28/04/2015

REVISED WORKING GROUP ON GI IMPLEMENTATION AND RESTORATION – WG GIIR

SPATIAL AND FUNCTIONAL MONITORING OF GI FEATURES

One of the five objectives of the WG GIIR is on "e) Developing useful indicators to monitor the uptake of GI, and on descriptors on which GI should in particular be funded by public and private funds ". An overview of different approaches has been discussed in the WG, and one of the recommendations was to split monitoring on the uptake of Green Infrastructure (cf. process monitoring) from monitoring the spatial distribution/functionality/DPSI(R) frame in Europe. This document therefore gives a first overview on available knowledge on the monitoring of Green Infrastructure features and their key features in Europe.

1. Status and pressure monitoring on European level (DPSI(R) framework)

2. Assessment of various approaches to map and measure GI in Europe

3. Project monitoring.

A basic difficulty is that several definitions of GI exist across the EU, and MS have different views and put different priority for the implementation of GI. Therefore, how would it be possible to harmonize the monitoring? And also for a project to be considered as a GI project, would it need to fit with EU definition, national definition or both? Or could the project contribute to one aspect of the definitions? Finally, GI is not well understood yet by local and rural actors which may conduct activities contributing to GI without being aware of it. It would be then difficult to include those activities in the monitoring process. Some communication is therefore necessary in order to raise awareness.

Progressing with monitoring the spatial distribution and functionality of GI would need to take into account existing frameworks (such as MAES) and study recommendations for measuring quality and potential of GI initiatives.

The WG also might want to consider whether turning the approach for monitoring tools around would deliver relevant results, i.e. what questions is it that the tools can answer if taken from an urban angle or e.g. from an ecosystem service approach, etc. It also might want to reflect upon whether organising this document along the DPSIR framework would give the document an improved structure, and whether an annex with examples on graphs and maps would be helpful.

Members of the WG are invited to reflect on possible practical tools on progress monitoring, with feedback loops allowing the providers of the information to comment on the use of the provided information. How far could any existing criteria, which have been defined for monitoring GI or for initiatives which contribute to GI, be further developed to elaborate monitoring frameworks for (i) GI programming and target setting, (ii) prioritisation of public and private GI financing, and of (iii) success monitoring for GI project implementation, usable on European scale? This should be done in the awareness that no European-wide common understanding has been established yet (whilst definitions and glossaries exist), and criteria may vary from a country to another or even from national level to local level. A further question is on how the how the collection and dissemination of

1

28/04/2015

success stories in relation to securing funds under EU instruments, national programmes, business engagement and the NCFF could be organised.

This document intends to support these discussions by putting information from sources available on European level together, and by presenting some monitoring and measuring approaches. In addition, the Commission intends to organise a joint session MAES-GI in September 2015, and a focussed workshop on GI monitoring in autumn 2015. Results and conclusions of the workshop should feed into a document reviewing extent and quality of technical and spatial data available to GI deployment, which the Commission will develop together with the EEA in late 2015.

2

28/04/2015

1. DPSIR monitoring on European level

On European level, composite indicators to describe GI as such do not exist. However, commonly agreed indicators for measuring pressures and state on European level have been developed in the SEBI process which might give useful information if available on the level of target 2 of the EU BD strategy (whilst they are not specific enough to give useful indications on Green Infrastructure alone). Those indicators are not designed to demonstrate causality but provide a rough barometer of where a country or area is at a particular point in time. The DPSIR (drivers-pressures-state-impact-response) framework can be used to trace through the causality of effects. The below European indicators have been selected upon their potential to measure Green Infrastructure-relevant issues. Most of these indicator tools are targeting the landscape level. Tools for monitoring urban GI are limited to some, e.g. Urban Atlas data sets.

a) Indicators provided by EEA on European level

Relevant SEBI and CSI Indicators

DPSIR classification

Usability for measuring ecosystem resilience*

Availability

Target 2: Maintain and restore ecosystems and their servicesBy 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems.

