Green Infrastructure and Urban Climate Resilience: An Introduction 3031370805, 9783031370809

Citation preview

Keerththana Kumareswaran Guttila Yugantha Jayasinghe

Green Infrastructure and Urban Climate Resilience An Introduction

Green Infrastructure and Urban Climate Resilience

Keerththana Kumareswaran · Guttila Yugantha Jayasinghe

Green Infrastructure and Urban Climate Resilience An Introduction

Keerththana Kumareswaran Department of Agricultural Engineering and Environmental Technology Faculty of Agriculture University of Ruhuna Matara, Sri Lanka

Guttila Yugantha Jayasinghe Department of Agricultural Engineering and Environmental Technology Faculty of Agriculture University of Ruhuna Matara, Sri Lanka

ISBN 978-3-031-37080-9 ISBN 978-3-031-37081-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37081-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Background

Heading in the twenty-first century human has become the most surpassing creator and destroyer of the ecosystem. Immersing in the materialistic possessions and in a hunt of money they tend to devastate biodiversity and exploit the natural resources in several ways affecting the ecosystem balance. People in the rural areas started mass migration toward cities with the change of lifestyle, consumption pattern along with urbanization and modernization. Living far away from nature in a man-modified environment created adverse effects due to unethical anthropogenic activities. When the government, institutions, and the public started realizing the adverse impacts of global warming, heat island effect, sick building syndromes, and psychological unhealthy condition, green concepts in urban areas commenced blooming. In terms of promoting an integrated system of land use management and sustainable resource management, green infrastructure has been suggested as a mechanism for productive positive environmental change and urban sustainability. Green infrastructure has been interconnected with creating healthy community, improving quality of life, mitigating adverse impacts of climate change, facilitating sustainable urban development, promoting economic development, building urban resilience, and addressing the issues of social equity, all of which promote a number of the underlying principles of sustainability. Cities can act as either driver for global environmental change or expediter of sustainable development. Hence, it is up to the people to progress the development in the appropriate way to nurture long-term sustainability and resilience by aligning favorable policies. 2016 was recorded as the warmest year recording 327 disasters globally out of which 191 are natural explicitly showing that the planet is pushed to the verge to think about urban resilience and sustainability as a fundamental requirement of this brown world to combat climate change and facilitate rational development. Appropriate integration of green-gray infrastructure and development of climate resilient cities is the core theme of this publication. Further it emphasizes on sustainable development which has become an imperative requirement to the world to move fore and climate change-built environment nexus, the most critical global crisis.

v

Contents

1 Green Infrastructure (GI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Ecosystem Services (ESS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 What is Green Infrastructure? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Classification of Green Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.1 Green Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.2 Green Walls and Green Facades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.3 Green Spaces: Street Trees and Grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.4 Permeable Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.5 Rain Gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.6 Bioswales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.7 Bioretention Ponds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.8 Constructed Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.9 Drainage Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.10 Rainwater Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Green and Gray Infrastructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 4 8 10 13 14 16 20 21 22 24 26 26 28 29 32 33

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Climate Change and Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Critical Impacts of Climate Change on Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Climate Change Triggered by Built Environment . . . . . . . 2.2 Urban Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 How Do Cities Develop Climate Resilience? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Management of Flood Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Building Resilience to Drought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Mitigating UHI Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.5 Lowering Bulk Energy Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 40 43 44 46 49 50 51 56 57 63

vii

viii

Contents

2.3.6 Improving Coastal Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building Climate Resilience: Through Adaptation, Mitigation, Environmental Engineering, and Learning Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Learning-Based Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Climate Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 Climate Change Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.4 Climate Change Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.5 Delivering National Climate Action Through Decarbonized Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Sustainable Development Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Interlinking City Development with Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 Sustainable Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 SMART Green Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.1 SMART Growth Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Compact City and Inclusion of Smart Green Concepts . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 Why Do We Need Ecological Cities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Urban Sprawl and Its Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Urbanization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Megacities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Urban Planning (UP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 Urban Planning Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Components of Urban Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Sustainable Urban Planning Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1 Sponge City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.2 Decentralized Urban Design (DUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.3 Water-Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.4 Low Impact Development Design (LID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.5 Sustainable Development Urban Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.6 Healthy Water Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99 99 100 106 107 112 114 116 117 118 122 128 132 136 138 140

4 Green Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Implications of Green Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Environmental Assessment Schemes for Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Green Building Rating Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Components of Green Building Rating Systems . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Integrating Resilience Aspect to Green Building Rating Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Green Building Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Green Building Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

