Workshop documentation - Bundesamt für Naturschutz
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Workshop documentation
Expert Workshop on Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and
adaptation in urban areas and their rural surroundings
Isle of Vilm, 10. - 11. March 2015
Organised by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) and ENCA Climate
Change Interest Group (European Network of Heads of Nature Conservation Agencies)
International Academy for Nature Conservation
Isle of Vilm/Germany
In collaboration with Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ
German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig
To cite this report: Kabisch, N., Bonn, A., Stadler, J. Korn, H. (2015) Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas and their rural surroundings – Successes, challenges and evidence gaps – towards management and policy recommendations, Expert workshop documentation , Vilm, 10-11 March 2015. Federal Agency of Conservation (BfN), 39 pp. Contact for this report: Nadja Kabisch / Aletta Bonn (Helmholtz-Center for Environmental Research – UFZ| German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig) nadja.kabisch@idiv.de aletta.bonn@idiv.de Acknowledgements We would like to sincerely thank all participants for their active contribution to this workshop. We would also like to thank those participants who joined in facilitating the discussions and BfN-colleagues for helping with the workshop organisation.
Table of contents
Table of contents ........................................................................................................................ 3
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... 4
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. 4
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5
2. Objectives............................................................................................................................ 8
3. Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 8
4. Results ................................................................................................................................. 9
4.1 Keynote presentations – Tuesday morning session ...................................................................... 9
4.2 Main discussion points from the keynote presentations ............................................................ 11
4.3 Brainstorming and first group discussion .................................................................................... 13
4.3.1 Mapping exercise of current NBS activities.......................................................................... 13
4.3.2 Challenges in bringing nature-based solutions into action .................................................. 14
4.3.3 Indicators of success for bringing nature based solutions into action ................................. 17
4.4 Keynote presentations – Tuesday afternoon session ................................................................. 18
4.5 Keynote presentations – Wednesday morning session .............................................................. 19
4.6 Main discussion points from the keynote presentations ............................................................ 20
4.7 Break out groups ......................................................................................................................... 20
4.7.1 Level of concern of climate change related impacts on the urban-rural environment and
related impacts on city residents .................................................................................................. 21
4.7.2 Level of evidence of nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation
in cities and their rural surroundings ............................................................................................ 23
4.7.3 Knowledge gaps relating to both future environmental changes and the effectiveness of
different management actions related to nature-based solutions in cities and their rural
surroundings .................................................................................................................................. 25
4.7.4 Barriers to action and opportunities facilitating action for NBS .......................................... 26
4.8 Keynote presentations – Wednesday afternoon session............................................................ 28
5. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 29
6. Further Reading ................................................................................................................ 31
Annex 1 – Final programme ..................................................................................................... 34
Annex 2 – List of participants ................................................................................................... 37
Seite 3
List of Tables
Table 1. Challenges in bringing nature based solutions into action.……………..……………………..16
Table 2. Level of concern of climate change related impacts on the urban-rural
environment and related impacts on city residents...…………...…………………………………………….24
Table 3. Level of evidence of nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation and
adaptation in cities and their rural surroundings.…………………………………………..……………………26
List of Figures
Figure 1. Structure of the mapping exercise.……………………………………………………………………….13
Figure 2. Indicators of success of nature-based solutions in cities..........................................19
Figure 3. Knowledge gaps relating to both future environmental changes and the
effectiveness of different management actions related to nature-based solutions
in cities and their rural surroundings..…………………………………………………….…………………………..28
Figure 4. Barriers for bringing NBS into action…..……………………………..…………………………………29
Figure 5. Opportunities facilitating action for NBS….…………………………………………………………..30
Seite 41. Introduction
In 2014, around 54 per cent of the world’s population resides in cities (United Nations,
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2014). This number is projected to grow even
further to up to 66 per cent in 2050. Ongoing urbanization and the continuous increase in
the number and size of cities lead to transformation of open land into enclosed landscapes
(Seto et al., 2011). It is assumed that around 60 per cent of the global land area which is
estimated to be urban area in 2030 has yet to be built up (Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, 2012).
A range of interlinked pressures, such as land conversion, soil sealing and densification of
built-up areas around the world pose significant challenges to ecosystem functionality and
human well-being in cities. These processes may lead to biodiversity loss (Millenium
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), and a reduction in provision of environmental benefits that
urban ecosystems provide (Haase et al., 2014; Kabisch et al., 2015). Urban green and blue
spaces, such as urban parks, forests, gardens or green roofs and water courses, can also
provide habitats for a range of species (Niemela, 1999) and provide a number of
environmental benefits.
The framework of ecosystem services summarizes these environmental and even health
benefits and many more and classifies them into four categories: provisioning services,
regulating services, and cultural services (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010). The term
“urban ecosystem services” was used to highlight those benefits nature and ecosystems in
urban areas provide (Haase et al., 2014). These benefits include e.g. local climate regulation
through air cooling (Stewart and Oke, 2012), air pollution control (Gomez-Baggethun et al.,
2013; Yin et al., 2011) and noise reduction (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999). Direct health
benefits may include positive effects on mental and physical health through stress reduction,
relaxation and general health enhancements (Kuo et al., 1998; Maas et al., 2006; Völker and
Kistemann, 2013). Finally, the presence of green and blue spaces provides the opportunity to
experience nature and to enhance public ecological knowledge and awareness in cities
(Lundy and Wade, 2011).
