Comparing the implicit valuation of ecosystem services from nature-based solutions in performance-based green area indicators across three European cities

Performance-based green area indicators are increasingly used as policy instruments to promote nature-based solutions in urban property development. We explore the differences and parallels of three green area indicators: Berlin’s Biotope Area Factor (BAF), Stockholm’s Green Area Factor (GYF) and Oslo’s Blue Green Factor (BGF). As policy instruments they vary in their complexity and goals for green and blue structures. The urban planning literature devotes increasing attention to urban ecosystem services (ES) and its potential for utilitarian valuation including assigning preference weights, valuation and pricing of green and blue characteristics of urban development projects. Our comparison shows, however, that nature-based solutions in urban development projects in these three cities are largely planned, designed and implemented without using an explicit ES approach. Nevertheless, the choices of green structures and weighting of areas and structures in each city’s performance-based index constitute implicit valuation of bundles of ecosystem services. By investigating how the three indicator systems’ scores vary in parcel-scale development projects, we identify which ecosystem services each system implicitly promote and neglect. We discuss how variation in the systems’ complexity is the result of policy instrument design trade-offs between comprehensiveness and implementation costs. We argue that using physical proxies of performance in lieu of valuation of ecosystem services lowers site-specific information costs of green area indicators at property level. In the absence of an explicit ES approach, performance-based green area indicators in the three cities have been encouraging nature-based solutions in urban development without pricing of ecosystem services, without apologies. Policy design Green area points Blue-green factor Biotope factor Green space factor Ecosystem ServicesacceptedVersio

Securing blue-green qualities in urban projects- A qualitative case study of blue-green factor in Asplan Viak

As the urban populations continue to grow and the demand for housing, commercial and public spaces rise, the competition for limited available spaces is becoming more intense. This has led to an increased pressure on urban planners and policymakers to find innovative solutions to accommodate the needs of all residents and businesses in these areas. Due to climate change, we can expect more frequent and intense rainfall, combined with more dense surfaces in cities, which creates a need for nature-based solutions for stormwater management and green areas. Landscape architects can use the blue-green factor (BGF) method as a tool to improve and facilitate the incorporation of Blue-Green Infrastructure (BGI) in the designs, ensuring that the environmental benefits are maximized and contributing to a more sustainable and resilient urban environment. The blue-green factor calculation method has been used in Norway for nearly a decade and is increasingly being adopted by several Norwegian municipalities. However, there are still uncertainties regarding the method, especially related to the practical implementation. This thesis aims to contribute to the current understanding of the strengths and weaknesses associated with BGF in relation to stormwater management and biodiversity. Additionally, the thesis seeks to explore improvements for BGF, that can better facilitate for stormwater management and biodiversity conservation. This thesis aims to highlight some of the strengths and weaknesses with BGF. To achieve this, Asplan Viak, has been selected as the case company for the thesis. Asplan Viak is a large and recognized actor in Norway- and has great experience in using the Norwegian BGF method in their projects. The empirical data has been collected through a qualitative study, through pre-structured in-depth interviews. The method has provided insight into the strengths and weaknesses related to the use of the Norwegian BGF-method, through Asplan Viak`s experiences. The empirical evidence shows that BGF is effective in promoting the inclusion of trees and vegetation in landscape projects, but it is not as effective in managing stormwater beyond the first step of the three-step strategy to capture and infiltrate runoff from smaller rain events. The study also identifies improvements for BGF, that can better facilitate for stormwater management and biodiversity conservation. The results of this study provide insight into the practical implementation of BGF and contribute to the ongoing discussion surrounding its use in landscape architecture and urban planning

Siniviherkerroinmenetelmän vaikutukset Turun kaupungin kerrostalokohteiden sinivihreään infrastruktuuriin