145 146 148 149 151

2.4

66 67 67 68 73 73 74 76 78 84 87 88 89 91

156 162 169

Contents

Different Types of Green Building Rating Systems Across the World Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 BREEAM Rating System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 CASBEE Rating System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.4 Green Star Rating System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.5 Envision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.6 Green Globes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.7 Pearl: Estimada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.8 Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE™) . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.9 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DNGB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.10 Sustainable Building (SB) Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.11 GBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.12 Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.13 ITACA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.14 Neighborhood Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Architectural Perspective in Green Building Designing . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Productivity and Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.3 Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.4 Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.5 Cost-Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.6 Historical Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.7 Safety and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.8 Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Key Architectural Design Aspects in GI Development . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.1 Building Location and Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.2 Building Massing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.3 Incorporating Sunlight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.4 Enhancing Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.5 Incorporating Wind Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.6 Space Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.7 Special Building Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.8 Material Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

4.4

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Assessing the Economic Value of Green Infrastructures . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

169 170 173 174 176 177 177 178 178 179 180 181 181 182 183 185 185 186 186 186 186 186 187 187 187 187 188 189 190 190 194 195 195 196 199 199 201 212 213

x

Contents

5.2 5.3

Quantification of Green Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Green Infrastructure Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Green Infrastructure Valuation Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Valuation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Total Economic Value (TEV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Fiscal Assessment of Non-market Environmental Goods . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Revealed Preference Valuation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2 Stated Preference Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.3 Benefit Transfer (BT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.4 Avoided Cost Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Global Case Studies on Economic Valuation of GI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1 Indices to Measure Urban Greenness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.2 Outdoor Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.3 Economic Evaluation of Green Roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.4 Coastal Protection Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.5 Economic Valuation for Urban Strategic Planning . . . . . . 5.6.6 Carbon Assessment Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.7 Air Pollution Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.8 Willingness to Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

214 215 217 219 221 222 222 224 225 225 228 229 229 231 232 235 236 237 238 240

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction to Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Urban Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Temporal and Spatial Scale of Urban Resilience . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Infrastructure Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Ten Essentials of City Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Organize for Disaster Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Identify, Understand, and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 Strengthen Financial Capability for Resilience . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4 Pursue Resilient Urban Development and Design . . . . . . . 6.3.5 Safeguard Natural Buffers to Enhance the Protective Functions Offered by Natural Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.6 Strengthen Institutional Capacity for Resilience . . . . . . . . 6.3.7 Understand and Strengthen Societal Capacity for Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.8 Increase Infrastructure Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.9 Ensure Effective Disaster Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.10 Expedite Recovery and Build Back Better . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Role of GI in Building Urban Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1 Systematic Approach in GI Adaptation for UR . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Globalizing Urban Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1 C40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2 U20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

245 246 248 249 249 250 252 253 253 254 254 255 255 255 256 256 257 259 263 264 264

Contents

6.6

xi

International Urban Resilience Frameworks/Models . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.1 Rockefeller Foundation’s City Resilience Index (CRI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.2 UNISDR’s Disaster Resilience Scorecard . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.3 Comprehensive Resilience Assessment Framework for Transport Systems in Urban Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.4 Urban Resilience in Climate Change Adaptation: A Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.5 Resilience Maturity Model (RMM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.6 Urban Resilience Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.7 Integrated Framework for Urban Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.8 UDRI Framework: Urban Design Resilience Index . . . . . 6.6.9 A Framework for Adaptive Co-management and Design for Operationalizing Urban Resilience . . . . . . 6.6.10 PEOPLES Resilience Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.11 Knowledge Product Evaluation (KnoPE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.12 Complex Adaptive System Framework (CAS) . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.13 Local Government Self-Assessment Tool (LGSAT) . . . . . 6.6.14 Adaptive Cycle Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.15 Dynamic Models (DM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.16 Community Flood Resilience Categorization Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.17 Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.18 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction . . . . . . . . 6.6.19 Community Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

265

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Green Infrastructure Multifunctionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Assessing and Mapping GI Multifunctionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Classification of GI Multifunctionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Urban Planning for GI Multifunctionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Spatial Planning for GI Multifunctionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.1 GI Planning Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.2 Approaches Addressing Governance Process . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.3 Tradeoffs, Synergies, and Spatial Conflicts in GI Planning for Multifunctionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 Quantification of Multifunctionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.1 Connectivity Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.2 Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.3 Green Infrastructure Spatial Planning (GISP) Model . . . . 7.6.4 Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis (ESDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.5 Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis (MSPA) . . . . . . . . 7.6.6 Zonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