SEBI 04 Ecosystem coverage

State fair-good Available; to be improved e.g. through EEA's work on the map of European ecosystem types (http://projects.eionet.europa.eu/eea-ecosystem-assessments/library/draft-ecosystem-map-europe)http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/ecosystem-coverage/ecosystem-coverage-assessment-published-may-2010

SEBI 03 Conservation status of species of European interest

State low-moderate Art. 17 info on fragmentation as threat for species

Availablehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/species-of-european-interest/species-of-european-interest-assessment

SEBI 05 Conservation status of habitats of European interest

State low-moderate Art. 17 info on fragmentation as threat for habitat

Availablehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/habitats-of-european-interest/habitats-of-european-interest-assessment

SEBI 07 Nationally designated protected areas

Response low-moderate Availablehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/nationally-designated-protected-areas/nationally-designated-protected-areas-assessment-1

3

28/04/2015

SEBI 09 Critical load exceedance for nitrogen

Pressure moderate Availablehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/critical-load-exceedance-for-nitrogen/critical-load-exceedance-for-nitrogen

SEBI 13 Fragmentation of natural and semi-natural areas

3 sub-indicators on 1. landscape mosaic, 2. core forest fragmentation , 3. forest connectivity

Pressure good-very good

Further modelling on connectivity available by JRChttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/fragmentation-of-natural-and-semi/fragmentation-of-natural-and-semiThis indicator is suggested to be updated, based on a JRC model and CLC2000-2006, towards fragmentation of natural/semi-nat areas in Europe and on forest fragmentation.

SEBI 14 Fragmentation of river systems

Pressure fair Not available on European scale

SEBI 16 Freshwater quality

Pressure moderate Availablehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/freshwater-quality/freshwater-quality-assessment-published-may-2010

CSI14 Land take Pressure fair-good Availablehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/land-take-2/assessment-2

Relevant SEBI and CSI Indicators

DPSIR classification

Usability for measuring ecosystem resilience*

Availability

[more linked to Target 1 of the BD strategy].

SEBI 01 Abundance and distribution of selected species (birds and butterflies)

State Low-moderate Availablehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/abundance-and-distribution-of-selected-species/abundance-and-distribution-of-selected

CLIM 022 and 024 Abundance and distribution of selected species (linked to climate

Impact Moderate availablehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/distribution-of-animal-species-1/assessmenthttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/distribution-of-plant-

4

28/04/2015

change) species-1/assessment

CLIM 026 Species interactions

Impact Moderate- high

Availablehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/species-ecosystem-relationship-1/assessment-1

[more linked to Target 3 of the BD strategy]

SEBI 020 Agriculture: area under management practices potentially supporting biodiversity

State Moderate Availablehttp://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/agriculture-area-under-management-practices/agriculture-area-under-management-practice

* See also discussion on the usability of SEBI indicators for measuring ecosystem resilience; in IEEP (2011) Green Infrastructure Implementation and Efficiency ENV.B.2/SER/2010/0059; Annex II: Review of Resilience Indicators; and the section on indicators including the outcomes of a workshop on indicator setting for GI on pg. 27-58.

More information on pressures on ecosystems is currently prepared by the EEA (pressures per ecosystem available in draft versions).

CEEweb has undertaken a study on how GI elements in Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia are monitored (on nationally protected areas mostly and monitoring systems have different scales and elements) http://www.ceeweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Assessing_Green_Infrastructure_Elements_in_the_Visegrad_Countries_updated.pdf.

Finally, methodological progress in MAES has resulted in a table of indicators to assess condition and biodiversity of ecosystems and in various tables of indicators to measure provisioning/regulating and maintenance/cultural services per ecosystem group (forest, agriculture, freshwater). They could be screened upon their relevance for GI. For this purpose, a joint workshop of MAES and GI experts is planned in September 2015. - Source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/2ndMAESWorkingPaper.pdf

Common socio-economic indicators by GI elements (e.g. jobs created, property price increased) could be very beneficial to develop.