Kaupungistumisen ja ilmastonmuutoksen on ennustettu lisäävän kaupunkialueiden kokemia ympäristöpaineita ja säänääri-ilmiöitä. Kaupunkien nykyiset harmaan infrastruktuurin ratkaisut eivät tule kuitenkaan riittämään säänääri-ilmiöiden lisääntyessä ja sen takia on tunnistettu tarve uudelle lähestymistavalle. Yksi keskeinen elementti ympäristöpaineiden siedossa on sinivihreä infrastruktuuri ja luontopohjaiset ratkaisut. Sinivihreän infrastruktuurin sääntely ja ohjaus alkaa Euroopan unionin tasolta ja jatkuu sieltä kansallisiin strategioihin ja lainsäädäntöön. Kansallisella tasolla sinivihreän infrastruktuurin ja luontopohjaisten ratkaisujen toteutumisessa tärkeässä roolissa ovat maankäytön suunnittelu ja kaavoitus. Turussa kaavoitukseen ja rakennusjärjestykseen on vuonna 2021 sisällytetty siniviherkerroinmenetelmä, jonka tarkoituksena on taata tonteille riittävä sinivihreä infrastruktuuri. Ohjauskeinona menetelmä on uusi, ja tutkimusta sen vaikutuksista sinivihreään infrastruktuuriin ei ole vielä paljoa. Tässä tutkimuksessa selvitettiin, miten Turun sinivihreä infrastruktuuri on kehittynyt, ja miten siniviherkerroinmenetelmän käyttöönotto on vaikuttanut sinivihreän infrastruktuurin laatuun ja määrään. Tutkielmassa tarkasteltiin kohteita, joiden rakentamista siniviherkerroin on ohjannut (SIVI-kohteet) ja kohteita, jotka ovat rakennettu ennen menetelmän käyttöönottoa (verrokkikohteet). SIVI-kohteiden sinivihreä infrastruktuuri selvitettiin tekemällä sisällönanalyysi rakennuslupadokumenteille. Verrokkikohteiden sinivihreä infrastruktuuri selvitettiin ilmakuvista tehdyllä maankäytönluokittelulla, tehdyn luokittelun avulla kohteille laskettiin siniviherkertoimen arvo. SIVI- ja verrokkikohteiden laadullisia sinivihreän infrastruktuurin muuttujia vertailtiin niiden pinta-alojen suhteiden perusteella. Tutkimuksen tulokset osoittavat, että SIVI-kohteilla hyödynnetään monipuolisesti erilaisia sinivihreän infrastruktuurin ratkaisuja. Hyödynnettyjä vihreän infrastruktuurin ratkaisuja ovat muun muassa nurmikot, perennat, pensaat, puut, viherkatot ja viherseinät. Verrokkikohteilla vihreä infrastruktuuri koostuu pääosin nurmikosta, puista ja pensaista. Muutamalla uudemmalla verrokkikohteella on hyödynnetty myös viherkattoja. SIVI-kohteiden pihapiirien pinnoitteissa hyödynnetään monipuolisesti useita erilaisia ratkaisuja ja läpäisemättömiä pinnoitteita on pyritty korvaamaan puoliläpäisevillä pinnoitteilla, joita ovat esimerkiksi nurmikiveykset ja kivituhka. Verrokkikohteilla pinnoitteissa hyödynnetään puolestaan asfalttia sekä hiekkaa ja soraa. SIVI-kohteissa on hyödynnetty teknisiä sekä luontopohjaisia hulevesiratkaisuja. Kahdella verrokkikohteella on myös luontopohjaisia ratkaisuja. Tutkimuksen tulokset osoittavat että, siniviherkerroinmenetelmä on parantanut SIVI-kohteiden sinivihreän infrastruktuurin laatua sekä lisännyt luontopohjaisten hulevesien hallintaratkaisujen käyttöä. Menetelmä toi hyötyä erityisesti kohteille, joissa ei ollut tilanpuutteen takia mahdollista sijoittaa kasvillisuuta maanvaraisille alueille. Siniviherkerroinmenetelmä ei kuitenkaan lisännyt sinivihreän infrastruktuurin määrää SIVI-kohteilla verrattuna verrokkikohteisiin.Urbanization