Deliverable 4.6 Organisation of 2 set of Brainstorming ... · 1 European Commission, 2015. Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature‐based solutions & re‐naturing

1

HORIZON 2020

Coordination and support actions

Development of a multi-stakeholder dialogue

platform and Think tank to promote innovation

with Nature-based Solutions

WP4 – Establishment of the ThinkNature multi-stakeholder innovation platform for NBS

Deliverable 4.6

Organisation of 2st set of Brainstorming Forums

with debates in Paris

Authors: Emeline Bailly (CSTB), Dorothée Marchand (CSTB), Liz Faucheur (CSTB), Paris Sansoglou (EuDA), Erik Mink (EuDA), Inès Daoussi (CSTB), François Durand (CSTB), Alexis David (ECTP), Frédéric Lemaître (Biodiversa), Eleni Goni (E2ARC), Juraj Jurik (GIB), Giorgos Somarakis (FORTH), Maria Lilli (TUC), Katerina Lilli (TUC) Sarah Dennis and Monica Altamirano, Steven Banwart, Laura Baroni, Margherita Cioffi, Neil Coles, Edoardo Croci, Julie Delcroix, Aitziber Egusquiza, Elena Lopez Gunn, Sanja Jerković, Wei Liu, Benedetta Lucchitta, Ernesta Maciulyte, Juliette Martin, Beatriz Mayor, Siobhan McQuaid, Natasha Mortimer, Oshani Perera, Nikola Petković, Katarina Schneider Roos, Julian Swinkels, Helen Toxopeus, Bettina Wilks, Kym WhiteOak

Ref. Ares(2019)5205815 - 12/08/2019

2

June 2019

3

Executive summary

This report focuses on the outcomes of the Paris Forum on NBS : Addressing major societal challenges: climate change adpatation-mitigation, risk management and resilience. The Forum aimed at steering dialogue between a large variety of stakeholders on issues of implementation and definition of NBS. The speakers came from different backgrounds including researchers, biologists, ecologists, economists, psychologists, urbanists, architects, engineers, policy makers, and project coordinators for different cities. 28 speakers intervened during day 1 and 29 during day 2. The audience, largely composed of city representatives, researchers from across Europe involved in sustainability issues. 114 people were attending day 1 and 101 people were attending day 2. The major challenge was to propose several meeting formats: The plenary sessions were designed to give a global and multidisciplinary

overview to a large audience on NBS and renaturation issues, as they involved scientists, philosophers, architects, experts, policy makers. They were designed to show: - how NBS could be used for risk management and resilience and how they

could be financed, - how NBS, nature and renaturation could be a key for adaptation and

mitigation to climate change. The parallel sessions were meant to be interactive and engaging multiple

stakeholders in the discussions, in order to launch debates on different topics, and to share knowledge and create a vast community of researchers around a common theme.

Informal interactions also contributed to strenghten such a community, and the

Forum gave room for CSTB to show applications of NBS through the immersive room which was presented.

The compendium of the summaries allowed a general overview of all the themes tackled, and the European panel of stakeholders made possible the exposition of various viewpoints, between scientific and operational. A vast scientific community gathering a wide range of experts from across Europe was united on this occasion. As the Forum took place in Paris and was in partnenership with the city of Paris, it involved a lot of French experts (experts from municipalities, urbanists, ecologists, researchers in social science and psychology) who joined this community around the theme of NBS and Climate Change adaptation / mitigation and resilience.

4

The Forum used the occasion to launch a questionnaire on the next research priority areas, to have an overview of what the participants believed to be the principal areas for the future research on NBS. As a whole, the relevance to tackle urban issues was underlined all along the Forum, with a view to cope better with the new challenges that can impact our daily lives, especially in urban areas. Furthermore, it is essential to redefine the human-nature relationship. This redefinition is not only to provide more space for nature in human built environment (e.g. biodiversity) but also to find more opportunities for humans to remain part of the natural word and benefit from it (e.g. mental and physical health). This report traces the proceedings of the event: the invitation, the program, the design of the sessions, the minutes of the sessions, as well as a list of participants and photos.

5

Version history

Version Comment

1.1 First release to all partners

1.2 Submission of deliverable

Distribution

Name Organization

Nikolaos P. Nikolaidis TUC

Denia Kolokotsa TUC

Maria Lilli TUC

Giorgos Somarakis FORTH

Katerina Lilli TUC

Kostas Gobakis TUC

Steven A. Banwart UNIVLEEDS

Natasha Mortimer UNIVLEEDS

Susanna Lehvävirta UH

Nektarios Chrysoulakis FORTH

Stavros Stagakis FORTH

Adriana Bernardi CNR-ISAC

Silvia Enzi CNR-ISAC

Katharina Schneider-Roos GIB

Juraj Jurik GIB

Alexis David ECTP

Sara Van Rompaey E²ARC

Eleni Goni E²ARC

David Struik ISOCARP

Emeline Bailly CSTB

Dorothée Marchand CSTB

Liz Faucheur CSTB

Paris Sansoglou EuDA

Xavier Le Roux FRB

Frédéric Lemaitre FRB

mailto:doroth%C3%[email protected]

mailto:doroth%C3%[email protected]

6

Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 3

2. VERSION HISTORY .................................................................................................................... 5

3. DISTRIBUTION............................................................................................................................ 5

4. THE INVITATION........................................................................................................................ 7

5. THE PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................... 8

THURSDAY 4TH APRIL ..................................................................................................................................... 8

FRIDAY 5TH APRIL ............................................................................................................................................ 9

6. DESCRIPTION OF THE SESSIONS ........................................................................................11

DAY 1 .............................................................................................................................................................. 11

Parallel sessions: Introducing risk management and resilience through NBS ................ 11

Parallel sessions: NBS Financing, Business Models and Decision-Making......................... 20

DAY 2 .............................................................................................................................................................. 28

Parallel sessions 1: Can nature enhance urban resilience? ...................................................... 29

Parallel sessions 2: Can (re)naturation contribute to urban climate change

adaptation and mitigation? .................................................................................................................... 35

7. MINUTES OF PARALLEL SESSIONS .....................................................................................40

DAY 1 .............................................................................................................................................................. 40

Parallel sessions: introducing risk management and resilience through NBS ................ 40

Parallel sessions: NBS financing, business models and decision-making ........................... 70

DAY 2 .............................................................................................................................................................. 85

Parallel sessions : Can nature enhance urban resilience ? ........................................................ 85

Parallel sessions : Can « (re)naturation » contribute to urban climate change

adaptation and mitigation ? ................................................................................................................ 100

8. ............................................................................ 118

9. ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................. 125

LIST OF ATTENDANTS ................................................................................................................................. 125

PHOTOS: ........................................................................................................................................................ 131

10. ..................................................................................................................................................... 132

7

The invitation

Climate change and associated risks are among the most significant societal challenges today. These challenges are at the epicenter of the global public debate, since they require immediate management in order to prevent potential threats and disasters. Towards this effort, the scientific community in cooperation with citizens, stakeholders, and decision makers has to conceive, develop and implement solutions, serving the objectives of sustainability and resilience. In this context, most conventional approaches and solutions fail to adopt these guiding principles. Nature-based Solutions (NbS), based on an eco-systemic approach, constitute a new paradigm for handling these challenges efficiently in a sustainable way. “Climate change adaptation and mitigation” and “Risk management and resilience” have been identified by the EU as the two overarching goals of NbS1. The implementation of NbS can offer multiple benefits and major opportunities for dealing with the impacts of climate change, as well as seizing the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, NbS offers potentials to enhance resilience through multiple natural processes and functions against natural and technological hazards, leading to an integrated risk management. The forum will be a lively debate among multidisciplinary participants on the current knowledge, facts and ongoing research on NbS; related mainly to the questions: “How can NbS offer opportunities for climate change adaptation and mitigation?” and “How can NbS be applied in order to achieve integrated risk management and resilience?”. The forum format is designed to promote the dialogue among the participants, including inspirational key inputs by lead experts and parallel interactive working sessions. The discussions are oriented towards enriching the documented knowledge concerning:

Identification of integrated holistic cross-sectoral NbS for enhanced risk management;

Combination of NbS, multiplying their benefits, reducing threats and offering resilience;

Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation by Nature: urban ecology, urban quality and well-being;

Integration of NbS into local and regional spatial planning and decision-making;

Performance monitoring and impact assessment of the deployed NbS;

Involvement of NbS’ stakeholders in funding and implementation;

Enhancement of NbS’ cost-effectiveness. This 2-day Forum, co-organized by ThinkNature H2020 Project and Paris Municipality, aims to bring together multiple stakeholders of different sectors and backgrounds (i.e. scientists, market actors, policy makers), including members of several International Organizations (e.g. EC, EEA, IPCC, UNEP, IUCN), large scale research projects on NBS (e.g. Connecting Nature, Nature4Cities, Urban GreenUP, GROW GREEN, UNALAB), pioneer cities, public and financial institutions and green businesses. Over 150 delegates across EU and overseas, representing the key actors in NbS, are expected to attend.

1 European Commission, 2015. Towards an 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.” Brussels.

8

The program

Thursday 4th April

8.30 - 9.00 Welcome and Registration 9.00 - 9.30 Introduction Nikolaos Nikolaidis (ThinkNature), Dorothee Marchand and Emeline Bailly (CSTB), Julie Delcroix (European Commission) 9.30 - 10.30 Plenary session: Holistic approaches on risk management and resilience Nektarios Chrysoulakis (FORTH), Jorn Birkmann (University of Stuttgart), Nathalie Seddon (University of Oxford) 10.30 - 11.00 Coffee break 11.00 - 13.00 Dialogue 1 - Parallel sessions: Introducing risk management and resilience through NBS 1 - Combining NBS as an integrated approach for risk management and resilience Stavros Stagakis (FORTH), Henk Nieboer (Ecoshape), Tom Armour (Arup), Daisy Hessenberger (IUCN) 2 - NBS for risk management across scales: synergies from local to city and regional level Sara Van Rompaey (E2ARC), Denia Kolokotsa (TUC), Dimitra Theochari (Ramboll Studio Dreiseitl), Sara Van Rompaey (E2ARC), Karen Landuyt (AGSL / City of Leuven) 3 - Innovative methodologies for monitoring the efficiency of NBS towards climate resilience and disaster risk mitigation Nektarios Chrysoulakis (FORTH), Gemma Garcia Blanco (TECNALIA Research and Innovation), Julie Berckmans (VITO) 13.00 - 14.00 Lunch break 14.00 - 15.00 Plenary session: NBS Financing and Business Models Steven Banwart (University of Leeds). Erik Mink (EUDA), Siobhan McQuaid (Connecting Nature), Elena Lopez Gunn (NAIAD) 15.00 - 15.30 Coffee break 15.30 - 17.30 Dialogue 2 - Parallel sessions: NBS Financing, Business Models and Decision-Making 1 - Business models for NBS - what are the essential elements?

9

Jonathan Porter (OPPLA), Helen Toxopeus (Naturvation), Aitziber Egusquiza (Nature4Cities) 2 - Socio-economic benefit analysis of NBS Steven Banwart (University of Leeds), Ernesta Maciulyte (UnaLab), Oshani Perera (IISD), Kym Whiteoak (Grow Green) 3 - Local planning regulation and bottom-up governance for NBS and sustainable land use management Claudia De Luca (University of Bologna), Giovanni Fini (City of Bologna), Ake Hesslenkrans (Malmo City Planning Office), Sanja Jerković (City of Zagreb) 17.30 Cocktail drinks

Friday 5th April

8.30 - 9.00 Welcome and Registration 9.00 - 10.30 Nature for urban adaptation and mitigation to climate change Sébastien Maire (General Delegate for Ecological Transition and Resilience of the City of Paris), Gilles Boeuf (University of Pierre and Marie Curie), Sandra Naumann (Ecologic Institute), Chris Younes (Laboratoire GERPHAU - ENSA Paris la Villette) 10.30 - 11.00 Coffee break 11.00 - 13.00 Dialogue 3 - Parallel sessions: Can nature enhance urban resilience? 1 - Can nature support quality of life and resilience? Ricardo Garcia Mira (University of A Coruna), Morgane Colombert (EIVP), Sébastien Maire (Oasis Project, General Delegate for Ecological Transition and Resilience of the City of Paris), Lise Bourdeau Lepage (University of Lyon) 2 - Can green housing quality encourage to resilience? Alain Zarli (ECTP), Rick Bell (City of New York), Maeva Sabre (CSTB), Alain Maugard (Energy Renovation Program, French Minister) 3 - Can nature and landscape contribute to resilience? Paris Sansoglou (EUDA), Andrea Voskens (Room for the Wall, Nijmegen), Philippe Moutet (Regional Nature Parks), Barbara Bonnefoy (University of Nanterre) 13.00 - 14.00 Lunch break 14.00 - 16.00 Dialogue 4 - Parallel sessions: Can “(re)naturation” contribute to urban climate change adaptation and mitigation? 1 - How could biodiversity and ecosystem be a factor of climate change adaptation and mitigation?

10

Frédéric Lemaître (Biodiversa FRB), Sunandan Tiwari (ICLEI), Marc Barra (Agence régionale de la biodiversité Ile-de-France), Ghozlane Fleury (University of Nantes) 2 - Can urban forests support cities to climate change adaptation and mitigation? Carine Bernede (City of Paris), Raffaella Gueze (City of Bologna), Serge Muller (Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris), Lorenz Dexler (Topotek1, Berlin) 3 - Can ecological urbanism create urban quality and atmosphere? Sylvie Laroche (AAU-Cresson & CSTB), Jerome Defrance (CSTB), Andre Butz (BENE Program, City of Berlin), Magali Paris (ENSA Grenoble) 16.00 - 16.30 Coffee break 16.30 - 17.30 Plenary session: Adaptation to climate change, ecological issues, urban quality and well-being Emeline Bailly, Dorothée Marchand (CSTB), Enric Pol (University of Barcelona), Nathalie Blanc (University Paris Diderot), Luc Schuiten (Atelier d’architecture Schuiten) 17.30 - 18.00 Concluding remarks Julie Delcroix (European Commission), Pénélope Komitès (Deputy Mayor, City of Paris), Nikolaos Nikolaidis (ThinkNature), Emeline Bailly and Dorothee Marchand (CSTB)

11

Description of the sessions

Day 1

Parallel sessions: Introducing risk management and resilience

through NBS

1- Combining NBS as an integrated approach for risk management and

resilience

Session leader: FORTH

Minute takers: Giorgos Somarakis (FORTH), Stavros Stagakis (FORTH), Erik Mink

(EuDA)

Topic area (as defined in the proposal)

Innovation Dialogue Steering for Risk Management and Resilience

How does the session contribute to the topic area?

The session will examine applied methodologies of NBS towards risk management and resilience in various settings and related risks: i.e. urban, land, coastal ecosystems. The demand for holistic approaches for achieving resilience is high, since the negative impacts of potential risks affect various social, environmental and economic aspects. In this context, there is a need for identifying synergies among NBS leading to risk management and resilience and ways of adjusting them effectively in planning and decision making. The session will steer dialogue on proposed strategies that would combine multiple policies, actions and practices to prevent or confine extended disasters.

Name of speaker Job title Stakeholder type

(as defined in the

proposal)

Institution Climatic

Region (as

defined in

the proposal)

Business

representatives &

Market actors

ARUP Oceanic

Date: 4 April 2018

Time: 11.00-13.00

12

Nonprofit

organization

management

Policy makers,

Scientists & Experts

IUCN Continental

Civil

engineer

Scientists &

Experts, Business

representatives &

Market actors

Witteveen + Bos

Pension Fund,

EcoShape,

Deltares

Oceanic

Targeted Audience

The targeted audience includes scientists/experts (aware of possible NBS synergies), planners / policy makers and decision makers (end users / authorities).

Format and structure of the session. Briefly describe how the session will unfold

The session is structured in two parts. In the first part, three short presentations will be provided by experts specialized in planning and/or implementation of combined NBS (overall duration of 30 minutes), inspiring audience for the second part, when an interaction process will take place. The three presentations will cover different types of application areas, where combinations of NBS can be implemented for achieving risk management and resilience: a) urban settings, b) agricultural land and forests and c) coastal areas. These presentations will introduce attendees to specific NBS practices that can be successfully combined in each application area. During the second part, a dialogue process will be applied, combining participatory tools (e.g. round table discussions, post-it notes, open questionnaires). The audience will investigate the following issues/questions through two dialogue phases: 1st dialogue phase:

Table 1 (Moderator: , Minute taker:

What is the greatest hazard potential in Europe and what are the related

existing policies (EU to regional level) and tools for risk mitigation?

Table 2 (Moderator: , Minute taker: )

Who are the stakeholders involved and what are the decision making

mechanisms in defining the strategies for risk management?


What is the current status of involving NBS (or ecosystem-based strategies)

in the EU and regional policy context?

2nd dialogue phase:


13

Which are the most prominent NBS approaches/practices (or combinations of

them) for risk management and resilience?


What would be alternative decision making mechanisms to facilitate NBS

uptake in risk management & resilience?


How to facilitate uptake of NBS in the strategies for risk management and

resilience at diverse spatial levels?

o Identification of Barriers (knowledge, financing, policy)

o Policy proposals

How do you think the session can help scale-up NbS?

The issues that will be discussed among participants in this session and the respective conclusions that will be drawn are expected to boost wider application of NBS towards risk management and resilience. Knowledge exchange will lead to increased awareness of NBS potentials among participants. The issues discussed and the conclusions of this session will be open to wider public discussion in the ThinkNature platform for broader communication. The results of this discussion will be analyzed and published in ThinkNature reports and the Handbook. The conclusions are expected to contribute to the knowledge regarding NBS for Risk Management and Resilience and form guidelines for adapting NBS in planning and decision-making frameworks.

What are expected deliverables?

The outcomes of the dialogue process will enrich the content of: WP4 and more specifically T4.4 and the corresponding deliverable “D4.4: Report on Dialogue Steering Statement Papers and Dialogue Outcomes for the Risk Management and Resilience”. WP5 and particularly T5.4 and the corresponding deliverable “D5.4: Policy proposals and decision making mechanisms for Risk Management and Resilience”. WP6 and especially T6.2 and the corresponding deliverable “D6.2: The ThinkNature Handbook”. Specifically, the participatory approaches applied in this session will target to draw conclusions on the following issues regarding diverse ecosystem types (urban, land and water): Risks and identification of them addressed with NBS. NBS and combinations of them appropriate for risk management and resilience. Policy proposals and decision making mechanisms promoting NBS as an integrated approach in risk management and resilience at both regional and local level.

14

Which stakeholders will be able to use the deliverables and in what way?

Deliverables can be used by the aggregate of NBS stakeholders. Specifically, the following groups can exploit the produced knowledge in several ways: Scientists/experts: Enhancing their knowledge on the technology and practice and incorporating potential combinations of NBS in their research and practice fields. Planners /policy makers: Being updated on new case studies and related planning approaches and proposing combined NBS through planning and policy-making processes. Decision makers (end users / authorities): Using the information regarding the potential use of NBS for RM&R, the barrier analysis and the proposals for policy and decision making mechanisms. Business representatives / market actors: Investigating the new business opportunities for using NBS in RM&R and directing market or their business activities to NBS applications.

2- NBS for risk management across scales: synergies from local to regional

and continental level

Session leader: Prof. Denia Kolokotsa (Technical University of Crete)/ Sara Van

Rompaey (E2ARC)

Minute taker: Eleni Goni (E2ARC)

Topic area

How to offer synergies in reducing multiple risks in regional level. How the risk management in local levels influences regional and EU level.


Improving risk management and resilience using nature-based solutions can lead to greater benefits than conventional methods and offer synergies in reducing multiple risks. The scope of this brainstorming session and debate is to explore apart from the benefits, the possible synergies across different levels/ areas and the various barriers to be faced when applying risk management through nature-based solutions. The implications and interactions of different spatial scales during this process, are another very important aspect that will be examined.

Date: 4/5/2019

Time: 11:00- 13:00

15

Therefore, the topic of risk management and resilience through NBS is explored taking into account: a) The interactions of environmental aspects when applying NBS for Risk Management and Resilience with the other pillars of sustainable development (Culture, Economy, Society) b) The effect of applying NBS for Risk Management and Resilience in different scales and their impact (Local vs Regional and International) c) The existing governance and legislative barriers that impede the successful implementation and wide replication of NBS for Risk Management and Resilience.

Name of speaker Job title Stakeholder

type


Region

1. Denia

Kolokotsa

Assοciate

Professor

Scientists and

Experts

TUC Mediterranean

2.

Architect &

Landscape

architect

Scientists &

Experts,

Business

representatives

& Market actors

Ramboll

Studio

Dreiseitl

Temperate

Continental

3. Sara Van

Rompaey

Architect

Scientists and

Experts/ End

Users

E2ARC Oceanic

4.

Architect

engineer /

urban

planner

Policy Makers

End Users/

Authorities

AGSL, city

development

agency of

the City of

Leuven

Oceanic

Targeted Audience

Scientists and Experts familiar with NBS, Authorities, Policy Makers


- Each speaker will be assigned to an exercise.

- At the beginning of each exercise the invited speaker will make a brief introduction about the topic addressed (10min).

- The speaker will then address a specific question to the audience. ( This question should be defined soon)

16

- “Storyboarding”: The participants, in groups of max7, will brainstorm on the question and write down their input on moderation cards. Ranking of suggestions- we should aim for a top-10 of ideas/ proposals. (~20 min)

- Necessary to walk around the tables and follow the process

- Remind participants before the end that “now is the time to write things down”

- Poster board on one wall to write the questions and then collect the answers

- Speaker to go through input received by each group of participants and present them.

Suggested sub-topics for the Session: 1) Introduction for NBS for risk management across scales (Prof. Denia Kolokotsa-

TUC)

2) The impact of scale when implementing NBS – cases a.o. Copenhagen

Cloudburst Management Plan ( )

3) NBS and Cultural Heritage in synergy for risk management: an innovative

approach for creating resilient cities (Sara van Rompaey- E2ARC)

4) Overcoming governance barriers to promote successful stakeholder synergies

( )


During the session, planning strategies for the development, up-scaling and replication of NBS will be proposed and discussed. Successful case studies that have taken steps to meet their resilience goals expanding Nature’s role will be presented. A set of recommendations and practical guidelines to better communicate the value of NBS to practitioners will be drafted.


The outcomes of the dialogue process will enrich the content of: WP4 and more specifically T4.4 and the corresponding deliverable “D4.4: Report on Dialogue Steering Statement Papers and Dialogue Outcomes for the Risk Management and Resilience”. WP5 and particularly T5.4 and the corresponding deliverable “D5.4: Policy proposals and decision-making mechanisms for Risk Management and Resilience”. WP6 and especially T6.2 and the corresponding deliverable “D6.2: The ThinkNature Handbook”.