Besides the term “urban ecosystem services” other terms have been developed and are
currently used in different policy contexts to show how urban nature can be used and might
be implemented to be beneficial for urban residents. These terms are e.g. “nature-based
solutions”, “ecosystem-based adaptation” or “green infrastructure”.
The Horizon 2020 Expert Group on ‘Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities’ defined
nature-based solutions (NBS) as “[…] actions which are inspired by, supported by or copied
from nature. They have tremendous potential to be energy and resource-efficient and
resilient to change, but to be successful they must be adapted to local conditions. Many
nature-based solutions result in multiple co-benefits for health, the economy, society and
Seite 5the environment, and thus they can represent more efficient and cost-effective solutions
than more traditional approaches.” (European Commission DG Research and Innovation,
2015, p. 4). A BiodivERsA Strategic Foresight workshop on nature-based solutions, refers to
NBS as “[…] the use of nature in tackling challenges such as climate change, food security,
water resources, or disaster risk management, encompassing a wider definition of how to
conserve and use biodiversity in a sustainable manner. By going beyond the threshold of
traditional biodiversity conservation principles, this concept intends to additionally integrate
societal factors such as poverty alleviation, socio-economic development and efficient
governance principles.” (Balian et al., 2014, p. 5). Finally, Naumann et al. (2014) refer to
nature-based approaches defined as ecosystem-based approaches particularly for climate
change adaptation and mitigation: “In nature-based climate change mitigation, ecosystem
services are used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to conserve and expand carbon
sinks. In nature-based climate adaptation, the goal is to preserve ecosystem services that are
necessary for human life in the face of climate change and to reduce the impact of
anticipated negative effects of climate change (e.g. more intense rainfall, more frequent
floods as well as heat waves and droughts).” (p. 4). Also IUCN also has been and still is
working on ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change since many years (Doswald and
Estrella, 2015). Ecosystem based adaptation is defined as an “integrated approach to
conservation, restoration and sustainable management of territories to enable people to
adapt to climate change, and ultimately increase their resilience” (Doswald and Estrella,
2015, p. 17). Projects related to ecosystem based adaptation have a primary focus on
ecosystem management, restoration and conservation to increase resilience of people but
also to the risk reduction and vulnerability reduction. A number of projects mainly focus on
ecosystem services, the conservation of biodiversity and impacts of long-term climate
change (Doswald and Estrella, 2015). Nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based
approaches to adaptation and mitigation can help to address both the 2020 targets of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as well as those of the Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC). In the context of the CBD the terms ecosystem-based approaches
to climate change, ecosystem-based adaptation, ecosystem-based mitigation are used as
well.
In its brochure on “Building a Green for Europe”, the European Commission (2013) broadly
defines green infrastructure as “a strategically planned network of high quality natural and
semi-natural areas with other environmental features, which is designed and managed to
deliver a wide range of ecosystem services and protect biodiversity in both rural and urban
settings.” (European Commission, 2013, p. 7). Even more, multifunctionality of green
infrastructure is highlighted because green infrastructure is also seen as “a spatial structure
providing benefits from nature to people, […] to enhance nature’s ability to deliver multiple
valuable ecosystem goods and services, such as clean air or water.” (European Commission,
2013, p. 7). Based on this definition from the European Commission but adapted for
application in urban areas, the EU FP7 Project GREEN SURGE (Green Infrastructure and
Seite 6Urban Biodiversity for Sustainable Urban Development and the Green Economy,
www.greensurge.eu) understands urban green infrastructure planning as “… a strategic
planning approach that aims at developing networks of green and blue spaces in urban areas
designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services.” (Hansen et al., 2014,
p. 7). Management that focusses on green infrastructure as instrument to green cities has
the potential to meet several goals across sectors and may also be cost-effective and
sustainable.
Ensuring the optimal functioning of urban green such as parks, green walls and roofs or
allotments, nature-based solutions, ecosystem-based adaptationn green infrastructure, and
urban ecosystem services have the potential in making cities more resilient to the challenges
they face today.
Climate change is one of these challenges and is already affecting Europe’s ecosystems, and
potentially severe effects on biodiversity and ecosystem function can be expected in the
future (Grimm et al., 2008; Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Schröter et al., 2005;
Science for Environment Policy, 2015). This presents great challenges for nature
conservation, which needs to take appropriate action into account to help the natural
environment adapt despite uncertainty about the timing and magnitude of possible climatic
changes and their consequences for complex natural systems. A range of principles have
been developed for adaptation in conservation, and these are starting to become
established in conservation thinking and planning (Bonn et al., 2014). But there is now a
clear need to go beyond these principles and explore what specific action might be required,
and what the challenges and issues might be, in different places and for different
ecosystems and species. An important aspect of this is to learn from action that is already
taking place. Here, there is great potential to share information among the different
European countries and to learn from each other’s approaches and experiences.
