ideally, the
discussion should result in an
action plan for follow up.

RAPID UGI PLANNING CHECKLIST
R Tick this box if an item has already been considered in your plan
HINT: For those items with crosses in the right-hand
T Cross this box if action is needed box, you might be interested in going to the corre-
sponding section in the detailed checklist to review
ä Cross-link to related evaluation areas (if an area is identified as a priority) this area in more depth.
A URBAN CHALLENGES
UGI planning can help to tackle important urban challenges, such as climate change
adaptation, biodiversity protection, a green economy, social cohesion, and others. R T
Does your plan (existing or in development) include activities and measures to...
… adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, for instance by assessing
vulnerabilities, taking appropriate action to prevent or minimise damage, and
seizing opportunities that may arise (e.g. low-/no-regret solutions)?
Go to A.1
CLIMATE CHANGE
… protect local biodiversity, offer nature experience opportunities for citizens,
and raise awareness for the benefits of species-rich environments?
Go to A.2
BIODIVERSITY
… contribute to a green economy that aims to improve human well-being and
social equity while reducing environmental risks and depletion of natural
resources? This involves considering the direct and indirect economic benefits
of urban green spaces. Go to A.3
GREEN ECONOMY
…provide equal opportunities for people from different backgrounds to access
and benefit from urban green spaces and to promote social interactions among
them, in the interest of greater social cohesion?
SOCIAL COHESION Go to A.4
In your local context, are there additional pressing challenges? Please make a
note of them and discuss ways they might be tackled through UGI planning.
???
B UGI PLANNING PRINCIPLES

UGI planning is an approach based on the core principles of green-grey
integration, connectivity, multifunctionality and social inclusion. R T
Does your plan (existing or in development) include activities and measures to...
…integrate urban green spaces with ‘grey’ infrastructure (e.g. roads, canals,
drainage systems) and to promote combined green-grey infrastructure in ways
that provide more benefits than traditional engineering approaches?
Go to B.1
INTEGRATION
…connect different green spaces in order to enhance recreation, mobility by
bike and on foot, biodiversity and natural ventilation, ideally by combining
different goals for humans, other species and abiotic flows?
Go to B.2
CONNECTIVITY
…support the capacity of urban green spaces to provide multiple ecological,
socio-cultural and economic benefits, combining functions and services in ways
that create synergies and reduce conflicts and trade-offs between them?
Go to B.3
MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
…facilitate collaborative, socially inclusive planning processes that are open to
all and incorporate the knowledge and needs of diverse parties, with emphasis
on vulnerable social groups?
Go to B.4
SOCIAL INCLUSION

DETAILED UGI PLANNING CHECKLIST
HINT: Use the space next to each section to note down
R Tick this box if an item has already been considered in your plan priorities, other ideas, or specific steps for action. When
thinking about what’s appropriate for your local context,
make sure you consider the full spectrum of types of
T Cross this box if action is needed green (and blue) spaces that make up UGI (e.g., urban
farmland, schoolgrounds, railroad embankments, green
ä Cross-link to related evaluation areas (if an area is identified as a priority) walls, green roofs and abandoned areas – see Guide
Part A: Green Space Typology).
A URBAN CHALLENGES R T Notes (priorities/ideas/actions)
A1 Climate change adaptation: Specific activities and measures may include:

A1.1 Assessing the potential impacts of different climate change effects, including
identification of vulnerable areas or groups (e.g., people living in flood-
prone, densely built or socio-economically disadvantaged areas).
A1.2 Reducing the urban heat island effect in dense areas (e.g., requiring or
incentivising street trees, green walls and green roofs, requiring minimum
green space amounts in developments).
A1.3 Providing climate refuges for vulnerable resident populations in high density
areas (e.g. shaded areas and/or areas with water features)
A1.4 Measures to prevent and minimise damage such as protecting and

restoring floodplains, wetlands and coastal landforms
A1.5 Decreasing the amount of impervious surface (e.g. minimum require-

ments, incentivising pervious or semi-pervious surfaces).
A1.6 Developing a planting strategy composed of diverse species (with pref-

erence for heat-tolerant varieties, especially for street trees).
ä B1 Integration, C1 Assessing UGI networks, C3 Engaging stakeholders

A2 Biodiversity: Specific activities and measures may include:
A2.1 Protecting and enhancing native species and biotopes, especially those
that are ecologically significant and threatened. This may include
restoring damaged valuable habitats and controlling invasive species.
A2.2 Establishing a well-connected, citywide and diverse biotope/habitat

network.
A2.3 Creating areas of low intensity management where nature can ‘run wild’
and species can establish themselves spontaneously, or protecting existing
sites (e.g., brownfields with high quality habitats).
A2.4 Promoting biodiversity in ornamental and constructed green spaces,

e.g., parks, green roofs, and street green (e.g., by increasing structural
diversity, planting native species, allowing for succession, and planting
pollination-friendly plants).
A2.5 Providing guidance and/or incentives to business- and homeowners to

support biodiversity on their properties (for measures see prior point).
A2.6 Educating the public on the importance of biodiversity and ways to protect
it, as well as opportunities available to them to experience nature.
ä B2 Connectivity, B3 Multifunctionality, C2 Developing plans

A URBAN CHALLENGES R T Notes (priorities/ideas/actions)
A3 Promoting a green economy: Specific activities and measures may include:

A3.1 Assessing the value of the benefits and avoided costs green spaces can
provide (e.g., reduced asthma and respiratory disease rates, avoided
damage from flooding and other natural events).
A3.2 Engaging the private sector in financing UGI (e.g. public-private part-
nerships, regulatory instruments, taxes, user-pays and compensation
schemes, business improvement districts).
A3.3 Collaborating with volunteers for green space development and mainte-
nance (e.g., through time banks, reward schemes, non-profit partnering).
A3.4 Promoting green space as an asset in city marketing and economic

development initiatives.
ä B4 Social inclusion, C3 Engaging stakeholders, C4 Implementation

A4 Increasing social cohesion: Specific activities and measures may include:
A4.1 Assessing or creating standards for equitable green space accessibility
(e.g., providing parks within a 15 minute walk of all residents analysing
public transit links to popular parks).
A4.2 Ensuring the quality and safety of new and existing green spaces (e.g.,
adequate lighting, maintenance, design), as well as designing new
spaces in ways that leave room for creative play and neighbourhood
identity.
A4.3 Promoting community or intercultural gardens as spaces where people

from different backgrounds may interact.
A4.4 Supporting local NGOs and citizens’ initiatives to create and maintain
green spaces.
ä B4 Social inclusion, C3 Engaging stakeholders, C4 Implementation

A5 Other challenges:

B UGI PRINCIPLES R T Notes (priorities/ideas/actions)
B1 Integration: Specific activities and measures may include:

B1.1 Linking green spaces with stormwater infrastructure to improve water
quality and reduce pressure on stormwater systems (e.g., incentives or
standards for decentralised water retention and drainage through rain
gardens, swales, green roofs, constructed wetlands and permeable
pavement; centralised solutions like bioretention basins; regional coop-
eration for vegetated river buffers and wetland protection).
B1.2 Linking green spaces with transport infrastructure to improve air

quality, mitigate noise and provide safe opportunities for walking and
biking and/or species movement (e.g., vegetation to house species and
trap pollutants and noise along transport corridors; installing bike paths
in green corridors).
B1.3 Linking green infrastructure with energy and communications infrastruc-

ture to maximise design and construction efficiencies and encourage
walking, biking, species movement, aesthetic appearance and educa-
tional opportunities (e.g., bike paths along powerline corridors,
promoting native vegetation, installing nature interpretation signage).
B1.4 Linking green infrastructure with buildings to maximise recreation

opportunities in residential, institutional and commercial areas (e.g.,
through minimum requirements or incentives for green courtyards or
accessible green roofs).
ä B3 Multifunctionality, C3 Engaging stakeholders, C4 Implementation

B2 Connectivity: Specific activities and measures may include:
B2.1 Developing and preserving a city-wide and regionally-linked green
network that promotes synergies between recreation, mobility, cultural
heritage, wildlife, local climate and the built environment.
B2.2 Developing and maintaining a well-connected, safe bike and pedestrian

network (e.g., working to fill in missing segments of key corridors,
producing a bike map) and ensuring public accessibility to both local
parks and key recreational areas (e.g., instituting minimum require-
ments for park access, ensuring adequate access points at key parks).
B2.3 Developing and conserving a habitat network to support the move-

ment of species (including identifying critical habitats and corridors as
well as barriers or bottlenecks) and ensuring that quality habitats for
flora and fauna are well-distributed throughout the city, based on
sound ecological knowledge (e.g., key species, habitat preferences, seed
dispersal, adaptation capabilities and movement patterns).
B2.4 Developing green corridors and ‘perforated’ green space (e.g. areas of
dispersed vegetation) capable of improving natural ventilation as well
as flood control in vulnerable areas.
ä A2 Biodiversity, B1 Integration, C1 Developing plans