17

Scientists/experts: Enhancing their knowledge on the practice of NBS for Risk Management and Resilience. Planners /policy makers: Being updated on new case studies and related planning and governance approaches that can possibly be replicated. Decision makers (end users / authorities): Using recommendations for policy and decision-making mechanisms.

3- Innovative methodologies for monitoring the efficiency of NBS towards

climate resilience and disaster risk mitigation

Session leader: FORTH

Minute taker:

Topic area (as defined in the proposal)

Innovation Dialogue Steering for Risk Management and Resilience


The session explores innovative applications for monitoring and quantifying the effects of NBS towards climate resilience and risk mitigation. The session targets to investigate emerging innovative methodologies, tools and infrastructure for continuous, long-term and large-scale monitoring of NBS impacts. Environmental, social, economic impacts and their inter-connections will be assessed in this session. Moreover, the current status of the Impact Evaluation Framework for NBS and its application in the large-scale demonstration projects will be discussed. This session will also investigate the methodological, knowledge and technological drawbacks that prevent the effective and holistic evaluation of NBS impacts and explore the possible actions and synergies to achieve a common NBS Evaluation Framework towards a European reference framework for NBS.

Name of speaker Job title Stakeholder type

(as defined in the

proposal)


Region (as

defined in the

proposal)

Nektarios

Chrysoulakis

Director of

Research

Scientists & Experts FORTH Mediterranean

Date: 4 April 2018

Time: 11.00-13.00

18

Business

developer

Business

representatives &

Market actors,


VITO Oceanic

Researcher Business

representatives &

Market actors,


Tecnalia Mediterranean

Targeted Audience

The targeted audience includes scientists/experts that are specialized in NBS application, monitoring and assessment.


The session is structured by two parts. In the first part, short presentations will be provided by experts specialized in NBS monitoring methodologies and impact assessment (overall duration of 30 minutes), inspiring audience for the second part, when an interaction process will take place. During the first part, there will be three presentations, regarding different methodologies, tools and indicators meeting diverse monitoring and assessment needs. These presentations will introduce attendees to integrated methodologies or specific components of them, used for impact and performance evaluation purposes. During the second part, a dialogue process will be applied, combining participatory tools (e.g. world café OR panel discussion) and asking audience to investigate the following issues through two dialogue phases: 1st dialogue phase: Current monitoring and impact assessment

- What are the most important gaps and drawbacks in the current status of the

NBS Impact Evaluation Framework? Potential issues:

o Knowledge gaps

o Restrictions in methodologies

o Standardization of methodologies

o Assess multiple impacts (across challenges)

o Development of cross-cutting indicators

o Extend assessment across spatial/temporal scales

o Technological limitations

2nd dialogue phase: Potential monitoring and impact assessment

19

- What would be the most important actions towards a complete NBS Evaluation

Framework? In terms of:

o Research

o Education

o Communication

o Governance


The contribution of this session to the escalation of NBS is relevant to the issues that will be discussed among participants, resulting in the implementation of more effective NBS with regard to the objectives of risk management and resilience and climate change adaptation and mitigation: - Increase awareness of the NBS impacts and monitoring schemes - New methodologies and components of them will be discussed and can be

opened to wider public discussion in the ThinkNature platform for broader communication

- New technologies that can offer increased effectiveness in the monitoring methodologies

- Define guidelines for the improvement and wide application of a common NBS Evaluation Framework


The outcomes of the dialogue process will enrich the content of:

- WP4 and more specifically T4.3 and T4.4 as well as the corresponding deliverables “D4.3: Report on Dialogue Steering Statement Papers and Dialogue Outcomes for the Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Plans” and “D4.4: Report on Dialogue Steering Statement Papers and Dialogue Outcomes for the Risk Management and Resilience”.

- WP6 and especially T6.2 and the corresponding deliverable “D6.2: The ThinkNature Handbook”.


Deliverables can be used by the aggregate of NBS stakeholders. Specifically, the following groups can exploit the produced knowledge in several ways: - Scientists/experts: incorporating performance monitoring and impact assessment in their research and practice fields. - Planners / policy makers: proposing methodologies regarding performance monitoring and impact assessment after the implementation stage of NBS. - Decision makers (end users / authorities): using the results of monitoring and assessment practices after the implementation of NBS. - Business representatives / market actors: including monitoring and assessment methodologies in market practices and business plans.

20

Parallel sessions: NBS Financing, Business Models and Decision-

Making

1- Business models for NBS – what are the essential elements?

Session leader: Jonathan Porter (OPPLA)

Minute taker: Natasha Mortimer (University of Leeds)

Date: 4/5/2019 Time: 15.30 – 17.30

Topic area

Identifying the types of models possible for NBS and identifying their uses and potential How does the session contribute to the topic area?

The talks given by three experts in the subject area will lead into the questions for the breakout session where the impacts and drivers can be discussed in more detail. These questions and discussions will be moderated by the speakers.

Name of speaker

Job title Stakeholder type

Institution Climatic Region

Researcher Scientists and Experts

Naturvation, Utrecht School of Economics

Temperate Continental

Researcher Scientists and Experts

Nature4Cities Temperate Continental

Scientists and Experts

LGI Consulting

Clearing House

Temperate Continental

Targeted Audience



Each speaker will be assigned to a table to lead the discussion on the questions

The speaker will then address a specific question to the participants

“Storyboarding”: The participants, in groups around the table will brainstorm on

the question and write down their input, minutes to be taken of the discussion.

Ranking of suggestions- we should aim for a top-10 of ideas/ proposals. (~20 min)

Necessary to walk around the tables and follow the process

Remind participants before the end that “now is the time to write things down”

Poster board on one wall to write the questions and then collect the answers

21

Speaker to go through input received by each group of participants and present

them.

Title of the talks

1. Identifying business models for urban NBS –

2. Implementation models for NBS – -Ortega

3. CLEARING HOUSE Abstracting value from urban forest based solutions - V

Questions:

1. Can you use the four factor matrix to assess NBS business models?

2. What other factors should be included to assess NBS business models?

3. How do we include multiple business cases for large or incremental projects?

How do you think the session can help develop business models for NBS?

Dissemination of ideas across participants, discussion of the suggested business

models in the breakout session.

What are expected outcomes? (Approx. 200 words)


The output from this session will inform the report of deliverable 7.2

Improve the understanding of business models for the successful implementation of NBS

Which stakeholders will be able to use the deliverables and in what way? (Approx. 100 words)

Scientists/experts:

Planners /policy makers: Ideas of the funding available to them and which types of project

Decision makers (end users / authorities): Knowing the projected cost and outcomes of an NBS project before they fund it

22

.

2- Socio-Economic Benefit Analysis of NbS

Session leader: Steven Banwart (University of Leeds)

Minute taker: Sarah Dennis (University of Leeds)

Date: 4/5/2019 Time: 15.30 – 17.30

Topic area

Identifying the barriers to green public procurement and understanding the process of procurements and the benefits and potential costs to stakeholders How does the session contribute to the topic area?

The talks given by three experts in the subject area will lead into the questions for the breakout session where the impacts and drivers can be discussed in more detail. These questions and discussions will be moderated by the speakers.

Name of speaker

Job title Stakeholder type Institution Climatic Region

23

Research Associate

Scientists and Experts

UnaLab Oceanic

Director, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)

Business representatives & Market actors

IISD Temperate Continental

Environmental Economist

Scientists and Experts/ End Users

GrowGreen Oceanic

Targeted Audience


Structure of the session.

Title of the talks 4. Green Public Procurement and NBS: Key Barriers and Enablers –

5. Sustainable Asset Valuation (SAVi) on Stephenfield Reservoir and Pelly’s Lake,

Manitoba –

6. Using economic analysis to better link beneficiaries and funding streams –

Questions:

1. What could be the key barriers the cities face when procuring NBS? What are the key competencies and support mechanisms for successful procurement of NBS?

a) Do procurers understand what NBS are/ what options are available on the market?

b) Do procurers have the technical expertise to set criteria and evaluate bids? Are planners/ architects sufficiently involved in the procurement process?

c) What is needed to promote the shift towards “best value” approach away from “lowest cost” mentality in selecting the procurement criteria?

d) How easy is it for procurers to compare lifetime costs between grey infrastructure and NBS? Do they have access to the necessary data and tools to make these comparisons and assess bids?

1. 2. Can Green Public Procurement (i.e. the procurement of goods, services and works with a reduced environmental impact throughout their lifecycle) be used to improve the implementation/ long-term performance of a NBS?

a) What elements of an NBS implementation can be improved through

green requirements on work carried out by contractors, materials

used in construction and remediation activities, etc.

b) Can Contract Performance Clauses be used to ensure long-term

performance of the NBS?

24

c) Is there scope to use innovation procurement procedures? How much

flexibility should the market be given to propose new NBS solutions

when bidding?

3. To what extent GPP could support the mainstreaming of NBS implementation?

a) Are procurers encouraged to think of NBS as standard

practice when procuring? Are NBS included in policies and building/

urban design standards? Do procurers have support from managers

and city leaders to invest in NBS.

What are expected outcomes?


The work output for Task Force 3

Report will be completed on the session and may be useful for deliverable 7.2


Scientists/experts:

Planners /policy makers:

Decision makers (end users / authorities):

Speaker Bio’s

25

26

Session title: Local planning and bottom-up governance for NBS and sustainable land use management

Session leader/moderators: Claudia de Luca (UNIBO, Urban Agenda) / Heather Elgar (WENP)

Minute taker:

Name of speaker Job title Stakeholder type (as defined in the proposal)

Institution Climatic Region (as defined in the proposal)

Environmental quality coordinator

Cities City of Bologna

Tbc

Tbc Tbc

Targeted Audience

Cities, scientific experts, planners,


The session is structured by two parts. In the first part, a first introduction made by the Urban Agenda on Sustainable Land Use and NBS will be followed by 3 presentations of cities that already tested successful governance schemes, planning instruments and legal requirement (overall duration of 30 minutes), inspiring audience for the second part, when an interaction process will take place. The three presentations will cover different types of practices going from the participatory budget and the urban agenda experience in Bologna, the NBS integration into land allocation process in Malmö, and the experience from Zagreb concerinign the Urban Agenda and the recentely funded ProGIReg project

participatory tools. The participants will be divided into small groups three according to three different selected topics: competing priorities in land use, participatory process and bottom-up governance and planning instruments and minimum legal requirements. The audience will investigate the following issues in three different tables: How to favor NBS in land use competing priorities? ( as facilitator) How to support decision makers in defining priorities for land use favoring NBS? How to face the increasing issue of green gentrification? Discussion on existing good practices and tools Participatory process and bottom-up governance ( i as facilitator) How to boost co-ownership and engagement of citizens in maintenance and implementation of NBS? Planning instruments and minimum legal requirements ( as facilitator) What are the legal/governance barriers for the further uptake of NBS?

Date:4thApril Time: 15.30 – 17.30

27

Can minimum legal requirements and planning standards boost the further uptake of NBSs?


The results of the session will support the scale-up of NBS in different ways: - Providing decision makers with practical and successful example of the

integration of NBS in planning processes - Provide a better understanding of the main gaps into legal and governance

barriers and proposing solutions to overcome those - Increase the understanding of successful ways to boost participation and co-

ownership of green public spaces and NBS


The deliverables will include: - the presentation of the 3 speakers - a report of the 3 different topics discussed with proposed recommendations

and identified gaps


This session mostly targets decision makers since they will be able to use the different examples proposed to tailor those to their situation. Moreover, the results of the participatory sessions will highlight both gaps and possible solution for a better integration of NBS into legal and planning process. Scientists and experts will be able to use the results to better tailored their studies and to work on innovative methods to overcome the identified barriers.

28

Day 2

Topic area

The second day focuses on integrated and holistic solutions that meet both adaptation and mitigation objectives and are applicable across different sectors such as integrating materials, green and blue infrastructure, enhancing ecosystems with view to climate change, etc.



- WP4 and more specifically T4.3 and the corresponding deliverable “D4.3: Report on Dialogue Steering Statement Papers and Dialogue Outcomes for Climate change adaptation and mitigation”.

- WP5 and particularly T5.3 and the corresponding deliverable “D5.3: Policy proposals and decision-making mechanisms for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation”.

- WP6 and especially T6.2 and the corresponding deliverable “D6.2: The ThinkNature Handbook”.

Beyond the deliverables, further conference and dialogues could be launched around NBS for CCAM to strenghten the network of researchers and experts on this matter.


Policy makers, scientists, researchers of different fields (urbanism, architecture, psychology…). The deliverables aim at strengthening the knowledge around NBS and CCAM and also identify the potential barriers and uptakes to their implementation, hence, they could be an interesting object to refer to when searching for information and feedback on NBS projects.

General format and structure of the session.

The moderator of the session introduces the main questions of the session and animates the debate dialogue. 3 speakers (an expert, a policy member, a scientist) are invited to present in 15 minutes their answers to the topic raised by the session. After, there is 45 minutes of question and dialogue including:

- a time to question to each speaker

- a time for dialogue and debate animated by the moderator from 3 sub

questions prepare in advance.

The moderator leads the dialogue with the public to answer to the question raised by the session.

29

Parallel sessions 1: Can nature enhance urban resilience?

1- Can nature support quality of life and resilience?

Session leader: CSTB

Minute taker: , University of A Coruna, Department of Psychology


This session explores the link between renaturation, quality of life and resilience, in a holistic perspective. The question of the relationship between urban nature, quality of life and resilience needs is a key to develop NBS policy. Morgan Colombert, will explore the benefits and limits of urban vegetalization on heat island, pollution and water management. Sébastien Maire, from Municipality of Paris, will expose the Oasis project of schoolyard renaturation and the benefit of green and grey infrastructure for vulnerable population.

Name of

speaker

Job title Stakeholder

type (as defined

in the proposal)


Region (as

defined in the

proposal)

engineer

Expert Ecole des

Ingénieurs

de la Ville

de Paris

Oceanic

Climatic (EU)

General

Delegate for

Ecological

Transition

and

Resilience

Public policy

(Municipality)

Paris

Muncipality,

Resilience

service

Oceanic

Climatic (EU)

Briefly describe how the session will unfold

Date: april 5th

Time: 11.00-12.30

30

Quality of life refers to the set of conditions contributing to make pleasant and valuable our life. According to the WHO (1995), it also refers to the degree of happiness or satisfaction experienced by an individual or group, specifically with regard to health and its domains. From our recent research we have learnt that contact with nature may have both a direct effect on health as well as acts as a facilitator of healthy behaviour. We have found evidence suggesting direct and indirect impacts on the health effects of NBS. A number of research studies demonstrate that green areas as well as other green/blue solutions foster physical and mental health not just through providing opportunities for exercise, but also fostering meaningful and constructive social contacts or mutual knowledge (Kaiser et al., 2013), what might enhance perceptions of neighbourhood quality (Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001). Living in a green neighbourhood is linked to higher levels of self-reported health, happiness and robust predictor of overall neighbourhood satisfaction. Furthermore, exposure and closeness to urban green spaces are related to lower levels of stress (Hartig & Kahn, 2016). In general, the restorative effects of nature experiences have been studied within the framework of two major theories: Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) and Stress Reduction Theory (Ulrich et al., 1991), focused on the recovery of intrapersonal resources that have diminished due to adaptation to environmental demands, stressors and challenging tasks. Exposure to nature triggers positive reactions involving both physiological and emotional changes which facilitate psycho-physiological stress recovery.

Key questions for the discussion:

1. Recent research reports are letting us learn how contact with nature may have a direct effect both on physical and psychological health. From your own management or academic experience

In what way do you think this improvement of our health can be promoted or stimulated? What kind of social or environmental factors could encourage cities to engage in a responsible design with this knowledge in mind?

2. Considering the far relation between science and policy on quality of life, due to the fact that politicians are more interested in knowledge from other experiences than in evidence based in research results,

What kind of factors do you consider could act as drivers or, on the contrary, are acting as barriers for building an efficient bridge between policymakers and scientists?

3. Cities are facing a series of social and environmental challenges that try to increase the resilience and to reduce the more negative impacts of climate change.

What aspects of the infrastructure for addressing these challenges do you consider are more inadequate (efficiency of buildings, water management, mobility infrastructure…) ? 4. Nature based solutions are demonstrating to be very efficient in making more resilient neighbourhoods for addressing the impact of climate change. For instance, more green spaces in residental environments have been associated to higher

31

feelings of safety, because they contribute to improve mental health due to its restorative capacity.

How do you understand this perception of safety? Did you know that exposition to nature can reduce mental fatigue, which can be a precursor of violence?


The main question to raise when implementing NBS is: how to argue how the renaturation could have benefits? The urban renaturation could be an opportunity to improve CC adaptation but also the urban quality, the quality of life and the resilience. The purpose of the session will be to identify how renaturation can be considered as ways of CC adaptation with benefits for citizens and to see how grey and green approaches can be linked. It’s a key question to develop urban resilience strategy based on NBS and even more renaturation.

2- Can green housing quality encourage to resilience?


Minute taker: , ECTP


This session questions how green housing quality can encourage resilience at the building and urban scale. It will explore how NBS could be combined with grey construction technology and how it could be (or not) a way to improve resilience. Green housing defines a type of housing designed to be environment-friendly and sustainable. Green housing focuses on the reduction of energy use but also on the use of sustainable resources that will provide comfort and well-being of the inhabitants. Thus, green housing can provide environmental, economic and societal benefits. The session will focus on how green housing can encourage and/or create resilience in cities among various aspects: urban, social, environmental, climatic.

Maeva Sabre, climatologist, will present her results on façade and green roof to improve building and urban resilience. The engineer expert and Qualibat president, will present the National energy renovation building and how NBS become an interesting option. The architect , from Municipality of New York, will expose the Design and Construction Excellence program of the City of New York and their ambitious to develop NBS.

Date: april 5th

Time: 11.00-12.30

32

Name of speaker Job title Stakeholder

type (as

defined in the

proposal)


Region (as

defined in the

proposal)

1

Engineer climatologist

Expert CSTB Oceanic Climatic (EU)

2.

Président de Qualibat, chargé par les pouvoirs publics de la co-animation du plan de rénovation énergétique des bâtiments

Public policy (National)

Qualibat Oceanic Climatic (EU)

3.

Executive Director of Design and Construction Excellence, NYC Department of Design and Construction

Public policy (Municipality)

New Yok City

United States



1- What are the barriers to green housing deployment in European cities?

(investment costs, payback period, materials, maintenance, public

acceptance…)

2- How to foster the development of green housing in European cities?


Green housing is a possible sector to improve NBS. The purpose of the session will be to identify how green housing policy can be considered as many ways of construction and urban resilience.

3- Can nature and landscape contribute to resilience?

33


Minute taker: Paris Sansoglou, EUDA

How does the session contribute to the topic area? (Approx. 200 words)

This session questions how Natural and urban Landscape can contribute to resilience? It will explore how renaturation and nature in the city contribute to urban landscape, and also to health and could be combined with grey construction technology and how it could be (or not) a way to improve resilience. Landscapes are very varied and are interconnecting sometimes complex human and natural elements, the resilience of which is being tested by the new challenges created from climate change. In this session, a scientist, an expert and a policy-maker will explore, with examples taken from three types of landscapes, coastal, urban and riparian, the importance of a multidisciplinary approach. The goal is to assess the landscape’s resilience and how this can be enhanced by well selected Nature-Based Solutions (NBS). To this end, it is necessary to develop an in-depth understanding of the risks and responses in each situation in order to identify optimal solutions. The understanding of how NBS can contribute to the landscape’s resilience needs to be integrated and implemented through holistic policies and their effectiveness assessed. The expert Philippe Moutet will present some example of landscape transformation in Regional Nature Parks to improve protected area resilience. Andrea Voskens, from the city of Nijmegen, will expose its policy to improve urban resilience faced to rising water and by this way transform urban landscape and quality of life. The environmental psychologist Barbara Bonnefoy will present the positive effects of natural environments.

Name of

speaker


type (as

defined in the

proposal)


Region (as

defined in the

proposal)

1

Chief of climat

and energy

services

Association Fédération

des parcs

naturels

régionaux

Oceanic

Climatic

Région

2.,

Environmental

Psychologist

Scientist University

Lyon

Oceanic

Climatic

Région

Date: april 5th

Time: 11.00-12.30

34

3.

Senior advisor

and city

marketeer

Public policy

(Municipality)

Municipality

of

Copenhague

Northen

temperate

Région

How do you think the session can help scale-up NbS? (Approx. 200 words)

Landscape can be considered as a way to link urban and natural dimensions, to improve natural, social, urban and cultural resilience. The purpose of the session will be to explore how Natural and urban Landscape can be a way to think multiscale and integrated policy to faced Climate Change risks.

35

Parallel sessions 2: Can (re)naturation contribute to urban climate change

adaptation and mitigation?

1- How could biodiversity and ecosystem be a factor of climate change

adaptation and mitigation?


Minute taker: Animation Biodiversa - FRB, Frédéric Lemaître


Nature-based solutions (NBS), ecosystem services and biodiversity have an intricate role to play in cities’ climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies. Simultaneously, NBS can deliver improvements in the quality of life in urban areas, i.e. physical, psychological and social well-being of its citizens. Such diverse benefits make NBS a potentially powerful tool for local authorities in responding to climate changes, while delivering valuable co-benefits. The very diversity of these benefits, as well as the trade-offs inherent to the design and management of NBS have called for local authorities around the world to explore new approaches to bringing nature in cities, with a purpose. But does any NBS, any “greening” imply greater urban resilience and well-being? How does biodiversity affect the performance and sustainability of NBS in the context of climate change adaptation, mitigation? And for urban well-being? How can local authorities take advantage of biodiversity and ecosystem services in support of NBS? This session gathers perspectives from ecology, psychology, practice and local authorities to explore the role of biodiversity for sustainable and resilient NBS, under the prism of climate change adaptation and mitigation in cities and urban well-being. It seeks to exchange with the wider session audience, building on initial perspectives from , ecologist working for the Paris region on the relation between biodiversity, NBS and the delivery of services in response to climate change; , environmental psychologist working in Nantes and H2020 projects on the links between the use of NBS and well-being in cities; and , Global projects leader at ICLEI, knowledgeable about how local authorities adapt locally and manage biodiversity in support of NBS.