Climate change has also significant impacts on society. People are likely to experience
climate change impacts most directly in cities and urban areas (Pelling, 2003). Technical
solutions are only one aspect of climate adaptation and mitigation, while nature-based
solutions can foster functioning ecosystems as essential backbone to climate change
mitigation and adaptation. There is, however, by now only limited evidence to what extent
nature-based solutions help in adapting to climate change and which effects the
implementation of green spaces as nature-based solutions have on biodiversity. There might
as well be conflicts and trade-offs between nature-based solutions and the protection of
biodiversity.
Seite 72. Objectives
The aim of the workshop was to showcase and explore good practice of nature-based
solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in Europe’s urban areas and their
surrounding landscapes, and to identify indicators of success for nature-based solutions,
knowledge gaps and challenges of implementation. An explicit goal was to assess how the
concept of nature-based solutions can help conservation to work across sectors in
collaboration with different disciplines such as urban planning, architecture, forestry and
public health.
The workshop also served as a thinktank (a) to steer the planning of the international
BfN/ENCA conference on ‚Nature-based Solutions to Climate Change in Urban Areas and
their Rural Surroundings – Linkages between science, policy and practice‘ including
interactive workshops taking place in Bonn, Germany from 17 to 19 November 2015, (b) to
guide the development of a background review paper, and (c) to provide input to an ENCA
position paper with recommendations for policy, practice and science that should receive
further input from the Bonn conference.
3. Methodology
The workshop was organized in two full days with different sessions of framing keynote
presentations, panel discussions and group activities and discussions. All information and
gained knowledge from workshop discussions were collected on brown boards, a protocol,
several notes and photos.
The workshop started with a short ice-breaker at the evening of the 9 March in order to
present the objectives of the workshop, introduce the participants and discuss main
expectations from the participants.
The first full day started with keynote presentations which gave an opportunity to better
understand the concept of nature-based solutions against European developments, planning
issues and perspectives from the EU. Keynote presentations were followed by a mapping ng
exercise of current NBS activities. The aim was to identify current research projects,
networks and activities which have a certain relation to nature-based solutions to climate
change adaptation and mitigation in European urban areas.
In the afternoon session a series of short presentations aimed at presenting case studies
related to different nature-based solutions and also giving young scientists the chance to
present and to discuss their work. The first day ended by the outline and discussion of a BfN-
conducted review study which should be used to inform the European conference in Bonn in
November this year.
Seite 8The morning session of the second day focussed on biodiversity issues and policy
frameworks which were presented through keynote presentations.
The subsequent group exercise took a form of a world café. Four brown boards were
prepared for collecting information and facilitating discussions. Participants were asked to
discuss and brainstorm on different issues for a 20min period on each topic. Brown boards
were further facilitated by four of the participants who permanently stayed, took notes and
facilitated discussion.
Results of the group work were presented in a plenary discussion in the afternoon session.
The final evening session was used for final key-note presentations focussing on economic
and urban gardening issues related to nature-based solutions in cities.
The workshop was closed by an outlook on the European BfN/ENCA Conference in Bonn
(17.-19.11.2015) including discussion of main questions to be addressed in the parallel
sessions.
4. Results
4.1 Keynote presentations – Tuesday morning session
Dagmar Haase (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) gave an overview of the state of the art in
quantification, modelling and non-monetary assessment of ecosystem services and green
infrastructure used as nature-based solutions in cities to face climate change challenges.
Using international examples, Dagmar showed how climate change impacts on cities and
how urban citizens suffer from the impacts. After this general introduction models for
quantification of the effects of nature-based solutions to counteract impacts from climate
change were presented.
Following this, Stephan Pauleit (Technical University Munich) introduced the planning
perspective for climate change mitigation and adaptation and the role of nature-based
solutions. In Stephan’s presentation the role of nature-based solutions in urban climate
change adaptation and mitigation was presented against the background of green
infrastructure planning to enhance implementation of nature-based solutions: potentials
and limitations. Stephan presented the definition of Nature-based solutions used in the
BiodivERsA Strategic Foresight workshop ‘Nature-Based Solutions in a BiodivERsA context’:
“NBS refers to the use of nature in tackling challenges such as climate change, food security,
water resources, or disaster risk management, encompassing a wider definition of how to
conserve and use biodiversity in a sustainable manner. By going beyond the threshold of
traditional biodiversity conservation principles, this concept intends to additionally integrate
societal factors such as poverty alleviation, socio-economic development and efficient
governance principles.” (Balian et al., 2014, p. 4). In Stephan’s talk important adaptation
Seite 9strategies from case study cities were presented and discussed. This included e.g.
Copenhagen’s rainstorm plan. Stephan argued that adopting green infrastructure planning
as strategic approach for the development of multifunctional networks of green and blue
spaces is essential for effective implementation of nature-based solutions in the urban
environment.
Karin Zaunberger (European Commission) referred to current EU strategies dealing with
nature-based solutions. They include Commitments in the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and
the Roadmap to resource efficiency to come forward with a strategy on Green Infrastructure
(GI). She highlighted that in particular the communication on the "EU Adaptation Strategy"
and on the strategy of "Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital" is a
policy signal towards decision makers, planners and promoters to invest in GI and
Adaptation projects at local, regional, national and cross-boundary level. Karin highlighted
that the EU has made clear its firm commitment to drive forward improvements in green
infrastructure, using this opportunity to support sustainable growth and jobs, as well as to
secure environmental quality, protect biodiversity and respond to climate change.
