Search

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 represents the CLEARING HOUSE screening tool (D1.5). The screening tool encompasses analytical questions for the guidance of the exploratory case study analysis for T2.1 in the 10 case study cities and regions in China and Europe and identifies responsibilities. The screening tool includes questions on the locality of the case study areas, geography of urban forests in the case studies, governance of urban forests as nature-based solutions (UF-NBS), and strategic objectives in relation to UF-NBS in the cases

This document represents the CLEARING HOUSE screening tool (D1.5). The screening toolencompasses analytical questions for the guidance of the exploratory case study analysis for T2.1 inthe 10 case study cities and regions in China and Europe and identifies responsibilities. The screening tool includes questions on the locality of the case study areas, geography of urbanforests in the case studies, governance of urban forests as nature-based solutions (UF-NBS), andstrategic objectives in relation to UF-NBS in the cases &nbsp

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.