Name of speaker

Job title Stakeholder type (as defined in the proposal)

Institution Climatic Region (as defined in

Date: april 5th

Time: 13.30-15.00

36

the proposal)

1. Ecologist

Exper Biodiversity Régional agency

Oceanic Climatic (EU)

i

Project leader and ecologist

Public policy ICLEI (local governements for sustainability)


Environnemental Psychologists

scientist Nantes University / Medelin (Colombie University)




- What evidence is there of biodiversity and NBS supporting successful climate adaptation, mitigation and greater human wellbeing in cities? - What opportunities are there for local authorities and urban planners to manage biodiversity for more sustainable, resilient and/or efficient NBS? - What are the current limitations and challenges in introducing more biodiversity in support of NBS in cities?


Nbs and biodiversity are still too rarely considered as solutions to face climate change and develop adaptation strategies. The purpose of the session will be to identify how biodiversity and NBS can be considered as ways of adaptation and proposition of global strategies for territories

2- Can urban forests support cities to climate change adaptation and

mitigation?


Minute taker:


This session wishes to highlight how trees and city forests can be considered as (nature based) solutions for city adaptation and mitigation to face CC.

Date: april 5th

Time: 13.30-15.00

37

, from the city of Bologna, will present the project of city forest in the city-center. from MNHN will present the benefits of trees in cities to face flood and heat island. Then the Berliner Landscape architect , from Topotek 1, will present the opportunity of trees and city forest in landscape conception.

Name of

speaker


type (as

defined in the

proposal)

Institution Climatic Region

(as defined in

the proposal)

Landscape

architect

Expert Topotek1,

Berlin

Northern

Temperate

Région

Biologist Scientist Museum

National

d’Histoire

Naturelle,

Paris

Oceanic

Climatic

Project

leader

Public policy City of

Bologna,

Environment

and Energy

Department

Mediterrannean

Région



1- What are the main benefits to Climate Change for cities? 2- What are the main challenges to develop urban forests ? 3- How can stakeholders speed up the evolutions? What should be the roles

of scientists, policy makers, private sector to involve greater awareness and to develop NBS?


Trees and city forest - vegetation - can provide solution for policy makers but they are still too rarely considered as solutions to face climate change and develop adaptation strategies. The purpose of the session will be to identify how vegetalization by trees and city forests can be considered as ways of adaptation and proposition of global strategies for territories.

4- Can ecological urbanism create quality and atmosphere?

38


Minute taker: Animation Sylvie Laroche (Cresson)


This session focuses the potential of ecological urbanism, urban quality and atmosphere on adaptation and mitigation of cities. We raise the question of the relationship between urban nature, quality of life, well-being and landscape to take into account in policy strategies. We stress that urban quality and atmosphere are factors for adaptation and mitigation.

explore the benefits of vegetalization on acoustic atmosphere. will expose the link between urbanism and natural athmosphere. And the case stydy of Berlin will be presented by a project leader of the municipality.

Name of

speaker


type (as defined

in the proposal)


Region (as

defined in the

proposal)

1.

Chief of

acoustic

department

Expert physicist CSTB

Grenoble

Oceanic

Climatic (EU)

2. Urbanism and

natural

atmosphere

Scientist Cression,

Grenoble

Oceanic

Climatic (EU)

Project

leader

Public policy Municipality Oceanic

Climatic (EU)


(Approx. 200 words)


1- How do inhabitants practice the renaturation projects around them? 2- How are the aesthetic characteristics of the various situations of daily life

taken into account by users? 3- How can renaturation projects promote and train urban opportunities in

contemporary metropolitan areas? 4- How are sight, hearing, touch, smell and even the pleasures of taste

integrated into renaturation projects?

Date: april 5th

Time: 13.30-15.00

39

5- How is climatic, visual and sound comfort defined, or even sought in developments defining ecological urban planning?


Ecological urbanism can be considered as a resource to create urban quality and atmosphere. Then, urban quality and atmosphere can drive natural solutions. This session will consist in showing how the integration of NBS can help both quality of life in cities and mitigation/adaptation to CC

40

Minutes of parallel sessions

Day 1

Parallel sessions: introducing risk management and resilience

through NBS

Name of the session: Combining NBS as an integrated approach for risk management and resilience

Date: 4 April 2018

Presenters:

Notes taken by: Giorgos Somarakis (FORTH), Stavros Stagakis (FORTH), Erik Mink (EuDA)

Presentations :

1st Presentation by (EcoShape)

Title: Combining NBS as an integrated approach to risk management and

resilience: The case of Building with Nature Indonesia

A case in Indonesia was presented where a mangrove forest is being recovered in a degraded coastal zone subject to erosion. The sediment which is brought in by the tides is made to settle behind easy-to-construct bamboo and brushwood structures. Once the sediment has created a mudflat the mangroves develop autonomously with little help from humans. The natural approach works well and the methodology is supported by the local population and is adopted by local authorities as a means to protect the coastline.

2nd Presentation by (ARUP)

Title: Combining NBS as an integrated approach for risk assessment &

resilience: Urban settings

The presentation focused on case studies of NBS integration in the urban environment with results from the prominent examples of London and Madrid. NBS is recognized as multi-functional essential infrastructure for resilience that improves social interaction and physical/ mental health. The presentation included the aspects of design creativity from strategy to imaginative use of space

41

within the layers of the city. It was stressed that the multiple benefits in the urban environment and especially the quantitative results towards risk mitigation and resilience have to be measured and better understood. Stronger links between research/ policy/ implementation and integrated approaches to delivery - partnership working (de siloing traditional cultures) are needed. This is vital to combine blue/green/grey to achieve sustainable development.

3rd Presentation by (IUCN)

Title: Nature based Solutions informing risk and resilience on land

Lessons learned from ecosystems protecting infrastructure and communities were presented with the examples of: i) Burkina Faso where a participatory vulnerability assessment was accomplished with community innovation and multiple benefits for the community, ii) Jordan, Egypt where the objective was to restore and sustainably manage pastoral rangelands for the provision of ecosystem services and protection of biodiversity and catalyze scale up regionally and globally, iii) Senegal, where ecosystems and biodiversity conservation was accomplished through a community-based approach to insure local populations livelihoods and disaster and climate change resilience, and iv) Rwanda, where 2 M ha of forest landscape are to be restored by 2020 and provide conceptual framework for decision making at national scale and guidelines to deliver Rwanda’s Bonn commitment and policy targets.

Dialogue

1st dialogue phase:

Table 1 (Moderator: , Minute taker: Erik Mink)

Main Question: What is the greatest hazard potential in Europe and what are

the related existing policies (EU to regional level) and tools for risk mitigation?

The participants suggested different hazards corresponding to their fields of

interest:

sea level rise, leading to coastal flooding

extreme precipitation events (cloudbursts - storms), leading to fluvial and pluvial flooding

more frequent and longer droughts, leading to lack of fresh water (especially in southern Europe)

soil degradation, leading to poorer harvests and biodiversity loss (food supply)

temperature rise and more frequent heat waves, leading to urban heat stress

loss of biodiversity, collapse of ecosystems

42

Note that only pluvial flooding and heat stress are hazards that directly involve urban zones. The other hazards affect urban zones only indirectly and need the support of different types of NBS. The focus of risk mitigation is therefore very diverse:

Coastal flooding: stronger sea defenses, consisting typically of hybrid blue-green-grey systems

Fluvial flooding: ecological river basin management

Pluvial flooding: increase water absorption capacity of soils in the city

Drought: sustainable water storage and management schemes; reforestation?

Heat stress: urban NBS, greening the city

Soil degradation: re-invent sustainable agriculture practices

Biodiversity loss: fundamental change in land use practices, limit use of biocides and pesticides

Note also that these tools for risk mitigation imply policy changes at all levels. At the EU level this means new policies for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) and revised common agricultural policy (CAP); it also means wide implementation of EU policy instruments for flooding in river basins (Flood directive) and biodiversity (biodiversity strategy).

Table 2 (Moderator: , Minute taker: Giorgos Somarakis)

Main Question: Who are the stakeholders involved and what are the decision

making mechanisms in defining the strategies for risk management?

During dialogue process, various groups of stakeholders were identified by participants. However, each case involves different groups of stakeholders, depending on the scale (state/regional/local) and the kinds of foreground risks (e.g. flood). Specifically, the following main groups of interdisciplinary stakeholders were noticed by participants:

Politicians across scales - from regional to local level (government members, state/regional/local administration, etc.)

Public agencies (maintenance department of cities, river basin authorities, etc.)

Scientists, researchers and other (technical) experts (e.g. land use, urban or other types of planners)

(Local) communities/citizens and residents (indigenous people) living in areas, where NBS are going to be implemented (e.g. farmers and other individuals activated in agriculture)

Land owners and developers

Non-Governmental Organizations

Representatives of relevant associations and organizations (e.g. irrigation associations)

Businesses/firms (e.g. water treatment companies)

Institutions (financial, environmental, etc.), such as universities

43

Regarding decision making, they identified spatial scale and statutory framework (different among countries) as crucial factors. Also, they discerned the following mechanisms, in which both top-down approaches and participatory processes are implemented:

Law regulation – public policies

Multiscale management adapting the proposed measures in each case

Planning and implementation process

Risk assessment

Table 3 (Moderator: , Minute taker: Stavros Stagakis)

Main Question: What is the current status of involving NBS (or ecosystem-based

strategies) in the EU and regional policy context?

The participants pointed out that the current policy frameworks do not integrate NBS. Some strategies (e.g. flood, water management) integrate some ecosystem based strategies, however, the term green infrastructure is mostly used instead of NBS. There are some shining examples, such as local or regional strategies developed by some countries (e.g. Germany, Sweden, Spain) and cities, which have included and showcased the multiple applications and benefits of NBS. These frontrunners in local level have developed innovative integrated plans involving NBS to address multiple challenges. The main reason of the limited integration of NBS into the regional policy contexts is that NBS are still in the evidence phase and not the policy phase. Another reason is that an exact definition of NBS is not yet consolidated among the scientific community. Even though, NBS term has already been used for several years and there is already a significant amount of work and literature produced on NBS, the term is not yet widely known among different communities and especially among policy makers. Moreover, participants noted that the targets are still not clear inside the framework of NBS and there is no specific vision towards such targets, so this is also a reason that they are not integrated into the relevant policy contexts. Participants then brainstormed on possible drivers that would make NBS more widely used and eventually integrated in the policy contexts related to risk management and resilience. It was agreed that more demonstration projects are needed to transform NBS from a theoretical concept to an effective practice. A common vision on NBS is needed in order to push and persuade the policy makers. Also, the frontrunner cities and countries should be used as case studies to advance the knowledge on both good and bad practices.

2nd dialogue phase

Table 1 (Moderator: , Minute taker: Erik Mink)

44

Main Question: Which are the most prominent NBS approaches/practices (or

combinations of them) for risk management and resilience?

There were no detailed answers to this question in the sense of specific NBS measures, but a host of suggestions at a more general level were put forward. The responses fall into 2 groups: urban and others. From the urban perspective it was felt that there is considerable room to make cities more climate resistant. Measures should not only target the greening of cities, but also integration of grey and green measures, or even the banning of cars from the city centers, so that the heat stress can be reduced by renewed greening in the centers. New societal approaches could be tried, such as re-introduction of the ‘commons’ in the sense of developing a common responsibility and thus stimulate societal interaction. Another suggestion is to create incentives for shared responsibility by proposing green certificates to finance NBS. Combine ecological resilience with ‘sociological resilience’, Or, for short, integrate ecosystems and social systems. Outside the urban zones the measures are typically larger scale and more in the domain of infrastructure. The decision-making processes and the stakeholders are different from the urban context. The keyword is again: integrated solutions. Combine grey and green systems, design measures integrating agriculture and biodiversity, apply integrated coastal zone management, practice flood management at river basin scale.

Main messages:

The hazards are diverse and multiple.

NBS in urban context form only a small sector of the overall risk management required in response to climate change phenomena.

Resilience of ecosystems can be stimulated by enhancing the biological diversity within the system.

Integration of grey and green solutions is often necessary for successful and resilient systems.

Integration of ecological solutions and societal responses is necessary to create ‘urban resilience’.

Table 2 (Moderator: , Minute taker: Giorgos Somarakis)

Main Question: What would be alternative decision making mechanisms to

facilitate NBS uptake in risk management & resilience?

Common feature of participants’ perspectives about decision making mechanisms was the transition from top-down to bottom-up decision making and the implementation of participatory processes. Specifically, participants proposed the following mechanisms/methodologies:

Interactive consultation with stakeholders proposing ideas or answering to authorities:

45

o Involvement of community/citizens in decision making involving groups of people that are usually out of such processes (children, elderly, impoverished, etc.)

o Local associations assemblies coordinated and financed by local authorities

Decision support systems o Group model building and participatory modelling techniques o Cost-benefit analysis of interventions in ecosystems proving the

benefits of NBS, functioning as incentives for decision makers o Results-based mechanisms including outputs and lessons learned from

similar case studies o Assessment techniques considering environmental aspects (e.g. long-

range ecosystems services) during planning, implementation and impacts monitoring stages 2.

Furthermore, participants recognized the following crucial issues that should be

taken into consideration:

Informing all relevant stakeholders o Convincing decision makers about the impotence of nature and

usefulness of NBS o Persuading public to participate in decision making processes

Institutionalizing regulations regarding decision making (mechanisms)

Including sustainability in objectives of decision making, respecting and serving next generations

Ensuring horizontal (among different sectors and areas) and vertical (between local and regional) interconnection and balance, overcoming the “silos” of information and decision making

Table 3 (Moderator: , Minute taker: Stavros Stagakis)

Main Question: How to facilitate uptake of NBS in the strategies for risk

management and resilience at diverse spatial levels?

Following the first dialogue phase, the participants worked more closely on the barriers and formulated clear suggestions on facilitating NBS integration into policies for risk management and resilience.

Identification of barriers (knowledge, financing, policy, governance)

The financial aspects related to NBS implementation are still not clear and there are no complete business models.

Finance of NBS is prerequisite for its transition to governance.

The already defined policy context regarding the risk management practices can sometimes block the involvement of NBS due to legal requirements.

There are no legally binding targets among the EU policies related to NBS objectives.

46

Private sector is not yet convinced regarding NBS efficiency.

Knowledge related to NBS implementation (planning, technology, practices) is not yet widely spread among the different communities (science, policy, practitioners).

Concrete knowledge and evidence of NBS effectiveness in risk mitigation and management is not yet developed.

The transferability of NBS, as well as their effectiveness across scales, continents, climate zones can be variable.

Holistic practices (e.g. hybrid green-grey solutions) and their multiscale benefits are not widely implemented or evaluated.

NBS multifunctionality and multiscale effects pose challenges to define and monitor their effectiveness.

In contrast to grey solutions, NBS evolve after implementation and in many cases need a number of years to achieve the maximum effectiveness and benefits towards risk management and resilience.

Political will is needed for making the transition from grey to green.

Knowledge on synergies and trade-offs between different objectives is not yet developed.

Policy proposals

A first step towards the integration of NBS in policy contexts is the development of a wide consensus on NBS definition, the formulation of NBS standards and implementation guidance.

Involve specific requirements and criteria that integrate society-economy-environment in order to use EU funds for implementing climate change adaptation/mitigation, risk management and resilience actions at regional and local level.

Define stricter and legally binding targets for Risk Management & Resilience at EU level.

Targeted funding tools for NBS implementation at local and EU level are needed.

Integrate NBS in decision making from local to EU level.

Better coordination and integration of NBS projects at EU level.

Promote national/local scale planning and strategies that integrate NBS towards risk management and resilience.

Perform ex-post assessment on implemented NBS regarding their contribution to the sustainability and resilience.

The knowledge base on NBS effectiveness should be advanced with more demonstration projects (i.e. inclusion of NBS in Horizon Europe).

Follow the frontrunner examples of NBS implementation in local and regional level and develop knowledge on good and bad practices.

Combined and integrative socioeconomic and environmental strategies al local level can be achieved through NBS.

Policy and strategies for risk management and resilience should take into account projections and scenarios of future challenges and not be based exclusively on today’s problems and needs.

Multiple stakeholder groups must be involved in the finance and governance aspects of NBS.

Integrate NBS into multiple key policy areas (e.g. infrastructure, spatial planning, economy).

47

Barriers and uptakes identified :

Barriers:

The financial aspects related to NBS implementation are still not clear and there are no

complete business models.

Finance of NBS is prerequisite for its transition to governance.

The already defined policy context regarding the risk management practices can sometimes

block the involvement of NBS due to legal requirements.

There are no legally binding targets among the EU policies related to NBS objectives.

Private sector is not yet convinced regarding NBS efficiency.

Knowledge related to NBS implementation (planning, technology, practices) is not yet widely

spread among the different communities (science, policy, practitioners).

Concrete knowledge and evidence of NBS effectiveness in risk mitigation and management is not

yet developed.

The transferability of NBS, as well as their effectiveness across scales, continents, climate zones

can be variable.

Holistic practices (e.g. hybrid green-grey solutions) and their multiscale benefits are not widely

implemented or evaluated.

NBS multifunctionality and multiscale effects pose challenges to define and monitor their

effectiveness.

In contrast to grey solutions, NBS evolve after implementation and in many cases need a number

of years to achieve the maximum effectiveness and benefits towards risk management and

resilience.

Political will is needed for making the transition from grey to green.

Knowledge on synergies and trade-offs between different NBS objectives is not yet developed.

Recommendations:

Involve specific requirements and criteria on EU funds that integrate societal-economical-

environmental benefits for implementing climate change adaptation/mitigation, risk

management and resilience actions at regional and local level.

Define stricter and legally binding targets for Risk Management & Resilience at EU level.

Targeted funding tools for NBS implementation at local and EU level.

Integrate NBS in decision making from local to EU level.

Better coordination and integration of NBS projects at EU level.

3 Key messages

A wide consensus on NBS definition and the formulation of global NBS standards are important conditions for mainstreaming NBS in the strategies for risk management and resilience

Transition from top-down to bottom-up decision making and the implementation of participatory processes is needed for the facilitation of NBS uptake

Large scale (i.e. beyond the urban boundaries) integrated solutions that combine green and grey systems and rely on biodiversity are the key concepts for holistic risk management and resilience

48

Promote national/local scale planning and strategies that integrate NBS towards risk

management and resilience.

Perform ex-post assessment on implemented NBS regarding their contribution to the

sustainability and resilience.

The knowledge base on NBS effectiveness should be advanced with more demonstration projects

(i.e. inclusion of NBS in Horizon Europe).

Follow the frontrunner examples of NBS implementation in local and regional level and develop

knowledge on good and bad practices.

Combined and integrative socioeconomic and environmental strategies al local level can be

achieved through NBS.

Policy and strategies for risk management and resilience should take into account projections

and scenarios of future challenges and not be based exclusively on today’s problems and needs.

Multiple stakeholder groups must be involved in the finance and governance aspects of NBS.

Integrate NBS into multiple key policy areas (e.g. infrastructure, spatial planning, economy).

Key lessons / recommendations for action (local governments, SME’s, academic research,

community partners)

RM&R through NBS imply policy changes at all levels (local to EU level). At the EU level, new policies are needed for integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) and common agricultural policy (CAP). Wide implementation of EU policy instruments is needed for flooding in river basins (Flood directive) and biodiversity (biodiversity strategy). RM&R must be treated in an integrated manner and in regional scales since urban areas are also affected indirectly by hazards outside the urban system (e.g. food supply, water quality). Frontrunner cities and countries have involved NBS in RM&R and we should learn from their example. To facilitate the adoption of NBS in EU policies on RM&R, strategies must be first developed and applied in local level. Demonstration projects are advancing the knowledge and evidence base on NBS. Investment on more demo projects is needed. Future challenges must be foreseen when implementing RM&R strategies rather than addressing solely the current problems. An innovative approach for NBS concept is to combine ecological resilience with ‘sociological resilience’, i.e. integrate ecosystems and social systems.

49

Name of the session: NBS for risk management across scales: synergies from local to city and

regional level

Date: 04/04/2019

Presenters: Denia Kolokotsa (TUC)

Sara Van Rompaey (E2ARC)

Notes taken by: Eleni Goni

Meeting Notes

Presentations:

Denia Kolokotsa: Nature Based Solutions For Climate Change Mitigation & Risk

Management Across Scales

Main ideas:

NBS definition: NBS are living solutions inspired and supported by nature that simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help to build resilience. Nature Based Solutions bring more nature and natural features and processes into cities, landscapes and seascapes, through locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions.

NBS offer solutions for climate related risks e.g: Heat island, extreme cold, river floods, surface water floods, coastal floods, water scarcity/ draughts, water quality, fire risks, landslides, storms.

Examples of Green Infrastructure Benefits

3. Green Infrastructure Benefits

4. Economic Benefits 5. Social and Environmental

Benefits

6. Workplace Productivity 7. Mental Health

8. Faster Property Sales 9. Physical Health

10. Property Prices 11. Wellbeing

12. Land Value 13. Childhood Development

14. Faster Planning Permission 15. Hospital Recovery Rate

16. Reduced Energy Cost 17. Tourist and Recreational

Facilities

50

18. Increased Retail Sales 19. Social Cohesion

20. Income Generation 21. Cleaner Water

22. 23. Reduced Flood Damage

24.

NBS allows us to work on different scales, through different approaches and techniques. From Building scale, to Local scale and then to Regional Scale.

Examples of what we can do at different scales:

25. NBS - Scales

26. Building Scale 27. Local Scale 28. Regional Scale

29. Green roofs 30. Bioswales 31. Urban Forest

Management and

Maintenance

32. Green walls 33. Bioswales-

Raingardens

34. Peri-Urban Park

35. Gardens 36. Tree-lined

Streets

37. Green Noise

Barriers

38. 39. Community

Gardens- Urban

Farms

40. Green Bus

Shelters

41. 42. Green Urban

Living Room

43. Green

Ventilation Grids

44. 45. Ditches 46. Green

Corridors

47. 48. Infiltration

Strips and Meadows

49. Porous Paving

50. 51. 52. Sustainable

Urban Drainage

Systems

53.

NBS in buildings are rather straightforward, with an impact mostly on building scale. For local and regional scales, the challenges to face are

51

more complicated, but there are various solutions that can be implemented.

54.

Challenges addressed NBS in buildings

UHI &

Surface Water Floods

Green Roofs

Moss Roofs

Rooftop gardens

Green Facades

Vertical Gardens

Challenges addressed NBS in local scale

UHI &


Rain Gardens

Green Urban Furniture

Green Lines

Challenges addressed NBS in local/ regional scale

UHI


River Floods

Water Scarcity

Water quality

Coastal Floods

Fire risks

Land slides

Lake Restoration

River restoration

Dunes construction

Coastal wetlands restoration

Urban Forests

Peri Urban Parks

Dialogue- Question raised:

On the one hand we have the different scales. On the other hand, we have decision making: How can we prioritise before and after disasters?

