Strategic Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Restoration

This report draws on a range of European-wide datasets, geospatial methods, and tools available for green infrastructure (GI) mapping. It shows how two complementary mapping approaches (physical and ecosystem based) and the three key GI principles of connectivity, multifunctionality and spatial planning are used in case studies selected in urban and rural landscapes; it provides guidance for the strategic design of a well-connected, multi-functional, and cross-border GI, and identifies knowledge gaps. GI mapping has been demonstrated to enhance nature protection and biodiversity beyond protected areas, to deliver ecosystem services such as climate change mitigation and recreation, to prioritise measures for defragmentation and restoration in the agri-environment and regional development context, and to find land allocation trade-offs and possible scenarios involving all sectors.JRC.D.6-Knowledge for Sustainable Development and Food Securit

Mapping green infrastructure based on ecosystem services and ecological networks: A Pan-European case study

AbstractIdentifying, promoting and preserving a strategically planned green infrastructure (GI) network can provide ecological, economic and social benefits. It has also become a priority for the planning and decision-making process in sectors such as conservation, (land) resource efficiency, agriculture, forestry or urban development.In this paper we propose a methodology that can be used to identify and map GI elements at landscape level based on the notions of ecological connectivity, multi-functionality of ecosystems and maximisation of benefits both for humans and for natural conservation. Our approach implies, first, the quantification and mapping of the natural capacity to deliver ecosystem services and, secondly, the identification of core habitats and wildlife corridors for biota. All this information is integrated and finally classified in a two-level GI network. The methodology is replicable and flexible (it can be tailored to the objectives and priorities of the practitioners); and it can be used at different spatial scales for research, planning or policy implementation.The method is applied in a continental scale analysis covering the EU-27 territory, taking into account the delivery of eight regulating and maintenance ecosystem services and the requirements of large mammals’ populations. The best performing areas for ecosystem services and/or natural habitat provision cover 23% of Europe and are classified as the core GI network. Another 16% of the study area with relatively good ecological performance is classified as the subsidiary GI network. There are large differences in the coverage of the GI network among countries ranging from 73% of the territory in Estonia to 6% in Cyprus. A potential application of these results is the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, assuming that the core GI network might be crucial to maintain biodiversity and natural capital and, thus, should be conserved; while the subsidiary network could be restored to increase both the ecological and social resilience. This kind of GI analysis could be also included in the negotiations of the European Regional Development Funds or the Rural Development Programmes

Mapping green infrastructure based on ecosystem services and ecological networks. A Pan-European case study

Identifying, promoting and preserving a strategically planned green infrastructure (GI) network can provide ecological, economic and social benefits. It has also become a priority for the planning and decision-making process in sectors such as conservation, (land) resource efficiency, agriculture, forestry or urban development. In this paper we propose a methodology that can be used to identify and map GI elements at landscape level based on the notions of ecological connectivity, multi-functionality of ecosystems and maximisation of benefits both for humans and for natural conservation. Our approach implies, first, the quantification and mapping of the natural capacity to deliver ecosystem services and, secondly, the identification of core habitats and wildlife corridors for biota. All this information is integrated and finally classified in a two-level GI network. The methodology is replicable and flexible (it can be tailored to the objectives and priorities of the practitioners); and it can be used at different spatial scales for research, planning or policy implementation. The method is applied in a continental scale analysis covering the EU-27 territory, taking into account the delivery of eight regulating and maintenance ecosystem services and the requirements of large mammals’ populations. The best performing areas for ecosystem services and/or natural habitat provision cover 23% of Europe and are classified as the core GI network. Another 16% of the study area with relatively good ecological performance is classified as the subsidiary GI network. There are large differences in the coverage of the GI network among countries ranging from 73% of the territory in Estonia to 6% in Cyprus. A potential application of these results is the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, assuming that the core GI network might be crucial to maintain biodiversity and natural capital and, thus, should be conserved; while the subsidiary network could be restored to increase both the ecological and social resilience. This kind of GI analysis could be also included in the negotiations of the European Regional Development Funds or the Rural Development Programmes.JRC.H.1-Water Resource

A research agenda for improving national Ecological Footprint accounts

Nation-level Ecological Footprint accounts are currently produced for more than 150 nations, with multiple calculations available for some nations. The data sets that result from these national assessments typically serve as the basis for Footprint calculations at smaller scales, including those for regions, cities, businesses, and individuals. Global Footprint Network's National Footprint Accounts, supported and used by more than 70 major organizations worldwide, contain the most widely used national accounting methodology today. The National Footprint Accounts calculations are undergoing continuous improvement as better data becomes available and new methodologies are developed. In this paper, a community of active Ecological Footprint practitioners and users propose key research priorities for improving national Ecological Footprint accounting. For each of the proposed improvements, we briefly review relevant literature, summarize the current state of debate, and suggest approaches for further development. The research agenda will serve as a reference for a large scale, international research program devoted to furthering the development of national Ecological Footprint accounting methodology.Ecological Footprint Biocapacity Productivity Nation Accounts Research Improvement