289 290 290 291 291 296 299 300

266 267 269 270 272 272 273 273 274 276 276 276 276 277 277 278 279 280 282 285

300 300 301 303 305 307 308 310

xii

Contents

7.7

Role of Green Infrastructure in Protecting the Ecosystem Functions and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7.1 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7.2 Urban Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7.3 Green Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 Multifunctional Benefits of Green Infrastructure in Community Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 Role of GI in Supporting the Development of Green Economy . . . 7.9.1 Strategic and Instrumental Components in Achieving Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9.2 Green Economy and Entrepreneurship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9.3 Benefits of Green Entrepreneurship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10 The Role of GI in Promoting Societal Health and Wellbeing . . . . . 7.10.1 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10.2 Physical Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10.3 Social Cohesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10.4 Stress Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10.5 Urban Resilience and Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10.6 Health Concerns in Disaster Risk Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience . . . . . 8.1 GI Policy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 GI Policy Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 Policy Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.2 Policy Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 GI Policy Adoption in Global Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.2 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.3 Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.4 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.5 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.6 UK, Parris, Japan, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.7 Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.8 USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.9 Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.10 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.11 Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 GI Policy Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Urban Resilience Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.1 Science-Policy-Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.2 Policy Space, Nature of Power, and Citizen Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 Urban Climate Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.1 Policy Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

311 313 313 315 317 320 321 323 324 324 325 326 326 326 327 328 329 335 335 339 341 343 344 344 345 346 347 350 350 350 351 351 351 352 353 355 357 359 361 362

Contents

xiii

8.7 Health Related Urban Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Challenges Encountered in the Wide Adoption of Green Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.1 Design Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.2 Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.3 Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.4 Socioeconomic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.5 Financeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.6 Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.7 Administrative and Political . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.8 Technical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Potential GI Disservices in Incorporating GI into Buildings . . . . . . 9.3 Global Challenges and Opportunities in Building Urban Climate Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Future Perspectives to Build a Climate Resilient Green City . . . . . 9.4.1 Conceptualizing the Concept of Urban Green Infrastructure and Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.2 Innovative Funding Tools and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.3 Strategic Planning and Standardized Policy Agendas . . . . 9.4.4 Transparent and Flexible Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.5 GI Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.6 Setting GI Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.7 Smart Growth and Smart Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.8 Adopting the Mitigation Hierarchy of Green Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.9 Community Engagement and Collective Impact . . . . . . . . 9.4.10 Intersection of GI and Community Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.11 Smart Green Infrastructure: Automation of UGI . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

371 372 372 373 373 374 376 378 378 379 380 380 380 380 389 389 390 391 392 392 393 394 395 395 397

About the Authors

Ms. Keerththana Kumareswaran is currently a lecturer in the Department of Agricultural Engineering and Environmental Technology in University of Ruhuna, Sri Lanka. She is a recipient of Fulbright Master’s Fellowship Awards (2023–2025), P.E.O International Peace Scholarship (2023–2024) and Dean’s Master’s Scholarship (2023–2025) at Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern Caifornia. She has been awarded with two SANASA gold medals at the graduation (2020). She has authored scientific articles in reputed international communications with number of conference proceedings. She admires nature as a vital component of life and an integral part of cities. She focuses on sustainable, resilient, and livable cities by strategic planning with nature-based solutions. Her research interest includes nature-based solutions, green infrastructure, climate resilience, water engineering, sustainability, energy performance, climate change, environmental engineering, and occupant comfort.

xv

xvi

About the Authors

Prof. Guttila Yugantha Jayasinghe is currently the head of the department and senior professor in Agricultural Engineering in Ruhuna University of Sri Lanka. He is a recipient of the ‘Endeavour Postgraduate Research Fellowship’ (Australia: 2014); recipient of prestigious Monbukagakusho Award, Japan (2004–2010): recipient of NUFFIC fellowship, Netherlands, 2012; a recipient of Presidential Award in 2018; and Most Outstanding Scholar of the University of Ruhuna (2012), and he has been awarded in multiple occasions to remark his contribution as an academician/researcher globally. He has published over 150 articles in peer-reviewed journals/reports/textbooks, etc. Further, he disseminated the outcomes of his work in over 100 symposia/conferences held in Sri Lanka and in over 20 countries.