The first keynote session was closed by a presentation from Sandra Naumann (Ecologic
Institute) about the outcomes of the H2020 Expert Group on Nature-based solutions and Re-
naturing cities (European Commission DG Research and Innovation, 2015). The presentation
focused on enhancing sustainable urbanisation, outlining two key research and innovation
actions:
1. Urban regeneration through NBS aims to identify new uses for under-used and
unused land and grey infrastructure (derelict and fringe areas), for example, to
provide openings for business, promote innovation in business models driven by
sustainability, and use cities as (living) laboratories for innovation, experimentation,
and testing cost-effectiveness. City networks can play a key role in replicating
demonstration projects and upscaling the capacity of interventions.
2. NBS for improving well-being in urban areas seek to integrate NBS into urban design
and planning and thus to provide access to green spaces and good quality landscapes
to all citizens in order to promote human health, well-being, social cohesion, crime
reduction and community support. The presentation highlighted the clear need for
demonstration projects, the importance of enhancing citizen empowerment as well
as citizen-driven innovation.
As a final conclusion, Sandra Naumann highlighted the aim of the EU to become an
inspiration and global leader in nature-based solutions taking some specific key actions such
as to enhance evidence base and rationale for nature-based solution (NBS) implementation
(at greater speed and scale), to develop, demonstrate and replicate innovative NBS, to set
Seite 10the scene for application across policies, sectors and actors and, to explore new governance
and institutional, business and finance models which leverage private and public funding.
4.2 Main discussion points from the keynote presentations
Several issues and questions were raised during the discussions of the presentations, such
as:
What is the role of green space for flood prediction modelling?
There is research needed to assess the effectiveness of nature-based solutions and
technology based solutions. Are there complementary effects; can technical solution
be improved by nature-based solutions?
What are the synergies and trade-offs resulting from the implementation of green
spaces for nature-based solutions? What are disservices of green and blue spaces (air
humidity, flooding, mosquitos)?
What are suitable ecosystem services and green infrastructure elements to solve
problems related to climate change?
How do we transfer our knowledge to the global south while not forgetting the
context of different situations, different cultures, and different mental models? How
do we link NBS with the social situation of people/in cities? Do all population groups
have access to urban green spaces and the benefits related to them? There is a fear
that the implementation of green spaces may lead to displacement of people. How
can cities accommodate people while ensuring equal access to green without
accelerating displacement processes?
Is “Resilience in cities” really the suitable concept to deal with when we talk about
nature-based solutions or ecosystem based adaptation? What could be alternative
theoretical approaches for consideration: Transformation and transition?
For urban and regional planners, the most impressive question is on how to deal with
increasing number of people in cities demanding residential space while at the same
time adapting to climate change and keeping cities compact, energy efficient, green
and fit for future.
There is the need to look at the entire urban matrix but also on scale dependent
benefits of urban green spaces where the whole city regions is strategically involved.
How we define urban nature? There is the need to consider the full range of urban
nature through an holistic approach including relicts of natural green and cultural
Seite 11landscapes; designed green (parks, street green, …), and wastelands (including urban
wilderness).
There is the need for more evidence on how green infrastructure elements are really
useful to climate change adaptation. The same holds true for biodiversity. So far,
there is limited evidence concerning questions such as: What kind of trees should be
used for climate change adaptation? Do we need more species or is it better to
reduce species number?
There is a need for the integration of grey infrastructure and the need to engage with
engineers, architects, landscape planners who have the knowledge of what is
possible to implement.
How can nature-based solutions help to increase a budget of the city (see Seattle
Stormwater Drainage)? How to stimulate economic growth by using NBS?
What are the hindering factors for bringing nature-based solutions into action?
We need instruments for the city which should be linked to the concerns of the city
funding, projects, scenarios. It is however not clear what happens with
implementation projects when funding end. Are planning administrations then
responsible for green space maintenance or is this done by local residents.
There is a need to highlight good-practice examples, even concerning greening
projects on degraded areas.
A number of studies on urban ecosystem services and the benefits of urban green
spaces for residents already exist. There is the risk of doing things twice.
In the discussion, several issues were raised including as the need of looking for synergies
between the various approaches in so far to use green solutions in combination with
technical and engineered solutions. The point was made to not invent the wheel new but to
find more evidence on how nature-based solutions can be really effective for climate change
adaptation and mitigation while at the same time effects should be available for all
population groups not excluding lower status groups. The point was made not only to look
on single elements of green infrastructure but to use a holistic, comprehensive approach
which looks (from a planning perspective) on the whole urban region. For communication
and promotion of nature-based solutions, good practice examples should be used and
highlighted. Finally, it was plead for an integrative approach which should include knowledge
from the natural and social sciences by including planners and practitioners but also
technical knowledge from engineers.
Seite 124.3 Brainstorming and first group discussion
4.3.1 Mapping exercise of current NBS activities
In the first group discussions participants were asked to brainstorm on current activities
regarding nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation and mitigation in cities at
different scales from local to international levels. Responses were clustered according to
four pillars of science, policy, practice and education/awareness raising (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Structure of the mapping exercise.