and climate change have been predicted to increase the environmental pressures and extreme weather phenomena experienced by urban areas. However, the current gray infrastructure solutions in cities will not be enough as the phenomenon of weather increases, and because of that, the need for a new approach has been identified. One key element in coping with environmental pressures is blue-green infrastructure and nature-based solutions. The regulation and control of blue-green infrastructure starts at the level of the European Union and continues from there to national strategies and legislation. At the national level, land use planning and zoning play an important role in the implementation of blue-green infrastructure and nature-based solutions. In Turku, in 2021, the blue-green factor method has been included in the planning and building code, the purpose of which is to guarantee sufficient blue-green infrastructure for plots. As a means of control, the method is new and there is still not much research on its effects on blue-green infrastructure. This study examined how blue-green infrastructure has developed and how the introduction of the blue-green factor method has affected the quality and quantity of blue-green infrastructure. The thesis examined objects whose construction was guided by the blue-green factor (SIVI sites) and objects that were built before the introduction of the method (control sites). The blue-green infrastructure of SIVI sites was investigated by conducting a content analysis of building permit documents. The blue-green infrastructure of the control sites was determined by land use classification made from aerial photographs; the value of the blue-green factor was calculated for the sites with the help of the classification. The qualitative blue-green infrastructure variables of SIVI and control sites were compared based on the ratios of their surface areas. The results of the study show that various blue-green infrastructure solutions are used versatilely at SIVI sites. Utilized green infrastructure solutions include lawns, perennials, bushes, trees, green roofs and green walls. At the control sites, the green infrastructure mainly consists of grass, trees and bushes. Green roofs have also been utilized at a few newer control sites. Several different solutions are used versatilely in the coatings of SIVI sites' yards, and efforts have been made to replace impermeable coatings with semi-permeable coatings, such as grass pebbles and stone ash. On the control sites, asphalt and sand and gravel are used in the coatings. Technical and nature-based stormwater solutions have been used in SIVI sites. Two control sites also have nature-based solutions. The results of the study show that the blue-green factor method has improved the quality of the blue-green infrastructure of SIVI sites and increased the use of nature-based stormwater management solutions. The method brought benefits especially to sites where it was not possible to place vegetation in land-based areas due to lack of space. However, the blue-green factor method didn’t increase the amount of blue-green infrastructure at SIVI sites compared to control sites