5

28/04/2015

b) Summary of the relevance of key ecosystem service indicators to the potential impacts of green infrastructure initiatives (from: IEEP (2011) Green Infrastructure Implementation and Efficiency ENV.B.2/SER/2010/0059)

Key: N = Nil; L = Low, M = Medium, H = High; V = variable, ? = uncertain

Indicator Proxy or direct ES indicator?

Indicator of service or of benefit?

Indicator sensitivity

Link to biodiversity

Dependency on ecosystem resilience

Potential GI benefits

Crop / Livestock / Fish / Wild foods production from sustainable sources

Direct Benefit L Yes (soils, pests, pollinators)

H (soils and low )

L

Groundwater recharge Direct Service? L Vegetation L MPopulation served by renewable water resource

Direct Benefit M Vegetation L V

Forest growing stock, increment and fellings

Direct M Yes L M

Felling to increment ratio Direct M Yes L MAtmospheric cleansing capacity

Direct Service ? Yes L M / H in urban areas

Total amount of carbon sequestered / stored

Direct Service M Yes (soil & vegetation)

V (eg H in some peatlands)

M

Trends in number of damaging natural disasters

Proxy Benefit M V V M

Probability of incident Proxy Benefit M V V MResidence time of water in rivers, reservoirs and soil

Direct Service L Yes L H

Floodplain water storage capacity

Direct Service L No N H

Flood return period Direct Benefit H Yes L HWave attenuation potential

Direct Service M Yes (vegetation)

M H

Surface area of coastal wetlands and dunes

Proxy Service L Yes (vegetation)

M H

Water quality in aquatic ecosystems

Direct Service V Yes M M

Nitrogen retention Direct Service ? Yes M MNitrogen removal Direct Service ? Yes M MSoil erosion rate by land use type

Direct Service M Yes L H

Soil quality (infiltration capacity, bulk density, etc)

Proxy Service L Yes H M

Abundance and species richness of wild pollinators

Proxy Service M Yes M M

Proximity to semi-natural habitat

Proxy Service L Yes H H

6

28/04/2015

Presence of nectar-producing flowers

Proxy Service M Yes M M

Abundance and species richness of biological control agents

Proxy Service M Yes H M

Changes in disease burden as a result of changing ecosystems

Proxy Benefit M Yes M M

Number of visitors for nature tourism

Proxy Benefit M Yes M H

Number of products whose branding relates to cultural identity

Direct Benefit L V V L

Number of recreational users of green space

Direct Benefit M Yes L H

Number of hunters / anglers

Direct Benefit M Yes M H

Total number of visits to sites specifically related to ecosystem related education or cultural reasons

Direct Benefit M Yes M H

Additionally, impact indicators on European policies could be screened on their relevance for GI. The list below contains possibly relevant draft indicators under discussion for monitoring and evaluating the CAP 2014-2020.

CAP impact indicator Relevance for GI

7. GHG emissions from agriculture

8. Farmland birds index

9. HNV Farming

10. Water abstraction in agriculture

11. Water quality

12. Soil organic matter in arable land

13. Soil erosion by water

7

28/04/2015

2. Assessment of various approaches to map and measure GI in Europe

[to be completed with information from JRC]

EEA and JRC have worked on different approaches to assess and map GI on a European scale, using accessible data to provide possible methodologies to inform on the spatial coverage and quality of GI elements related to ecosystem condition and the delivery of services. These exercises might be considered as baseline exercises which could be improved with better or more data, and can describe changes of the mapped/assessed situation when being repeated, thus allowing monitoring the change of potential/service delivery of GI on European scale. A big part of the methodology and data sources used might also be useful for similar approaches on national or sub-national scales, combined with relevant national or regional data.

The below table gives an overview on data sources for describing GI on European scale, and their possible usability (based on information available in EEA).

Approaches Data sets Description/scope Benefits Disadvantages Possible indicators

Urban scale

Green infrastructure using the Urban Atlas

Urban Atlas data sets

• Green infrastructure maps for European cities can be produced and statistics generated for the areas and percentage of green infrastructure.