B UGI PRINCIPLES R T Notes (priorities/ideas/actions)
B3 Multifunctionality: Specific activities and measures may include:
B3.1 Assessing the various ecological, social and economic benefits of urban
green spaces and communicating these to policy-makers and the public.
B3.2 Assessing the demand for green spaces across the city and their
capacity to provide services, now and in the long term.
B3.3 Developing strategic plans that highlight UGI’s diversity of functions and
services city-wide, including socio-cultural (e.g., nature contemplation,
social interaction, sports and play), biodiversity (e.g., habitats for rare
species, wilderness), regulating (e.g., temperature regulation, flood
control) or provisioning (e.g., agricultural products, fresh water, wood).
B3.4 At the site level, developing green spaces in ways that create synergies
between different functions and services and reduce conflicts (e.g.,
through visitor management and guidance or spatial separation of
conflicting uses).
ä C3 Engaging stakeholders, C2 Assessing UGI networks

B4 Social inclusion: Specific activities and measures may include:
B4.1 Actively including citizens in plan development and implementation
(e.g., through visioning forums, questionnaires, charrettes and citizens’
juries).
B4.2 Mobilising and including the views of populations not usually active in
planning (e.g., people with disabilities and the elderly, children and
adolescents, immigrants, low-income and homeless people) by applying
participation methods oriented towards these groups (e.g., Photo-
voice).
B4.3 Delegating responsibility to citizens (e.g., by supporting participatory

budgeting, citizens’ urban gardening initiatives, volunteer mainte-
nance schemes or other forms of civic engagement for UGI).
ä C3 Engaging stakeholders, A4 Social cohesion

C EMBEDDING UGI IN PLANNING
To successfully embed UGI in the planning process, a number of factors have
been shown to be important. These include systematic assessment, strategic
planning and coordinating different plans, cooperating with a range of
stakeholders, and finding the means for implementation and maintenance. R T Notes (priorities/ideas/actions)
C1 Assessing UGI networks: Specific activities and measures to expand knowl-
edge base and support for UGI and inform decision-making may include:
C1.1 Conducting a comprehensive assessment of existing green spaces of all
types (i.e., also private and underutilised sites like brownfields and rail-
ways) in order to better understand the deficits and potential of your
UGI network (e.g., quantity, quality, distribution, access, supply of bene-
fits and citizen demand).
C1.2 Identifying existing areas that need to be conserved or improved and

the need for new UGI elements and corridors between them.
C1.3 Using integrated methods to assess not just UGI’S monetary value, but
its social and ecological value too, where appropriate.
C1.4 Framing assessments in terms of challenges to be tackled (e.g., vulner-

ability to the impacts of climate change, habitats that are threatened)
and demonstrating potential cost-savings (e.g., by conducting a cost-
benefit analysis).
C1.5 Illustrating UGI benefits in a format that is attractive and easy to under-
stand for non-experts (local politicians, decision-makers, and the general
public) in order to raise awareness and gain support.
Developing plans: Specific activities and measures to strategically support

C2
UGI with available planning instruments may include:
C2.1 Developing a strategic plan with a long-term vision for UGI develop-
ment and conservation, including regular updates to monitor progress
and respond to changing conditions.
C2.2 Considering measures which are ‘no-regret’ or ‘low-regret’ (i.e.,

designed to increase robustness at low costs or to compensate for extra
costs through added benefits).
C2.3 Getting plan support: through mandates (e.g., global or national poli-
cies that support the plan and its objectives), by linking it to locally
important challenges (such as climate change) and/or collaborating
with strong advocates (e.g., politicians, environmental NGOs).
C2.4 Developing a coordinated UGI strategy by considering the full spectrum

of available planning instruments (e.g., formal and informal), and their
strengths and weaknesses, as well as a range of implementation mech-
anisms (e.g., funding programmes, regulations, pilot projects to demon-
strate new approaches, initiatives to support non-state actor involve-
ment).
C2.5 Linking the UGI plan with those of other departments/sectors and those
at other levels (e.g., at the city and regional levels), aiming at synergies
(e.g., with the aid of cross-sectoral working groups or coordinated, simul-
taneous development of different plans).

C EMBEDDING UGI IN PLANNING R T Notes (priorities/ideas/actions)
Engaging stakeholders: Specific activities and measures to involve a variety

C3
of actors in inclusive UGI development may include:
C3.1 Identifying relevant actors (e.g., staff in other departments, external
experts, universities, businesses and civil society) that are not yet
engaged in UGI development, and finding meaningful ways to engage
them (e.g., by networking, by directly reaching out to them, or by
developing incentives for their involvement).
C3.2 Cooperating with other departments and external experts and maintaining
interdisciplinary networks (e.g., identification of shared topics or objectives
related to UGI across departments, sharing and exchanging knowledge from
different fields of expertise and aiming at shared UGI solutions).
C3.3 Collaborating with non-governmental stakeholders, e.g. by supporting

co-governance arrangements in the management of bottom-up initia-
tives (e.g., community gardens), and fostering the required skills and
frameworks for coordinating such arrangements within or outside the
administration (e.g., taking on a supervising, moderating or facilitating
role, as well as establishing contract agreements and access rights).
Implementation: Specific activities and measures to aid the implementa-

C4
tion of UGI plans and projects may include:
C4.1 Using pilot projects to test novel approaches in cooperation with relevant
partners (e.g., engineering, building design, water management, parks and
recreation). Results should be evaluated to enable such strategies to be
refined before application on a larger scale.
C4.2 Exploring additional resources, including European or national funding

programmes, funds from private actors (e.g., Public-Private-Partner-
ships, compensation schemes and other regulatory instruments), joint
projects with other departments or non-financial support through
voluntary work and local knowledge.
C4.3 Monitoring to document improvements in the city’s UGI and progress

towards planning and performance targets, with provision to adjust
strategies if progress is not adequate.
WHAT NOW?
We hope this checklist has helped you to reflect on your plan and how to incorporate elements of UGI planning into it,
as well as to identify some potential measures for action. If you have too many areas where action is needed, think
about reducing them to the five most urgent or most promising ones. To help build a coherent UGI strategy, we invite
you to visit (or revisit) these areas of our Practitioners’ Guide:
• Core planning instruments, their potential, and interrelations between them (see Guide Part C);
• Green space types within your city and their (potential) contribution to a multifunctional and connected UGI
network (see Guide Part A: Green Space Typology);
• Tools to assess the current state of your city’s UGI (see Guide Part C: Assessing UGI networks and related Toolboxes);
• Potentially helpful partners and supporters in and outside your organisation (see Guide Part C: Engaging stakeholders);
• Implementation mechanisms, including resources you need and ways to obtain them (see Guide Part C: Imple-
mentation and Toolbox T8), as well as;
• Barriers that you need to overcome (see case studies throughout Guide, and at Part E).