Chapter 1

Green Infrastructure (GI)

Contents 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ecosystem Services (ESS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What is Green Infrastructure? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classification of Green Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.1 Green Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.2 Green Walls and Green Facades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.3 Green Spaces: Street Trees and Grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.4 Permeable Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.5 Rain Gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.6 Bioswales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.7 Bioretention Ponds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.8 Constructed Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.9 Drainage Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.10 Rainwater Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 Green and Gray Infrastructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 4 8 10 13 14 16 20 21 22 24 26 26 28 29 32 33

1.1 Background The human race has evolved into the most superior creator as we enter the twenty-first century. Unfortunately, human beings have become the destroyers of the ecosystem due to their thirst for power, wealth, and consumerism, which puts their very survival on this planet in jeopardy. The largest problem currently confronting humanity is how to stop this tendency toward self-destruction. The clock is now relentlessly ticking, and humanity is poised on a ticking time bomb. The goal of both this chapter and the entire book is to prevent this imminent disaster from destroying humanity. Noam Chomsky, a professor of Linguistics at MIT, a philosopher, and one of this century’s most outspoken intellectuals, has been writing and speaking for many years about © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Kumareswaran and G. Y. Jayasinghe, Green Infrastructure and Urban Climate Resilience, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37081-6_1

1

2

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

two impending dangers that threaten the very survival of humans on this planet, namely (a) environmental catastrophe and (b) nuclear catastrophe. The “enclosure movement” is thought to have taken place in Britain during the industrial revolution, switching from extremely labor-intensive sheep farming to much less labor-intensive wheat cultivation. As a result, there was an army of extra rural labor. To operate the numerous factories that sprung up at the beginning of the industrial revolution and were situated in industrial hubs that subsequently developed into cities like London, Manchester, and Liverpool, a lot of inexpensive labor was required. This was the catalyst for the mass migration of destitute men and women who had been kicked off the farms into industrial cities in Britain. On the American continent, this trend of mass migration and urbanization became a global phenomenon when industrialization began to take place in other European countries. For the first time, we saw two classes of people: the capitalists, who own the means of production (land, buildings, machines, and capital), and the workers, or more precisely, the proletariat, who are the impoverished people who own nothing except their labor power. Capitalism, which sprang from the preceding social and economic system known as feudalism, is currently in its infancy, as is the never-ending desire for profit. The possibility of environmental and nuclear disasters exists even in countries with non-capitalist modes of production, such as Russia and China, which are not motivated by profit maximization. The reasons for this are very interesting and complicated and are outside the scope of this book. Then, we witnessed the colonization, exploitation, and dominance of nations in Asia, Africa, and other continents by the British and other Europeans. The abovementioned migratory pattern was gradually replicated in each colony. This is how urban regions in Sri Lanka and India, such as Colombo, Chennai, Bombay, and Calcutta, came to be so heavily inhabited. Today, every nation on earth is experiencing this. Because the problems covered in this book are universal, urgent global action is required. Thus, city life began all over the world under the impetus of capitalism or mindless greed for profit. This meant decimating nature by cutting down the carbon absorbing and oxygen releasing forests and jungles, replacing them with concrete jungles endangering wild life, cities becoming suffocatingly densely populated with nearly 80% of population living in less than 5% of the available land, due to land scarcity in the city vertical living in concrete tower blocks, use of high levels of artificial energy to live in cities by burning non-renewable fossil fuel, associated air, water and land pollution to levels never experienced before, and the list is endless. The nature’s delicate balance and equilibrium are therefore drastically disturbed producing life-threatening outcomes such as heat effect, temperature rise, global warming, high-carbon levels in the atmosphere, puncturing the ozone layer, greenhouse effect, sea level rising, displacement of coastal population, disease producing environment, uncontrollable climate change, crop failures, poverty, and many more effects cumulatively making all forms of life on this planet unviable. Reversing these effects is a slow process. Therefore, we are facing the real danger of running out of time. Now human creativity must be meticulously directed to win this race against this impending disaster.