“Have institutional and financial support”

“Top down: financial and regulations”

“Scaling hazards against exposure of cities”

“National policy is implemented”

“Building levels To engage Everyday behaviour from building users”

“Building on multi-level partnerships for cross-scale coordinated action”

“Understand risks and potential impacts across all scales”

“Different levels of scientific knowledge about Environmental threats at different scales. Integration of

52

knowledge between scales”

“Multi-scale approach”

“Co-creation concept (easier in small scales) of knowledge (society and policy makers + scientists”

“Implementation of NBS requires time (space and time). The process for implementation needs to be identified”

“Solutions are not universal”

“The natural is the change”

“Maturity of the administration”

“We act before knowing. NBS is solutions. All solutions should respect nature”

“Disaster as an opportunity to make things right”

“Ecosystem vs Environment. Need to identify which ecosystem to address”

“Vulnerability maps”

“Vulnerability scales how vulnerable is the territory to identify the scale? Before & After disaster”

“What kind of vulnerability are we talking about? Immigrants (language), Age groups”

“After a disaster: a) Prioritise people b) Social representation (involve citizens)””

“2 levels: 1) Ecosystem different from Environment. In which ecosystem do we intervene in? 2) Every ecosystem is different”

“We identify with things that are not close to our home”

“First thought after disaster engineering solutions”

“Before a disaster: people postpone reaction. After a disaster people see the need for action: opportunity”

“Why would an upstream city provide space to protect downstream?”

“Different types of flooding: - different types of impacts, - different ways to manage”

“It has to happen in the cities!”

“Prioritizing depends on future scenarios, institutional/ cultural context and governance models at stake”

“Challenges can be local but solutions regional (and vice versa) discrepancy”

“Show the relevance of local- regional approaches: which are the specific benefits?”

“Integrate disaster management in every phase of planning”

“Some NBS will only be possible on different scales”

“Engage people at local level”

“Top down approach in the implementation phase”

“Is there a role for national level policy? And funding?”

Main points:

53

NBS allows us to work on different scales, through different approaches and techniques. From Building scale, to Local scale and then to Regional Scale. NBS in buildings are rather straightforward, with an impact mostly on building scale. For local and regional scales, the challenges to face are more complicated, but there are various solutions that can be implemented. Risks and potential impacts across all scales have to be evaluated at all times; Disaster management should be integrated in every phase of planning; There are different levels of scientific knowledge regarding environmental threats at different scales, therefore integration of knowledge between scales is needed; Prioritizing depends on future scenarios, institutional/ cultural context and governance models at stake; There is a discrepancy as to the fact that challenges can be local but solutions regional (and vice versa); Vulnerability maps and scales before and after disasters are needed; Top down approach should be followed in the implementation phase; Disasters can be seen as opportunities to take action making things right

: The impact of scale to implementing NbS: From city block,

to masterplan and city guidelines

Main ideas: An introduction to the impact of scale when implementing NBS and the role of city guidelines, through highlighted case studies. The role of urban infrastructure and its contribution to urban regeneration explored during the brainstorming exercise.

1st Case Study: Zollhallen Plaza in Freiburg, Germany (5600m2) (Ramboll Studio Dreiseitl)

A small-scale project. Important: the standard for NBS was decided by the office (planning firm). Aim was to create a plaza that deals with water on site, not creating output to the sewage. Following the principals of circular city. Recycled materials used. Rain pours through the site and water is infiltrated. Water retained in underground storage for irrigation. It extends to green areas with local vegetation Key features: Plaza, Historic buildings, Industrial regeneration, water sensitive urban design. The Plaza has permeable paving, slabs and planters. It is disconnected from sewage. Under the permeable plaza surface and the load-bearing substrate there are water storage boxes which through an overflow pipe are connected to a cistern. In case of extreme cloudburst, part of the Plaza is destined for a flood zone, surrounded by a safety zone.

2nd Case Study: Ostfildern Scharnhauser Park, Germany (Ramboll Studio Dreiseitl)

A park where stormwater management was the top priority. An open space area was designed to accommodate many activities but in extreme events the water stays on site without creating bigger problems. Key features: Multifunctional use of open spaces, Integrated Blue-Green Masterplan, Treating and Managing Rainwater & Stormwater on site with a surface-

54

first approach, Stepped Landscape with long view (performance tested during 07/2002 extreme flood event)

3rd Case Study: Agropark Bernex- Confignon, Switzerland (VWA Architectes)

With Geneva expanding in the agriculture area maintaining ecological connections is the addressed challenge. The specific area was identified as an ecological corridor. The aim has been to create an opportunity for the 1st agropark, not intended just for recreation. In fact, families can actually make a living. Priorities: Maintaining thick forest to have connectivity (ecological) and have a zone for potential agriculture. Permaculture, Crop Rotation +Integrating Park Programming. Currently there is no place to be “in” agriculture. This park offers this opportunity. Key features: 10 urban strategies that summarize the lessons learned through the projects’ design research. These strategies include guidelines and measures that can be applied at both the city and garden/ building scale to help guide the creation of new urban quality through the process of planning, urban design, landscape architecture and architecture. Innovative ways to use the productive land parcels in the Agro-park: Crop Rotation, Permaculture, Hutin, Productive Street, Intensive Orchard with bee-hives, Vegetable Fields and small cultures.

4th Case Study: Copenhagen Cloudburst Masterplan, Denmark ((Ramboll Studio Dreiseitl)

Following the masterplan 300 different projects were created. Challenge to have infrastructure that regenerates itself. Comprehensive site analysis led to establishing the Copenhagen Cloudburst Formula and a Cloudburst Toolkit of urban mitigation strategies and components. The Copenhagen Formula adapted interdisciplinary approaches, moving away from isolated thinking. A common vision aligned engineers, hydraulic experts, GIS and information technologists, architects, planners, biologists, economists, communication specialists, and landscape architects with local citizens, investors and politicians. The masterplan with the highest concentration of Blue- Green Tools and reduced pipe sizes results in higher quality open spaces, lower investment costs, and more flexible mitigation strategies. Resiliency necessitates combining the best of existing infrastructure with low-tech solutions.


How can urban infrastructure become regenerative over time, taking into consideration

scale?

“Regenerative UI - Better Health – More wellbeing- Higher property value”

“Considering cities as living organisms and acting on fluxes”

“Big project that replicates itself”

“Prioritising values of cities- you can find space”

55

“Regenerate can also mean replicate/ transfer to other cities”

“Over time unknown/ uncertainty remains”

“Political will and branding of cities”

“Flexibility of solutions Adaptability”

“Regenerate on its own or through human interaction”

“Effective combination of top down to bottom up”

“Easily adaptable to scenarios and replicated. Scale.”

“Consider cities as unities of building/ regenerating themselves altogether”

“Stakeholders and citizens engagement”

“Empowerment of citizens. Strong democratic culture can lead to regenerative solutions”

“Identify which habits/ behaviours must change. Infrastructures have to facilitate new habits and behaviours”

“Adequate balance between physical environment (NBS) and people (users)”

“Regenerative: a) economy (real estate) b) ecologically c) governance (self-maintenance by citizens?) Multifunctional benefits (private, public, citizens)”

“Regenerative for? Vision Values Ideology People engagement/ People manipulation. Economic Hidden Interest”

“Scale in relation to policies and in relation to policies ambition”

“Structural priorities definition (small and large scale)”

“Try to imagine changes- Scenarios”

“Type of materials used (recycling)”

“Changing the same space over time e.g. a temporary play street becoming a shared street or pedestrian street”

“NBS potential varies across zones need to account for this”

“Start small/ easy, when effective develop more. Incremental change. Nature based place making?”

“Why would an upstream city provide space to protect downstream?”

“Different types of flooding: - different types of impacts, - different ways to manage”

“It has to happen in the cities!”

“Prioritizing depends on future scenarios, institutional/ cultural context and governance models at stake”

“Public transportation infrastructure impact on sustainable land uses it supports”

“ - Water management Economic real estate value Multifunctional”

“Self-maintaining by citizens sense of ownership”

“Temporal land uses and placemaking”

“Transportation infrastructure

“Multifunctional public spaces can promote health

“Political will is necessary”

56

freeing up car space”

and wellbeing and business innovation”

Main points:

Urban infrastructure and multifunctional public spaces to promote health and wellbeing

Policies needed for implementing strategies

Flexibility and incremental changes needed

We have to consider cities as living organisms acting on fluxes;

Regeneration can also mean replication/ transfer to other cities;

We need to identify which habits/ behaviours must change. Infrastructures have to facilitate new habits and behaviours;

Adequate balance needed between physical environment (NBS) and people (users);

Regenerative Urban Infrastructure can be achieved through: a) economy (real estate) b) ecology c) governance (enable self-maintenance by citizens) d) multifunctionality;

Infrastructure should be easily adaptable to scenarios and easily replicated;

We should empower citizens in order to support their sense of ownership;

Flexibility of solutions enables adaptability;

Sara Van Rompaey: NBS and Cultural Heritage in synergy for risk management:

an innovative approach for creating resilient cities

Main ideas: The importance of promoting synergies between Cultural Heritage and NBS for creating resilient cities. Exploring the foundations for future proof city planning and risk management. ideas:

Cultural Heritage: The Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development

The interaction between the pillars of economy, society, environment and culture lead to a new form of regenerated sustainable development that supports the cohesion of society, economic development and environmental protection to an even greater extent.

The four pillars of NBS: Enhancing Sustainable Urbanization, Restoring Degraded Ecosystems, Developing Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, Improving Risk Management and Resilience

Cultural Heritage along with Nature-Based Solutions can work together for the sustainable growth of urban areas, the support of production and competitiveness, and the promotion of socially and environmentally innovative solutions

Traditional urban space and civic amenities like streets and squares, esplanadas, historic parks, gardens, rivers, water structures etc are all special features of heritage districts and their city planning. All these can work in synergy with NBS to stimulate urban resilience.

Both CH and NBS have special characteristics and values in common, whereas they face significant challenges (related to governance, finance, knowledge barriers, etc)

The idea of working with nature to innovate and address global challenges has been embedded into several action plans, one of which is

57

the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; Nature- Based Solutions contribute to various UN Sustainable Development Goals, and not only to those related to biodiversity and ecosystems.

Resilient Cities Report 2018: Tracking local progress on the resilience targets of SDG 11 (ICLEI)

Heritage, Climate Action and the Sustainable Development Goals: Cultural heritage is mentioned specifically in Target 4 of the SDG goal on Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11.4), which calls for “strengthening efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage” in service of more safe, resilient, sustainable and inclusive cities and human settlements. Co-benefits arise, for example, from heritage strategies that simultaneously promote both (1) the mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or climate adaptation and (2) sustainable development. Example include the use of low-carbon, climate-adapted traditional agricultural knowledge to achieve food security and the sensitive reuse and retrofitting for energy efficiency of built heritage. Incorporating such “win-win” strategies into SDG localization and into updated Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement present a particularly promising avenue for policy development.

Only when national and local governments enhance their collaboration and establish partnerships with universities and the private sector (including the insurance industry) will they be able to address those obstacles and promote effective strategies to protect and preserve heritage for enhanced urban resilience.

Heritage is a powerful means to help victims recover from the psychological impact of disasters. In such situations, people search desperately for identity and self-esteem… Heritage contributes to social cohesion, sustainable development and psychological wellbeing. Protecting heritage promotes resilience.” UNESCO, et al. (2013)

Heritage as a Climate Action Asset: The Paris Agreement emphasises the need to stress urgency about climate change, and cultural heritage can play a central role in this exercise. Iconic sites at risk from storms, coastal erosion, wildfires or permafrost thaw can alert public to the very real cost of climate change, even while the sites’ heritage values may themselves suggest resilience and adaptation options. The significance of capacity building in the area of climate change cannot be understated; Engagement with diverse stakeholders and communities must be fully promoted and the outcomes utilized. While there is an urgent need to train local heritage professionals, the value of citizen science should also be emphasised and utilised to record and monitor local heritage.

The past has much to teach us and the value of cultural heritage as an asset to understand climate adaptation and resilience must be considered.

Integration of Cultural Heritage into Climate Science: Modern anthropogenic climate change is linked to human activity, principally the use of fossil fuels and changes in land use on an extensive scale that began in large part with the industrial revolution, generally recognized to have started in the 1750s. Recent climate modeling suggests that the climate may have started to warm outside of the range of natural variability in some places as early as the 1830s. Therefore, heritage dating to the historical and post-medieval periods is a key source of evidence in documenting and tracking the development of climate change both socially and environmentally.

58

The Role of Good Conservation Practice: It is of vital importance that stakeholders at all levels be sensitized to the relationship between climate adaptation and mitigation on the one hand and simply taking regular care of the heritage that belongs to a community and has shaped its identity on the other hand. This includes not only owners and occupants of heritage place but also politicians, administrators, town planners, architects, conservators in particular and citizens in general. In historic urban landscapes, the practice of the good conservation concerns in particular the administration of planning and development controls. Urban policies must be framed and implemented to support sustainability which requires a delicate balance between conservation and development. Social cohesion and shared identity arise when all residents can be proud of the outstanding values of their communities.

The example of Sponge city movement in China: Based on the idea of turning paved impermeable surfaces of the city into green and wet resilient urban areas, the movement reintroduces ancient Chinese flood management into its large cities, which have been expanding rapidly using concrete and steel during the last 20 years. Qunli Stormwater park (Harbin city, China): designed to reintroduce a former wetland in a new massive urban neighborhood. Facing both periods of drought, sea level rising and increased rainfall in China, the aim is to ‘retain, adapt, slow down and reuse’ water in the urban areas in various ways.

Preserving cultural and natural heritage is a challenge for most growing cities of the world, but a necessary effort which could allow them to maintain their uniqueness and quality of life, while simultaneously enhance their climate resilience. The momentum of cities, often generated by citizens, to preserve historic heritage sites could also be a powerful force that drives nature-based, climate- resilient and sustainable solutions for urban environments of tomorrow that incorporate the wisdom of past urban planning.

Relevant publications: World Bank Group Action Plan on Climate Change, Adaptation and Resilience (2019), WBG & UNESCO: Position paper – CURE framework (2018)

Presentation of a case study to highlight innovative tools, strategies and best practices in the field of Nature Based Solutions that not only European cities but also cities from all over the world, are adopting in order to combine tradition and modernity while addressing environmental challenges and the impacts of the economic crisis. Cultural Heritage as a vital resource for 21st Century rather than only as a cost to society. It is related to economic benefits related to Tourism but it is also a stimulant for growth and employment. Cultural Heritage is also a major contributor to social cohesion. The selected case studies demonstrate how cultural heritage can be used to deliver environmental, economic and social benefits. How cultural heritage has been used as a catalyst for regeneration. How culture and bio-diversity can be integrated and enhanced to create successful living rural landscapes. They are a proof that it is possible to innovate Cities with Nature and Culture.

1st Case Study: “Opening up of tubed-in river Dijle”, Leuven- Belgium

The River Dyle provides an example of how water management practice can change from the outmoded view that the only solution lies in concrete to one that works with nature. The River Dyle can breathe once again. Perceptions and approaches to flood and water in Flanders have changed using the River Dyle in Leuven as an example.

59


From your experience, what are the foundations for creating resilience and which can be

new approaches for future proof city planning?

“Education and Training”

“Focus on service provision rather than infrastructure development”

“Digital placemaking- explaining the memory of the process”

“Looking back at forgotten knowledge trust existing vernacular ideas”

“Working with children and young people”

“Combining services of NBS (e.g. acoustic and air quality)”

“Resilience in education as part of our culture”

“Exchange of knowledge”

“Interdisciplinary cooperation between experts of different fields”

“Role of attitudes and factors of future risks. Benefits of climate change”

“Future proof” needs to relate to participation and possibility of change, including how food is heritage.”

“Celebrate small wins in the process”

“Future proof city planning Flexibility, Demographic change, Participatory planning”

“Social dimension (Copenhagen model)”

“Resilience expertise from social dimension”

“Flexible planning and dealing with uncertainty”

“Social simulation of resilience models (ABM for instance, artificial intelligence)”

“Show before/ after to newcomers (city planning)”

“Maintain the memory of how NBS changed the livelihood in a given area. For newcomers to understand the history and take ownership”

“Resilience in EU: Resilience experts in Urban Planning offices”

“Creating resilience through city planning visualisation and communication to citizens”

“Be sure to involve the socio-economic categories of the population”

“Include people in the progress many stages, many events”

“Empowering communities (people) (CSOs) to be part of the resilience system”

“Resilient interventions should be multifunctional in different scenarios”

“Visualise social simulation policy makers”

“Civil society organisations not as individuals”

“Increase people’s confidence on data”

“Vision and leadership

60

needed. Persistence also”

Main points:

Identified foundations for creating resilience and approaches for future proof city planning:

Better education and training

Citizen’s Participation- social dimension

Learning from the past to design for the future

Focus on service provision rather than infrastructure development;

Learn from the past, design for the future;

Future proof city planning--> Flexibility, Demographic change, Participatory planning;

Interdisciplinary cooperation between experts of different fields;

Vision and leadership in governance needed;

Citizen education and Training from early school years;

Maintain the memory of how NBS changed the livelihood in a given area. For newcomers to understand the history and take ownership;

Social simulation of resilience models (e.g ABM or AI);

Increase people’s confidence in data 55.

: Overcoming governance barriers to promote successful

stakeholder synergies

Main ideas: Presentation of strategies to overcome governance barriers and to promote effective stakeholder synergies for successful NBS. Examining ways to keep actors and stakeholders engaged and ambitious throughout the entire process of complex spatial projects.

Case study presentation: Hertogensite (Leuven, Belgium)

As a city you can be ambitious, but how to realise changes? City of Leuven has a plan, uses networks, involves schools, universities and businesses, but how to really get change? HERTOGENSITE: was seen as an opportunity for change. The challenge was how to get others to realize the city’s plans and visions. University hospital left the city for another site and the opportunity to renew the area was presented. City of Leuven is not the owner of the land in this area. Actors and stakeholders involved: University hospital, 2 Developers and 3 Master-planners City presented their ambitions to the master planners to take into account and a group of people were involved representing civil society. New development had to stay for profit of the development and also need to include Nature and Heritage. Next step in this process was bringing other stakeholders on the table. Different scales of government (6 Flemish Government) These give benefits to the developer if he agrees on sustainability, public space needs, etc

61

Many agreements on working all together and meeting the set goals. Good agreements make good friends. But what happens next? Next step as a city was to make the spatial development plan. Then the development had to make the masterplan for the public space, and project design. What he came up with were not very satisfying for the city of Leuven. Design lacked ambition and quality. Frustration took over. Developer was not willing to understand the requirements. Efforts to change. Intense co-creative workshops. Mutual understanding of expectations and issues, finding solutions together offered much better results.


How to keep actors and stakeholders engaged and ambitious through the entire process

of a complex spatial project?

“Working with communities in a social participation approach”

“Show tangible and visualised results to citizens”

“Funding and Support for NBS <Crowd Sourcing> - Citizen science, - NGOs,- Corporate social responsibility”

“The priorities are important – Real estate? - Ecology? - Sustainability?”

“Show linkages to other city parts”

“Define small wins” “Think of incremental development as a way of generating consensus”

“Communication and simplification”

“Having a pragmatic and non-judgemental approach”

“Keep the same team from the beginning to the end”

“Consider opening opportunities for private stakeholders e.g. sponsoring by a health insurance company?”

“Understanding the “stake” of each stakeholder”

“Promoting a knowledge+ information co-production approach”

“Leveraging the points of motivation/ drivers of different actors”

“Business case and clear understanding”

“Tell success stories to underline benefits”

“Mapping stakeholders and influencers”

“Strong guidelines from the beginning to the end. And a big focus on one project, not on too many”

“Designers should know what the people need, then can make proposals”

“Transdisciplinary approach to create something new together”

“What is the role of the elected representants in the participation process?”

“Build trust towards the experts and designers”

“Explain the benefits of the process and the result”

“Explain the process and the stepping stones”

Main points:

In an urban regeneration project, it is important to keep the same team from the beginning to the end

Be clear from the beginning regarding your objectives. “Good friends make good agreements” but also “Good agreements make good friends”

62

Develop a business case and consider opening opportunities for private stakeholders;

Work with communities in a social participation approach;

Show tangible and visualised results to citizens;

Build trust towards experts and designers;

Be clear about the priorities, the process, the stepping stones and the benefits;

Map stakeholders and influencers;

Think of incremental development as a way of generating consensus;

Leverage the points of motivation/ drivers of different actors;

Communication and simplification are essential

Name of the session: Innovative methodologies for monitoring the efficiency of NBS towards

climate resilience and disaster risk mitigation

Date: 4 April 2018

Presenters: Nektarios Chrysoulakis (FORTH)

Notes taken by: Juraj Jurik (GIB), Maria Lilli (TUC), Katerina Lilli (TUC)

Presentations :

1st Presentation by Nektarios Chrysoulakis (FORTH)

3 Key messages

Vulnerability mapping should be among the top priorities

Maturity of society is needed in order to implement NBS instead of grey solutions

There is a difficulty integrating various skills

63

Title: Earth Observation for monitoring the efficiency of NBS towards climate

resilience and disaster risk reduction

The presentation introduced the potentials of Earth Observation (EO) technologies for monitoring the implementation phases and the environmental impacts of NBS. The technological advances of the last 30 years in the field of EO were summarized, highlighting the rapid evolution of this field and the extreme potentials that it presents today for multiple applications including NBS monitoring. The potentials of EO for the calculation of multiple indicators in advanced spatial and temporal scales was presented. Furthermore, the latest applications in green roof and tree canopy mapping, as well as advanced EO applications in urban energy fluxes estimation were presented. Future emerging applications of EO that would be valuable for NBS monitoring were also discussed.

2nd Presentation by

Title: NBS effectiveness to inform co-design and urban planning: experiences

from the GrowGreen project

The presentation introduced approaches for monitoring and evaluation of NBS by including co-design and planning processes and taking into account environmental, social and economic dimensions. An overall planning scheme that includes vulnerability and risk assessment according to climate change scenarios was also introduced. Then, the experiences form the GrowGreen project were presented for Valencia, where different NBS design scenarios were evaluated using EnviMET modelling, CityCat tool and ComfortUp tool. These modeling approaches gave some impact evaluation estimates for temperature change, flood risk reduction, thermal and acoustic comfort. The innovative perspectives for NBS impact evaluation such as new sensor technologies, multi-scale and multi-stakeholder approaches, were also presented. The conclusions of this presentation were that modelling is powerful tool for co-design and decision making and that the inclusion of social perception through citizens observatories gives huge potential for more integrated NBS impact evaluation.