• Green urban density analysis can be used to characterise European cities in terms of the green access afforded to city residents living in built-up areas.

• Linking green infrastructure classes and functions/benefits of green infrastructure. This provides a quantification of the areas by type of function/benefits.

• It is based on the Urban Atlas — reliable and intercomparable urban planning data with high-resolution maps.

• Future editions of the Urban Atlas are planned every three to five years, so the approach should provide a good mechanism for monitoring changes and the speed of change.

• The Urban Atlas is initially only available for 117 cities (with Large Urban Zones with more than 100 000 inhabitants). This is planned to increase to more than 300 cities in 2011.

• The link between the Urban Atlas codes and the benefits of green infrastructure is, particularly for some benefits, relatively weak, and the relationship needs to be investigated further before quantifiable results can be drawn from it.

No. of cities for which Urban Atlas is available

% of green areas accessible within 300 m

Green roof potential

Mapping of GI functions per area

Landscape scale

8

28/04/2015

Green infrastructure using Corine Land Cover

Combination of Natura 2000 and Corine Land Cover data sets

• Maps with individual Natura 2000 areas and green infrastructure corridor layers for Europe including maps focusing on individual countries to illustrate the data at a more detailed level.

• The area and percentage of green infrastructure by Environmental Zones (EnZ) and country are presented.

• Based on data sets that are available across Europe.

• Relative easy to calculate.

• Excepting the selection of Corine classes, it is a relatively objective and robust method

• Results are relatively easy to communicate.

• Potentially overestimates the green infrastructure in countries where the dominant landscape matrix is composed of natural classes.

• In countries with fragmented landscapes, green infrastructure is potentially underestimated; important ecological stepping stones are not included as part of what is identified as green infrastructure.

Green Background Landscape Index (GBLI) map and green infrastructure

Combination of Corine Land Cover data sets and smoothen CORILIS layers

• It expresses the 'greenness' or naturality on a pan-European scale, which can be used to infer the 'ecological potential' of landscapes.

• It is based on the spatial distribution of pasture, agriculture mosaics, forests and other semi-natural or natural land favourable to nature.

• It is an asset in itself as well as an important component of the connectivity between areas of high ecological interest.

• The GBLI map can show changes from 1990 to 2006 in Europe. The map shows clearly increasing or decreasing index values for various parts of Europe.

• Lessons from the GBLI map, for example in terms of smoothing the Corine data, could be considered as part of reviewing the landscape scale green infrastructure mapping approach.

Landscape fragmentation models and green infrastructure

Fragmentation data sets

• Can be used for monitoring the state of the landscape and changes over time.

• Increased fragmentation of landscapes provides less connectivity for

•Fragmentation maps provide an accurate measurement of landscape fragmentation for most of the European countries which support

• Measures for controlling landscape fragmentation can only be implemented effectively if there is an awareness of the problem

Mesh size of unfrag-mented areas per unit (region)

9

28/04/2015

ecological networks, influencing the sustainability of green infrastructure.

• Data on the degree of landscape fragmentation needed for comparing different regions in a green infrastructure and territorial cohesion context.

policymakers in monitoring green infrastructure.

• Can be used in developing indicators in support of green infrastructure planning and performance reviews.

and if feasible solutions are proposed.

Net Landscape Ecological Potential (NLEP) and green infrastructure

Corine Land Cover data sets and effective mesh size

• It is a status indicator which at European/ national scales helps frame the potential and provides quick monitoring of the state and its usefulness for assessing progress towards biodiversity targets and various scales, for example.

• Provides information on the overall state of the green infrastructure and its changes.

• It presents a measurement that can express ecosystems' integrity, and allows a good reading across Europe because of its robust calculation method, which can be aggregated to various reporting units.

• The indicator is not built around ecological data that would exactly demonstrate which are the desired adaptive biological communities, their species composition, diversity and functional organisation comparable to that of a natural habitat in the region under discussion.

