City indicators : now to Nanjing

This paper provides the key elements to develop an integrated approach for measuring and monitoring city performance globally. The paper reviews the role of cities and why indicators are important. Then it discusses past approaches to city indicators and the systems developed to date, including the World Bank's initiatives. After identifying the strengths and weaknesses of past experiences, it discusses the characteristics of optimal indicators. The paper concludes with a proposed plan to develop standardized indicators that emphasize the importance of indicators that are measurable, replicable, potentially predictive, and most important, consistent and comparable over time and across cities. As an innovative characteristic, the paper includes subjective measures in city indicators, such as well-being, happy citizens, and trust.Cultural Policy,City Development Strategies,Cultural Heritage&Preservation,ICT Policy and Strategies,Housing&Human Habitats

A Guide to Evaluating Marine Spatial Plans

Marine spatial plans are being developed in over 40 countries around the world, to distribute human activities in marine areas more sustainably and achieve ecological, social, and economic objectives. Monitoring and evaluation are often considered only after a plan has been developed. This guide will help marine planners and managers, monitor and evaluate the success of marine plans in achieving real results and outcomes. This report emphasizes the importance of early integration of monitoring and evaluation in the planning process, the importance of measurable and specific objectives, clear management actions, relevant indicators and targets, and involvement of stakeholders throughout the planning process.

Urban and rural green infrastructure.Two projects for the metropolitan city of Rome

Create synergies between green infrastructure, urban and rural areas

The Challenge of Building Proper Urban Indicator System: A Proposal for Croatian Cities

In this paper, urban indicator system is investigated in the context of urban policy processes. Indicators are seen as a tool to enhance urban management and special attention is given to their role in providing assistance in monitoring municipal development and performance. The paper will present desirable features of useful indicators from the city perspective, as well as framework to include these indicators in urban policy and management successfully. Formulation of proper indicator system requires a good understanding of the utilization, diffusion and dissemination of information in policy processes, so the paper will consider basic constraints related to these preconditions such as existing knowledge gaps within the indicator developer community vs. their theoretical limitations, communication concerns, human and technical capacities, policy issues etc. This paper will also elaborate modest Croatian experience in developing urban indicator system and lessons learned will be used as guidelines in making illustrative proposal for Croatian cities. In addition, this paper will try to define particular environmental, economic and governance variables/indices that should be adopted as urban indicators, taking in account Croatian specificities. We conclude this paper by addressing future challenges related to integration of urban indicator system within urban policy in Croatia.

Towards an\u2028 EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities. Final report of the Horizon 2020 expert group on nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities.

1. Nature-based solutions harness the power and sophistication of nature to turn environmental, social and economic challenges into innovation opportunities. They can address a variety of societal challenges in sustainable ways, with the potential to contribute to green growth, 'future-proofing' society, fostering citizen well-being, providing business opportunities and positioning Europe as a leader in world markets. \u2028 2. Nature-based solutions are actions which are inspired by, supported by or copied from nature. They have tremendous potential to be energy and resource-efficient and resilient to change, but to be successful they must be adapted to local conditions. \u2028 3. Many nature-based solutions result in multiple co-benefits for health, the economy, society and the environment, and thus they can represent more efficient and cost-effective solutions than more traditional approaches. \u2028 4. An EU Research & Innovation (R&I) agenda on nature-based solutions will enable Europe to become a world leader both in R&I and in the growing market for nature-based solutions. For this, the evidence base for the effectiveness of nature-based solutions needs to be developed and then used to implement solutions. Both need to be done in conjunction with stakeholders. The potential for transferability and upscaling of solutions also requires further investigation. There is also a need to develop a systemic approach that combines technical, business, finance, governance, regulatory and social innovation. \u2028 5. Four principal goals have been identified that can be addressed by nature-based solutions: �� Enhancing sustainable urbanisation through nature-based solutions can stimulate economic growth as well as improving the environment, making cities more attractive, and enhancing human well-being. \u2028 �� Restoring degraded ecosystems using nature-based solutions can improve the resilience of ecosystems, enabling them to deliver vital ecosystem services and also to meet other societal challenges. \u2028 �� Developing climate change adaptation and mitigation using nature-based solutions can provide more resilient responses and enhance the storage of carbon. \u2028 �� Improving risk management and resilience using nature-based solutions can lead to greater benefits than conventional methods and offer synergies in reducing multiple risks. \u2028 6. Based on the four goals, seven nature-based solutions for R&I actions are recommended to be taken forward by the European Commission and Member States: �� Urban regeneration through nature-based solutions \u2028 �� Nature-based solutions for improving well-being in urban areas \u2028 �� Establishing nature-based solutions for coastal resilience \u2028 �� Multi-functional nature-based watershed management and ecosystem restoration \u2028 �� Nature-based solutions for increasing the sustainability of the use of matter and energy \u2028 �� Nature-based solutions for enhancing the insurance value of ecosystems \u2028 �� Increasing carbon sequestration through nature-based solutions \u2028This report was produced by the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on 'Nature-Based Solutions and Re- Naturing Cities', informed by the findings of an e-consultation and a stakeholder workshop. \u202

Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. Urban ecosystems

Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 requires member states to Map and Assess the state of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES). This report provides guidance for mapping and assessment of urban ecosystems. The MAES urban pilot is a collaboration between the European Commission, the European Environment Agency, volunteering Member States and cities, and stakeholders. Its ultimate goal is to deliver a knowledge base for policy and management of urban ecosystems by analysing urban green infrastructure, condition of urban ecosystems and ecosystem services. This report presents guidance for mapping urban ecosystems and includes an indicator framework to assess the condition of urban ecosystems and urban ecosystem services. The scientific framework of mapping and assessment is designed to support in particular urban planning policy and policy on green infrastructure at urban, metropolitan and regional scales. The results are based on the following different sources of information: a literature survey of 54 scientific articles, an online-survey (on urban ecosystems, related policies and planning instruments and with participation of 42 cities), ten case studies (Portugal: Cascais, Oeiras, Lisbon; Italy: Padua, Trento, Rome; The Netherlands: Utrecht; Poland: Poznań; Spain: Barcelona; Norway: Oslo), and a two-day expert workshop. The case studies constituted the core of the MAES urban pilot. They provided real examples and applications of how mapping and assessment can be organized to support policy; on top, they provided the necessary expertise to select a set of final indicators for condition and ecosystem services. Urban ecosystems or cities are defined here as socio-ecological systems which are composed of green infrastructure and built infrastructure. Urban green infrastructure (GI) is understood in this report as the multi-functional network of urban green spaces situated within the boundary of the urban ecosystem. Urban green spaces are the structural components of urban GI. This study has shown that there is a large scope for urban ecosystem assessments. Firstly, urban policies increasingly use urban green infrastructure and nature-based solutions in their planning process. Secondly, an increasing amount of data at multiple spatial scales is becoming available to support these policies, to provide a baseline, and to compare or benchmark cities with respect to the extent and management of the urban ecosystem. Concrete examples are given on how to delineate urban ecosystems, how to choose an appropriate spatial scale, and how to map urban ecosystems based on a combination of national or European datasets (including Urban Atlas) and locally collected information (e.g., location of trees). Also examples of typologies for urban green spaces are presented. This report presents an indicator framework which is composed of indicators to assess for urban ecosystem condition and for urban ecosystem services. These are the result of a rigorous selection process and ensure consistent mapping and assessment across Europe. The MAES urban pilot will continue with work on the interface between research and policy. The framework presented in this report needs to be tested and validated across Europe, e.g. on its applicability at city scale, on how far the methodology for measuring ecosystem condition and ecosystem service delivery in urban areas can be used to assess urban green infrastructure and nature-based solutions

Recreation, tourism and nature in a changing world : proceedings of the fifth international conference on monitoring and management of visitor flows in recreational and protected areas : Wageningen, the Netherlands, May 30-June 3, 2010

Proceedings of the fifth international conference on monitoring and management of visitor flows in recreational and protected areas : Wageningen, the Netherlands, May 30-June 3, 201

The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries: Issues, Terminology, Principles, Institutional Foundations, Implementation and Outlook

Ecosystems are complex and dynamic natural units that produce goods and services beyond those of benefit to fisheries. Because fisheries have a direct impact on the ecosystem, which is also impacted by other human activities, they need to be managed in an ecosystem context. The meaning of the terms 'ecosystem management', 'ecosystem based management', 'ecosystem approach to fisheries'(EAF), etc., are still not universally defined and progressively evolving. The justification of EAF is evident in the characteristics of an exploited ecosystem and the impacts resulting from fisheries and other activities. The rich set of international agreements of relevance to EAF contains a large number of principles and conceptual objectives. Both provide a fundamental guidance and a significant challenge for the implementation of EAF. The available international instruments also provide the institutional foundations for EAF. The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries is particularly important in this respect and contains provisions for practically all aspects of the approach. One major difficulty in defining EAF lies precisely in turning the available concepts and principles into operational objectives from which an EAF management plan would more easily be developed. The paper discusses these together with the types of action needed to achieve them. Experience in EAF implementation is still limited but some issues are already apparent, e.g. in added complexity, insufficient capacity, slow implementation, need for a pragmatic approach, etc. It is argued, in conclusion, that the future of EAF and fisheries depends on the way in which the two fundamental concepts of fisheries management and ecosystem management, and their respective stakeholders, will join efforts or collide