1.1 Background

3

Living far away from nature in a man modified environment created adverse effects due to anthropogenic activities which give short-term comforts at the expense of longterm self-destruction. Only when governments, institutions, and the powerful profitdriven corporate sector responsible for these anti-human activities were confronted by environmental pressure groups, green movements, community groups, eminent scientists and thinkers, and citizens all over the world with powerful evidencebased information and very convincing arguments in support of the above-mentioned adverse impacts, they began to explore and reluctantly apply the green infrastructure concepts in urban areas. Ignorance in these matters prevailed at the highest levels even in the technologically most advanced country in the world, the United States of America, whose president even went to the extent of publicly challenging that global warming and climate change are nothing but scare mongering and fake news! So, education and implementation of green solutions must take place side by side on a global scale. This is the dual challenge facing us today. In terms of promoting an integrated system of sustainable land use and resource management, green infrastructure has now been universally accepted as a mechanism for reversing the process of globalized environmental disaster and ensuring the viability of continued life on this planet. Green infrastructure is a means of creating healthy communities, improving quality of life, mitigating adverse impacts of climate change, facilitating sustainable urban development, promoting sustainable economic development, building urban resilience, and addressing issues of social equity, all of which promote the underlying principles of sustainability [1]. Every city must act as a driver of environmental recovery as well as expediter of sustainable development. Community-based pressure groups, green movements, the intellectual contributors, and citizens must continue their good work and keep monitoring until the planet becomes safe for human habitation. Governments and the corporate sector cannot be trusted to do this job on their own. 2016 became the warmest year, recording 327 disasters globally of which 191 were natural, explicitly showing that the planet is pushed to the verge of calamity needing to think about urban resilience and sustainability as a fundamental requirement to combat climate change and facilitate rational development, spelling an end to the brown world [2]. GI concepts need to be applied, without exception, to every human activity producing human needs and comforts. Most of the time GI is a win–win solution, providing several value-added benefits to multiple stakeholders in a more effective and sustainable manner. There is a growing demand to GI, an umbrella solution to urban challenges leading to urban sustainability and improved performance. Detailed study of socio-ecological effects, arising from a variety of green frameworks on diverse urban topographies, has come heavily in favor of the politics of green infrastructure. A process of naturalization, covering spaces such as courtyards, roofs, and walls with greenery, helps to absorb pollutants from the air, reduce noise, balance the water cycle, reduce energy consumption, and hence curb carbon dioxide emission and foster biodiversity. Trees in streets, parks, and shrubs act as natural purifier. A very good example is Barcelona’s trees. Being a densely populated city in Europe with low green space per capita and exceeding EU limits for nitrogen dioxide and

4

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

particulate matter emission, through integration of GI, the city has managed to offset around 19,000 net tons of CO2 from the atmosphere and removed around 305 tons of air pollutants which is obviously a great ecosystem service to overcome severe environmental challenges [3]. With urbanization, impervious paved surfaces have significantly increased. As a result, surface runoff is discharged via pipe-based drainage system into reservoirs or water ways leading eventually into the sea rather than getting filtrated into soil. Due to this the quality of water in reservoirs and quantity of stored groundwater are low. Generally, runoff water consists of several components such as chemicals, heavy metals, pesticides, fertilizer residues, debris, dust particles, and other hazardous pollutants. Generally, end pipe emissions are released into water bodies such as river, stream, and sea even without proper treatment. The ultimate results would be the pollution of natural water ways adversely affecting aquatic biota lowering their abundance and biodiversity. Gray water management alone cannot address the impacts of intense urbanization and industrialization. When green infrastructure component is integrated for runoff water management, the pollutants concentration can be diluted and assimilated by the soil; meantime reclaimed water can be reused depending on its quality or used to replenish groundwater table [4]. The successful implementation and management of GI to make cities sustainable depend on the vision, competence, commitment, capacity, accountability, and the political will of local government as well as the central government. This can come about only from pressure from below. Private profit only based economic system has failed globally. An approach based on rational use of resources only can produce sustainable solutions. The centralized top-down approach has completely failed. Decentralizing power to the regions is essential to ensure people participation for better results. Governments the world over have miserably failed in fighting carbon emission. No country in the world except Bhutan in the Indian subcontinent, with a small population of 771,612 in 2020, has achieved zero net greenhouse gas emission (ZNGGE)! ZNGGE means that the total greenhouse gas generated by humans and absorbed by nature is equal making the net emission zero. This alone is not sufficient. We need to settle the arrears! This is the current dire state of affairs in the world today!