3rd Presentation by

Title: Modelling the urban climate

The presentation focused on the heat wave risks in urban areas. It presented the functionality of the UrbClim model that can be used for estimating the temperature spatial variations inside the city structure as well as heat stress indicators that can be used to inform citizens and build a decision support system for NBS in cities. The decision support system can be used to evaluate different greening scenarios. The conclusions were that heat stress is a serious issue that will only become more important due to climate change and that densely vegetated trees that provide shade and (large) water elements are most efficient to reduce heat stress.

Dialogue

64

1st dialogue phase: Investigating gaps and barriers on evaluating NBS

contribution in risk management and resilience.

Tables 1 and 2 (Moderators: Nektarios Chrysoulakis (FORTH),

Minute takers: Maria Lilli (TUC), Katerina Lilli (TUC))

Main Question: What are the most critical requirements of the methodologies

in order to provide efficient and holistic NBS monitoring/evaluation towards

risk management and resilience?

The participants of the first two Tables discussed on the status of the methodologies to monitor and evaluate NBS towards achieving efficient Risk Management and Resilience. It was evident in the discussion of both tables that there are still many gaps and barriers for achieving a complete framework for monitoring and evaluating NBS. A main challenge to achieve a comprehensive NBS impact evaluation framework is that NBS target multiple and multi-scale benefits, so the monitoring approaches should cover a great number of criteria. The basic requirements for efficient motoring methodologies that came out of this discussion are the following:

Long-term and multi-scale capacities

Data standardization, comparability, replicability, open-access

Baseline data availability and target definition

Quality and accuracy of the datasets and the methods

Multicriteria and multidisciplinary approaches (holistic monitoring)

Cost-effectiveness, accessibility, feasibility

The above requirements are difficult to fulfil and there are still several gaps towards the design of efficient and holistic methodologies and indicator development. Furthermore, the discussion stressed also the difficulties of the economic valuation of NBS as well as defining the social benefits of NBS. Benefits such as social justice, health or well-being are not easily defined or measured. Inclusion of social perception through citizens observatories or surveys can be favorable to achieve monitoring of social benefits. Participatory approaches and increased stakeholder involvement were also suggested as means to achieve multi-benefit assessment. Some final thoughts towards the efficient and holistic monitoring of NBS were that the future methodologies should:

Integrate the temporal dimension (NBS evolution)

Provide the capacity to integrate collective & local knowledge

Address and integrate multiple criteria and different disciplines

Involve multiple stakeholders and the community

Table 3 (Moderator: ), Minute taker: Juraj Jurik

(GIB))

65

Main Question: Are there available monitoring methodologies or indicators to evaluate NBS contribution to risk management and resilience? (Explore technological/ methodological/knowledge limitations, gaps and drawbacks in the available/applied NBS impact assessment methodologies) In the 1st dialogue phase the discussion of Table 3 explored the gaps, challenges and potentials of the monitoring methodologies and indicators to evaluate NBS effectiveness in Risk Management and Resilience. The following gaps and challenges were recognized:

Lack of harmonization of monitoring variables, methods, assessment tools

Need for low cost monitoring: There is a need for high quality but at the same time low-cost monitoring not only for data gathering (i.e. sensors, devices), but also for data processing and analysis. Nowadays the available low-cost monitoring techniques do not provide enough quality data/results.

Poor scientific quality of models: Most of the models being used for climate related parameters are barely validated and some of them- (particularly the easiest to use) can be of poor scientific quality.

NBS not well represented in the available tools. Therefore, it is difficult to determine and isolate the impact that NBS might have.

Lack of accurate and accessible baseline data at local level mainly but not only, with regards to biodiversity and pollinators.

Highly resource consuming online tools e.g. for water quality and flood risk do already exist at local level (i.e. Tampere Municipality). These tools provide data and information not very accurate but have been used also for social awareness and educational purposes. However, the implementation and maintenance costs of such tools are too high.

Need for differentiation between quality and quantity.

From the EU perspective there is a need for:

more/better exploitation of “Copernicus”– An effort is required for downscaling the data/resources offered by Copernicus at local level.

increase alignment with EU Directives: i.e. Water Framework Directive, Biodiversity,

harmonization of reporting with regards to disaster risk reduction to allow comparability.

Considering that climate change is a global challenge, a global diagnosis is also

required, going beyond the EU resources and data- again harmonization is needed.

2nd dialogue phase: Recognizing emerging methodologies on NBS monitoring and

evaluation

Tables 1 and 2 (Moderators: Nektarios Chrysoulakis (FORTH), J

, Minute takers: Maria Lilli (TUC), Katerina Lilli (TUC))

66

Main Question: Explore and suggest new tools and infrastructure that meet the

recognized critical requirements to provide efficient and holistic NBS

monitoring/evaluation towards risk management and resilience

Following the first dialogue phase and the recognition of the requirements for efficient NBS monitoring, the dialogue in the second phase focused on which would be the tools that would meet such objectives now or in the future. Modelling approaches are the most favored towards the integrated NBS evaluation since they offer capacities for building and evaluating the effects of different scenarios and future climate and threat projections. They also support decision support systems, where multiple criteria can be evaluated and offer the best solutions according to the defined goals. Machine Learning was also referred as an advanced modelling approach that provides enhanced capabilities for the model complexity, sophistication and the amount of input data used. However, it was highlighted in the discussion that modelling is not enough for impact evaluation, the monitoring of the actual impacts must be also measured with state-of-the-art methodologies. Earth Observation (EO) technologies are favorable for the long-term and multiscale measurement of actual NBS impacts. EO has also the valuable advantage for looking back in time and evaluate past implementations or the capacities of habitats to recover after disturbance. Copernicus EO Programme offers solid databases of important in-situ and EO-based measurements, along with modeled parameter estimation, providing a unique potential for data harmonization and standardization. The data provided are freely and openly accessible to its users. Cloud-based platforms such as DIAS, ESA TEPs and Google Earth Engine facilitate and standardise access to data and offer advanced processing tools. Citizen science is also an advancing field that provides encouraging results for new types of analyses and data gathering techniques. There is huge potential for data gathering via citizens observatories although it requires a strong effort for boosting participation. Infrastructure that would exploit citizen science data would be a future favorable advancement for monitoring and evaluating the social impacts of NBS. Several other initiatives, networks, models and platforms were referred during the dialogue since they are promoting knowledge regarding NBS impacts, such as: Building With Nature (https://www.ecoshape.org/en/) EcoActuary (http://www.policysupport.org/ecoactuary) CostingNature (http://www.policysupport.org/costingnature) Climate KIC tool (https://www.climate-kic.org/projects/adaptation-tool-for-local-authorities-atla/) Natural Capital Planning Tool (http://ncptool.com/) EcoAdapt (http://www.ecoadapt.org/) Oasis Platform (https://www.climatefinancelab.org/project/climate-risk-assessment/) ThinkNature platform (https://platform.think-nature.eu/) In conclusion, the participants stressed the need to develop NBS guidelines and a global standard that would foster legislation changes and influence European and National Policy centers. Training of experts according to these standards and subsequent tools would also promote NBS implementation and advance monitoring technologies.

https://www.ecoshape.org/en/

http://www.policysupport.org/ecoactuary

http://www.policysupport.org/costingnature)

https://www.climate-kic.org/projects/adaptation-tool-for-local-authorities-atla/

https://www.climate-kic.org/projects/adaptation-tool-for-local-authorities-atla/

http://ncptool.com/

http://www.ecoadapt.org/

https://www.climatefinancelab.org/project/climate-risk-assessment/

https://www.climatefinancelab.org/project/climate-risk-assessment/

https://platform.think-nature.eu/

67

Table 3 (Moderator: (Tecnalia), Minute taker: Juraj Jurik

(GIB))

Main Question: Explore and suggest approaches for indicator development, data

standardization and methodology harmonization for improving NBS assessment

schemes towards risk management and resilience

Following the gaps and challenges recognized in the 1st dialogue phase, the participants of Table 3 brainstormed on the opportunities for future developments in the NBS monitoring methodologies:

Monitoring framework: a short list of evaluation topics and potential KPIs is needed to assess NBS effectiveness to support decision making considering long-term implementation and maintenance, bespoke to different bio-regions. This is very much the aim of the EC Task Force II on NBS Impact Assessment.

NBS contribution to policy objectives (e.g. SDGs) should be connected to the monitoring framework.

Building capacity: Different levels of knowledge/expertise needed depending on the risk and NBS: ecosystem services assessment and health are identified as integrated approaches to assess NBS effectiveness.

Citizens’ observatories- not that accurate though but still very powerful to provide information on social perception and evaluation of emotional experiences as well as for empowering society and increase sense of co-responsibility and identity.

Comparative assessment between NBS and grey solutions to build confidence and towards legitimacy.

Validation of models and low-cost monitoring towards good quality data and results.

Mainstreaming NBS into policy: comprehensive consideration of NBS into existing policy framework i.e. integrated policies such as spatial planning and land use, but also sector policies such as agriculture, health, energy, water, soil, etc.

Standardization for design/delivery/monitoring: i) global standard of quality NBS to be used by

engineers/developers/practitioners, when delivering NBS projects. IUCN

has launched already this process.

ii) monitoring KPIs for evaluation of NBS effectiveness.

3 Key messages

Holistic NBS monitoring and impact evaluation is challenging due to the multiple (environmental, social, economic) and multi-scale (temporal – spatial) NBS benefits that are not yet clearly defined or fully recognized.

There are several technological, technical and knowledge gaps in the available monitoring methodologies for NBS impact evaluation that can be overcome by exploiting state-of-the-art technologies.

68


Methodological barriers:

Long term monitoring is often not feasible

Methodologies are often restricted to specific scales

Connection between scales is difficult

Lack of harmonization and standardization of monitoring variables, methods, assessment tools

Tradeoffs between cost effectiveness and data quality

Poor scientific quality of models

Lack of baseline data at local level

Highly resource consuming online tools

Economic valuation of NBS

Social benefit definition and measurement can be subjective

Future developments:

Modeling capabilities and advancement of scientific quality

Earth Observation technologies with enhanced spatial and temporal capacities

Harmonization, standardization and open accessibility to data and methods through cloud-based

platforms (e.g. Copernicus DIAS)

Low-cost sensors with improved data quality

Citizen science advancement (e.g. citizen observatories)

Big data and data science

NBS toolbox is advancing through several initiatives and projects

Global standard of NBS is needed to define monitoring targets

Connection of NBS with policy frameworks

Multidisciplinary and co-design approaches


community partners)

NBS community is growing and NBS planning and monitoring toolbox is advancing rapidly. There are several initiatives that promote knowledge and develop tools for the NBS community. NBS monitoring methodologies can be significantly improved towards a holistic framework if the latest technological advancements from various scientific fields were used (e.g. Earth Observation, modelling, Big Data, citizen science) EU can facilitate NBS monitoring framework through the development of Copernicus programme towards more local scale datasets and the operationalization of the DIAS platforms.

Technological advances in modelling capabilities, Earth Observation, data and citizen science are very promising and can be used as tools for achieving a complete NBS monitoring and evaluation framework.

69

EU can aid to the alignment of NBS targets with EU Directives (i.e. Water Framework Directive, Biodiversity) and the harmonization of reporting with regards to disaster risk reduction to allow comparability. Mainstreaming NBS into policy is very much needed such as the comprehensive consideration of NBS into existing policy frameworks of spatial planning and land use, but also sector policies such as agriculture, health, energy, water, soil, etc. NBS guidelines and a global standard is crucial to foster legislation changes and influence European and National Policy centers.

70

Parallel sessions: NBS financing, business models and decision-

making

Name of the session: Business Models for NBS – what are the essential

elements?

Summary of the talks

Structural conditions affecting the integration of NBS are finance, regulation and urban development. The Urban Nature atlas has 1000 cases across 100 cities in Europe. Public funding authorities are the most common funding source across NBS domains, hybrid governance and finance are common practice for urban NBS at all investment sizes. NBS can be cost effective if coordination can be realised, with categorisation of benefits and actors. Co-financing from local residents – Melbourne urban forest, and match funding between municipalities and crowd funding. Insurance firms co-delivering green roofs (as these mean a reduction in flood damage.)

Implementation of NBS projects is determined by the novelty of the concept – there are knowledge, governance and economic barriers. Knowledge silos prevents the transfer of knowledge. NBS are not a priority, they are under appreciated, people have short term vision and a risk perception of them. De-risking strategies

o Governance drivers help drive knowledge barriers

o Knowledge drivers help drive economic barriers

Looking for partner cities to collaborate with information on Urban Forests

Key outcomes and conclusions

NBS differ from infrastructure projects, when they are finished it is not over. NBS are seen as cycles for investments: building phase, maintenance, rehabilitation phase – different funding for each stage are needed. Pathways needed, not cycles for climate change adaptation – need to design solutions for resilience and climate shifting 20-30-year time frame which needs leadership, coordination and understanding maintenance. The life cycle costing is associated with risk, life cycle cost – there is a need for performance standards for NBS The matrix

Is there a sweet spot for projects within the matrix,

Who benefits, who pays not on matrix

Measuring co benefits alongside the matrix

Matrix seen as a strategy

Sunburst diagram is a better representation of how to plan

71

Climate projections also need to be part of the design criteria

Need adaptation pathways – so that today’s options are not counter productive for future conditions. The value of NBS and co benefits are not captured in the matrix Session summary = check out flip chart page If we are looking at 20-30-year solutions is it really a solution? Fake nature is static, controlled and high maintenance costs as we rely on it being the same which is not as nature works, nature works in succession. NBS need to be planned to work in succession so that they are self-maintaining. Some solutions are active engineered solutions and not all are passive.

Name of the session: Socio-economic benefit analysis of NBS

Summary of the talks

1.Public Procurement & NBS: key enablers and barriers /

Abstract: Green public procurement (GPP) is one of the key instruments that policy makers can employ to address their environmental policy targets. It promotes the development of innovative and sustainable technologies and solutions and facilitates innovation across a variety of relevant municipal departments. GPP is one of the key tools that could trigger a more efficient and sustainable NBS uptake in cities, while stimulating inter-departmental collaboration. However, successful implementation of NBS calls for well-defined GPP strategy that would allow for a wider array of potential solutions. Since NBS interventions often take on a wide range of characteristics and provide a spectrum of intangible benefits, procuring NBS might subject the municipal officers to additional uncertainty. The cities thus need to adopt the practice of looking beyond the most economically advantageous offers by enabling the holistic evaluation of the proposed solutions. To do so, the cities often need to re-evaluate their priorities, as well as allocate additional resources and expertise, which might impose additional challenges for carrying out NBS interventions. Yet, despite the complexity of moving towards the GPP practice to promote NBS, certain cities do not perceive it as a barrier for NBS implementation. This presentation introduces some of the potential explanations why this could be the case by unveiling the main findings of the Urban Nature Labs (UNaLab) project research on NBS procurement in the project’s Front-runner Cities. The session invites the participants to discuss these findings in light of the experience gathered in other European cities and projects to learn under which conditions GPP could become a key barrier and/or enabler for NBS

Bettina Wilks Notes from the talk:

What is public procurement?

Purchase of services, works and supplies by public authorities (14% of GDP

in the EU)

Can be a powerful demand-side policy tool to promote economic activity

in strategic areas, e.g. sustainability

At the moment lowest cost only criterion

72

Aim: investigate how would the cities go about procuring NBS

Green procurement # procurement of green (which is NBS related)

Findings procurement green spaces: 2 approaches / one is “traditional” – green spaces with one function for recreation and leisure, price is a strong selection criterion “non-traditional” – solution not yet known – then decision criterion is best value for the money (Environmental criteria - emission reduction, energy efficiency gains) Challenges:

Managing complexity

o Need for diversified project team

o Complying with procurement regulations

Ensuring objectivity

Discussion of findings & limitations

Where there is a will, there is a way

Innovation bias – looking at FRC, they want to participate

Departmental silos – procurement officers not familiar with NBS, no

knowledge about procurement processes on the other side

Discussion participants:

There are solutions not in demand by the private sector – would have

been interesting in looking into the private sector

2.Trinomics – using economic analysis for attracting funding for NBS – Trinomics

Abstract: It is well understood by practitioners that NbS investments produce multiple benefits to many different stakeholders across social, environmental and financial dimensions, but funding models for NbS investments seem to be largely stuck on grants and government funding. How can we better convey the benefits that NbS projects produce, link those benefits to their actual beneficiaries, and attract funding from them to expand the NbS estate? This presentation will describe one way to help address this problem by using a process that translates the outcomes of NbS investments into economic terms, allowing them to be measured and linked to relevant beneficiaries who might then be encouraged to co-fund NbS investments to match the benefit they receive. The process allows for benefits over the long term to be considered and has been developed and tested in real situations. Bettina Wilks Notes from the talk: 5 step process from Grow Green, the underlying idea is that there are three categories of costs (implementation, maintenance etc.) with multiple benefits accruing to different stakeholders – that’s why funding should be sought by different stakeholders (mix).

3.Making procurement and investments decisions on NBS –

Abstract: Sustainable Asset Valuation (SAVi) on Stephenfield Reservoir and Pelly’s Lake, Manitoba About the project:

73

IISD is using the SAVi methodology to evaluate the financial attractiveness of nature-based infrastructure in Manitoba. The objective is to provide value, in financial terms, to infrastructure services rendered by nature-based infrastructure and compare them to civil engineered alternatives. Natural and bio-engineered ecosystems provide us with a range of infrastructure services which remain undervalued in financial terms. Research and literature are certainly advancing in quantifying the environmental and social of nature-based infrastructure. We are also accounting for revenues from carbon offsets, commercialisation of bio-fuels by-products and more. But the investment case for nature-based assets remains a challenge, for nature-based asset don’t generate revenues. Instead, they enable us to;

- reduce spending on the financing, building and maintaining built assets

- generate a range of positive environmental, social and economic externalities that when financially valued, can strengthen the broader case for the conservation of natural ecosystems at large.

This project focused on 2 nature-based assets in Manitoba: Due to the topography and hydrological dynamics in the watershed, Manitoba experiences frequent flooding across the landscape. We want to understand the distributed storage capacity of water across Manitoba’s watershed, and to know if we can get more water storage for less cost, plus the added benefits, from natural infrastructure developments. The model will help identify and monetize the benefits and costs of infrastructure development projects in Manitoba. We hope to use this model to target governments and conservation districts for policy and decision-making processes related to retention dams, water storage and flood mitigation strategies in the province. Natural Infrastructure: Pelly’s Lake, which encompasses 630 acres and is located in south central Manitoba in the Pembina Valley, within the LaSalle Redboine Conservation District. The Pelly’s Lake Ecological Management Area developed a water retention project, designed to manage flood water but with added benefits of wetland health, biodiversity, habitat, recharge groundwater, nutrient and sediment sequestration, carbon offsets, biomass-economy, etc. Built Infrastructure: The Stephenfield Reservoir, a 370 m2 lake, built in 1963 by the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, is located east of Pelly’s Lake, Manitoba. The reservoir, now owned by Manitoba Water Stewardship, is used to store water for irrigation and municipal water supply. The site is also used for tourism and recreation.

We designed this SAVi analysis to:

Compare the capital and operating costs of these 2 nature-based assets against those of a business-as-usual civil engineered solution

Value the positive externalities or co-benefits provided by these assets what would not be availed by civil engineered solutions

In the case of Stephenfield reservoir, we will also calculate the economic value added in supplying water for municipal uses verses supplying water for irrigation.

The SAVi Interim results are summarised below

The analysis began with meetings with stakeholders and asset owners – LaSalle Redboine Conservation District and Manitoba Water Stewardship. The models

74

were then developed bespoke to each asset. IISD is in continuous dialogue with the asset owners an associated stakeholders to obtain and validate data and scenarios. We also built on IISD’s ongoing work and collaboration on Pelly’s Lake. In November 2018, IISD will be discussing these interim results with the asset owners. Based on their feedback the analysis will be expanded and finalised. The final results will be published in early 2019.

Notes from the talk:

She works on infrastructure procurement largely in advisory.

NBS similar to infrastructure services

Lot to learn from infrastructure public procurement and how one might

approach procurement of NBS

Procurers are by oath bound to buy best value for money (cheapest

solution) # green or sustainable PP says value from money comes when

you look at the value generated across the lifecycles

Issue with NBS is that it takes a longer time to plan infrastructure

projects with NBS integrated therein – project preparation and project

development costs are higher – big problem

Procurement and innovation cycle for NBS

Innovation need – if governments were to ask what they need as opposed

to what they want to buy, it would be easier to promote NBS

Opportunities to identify and integrate NBS

Market consultations: understand the skills, experience and solutions

provided by suppliers

Design competitions especially when you are working the first time with

NBS: let the market send you ideas and use these ideas to write

performance-based specifications

Part 2 / Outbreak Groups

Notes from Group 1

1. Key Barriers to procuring NBS

Legal and institutional - governance

Lack of knowledge – lack of comprehension of how they work and what they require

- assessment of tenders/bids

-what they are, what are their benefits, how to assess them

Need a clear definition with clear typology, pioneer case studies to inspire people, there is a lack of common language

56.

Translating outcomes/assessing benefits (environmental benefit) into socioeconomic value

Different scales – whos gains and pays and the cost/gain can be known at scale not equal to the project

Low track record of NBS – needed successful case studies to inspire confidence. Perceived reputational risk of implementation

75

Finance, and funding transitions between implementation and long-term management

There are no vulnerability maps

Implementation steps

2. What are the key competencies required to implement/procure NBS

Social entrepreneurship

Municipalities or network of municipalities

Knowledge on procurement levers and mechanisms and regulations

Interested in value rather than costs

Ability to learn from all specialists and integrate that cost benefits along the life cycle

Understanding of how to create a market for NBS

3. What support mechanisms are needed

Reward for innovations

Design centre for excellence to build project teams

Demo projects and performance outcomes

Specific polices and specific training

Knowledge on technical criteria and performance assessment

Contract performance based on KPI

Notes from Group 2

Participants: Two people specialized in procurement, one city representative, rest

researchers across environmental and social disciplines

What are the key barriers for cities to procure NBS?

o Do procurers understand what are NBS?

o Do they understand what actions are available?

o Expertise to set criteria and evaluate bids?

Points from the group:

Measure the environmental benefits that NBS can provide (what tools are

out there and how to apply them)

How to put it into a procurement tender?

