Expert Workshop on Nature-based solutions to climate ... · The Horizon 2020 Expert Group on ‘Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities’ defined nature-based solutions (NBS)

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)

[email protected]

[email protected]

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.

Seite 3

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 4

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 5

1. 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 6

the 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 7

Urban 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 8

2. 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 9

The 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 10

strategies 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 11

the 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 12

landscapes; 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 13

4.3 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 14

practice 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 15

Table 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 16


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 17


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 18

Figure 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 19

and 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 20

technological 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 21

2. 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 22

Table 2. Level of concern of climate change related impacts on the urban-rural environment and


Level of concern of climate change related impacts on the urban-rural environment and


Climate change impacts Level of concern

(low 1 to high 5)

Biodiversity /ecosystem functioning

Choice of managements in surroundings affect species

pool/biodiversity and ecosystem functioning

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

Pest/disease:

depends (short-

term/long-term)

Salty soils and

erosion: 1 (long

term)

Flooding /water scarcity

Flooding from combined surface water drains

Lack of infiltration overflow

Sea level rise-flooding

Droughts due to extreme events

Floods: 5 (short-

term effects)

Water scarcity: 5

(long-term)

Heat

Increased use of air condition

Increased temperature, heat waves

Increasing energy demand (air condition, cooling)

Droughts and flooding due to extreme events

Fire/burning

woods (3 short-

term)

Heat waves: 4

(short-term)

Desertification:1

(long-term)

Wind/storms

Increase of extreme weather events (storms, etc.)

Wind/storms: 3

(short-term)

Seite 23

Level of concern of climate change related impacts on the urban-rural environment and


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

Costs for health systems, insurance, energy supply

Economic impacts by floods, water need

Break down of transport links (due to increased traffic on

weekends with urban dwellers searching refreshment from

hot cities in the countryside)

War, refugees

Migration

(refugees): 5

War: 4

Costs: 5

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 24

Table 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

Temperature reduction by evaporation and shadow of trees

(see Bowler et al. 2010; Breuste et al. 2013)

Particular matter (Ottele et al., 2011)

Rain water harvesting and reuse

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)

Ecological restoration (floodplains)

Creation of habitat (shift to semi natural areas)

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

-Planting trees (5)

Green roofs and

walls (?)

-creating semi-

natural habitats (4)

Flood retention

areas (4-5)

SUDS (4-5)

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 25

Level 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


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


surroundings

Seite 26

4.7.4 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 27

Figure 4. Barriers to action for NBS.

There are, on the other side, a number of opportunities that might facilitate bringing NBS

into action (Figure 5). These discussed opportunities include the existence of bottom up

initiatives, the use of new media, use of existing knowledge to communicate and inform

policy makers and citizens, using good practice examples as a show case (“Rock-stars of

NBS”) and the adaption of new modes of governance which (although slowly) may come into

play in current administrative structures.

Seite 28

Figure 5. Opportunities facilitating action for NBS

4.8 Keynote presentations – Wednesday afternoon session

Karin Anders (town of Wernigerode, Germany) introduced the town of Wernigerode

(medium-sized town with approx. 34,000 inhabitants) in Germany which became German

capital of conservation in 2007 and second best municipality for biodiversity in 2011. Karin

Anders explained the goals of the alliance “Municipalities for Biodiversity”. The alliance has

now 101 members. The goals include information exchange between network members,

networking, collection und publication of best-practice-examples und guidelines;

development of an internet platform; organisation of workshops und congresses etc.,

dissemination of the topic biodiversity in public and administration; publication of

brochures; conception of exhibitions; newsletter etc. There are also joint implementation

projects which are initiated and coordinated in cooperation with other partners. The

projects should represent the interests of the municipalities in biodiversity conservation

towards the European, German and federal government.