As a second task participants were asked to address the following questions within these
four pillars:
What are the challenges in bringing nature-based solutions into action?
What are the indicators of success? Do they exist?
Mentioned research projects and initiatives dealing with NBS, green infrastructure and also
ecosystem services included European EU projects URBES (Urban Biodiversity and Ecosystem
services www.urbes-project.org), GREEN SURGE (Green Infrastructure and Urban
Biodiversity for Sustainable Urban Development and the Green Economy,
www.greensurge.eu), ARTS (Accelerating and Rescaling Transitions to Sustainability,
www.acceleratingtransitions.eu), IMPRESSIONS (Impacts an Risks from High-end Scenarios:
Strategies for Innovative Solutions, www.impressions-project.eu), the initiatives of ALTER-
Net or ENCA and relevant conferences such as the ALTER-Net conference on Nature and
Urban Wellbeing - Nature-Based Solutions to Societal Challenges in Ghent in Mai, the Green
Week in Brussels in June, or the European Bfn/ENCA conference on Nature-based Solutions
To Climate Change in Urban Areas and their Rural Surroundings in Bonn in November this
year. There was also a clear focus on national activities such as TEEB De-Naturalkapital
Germany or research calls from the German ministry of education and research (BMBF). In
the policy and in the practice pillar some regional and local initiatives were mentioned such
as the Mayors Adapt initiative (mayors-adapt.eu). At the European, national and local level,
a number of policies were mentioned such as the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, the
German National Strategy to Biodiversity or Berlin’s Biodiversity Strategy. Notably in the
Seite 13practice pillar, participants highlighted a number of concrete case studies where NBS are
used, e.g. the project “Green Living Room” in Ludwigsburg. They also include community
projects and activities such as urban gardening in Berlin and other cities.
4.3.2 Challenges in bringing nature-based solutions into action
A number of different challenges to NBS were identified and clustered into nine different
groups (Table 1). The first group of challenges relates to NBS and social inclusivity. It was
mentioned several times, that when implementing NBS all population groups should benefit
and should not only support those having a higher social status. The accessibility to urban
green spaces should be an indicator to consider when designing and implementing them.
Displacement of people should be avoided. One heavily discussed issue was the challenge
concerning flexibility and time span of NBS projects. Often, projects on research and
implementation of NBS are only carried out for a certain (short) time but there is the need
for a long-term funding of projects or at least for solutions about implementation and
maintenance after project and related funding end. Researching the design and early-stage
implementation of NBS is not enough but monitoring the impact they have in human-
environment relations over time is equally important. It was also stated that current
structures of policies do not allow for changes in the direction of implementing NBS. This
points to a lack of knowledge and possibly lack of interest and flexibility of decision makers.
One of the main challenges, however, seemed to be the issue of funding for NBS
(infrastructure challenges). Stated experiences from different cities highlighted that
maintaining NBS over time in a period of austerity and shrinking budgets is an overarching
concern. Overall, tight budgets and a general decrease of budget for qualified staff result in
the reduction of expertise in applying NBS solutions to increasing resilience of cities to
climate change.
Seite 14Table 1. Challenges in bringing nature based solutions into action.
What are challenges in bringing nature-based solutions into action?
1. NBS and social inclusivity
Go in “black box cities” – do not overstudy or over-show championing cities.
Involve all people and use a n inclusive approach.
Make NBS socially inclusive – go beyond accessibility concerns.
No implementation of unjust social patterns.
Avoid discplacement and gentrification.
Attract the right actors (who?) - participation of local people, stakeholders, not-
usual-suspects
Nature is not seen as a chance for quality and econcomic and social pontential.
Bring the science to the people - Explain scientific results to the public.
Reach out to the relevant people and address their needs.
Residents fear that their opinions do not feed into final decision.
Can NBS be the mediums to create social and environnmental justice bright
spots?
2. Challenges concerning flexibility in research considering time span of NBS projects
Lack of flexiblity in research (to explore, learn, adapt).
Lack of long-term research and lack of funding for long-term monitoring
Cost/benefits are calculated in the short time scale (establishment high,
maintenance low).
Short term solutions are favoured.
Long-term motivation of participants.
Employment of main actors in projects (short term vs. long-term).
Follow-up of projects/initiative (maintenance).
3. Current structures in policies
Growth paradigm does not fit for shrinking cities.
Tradition of growth vs shrinking towns Not usual, not known.
Lack of fellowship, seen for transfer of results into practice.
Current interests and political aims.
Need to convince decision makers about better/attractive solutions.
Lack of adequate suitable institutional frameworks.
Sectoral approaches need to be overcome.
Neglecting the reality and urgency of the situation.
Voluntary task for town administrations.
Planning regulations change slower than social needs.
Lack of political support.
Lack of interest to link multidisciplinary issues.
Seite 15What are challenges in bringing nature-based solutions into action?
Anti-fragile planning processes and slow change - “We have always done it like
that”
Topics like the one of qualified staff, demographic chance, establishing new jobs
will always be more important.
Lack of knowledge by decision makers and funders.
Using NBS as a trigger to rethinking urban planning and government processes
(co-production and co-design).
4. Infrastructure challenges
Budgetary limitations– Money as a scarse resource.