1.2 Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) The majority of the Anthropocene challenges we are currently facing, including biodiversity loss, the depletion of natural resources, environmental pollution and land degradation, food insecurity, water scarcity, the energy crisis, disaster risk, and the compromise of human health and socioeconomic development, are closely intertwined to the drive for economic growth and the growing world population [5]. Nature-based solutions (NbS) emerged as a comprehensive, transdisciplinary strategy to protect human and planetary health, with the primary goal of utilizing several functionalities in interventions to resolve these social, economic, and environmental conflicts in a sustainable manner [6, 7]. NbS can be implemented alone or

1.2 Nature-Based Solutions (NbS)

5

incorporated with other technological or engineering actions to address societal challenges. Besides these, NbS addresses weaknesses in participatory planning, urban governance, aging infrastructure, and urban degeneration and supports sustainable development [8]. Nature-based solution principally involves in protection, restoration, management, and enhancement of natural and seminatural ecosystems and creation of novel ecosystems or solutions through actions inspired by or supported by nature or mimicked from nature [9–11]. Nature-based solutions have secured top position in national, regional, and international political agendas attracting more public–private funds in all levels. They have been emphasized in recent global reports of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service [5, 12]. The concept of nature-based solutions was adopted by practitioners and policy makers in early 2000 (agricultural context) particularly via International Union for Conservation of Nature (ICUN) for climate change adaptation and biodiversity conservation and management and then reconceptualized by European Commission to account social and economic objectives [6] to advocate protection, management, and restoration of natural and seminatural ecosystems, incorporate blue-green infrastructures, building climate resilience, aesthetic value, climate change adaptation and mitigation, sustainable resource management, land use planning and management, disaster risk reduction water management, industrial design, and biomimicry, as well as to apply ecosystem-based principles to agricultural systems in order to draw effective solutions to problems without any disparity [13, 14]. The European Commission expert group on NbS defined NbS as “builds on and supports other closely related concepts, such as the ecosystem approach, ecosystem services, biomimicry ecosystem-based adaptation/mitigation, and green and blue infrastructure”, ‘involve the innovative application of knowledge about nature, inspired and supported by nature’, and resolve industrial, technical, and environmental problems [13]. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines NbS as ‘actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively’, ‘the potential power of nature and the solutions it can provide to global challenges in fields such as climate change, food security, social and economic development’, ‘Healthy, diverse, and well managed ecosystems lay the foundation for practical, nature-based solutions to global problems’ [15]. There are three typologies of NbS (type 1, 2, and 3) along which ecosystem service delivery and level of engineering applied to biodiversity and ecosystems maximized [16]. Type 1: solutions that involve making better use of existing ecosystems (e.g., measures to increase fish stocks in wetlands) Type 2: solutions for managing or restoring ecosystems (e.g., re-establishing traditional agroforestry) Type 3: creation of new ecosystems (e.g., establishing green buildings).

6

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

Mangrove restoration, reforestation, soil management, agroforestry, coastal management, floodplain management, wetland restoration, forest protection, grassland management, green roofs, green walls, urban green spaces, wind breaks, storm water harvesting, and community gardens are some of the actions that are involved in NbS [11]. Due to its multidisciplinary approach in offering a recognizable answer to specific issues or difficulties while focusing on various elements (not a technological or engineering solution for a single goal), NbS is distinguished from other similar approaches. This strategy requires a shift in the ways that we perceive, think, act, and interact. In contrast to typical projects, while preparing for the integration of NbS, the projects must be analyzed in multidimensional perspectives. The evaluation of the setting must take into account its physical characteristics, socioeconomic problems, governance policy frameworks, etc. [14]. Majority of NbS infrastructure projects favor a community-centered participatory approach since the local neighborhoods are the end users of the project and they have ample knowledge about the site-specific conditions, potential challenges, familiarity with local systems and processes, interactions with engineering structures, where even ownership of the project sometimes transferred to local inhabitants for operation and maintenance avoiding NIMBY (not in my backyard) syndrome [13]. Paradigm shift adding social and ecological wellbeing in the global economic model NbS is about conserving nature for the health and wellbeing of the people, people who were passive beneficiaries in the conventional systems became active stakeholders in protecting and restoring ecosystems [12]. The design and execution of NbS utilize a circular approach, with the active participation of transdisciplinary diverse stakeholders and social inclusion serve several purposes, deal with related risk and uncertainty, and treat the project as dynamic since natural processes are highly unpredictable. To fully contribute to CE principles, NbS has to create new hybrid systems rather than making changes [9]. Nature-based solutions have broad scope with diverse opportunities and perspectives. Investment in nature-based solutions requires new economic thinking and facilitates transition from resource intensive linear management to resource-efficient, inclusive, and sustainable economy growth and circular management. It creates sustainable, low-carbon, and climate resilient societies and addresses the policies and actions related to energy efficiency, disaster risk reduction, air quality, and circular economy, health security [7]. NBS is an umbrella concept inclusive of several nature-based approaches that can be categorized as follows [5, 6, 16]. 1. Restorative—ecological restoration (ER), ecological engineering (EE), forest landscape restoration (FLR) 2. Issue-specific—ecosystem-based management (EbMgt), ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA), ecosystem-based mitigation (EbM), ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR), climate adaptive services (CAS) 3. Infrastructure—green infrastructure (GI), natural infrastructure (NI)