Martina Artmann (University of Salzburg) introduced the topic of urban gardening and

allotment gardening in cities. She presented a study on the “Evaluation of contribution of

allotment gardens to ecosystem services in Salzburg, Austria” where allotment gardeners

were asked about their utilization of their allotment, the ecologically relevant behaviour,

food production, nature experience and learning about nature, and environmental

consciousness. The main outcomes of this study are that only 10 to 20% of the allotment

Seite 29

space is used for cultivation of fruits and vegetables. The main use of the garden seems to be

related to relaxation and recreation objectives, to have a quiet place for retreat and for

gardening. Self-sufficiency with fruits and vegetables and community spirit are less

important. Moreover, the contact with and learning about nature was identified as

important ecosystem services A majority of gardeners learned about nature through

allotment gardening, The allotment garden is also as an important place for learning about

nature by the younger generation and for nature observation.

Rainer Schliep (Technical University Berlin) introduced a project about economic effects of

ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces. In the project several data bases such as

the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) and land use data from the European Urban Atlas

were used to calculate quantitative regression models. Rainer Schliep showed that, for the

32 major German cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants, access to green spaces has

some effect on residential well-being, while the effect is higher for access to abandoned

areas compared to access to forests and water areas. Rainer Schliep further presented

results from an interview based survey about the integration of the Ecosystem Services

concept in urban planning.

Finally, Marie Vanderwalle (UFZ) introduced ALTER-Net, a Long-Term Biodiversity,

Ecosystem and Awareness Research Network. After presenting the goals and partners of the

network, Marie presented ALTER-Net’s upcoming conference on “Nature and Urban

Wellbeing - Nature-Based Solutions to Societal Challenges” taking place in Ghent in May this

year. The following questions should be addressed during the conference in Ghent: Which

NBS are feasible and justified – and why? How can they be evaluated? What roles do

research, knowledge and innovation play? How are solutions framed and taken up by

communities? These questions helped structuring the planned Bonn conference insofar that

missing issues from Ghent can be taken up in Bonn and vice versa.

The Wednesday session ended with a presentation of the conference on “Nature-based

Solutions to Climate Change in Urban Areas and their Rural Surroundings” which will take

place in Bonn/Germany from 17 to 19 November this year. Aletta Bonn and Nadja Kabisch

(UFZ and iDiv) introduced the aim and general structure of the conference (first day –

science with keynote input; second day – practice and parallel interactive workshop

sessions, third day policy with keynote input).

5. Conclusions

The expert workshop on nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation and

mitigation in cities and their rural surroundings brought together experts from various

disciplines including experts from natural and social sciences as well as representatives from

city administrations and the European Commission. A number of issues were discussed

intensively in two days based on input from keynote presentations and group activities.

Seite 30

A summary of future tasks includes the following issues and further needs:

Inclusion of technical and engineering knowledge in future discussion rounds

on NBS.

Identification and discussion of trade-offs, synergies and side-effects as

important issues to be considered when implementing NBS.

A greater evidence base of successful implementation and functioning of

nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation and mitigation.

More sound evidence related to the effects of climate change on biodiversity

in cities.

Consideration of all population groups in cities when studying and

implementing nature-based solutions to guarantee equal access to the

benefits of NBS.

A “social perspective” in the research on, discussion about, implementation

and managing of nature-based solutions in cities.

Identification and communication of the “rock-stars of NBS” (best practice

examples) to city officials and to stakeholders (including residents and

community groups) to highlight the opportunities of NBS.

Bridging silos. Speaking to the boundary spanners (gate-keepers) about

multiple benefits of NBS across sectors; using ad-hoc or problem based

governance and focussing on a better use of existing finance instruments

while linking biodiversity and climate change efforts help implementing

strategies on nature-based solutions

Long-term thinking in terms of development, implementation, maintenance

and financing projects.

Based on the knowledge produced in this workshop, important questions and research

topics will be discussed further at the conference on nature-based solutions in Bonn taking

place in November this year.

Seite 31

6. Further Reading

Balian, E., Eggermont, H., Le Roux, X., 2014. Outcomes of the Strategic Foresight workshop “Nature-Based Solutions in a BiodivERsA context“, Brussels June 11-12 2014. BiodivERsA Report.

Bolund, P., Hunhammar, S., 1999. Ecosystem Services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 29, 293–301.

Bonn, A., Macgregor, N., Stadler, J., Korn, H., Stiffel, S., Wolf, K., Dijk, N. van, 2014. Helping ecosystems in Europe to adapt to climate change. BfN-Skripten 1–161.