• The indicator cannot show in which way the ecosystem integrity can be restored, nor does it have a solely ecological meaning.

Mapping of ecological corridors and green infrastructure

Corine Land Cover data sets and smoothen CORILIS data

• Focus on the interruption of ecological corridors due to traffic infrastructure. Maps ecological corridors for migrating species, and in general to improve the coherence of the ecological network and hence green infrastructure.

• It considers potential

• Takes into consideration the species requirements.

• The method reveals a measure for landscape permeability from a species point of view and integrates both spatial and functional connectivities.

• Is regarded as a pilot study, as the focus was led on forest-bound species.

• This approach has to be combined with other ecological profiles leading to a multifunctional tool on various levels of scale.

• The method was developed

10

28/04/2015

connectivity, and fragmentation between areas, and analyses the Natura 2000 network in relation to potential connectivity.

between 2004 and 2007, without finalising the complete multilevel and multiscale approach in the following years.

Corine ecotones and green infrastructure

Corine Land Cover and Natura 2000 data sets

• It considers transition areas between two different ecosystems, which can support high levels of biodiversity by providing flora and fauna with diverse environments on which to interact.

• The ecotone not only contains species common to the communities on both sides; it may also include a number of species only able to colonise such transitional areas.

• The provisioning of multiple habitats for species interaction makes ecotone zones of high biological interest.

• Corine ecotones can add value to land cover analyses in the context of green infrastructure assessment used to make landscape analyses in several different contexts, from analysing landscape diversity to assessing habitat fragmentation.

• The creation aspect of the data sets was only completed in 2011, and so many exploratory analyses have yet to be performed to gauge the product's full potential.

Quickscan green infrastructure

Geographical Information System (GIS) tools

• It is a flexible and modular modelling environment currently being developed in the European Environment Agency (EEA). It allows the users to explore the different implications and trade-offs which occur when developing and implementing policy options for Europe.

• Green infrastructure can be explored either as a purely structural theme, by looking at different land cover types and administrative declarations, or it can be explored with a more functional approach, which seeks to identify areas and networks that might not be measured using purely mechanical means.

• The method adapted in the Quickscan tool is purely exploratory and not designed as an exact method for measuring green infrastructure, but rather as a valuable way to explore the data sets in a green infrastructure context.

Regional environmental characterisation

Geographical Information System (GIS) tools

• Aims to provide a scientifically relevant and politically operational description of the

• The approach on identification of common assets can potentially be used to contribute to the

• The approach on identification of common assets does not explicitly

11

28/04/2015

environmental characteristics of European territories so as to support territorial cohesion and green infrastructure.

• Two approaches are developed: one on policy impact assessment, and the other on the identification of common current environmental assets.

assessment of the spatial impact of European policies.

• It can identify region-specific natural and environmental assets.

• The potential relevance of the policy impact assessment approach is that it can provide some approximate areas where green infrastructure would be particularly needed because of pollutant levels, for instance.

incorporate limits and carrying capacity.

• The impact assessment approach has limited use in the identification or characterisation of green infrastructure; its focus is on the quality of three environmental assets i.e. atmosphere, water and soil quality.

Source: EEA report on GI and territorial cohesion (2011), modified.

Further information is already available on local scale (see London/Dublin/Warsaw examples for green roof potential; mapping of SUDS schemes – rain gardens, bioretention, Paris audit of green walls, Vienna tool to identify hotspots where investments in GI could resolve issues (for identifying funding priorities).

A crucial information source is the Map of European ecosystem types based on CLC-EUNIS crosswalk. Source: Banko et al., ETC/SIA, Dec. 2013http://projects.eionet.europa.eu/eea-ecosystem-assessments/library/draft-ecosystem-map-europe

The below table provides the datasets used to map a selected number of GI-relevant ecosystem services.