Green Infrastructure in Urban Flood Reduction and Stormwater Management

Climate change brings many challenges to cities of the world. One of them is an increase in precipitation, especially in the areas where it is already high. One example is the city of Stavanger, a case study for this project. Most cities are covered in asphalt, concrete and other impermeable materials, preventing stormwater from absorbing into the ground. Nature-based solutions (NBS) allow the retention process and, at the same time, bring many other benefits. The primary motivation behind this project is to investigate the role of green infrastructure (GI) in stormwater management and flood reduction. This study is critical because many large cities in Europe are already affected by high precipitation or will be in the near future. The results can be used as a part of stormwater management policymaking. The efficiency of the different types of GI was examined in two drainage basins in Stavanger using Rational method calculations, hydrological modelling with HEC-RAS software and scenario development. The calculations show the possible change in runoff volumes up to 9.4% of the initial amount. The hydrological modelling showed visible changes in flood reduction compared to the existing flood situation in the 100-year event. GI appear to be a good and multifunctional stormwater management tool, which should be a part of every city. Nevertheless, from the results, it is clear that GI, despite its undeniable benefits, can be used only in combination with the traditional flood measures in order to provide sufficient protection for the cities facing climate change

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

Deliverable D4.2. User satisfaction of climate services

The EVOKED framework focuses on the co-creation aspects of climate services (co-design, co-development and co-validation) using Living Labs to engage stakeholders. Embedded in each of these steps, is a co-evaluation process to assess the experience of the stakeholders involved in the co-creation of climate services. Furthermore, co-evaluation assesses user satisfaction as feedback to bridge the process-content gap and thus to improve each step in the EVOKED framework and ultimately help build engaged communities. To carry out co-evaluation during the EVOKED project, a questionnaire was developed and completed by the participants of the Living Labs. The questionnaire includes evaluations of the Living Labs process itself as well as the climate services being developed. This report D4.2 'User satisfaction of climate services' aims to document and present the use and results from the questionnaires as they were used in Living Lab workshops and during the different field trials for the development of tailored climate services for five EVOKED case study sites.EU, Horizon Europe European Research Area for Climate Services JPI Climate The Research Council of Norway Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany) NWO FORMA

Climate Adaptive Stormwater Management: A comperativ study of Oslo and Helsinki

The world is facing the consequences of climate change and needs to adapt. The increasing temperature is a central change and with it comes several consequences. One of these is an increase in precipitation, and therefore an increase in stormwater. In cities where the natural water cycle is disrupted, stormwater management is becoming a challenge. The main increase in precipitation will be during the winter. This will increase the amount of snow, meltwater and ice formation. Helsinki and Oslo are both cities that are having to adapt to the increase in rain, snow, ice and meltwater. The thesis will be focused on comparing these two cities' stormwater management. To understand in which degree the cities are adapting to this challenge, documents in three different levels were analyzed. The documents covered the overall municipalities plan, the climate adaptive plan and the concrete stormwater plan. By analyzing these documents, an opportunity to see the overview from overall to specific measure was achieved. It is important that the consistency from climate adaptation to local measures hold up, and that it is emphasized that this is a global situation which needs local action. The discussion proved that the main research question: To which extent is climate adaptation part of planning for the increasing challenge of stormwater management in Oslo and Helsinki? should be answered in three distinct aspects: * Managing and adapting to the general increase of precipitation during spring, summer, and fall. * Handle the heavy rain expected during the summer months. * Managing the increase in precipitation during the winter together with the changing climate conditions. * Managing and adapting to the general increase of precipitation during spring, summer, and fall. Both cities have adapted quite well to the general increase, with blue- green infrastructure and a goal of purifying the stormwater before it meets the sea or larger rivers. * Handle the heavy rain expected during the summer months. A bit more complex, both cities have this as a priority, but Oslo has included it in its strategy while Helsinki is working on it through pilot projects. The change here is due to differences in ownership in the respective municipalities. * Managing the increase in precipitation during the winter together with the changing climate conditions. Helsinki is one step ahead of Oslo here due to its very thorough weather and climate change risk report, and the Nasta strategy which brings up the issue of weather effects on traffic. Other than this strategy, Helsinki has, same as Oslo, no specific measures in place to handle stormwater management during the winter months. Both Helsinki and Oslo have included climate adaptation measures in their planning to address the challenges of stormwater management. The two cities differ in the level of detail in stormwater management, and where the focus lies. The largest weakness they both have is the lack of specific measures in the winter. This is a crucial and significant part of stormwater management where there is little to no climate adaptive measures taken

Stakeholder evaluation of the co-production process of climate services. Experiences from two case studies in Larvik (Norway) and Flensburg (Germany)

publishedVersio

Stormwater management using play areas: potential, limitations and design considerations

