Search

This short report, referred to as Deliverable 1.6 (D1.6), is a summary of key findings, an overview of,and a comparative perspective on relevant governance, institutional and economic frameworks inChina and Europe for urban forests as nature-based solutions (UF-NBS). It bases on work realised inWP1 and on a Sino-European co-design event. In the context of UF-NBS and the CLEARING HOUSEproject, urban forest patterns, governance structures, institutional and economic frameworks areinterlocking at various spatial levels. Task 1.5 merges the key findings of the Tasks 1.1 to 1.4 togetherwith the findings of the exploratory analysis of the case studies (Task 2.1 in WP2; da Schio et al. 2021)and the inputs gathered from the co-design process (Task 3.1; De Vreese et al. 2021) into an analyticalframework for a systematic and participatory study and implementation of UF-NBS and their effectsand impacts on the urban socio-ecological system, including socio-cultural, ecological, and economicaspects. Topics addressed by the analytical framework will include ecosystem patterns andfunctioning, tree- and biodiversity, ecosystem services provisioning, impacts on human wellbeing(including socio-environmental justice, urban liveability, equality, social inclusion and gender andpublic health), climate change adaptation and the cost-effectiveness of UF-NBS in cities and their periurban surroundings. The analytical framework will highlight the contribution of different disciplinesthrough assigned thematic experts from CLEARING HOUSE and give guidance for analysing existingplanning instruments and monitoring schemes. It is preliminary structured in four streams, for thepurpose of splitting and organising the work in WP2 and in the case studies. All four streams areinterconnected, both in terms of the theme they cover and in terms of the activities planned.

Deliverable 1.2 is intended to be a guide, a structured interpretation and evaluation of the current knowledge used to collateevidence on intended outcomes and unintended impacts of UF-NBS for urban ecosystem regeneration and human wellbeing. The information reported herein is based on the compilation of a reference-recorded knowledge repository of UF-NBS and theirimpacts on urban liveability, public health, halting biodiversity loss and re-diversifying UF-NBS structures to enhance urbanresilience; specifically, Task 1.2 - Reviewing the knowledge on the importance of UF-NBS for resilient cities -and M1.3 - theRepository on UF-NBS for resilient cities in China and Europe. Sections 2 and 3 of deliverable D1.2a are intended to providea review of current UF-NBS practices in Europe and China. The in-depth coverage of these UF-NBS case studies is furtherexpanded in Appendix 1 by reviewing the grey literature, i.e. the project and official reports, planning strategies, as well asscientific publications that span the territory of EU Member States and China. This documentation highlights the main goalsand methodologies used in UF-NBS research and implementation, policy implications and NBS typology and functions, i.e.,ecosystem services, within the frame of Task 1.2, as well as case history templates (Task 1.4). In Section 4, a comparativeanalysis of case histories provides conclusive insights into common or contrasting aspects in and between these twocontinents. Final considerations drawn from the comparative analysis of the intended outcomes of UF-NBS implementationinclude lessons that can be learned and existing knowledge gaps. In Section 5, a Sino-European analysis, in the form ofamodelling exercise, was conducted of the selected case histories to explore shared themes, such as connectivity, multifunctionality and social cohesion, and macro-categories (i.e., ecological, engineering, social and economicmacro-categories) for urban regeneration and renaturing. The second part, D1.2b, presents a review of the existing knowledgeon UF-NBS through a compiled knowledge repository of cases from the academic literature as provided by both Europe andChina. This repository offers a more comprehensive understanding of the overarching goal the overall document aims for, aswell as its specific objectives, and to help satisfy the need for inquiring on the multitude of aspects that are inherent to UF-NBSand their strategic role in planning, implementation and as a response to address today’s climate change,economic and social crises. In light of the aforementioned objectives, D1.2 can be considereda valid and comprehensive aide to a variety of audiences. These include, but are not limited to,educational and scientific research institutions, NGOs, environmental planners and enthusiasts,and lastly, government authorities who are expected to devote more importance, time, andbudgets to green space management and allow for greater place-based involvement.