Bowler, D.E., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T.M., Pullin, A.S., 2010. Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landsc. Urban Plan. 97, 147–155. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.006

Breuste, J., Haase, D., Elmqvist, T., 2013. Urban Landscapes and Ecosystem Services, in: Wratten, S., Sandhu, H., Cullen, R., Costanza, R. (Eds.), Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes. Wiley, pp. 83–104.

Doswald, N., Estrella, M., 2015. Promoting ecosystems for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: Opportunities for Integration. Discussion Paper.

European Commission, 2013. Building a Green Infrastructure for Europe. Luxembourg.

European Commission DG Research and Innovation, 2015. Towards an EU Research and Innovation policy agenda for Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on “Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities”.

Frantzeskaki, N., de Haan, H., 2009. Transitions: Two steps from theory to policy. Futures 41, 593–606. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.04.009

Gomez-Baggethun, E., Corbera, E., Reyes-Garcia, V., 2013. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Global Environmental Change: Research findings and policy implications. Ecol. Soc. 18. doi:10.5751/es-06288-180472

Grimm, N.B., Faeth, S.H., Golubiewski, N.E., Redman, C.L., Wu, J., Bai, X., Briggs, J.M., 2008. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319, 756–60. doi:10.1126/science.1150195

Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Gren, A., Hamstead, Z., Hansen, R., Kabisch, N., Kremer, P., Langemeyer, J., Rall, E.L., McPhearson, T., Pauleit, S., Qureshi, S., Schwarz, N., Voigt, A., Wurster, D., Elmqvist, T., 2014. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43, 413–33. doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0

Seite 32

Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2010. Proposal for a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services (CICES) for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting.

Hansen, R., Rall, E., Pauleit, S., Davies, C., Lafortezza, R., Debellis, Y., Tosics, I., 2014. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK MILESTONE 34 Overview of analytical framework, selected cases and planning documents.

Kabisch, N., Qureshi, S., Haase, D., 2015. Human–environment interactions in urban green spaces — A systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 50, 25–34. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.007

Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., Coley, R.L., 1998. Fertile Ground for Community : Inner-City Neighborhood Common Spaces 1. Am. J. Community Psychol. 26, 823–851.

Lundy, L., Wade, R., 2011. Integrating sciences to sustain urban ecosystem services. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35, 653–669. doi:10.1177/0309133311422464

Maas, J., Verheij, R. a, Groenewegen, P.P., de Vries, S., Spreeuwenberg, P., 2006. Green space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 60, 587–92. doi:10.1136/jech.2005.043125

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis.

Naumann, S., Kaphengst, T., McFarland, K., Stadler, J., 2014. Nature-based approaches for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Bonn, Germany.

Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., Loorbach, D., 2013. Urban Transition Labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. J. Clean. Prod. 50, 111–122. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.001

Niemela, J., 1999. Ecology and urban planning. Biodivers. Conserv. 8, 119–131.

Ottele, M., Perini, K., Fraaij, A.L.A., Haas, E.M., Raiteri, R., 2011. Comparative life cycle analysis for green facades and living wall systems. Energy Build. 43, 3419–3429. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.09.010

Pelling, M., 2003. The Vulnerability of Cities - Natural Disasters and Social Resilience. London.

Schröter, D., Cramer, W., Leemans, R., Prentice, I.C., Araújo, M.B., Arnell, N.W., Bondeau, A., Bugmann, H., Carter, T.R., 2005. Ecosystem Service Supply and Vulnerability to Global Change in Europe. Science (80-. ). 310, 1333–1337.

Science for Environment Policy, 2015. Ecosystem Services and the Environment. In-depth Report 11 produced for the European Commission, DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit, UWE, Bristol.

Seite 33

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2012. Cities and Biodiversity Outlook, Montreal.

Seto, K.C., Fragkias, M., Güneralp, B., Reilly, M.K., 2011. A Meta-Analysis of Global Urban Land Expansion. PLoS One 6, 1–9. doi:10.1371/Citation

Stewart, I.D., Oke, T.R., 2012. Local Climate Zones for Urban Temperature Studies. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 1879–1900. doi:doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00019.1

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, P.D., 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352).