Many funding programs vs shortage of time and personal staff.
Lack of funding for involving of stakeholders.
Time limitations of projects, e.g. loss of qualified staff.
Lack of knowledge in decision making (education, awareness rising needed).
Concerns about maintenance of NBS.
Terminologies feeding into the planning from science.
Infrastructure development together with school projects.
5. Lack of interdisciplinarity
Not sufficient integration of humand/social science and natural sicence in
research projects.
Intersection between disciplines e.g. science vs enginiering.
Examine the city not as homogeneous NBS to be across city not on sites,
incoherence.
Social sciences view solutions as political objects what does this mean for NBS
new environmental politics.
Missing technolgical/engeneering knowledge in our group.
6. Challenge to include new frameworks
A framework to consider for NBS is permaculture.
How can permaculture networks serve as knowledge hubs for good practices to
renature cities and restore brownfields?
Urban agriculture movement in global North centers around social and political
empowerment ( see URBES project)
7. Mismatch of interest to develop open land
Value/price of areas in cites often very high.
Visions of European city (dense, little green).
Property issues (who owns the territory? Private properties?)
Seite 16What are challenges in bringing nature-based solutions into action?
If develop brown fields sites temporarily – local people want to keep them but
council developers want to develop them.
Buy in of insurance companies, banks.
Legal/regular prohibitions NBS facing other investment.
8. Perception of NBS by different actors
NBS is not as sexy as Lack of wider public demand for NBS Re-connect people
with nature.
Low knowledge of NBS among the public and their multiple benefits
Low support not enough awareness we live in a nice and intact nature /
landscape.
Not only educate kids but make them active citizens
Image of sustainability in schools (think they have to change their lifestyles)
Image (that recycling is not the best quality)
Convincing pupils to engage and to take up nature-based projects
9. Data availability and scaling issues
Long-term monitoring data missing.
Scale issue (big cities feel more pressure to act).
Cities are not interested in qualitative data.
Lack of regional and national based scientific knolwedge, most studies at local
scale.
Produce more empirical data.
4.3.3 Indicators of success for bringing nature based solutions into action
In the discussion on indicators, it was commonly agreed, that indicators are important to
show that NBS have a significant effect on climate change adaptation and mitigation in
urban areas. However, only some indicators based on measurable data were mentioned.
These indicators were grouped into four main clusters: integrated environmental
performance, indicators of health and well-being, indicators of transferability and
monitoring and finally indicators which show citizens involvement (Figure 2).
Seite 17Figure 2. Indicators of success of nature-based solutions in cities.
4.4 Keynote presentations – Tuesday afternoon session
Ulrich Nowicow (GRÜNE LIGA) presented projects from the GRÜNE LIGA – an NGO working
for green space implementation projects in Berlin. He focused on small scale green projects
use for cooling the city and referred to problems he faced when explaining the role of urban
green for climate change mitigation to young children and pupils. He explained the fact that
when asking pupils about their perception of a green wall then the answers were rather
related to a negative perception than a positive with urban green because pupils seem to
perceive wall and roof greening as dirty, not clean, even dangerous, and full of animals and
rather prefer technical solutions with glass fronts. Ulrich Nowicow also reported about
current conflicts city gardeners face in their backyards with e.g. cyclists and other users of
green and open space. He further came up with the issue of who is in charge if interest of
housing communities change over time. People involved in gardening projects become
younger, and use of green may change from decoration to planting vegetables.
Christian Heller (HU Berlin) referred to Berlin’s peatlands under climate change. Christian
highlighted the importance of peat lands for ecosystem service provisioning because they
are huge pools for soil organic carbon, regulate the climate through local cooling, regulate
nutrients and water, and represent habitat for endangered and unique species. Referring to
the case of Berlin it was mentioned that important knowledge about peatland conditions
Seite 18and their distribution is missing, as there is also no a strategy of climate change mitigation
for peatlands so far. Accordingly Christian presented an indicator system for assessing
ecosystem services of urban peatlands in Berlin which is especially important for selection of
management strategies and long-term monitoring programs.
Following the presentations, the issue of NBS and trade-offs was intensively discussed. As an
example it was discusses how citizens perceive large trees. Do they like the benefit of shade
in their backyard because of the cooling effect or do they dislike large tree because no
planting is possible in the shadowed area. Again the discussion about the need of including
engineering knowledge in discussions about implementing NBS came up. In particular, the
question was raised: Are there examples where knowledge of engineers was included to
implement NBS, integration of knowledge from architects?
4.5 Keynote presentations – Wednesday morning session
Sonja Knapp (UFZ) introduced the impacts of Climate change on urban biodiversity by
presenting a long-term biodiversity project in the city of Halle, Saale (Germany). Sonja could
show that native species adapted to low temperatures and moist soils were preferably
extirpated since the end of the 17th century. Thus, specific plants adapt to warm and dry
conditions in urban areas –processes related to climate change but also to the general urban
heat island effect. In her conclusions, Sonja highlighted that increasing temperatures,
decreasing soil and air moisture as well as increasing CO2 –concentrations result in changes
in the composition of the flora in terms of their species composition, functional composition
and phylogenetic composition. It is, however, hard to disentangle the effects of urban
climate vs. climate change on biodiversity.