This deliverable (D5.5) is the first revision of the communication and dissemination strategy. Thisdocument is a living document, its next update (D5.6) is due in M36 (August 2022). This document is arevision of D5.1 which was submitted in November 2019 and assesses the performance of the definedtools used to communicate with the audience and to disseminate the project’s results. &nbsp

Governance, institutional and economic frameworks in China and Europe are considered to be decisive forthe design, implementation and impacts of urban forests as nature-based solutions (UF-NBS). Several linesof inquiry were established to focus the analysis; these were developed in a co-design process with projectpartners. To provide an evidence base for the analysis, case histories of 22 existing projects were collected:16 in Europe and 6 in China. The selection of case histories and countries was motivated by the ambition ofcovering different bio-geographical regions and planning families based on the modified ESPON approachused in the GREEN SURGE FP7 project. We found that governance, institutional and economic frameworks for UF-NBS are still under development.Support was found from the findings of Xie & Bulkeley (2020) who reported that whilst local planningprocesses are assumed to be the instigator of urban (NBS), for European cities project-based actions arepresently preeminent. We concluded that for this to move up the agenda to city strategic developmentplans, which are generally guided from the national, regional, and city level, there is a case for an EU-NBS strategy (including UF-NBS) to influence national thinking. In China, city masterplans set out the high-levelpolicy of the city and all other local plans are subordinate to it. Unlike for its immediate predecessor, theabsence of urban forestry from the Chinese 14th five-year plan is offset by the robust structure of the China National Forest City Development Plan (2018 - 2025). We found that the design, implementation and management of UF-NBS depend on the social, cultural andeconomic context, but that there is added value in the promotion of good practices and successful stories,as well as innovation. Key informants in the case histories were interested to learn from elsewhere. Thecase histories are being uploaded to the NetworkNature/OPPLA platform and shared via networks, notablythe European Forum on Urban Forestry (EFUF) and the International Forest City conference. The engagement of civil society (i.e., social groups, citizens) in UF-NBS is still relatively low. This links to the top-down approach described in the majority of the case histories, with the leading role embedded withinmunicipalities. We have identified a need for widening the scope of the co-design processes involving localresidents and citizen groups. The engagement of the private sector also seems to be falling short ofexpectations. Indeed, the funding of UF-NBS relies to a high degree on municipal funds. This has multipleconsequences in respect of governance arrangements where citizens are recipients, not co-owners and comakers of proposed solutions, and may also reduce the scope of economic innovations. We have also identified that long-term planning should always be considered in the case of UF-NBS, since funds can berestricted to the duration of project inception leading to a loss of NBS functionality if UF-NBS managementdeclines.

This deliverable (D5.1) describes the communication and dissemination strategy and gives visibility tothe entire process. This document includes a section on the context of the project and identifies thecommunication and dissemination objectives, target groups, strategy and key messages. Thedocument also defines the tools used to communicate with the audience and to disseminate theproject’s results. This document includes the information on all communication and dissemination efforts to achieve allCLEARING HOUSE communications subtasks such as the creation of a visual identity, the projectwebsite and media channels amongst others. &nbsp

This document describes the envisaged approach for identifying and mapping of cases and projects of urban forests as nature-based solutions (UF-NBS) in European and Chinese cities, and the methodology for developing a typology of UF-NBS.

This document describes the envisaged approach for identifying and mapping of cases and projects ofurban forests as nature-based solutions (UF-NBS) in European and Chinese cities, and the methodologyfor developing a typology of UF-NBS. &nbsp