Völker, S., Kistemann, T., 2013. “I’m always entirely happy when I'm here!” Urban blue enhancing human health and well-being in Cologne and Düsseldorf, Germany. Soc. Sci. Med. 78, 113–24. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.047

Yin, S., Shen, Z., Zhou, P., Zou, X., Che, S., Wang, W., 2011. Quantifying air pollution attenuation within urban parks: An experimental approach in Shanghai, China. Environ. Pollut. 159, 2155–2163.

IUCN. 2015. Pioneering nature-based solutions to global challenges.

https://www.iucn.org/what/priorities/nature_based_solutions/

Seite 34

Annex 1 – Final programme

Tuesday, 10 March 2015

I Nature-based solutions in climate change mitigation and adaptation

Overview of European Developments

09:00 Ecosystem services and green infrastructure as nature-based solutions in cities to

face climate change challenges - state of the art in quantification, modelling and non-

monetary assessment DAGMAR HAASE, HU BERLIN

09:30 Planning for climate change mitigation and adaptation: the role of nature-based

solutions. STEPHAN PAULEIT, TU MUNICH

10:00 EU-Perspective KARIN ZAUNBERGER, EU-COM, DG ENVIRONMENT

10:30 coffee/tea break

11:00 Greening Cities - Current developments in Europe SANDRA NAUMANN, ECOLOGIC

INSTITUTE

11:30 Discussion: Opportunities, Challenges and Indicators of Success for nature-based

solutions in urban areas

Map activities across Europe (Plenum and group work)

12:30 lunch

13.30 Guided tour and walk through the nature reserve of the Island of Vilm JUTTA

STADLER, BfN

15:00 coffee/tea and cake

II Nature-based solutions in climate mitigation and adaptation in urban areas – Case studies

15:30 Summary of the group discussions: Activities across Europe; Challenges and

indicators of success for nature-based solutions in urban areas

PLENARY DISCUSSION: Presentation of group work by participants

16:15 Green spaces as cooling islands ULRICH NOWIKOW, GRÜNE LIGA

Seite 35

16:45 Berlin’s peatlands under climate change CHRISTIAN HELLER, DIANA MÖLLER,

CHRISTIAN KLINGENFUß UND JUTTA ZEITZ, HU BERLIN

17:15 coffee/tea

17:30 Short presentations – Research from Young scientists

18:30 dinner

19:30 Opportunities, Challenges and Indicators of Success for nature-based solutions in

urban areas – outline and discussion of the BfN-conducted review study ALETTA

BONN AND NADJA KABISCH (IDIV/UFZ)

GROUP DISCUSSION/PLENUM: Identification of evidence gaps for BfN review study

20.00 Informal get-together

Wednesday, 11 March 2015

III Policy Framework – Moving towards recommendations for policy, practice, education and

science

09:00 Impacts of Climate change on urban biodiversity (incl. invasive non-native species)

SONJA KNAPP, UFZ

09:30 Transformation processes in cities – opportunities for nature-based solutions NIKI

FRANTZESKAKI, DUTCH RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR TRANSITIONS (DRIFT)

10:00 Alliance „Municipalities for biodiversity“ KATRIN ANDERS, CITY OF WERNIGERODE

10:30 coffee/tea break

11:00 World café / break out groups Discussion of thematic issues concerning

a) impacts of climate change on the urban environment and related impacts on city

residents

b) nature-based solutions to mitigation and adaptation, climate related impacts and

co-benefits

c) information requirements and risks/barriers

d) Mitigation and adaptation actions (Instruments – e.g. Planning, Financing, Cons

Actions)

Seite 36

12:30 lunch

14:00 World café / break out groups (continued) Discussion of thematic issues of

14:30 Plenary session Presentation of World café results and discussion of additional

thematic issues

15:30 coffee/tea and cake

IV Ways and means to generate, measure and value co-benefits of nature-based solutions in

urban areas

16:00 Urban Gardening for food production, recreation and social cohesion MARTINA