E CROSS-CUTTING CASE STUDIES
E1 Integration for stormwater management

E2 Milan’s Regional Ecological Network
E3 Renewal of the Gellerup housing complex
E4 Edinburgh’s Open Space Strategy
E5 Action planning for biodiversity
E6 Enhancing UGI through DIY
69
E
BOX E1: INTEGRATION FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, MALMÖ

Flooding is a major challenge for not have the capacity to dispose of the wide Comprehensive Plan, which sets
Malmö, being a relatively flat city. peak flows that the newly-sealed goals for local development.
Open green space has played a key surfaces would create. Since then,
part in flood mitigation strategies, about 35 ponds and streams have been Implementation
with the city administration opting for constructed in public green spaces. Implementation of Malmö’s storm-
green roofs, retention ponds and Most were built as part of development water policy has mostly focused on
bioswales to complement the sewer schemes for new residential, industrial large development projects within
pipes below ground. or retail areas, or for roads. new local master plans, and involves
collaboration between various city
Strategy In 2000, these efforts were expanded departments and private developers.
The integration of green and grey and formalised as a planning policy, Stormwater management planners
infrastructure in Malmö has not stating that new stormwater facilities get involved at an early stage of
resulted from a single, uniform should be integrated into parks and master planning, to calculate the
strategy, but rather grown over time. other recreation areas. Early integra- minimum share of green space
In the late 1980s, the City’s Water and tion efforts aimed to avoid damage needed to absorb the expected rain-
Sewage Authority and the Street and caused by combined sewer overflow. fall. Solutions are then negotiated
Parks Department began to work More recently, the risk of damage between several municipal depart-
together to address stormwater from cloudburst flooding has been ments including the City Planning
management issues – originally highlighted within the Cloudburst Office, Street and Parks Department,
through building retention ponds. The Plan, approved by the city board in and Water and Sewage Authority.
first pond was built in 1989 on public 2017. The Plan stresses the need for Large-scale retention ponds are
green space in the eastern part of the open space, the necessity of inte- managed by the Street and Parks
city, as part of a new industrial and grating green and blue spaces and the Department, with maintenance
commercial development. The main importance of close cooperation and funded by the Water and Sewage
impetus for the pond was that the engagement with stakeholders. The Authority(⇱Implementation).
areas receiving stormwater runoff did plan is a sub-document of the city-
Retention pond constructed in an existing

park, Augustenborg, Malmö.
Credit: Tim Delshammar

CLIMATE CHANGE E
Stormwater reservoir constructed in an existing schoolyard, Augustenborg, Malmö.

Learning from experiments
For the Malmö Building Exhibition in
2001, an entirely open stormwater
system was designed for a new devel-
opment area (the Western Harbour)
and an existing neighbourhood
(Augustenborg). Both areas became
test-beds to explore how an open
stormwater system could be imple-
mented in reality in two different
contexts, and with the involvement of
different kinds of actors. In Augusten-
borg, the City’s Streets and Parks
Department collaborated with a
publicly-owned social housing
company to rebuild green spaces and Stormwater reservoir constructed in an existing schoolyard, Augustenborg, Malmö.
install green roofs; in the Western
harbour, the City worked with several grey integration measures have tended
developers to build the open storm- to be especially successful in new,
water structures (⇱Engaging stake- large-scale development projects.
holders).
The main supporting factors in Malmö
At the time, there were very few include the legal framework (such as
Swedish examples of open stormwater the Planning and Building Act), local Find out more...
management systems that had been policies (the Comprehensive Plan, local
BREEAM Communities
thoroughly integrated into the urban master plans, and the stormwater
fabric. There was no experience of policy), and funding for construction. Local assessment for sustainable
how to scale up the system, how to In the longer term, the City’s commit- urban development Malmö (In
maintain it, or how the public would Swedish).
ment to maintain the open storm-
react. The pilot-project-based, step-by- water systems (once built) has been Further reading on lessons
step approach enabled continuous key to the infrastructure’s viability, learned. Scandanavian Green Roof
‘learning-by-doing’ among those while voluntary guidelines and incen- Institute.
involved. Some of the design concepts tives have also played a part in mobi- GAR – Green Area Ratio
had to be adjusted, but today most of lising non-state actors. Some devel- The Western Harbour – experiences
the integrated systems remain opers have opted to voluntarily detain and lessons learned. Malmö,
unchanged and function as expected. stormwater via ponds or green roofs Sweden. Persson, B. (ed.), 2013.
in order to meet the requirements of Case study and sustainability
Other insights were that maintenance, rating systems such as BREEAM assessment of Bo01, Malmö,
planning and financing have to be Communities, or a local sustainable Sweden. Journal of Green Building,
agreed upon and coordinated between 8 (3), 34-50. Austin, G., 2013.
urban development assessment
the landowners concerned. The most including green area ratios (GAR). Blue-green fingerprints in the
important outcome was to demon- Homeowners who disconnect their city of Malmö, Sweden: Malmö’s
strate that an open stormwater system drainpipes from the public system can way towards a sustainable urban
drainage. Malmö: Va syd. Stahre, P.,
can be introduced in an existing resi- receive a refund from the Water and 2008.
dential area. However, Malmö’s green- Sewage Authority.

E
BOX E2: REGIONAL ECOLOGICAL NETWORK, MILAN

The most comprehensive environ- they perform. Since 2010, the plan has scientific institutions that supply infor-
mental plan for the Lombardy region been gradually translated from the mation on animal and plant life), envi-
is the Regional Ecological Network regional to the local scale, and is now in ronmental NGOs (e.g., WWF Italia), citi-
(Rete Ecologica Regionale, or RER). the process of incorporation into zens, and the agricultural sector.
The RER was established in 2009, municipal planning. Public-private partnerships share the
as part of a strategic framework for implementation, management and
environmental connectivity and Actors maintenance costs of the green spaces
sustainability. It is characterised by The RER was developed and drafted by concerned, combining the knowledge
a planning structure nested at The Directorate General for Landscape, and needs of different sectors in an
multiple scales and intended to serve Urban Planning and Soil Conservation interdisciplinary team.
as a model for local, provincial and the Agriculture Division, Depart-
and regional planning in other parts ment of Agriculture of the Lombardy Implementation and resources
of Italy. Region in consultation with technical Implementation and monitoring of the
advisors. As part of the network, envi- RER is based on priority indicators (e.g.,
The RER’s goal is to build a network of ronmental and agricultural associations urban sprawl). The network is guided by
primary ecological corridors, linking collaborate with local experts to enact best practices (e.g., creation of buffer
priority areas for biodiversity and policies aimed at delivering quality zones to absorb nitrates, reintroduction
strengthening their habitat quality and ecosystem services, in the interest of a of native species) at the urban, peri-
ecological value by enhancing the effec- sustainable natural environment. Addi- urban and regional levels, and supported
tiveness of the ecosystem functions tional actors are universities (and other by provincial and municipal plans.
Mincio Park project showing two actions to create ecological connectivity. Action 1 (Azione 1): a green corridor was implemented cutting
through the urban zone. Action 2 (Azione 2): a second intervention eliminated a critical barrier, the San Giorgio Bridge, which caused
fragmentation of the ecological corridor of the Mincio canal. Legend: Finished interventions (green lines); natural green areas of the Regional
Ecological Network (RER) (yellow squares); bike paths and footpaths (red lines); primary ecological corridor of the RER (green leaf on the canal).
Credit: Mincio Park Press Office

BIODIVERSITY E
Resources to promote the RER include The Mincio Park project received networks. A related action is continued
programmes and policies with specific funding through two public grants for updating and implementing of skills
objectives and plans of action that ecological networks (from the and best practices within the frame-
operate at multiple scales, e.g., the Lombardy Region and the Cariplo work, through web publications and
Territorial Governance Plan at the Foundation). The total cost amounted training sessions for practitioners.
local/municipal level. Both public and to €425,000 for plantings along the
private funds support the implementa- canal and the enhancement of the Find out more...
tion of the RER, namely the Green wooded areas, and an additional
Areas Fund of the Lombardy Region €220,000 for the ecotunnel. RER document
(funds of €15 million) and the Cariplo Partners were Mincio Park as lead
Mincio Canal
Foundation (which provides a line of agency, the Province of Mantua,
credit to support RER initiatives). Municipality of Mantua, and public Video Parco Nord Milano
Funds also flow from the provinces authority AIPO (the Interregional
and municipalities to their respective Agency for the Po river). Citizen All in Italian.
local areas, and from afforestation involvement included a press confer-
compensation schemes to mitigate the ence open to the public to present the
loss of land to urban development. project, educational visits for schools,
Additional resources are joint funding tree-planting days for the general
shared between the European Union public, and a public inauguration of the
and national/regional instruments project advertised by television and
(e.g., rural development programmes). press coverage.
Mincio Canal The various sites are cared for through

One RER project implemented to date a five year maintenance contract with
involves Mincio Park. In 2014, a new a bank guarantee of 110% of the
green corridor was developed along works’ value released each year. Other
the banks of the Mincio Canal, initiatives to protect the project are
consisting of tree rows over a distance through monitoring by the Mincio Park
of seven km. The corridor intersects Voluntary Ecological Guards and 24
with the city of Mantua and hour camera surveillance connected to
strengthens the overall ecological the control centre of the Municipality
function of the Mincio Canal in its of Mantua’s local police force.
most urbanised tract. Existing vegeta-
tion on the canal banks has been inte- Further outlook
grated with new native trees and An innovative aspect of the RER is the
shrubs, increasing local biodiversity shift from traditional government-
(⇱Biodiversity). The project also laid driven green space planning and
the foundations for an urban management to a greater role for non-
greenway that allows pedestrians and state actors, especially those from the
cyclists to travel from the peri-urban agricultural sector. The intent is to
zone to the beginning of a bike path prioritise even more agricultural sector
north of the city, and provides a involvement in the future. Further-
33m-long underpass, or ‘ecotunnel’, more, the RER aims to offer a technical
for pedestrians and wildlife (⇱Green- reference framework for future modifi-
grey integration). cations to other provincial ecological