The COVID 19 pandemic is transforming our society. All the basic elements of living together have radically changed in the past weeks: Where and how we work, whom we spend time with, whom we care about, what tasks and activities keep us busy. During the lockdown those that can, have been flocking into green spaces and urban forests for physical exercise and mental calming. At least this applies to those who are not locked down totally. Recent charts by Google, for instance, show an impressive increase of mobility toward places like national parks, public beaches, marinas, dog parks, plazas, and public gardens, amidst a general fall in mobility trends (e.g.the case of Germany). Isolation and prevention measures are putting the critical importance to society of urban green spaces in a completely new light, intensifying existing dynamics and creating new ones. Discussions are underway about the quantity and type of urban greenspace needed, social equity and access for the least financially able, ratio of space to population; but also about their function as a social space, their role in gentrification and the relationship between open space and health services… Trees in particular are showing their full potential in improving our lives as individuals and societies. The many services they offer to natural ecosystems and society were proven long before the pandemic exploded (e.g. regulate temperature and provide shade, filter air pollutants, sequester carbon, manage and filter rainwater, stabilize soils & maintain soil health, provide food and shelter for living organisms, improve mental, physical, and well-being, improve recreation and aesthetics…). During the pandemic, this became ever more visible: trees are key amenities and a source of enjoyment during locked-in routines; they contribute in preserving and improving people’s mental and physical health; and people of all ages and conditions hold on to them as an actual lifeboat for carrying on. In these challenging times, green spaces have become an image of inequalities and injustice that characterize our societies and cities. To begin with, not everybody looks at public green spaces and forestry the same way – it is not only a question of availability of green space in the neighbourhood but also one of each individual living situation. Rooftop apartments, with a lot of insolation or with green views are the top winners during the ordered pandemic home rests. Vis-a-vis the #stayathome imperative, the need of the healing potential of trees becomes particularly pronounced for people whose home is small, overcrowded or insalubrious; people who do not have their own garden; people who have a flat without a balcony; people who have a flat on the ground floor with a limited view outside and lack of direct sunlight; people with specific needs for outdoor physical activity or for people requiring a break from the stay-at-home routine. Secondly, not everybody has (visual or physical) access to the same amount and quality of public green spaces, with the geography of green spaces often reflecting and reproducing patterns of socio-economic disparity, resulting in environmental injustice: What is probably most worrying is the fact that those who today find themselves in the greatest need for green spaces are the ones that face the greatest deprivation in a multiple sense: low income, children, elderly, disabled, etc. More so, as “social distancing” measures were seemingly not respected in green spaces, many governments have been locking down parks and other accessible greenspaces. Examples of places where green spaces were closed include Vienna’s city centre, where most public parks are fenced and now completely locked, and Spain or Italy where going into parks was prohibited, because it was not considered a necessary activity.In Belgium,where forests are few and far between,only some people are allowed to travel to a forest by car (e.g.parents of children of 5-year or younger,people with lower mobility due to age or handicap). All others have to find their green spaces within a walking or biking distance. Furthermore, the greenspace visits are meant only for movement – stopping to sit on a bench by the side of the road has been banned for most people. Such policies are clearly socially divisive, possibly favouring those with access to private green such as gardens or those living in nearby rural environs whilst creating disadvantages to people who live in high rise apartments often in ‘hard urban’ areas and who already suffer from multiple deprivation. If we look at the future, amidst the legitimate worries about what needs to be done and how to deal with the social and health emergency, we need to start thinking about reconstruction: Greenspaces and urban forests will have to play a key role in the debate about how we want to, as society, return to “normal” life and how we want to ensure that urban green spaces are accessible for everyone. The corona pandemic, with all its drawbacks, could also be the starting point for a much-needed debate on a social contract about the future role of green spaces where we live and work&hellip

This deliverable outlines the CLEARING HOUSE typology of urban forests as nature-based solutions (UF-NBS). The typology thus conceptualizes entities relevant to UF-NBS. To do so, elements of green-blue infrastructure (GBI) are defined in the typology. Contrary to purely textual representations of knowledge, CLEARING HOUSE proposes a definition of GBI elements through traits, i.e., characteristic and defining morphological, physical, functional, and institutional attributes, including for example the composition, spatial grouping, and topology of UF-NBS elements, and the ecosystem services and benefits provided them. CLEARING HOUSE proposes a semantic approach to express this knowledge, i.e., a formalization of knowledge as an ontology using the Web Ontology Language. Such ontologies are machine-interpretable series of statements of facts to define a taxonomy (a vocabulary). The definitions of GBI elements are embedded within a formalization of overarching concepts, particularly, of urban forest, nature-based solutions (NBS), and of UF-NBS. Here, urban forest is conceptually understood as the entirety of trees within an urban-ecological system. NBS are perceived in CLEARING HOUSE as an overarching concept that embraces natural and semi-natural elements of the GBI such as forests, engineered solutions such as permeable pavements, as well as actions inspired by nature. UF-NBS are then conceptualized as the intersection of the two previous entities, i.e., as the intersection of urban forest and NBS, and thus include any tree-related NBS. The proposed typology will provide the grounding knowledge of the comparative case study analysis to be conducted by CLEARING HOUSE, and will serve as a basis for the development of the CLEARING HOUSE benchmarking tool.

To address societal challenges in river landscapes, various options are conceivable that differ in the degree of adopting nature-based solutions (NBS) and the respective impacts on people and nature. Multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) can aid participatory deliberations about the performance and significance of such options. However, little experience and evidence exist from the application of participatory MCE in planning NBS in river landscapes. This study aims to expand the understanding of individual and collaborative judgments of agency representatives about river development options with varying levels of NBS interventions. A process tracing approach with a rigorous participatory MCE for four alternatives to develop an exemplary river in Germany is adopted, as well as weighted linear aggregation,descriptive statistics, principal component analysis, and decision tree modelling for data analysis. The results reveal a wide agreement among participants on the positive impacts of NBS on biodiversity and water quality. Participants also tended to judge those ecological dimensions as more important than non-ecological ones. The rankings of alternatives differed when elicited individually but seemed to converge during the deliberation process. Overall, the results indicate a relative preference of participants for medium NBS interventions, but also shed light on potential implementation hurdles. The study closes by proposing key questions to consider for MCE of NBS.