ARTMANN, UNI SALZBURG

16.30 Economic effects of ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces RAINER

SCHLIEP, TU BERLIN

17.00 ALTER-Net: Europe’s Ecosystem research network and The Nature and Urban

Wellbeing Conference 2015 in Ghent MARIE VANDEWALLE, UFZ LEIPZIG

17:20 Outlook on European BfN/ENCA Conference in Bonn (17.-19.11.2015) including

discussion of main questions to be addressed in the parallel sessions ALETTA BONN

and NADJA KABISCH, PLENARY DISCUSSION

18:00 evening reception, hosted by the German Federal Agency for Nature

Conservation (BfN)

19.30 Summary of the workshop and roadmap to future work

20.30 Informal get-together. In parallel: informal meeting ENCA interest group on climate

change

Seite 37

Annex 2 – List of participants

No. Name Institution Address Phone/Fax/e-mail

1. Anders,

Katrin

Speaker

Stadt Wernigerode Marktplatz 1

38855

Wernigerode

Germany

Tel.: +49 3943 654-103

e-mail:

[email protected]

2. Dr. Artmann,

Martina

Speaker

University Salzburg Hellbrunnerstr. 34

5020 Salzburg

Austria

Tel.: +43-650-5154330

e-mail:

[email protected]

3. Dr. Backes,

Katharina

Krieg and Fischer

GmbH

Bertha-von-

Suttner-Straße 9

37085 Göttingen

Germany

Tel.: +49 551 - 90 03 63 - 28

e-mail: [email protected]

4. Prof. Dr.

Bonn, Aletta

Speaker

UFZ-

Helmholtzzentrum

für Umweltforschung

Permoserstr.15

04118 Leipzig

Germany

Tel.: +49 341 9733153


5. Dünnfelder,

Harald

Organisation

Bundesamt für

Naturschutz

FG II 5.1

Außenstelle Insel

Vilm

18581 Putbus

Germany

Tel.: +49 38301/86-156

e-mail: Harald.Duennfelder@bfn-

vilm.de

6. Eisenberg,

Bernd

Insitute of

Landscape Planning

and Ecology -

University of

Stuttgart

Keplerstr. 11

70174 Stuttgart

Germany

Tel.: +49 711 68583376

e-mail:

[email protected]

stuttgart.de

7. Dr.

Frantzeskaki,

Niki

Speaker

DRIFT, Erasmus

University Rotterdam

Burgemeester

Oudlaan 50

3000 Rotterdam

The Netherlands

Tel.: +31 624731831


8. PD Dr.

Gansert, Dirk

Georg-August-

University Göttingen

Centre of

Biodiversity and

Sustainable Land

use (CBL)

Untere Karspüle 2

37073 Göttingen

Germany

Tel.: +49 55139/12404

e-mail:

[email protected]

goettingen.de

[email protected]

9. Ganter, Lisa

Maria

Speaker

ECNC Green

Welcome Centre

Kleve

PO Box 90154

5000 LG Tilburg

The Netherlands

Tel.: +49 15121611795

e-mail:

[email protected]

10. Georgi, Birgit European

Environment Agency

Kongens Nytorv 6

1050 Kopenhagen

Denmark

Tel.: +45 33367183

e-mail:

[email protected]

11. Prof. Dr.

Haase,

Dagmar

Speaker

HU Berlin and UFZ

Leipzig

Rudower

Chaussee 16

12489 Berlin

Germany

Tel.: +49 3020939445


berlin.de

12. Heller,

Christian

Speaker

Humboldt-Universität

zu Berlin

Albrecht-Thaer-

Weg 2

14195 Berlin

Germany

Tel.: +49 30/209346492


berlin.de

Seite 38


13. Dr. Kabisch,

Nadja

Speaker

iDiv and UFZ Leipzig Permoserstraße

15

04318 Leipzig

Germany

Tel.: +49 15120780172


14. Dr. Knapp,

Sonja

Speaker

Helmholtz-Centre for

Environmental

Research - UFZ

Theodor-Lieser-

Str. 4

06120 Halle

(Saale)