E
BOX E3: RENEWAL OF THE GELLERUP HOUSING COMPLEX, AARHUS

Gellerup is the largest social housing space renewal to be complete by 2017. inventory approach, with the intention
complex in Denmark, built in 1968-72. The project has been financed through that key elements address three
The 30 tower blocks comprise 2,400 a special urban renewal fund (Lands- dimensions: social/health issues,
apartments and were home to just bygge fonden). The funds are provided economic sustainability and climate
over 7000 residents as of January by the city of Aarhus, the Brabrand and environmental sustainability. Key
2013. Since the 2000s, Gellerup has Social Housing Association that aims are to increase perceived safety
been considered a disadvantaged manages the site, a private foundation, and improve visual orientation, while
area, due to high levels of unemploy- and a national ministry. It has a budget also improving biodiversity and rain-
ment and criminal activity, and low of €100 million, of which €12.5 million water absorption capacity (⇱Biodiver-
levels of education and income across is allocated to the development of sity, Climate Change Adaptation).
its resident population. In 2013, urban green space.
almost 79% of residents came from The large open outdoor spaces will be
non-Western countries, compared to Key features of the renewal divided into smaller zones as play-
11% for Aarhus as a whole. Many In the first phase, three large housing grounds, allotment gardens and
apartments have remained vacant in blocks in the centre were demolished, playing fields that will turn the former
recent years due to the site’s poor making room for shops and a commu- wasteland into a series of active areas.
reputation. nity house. In addition, the old school These are intended to function as an
was replaced by the construction of a intercultural commons, bridging
In 2007, the municipality of Aarhus ‘children’s city’, combining six kinder- boundaries between different ethnic
decided to develop a new master plan gartens from Gellerup and a health and social groups (⇱Social Cohesion).
with the aim of transforming Gellerup centre. In future, the tenure structure In this way, the planning process has
from a monofunctional housing estate will be adapted in some parts from recognised and sought to address both
into an attractive, multifunctional rental to ownership in order to provide social and ecological objectives.
urban area, with new housing, ameni- a more differentiated resident compo-
ties, workplaces and revitalised green sition. The changes will be accompa- Planning approach
areas that perform a variety of social nied by special safety programmes for The planning approach has combined
and ecological functions (⇱Multifunc- residents and economic support during a traditional Danish municipal top-
tionality). The master plan has a long- the transition process. down planning process with a bottom
term time frame, targeting overall The green space design has been up participation process. Danish law
completion in 2027, with the green underpinned by a multifunctional supports the rights of public housing
tenants and requires any changes to
their living conditions to be agreed
upon by the Brabrand Social Housing
Association. In addition, two elected
boards exist at the site, independent
of the housing association, whose
agreement also needed to be secured.
Visualisation of an edible park with cherry

trees and space for recreational activities,
urban gardening and meeting places, to
improve the area’s social cohesion.
Credit: SLA Architects 2014

BIODIVERSITY CLIMATE CHANGE E
Find out more...
Gellerup Masterplan.
Aarhus Municipality, 2014.
Climate Adaptation Plan 2014

(in Danish).
Gellerup Urban Park overview

on SLA Architects website. SLA
Architects, 2014.
Dispositionsplan Gellerupparken
+ Toveshøj (in Danish). Aarhus
Municipality, 2011.
Increasing connectivity by restoring a ‘missing link’ in the form of the northern green
wedge and southern blue wedge to the south, as part of Gellerup’s green space
restoration (black line)
Credit: SLA Architects 2014
Strategies to secure and sustain to engage people in the planning making. A positive effect of this initia-
resident engagement process ‘from inside-out’. Through tive is that vandalism has decreased at
Among the resident migrant groups contacts between the local municipal the places where the leisure time
there are large differences in traditions officer and representatives of local workers are active.
for involvement in democratic processes clubs and institutions, a group of 21
of this kind. Thus, many simply did not young people participated in a trip to Lessons learnt
participate in the planning process. ‘Superkilen’ (the Super Wedge) in The level of public participation has
Several participation schemes were Nørrebro, Copenhagen. Nørrebro has evolved continuously since 2006.
tested to overcome this obstacle, been transformed from an industrial Participatory efforts with a special
ranging from more traditional public and housing area into a multicultural focus upon certain groups seem to
hearings, to participatory workshops leisure and recreation area. The visit have been most successful in gener-
and ‘look-and-learn’ visits to other fostered dialogue with the group and ating understanding of and mean-
places in Denmark (⇱Social Inclusion). helped to discuss options for and ingful feedback on the plan. Despite
Four walks with women from different barriers to the future development of the extensive legal rights that public
ethnic groups were held, considering Gellerup’s park. housing residents have in Denmark,
the existing green areas and talking the representatives of the two
about the forthcoming changes. The The municipality has also established a housing boards were initially involved
main purpose was to bring residents group of ten ‘leisure time workers’. only at a relatively low level. But
from different groups together and These are young people from different active lobbyism succeeded: they have
allow them to designate areas where ethnic groups who receive a small since become included in all impor-
safety aspects could be improved. salary from the municipality for tant decisions and at the same time
informing the local residents about the act as an important communication
Youth associations and clubs received renewal plans and possibilities for channel between the planning team
special attention, as part of a strategy participation in planning and decision- and residents.

E
BOX E4: OPEN SPACE STRATEGY, EDINBURGH

The City of Edinburgh Council devel-
oped an Open Space Strategy as part
of a coordinated approach to meeting
the city’s open space needs. The
strategy development began in 2009
with an audit of all open spaces sized
500m2 or larger: the first such compre-
hensive assessment since 1969. It was
launched in 2010, including twelve
neighbourhood action plans to
improve open space provision across
the city, and updated in 2016. In the
new version, Open Space 2021, the
action plans have been consolidated
into four Locality Open Space action
plans.
Strategy background and components

The Open Space Strategy was driven BEFORE: Open Space Strategy Map (2010) showing green spaces meeting the large green
space standard (green), those deficient (red), and residential areas not meeting the
by Scottish planning policy, which standard (dark grey).
encourages Scottish local authorities to Credit: City of Edinburgh Council
prepare such strategies and provides
guidance on doing so (Planning Advice
Note 65). Another important driver
was developer demand for a fair, clear
and consistent approach to open space
requirements, particularly for residen-
tial developments.
The strategy comprises three core

components: an audit, standards, and
action plans. The audit ranks the
quality of Council-owned parks and
gardens, residential amenity spaces,
green corridors, cemeteries and other
semi-natural green spaces (e.g., sports
areas). Private gardens and backyards
are not included. The Council took an
active approach to assessing citizens’
green space needs, using two audit
questionnaires and community meet- AFTER: Map (2016) showing green spaces meeting the standard (green), deficiencies
(red), residential areas now meeting the standard (pink) and those not yet meeting it
ings in 2008/9 to gain more under- (dark grey). Many previously-deficient areas have turned pink since 2010.
standing of open space use, and Credit: City of Edinburgh Council
undertaking consultation on the draft
audit and plan (⇱Social Inclusion).