12

28/04/2015

Source: EEA report on Spatial analysis of Green Infrastructure in Europe (2014)

Based on this, EEA assessed the capacity of GI to mitigate the impact of climate change related natural hazards, i.e. landslides, avalanches, floods, storm surges, as well as their contribution to global climate regulation. The methodology to map those contains the following steps:

1) Capacity: mapping the ecosystems’ potential to provide services to protect against climate change impacts. 2) Ecosystem Services Flow: mapping the physical exposure to extreme climate events, by assessing the probability or frequency of such events (that get subsequently mitigated by the relevant ecosystem services). 3) Demand: mapping the potential beneficiaries of the selected ecosystem services4) Risk: mapping the areas at risk to a specific natural hazard, given the presence of assets (i.e. demand) and lack of mitigating ecosystem services (i.e. protective Green Infrastructure).

The table below shows the selected ecosystem services and related data sets.ES Service Class Ecosystem capacity Areas exposed to potential hazard Demand

13

28/04/2015

Mass

stabilisation

JRC forest cover map1 JRC landslide susceptibility map

(ELSUS1000 v1)

Transport infrastructure

JRC forest cover map ESPON avalanche Transport infrastructure

MAES – Erosion control services by

forests and ecosystems

Soil erosion risk map - PESEARA Crop yield

Flood

protection

MAES – annually summed soil

infiltration

JRC Flood return rate projections: 2-

year / 100-year return rates for 2000 /

2025 / 2035 / 20852

Population

Storm

protection

Coastal protection3 ESPON storm surge Population

Global climate

regulation

MAES Storage and sequestration of

CO2

Biomass changes in forests (harvest

vs. growth)

Regarding GI in urban and peri-urban areas, the EEA has worked on measuring the potential of these areas to host GI and to provide its services, with methods used and tools created to (i) compute the green infrastructure in the urban and rural interface, and (ii) implement a city typology regarding green spaces within and around cities, including a database and a factsheet for each of the 369 analysed urban areas in Europe).

Typology of cities according to their GI potential

Inner city GI parameters Urban fringe GI parameters

Share of GUA (green urban areas)

Distribution of GUA (represented by the edge density between “green” and “red”)

Mean effective GI % of hotspots within the effective GI

Source: EEA/ETC report on Urban and peri-urban green infrastructure (2013).

This could be developed further as followed (EEA (2014), in progress)

1 http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/forest-mapping/

2 http://www.edenextdata.com/?q=content/jrc-flood-return-rate-projections-2-and-100-year-return-rates-2000253585

3 Liquete, C. et al (2013): Assessment of coastal protection as an ecosystem service in Europe – In: Ecological Indicators 30 (2013) 205–217

14

28/04/2015

Another exercise investigates land use and land management related pressures on agricultural and forest ecosystems. It compares soil productivity of agricultural crop and grassland ecosystems and of forests with the land use intensity to assess the potential of the area to deliver ecosystem services, measured in ecosystem pressure on agricultural area (EEA, 2014).

An approach currently tested by EEA is to identify structural and functional elements of GI and combine their values to show spatially explicit improvement or deterioration between 2000-2006. This would be done by the identification of possible structural and functional key features of GI, expressed by data sets/ indices (based on regularly updated European data sets), which are combined to calculate values for given years and the related change.

15

28/04/2015

A wealth of information linked to fragmentation and connectivity is available on European level by JRC. In particular the following products could be useful here, for status and pressure monitoring leading towards a European-scale harmonized reporting on fragmentation for forest and for natural/semi-natural lands, and on connectivity of N2000 sites

- (1) (forest) connectivity/landscape forest spatial pattern and green infrastructure,

- (2) Fragmentation pattern of natural-semi-natural lands and green infrastructure

- (3) Connectivity of N2000 (Habitat Directive Art. 10) and green infrastructure.

This could help in Mapping and measuring GI in Europe and its regions. JRC is developing tools and methodological guidance to help building GI and tackle fragmentation by grey infrastructure and land use intensification. Such tools could identify priority areas, where a minor gain of forest patches results in a significant gain in connectivity.

More information is on http://forest.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/forest-pattern-fragmentation/. Information on semi-natural vegetation: doi: 10.1007/s13593-014-0238-1.