The second talk of the day was given by Niki Frantzeskaki (DRIFT) about transformation
processes in cities and the opportunities for nature-based solutions. Niki started by
explaining the concept of transition. A definition was presented: “A transition is a
fundamental change in the way a societal need is fulfilled; a transformative change in
structures, cultures and practices – ways of organising, ways of thinking and ways of doing.”
(Frantzeskaki and de Haan, 2009; Nevens et al., 2013). The term sustainability transitions
focus more on is on multi-actor processes, multi-sector effects of interventions and
innovations, cross-scale connections enabling quick transfer of effective practices and,
finally, multiple innovation processes which all together require a new governance
approach. The concept of sustainability transitions was presented against the background of
nature-based solutions (NBS). Niki showed that NBS could be social-ecological-technological
niches but existing planning and governance structures are challenged to adapt them and
integrate them in practice. In terms of the multi-actor processes there is the scaling and
mainstreaming need to consider power-shifts and social-environmental justice. NBS can
trigger changes and innovations across sectors (cross-sector-impact) while cross-scale
interventions and networks can accelerate NBS scaling. NBS involve social, ecological,
Seite 19technological and (partially) governance innovation aspects and as such require innovative
governance approaches.
4.6 Main discussion points from the keynote presentations
The presentations raised a number of questions about the scientific evidence concerning
climate change impacts and biodiversity linages.
What is the role of biodiversity in providing ESS? Where is the evidence in terms of
drought? Still a black box: What is the impact of CC on biodiversity? Is the city a
better place for growing trees/vegetation. Is there evidence whether it is better to
plant avenues with one species or with different species?
Is it better letting nature grow in the city or to design nature in the city?
The presentation on sustainability transitions led to a plenary discussion on the issue of
scale, the effectiveness of policy instruments and with whom scientists should get engaged.
Important question which were brought up include:
What are enabling conditions to scale up and replicate NBS? What are methods and
processes to aggregate lessons learnt from existing NBS and knowledge already
existing?
What are effective policy instruments?
What are new actor-networks created by NBS? What motivates people to engage?
What are institutional changes? Who is responsible once adaptation actions went
context. Again, what motivates people? Empowerment (polit.); being involved;
people want to change something; intrinsic motivation.
What is the role in fostering social-environmental justice in cities? How can NBS
involve social innovative aspects?
To now we rather engage with knowledge-holders rather than with stakeholders. Do
we need pure political scientists to discuss these issues?
4.7 Break out groups
The group exercise on the second day of the workshop was related to the following issues:
1. Level of concern of climate change related impacts on the urban-rural environment
and related impacts on city residents
Seite 202. Level of evidence of nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation and
adaptation in cities and their rural surroundings
3. Knowledge gaps relating to both future environmental changes and the effectiveness
of different management actions related to nature-based solutions in cities and their
rural surroundings
4. Barriers to action and opportunities facilitating action for NBS.
4.7.1 Level of concern of climate change related impacts on the urban-rural environment and
related impacts on city residents
In the discussion on climate change impacts on the urban-rural environment and related
impacts on city residents participants assessed the level of concern of the respective impact
from 1 (low) to 5 (high) (Table 2). A number of issues concerned with climate change impacts
on biodiversity were mentioned and related to the transport of pests and related diseases
and to shifts in biodiversity (e.g., species migration and occurrence of novel ecosystems).
Highest level of concern was identified to be in floods and increased temperatures and
related effects of droughts and heat waves. When it is about human well-being, both
physical and mental health effects of natural hazards related to climate change were
mentioned such as increased mortality during heat waves or psychological illness related to
stress of coping with disasters. A global perspective was discussed stressing that urban areas
in different (bio-) geographic regions will face different impacts such as increased frequency
and intensity of floods in some but intensified water scarcity in other regions. Different
regions will thus also face diverging social reactions, with migration and war given as
examples. However, the participants also identified potential positive impacts of climate
change, such as decreased mortality in winter.