Germany

Tel.: +49 0345/558-5308


15. Dr. Korn,

Horst

Chair

Bundesamt für

Naturschutz

FG II 5.1

Insel Vilm

18581 Putbus

Germany

Tel.: +49 38301/86-130

Fax: +49 38301/86-150


16. Kries, Anja

Speaker

University of

Rottenburg

Schadenweilerhof

72108 Rottenburg

Germany

Tel.: +49 7073/300687


17. Kunz,

Friederike

Organisation

Theißingstraße 30

48153 Münster

Germany

Tel.: +49 15789648092

e-mail: friederikekunz@uni-

muenster.de

18. Möller, Diana


zu Berlin

Albrecht-Thaer-

Weg 2

14195 Berlin

Germany

Tel.: +49 30/209346491

e-mail:

[email protected]

berlin.de

19. Naumann,

Sandra

Speaker

Ecologic Institute Pfalzburger Str.

43/44

10717 Berlin

Germany

Tel.: +49 30/86880-111

Fax: +49 30 86880-100

e-mail:

[email protected]

20. Nowikow,

Ulrich

Speaker

GRÜNE LIGA Berlin

e.V.

Prenzlauer Allee 8

10405 Berlin

Germany

Tel.: +49 30 4433 9170

e-mail:

[email protected]

21. Pauleit,

Stephan

TU München Emil-Roman-Str.6

85354 Freising

Germany

Tel.: +49 8161/714780


22. Plesnik, Jan

Nature Conservation

Agency of the Czech

Republic

Kaplanova 1931/1

14800 Praha 11

Germany

Tel.: +420 283-069246

Fax: +420 283-069241


23. Reininghaus,

Hannah

Agrarökologie,

Georg-August-

Universität Göttingen

Grisebachstraße 6

37077 Göttingen

Germany

Tel.: +49 5513922057


24. Schliep,

Rainer

Speaker

Technische

Universität Berlin

Skr. EB5

Straße des 17.

Juni 145

10623 Berlin

Germany

Tel.: +49 30-314-79456

e-mail: rainer.schliep@tu-

berlin.de

25. Stadler, Jutta

Chair

Federal Agency for

Nature Conservation

FG II 5.1

Insel Vilm

18581 Putbus

Germany

Tel.: +49 38301/86134

Fax: +49 38301/86150


26. Thrum, Tina


zu Berlin

Albrecht-Thaer-

Weg 2

14195 Berlin

Germany

Tel.: +49 30/209346492


berlin.de

Seite 39


27. Udy, Kristy

Agrarökologie,

Georg-August-

Universität

Griesebachstrasse

6

37077 Göttingen

Germany

Tel.: +49 176/47318663


28. PhD

Vandewalle,

Marie

UFZ Leipzig Permoserstrasse

15

04318 Leipzig

Germany

Tel.: +49 15205645357


29. Waldmüller,

Luis

GIZ Dag-Hamarskjöld-

Weg 1-5

65760 Eschborn

Germany

Tel.: +49 6196-791522


30. Wallace,

Kerry

Scottish Natural

Heritage

Caspian House,

Mariner Court

G81 2NR

Clydebank

UK

Tel.: +44 1419514488


31. PhD Weibull,

Anki

Swedish

Environmental

Protection Agency

Valhallavägen 195

S-10648

Stockholm

Sweden

Tel.: +46 76/115 19 19

Fax: +46 10/698 10 42

e-mail:

[email protected]

32. Wolter,

Adelheid

Speaker

Dresden University

of Applied Sciences,

Faculty of

Agricultur/Landscape

Management

Wittenberger

Str.58

01309 Dresden

Germany

Tel.: +49 17683155002


33. Dipl.-Ing.

MSc

Wunderlich,

Antje

Speaker

Hochschule

Neubrandenburg

Brodaer Straße 2

17033

Neubrandenburg

Germany

Tel.: +49 177-3030228


34. Zaunberger,

Karin

Speaker

European

Commission

Rue de la Loi

1049 Brussels

Belgium

Tel.: +32 2/2692172

Fax: +32 2/2990895

e-mail:

[email protected]

Expert Workshop on Nature-based solutions to climate ... · The Horizon 2020 Expert Group on ‘Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities’ defined nature-based solutions (NBS)

Documents