16

28/04/2015

3. Project monitoring

This section is included for communication purposes only (e.g. towards the WG GIIR). Guidance or application of project monitoring is currently not part of the monitoring approaches on European level (and should not be when discussing further steps forward on inter-institutional level).

"Monitoring and evaluation are useful tools to assess a project’s success in terms of its achievement of the original objectives, benefits produced and cost-effectiveness. Moreover, such activities can help to identify further needs for adjusting the project design and activities over time (corresponding to changed external conditions, changing funding modalities, failures in technical implementation, new emerging funding opportunities and stakeholder interests, etc.). In order to assess the impacts and benefits of the project, a baseline (mapping the initial state of the ecosystem or area) must be defined.

By carrying out evaluation studies, positive publicity can be gained and information for knowledge transfer be produced.

The results [of the case studies] show that integrating evaluation and monitoring activities in the early stages of a project are very useful to report on a project’s progress and success and to make adjustments in the project’s set-up, if necessary. By adapting the project design accordingly, effectiveness of the project and the delivery of benefits can be improved. Moreover, lessons learned for the wider application can be identified. In addition, positive acknowledgement on behalf of a wider range of stakeholders and their support can be gained and future financing sources can be ensured.

The frequency of evaluation and monitoring activities should be determined according to the project duration and should take milestones into account, which require important decisions to be made.

From the case studies selected, it results that recurring costs of monitoring and evaluation sum up to 2% of the project costs per year (see table 19, pg. 71).

The analysis above suggests that:● The financial costs of green infrastructure projects are generally well understood and

monitored, especially as most projects involve public expenditure, and are often financed through external funding bids, including from EU programmes such as LIFE and the Structural Funds as well as national schemes;

● While the opportunity costs of many green infrastructure projects are likely to be significant, they are much less well understood and documented than the financial costs of green infrastructure provision;

● The benefits of green infrastructure can be measured using different types of indicators:● In general, the best data are available for the provision of green infrastructure itself (the

extent of habitats, features and green spaces created, protected, restored and maintained).● Quantitative data on the delivery of ecosystem services is limited or completely lacking for

most projects, though some services (such as recreation, carbon sequestration and

17

28/04/2015

provisioning services) are more easily quantified than others (e.g. most regulating services, except in urban areas).

● Evidence from a few studies demonstrates that it is possible to value the services delivered by green infrastructure in monetary terms, but that this has been attempted for only a small number of green infrastructure projects. Monetary valuation usually relies on benefits transfer, and often the difficulty of measuring ecosystem service delivery is as much a barrier to valuation as the availability of usable value estimates.

● The economic and social impacts of green infrastructure projects are often easier to estimate than the value of ecosystem services delivered, and estimates are available for a number of projects.

Further work to investigate and monitor the opportunity costs of green infrastructure projects, their effects on the delivery of ecosystem services, and the value of these services, would be beneficial in enhancing the understanding of the costs and benefits of green infrastructure investments.

Since most assessments of the benefits of green infrastructure rely on the transfer of benefits from other studies, standardised assessment tools have the potential to improve our understanding of the potential benefits of individual projects.

It is recognised, however, that the benefits of green infrastructure are often location specific and sensitive to differences in local context. […] while ecosystem services (such as climate regulation and recreation) are amenable to standardised measurement, others such as water purification and regulation are highly locationally specific. Standardised toolkits, while they may help to inform indicative estimates of potential benefits, should not be seen as a substitute for local analysis of the benefits of particular projects.

The national government should also carry out monitoring activities at the national and regional levels. In order to prepare for the measurement of progress made in the development of green infrastructure, the existing green infrastructure must be mapped at the national level (preferably by using a geographic information system). Such work would allow for an overview of the country’s green infrastructure network to be obtained and for the establishment of a baseline. First steps in this direction have been already made at the EU-level by the European Environmental Agency (EEA) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC)."

Source: Ecologic/GHK (2011): Design, implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure projects

18