BIODIVERSITY GREEN ECONOMY E
Using open space standards to assess describing the actions required to environmental and youth groups. Chil-
multifunctionality city-wide provide more homes with sufficient dren and young people were invited to
The results of the audit and consulta- access to good quality green spaces. They participate at schools and clubs, as well
tion formed a basis for developing also specified a timescale for each action, as parents in other organisations across
Edinburgh-specific open space stand- the lead organisation, funding sources Edinburgh (⇱Social Inclusion).
ards. These assess the quality of Edin- and an estimated cost. The action plans Finally, collaboration between the plan-
burgh’s open spaces across multiple were prepared by the Council’s planning ning department and other departments
benefits and quality indicators and department, and consultation was in preparing the audit, strategy, and
from the perspective of both humans sought with Neighbourhood Partnerships action plans has ensured its coordinated
(access to space and appearance of (groups made up of local public service usage, and also improved cross-depart-
space) and other species (diversity of representatives and citizens) and the ment collaboration and strategic invest-
habitats and degree of connectivity). In wider community. ment in green spaces. The strategy will
addition, various uses are recorded be updated every five years and provide
(e.g., informal ball games, seating, Responsibilities and funding a basis to monitor and evaluate develop-
community growing, observing wildlife Council’s planning department is in ment of the city’s green spaces.
⇱Multifunctionality) and the appropri- charge of preparing and updating the
ateness of each use scored in relation strategy and associated audit and A take-home message from Edinburgh
to the context (e.g., size, location, action plans. The steering group has is that knowing your green space
adjacent use). Three standards were representation from the Neighbour- resources, including their uses, accessi-
defined, ensuring that all residents hood Partnership teams and other bility, and quality, pays off when it
have adequate access to high quality departments, including the Parks and comes to strategically aligning public
open spaces of each of the following Green Spaces Department. The action and private investment in the city’s
types: a) local green space, b) large plans are either resourced internally natural environment.
green space, and c) play space. The by different departments or externally,
Council also created maps to visualise e.g., national cycle charity Sustrans has Find out more...
areas with access deficiencies. contributed funds to improve some of
the green corridors, while other Open Space 2021: Edinburgh’s
In 2010 almost 20 green spaces did not actions have been funded through Open Space Strategy. The City of
meet the standards, while by 2016 that residential developer contributions Edinburgh Council, 2016.
number was down to three, and over 30 either on- or off-site. Audits and Locality Action Plans
new local green spaces had been created
within 400 metres of homes – evidence Support factors: policy mandate, Planning Advice Note 65:
Planning and Open Space. Scottish
of the strategy’s successful implementa- consultation, collaboration
Government, 2008.
tion. The Council resolved to retain and The clear mandate provided by national
strengthen the standards for the updated planning policy has been an important How Neighbourhood
2016 strategy (following a stakeholder factor in supporting the open space strat- Partnerships Work. Overview on
the Edinburgh Neighbourhood
workshop) to encourage delivery of egy’s development and implementation. Partnership website.
multifunctional green space in new Further, a high level of consultation on
developments and to promote environ- the audit and strategy took place. Council
ments which support social interaction staff actively consulted with people at a
and active living. variety of places (farmers markets, gala
days, community councils, Neighbour-
Action plans hood Partnership meetings, etc.). Other
For the 2010 strategy, twelve action plans stakeholder groups were approached via
were prepared at neighbourhood level, email and post, including entrepreneurs,

E
BOX E5: ACTION PLANNING FOR BIODIVERSITY, LISBON

As part of the UN Decade for Biodiver- • Training for potential biodiversity A network of municipal allotment
sity (2011-2020), the municipality of guides. gardens (established in 2007) has
Lisbon, Portugal, decided to take action • Organisation of yearly events. been implemented in existing or new
and aim for an ambitious 20% improve- green spaces in the city, or integrated
ment in its potential biodiversity by 2. Creating and sharing knowledge: into the urban fabric, in order to
2020 relative to its 2010 levels. For this • Support for international confer- promote ecological connectivity
ences focused on urban biodiver-
purpose, the municipal strategy ‘Biodi- between existing green spaces. This
sity.
versity in the City of Lisbon, a strategy has contributed to a landscape mosaic
for 2020’ was formulated in 2012, soon • Partnerships with universities on with great potential for supporting
followed by the ‘Local Action Plan for internships, and Master and biodiversity.
Lisbon Biodiversity’ in 2015. Doctoral degrees focused on green
connectivity, animal behaviour,
Innovative monitoring approach
and ecosystem services modelling
The action plan is designed not only to and monitoring. The action plan is employing the City
implement the strategy’s biodiversity Biodiversity Index (CBI, ⇱Toolbox T1)
objectives, but also to indirectly impact 3. Specific green space management and two monitoring campaigns
improvements in environmental quality, actions: (scheduled for 2017 and 2020) to
climate change adaptation, resident well- • Increasing the number of public monitor and evaluate its performance
green spaces.
being and city competitiveness (⇱Implementation). Based on the CBIs
(⇱Climate Change Adaptation, Green • Increasing connectivity within used in Curitiba, Brazil, and Singapore,
Economy). The plan is intended to be medium-sized and large green the Lisbon municipality, in cooperation
coordinated at a regional scale, whereas spaces Increasing green connec- with the Municipal Agency for Energy
tivity with peripheral municipali-
specific actions are defined at local scale. and the Environment (Lisboa e-nova),
ties.
The action plan defines and details created its own version specific to the
actions related to three main areas. • Ecological restoration actions local context. The CBI comprises
Increasing structural and floristic 23 indicators, with sub-indicators
diversity in green spaces.
1. Improving environmental awareness: divided into three main categories:
• Awareness and education • Creating biodiversity hotspots and biodiversity, ecosystem services, and
campaigns targeting local govern- wildscapes, and renaturalising governance.
ments, schools and the public. streams.
Tagus Estuary: the north shore of the

estuary is part of a natural marshland
area of high ecological interest. It will be
restored as part of Lisbon’s local
action plan for biodiversity.
Credit: CML Website / Sítio da CML
www.cm-lisboa.pt

BIODIVERSITY GREEN ECONOMY CLIMATE CHANGE E
Find out more...

Local Action Plan for Lisbon’s
Biodiversity (in Portuguese).
Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, 2015.
Biodiversity Route: a guide to a 14 km walking route, connecting Monsanto Forest Park to

the Tagus river. It was prepared as part of Lisbon’s strategy to promote biodiversity
awareness and education.
Credit: CML Website / Sítio da CML www.cm-lisboa.pt
Implementation At the same time, the economic crisis

The Lisbon municipality intends to has increased demand for green
involve non-governmental actors in spaces within the city, close to citi-
implementing the action plan through zens’ homes. This presents an oppor-
events and activities by fostering part- tunity for city officials to generate
nerships with companies, NGOs and citizen interest in volunteer projects,
universities, as well as promoting volun- e.g. eradicating invasive plants and
teering (⇱Engaging stakeholders). carrying out projects in partnership
with companies, NGOs and universi-
Expected challenges to the plan’s ties to minimise costs (⇱Green
implementation include the likelihood Economy). Lisbon’s action plan has
of divergent interests between stake- been met with growing interest from
holders and political parties, and research institutions and environ-
densification of the city’s urban fabric, mental NGOs. Furthermore, other
which is leaving less and less room for municipalities have signalled interest
biodiversity promotion. Furthermore, in cooperating with the municipality
the country’s ongoing economic crisis to set up similar approaches.
seriously limits the city’s budget.

E
BOX E6: ENHANCING UGI THROUGH DIY, BERLIN

Berlin’s Urban Landscape Strategy officials, local NGOs, real estate devel- the Productive Landscape theme was
(ULS), published in 2012, is a strategic opers, and people interested in cultural the ‘Urban Pioneers’ project on the
vision that focuses on harnessing the and historical site preservation. Further- Tempelhofer Feld, a former airfield
potential of the city’s wealth of public more, discussions took place with that is now one of Berlin’s largest
green spaces to improve the city’s experts in green space planning and public parks. The project involved
quality of life and strengthen its management as well as with the coordi- around 20 temporary uses of space,
image. One of three major themes is nators of other strategic plans (e.g., the including gardening, culture and art
‘Productive Landscape’, which concen- Biodiversity Strategy Berlin). initiatives, and learning and sport
trates on leveraging the long-standing facilities. Each of the pioneer uses
do-it-yourself (DIY) culture of the city The strategy also seeks to activate was proposed, implemented and
to improve the productivity of public more non-state-actor engagement in maintained by individuals and groups
green space while also fostering public urban green space development and from the local community (⇱Imple-
engagement, creative recreational maintenance in innovative ways, mentation). The idea was that these
uses and place identity. particularly in relation to fostering temporary uses could contribute
social and cultural activities, food towards the park’s sustainability aims,
Actors and objectives production, urban cooling and biomass kick-start its development, and shape
The ULS was developed based on a production (⇱Climate Change Adapta- its appearance and image in a positive
Senate mandate to integrate green and tion). Implementation of the Produc- way (⇱Green Economy).
open space planning instruments in the tive Landscape approach relies
interest of strengthening the city’s resil- strongly on communicating the poten- Some of them have been very
ience. The strategy was developed by tial of urban green spaces via a successful, for instance the
the Senate Department for Urban discourse platform and exemplary Allmende-Kontor community garden,
Development and the Environment in projects, many of which have already which grew from 10 raised beds in
conjunction with two commissioned been put into practice. 2011 to 250 in just a few years. It is
landscape planning and architecture now actively used by over 500
firms. Consultation was undertaken Example: Urban Pioneers on the members, and connected to a
through events with a wide range of Tempelhofer Feld network of community gardens else-
stakeholders, e.g., administrative One of the pilot projects illustrating where in Germany.
Collage illustrating the visionary character

of Berlin’s Urban Landscape Strategy.
Credit: Projektbüro Friedrich von Borries
und bgmr Landschaftsarchitekten on behalf
of the Senatsverwaltung für
Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt Berlin