Seite 21Table 2. Level of concern of climate change related impacts on the urban-rural environment and
related impacts on city residents
Level of concern of climate change related impacts on the urban-rural environment and
related impacts on city residents
Level of concern
Climate change impacts
(low 1 to high 5)
Biodiversity /ecosystem functioning Pest/disease:
Choice of managements in surroundings affect species depends (short-
pool/biodiversity and ecosystem functioning term/long-term)
Shifts in species compositions
Changes in populations (numbers and distribution)
Biota homogenization
Shifts in biodiversity
Novel ecosystems
Introduction of invasive species negative for biodiversity
and Ecosystem functioning
Synergetic effect with other biodiversity-loss drivers
Pest and plagues (e.g. malaria, ticks)
Higher pressure pest and disease (e.g. allergies
Pressure (plants, animals, people)
Transport of pests
Salty soils and
erosion: 1 (long
term)
Flooding /water scarcity Floods: 5 (short-
Flooding from combined surface water drains term effects)
Lack of infiltration overflow Water scarcity: 5
Sea level rise-flooding (long-term)
Droughts due to extreme events
Heat Fire/burning
Increased use of air condition woods (3 short-
Increased temperature, heat waves term)
Increasing energy demand (air condition, cooling) Heat waves: 4
Droughts and flooding due to extreme events (short-term)
Desertification:1
(long-term)
Wind/storms Wind/storms: 3
Increase of extreme weather events (storms, etc.) (short-term)
Seite 22Level of concern of climate change related impacts on the urban-rural environment and
related impacts on city residents
Refugees / migration (due to environmental conflicts)
Health risk for old people
Lower mortality in winter
Heat (increased mortality, morbidity)
Temperature raise more comfort
Decrease of amenity value of public open space in summer
Shifts in social composition poor vs. rich
Diseases becoming more severe (e.g., heart and lung
diseases)
Mental diseases stress, increase in mortality
War, refugees
Economic effects Migration
Costs for health systems, insurance, energy supply (refugees): 5
Economic impacts by floods, water need War: 4
Break down of transport links (due to increased traffic on Costs: 5
weekends with urban dwellers searching refreshment from
hot cities in the countryside)
War, refugees
4.7.2 Level of evidence of nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation and
adaptation in cities and their rural surroundings
NBS significantly showed positive influence on climate change related impacts in a number
of examples. One of the most pressing issues discussed concerned the adaptation to floods
and heavy rainfall events though NBS (Table 3). Sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS)
were mentioned as effective method to mitigate overflow and floods. A number of co-
benefits were mentioned. Co-benefits are defined as benefits for urban citizens and are
created through a NBS which was in the first order implemented for a different purpose. E.g.
implementing large trees for temperature reduction may increase attractiveness of the area,
foster human well-being or the re-connection of urban residents with nature. Other issues
concern NBS for temperature reduction which included evaporation through vegetation in
general but also concrete solutions such as planting large trees for shade or implementing
green roofs and walls. However, only two related empirical studies were mentioned (Bowler
et al., 2010; Breuste et al., 2013).
Seite 23Table 3. Level of evidence of nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation
in cities and their rural surroundings.
Level of evidence of nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation
in cities and their rural surroundings
Nature-based solutions Level of certainty
(low 1 to high 5)
NBS for temperature reduction and air purification -Planting trees (5)
Temperature reduction by evaporation and shadow of trees Green roofs and
(see Bowler et al. 2010; Breuste et al. 2013) walls (?)
Particular matter (Ottele et al., 2011) -creating semi-
Rain water harvesting and reuse natural habitats (4)
Regenerating grey infrastructure, former industrial areas
Green corridors
Ventilation for cooling and air quality
Green roofs and walls
Energy-efficient cooling
NBS for flood mitigation
SUDS (Sustainable urban drainage system) Flood retention
Ecological restoration (floodplains) areas (4-5)
Creation of habitat (shift to semi natural areas) SUDS (4-5)
Room for rivers, build back dikes
Stream restoration
Floating settlements (living with water)
Establish sustainable urban drainage systems
Flood retention measures within cities (ponds, rivers,
green roofs and rainwater retention)
Flood retention areas in rural hinterlands
Improving infiltration by special pavements, parking
place, substrate
Co-benefits of NBS
Empowerment of people
Community garden and urban farming
Reconnecting people to nature
Cultural benefits, inspiration, satisfaction
Improvement of human health and mental health
Space for social life
Increasing the city’s attractiveness (benefiting also
business and tourism)
Connectivity of habitats
Seite 24Level of evidence of nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation
in cities and their rural surroundings
Reduced crime / vandalism
Habitats for bees and other animals
Increase in property values
Buffering urban sprawl (establishing a green belt)
Increase biodiversity, soil protection, recreation
Attractiveness of the area (recreate)
Comfort to take the bike
4.7.3 Knowledge gaps relating to both future environmental changes and the effectiveness of
different management actions related to nature-based solutions in cities and their rural
surroundings
A number of different knowledge gaps were identified by workshop participants. They were
grouped into four clusters (Figure 3): Knowledge gaps related to the effectiveness of nature-
based solutions for specific scales; the acceptance of (knowledge about) nature-based
solutions in society including promotion and communication of NBS; knowledge gaps about
cost effectiveness of NBS, and finally knowledge gaps related to a multifunctional design of
nature-based solutions.
Figure 3 Knowledge gaps relating to both future environmental changes and the effectiveness of
different management actions related to nature-based solutions in cities and their rural
surroundings
Seite 254.7.4 Barriers to action and opportunities facilitating action for NBS
A significant number different barriers to action for implementing NBS were mentioned and
could be grouped into five different clusters (Figure 4). A potential barrier to action is the
fear of the unknown by several stakeholders including policy, practice but also residents. This
includes the fear of change. A second barrier includes the issue of long-term vs. short term
benefits. Changes in administration, for example, often need a long-term process which also
involves costs. This is contrary to an often rather short-term thinking of local politics.
Another barrier is the lack of awareness regarding climate change induced problems and the
benefits NBS provide to city residents. Often, problems are connected to the general
infrastructure of administration. Funding is often not available, thinking is based on
traditional structures/departments and the focus is often rather on economic-growth
oriented issues (creating jobs, attract investments) while less attention and money is left for
the development of urban green and the related benefits of NBS even in a context of
economic and demographic decline.
Seite 26You can also read