Funding in terms of funding the transition from carbon use to sustainable

use, transition has to be fair in social terms

Lack of knowledge how they make an impact on vulnerability

No regulation that allows for NBS – procurement rules procurers have to

adhere to

lack of knowledge

no knowledge how to assess benefits

links of costs and gains and the different scales you have to manage –

build locally but benefits are accruing on a larger scale

cost will depend on the life cycle but NBS are living solutions

lack of knowledge about different types of NBS that they can use – need

guidance / simple typology

76

they need to know the benefits and which tools to use to assess the

benefits and at which step of the design (pre-design phase for choice)

need to know how to implement such NBS – protocol which step they

should respect

lack of track record for NBS (procurers need to instil confidence on

bosses, not sure about savings, uncertainty, does not help innovative

procurement towards NBS)

legal and institutional barriers (force hold to strengthen the flood

defence in a dam that had water on two sides – at ones side they were

allowed to make it on other side not), jurisdiction of different parties –

need to be unified: lack of knowledge and perceptions; traditional

paradigms of spatial managers (need to be predictable over a longer

period); lack of common language (if you want to value ES, all clients and

bidders need to use the same methodology)

procurers perceive reputation risk: obligation to guard the value of tax

payers money they like a thorough and predictable process (anything

unusual they would not like to risk) – risk adversion

no money to plan projects

no institutional capacity

national and local regulations diverge

no integrated planning of infrastructure (17 Mio EUR project financed but

no money for maintenance afterwards)

conflicts between different state agencies

Key competencies procurers need for NBS

Ability to talk with people from different domains

Communication with other departments and different actors

Knowledge of technical criteria and performance assessment

Knowledge of LCA applied to costs and benefits – help through databases

Accept uncertainties to pilot

Question of who needs to learn to communicate to whom – again issue

that there is no common language

Basic knowledge – training

Need for specialists to design NBS and assess them

Contract performance indicators, such as exist for buildings

Need to combine NBS with grey solutions, not only add NBS

Innovation broker specialized in NBS – someone who brings the buyer and

seller together

Procurers are sitting in a back office at the end of a dark corridor,

administrators – we ask them to be decision-makers, there has to be

empowerment of the procurements profession to let them take on the

risk that you want them to take

Knowledgeable in procurement mechanisms and regulations – they are not

specialists

They need to be self-aware and open to include expert opinions

They should be interested in procuring value rather than minimizing costs

Strict, transparent and clear

a transdisciplinary team from different fields should be established that is

the interface with decision-making processes, scientists have no training

77

in working with policy-makers - municipalities have the competence to

enforce this co-creation of knowledge approach

when it comes to implementation of NBS (given that the decision to

integrate NBS has been taken) knowledge about ecology, biodiversity and

climate change risk is needed – NBS resilient and adaptable to future

challenges

common language but which one should we choose for that? Procurers

think in economic terms – open question: do we translate everything into

value, or do we try to get procurers more on our way of thinking –

guidance, training on NBS?

Integration into different disciplines, broadly able to communicate with

different people

Getting a new understanding of the role of procurement – public sector to

promote new technologies

Component on social entrepreneurship in procurement is missing – design

centre of excellence that people could draw on, project manager that

can have that profile

Name of the session: Local planning and bottom-up governance for NBS and sustainable land use

management

Date: 04/04/2019

Presenters: Moderator: (University of Bologna),

(City of Bologna), (Malmö City Planning Office),

(City of Zagreb)

Notes taken by: Alexis David (ECTP), Juraj Jurik (GIB) Heather Elgar (WENP)

Meeting Notes

Presentations :

(City of Bologna) Bologna launched 12 partnerships in 2016, that aimed to tackle 12 major target issues. One of them was called “sustainable use of land and NBS”. presents one of these partnerships, linked to the issue called “sustainable use of land and NBS”.

78

The partnership gathers representatives of cities (such as Bologna, assisted by the university of Bologna), local authorities (in Belgium, Ireland, France, Norway, Germany and Croatia), member states of the EU, EC institutions (DGs), the world of research, other partners (e.g. EIB) and observers. They are a group of end-users. The work is done on a voluntary basis: it’s a strong commitment. Its idea is to create a new way of governance to decide what urban areas need. Like the other partnerships, they have to prepare an action plan in one year, and then to implement it. The partnership has been launched in June 2017. The plan was published in July 2018, then validated end of 2018. There were 9 areas of action. For those concerning the NBS, there was a specific action to boost them at a local level, and to find a better financing system. Overview of the objectives:

- Better understand the role and application of existing indicators of land

use

- Provide EU commission with recommendations on integration of NBS into

current regulations

- Understanding the needs and the barriers for better funding NBS

- Investigate local minimum legal requirement and planning alternatives

(Malmö City Planning Office)

presented an example of peculiar planning in the new harbour of Malmö, where the idea is to implement NBS trough competition. They would like to obtain a dense and green city, where nature provides ecosystem services. The comprehensive plan for Malmö directs the development of the city towards dense and green using the ecosystem services as a basis describing the different challenges in different parts of the city. In the New Harbour they are aiming to let the private developers to deliver nature based solutions on identified local challenges by an evaluation and a dialog connected to the building permission process. To secure the implementation of nature based solutions we are targeting the contract between the city as a land owner and the developer. The harbour is a huge area that has to be rebuilt/re-used. It’s an enormous opportunity for NBS, since planners can start from scratch. They are currently planning, but they want the plan to be flexible, with limited hard rules. They would like the developers to see the green challenges and opportunities by themselves. Developers must have a long-term vision. They should be local and small, as Malmö believes they will be more opened to find new ideas and will be more concerned. The timeline is short. From the interest notification of the developer to the beginning of construction, maximum 1,5 year.

(City of Zagreb)

present some clear examples of NBS projects within Zagreb. ¼ of the Croatian population lives in Zagreb, which represents only 1% of the land. Only

79

1/3 of the city is built, which allows Zagreb to have 75% of green area (with large variations between districts: from 3% to 92%). Zagreb was one of the fastest growing European cities during the last centuries. 100 years ago, there were not even 100 000 inhabitants. There is now more than 1 million. City planner did not have time to adapt. There were many abandoned zones. Strategic projects aimed to readapt, re-use or revitalise them. Some projects included NBS: new buildings, re-opening/re-use of river banks, playgrounds for children, urban gardens, aquaponic sites on buildings, etc. In particular she focused on two different initiatives: the Urban Agenda partnership, as the city of Zagreb is a city aprtner and Acton elader, and the H2020 project ProGIreg, where Zagreb is one of the frontruner city that will co-develop and co-implement Nature Based solutions in a deprived area of the city. All the presentation will be made availbel thoruhg THINKNATURE. After the 3 presentation the moderators briefly presented the main question riaised by the presentations and the methodology that will be followed for the particiaptory session. Participants have been asked to split into 3 groups and each group will follow this

phase:

- Brief presentation of the topic of the group bu the moderator - Replies to proposed questions by the participants - Discussion - Final thoughts (post-it)

Dialogue

1st group discussion and results (moderator: ):

Question raised:

1. How to support decision makers in defining priorities for land use favouring NBS?

2. How to face the increasing issue of green gentrification?

Participants discussed the above questions, sharing experiences from different countries and different stakeholder perspectives. There was general agreement about a wide range of barriers in integrating NBS into the planning system, and opportunities to overcome these barriers. These largely relate to: general challenges of change management; lack of understanding of NBS as a principle (and the need for trained experts) but also specific local opportunities (data gaps); the need to build public awareness, demand and buy-in for NBS; the need for strong leadership and empowerment; and the need to break through siloed working and for more integrated forward planning.

There was a sub-discussion around how to balance social needs in the implementation of NBS, and thus address the issue of green gentrification (where extant communities are priced out of an area which has received investment in its green spaces). This is a challenge as the uplift of land value as a result of NBS is often a key aspect of its business case. There was a question as to whether

80

greening or gentrification comes first (i.e. is the gentrification inevitable or something that NBS should be seeking to actively address).

2nd group discussion and results (moderator ):

Question raised:

1. Which are the main barriers to set a real participatory approach in NBS

design, financing and implementation?

2. How to boost co-ownership and engagement of citizens in maintenance

and implementation of NBS?

There was a general consensus about the fact that people participate if they recognize benefits for their own lives coming from the participatory process. To this purpose a clear definition of health benefits, economic benefits and cost effectiveness of NBS would be very useful as well as NBS standards. Some of these benefits are to be experienced in the long-term and thus their effect is not immediately evident for the community. The discussion converged on the need for a social representation of NBS as enhancing the feeling of community at the neighbourhood is one of the expected benefits. This should help to avoid the bias that NBS are a luxury and overcome conflicting interests of citizens and groups participating to the process. The introduction of elements in the project such as vegetable gardens may be a key factor. All the participants to the discussion agreed on the need for investing on awareness raising on NBS in order to gain a better understand of people on NBS as well as on nature, biodiversity ecosystem services etc. The lack of knowledge has been identified as one of the main barriers for the engagement of people. Awareness raising may be achieved with specific public campaigns as well as the development of public NBS pilot projects that can work as demonstrators. Awareness campaigns should also aim at promoting new habits and lifestyles in citizens as well as provide a common language, a NBS glossary. The presentation of case studies may help as well in overcoming the awareness problem. An example may be given by the many associations and communities in the USA taking care of natural resources (eg: Friends of Tanner Springs Park https://friendsoftannersprings.org/). A specific branch of awareness raising campaigns should aim at education in schools considering NBS as part of education process, getting their views of young people and involving them in constructing the project NBS even organizing school projects in NBS sites. Moreover, discussion singled out a lack of knowledge on the economic value of NBS; it is thus difficult to provide sound information on this topic. As management/maintenance of NBS is a critical aspect, community organizations could be supported for being active in management phase (“fee for service” approach). This should increase the general feeling of inclusion in the project. The organization and the governance of the participatory process should be done in order to involve people since the early stages of the project following all the steps towards its realizations and maintenance/management. The process should support the bottom-up approach involving all actors included people and stakeholders not sensible to environmental issues. This may not be so easy as the list of actors, including public authorities, developers, etc., and the time lapse of

81

consultation projects are two critical issues. “Participatory budgeting” could be the right approach to be used.

One of the main barriers identified is the lack of resources for supporting the participatory process, both in terms of finance and of human capacities (professionals are still not skilled on NBS and local authorities still operate in silos). A possibility for overcoming these barriers may consist in establishing public/private partnerships for co-funding, co-designing and co-managing NBS. Another possibility could be based on local incentives for participation (“participatory budgeting” is again an example. Local authorities should even provide adequate facilities for the public participation process. Another specific challenge is how to boost NBS in municipalities with several where a significant cultural heritage is present.

The discussion outlined the existence of specific tools that may be used for

boosting co-ownership and engagement of citizens in participatory processes such

as:

- Climate KIC “Climathon” 24 hours on local implementation of NBS; - Participatory planning with citizens / Emotional maps.

The discussion enhanced an additional advantage of NBS that should be explored

dealing with the increase of touristic attractiveness of communities where NBS are

present.

3rd group UNIBO)

3. What is the current status of integration of NBS in local planning practices and regulation?

4. What are the legal and governance barriers at local level for the further uptake of NBS?

5. Can minimum legal requirements and planning standards boost the further uptake of NBSs? If not, what could boost this process at local level?

3rd group discussion and results (

Question raised:

1) What is the current status of integration of NBS in local planning practices and regulation?

2) What are the legal and governance barriers at local level for the further uptake of NBS?

3) Can minimum legal requirements and planning standards boost the further uptake of NBSs? If not, what could boost this process at local level?

From the discussion it came out that there are several good pactices including NBS

requirement into legal planning mechanism, most of them coming from Third

countries or EU Northern countries:

82

New York obligates to have green roofs, blue roofs or PV on their new

buildings… or to explain why not. There is unfortunately a majority of “why

not”

NL obligates to have water storage on rooftops

Sweden (Stockholm) obligates that inhabitants can access a green area at a

max. distance of +/-300m

Example from the south: Bilbao imposed a minimum of green areas in its

master plan

In terms of legal and governance barriers at local level for further NBS uptake

there was an agreement on the following:

property of the land – if there are several owners involved, it might block any

process

protected areas/district and architectural patrimony impeach actions

Cars use an enormous amount of space in cities. Keeping cars out of the city

would give a lot a space to NBS initiatives, and globally speaking would

improve the quality of life. This point has been mentioned by many people.

Everything is often about the price in the selection of a project. This does not

favour NBS projects.

There are often conflicting regulations (EU directives, national directives, local

directives …). Sometimes building green even consists in “breaking the law”

(cannot insulate an external façade or build a green façade because of a

historical monument nearby)

Sometimes conflicting rules apply within a same city. E.g. in Poland, where

guidelines promote NBS, but where public authorities are obligated by law to

always select the cheapest offer

We implement nature inside cities, that is great. But we don’t always focus on

the quality of this “vegetalisation”: we plant the same kind of trees that all die

in case of disease, green roof sometimes are not deep enough or host species

that come from far away (not ecological), …

In conclusion there was an interesting discussion concerning the main question of the table: can minimum legal requirements and planning standards boost NBS uptakes? Trying summarizing:

o Yes:

▪ we should set compulsory standards such as xx m² of green area per

inhabitant

▪ In south-East Europe maybe, because they will always use concrete…

until they are forced to do something else

▪ Yes, if we use measurable “green factors” for projects, and set

minimums

o Yes but:

▪ Yes, if we reverse the way of setting rules. For example: instead of

setting a minimum of parking spots per building/district, set a

maximum -> maximum instead of minimum

o No:

83

▪ in some countries, e.g. USA, minimums might not work. It’s better to

have guidelines

If not, what could boost this process at local level?

o Raising the awareness of citizens. With well aware people, regulations

won’t be necessary

o It’s not only about setting targets. It’s about thinking about how to reach

them when we write them

o Start with a strategy and push it (especially by the mayor), if you want to

achieve something (input given by a Greek participant, who claims that

it must work like this in the southern mentality)

o Provide more data and inputs, through several models, before making

plans.


- General challenges of change management;

- lack of understanding of NBS as a principle (and the need for trained experts) but also specific

local opportunities (data gaps);

- the need to build public awareness, demand and buy-in for NBS;

- the need for strong leadership and empowerment

- the need to break through siloed working and for more integrated forward planning

- lack of resources (not just funds but also human capitals


community partners)

Recommendation:

Local government: set-up participatory process, create consensus among agreed solutions, involve a wide range of stakeholder sin the decision, include NBSs into planning practices and tools Academic research: provide and create evidences of benefit and co-benefit of NBSs solutions and support dissemination of those awareness raising

3 Key messages

Awareness raising is crucial and transversal in all sector and stakeholders from the civil society to the private sector to plan agreed and effective NBSs

Better regulation is needed in terms of better integration of NBS into current guidelines, green public procurement, climate adaptation and mitigation plan and general planning practices. No one-fits-all solutions, but tailored recommendations per city have to be developed. EU northern countries can already provide good practices in this sense

Participatory process is needing to create a broad consensus around NBSs. The created consensus will help in the implementation, maintenance and use of the NBS. This process also contributes to avoid green gentrification processes

84

85

Day 2

Parallel sessions: Can nature enhance urban resilience?

Can Nature support quality of life and resilience?

Session

Some proof of the positive impact of NBS on health (Kaiser & al, 2013) and

facilitate healthy behaviors (resilience?)

Enhance perception of neighborhood quality (quality of life) (Hidalgo

&Hernandez, 2001)

Major Theories to face climate change in urban environment:

Restoration theory (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989)

Stress Reduction theory (Ulrich & al, 1991)

Define the need to mitigate the impact of climate change with transition to

sustainability by encouraging policies, to maximize the effects from NBS in terms of

wellbeing, cohesion, safety and adaptation.

One key aspect is to change our habits to sustainable lifestyle.

GLAMMURS project to explore sustainable lifestyles.

GLAMMURS: Co-production of Knowledge to sustainable lifestyle.

Urban context needs a change in our way to use natural resources.

Question arise: How can we promote an upscaling of practices and sustainable

lifestyles and transform economies in a sustainable direction.

It engages stakeholders and scientist to create knowledge through their interactions.

Session

Paris Resilience Strategy: The Oasis Schoolyards

Multiples pillars to adapt the city to climate change

1 Paris as an inclusive and cohesive city that build on the strength of

Parisian residents to become more resilient.

86

First solution that is based on the social way to cope with climate change. With goals

attainable by solidarity: create conditions that encourage kindness among neighbors

and inclusion at the neighborhood level.

2 Paris a city built and developed to meet the challenges of the next

century

Second solution based on the infrastructure and its adaptation to inexorable climate

change, with solution based on promoting resilient urbanism in a dense city or design

infrastructure that creates multiples benefits.

3 Paris a city who mobilize its collective intelligence, adapts it’s operations

and cooperate with the surrounding territories

The transition to climate change will only be possible with cooperation with the

surrounding territories.

Oasis Schoolyards project

Goal: transform schoolyards into « cool island » to cope with the global warming

expected.

It’s a technical and social adaptation. Utilization of new materials and techniques and cool islands develop social cohesion.

Session

There was a big evolution in the way humans create buildings. Originally, were used available and local materials. New construction processes and new technologies have conducted to a globalization of the modern architecture, making our city’s more vulnerable to temperature change and heatwaves. On a long-term approach we need to process urban transformation and changes in our lifestyles to produce a “good climate change”. Paris’s commitment is growing more project to cope with climate change. Adaptation to climate change by the authorities is done by a four-step framework

(Agrawala & al, 2011; Moser & Ekstrom, 2010).

Detect the problem and recognize the risk

Understanding the risk

Planning

Managing

What we know? what research can bring?

Center on a city and building scale it is possible to reduce heat release, manage ventilation, protect from direct sunlight, cool the environment. We must not expect everything from the science/accept that our action and their impact is not visible at first/integrate uncertainty/No reproducibility solutions (local reflection is needed).

87

Does this session bring an answer to the thematic question?

This session brings some response to the general question with theoretical points showing the impact of NBS on quality of life in health-related aspects (Ricardo Garcia Mira) and our way to cope with specific change in our manner to approach NBS in the city and the way we think its construction (

. Specific application of how we can use NBS to the city is given with the example of Oasis schoolyards, showing a way to adapt buildings (especially a one frequented by a vulnerable population). Opening to other questions?

This session brought question about how to adapt our everyday life and way of organizing the city to cope with global and inevitable climate change. It may open questions about how do we prevent ourselves to more change? In this session a key element presented by the different session is the inevitable aspect of climate change, and our need to cope with the already ongoing transformations. Effect of NBS on our overall health and some concrete example of application can give us some way to think about to future concrete application of NBS in the city and how we can expand NBS to other types of buildings.

Name of the session: Can green housing quality encourage to resilience?

Organiser of the

session:

ECTP - European Construction, built environment and

energy efficient building Technology Platform

Date: Friday 5th April, 11:00-13:00

Presenters: Alain Zarli (ECTP, moderator), (Columbia University and City of New

York), Maeva Sabre (CSTB), (QUALIBAT and Europan France)

Notes taken by: Alexis David (ECTP)

Presentations:

(Columbia University, )

New York City has 4 “values” in its projects: Sustainability, Resilience, Social equity, Health. The idea of resilience is especially strong since hurricane Sandy in 2012. NY has launched several related NBS projects since then. There was also a specific focus on improving the quality of housing, especially because of NY’s quite old building stock. The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), the largest landlord in NY, is in charge of this programme. Hurricane Sandy revealed the dangers of nature and the unsuitability of some housing buildings, such as the Baruch Houses that host +/- 60.000 inhabitants. Most of it has been flooded after Sandy. Large surfaces appeared to be really not

88

adapted and retained water during long periods (playgrounds, paved areas, parking lots, …). Six years later, reparation still have to be done. NYCHA understood the need to change its approach in future construction projects. It started introducing NBS and new measures. For example, a rule imposed to include green or blue solutions during roofs repairs, or to explain why such solutions were not possible (unfortunately, a majority of projects chose to explain “why not”). NYCHA also launched projects which consisted in elevating equipment or structures, to protect them from flooding. They designed as well emergency post-disaster housing, that could be quickly build after the event.

R. Bell provides some examples of these projects:

Re-use of former industrial sites in Manhattan’s East Side and Long Island City.

Sport structures and recreational area built in zones exposed to flooding: citizen can still use these areas and no damage would be cause if flooded.

Via Verde (housing): buildings of different heights, connected by bridges and stairs, with roof gardens, to provide a recreational-green area. Flagship project pushed by the mayor.

…

(CSTB)

presents the European GROOF project (Greenhouses to reduce CO2 on rooftop, 09/2017-08/2021), funded under the EU Interreg programme (North West Europe) and that gathers 11 partners from 5 countries (Luxemburg, Belgium, Germany, France, Spain). It aims at facilitating the emergence of greenhouses on rooftop on the market by supporting their implementation. Thanks to specific technologies, those greenhouses will enable to:

Recover the heat generated but not consumed by a building for the production of plants and vegetables (through ventilation systems or other ways)

Recover human CO2 to feed vegetables

Reduce CO2 emission due to transport, by producing vegetables locally

Such a rooftop project presents a certain number of issues:

Security: for the building and for the inhabitants

Performances: such as energy, water, comfort… (will they be satisfying?)

Compliance with regulations/standards, which can be numerous

Which innovative technologies will be necessary?

How to ensure the usage and services

For this project, the communication was a very important aspect. It is crucial to explain the idea and impacts to the inhabitants and public authorities. Also, the project included a reflection on the long-term approach: what happens after the

89

project, and how to ensure that the greenhouse survives with all performances maintained. The first phase of the project consisted in learning from existing urban farms and from a state of the art. The second phase consists in identifying early adopters across North West Europe. The call is currently opened. In a first step, 10 projects will be kept. After a socio-economical, structural, plants selections, energetic performances analysis of the initial projects, 4 of them will be kept and supported. The third phase is to build 4 pilots or rooftop greenhouses and to monitor them in order to carry out, during a final step, an evaluation of CO2 performances. All of these experiences and knowledge will be summarized in two guidelines one for experts and one for none experts.

