Green Infrastructure’s contribution to economic growth: a review

The purpose of this report is to assess whether investment in Green Infrastructure increases economic growth, based on the available evidence. We take Green Infrastructure (GI) to mean a planned approach to the delivery of nature in the city in order to provide benefits to residents1. This includes features such as street trees, gardens, green roofs, community forests, parks, rivers, canals and wetlands. Economic growth is defined as an increase in economic activity as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Specifically we are interested in whether investment in GI increases GDP compared to what would have happened without the investment. We approached the question in two ways, firstly considering the weight of evidence supporting relevant logic chains and secondly reviewing case studies

Options for governance and decision-making across scales and sectors

Sustaining nature and nature’s contributions to people (NCP) in the Asia-Pacific region is hinged on a multi-scale, multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder governance regime (well established). The expert driven and centralised governance systems that still exist in varying intensities in almost all parts of the region, are insufficient for promoting a network-based governance linking sub-national and national political hierarchies to regional and global frameworks and adaptive co-management with various local stakeholders from communities, the private sector and civil society. Good environmental governance, which enables integration of regional and global BES frameworks to national sectoral policies and mainstreaming of BES policies into sub-national and local development plans, programs and actions, is crucial for achieving a positive future for BES. Moreover, mainstreaming will entail efforts from the government to enhance acceptance by and participation of various stakeholders. While some countries have responded to these needs, others, in particular Western Asia, have been slow to respond, mainly because of limited institutional capacity in formulating and implementing BES policies and devising innovative mechanisms for generating and mobilising finance. An important step towards this will be the assessment and, wherever necessary, restructuring policy instruments in light of the policy options {6.2.2, 6.2.2.1, 6.2.2.2, 6.4.1, 6.4.2}..