GREEN ECONOMY CLIMATE CHANGE E
In part due to the creative spirit Another success factor was that the city
Find out more...
fostered by these projects, place allocated significant funds to imple-
attachment to the park grew quickly menting the ULS: €10 million in total. Urban Landscape Strategy
and strongly. A top-down driven, Berlin. Senatsverwaltung für
Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt,
long-term master plan for develop- In public spaces such as the Tempel- 2012.
ment along the park’s edges was met hofer Feld, one challenge is that green
with much community opposition, space departments need to allocate Grünanteil website. German-
resulting in a citizen referendum in resources towards organising, wide online network for bottom-
up urban green space initiatives,
2014 that vetoed the City’s plans, and supporting, and monitoring DIY initia- including urban gardens.
an intensive, two-year participation tives, which makes such projects cost-
process for the park’s future develop- and personnel-intensive. Balancing a Both in German.
ment. range of activities at available spaces
and preventing people from getting too
Success factors and challenges attached to temporary uses are further
One factor contributing to the success challenges.
of the ULS has been the brand of the
strategy itself (logo, images, name Berlin’s existing DIY culture and the
and the associated culture that they readiness of citizens to initiate and take
together elicit), which helped to add responsibility for projects has been
weight and legitimacy to project ideas essential to implementing the Urban
and facilitate communication Landscape Strategy, in this way supple-
between governmental and non- menting declining city resources. This
governmental actors. The strategy has case study also shows that ongoing
also been supported by other admin- investment of time and resources is
istrative units, partly because it refers needed if authorities and citizens are to
to many existing plans and work together in more productive and
programmes with stronger mandates. harmonious ways.
Nuture Mini ART Golf, one of the 20

‘Urban Pioneer’ projects on the
Tempelhofer Feld. The mini-golf course
was built by artists using recycled
materials and is almost entirely run on
renewable energy.
Credit: Emily Rall

TOOLBOX
T1: Tools for Protecting Biodiversity

T2: Tools for Promoting a Green Economy
T3: Tools for Increasing Social Cohesion
T4: Tools for Green-Grey Integration
T5: Tools for Connectivity
T6: Tools for Multifunctionality
T7: Tools for Social Inclusion
T8: Funding Tools and Mechanisms
83
T1: TOOLS FOR PROTECTING BIODIVERSITY
METHOD/ TOOL WHAT FOR? SCORING SYSTEM FIND OUT MORE
City Biodiversity Also known as the Singapore Index CBI includes 23 indicators divided into CBI website
Index (CBI) on Cities’ Biodiversity, the CBI is a 1) native biodiversity, 2) ecosystem
tool designed for cities to monitor services, and 3) governance and
and evaluate their progress and management of biodiversity. For each
performance on conserving and indicator, the CBI manual proposes
enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem a score of 0-4 points, where 0
services. corresponds to poor performance and
4 to excellent.
Suitable for: city-wide scale
Wildlife Friendly Programme designed for use prior to The scoring criteria are divided Wildlife Friendly
Development a new development project, to initiate between two sections: Development
Certification an early dialogue between developers 1) Development Conservation Design, Certification
programme and biologists and to identify important and 2) Development Construction website
natural resources. Projects are and Post-Construction, which the
evaluated using criteria which allocate applicant uses to assess progress
points during the design, construction towards certification and make any
and post-construction phases. adjustments to the project necessary.
If an applicant earns less than 50%
Suitable for: neighbourhood/site scale of the applicable points from each
section, the certification process
cannot continue.
Biotope Area The BAF provides minimum ecological The BAF is the area of a site that BAF description, on
Factor, Berlin (BAF) standards for new development and hosts species or performs other the Berlin Senate
alterations or additions on a site. It ecosystem functions, expressed as a Department for
considers protection of ecosystems, ratio in relation to the total site area. Environment,
biotopes and species as well as BAF values can be used to define a Transportation and
landscape appearance and recreational minimum standard to be achieved Climate Protection
use. when a site is redeveloped. website
Suitable for: site scale in built-up areas
URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE 85

T2: TOOLS FOR PROMOTING A GREEN ECONOMY
METHOD/ TOOL WHAT FOR? FIND OUT MORE
Business mapping in and Method to map and analyse the kind of businesses Cash flows generated by urban
around urban green spaces located in and around green spaces. Data on businesses green spaces: methods for
and their addresses is relatively easily accessible, e.g. identifying indirect values of
from OpenStreetMap (OSM). The user needs to select a UGI. GREEN SURGE Deliverable
buffer zone – indicating a certain range of proximity to a 4.2. Andersson, E., Kronenberg,
green space within which a relationship is expected. J. et al., 2015. pp18-19 and
pp26-27.
Identification of R&D offices Method to examine where companies in the creative Cash flows generated by urban
and other creative companies industries, and/or those engaged in research and green spaces: methods for
development (R&D), are located relative to urban green identifying indirect values of
spaces. UGI. pp22-21.
Hedonic pricing Method to assign value to non-market components Cash flows generated by urban
of real estate sales or rental prices. A model is used to green spaces: methods for
calculate the impacts of different variables on property identifying indirect values of
sales or rental prices, usually including structural, UGI. pp29-30.
geographic and environmental attributes of these
properties and their surroundings. The latter ones are
most often associated with distances to different types of
urban green spaces.
InVEST Open source software to map and assess the monetary InVEST website
value of ecosystem services. Results can also be non-
monetary (e.g., tonnes of carbon sequestered).
i-Tree Software package from the USDA Forest Service that i-Tree website
provides urban forestry analysis and benefits assessment
tools.

T3: TOOLS FOR INCREASING SOCIAL COHESION
Accessible Natural Greenspace Sets benchmarks for the accessibility of green space Nature Nearby. Accessible
Standard (ANGSt) (e.g., maximum distance to parks and area of parks or Natural Greenspace Guidance.
woodlands per capita). Natural England, 2010.
URGE criteria and indicators Completed EU project to develop green spaces in Social Criteria for the Evaluation
for social assessments of urban the interest of improving the quality of life in cities and Development of Urban
green spaces and urban regions. Among its outputs is a catalogue Green Spaces. Coles, R., Caserio,
containing criteria, indicators and suggested M., 2001.
methodologies for use in assessing the social aspects of
urban green spaces.
Public Benefits Recording Tool for strategic planning and investment that aims PBRS Website
System (PBRS) to identify synergies between social, economic and Example Report:
environmental needs and opportunities, using GIS Lancashire Green Infrastructure
software. Strategy. Public Benefit
Assessment. Project Report.
PBRS, 2008.
Social Cohesion Radar Measures a country’s social cohesion based on three Project summary
domains (social relations, connectedness, and focus on Social Cohesion Radar.
the common good) and nine dimensions. Measuring Common Ground.
An International Comparison of
Social Cohesion. Bertelsmann
Stiftung (Ed.), 2013.
Social Cohesion Policy News Review system to measure the state of social cohesion OECD social cohesion policy
in a country (based on indicators in three dimensions: reviews. Concept Note. OECD,
social inclusion, social mobility, social capital) and to 2014.
identify policies that can strengthen or improve social
cohesion.