(President of QUALIBAT and Europan France)

Engineers can now show that nature in cities can reduce temperatures by 0.5-2°C and that it improves the air quality. Also, too much impermeabilization of grounds in cities increases risks of floods and decreases the water quality (rain water drains bad minerals and components). The nature can counterbalance that, especially through the implementation of rooftops.

provided a historical perspective on the presence of nature in cities: - from the Roman empire to the Renaissance, cities were purely mineral. Towns were limited and nature stayed outside. A reason was that people in cities were a minority compared to people living in rural areas. - during the Classical/Baroque period, a new vision of architecture emerged with the “jardins à la française” (gardens that are fully designed and shaped). Humans consider that they should master nature and shape it how they want, just like with minerals. - during the 19th century emerge the English gardens/parks. Nature becomes a less organised and comes into towns, but still in low proportions. Not in Paris though, due to Haussmann’s works. - during the 20th and 21st centuries, the urban population grows and starts complaining about the lack of nature in towns. This will of the population comes in opposition to planners, who tend to keep building and adding concrete/minerals in towns. - nowadays, the construction sector is changing its habits. There is no separation between nature and buildings, solutions mixing the two appear. This is a major change. Nature, with different species, now appears on walls, gardens, roofs, etc. The city tends to welcome more biodiversity than rural fields, where agriculture wants destroy species to prefer monoculture (which actually make cities’ honey better than honey in monocultural fields areas). Also, with urban agriculture, it is quite a revolution not to have only decorative nature in cities, but also food producing nature. In occidental countries, more than 90% of population is urban. We can oppose urbans-born people and the ones that became urban. The urban-borns have always lived in towns. Now, they want to be reintroduced into nature, to know nature, not in a sense of domination but of humility. If we want people to stay in towns, we will have to introduce enough nature (question of “intensity”).

90

These urban people also foster the consumption of organic/local/quality food/ancient species, unlike the rural areas. In this sense, it is the urban people who promote biodiversity. Therefore, does not oppose nature and cities. Cities are not “all bad”, buildings adopt new clean materials, etc. We are in a period of reinvention and creativity, with drastic changes in our relation with nature. But different species (animals and plants) might develop in cities and outside cities.

Dialogue

How can we claim surface for these NBS and installations that we want in cities?

- Several persons mention the we should remove cars from cities and claim road and parking lots surface

- : there are already many initiatives (bike lanes, taxes on cars for ex in NY, make parking extremely difficult or expensive, ….). The idea is to push people to find alternatives.

- : if we manage to produce food inside cities, we will reduce transportation of goods in cities and therefore gain space (in addition re the reduction of CO² emission, etc.)

What economical model can we follow?

- : the economic costs do not reflect the real costs on nature. We need other taxes, such as the “carbon tax”. This tax is implemented in nordic countries, but it is much harder to implement in France for example. We must really think of how to create a real economic model of NBS. E.g. organic food is bought by richer people in cities, which is unequitable. But the expansion of this consumption might lower prices, and finally all social classes might be able to buy them.

Are we seeing a new model of cities arrive, with archipelagos instead of one “old”

center?

- : we must organize suburban areas differently indeed. Multi-center must appear to enable the development of sustainable cities.

3 Key messages

We see an evolution of construction and planning practices, that aim to create more resilient cities. Practices adapt to the effects of climate change, while taking into account the quality of housing and the well-being of inhabitants.

Examples prove that NBS and green housing can be a common answer to all the previous goals.

91


NBS has to find its economic model. Apart from rooftops, there is little space available in cities to implement new NBS.

Observation (if any)

Such as in other conferences and roundtables, the will to remove cars from cities has been expressed again by participants.

Cities and nature are not necessarily opposed. Urban citizens want more and more nature in their cities, they welcome NBS and cities tend to foster biodiversity.

92

Name of the session: Session 3 : Can nature and landscape contribute to resilience?

Date: 05/05/2019 11.00-13.00

Presenters: Paris Sansoglou (EuDA, Moderation), (Nijmegen, Room for the Waal), (French Regional Nature Parks and Climate Change, Federation of French Regional Nature Parcs), University of Nanterre, Positive effects of nature on Humans)

Notes taken by: Paris Sansoglou (EuDA)

Presentations :

Introduction to the Session’s Question:

Can nature and landscape contribute to resilience?

Landscapes are very varied and are interconnecting sometimes complex human and natural elements, the resilience of which is being tested by the new challenges emanating from climate change. In this session, a scientist, an expert and a policy-maker explored the importance and the challenges linked to a multidisciplinary approach with examples cases from coastal, urban and riparian landscapes. During the session, the participants discussed the resilience of these landscapes and how it can be enhanced with Nature-Based Solutions (NBS). In-depth understanding of the risks and responses in each situation is essential to identify optimal solutions, as well as to assess the role of NBS in these solutions and how they contribute to the landscape’s resilience when integrated and implemented through holistic and their effective policies.

93

Answer(s) to the Session’s Question:

Can nature and landscape contribute to resilience?

Yes, nature and landscape can contribute to resilience under certain conditions. During the Session, the speakers and participants highlighted that transforming problems to be tackled, such as reduction of significant risks, into opportunities for additional improvement for the local quality of life. They illustrated that in the process of thinking globally (strategies for climate change adaptation, energy transition and environmental transition) and acting locally in a sustainable way (to contribute to the local economic, social, cultural development and quality of life), it is essential to establish a structured dialogue between the local administrations, private and economic stakeholders. However, the main difficulties include the management of multidisciplinarity (especially the interdisciplinary understanding, trust building and effective cooperation) and facilitation of stakeholders’ involvement.

With this local involvement and multidisciplinary approach properly managed, knowledge and best practices can be exchanged and lead to commonly designed policies/solutions that protect, valorise and sustainably develop the regional and local identities as well as their heritage and landscape values. Co-creation and co-design of the projects by the local municipalities and stakeholders, allow to gather local collective knowledge, increase the project’s multiple added-value to society and improve its acceptance base. The necessary knowledge to design and implement optimal nature-based solution involves expert knowledge (from multiple disciplines) as well as the collective local knowledge (that needs to be valorised and translated into clear requirements)

94

Room for the Waal Between the cities of Nijmegen and Lent, the Waal river makes a sharp bend. The winter bed is very narrow at this point in the river. During extreme high-water levels, like the extreme flooding of 1993 and 1995, the location acts as a bottleneck. The River Waal is too narrow to drain away large volumes of water. The problem is especially acute near the city of Nijmegen, where the river is trapped in a narrow winter bed between the dykes. In order to be able to drain away high water, the river needed more space at this point. Together with the municipality of Nijmegen and its residents, Rijkswaterstaat decided to implement the project Room for the Waal that planned to move the dyke at Lent 350 meters land inwards, dredge an ancillary channel in the flood plain to help drain the river during extremely high water. The project had a twin focus: to protect Nijmegen and its backland from future floods, and to increase the urban (spatial) quality. This in turn creates better flood protection for the area behind the dyke. Repositioning a dyke is a very radical but also effective and sustainable measure to better protect the watershed against floods. With the island and the ancillary channel, Nijmegen has been given an entirely new landscape with new opportunities for recreation and new urban development. One of the main challenges was to get the locals on board. The City of Nijmegen involved them from the beginning in the design phase and the collective local knowledge proved crucial in finding the optimal solution as well as in reviving the local cultural heritage.

Key Messages :

transform problems (significant flooding risks) into opportunities (besides solving the immediate problem(s), the project can be an opportunity to improve the local quality of life);

by co-creating and co-designing the projects with local stakeholders, municipalities gather the collective local knowledge and can significantly improve the project’s acceptance base;

and effectively bring multiple added-value to society (protected area with new recreation facilities and a revival of the past ‘water culture’);

95

French Regional Nature Parks and climate change: Understanding the issues, acting and building shared solutions A regional nature park is an inhabited rural area or peri-urban area, recognised at a national level for its high heritage and landscape value and organised in a concerted project of sustainable development to protect and valorise this heritage. When they are created for a renewable period of fifteen years (duration of a national charter), regional nature parks enter a process of construction and arbitration between development and preservation, conservation and creation, experimentation and maintenance. For nearly 20 years, the French Regional Nature Parks network has been working with the local stakeholders of its 53 territories to find solutions for climate change control and adaptation strategies as well as energy and environmental transition. For these parks, combining exceptional natural spaces and urbanisation with strong environmental and heritage quality, the issue of resilience is almost existential! The philosophy:

- protect landscapes and cultural heritage… - contribute to land use planning - contribute to economic, social, cultural development and quality of life - contribute to welcoming educating and informing the public - carry out experimental or exemplary actions in the above-mentioned

fields. + contribute to research programs. With regard to climate change, this dimension is particularly sensitive for coastal territories such as the Camargue or the Gulf of Morbihan. In these territories, climate change is perceptible by all through a disruption of the coastline and a need to rethink the way in which the territory functions in all its activities. In order to adapt to climate change, Parks establish a multidisciplinary team to deal with the all subjects without omitting the various issues. Over the past ten years, there has been a real awareness among the population and companies of the notion of quality of life, preservation of the planet and collective responsibility in adapting to the climate and in the fight against this change. The way forward for the Regional Nature Parks of France is to work locally on climate adaptation plans that lead to more qualitative lifestyles by promoting knowledge, sharing and the development of shared solutions, and make it possible to pursue the Parks' non-standard mission.

Key Messages :

the charter recognising regional nature parcs in France is in fact a process for rural areas with remarkable landscape features to develop more sustainably;

96

by establishing a structured dialogue between the local stakeholders, the process attempts to tackle major global challenges (strategies for climate change adaptation, energy transition and environmental transition) and to contribute to the local economic, social, cultural development and quality of life;

with the local involvement, knowledge and best practices are exchanged and deliver commonly designed land use plans to protect, valorise and sustainably develop the regional identity and its high heritage and landscape values.

The positive effects of natural environments on Humans The effects of contact with nature on

health are now well documented in

psychology and four factors can explain

the positive relationship between

contact with nature and health (de

Vries, 2010):

1° the improvement of air quality (by the absorption of atmospheric contaminants by vegetation);

2° stimulation of physical activity (walking, cycling, outdoor activities);

3° the facilitation of social cohesion (people living near green spaces feel less lonely and feel less isolated);

4° restoring stress or mental fatigue.

Nature has restorative effects on some individuals (Ryan et al., 2010).

1° Reductions in stress; 2° increases in focus and concentration; 3° enhanced academic performance; 4° increases in vitality.

Contact with natural environments, such as natural parks, gardens, forests, beaches, urban parks, but also green plants on the edge of a window, view of trees, etc., allow reduce the need, and make it temporarily useless, to deploy sustained, directed or selective attention, and thus to allow the humans to rest. The qualities of living environments that leave room for the nature favour the harmony between people and their environment. and help the inhabitants, the walkers, the townsmen to cope with an excess of stimuli related to urban life. Encouraging harmonious links between person and environment is the goal in the design of living environments, taking into account the essential role of restorative environments. A healthy society needs to tackle the inequalities in access to these environments, both in terms of the health and well-being of individuals and in terms of quality of life.

Key Messages :

science has demonstrated the positive effects of contact with nature on human health and well-being;

97

by taking into account the restorative role of nature and encouraging harmony between person-environment in the design of living environments, more individual needs can be met;

by tackling inequalities in access to nature, the mental resilience of the urban population can be significantly improved.

Dialogue

In the audience, there were academics, consultants, researchers, city officials and

industry representatives

Questions raised: 1° How did the speakers manage the process of stakeholder involvement

leading to effective co-creation ?

By giving time and attention, organising regular meeting and establishing a project team, including the willing local stakeholders, the City of Nijmegen managed to obtain local popular knowledge that was unknown to them. By integrating this knowledge in the project design, this led to effective co-creation and shared solutions. The Regional Nature Parcs’ approach established a communication platform where experts and locals can meet exchange and improve their design.

2° How has your project contributed to resilience?

By designing and implementing a solution that accepted Nature’s constraints (give the river more room when needed) and by making nature more acceptable (reviving the water recreational activities and culture), the City of Nijmegen significantly improved the local quality of life and the physical, natural and psychological resilience of the City. Resilience is an inherent characteristic of the Regional Nature Parcs and new strategies and opportunities can be foreseen to develop or create new local economic activities (e.g. tourism, eco-tourism). For the Camargue, sea level rise may cause more flooded area, but this creates new and valuable landscape. The Morbihan Gulf is very dynamic and is expected to adapt naturally to climate change. Don’t fight nature, accept it.

3° Was the interest in natural capital integrated in your project ? How to deal with different aspects of resilience?

Resilience is a human capacity and an ecological characteristic. With regard to Climate Change, there is also a clear political dimension that needs to be activated in order to adapt. Adaptation to climate change needs concerted action; because individuals cannot properly respond on their own to this ‘unnatural phenomenon’. (This was more of a statement than a question: highlighting the need for concerted policies regarding Climate Change Adaptation). During the discussion, however, it was reminded that financing comes from various sources, including public (international, European, national, regional, local) and private (companies, crowd funding). Co-designing and co-creating can stimulate co-financing, however, does this also imply co-responsibility ?

98

Barriers and uptakes identified:

1° Management of multidisciplinary cooperation for the implementation of innovative solutions

(e.g. NBS):

a. difficulty of inter-disciplinary exchanges between very different professional or

occupational cultures (languages, jargons, capacity to express opinions, …),

b. difficulty to access and understand the local collective knowledge,

c. once the understanding issues are solved, there is a trust building phase that is a

prerequisite to cooperation,

d. the time necessary to get through each phase (understanding-trust building- cooperation)

can be quite long,

2° Access to finance. The requirements on anticipated outcomes of funded research projects

restrict access to funding

a. it is often required to know the end results of the project/research in order to obtain the

financing,

b. this is a particularly crucial issue for NBS which, like in the case of the French Regional

Nature Parcs, are the experimental laboratories where the outcomes are not necessarily

known before 5, 10 or even 15 years later,


community partners)

Policy

transform problems to be tackled (e.g. significant risks) into opportunities for improvement (local quality of life);

3 Key messages

When considering the possible solutions to specific issues, it is essential to transform problems (e.g. significant flooding risks) into opportunities (to increase added value and improve the local quality of life); this can be achieved through co-creation and co-design of the projects by the local municipalities and stakeholders, gathering the collective local knowledge and improving the project’s acceptance base, while effectively bringing multiple added-value to society (e.g. protected area with new recreation facilities and a revival of the past local culture);

establishing a structured dialogue between the local administrations, private and economic stakeholders, is a key step in the process of thinking global (strategies for climate change adaptation, energy transition and environmental transition) and acting local in a sustainable way (to contribute to the local economic, social, cultural development and quality of life); with the local involvement, knowledge and best practices are exchanged and lead to the delivery of commonly designed land use plans that protect, valorise and sustainably develop the regional and local identities as well as their heritage and landscape values.

science has demonstrated the positive effects of contact with nature on human health and well-being; by taking into account the restorative role of nature and encouraging a harmonious relationship between the individual person and nature in the design of living environments. Smart design of urban nature can satisfy more of the goals and needs of each individual; however, it is essential to tackle the inequalities in access to nature in order to stimulate resilience against stress.

99

in the process of thinking global (strategies for climate change adaptation, energy transition and environmental transition) and acting local in a sustainable way (to contribute to the local economic, social, cultural development and quality of life), it is essential to establish a structured dialogue between the local administrations, private and economic stakeholders;

with the local involvement, knowledge and best practices are exchanged and lead to commonly designed policies/solutions that protect, valorise and sustainably develop the regional and local identities as well as their heritage and landscape values.

when designing living environments, including urban landscapes, it is essential to take into account the restorative role of nature and tackling the inequalities in access to nature, in order to encourage harmonious links between person and environment and significantly increase the local resilience. Projects

co-creation and co-design of the projects by the local municipalities and stakeholders, allow to gather local collective knowledge, improve the project’s acceptance base and effectively bring multiple added-value to society (e.g. protected area with new recreation facilities);

the involvement of multiple disciplines in the design and implementation of innovative solutions (such as NBS) needs to be properly managed! There are three essential phases 1° understanding each other, 2° trusting each other and 3° cooperating with each other, and the time necessary to go through each phase can be quite long;

the necessary knowledge to design and implement optimal nature-based solution involves expert knowledge (from multiple disciplines) as well as the collective local knowledge (that needs to be valorised and translated into clear requirements); Research

NBS have a significant component of knowledge building, it is essential that research funding programmes recognise this uncertainty and consider adapting their requirements (sometimes too narrow with regard to the expected results/outcomes) to fund a broader range of controlled experimentation and knowledge building.

Because the process of interdisciplinary understanding (1-2 years) and trust building (1-2 years) can take up a significant amount of time before achieving effective cooperation, it is essential to find out whether this process can be accelerated? If yes, can the method be applied to all multidisciplinary projects funded by the EU research funds?

Observation (if any)

Resilience is a concept with different meanings in different disciplines. This appears to be a source of confusion in the dialogue. As one participant observed: resilience as such is a value-neutral concept that is shaped by the challenge encountered and by the aspect under consideration. In ecology resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem to respond to (severe) disturbances and to return to a healthy equilibrium state. In psychology resilience is seen as the capacity of a person to deal with simultaneous multiple challenges in an organised manner (‘no panic’). In a socio-political context resilience is the capacity of society to respond in an organised and participative manner to hazards, large scale challenges and/or catastrophes. Since the concept of resilience has such a different connotation among participants, some statements must be understood against the background of the speaker. This observation is relevant for the entire Forum!

100

Parallel sessions : Can « (re)naturation » contribute to urban

climate change adaptation and mitigation ?

Name of the session: Nature-based solutions for urban well-being and climate change adaptation and

mitigation: What role for biodiversity and ecosystem services?

Date: 05 April 2019

Presenters: , Paris Region Planning and environment Institute (Biodiversity

department)

, University of Nantes

, ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability

Notes taken by:

Presentations :

: a perspective form ecology and practice

Building on examples from projects he is engaged with in the Paris area, and drawing from experience in other cities in France, gave a brief overview of the declining state of biodiversity in the Paris Region and potential negative relationship observed between plant species richness and the use of pesticides.

Most importantly, Marc built on an ongoing project looking at 36 green roofs in the Paris Regions that he is working on (GROOVEs (Green ROOfs Verified Ecosystem Services) to show how NBS must be designed by and for biodiversity to be sustainable. Overall examples of non-biodiverse green roofs or walls that have little to do with the local (biodiversity) context end up being an expensive artificial device with high human maintenance needs, despite potentially having nice aesthetics at first. Inversely, biodiverse green roofs or walls that account for local

101

species can better deliver cooling and pollination services, while being cheaper and requiring few maintenance interventions. To the question “are nature-based solutions expensive?”, raised the example of water management infrastructure installation costs, with a grey infrastructure (installing pipes for water evacuation) costing up to 583 € per cubic meter, while an intensely managed green space serving this purpose can bring costs down to 231 € per cubic meter and even down to 75 € per cubic meter with a diverse, largely unmanaged green space. Through the GROOVEs project, further showed how all green roofs are not equivalent also in terms of performance. Green roofs with non-local species and very shallow soil foundations (i.e. green carpets), which for the majority of Parisian green roofs, tend to delivery much more poorly on aspects such as supporting local pollinators, or simply cooling and water retention services. This seems to be directly linked to the richness of plant species on these roofs and also to key variables such as substrate depth.

perspective from psychology and well-being

Building on experience of on-going work at the city level and on comparisons between European cities part of the on-going Nature4Cities project, introduced preliminary results on the link between biodiversity, NBS and well-being in urban areas. Well-being is understood as physical well-being, psychological health and social well-being. NBS offer potential for mitigating negative impacts of climate change on social, physical and psychological well-being in cities. Heat waves, flooding and droughts have negative economic, social and health impacts and NBS can help in addressing these. However, studies of urban biodiversity and well-being lead to varying conclusions: while some link increased species richness (especially plants) to well-being, others find a more positive relationship with intermediate levels of species’ richness, compared to high or low, and others find no evidence of a consistent relationship between species’ richness and psychological well-being, but do find a positive relationship with the perceived level of species’ richness. Preliminary results from studies in Nantes and comparisons between European cities part of the Nature4Cities project show that the amount of trees, the perceived amount of birds and connectedness to nature were identified are predictors of environmental quality of life related to biodiversity. Interviews with city inhabitants also showed the most NBS forms are spontaneously cited and associated with both positive and negative impacts, ranging from reduction of heat waves, pollution, noise, stress and increased social interactions and physical activity, to related annoyances (dead leaves, etc.), increased feelings of insecurity, less space for buildings and traffic and perceived costs for the community. Analysis of preliminary results in this study support biodiversity as a crucial element of urban landscapes and well-being, suggesting it can be employed to improve urban quality of life. This does come however with questions linked to social acceptability of urban biodiversity and NBS related to perceived benefits, liabilities and costs.

: a perspective from local to global governance

102

In a context of multiscale challenges linked to urbanization worldwide and loss of biodiversity hotspots, needs for subnational action to address these yet limited resources to do so, Sunandan introduced how service provision and infrastructure development need to be better articulated to create a shift towards self-perpetuating positive feedback loops. This includes investing in nature-based solutions with the dual purposes of improved service provision and improved management and conservation of ecosystems. Yet it requires changes in approaches across spectrum of stakeholders and closely interconnected areas, such as perceptions and understanding of nature, biodiversity and ecosystems, approaches to planning and development, and creating a socio-economic case for investing in nature. The five ICLEI pathways towards low emission, nature-based, equitable, resilient and circular development are a framework designed to create such systemic change in cities.

also discussed how lessons from the E.U. need to serve rapidly urbanizing regions around the world, and provided examples of a number of initatives in international cities, ranging from the co-creation of a thematic atlas on nature in cities in Tanzania, to an inter-regional compensation scheme based on flows of ecosystem services in Brazil and how vertical integration in India, i.e. dialogues and institutional collaboration, allowed unlocking resources for restoration of water bodies, mangrove conservation in Kochi for flood control. Sunandan also raised a observation on how the matter of what scale considered is key when looking at the feedback loops between service provision and conservation. Takeaway messages from ’s intervention relate to the need for multiscale action and advocacy based on effective partnerships, citing the need to rethink infrastructure development in relation to service provision, to create movements (e.g. CitiesWithNature) and to work throught h post-2020 global biodiversity framework. This also involves working across boundaries and aligning priorities and interests across scales. Yet overall, a key game-changer in achieving such systemic change lies in political will and courage to do so.

Summary doodle courtesy of :

103

Dialogue

Questions raised and discussion:

Main discussion points raised on the links between biodiversity and well-being with

participants:

- Costs of NBS: discussions arose around how these need to account for maintenance costs, and in a fairly case-to-case basis as costs do vary significantly depending on the biodiverse type of NBS. Costs from extensive to intensive management were also deemed to vary widely, which raised the point that biodiversity protection areas often imply less management and related costs. The temporal scale at which these are considered, especially when comparing with grey infrastructure, was also touched upon. Some safeguards however need to be put in place to avoid disqualification of monetized benefits and costs which can be disputed.

- The matter of scale: the question raised by presenters around the consideration of scale as a key variable when assessing benefits of NBS led to a discussion on how to assess what is appropriate connectivity of

104

e.g. green roofs and spaces, and methods and prospective projects to do this.