Studien undersøker hvordan urbane lekeområder kan brukes til å håndtere problemene med overvann ved å utforme dem som multifunksjonelle områder. Studien begynner med å undersøke nåværende praksis i ulike prosjekter, og beskriver vanlige design-trender og funksjoner, sammen med nyttige klassifiseringer for forskjellige typer lekeområder. Videre går studien inn på relevante regler og forskning som omhandler rekreasjonsbruk av overvann, og foreslår nøkkelprinsipper for praktisk anvendelse av overvannsfunksjoner på lekeområder, med fokus på helse- og sikkerhetsaspekter. Det også foreslås mer detaljerte sjekklister for hver type lekeområde for å gjenspeile deres spesifikke behov og mulige designløsninger. Til slutt blir de foreslåtte prinsippene brukt på en case-studie av Lillestrøm by og en detaljert analyse av Volla skole og park. Case-studien fant at skolene i Lillestrøm har størst potensial for å bidra til overvannsløsninger på grunn av deres areal bidrag og nærhet til større overvannslinjer. Analysen av Volla skole og park demonstrerer hvordan den multifunksjonelle prinsippet kan brukes for å øke lekemulighetene og redusere overflateavrenning fra området. Selv om det var utfordrende å kvantifisere fordelene med den multifunksjonelle design-tilnærmingen, antyder studien at å kombinere funksjonaliteten til klimatilpasningsmetoder og lekeområder i norske byer kan bringe nyttige verdier. Det anbefales ytterligere forskning på kostnadseffektiviteten til flerbruksområder, få mer informasjon om hvordan slike områder fungerer i endrende værforhold og universell utforming av overvannstiltak. Generelt gir studien nyttige innsikter for byplanleggere og landskapsarkitekter om hvordan man kan tildele tilstrekkelig plass for overvannshåndtering i byer samtidig som man skaper hyggelige og bærekraftige lekeområder.The study investigates how urban play areas can be involved into addressing stormwater issues by designing them as multifunctional spaces. The study begins by examining current practices in a range of projects and outlining common design trends and functionalities, along with useful classifications for different types of play areas. Further, the study delves into relevant regulations and research concerning the recreational use of runoff and proposes key principles for the practical application of stormwater functions to play areas, with a focus on health and safety concerns. The study also provides more detailed checklists for each type of play area to reflect their specific needs and potential design solutions. Finally, the proposed principles are applied to a case study of Lillestrøm city and a detailed analysis of Volla school and park. It is found that schools in Lillestrøm have the greatest potential for contributing to stormwater solutions due to their total area and proximity to major runoff lines. The analysis of Volla school and park demonstrates how the multifunctional principle can be applied to enhance playability and reduce surface runoff generated by the site. Although it was challenging to quantify the benefits of the multifunctional design approach, the study suggests that joining the functionality of climate adaptation methods and play spaces in Norwegian cities can bring additional values. It recommends further research on the cost-effectiveness of multipurpose spaces, gaining more information on how such spaces function in changing weather and the universal design of stormwater facilities. Overall, the research provides useful insights for city planners and landscape architects on how to allocate sufficient space for stormwater management in cities while also creating enjoyable and sustainable play spaces

Vulnerable Groups in Climate Adaptation in Oslo Municipality

Cities are starting to feel the effects of climate change and climate adaptation is becoming increasingly important. It is the most vulnerable in society that are also the most affected by climate change. Concerns about equity and justice on who is responsible for climate change has moved to the urban environment and climate adaptation. Researchers are now more interested in the relationship between, political, economic, and social systems and adaptation. However, justice and fairness of vulnerable groups in decision-making and distribution of climate adaptation has not been significantly prioritized. Oslo is a city that is feeling the effects of climate change and is implementing surface water measures to handle the projected precipitation. How are vulnerable groups considered and included in climate adaptation planning in Oslo municipality? This thesis utilises document analysis and interviews of adaptation planning documents and planners, that will give insight to the scope of the inclusion of vulnerable groups in adaptation by using Oslo as a case study. This study shows that Oslo treats vulnerability as an end point, where exposure minus adaptation defines a systems vulnerability. Consequently, the built and natural environment is considered the most vulnerable in the city of Oslo. Climate adaptation is concerned with safeguarding the urban environment through blue-green infrastructure. Vulnerable groups are there for underrepresented in climate adaptation planning in Oslo though municipal planners ensure that adaptation measures are safe and accessible. Changing the way Oslo municipality evaluates vulnerability, to vulnerability as a starting point, might illuminate possible injustices with adaptation planning. Offer greater consideration to vulnerable groups