1.2 Nature-Based Solutions (NbS)

7

4. Management—integrated coastal zone management; integrated water resources management 5. Protection—area-based conservation (AbC) including protected area management and other effective area based. When compared to engineering alternatives, nature-based solutions have concerns over ambiguity in the concept, reliability, high uncertainty in cost-effectiveness (ineffective quantification and valuation methods), associated risk in learning by doing, conflicts to achieve equitable trade-offs, advocate multifunctionality, climate change resilience, gray engineering still as default approach in climate change mitigation and adaptation, governance barriers (inflexible, sectorized), poor financial models, and flawed economic appraisal methods, unsupportive incentives, and regulations [17]. NBS delivers multitude of functions on the dimensions of reducing sensitivity, exposure, and promoting adaptive capacity [14]. 1. Reducing socioeconomic sensitivity: protection from flooding, inland flooding, drought, soil erosion, sea level rise, land slide, moderate heat island effects, Reforestation, afforestation, agroforestry, wetlands establish, and green recreational spaces 2. Reducing socioeconomic exposure: diversification of ecosystem services, agroforestry, and protection of wood forests 3. Supporting adaptive capacity: governance reform (flexible and inclusive institutional governance, bottom-up approach), empowerment (women, most vulnerable, and marginalized population), improved resource access, local adaptive strategies like gardening, common pool resource management, social inclusion, enhance adaptive capacity (improved access to information and institutional services), and adaptive management during uncertainty. European Union policies supporting NBS are EU adaptation strategy, Urban Water Agenda 2030, EU Green Infrastructure Strategy, Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, EU action plan for disaster risk reduction, action plan for Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction [7]. Climate mitigation and adaptation policies encourage naturebased solutions with high biodiversity values as biodiversity-based resilience and multifunctional landscapes are gaining prominence. NBS project implementation involves following steps [13]. 1. Identifying and understanding the problem context—analyze the problem in a holistic approach considering social, economic, technical, ecological, political, and aesthetic aspects involving multidisciplinary consultation, hence determining ESS and potential 2. Identify alternative measures 3. Evaluate alternatives to choose the best multifaceted solution that adds value 4. Analyze the proposed solution for practical limitation, governance, and policy issues and fine-tune the solution to make it more realistic 5. Finalize the initial design.

8

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

The successful implementation of NbS agreed on following four high-level guidelines (www.NbSguidelines.info) [12]. Guideline 1: NbS are not a substitute for the rapid phase out of fossil fuels and must not delay urgent action to decarbonize our economies. Guideline 2: NbS involve the protection and/or restoration of a wide range of naturally occurring ecosystems on land and in the sea. Guideline 3: NbS are implemented with the full engagement and consent of indigenous peoples and local communities, including women and disadvantaged groups, and should be designed to build human capacity to adapt to climate change. Guideline 4: NbS sustain, support, or enhance biodiversity, that is, the diversity of life from the level of the gene to the level of the ecosystem. The fundamental elements of this approach are [6, 18] (1) Participatory design and implementation using sound knowledge base (life science, economy, environment, social science), coherence with temporal and spatial scales while incorporating diverse values (2) Landscape approach that considers a wide range of connected habitats and the effects that interventions in one habitat or area have on other (3) Evaluating and managing the full range of benefits, trade-offs, and conflicts across landscapes and societies (4) Implementing NbS as part of an integrated sustainability strategy across sectors (5) Decrease of fossil fuel input per produced unit (6) Increasing labor input and jobs (7) Performance-based planning and implementation accommodating multiple land use and urban complexity.