- Linking biodiversity health and well being: participants discussed the intricacies of doing so, and identified the need to define the concept as a key step to manage complexity. When looking at this relationship, multifactorial phenomena imply a high degree of complexity, while defining and using the concepts (e.g. what human well-being? Psychological? Physical, Social?) and variables to achieve these help address this complexity.

- Urban resilience, NBS and the role of biodiversity: the point that biodiversity should be considered a toolbox to accommodate to future, unknown changes was raised and gained significant support from participants who recognized a link between species’ richness and the preservation of production capacities of ecosystems.

- To what extent the perceived link of biodiversity to improved well-being is of significance: though this link is well documented, it is important to keep in mind that there are negative aspects perceived on biodiversity, and that these should be considered in terms of improving the social acceptability of NBS in cities.

- Demonstrating these impacts beyond urban areas: examples of positive relationships outside urban areas were discussed, for instance the sustained productivity of rural ecosystems in the face of climatic shocks (improved resistance and recovery/resilience), based on examples across plantations and rainforests, and looking at the resilience also to pest invasions.

Specific discussion on the limitations and barriers to bringing more biodiversity in

cities with participants:

- Perceptions of biodiversity: The issue of biodiversity being sometimes poorly perceived was raised several times. This includes association with species such as rats and pigeons, or mosquitoes when discussing water management solutions. Participants discussed the need to address such issues with solutions and examples, as well as raising the general understanding of what biodiversity is, advocating about the benefits of diverse nature.

- Evolution of NBS: participants raised the idea that NBS need to be looked at on a longer-term perspective also to anticipate how these will evolve over time, and ensure that these evolve properly (e.g. looking at soils, maintenance, etc.).

- Competition between multiple uses: the issue of competing uses in urban environments was discussed. This is an urban planning-related issue, and called upon the need to think about approaches that respond to these challenges, e.g. permeable pavement, but also nature-based behaviors e.g. nature-based mobility.

Overall, a point about fostering connections to nature was largely discussed with room, both looking at negative examples (e.g. studies showing people recognize better company logos than biodiversity, or how “blackberry” – i.e. the phone, replaced the original meaning on a number of cases in a study of young people’s perceptions of nature), and also at positive examples, discussing the role of Citizen Science programs in helping people recognize biodiversity (e.g. “les sauvages de ma rue”, a citizen science photographic survey of pollinators in Paris) and learn

105

about the impacts of connectedness, which can be measured in psychology. Original examples, such as the allocation of email addresses to contact individual tress in Melbourne, were raised.

Main points:

- NBS need to be planned for at the appropriate scales of time and space, i.e. looking at costs and benefits on appropriate geographical scales, including in terms of governance and planning approaches (e.g. ecosystem flows), and also on appropriate temporal scales, to allow for full life-cycle analyses and comparisons with other types of infrastructures.

- NBS need to engage across scales/levels of governance and also across disciplines and sectors

- The case for linking biodiversity and wellbeing is deemed to be strong, yet to be effective negative associations need to be considered and accounted for (e.g. for social acceptability of solutions)

- A similar point relates to accounting and trying to find solutions that tackle competition between land use, e.g. through innovative multiple use solutions.

- NBS need build on and account for biodiversity locally, in order to ensure the resilience of these solutions and of the cities in the face of future, unknown change.

- The perception of nature, its benefits and disadvantages are key and can be developed through innovative and inclusive approaches, e.g. citizen science raising awareness about biodiversity itself and its role in the bigger picture.

3 Key messages

Biodiversity are not an option in NBS, but a central asset. NBS need to integrate biodiversity in their design to be sustainable, including in the face of future, unknown changes.

Perceptions of biodiversity need to be addressed and accompanied (e.g. through citizen science) to ensure social acceptability of NBS. Recognizing and addressing perceived or actual negative impacts of bringing more biodiversity in cities through NBS is also key.

Approaches to NBS need to cross sectorial, temporal and spacial scales to effectively deliver solutions.

106

Name of the session: Can urban forests support cities to climate change adaptation and mitigation

?

Date: 05/04/2019

Presenters: Green Spaces and Environment of the City of Paris

, Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris

, Environment and Green Department, Municipality of Bologna

Managing Partner, TOPOTEK1, Berlin

Notes taken by:

Presentations :

1) Main benefits of urban forests to Climate Change for cities? 2) Main challenges to develop urban forests? 3) How can stakeholders speed up the evolutions? What should be the roles of

scientists, policy makers, private sectors to involve greater awareness and to develop NBS?

Carine BERNEDE, Director of Green Spaces and Environment of the City of Paris

Paris has had an important tree heritage, since Baron Haussmann (300,000 trees in two woods, to which 100,000 trees are added in the city).

2 current challenges: climate change & biodiversity. Policy of City of Paris has been launched to reinforce nature in the

city and revegetation.

I. Greening Paris …with new parks :

this policy aims to increase the number of green spaces open to the public. Objective : +30 ha by 2020. 57.

…with urban agriculture :

a growing vegetalisation in buildings, roofs, walls. Objective of vegetalised roofs reached in 2018 (100 ha of greens roofs and walls).

107

58.

…with the local community :

Setting up of « vegetalising license » (i.e. : « permis de végétaliser ») in 2015. Offering flower boxes, offering the Parisians the possibility of vegetalising around the bottom of the trees.

…with more trees :

Objective : +20000 trees by 2020. Setting up of a program of planting orchards for children. Pedagogical aim. 1700 fruit trees in 210 nurseries and Parisian schools.

Offering of planting one or several trees : « Des arbres dans mon jardin » (i.e. : « trees in my garden »). Allows planting trees in private areas. Objective of investing beyond the municipal domain in the territory. With a duty of maintainance according environmentally friendly ways.

Urban forest - Development of participative plantation of young plants. They are

planted in neglected zones with the Miyawaki method.

II. Role of trees in the adaptation to climate change 2018 : launch of a study that aims to bring answers to the physiological

behaviour of trees in the urban environment : trees which are subject to meteorological conditions that are becoming harder.

most resistant species? Species that bring the best living conditions to the town (e.g. : loss

of leaves) ? practices to improve their resistance when faced with a period of

drought ? Follow-up which allows us to have the first precise elements on

development conditions in the Parisian region.

, MNHN - How can urban forests help adapt to climate change ?

I. What are urban forests ? Suburban forests : « real » forests located in the vicinity of cities.

Example : suburban alluvial forests : Strasbourg : 3 suburban forests, protected as nature reserves. Paris : 2 suburban forests (« Bois de Boulogne » and « Bois de Vincennes »), ancient forests, forest soils.

Urban forests : « new » forests, resulting from dense plantation of trees in urban areas, with dense canopy, but sometimes reduced forest soils.

« Park urban forest », « Street urban forest », « Square urban forest », « Cemetery urban forest », Schoolyards? Can they become forests with a school inside them?

II. Urban forests & ecological services

108

regulating services, i.e. benefits from regulation of ecosystem process provisioning services, i.e. benefits from ecosystems cultural services, i.e. nonmaterial benefits from ecosystems supporting services, necessary for the production of all other ecosystem

services

What about the cities? a. Ecological services …

1. carbon storage and its contribution to slowing down of the increase of the CO2

2. Absorption and reduction of air pollutions 3. Mitigation of intra-urban heat islands 4. Preservation or increase of biodiversity 5. Well-being and health of human populations

b. … but also « disservices » 1. Spatial constraints and cost of tree management 2. Emissions of Biogenic Volatil Organic Compounds 3. Allergies due to pollen

Different levels of evaluation of ecological services of trees & urban forests :

Trees Street (street ecosystem) City (increased urban forest canopy can reduce the urban heat island,

reduce urban particulate pollution, reduce runoff and increase infiltration)

3 complementary levels that interact.

III. Highlight

Storing and sequestering carbon & mitigating global warming : Photosynthesis (-> absorption of atmospheric CO2) -> sequestration

of carbon by trees (vegetable biomass) during its growth to maturity.

Then it emits carbon (during its senescence phase). Research of ADEME : 72 million trees in French urban areas,

1.3 million tons of dry matter of woody biomass. Absorption and

reduction of air pollution :

o studies conducted in Strasbourg (Thesis : Selmi, 2014).

109

Application of the i-Tree Eco Model, (developed by the US Forest Service).

Studies on different species and seasons. Comparison atmospheric emissions / pollution elimination.

To suppress pollution, we need to suppress its sources. Trees help but it is not its first purpose.

Trees can also have a role that will not always be positive. Positive effect can be questioned by the slowdown in air circulation and the diffusion of pollutants in cities by trees

Heat island effect : City centers have higher temperature, « domes of heat »

We notice a difference between the maximum temperature in the center of Paris and the periphery, especially the woods (4°C, observed August 2013).

Project « VegDUD » (2007-2014) was conducted, coordinated by « Plantes & Cité » : role of tree alignment (2 rows of 9m), up to 4°C less than a tree-free street.

IV. Biodiversity In Paris, 2900 wild species which participate to green and blue structure. Different

components of this urban biodiversity

A « domestic » biodiversity : commensal species to human, introduced for ornamental or ecosystem services

A « naturalised » biodiversity : introduced species that reproduce spontaneously in the urban environment

An « indigenous » biodiversity : native species in the region, present spontaneously in the urban environment

What are the stakes of this urban biodiversity? Nature or society?

Contribution to the preservation of threatened species ? Green and blue frame elements : first contact with citizens with a

biodiversity that can bring them to a more natural nature Awareness and education of urban dwellers to the diversity of life

Human well-being services and human health : Studies on the interests of population in relation to urban forests :

interest for wooded urban areas (Trees promote social bonds, increase property value up to 15%, make people happier)

Disservices, drawbacks and constraints of trees in cities : i.e. : functions or properties of ecosystems that are perceived as negative for human well-being

Spatial constraints and cost of tree management Trees can be a constraint to town planning (e.g. carparks)

Constraint for parking lots Their management has a cost for local councils Constraints linked to tree bases : space available at the base of the

tree is important for their water supply

110

Damage due to cars

Emission de composés volatils solubles. All trees emit BVOC (= Biogenic Volatile Organic Compounds), but very

variable rates according to species. Combined with nitrogen oxides (NOx) produced by cars, they lead to the production of Ozone (Calfapietra et al., 2013 ; Curtis et al., 2014). When the NOx emission is high (high pollution), a low BVOC emission will permit to limit the production of Ozone.

Allergy caused by pollen grains Very variable allergenic character of trees according to species. It also

varies according to dates of blooming. e.g. : birch trees have a high allergenic character, oak trees have

a low one.

Necessity to increase the positive effects and decrease the negative ones

« I-tree » program (USDA) contains index values for 1,600 species (0-10 scale), allows users to select appropriate species according to (1) air pollution removal, (2) air temperature reduction, (3) carbon storage, (4) pollen allergenicity, (5), wind reduction, (6) stream flow reduction.

Similar tool in France, « SESAME », used in Metz, taking into account : (1) air quality, (2) climate mitigation, (3) biodiversity, (4) landscape, (5) adaptation to local climate, (5) allergy, (6) physical constraints

City of Paris : Parisian database created, tool « Parisdata » created to follow all the trees of the city.

Council of Paris, March 2018 : 2nd Plan de la biodiversity (2018-2024) adopted.

City of Lyon (2000) : « Charte de l’Arbre » (i.e. : « tree charter ») to address climate change. 30,000 trees planted since 2003 and another 40,000 trees by 2030.

City of Montreal (2012), Canada : launched its “Canopy Action Plan” : 300,000 trees by 2025, in order to achieve a 25% forest cover for the city.

Note : Temporary plantations (e.g. : flower boxes) are not urban forests.

Conclusion

Trees provide a lot of ecosystem services in cities. In particular, they support cities to climate change adaptation and mitigation and provide well-being for people.

They have also some constraints and drawbacks, that must be minimised by a choice of appropriate tree species.

In order to have more pleasant cities, it seems desirable to significantly increase the importance of urban trees and forests in European cities, following the example of North American cities (Montreal, New York, etc.).

We now have to plant the urban forests of the second half of the 21st century, which will help our children to face climate change !

111

, City of Bologna

The city center of Bologna is problematic in terms of tree plantation. One

particularity is the presence of small and medium industry.

Climate change policies and commitments : PAES, convenant of Mayor,

2005. And Mayors Adapt, 2014.

Adaptation plan to climate change :

stresses the city vulnerability. Drought, Water shortages, Urban area waste, flooding and extreme rain events. One axe of adaptation plan : heat waves and urban areas.

Objective of the adaptation plan : increase the number of trees in the city.

+ 5000 trees. Not only replacing old ones, but adding trees as well. Hence the creation of GAIA project.

GAIA project : many experts in the organization, but a link is missing.

GAIA Objective : more trees, and also partnerships with public companies.

Developing a model of environmental governance Decrease firms carbon footprints Co-responsability on the territory

GAIA Model :

Calculate the number of trees needed to be bought to compensate local company emissions.

Select the trees the most adapted to urban area. Which ones stock more pollutants. Spatial problems have to be taken into account.

Selection of 24 species, taking into account environmental reglementation, characteristics of the trees (VOC emission, ozone, pollutant gaz, particle absorption)

Analyzing their allergenic potential. Identification of connected activities : among others, social

responsability of the company. Example : form in the toolkit : calculation that allows to achieve a

balance. The cost of a tree is evaluated. 200€ per tree, between the planting and maintenance (not excessive).

Areas selection

Taking into consideration ecological value, social value, co-financing, CO2 absorption capacity, visibility value.

It started with 31 public gardens, 2713 trees. Rather residential areas near streets and industrial areas.

112

About the implementation of the project : online access to the number of trees

planted by zone.

Administrative process : main problem linked with the subject : public-private partnership

Not as easy as « i have a public space, i give you money, i plant a tree » Enormous amount of administrative procedures to follow in order to have

the funds Setting up of an agreement with 4 protocols : the new need is organisation. Ratification of the protocol by some companies, so as to regulate their

carbone missions : it can be in relation to printing, transportation, employees…

RADICI (roots) project : allows citizens to plant trees in public spaces. Crowdfunding project that was born in GAIA, in order to plant new trees in Bologna. Commitment of 1400 citizens for the campaign (3000€ for 10 trees). Problem : difficulty with crowdfunding if you employ people. ROCK project : In private space, case of the university place, former car park. New project aiming to make a green area out of it. 3000€ as well, but not enough to cover the costs. Platform aiming to commit people to participate.

, Managing Partner, TOPOTEK1, Berlin

Presentation of the Tegel Airport project : not yet finished, sort of case study. Closure planned for 2021, evaluation so as to see what will become of this airport. Idea to create a technological industry park, with one of the technical universities of Berlin. The idea is to conserve the former airport and to set up a university here. Creation of a conception manual, « the free urban tech republic of Tegel », general program aiming at giving an identity to the site. Idea to give it another look than a business park. Did not want a uniform whole, but to give a particular character to each district. Idea to transform the surfaces, see what can be kept… Planting of trees more adapted to the climate. Experimental zone, for what is called « climatic trees », adapted to the climatic conditions of the town (linked to climate change). Idea of working more with trees that are naturally there. Idea of selecting heat-adapted trees with different flowering colors, different heights, different looks, so as to have an assortment of different looking trees. Attention paid to the hardiness of the tree. Easier to replace a sick tree (with the idea of the assortment). Focus on the main road : a mixture of trees that are not used to be placed next to each other. We can create new interesting situations, a sort of urban forest. During the process, certain trees have been withdrawn, others fell sick. Idea of creating a picture of the park, differentiating height, width. Impossibility to work only with local plants, due to the fact that some can be used in a forest but not in the street.

Independently of traditions, sharing of the stakes, with cross-financing ways (collectivities and private financing). The stakes must not only rely on public

113

authorities, but also involve different stakeholders of the territory. Need for a coherent whole. Constraints of the trees In Paris, parking places in the streets are decreasing (adaptation to other means of transport) : projects which allow tree planting in the parking lanes. Problem with the water network, electricity network, that prevent from planting. Today, integration of tree alignments. Parking facilities are no longer the same. Fewer than 40% Parisians own a car. Public space is increasingly used for conviviality and commercial areas. Ambitious Parisian policy on city investment, would like to cover investment, and offer tree planting in private areas. Idea that each construction operation offers an increasing place to tree planting. As for citizen participation, two points : license to vegetalize the tree bases esthetically and participative budgeting. Ability to give long life to trees, importance of the soil volume. Special maintenance of the trees after 3 years. Special monitoring plan. From a landscape point of view, different interests of different types of trees, but there is a need for adapted species, whether they are native or not.

Name of the session: Can ecological urbanism create urban quality and atmosphere?

Date: 05/04/2019 14 :00 – 16 :00

Presenters: (CSTB, AAU-Cresson, Moderation),

Notes taken by:

Presentations :

Introduction to the session’s question:

Can ecological urbanism create urban quality and atmosphere?

In what ways urban planning, urban quality and atmosphere can contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation? Exploration of the links between urban nature, quality of life, wellbeing and sensory landscape through 3 renaturation projects. The idea is to capture the daily practices of inhabitants in their urban, social, sensitive forms produced by ecological urban planning.

114

Another focus is on the plurisensory dimensions. How are sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste, integrated into renaturation projects? Also, the spaces need to be examined according to their physical, social and sensitive dimensions.

Answer to the question raised:

Nature is able to enhance urban quality in many ways:

- Noise abatement through green devices - Well being - Creation of a better atmosphere through carbon sequestration

What this session managed to show was the several dimensions present in cities

and likely to be improved by nature: sound, sight, air.

This makes us aware of the necessary plurisensory approach when dealing with

NBS.

The projects presented will examine the consideration of these data at all scales

of the territory, from the smallest vegetated area in an urban environment to the

largest metropolitan corridor.

Magali Paris: Roadside allotment gardens, well-tempered territories?

8-year research on roadside allotments. Questions: do they have landscape qualities? What is their fauna flora biodiversity? Are the soil, the air and the crops polluted? The study used a pluridisciplinary methodology to answer those question, following 3 axis:

- atmosphere (sound recordings, ethnographic observations, interviews with gardeners…)

- ecology (fauna and flora quantitative inventory – biological and ecological analysis…)

- pollution (soil, air and plants characterization)

The 3 types of gardens highlighted:

- island gardens (surrounded by roads, railways…) - home gardens (surrounded by dwellings) - park gardens (in public parks)

Different figures of gardeners highlighted (which produce different levels of

biodiversity inside the gardens observed)

- productivist (low biodiversity) - productivist but hedonist, meaning that the garden beauty is taken into

account (medium biodiversity) - lazy gardener (high biodiversity) - Ecosophe: a gardener considering his/her garden in a bigger system.

(environment)

115

The research also allowed to determine the levels of pollution present inside these allotment gardens, depending on the proximity of the roads…

Different case studies: in Lisboa, San Francisco, Saint Martin d’Hères. The objective of those researches is to announce criteria of planning from field studies and scenarios of garden transformation. It is about conceiving road allotments, and more broadly the city, including these agricultural places installed in those interstices.

Berlin Program for sustainable development.

BENE is a program promoting environmental and climate protection. The authority in charge is the Berlin Senate Department for the Environment, Transport and Climate protection. The duration of the program is from 2014 to 2020 (approval phase) and 2023 (implementation phase)

The two components of the program:

- Climate (promotion of 1) energy efficiency and renewable energies in enterprises 2)in public institutions 3) environment and energy management systems 4) sustainable mobility 5) research, study)

- Environment (Nature in neighborhoods / reducing environmental impacts in neighborhoods)

Several examples which are parts of the program were detailed, such as:

- Energy efficiency: a school refurbishment: energy efficiency as a goal. Idea to create an additional wooden facade. Between the 2 facades, the air present created a new isolation.

- Not only efficient, such a device is also cheap.

- Research: Creation of a closed loop organic material recycling system (carbonization of plant residuals into biochar)

- This is efficient in terms of: carbon storage – creation of energy, replacing

the fossil fuels…

- Nature in neighbourhoods: pocket parks, innovative water management, playgrounds…

The promotion of green measures also contains a social dimension: focus on areas with high unemployment rate, low income households, lack of green areas, air pollution…

116

: Urban soundscape improvement by use of vegetation

Main idea: potential use of NBS to improve urban soundscape.

Overview on noise:

- longstanding evidence of noise as a burden, it is often related to public health issue. Noise has thus a social cost.

- A regulatory framework developed in the 90s in France: Royal Law on Noise Control / Environment noise directive in 2002.

- The preservation of quiet areas then became a public issue.

How can NBS contribute to the enhancement of the urban soundscape?

Prerequisites:

- Green is different from quiet - Quieter does not always mean a better soundscape (need for life:

example of Sondgo in South Korea: quite but also empty and not lively)

That said, noise abatement may be possible through:

- Strip of trees - Greening of buildings (in a courtyard gain of 4dBa) > especially efficient

when the greening surface is at the bottom, which is most of the time impossible in the streets because of the stores.

- Vegetated noise barriers: main absorption due to substrate and not vegetation itself.

Example of low barriers to lower transportation noises: vegetated substrate around tramways, simulations: other variables to take into account > sight for the conductor of the tramway, accessibility for users etc. some situations can’t meet these other challenges.

Research for combined solutions (green facades to prevent reflections associated to greenroofs, low noise road surface and low barriers…)

To conclude, NBS can’t be the unique answer to sound nuisances. NBS are just one piece of the puzzle to reduce acoustic nuisances. In some cases, the prototypes measured can diminish nuisances from 5 to 15 dbA. Now it is necessary to integrate and design such prototypes to integrate them in cities.

Dialogue

Questions raised:

Discussions around the reception of projects and the local culture:

- The Berlin plan involving the reconversion of cemeteries into public parks… such a program would be impossible to implement in a country with a longstanding catholic tradition for instance.

117

The facility to implement related to the local context:

- Berlin is already a green city for a long time. (for 30 years, promotion of the environmental protection)

Actors participating in the realization of projects :

- Specific system in Germany - Magali Paris: the city but also resource people which bind public actors

and citizens.


Barriers : stereotypes on pollution (vegetation can’t be the unique solutions to noise disturbances

…)

Uptakes : bottom up effect > citizens participate to and initiate NBS at different levels.


community partners)

To settle NBS in the territory, a diversity of stakeholders is needed (public, locals, people working with associations…)

3 Key messages

NBS need to be thought according to different scales (buidling, neighbourhood, city)

To settle NBS in the territory, a diversity of stakeholders is needed (public, locals, people working with associations…)

Possible tension between urban planning and renaturation (example of the vegetation project for noise abatement)

124

125

Annexes

List of attendants

Documents

Deliverable 4.6 Organisation of 2 set of Brainstorming ... · 1 European Commission, 2015. Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature‐based solutions & re‐naturing