T4: TOOLS FOR GREEN-GREY-INTEGRATION
Minnesota Stormwater Manual This online source provides a comprensive overview of Minnesota Stormwater Manual
popular stormwater modelling software to assist with website
selecting the right one for your purposes. A selection of
possible tools is outlined below.
SUSTAIN - Systems for Urban Decision support tool evaluating optimal location, type SUSTAIN website
Stormwater Treatment and and cost of the stormwater management practices
Analysis Integration needed to meet water quantity and quality goals.
Note that EPA support for newer versions of SUSTAIN for
later version of Windows or ArcGIS has ended.
RECARGA Design tool developed by the Wisconsin Department RECARGA website

of Natural Resources for performance evaluation of bio
retention facilities, rain gardens and infiltration basins.
P8 - Program for Predicting Models the generation and transportation of pollutants P8 website
Polluting Particle Passage through urban runoff and the effectiveness of green
through Pits, Puddles & Ponds infrastructure for improving water quality.
SWMM - EPA Stormwater Supports planning, analysis and design concerning SWMM website
Management Model stormwater runoff, combined sewer overflows and
drainage systems.
MUSIC - Model for Urban Models stormwater system performance to assist in MUSIC website
Stormwater Improvement selecting an appropriate strategy.
Conceptualisation
WinSLAMM - Source Loading Evaluates stormwater pollution and runoff volume at WinSLAMM website
and Management Model for the area where runoff is generated and the effectiveness
Windows of a range of control measures, including infiltration/
biofiltration basins, street cleaning, wet detention ponds,
grass swales, filter strips, porous pavement, catchbasins,
water reuse, and various proprietary devices.
i-Tree Hydro Simulates the effect of trees and green cover on water i-Tree Hydro website
quality. Designed to be simple enough for non-experts to
use.

T5: TOOLS FOR CONNECTIVITY
Corridor Design A platform offering access to CorridorDesigner (a Corridor Design website
basic ArcGIS toolbox for creating corridor models)
and links to a range of other GIS tools to model,
map and assess ecological connectivity, corridors, or
habitats.
SCALETOOL Part of the SCALES project (Securing the Conservation SCALETOOL website
of biodiversity across Administrative Levels and spatial,
temporal, and Ecological Scales), this is a platform
offering methods and tools to assess ecological
connectivity at various scales, as well as a connectivity
learning module, background reading material and links
to other resources online. Also useful for assessing and
monitoring biodiversity.
Corridor Toolbox The Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group offers a Corridor Toolbox, on the
toolbox including links to software, technical papers and Connectivity Conservation
web resources useful for ecological connectivity. Specialist Group website
Green Walkable City Plan Stockholm’s Green Walkable City Plan (Den gröna Stockholm City Plan website
promenadstaden) has a particular focus on connecting (English summary)
residents to green (and blue) areas, with identified
focus areas and defined strategies, as part of the The Walkable City: Stockholm
comprehensive city plan ‘The Walkable City: Stockholm City Plan, 2010.
City Plan’. An English summary of the comprehensive (in English)
plan and an article describing the Green Walkable City
Plan are available online. Green Walkable City Plan, 2013
(in Swedish)
Planning the Green Walkable

City: Conceptualizing Values and
Conflicts for Urban Green Space
Strategies in Stockholm.
Littke, H., 2015.
Accessible Natural Greenspace Sets benchmarks for the social accessibility and ‘Nature Nearby’ Accessible
Standard (ANGSt) connectivity of green space (e.g., maximum distance Natural Greenspace Guidance.
to parks and area of parks or woodlands per capita). Natural England, 2010.
Also useful as part of evaluating a community’s social
cohesion.

T6: TOOLS FOR MULTIFUNCTIONALITY
GreenKeys@YourCity – A Guide Manual, toolbox and e-learning module published by GreenKeys website. Green Keys
for Urban Green Quality the IOER Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Team, 2008.
Development, Dresden. See in particular monitoring and
project evaluation tools.
Green Flag Award Benchmark standard for parks and green spaces in the Green Flag Award website
UK. It is based on 27 criteria across eight categories,
including, among others, benefits for humans,
sustainability, and conservation of biodiversity and
heritage. The diversity of the criteria promotes a
multifunctional approach to assessing the capacity of
green spaces. Applicants are required to demonstrate
their understanding of the site’s users, the site itself and
its special characteristics (whether historical, social or
physical), and their long-term management strategies.
The Mersey Forest A GIS mapping approach developed by a UK-based The Value of Mapping Green
Multifunctionality GIS mapping network of woodlands and green spaces. The Infrastructure. The Mersey
methodology includes assessing data needs and Forest, 2011.
acquiring data, ahead of mapping green infrastructure,
its various functions and benefits, and associated needs.
It is designed to be adaptable to a range of different
projects and scales.

T7: TOOLS FOR SOCIAL INCLUSION
TOOLS FOR ASSESSMENT AND VALUATION
Stakeholder Method to ensure that relevant stakeholders are The URBACT II Local Support
Analysis contacted in an action-planning project. Group Toolkit, p64-65.
Importance/ Influence Matrix Method to prioritise stakeholders, as well as to think The URBACT II Local Support
about the right approach to take with each of them. Group Toolkit, p66-67.
Often used in combination with a stakeholder analysis.
TOOLS FOR PARTICIPATING IN PLANNING
Forestry Commission public Resources and guidance for fostering public participation Public engagement toolbox
engagement toolbox in planning, prepared by the UK-based Forestry on the Forestry Commission
Commission. The toolbox is aimed at managers of forests website
and woodlands, but also useful for other practitioners
involved in green space planning and management.
Community planning methods The community planning website provides an A to Z of Community Planning website
possible methods to employ for greater social inclusion
in the planning process. Selected options are outlined
below.
Charette or ’inquiry by design’ A workshop where stakeholders come together to Engaging Communities Toolkit.
workshop identify issues, deliberate about preferred outcomes and West Lothian Community
create plans for the future. Planning Partnership, 2015, p15.
Citizens’ juries A group of citizens is selected, based on special criteria, Active Democracy website
as a representative cross-section of a wider community.
Much like a jury in a legal context, they are required
to meet as a group, receive information, deliberate
together and ultimately make recommendations about
an issue of public importance.
Photovoice Cameras are provided to community members to Community Toolbox website:
identify and record their community’s situation and Implementing Photovoice in
experiences through photography. The emphasis on Your Community
visual objects makes it easier for populations without
strong command of the local language to participate.
Participatory Budgeting City residents are given the chance to decide how to Participatory Budgeting Project
spend part of a municipal budget. Besides increasing website
transparency and educating citizens about the costs of
public management, this can increase engagement and
empowerment.
Neighbourhood Green Plans Communities work together on developing projects and/ How to resource your
or plans for more livable neighbourhoods. Examples neighbourhood plan. Planning
range from more traditional, top-down approaches Aid.
with strong community involvement to completely A Guide for Developing
community-led initiatives which then go for city council Neighbourhood Plans
approval. (Neighbourhoods Alive!).
Manitoba Government, 2002.
PPGIS For flexible mapping: options include Wikimapping Wikimapping
(free), ArcGIS Story Map Crowdsource℠ app (license- ArcGIS Story Map Crowdsource℠
based) and Maptionnaire (paid subscription). Maptionnaire
For citizens’ requests and complaints: options include Fix My Street

Fix My Street and Improve My City (both free). Improve My City

T8: FUNDING TOOLS AND MECHANISMS
Business use of public spaces Businesses pay a fee for the right to use public green Example:
space for commercial profit, such as for running a park Business Use of Public Spaces.
café (e.g., in the form of a lease or licence). Randwick City Council,
Australia.
Business improvement districts Business-led partnerships that manage privately-owned Example:
(BIDs) areas. They are based on a majority of businesses (either Green benefits in Victoria
land owners or tenants) agreeing to pay a member business improvement district.
contribution. Related greening initiatives can serve the Rogers et al., 2012.
public good but are primarily motivated by increased
value return to owners and investors, and should be
deployed with caution, as they may grant exclusionary
rights to these parties.
Compensation schemes Such schemes include requiring private land owners to Example:
compensate for any impact on public goods caused by Biodiversity Offsets. UNDP
their activities (such as Biodiversity Offsets), or offering 2016.
alternative plots of land or financial compensation in
exchange for their land if they do not intend to manage it
in line with local authorities’ requirements.
Rain tax Paid by a land owner based on the volume of surface Wastewater taxes. ECOTEC
runoff from their property. 2001.
Payments for ecosystem Financial incentive where ecosystem services (ESS) are Payments for ecosystem
services (PES) purchased from ESS providers to ensure ecosystems services. UNEP 2008.
are managed in a way that maximises the delivery of a
particular service.
Public-private- Local authorities have the option of providing incentives Example:
partnerships (PPP) to enhance collaboration with the private sector and ⇱Box C7 Lodz.
enable more flexible conditions for investment. A win-
win-situation for both partners is key to a successful PPP.
Competitions, award schemes Local, regional, national, and international governments Examples:
or organisations may organise these to encourage European Green Capital Award
investment in UGI. Green Flag Award
Charity events and activities Undertaken by non-profit organisations such as ’friends Example:
(e.g. funruns) of parks’ groups. Glasgow City Council. Friends of
Glasgow Parks.
Sponsorship Companies, communities or individuals may ’adopt’ trees Example:
or green spaces. Million Trees NYC.
Green bonds Fixed-income investors provide funds to support bank Example:
loans for eligible projects, e.g., those seeking to mitigate Green Infrastructure
climate change or to help affected communities adapt Investment Coalition
to it. For instance, the Green Infrastructure Investment
Coalition (GIIC) brings together investors, governments,
green infrastructure developers and development
banks to help increase the flow of capital to green
infrastructure around the world.

APPENDIX
List of contributors
93
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
CONTRIBUTOR AFFILIATION CONTRIBUTIONS TO
Andersson, Erik Associate Professor at Stockholm Resilience Center (SRC) Green Economy,
Stockholm University, Sweden Assessing UGI networks
Branquinho, Associate researcher at Ce3C - Centre for Ecology, Climate Change Adaptation
Cristina Evolution and Environmental Changes, Faculdade de
Ciências de Lisboa (FFCUL), Portugal
Brinkmeyer, Daniel Researcher at Chair of Ecosystem Science/Plant Ecology, Box C6
Technical University of Berlin (TUB), Germany
Caspersen, Ole Senior researcher at Institut for Geovidenskab og Box E3
Hjorth Naturforvaltning, Landskabsarkitektur og planlægning
Københavns Universitet (UCPH), Denmark
Chapman, Eleanor Assistant researcher at Chair for Strategic Landscape Editorial, layout,
Planning and Management intro, Part A, C, D
Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany
Cvejić, Rozalija Researcher at Biotehniška fakulteta Social Inclusion, Box B5, C8
Univerza v Ljubljana (UL), Slovenia
Davies, Clive Visiting Professor at Dipartimento di Scienze Agro- Connectivity
Ambientali e Territoriali (Di.S.A.A.T.)
Università degli Studi di Bari ‘Aldo Moro’ (UNIBA), Italy
Delshammar, Tim Landscape architect at City of Malmö, Street and Parks Integration, Box E1
Department, Sweden
DeBellis, Yole Assistant at Dipartimento di Scienze Agro-Ambientali Connectivity
e Territoriali (Di.S.A.A.T.) Box C5, E2
Erlwein, Sabrina Student assistant at Chair for Strategic Landscape Editorial, layout of Field Test Version 1.0,
Planning and Management Connectivity
Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany Box C5, E6
Fohlmeister, Sandra Researcher at Chair for Strategic Landscape Planning and Concept, editorial of Field Test Version 1.0
Management
Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany
Gentin, Sandra Teaching Assistant Professor at Institut for Geovidenskab Box E3
og Naturforvaltning, Landskabsarkitektur og planlægning
Geroházi, Éva Researcher at Metropolitan Research Institute (MRI), Social Inclusion,
Hungary Box B1
Hansen, Rieke Researcher at Chair for Strategic Landscape Planning and Concept, editorial, layout (also Field Test
Management Version 1.0),
Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany Part A, C, D, Multifunctionality,
Box B3, B4, C4, E6
Kronenberg, Jakub Associate Professor at Faculty of Economics and Sociology Green Economy,
Uniwersytet Lodzki (ULOD), Poland Box C7
Lafortezza, Raffaele Senior Researcher/Associate Professor at Dipartimento di Connectivity
Scienze Agro-Ambientali e Territoriali (Di.S.A.A.T.)
Luz, Ana Catarina Post-doctoral researcher at Ce3C-Centre for Ecology, Climate Change Adaptation,
Evolution and Environmental Changes, Faculdade de Green Economy,
Ciências de Lisboa (FFCUL), Portugal Box A1, B7

CONTRIBUTOR AFFILIATION CONTRIBUTIONS TO
Nastran, Mojca Researcher at Department for forestry and renewable Social Inclusion,
forest resources, Biotechnical Faculty Box B5
University of Ljubljana (UL), Slovenia
Pauleit, Stephan Professor at Chair for Strategic Landscape Planning and Concept, editorial,
Management Climate Change Adaptation,
Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany Box B2
Pintar, Marina Professor at Biotehniška fakulteta Box B5
Univerza v Ljubljana (UL), Slovenia
Rall, Emily Researcher at Chair for Strategic Landscape Planning and Concept, editorial,
Management Part A, C, D,
Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany Social cohesion, Integration,
Snapshot B3, C1, E6
Rolf, Werner Researcher at Chair for Strategic Landscape Planning and Concept,
Management Connectivity,
Technical University of Munich (TUM), Germany Box B4, C2
Santos, Artur Researcher at Ce3C-Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Biodiversity, Climate Change Adaptation,
Environmental Changes, Faculdade de Ciências de Lisboa Green Economy,
(FFCUL), Portugal Box E5
Santos-Reis, Scientific coordinator at Ce3C-Centre for Ecology, Climate Change Adaptation,
Margarida Evolution and Environmental Changes, Faculdade de Box A1
Ciências de Lisboa (FFCUL), Portugal
Stahl Olafsson, Assistant professor at Institut for Geovidenskab og Multifunctionality,
Anton Naturforvaltning, Landskabsarkitektur og planlægning Box E3
Száraz, Luca Researcher at Metropolitan Research Institute (MRI), Integration, Climate Change Adaptation,
Hungary Social Cohesion,
Now: Institutionen för landskapsarkitektur, planering och Box B1, C3
förvaltning, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet (SLU), Sweden
Tosics, Iván Managing director at Metropolitan Research Institute Social Inclusion,
(MRI), Hungary Box B6, C6
Van der Jagt, Researcher at Land Use and Ecosystem Services Group Box A3, A4, E4
Alexander Centre for Ecosystems, Society and Biosecurity, Forest
Research (FCRA), United Kingdom
Now: Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development,
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Vierikko, Kati Post-doctoral researcher at Department of Environmental Biodiversity,
Sciences Box A2
Helsingin Yliopisto (UH), Finland
Železnikar, Špela Researcher at Department of Agronomy, Biotechnical Box B5
Faculty
University of Ljubljana (UL), Slovenia

GREENSURGE Guide Sep 2018 Digital

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GREENSURGE Guide Sep 2018 Digital

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GREENSURGE Guide Sep 2018 Digital

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

June 2017

A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS

GREEN SURGE Deliverable 5.3

See more at www.greensurge.eu

Freising / Munich, June 2017

Other credits listed with associated images

A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS

i URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE

List of case studies iii

What is UGI planning and why do it? 1

Core principles of UGI planning 21

B Green-grey integration: combining green and grey infrastructure

C Embedding UGI in the planning process

Conclusion and next steps 57

Cross-cutting case studies from six European cities 69

URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE · June 2017 ii

Box City, Country Description Page

A1 Almada, Portugal Climate change adaptation strategy 9

B2 Szeged, Hungary Integration during urban renewal 25

iii URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE

Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) planning is a strategic planning

WHY IS URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE SO IMPORTANT?

UGI is capable of addressing a broad range of urban challenges, such

A sound UGI planning approach is based on four principles:

Barcelona has plans to invest

URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE · June 2017 iv

For best results, UGI planners should:

Self-evaluation and tools:

WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Deliverable 3.1 Deliverable 5.2 Deliverable 6.2

v URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE

A What is UGI planning - and why do it?

B Core principles of UGI planning

D Conclusion and next steps

E Cross-cutting case studies

Provides an overview of tools and methods for imple-

Appendix Lists contributors to the guide.

Indicates a clickable hyperlink to a resource available online.

Directs you to the toolbox, where you can find practical

URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE · June 2017 vi

URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE (UGI) PLANNING –

Due to its integrative, multifunctional approach, UGI planning is capable of addressing

The Schöneberger Südgelände

URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE · June 2017 3

…can help to tackle key urban challenges that cities face

1. Adapting to climate change

3. Promoting a green economy

4. Increasing social cohesion

These are explored in more detail here in Part A.

…is based on four core principles

1) Green-grey integration – combining green and grey infrastructure

2) Connectivity – creating green space networks

3) Multifunctionality – delivering and enhancing multiple functions and services

4) Social inclusion – collaborative and participatory planning

All four principles are explored in Part B.

…must be translated to practical actions on the ground

4 URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE

URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE · June 2017 5

6 URBAN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING GUIDE