1.3 Ecosystem Services (ESS) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) defines ecosystem services as ‘the benefits provided by ecosystems that contribute to human wellbeing’, and the benefits include food, water, timber, spiritual contentment, recreation, aesthetics, cultural values, etc. Effective ecosystem management requires thorough understanding of relationships among different ecosystem services and mechanisms behind their relationships [19]. Moreover, the full range of benefits from ecosystems must be represented in any effective description of ecosystem services. The application of ecosystem services considers human needs, interests, and values. ESS portray how human health and wellbeing depend on nature and the possible negative consequences on the human and economy when the dependencies ignored. The ESS concept is usually applied in biodiversity conservation, natural resource management, policy development, and environmental accounting [20]. The concept of ecosystem services was instigated in 2011 when the European Commission adopted “Biodiversity strategy to 2020” prioritizing biodiversity conservation linking protection and restoration of ecosystem services [21]. Then, in 2012 the United Nations established an Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and

1.3 Ecosystem Services (ESS)

9

Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Later, several countries established national ecosystem assessments based on the ecosystem services. According to Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ecosystem services are categorized into four types, namely regulating, provisioning, cultural, and supporting services, as shown in Table 1.1 [22–24]. However, there are some coherent issues associated with MA classification. All the components categorized under four domains are not coherent set of services. For example, pollination, photosynthesis, soil formation, and water regulation are not the end services and are only ecosystem processes/means of service delivery to achieve end services such as food production and potable water. In general ecosystem services are consistently related to human values (adequate resources, sociocultural fulfillment, protection from diseases, predators, benign physical environment), whereas the processes and natural assets contribute to wide range of ecosystem services. The processes have to be managed to the extent which yield adequate end products to accomplish the goals of management [23]. MA categorization includes both processes and ends, making it unsuited for handling trade-offs in environmental decision making. To avoid duplicate counting, the categorization must be restructured in accordance with the economic worth. It would be more appropriate in this situation to classify ESS as intermediate, final services, and benefits depending on how closely they are related to human wellbeing [25]. Landscape management perspectives classify the ecosystem services based on spatial and temporal characteristics as follows. • In situ—service provision and benefits realization at same location • Omnidirectional—where the services are provided in one location but benefit the surrounding landscape without directional bias (e.g., pollination) • Directional—where the service provision benefits a specific location due to the flow direction (e.g., flood protection).

Table 1.1 Classification of ecosystem services Ecosystem service

Examples

Regulating

Air quality regulation, water regulation, climate regulation, erosion regulation, disease regulation, pest regulation, pollination, temperature control, noise reduction, carbon sequestration, natural pest control, urban comfort zone, rainwater drainage, sewage treatment, pollination, flood control

Provisioning

Food, fiber, genetic resources, biochemicals, natural medicines, ornamental resources, fresh water, fodder, fuel, urban agriculture, food security, hydrological cycle

Cultural

Cultural diversity, spiritual and religious values, recreation and ecotourism, aesthetic values, knowledge systems, educational values, land and property values, sense of nature, health and wellbeing, sports, leisure, mental

Supporting

Soil formation, photosynthesis, primary production, nutrient cycling, water cycling, sustain above ecosystem services, soil structure, and fertility

10

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

Ecosystem disservices (EdS) can be defined as the disservices that caused direct negative effects on human wellbeing. The direct negative effects may refer to financial costs, loss of goods, loss of revenue, unpleasant feelings, negative effects, and value loss in social and economic systems. For example, ecosystem disservices from agriculture are habitat loss, nutrient runoff, and pesticide poisoning of non-target species, whereas ecosystem disservices to agriculture are pest damage, competition with other ecosystems for water, pollination, and other resources [24]. Green infrastructure (GI) and ecosystem services (ESS) are identified as deliberate strategies applied in advanced environmental planning and land protection in different spatial scales which require holistic understanding of urban systems. GI managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services and is linked to diverse disciplines such as landscape ecology, urban ecology, architecture, and sustainable development, while ESS are benefits humans obtain from nature. It provides the basics for the development, planning, and implementation of GI [26]. Ecosystem services are the basis of nature-based solutions. They are either simple or complex beneficial services with ecological value provided by natural components or the ecosystem as a whole to mankind. Though ecosystem services of GI are originally integrated to serve single purpose in the building, they are multifunctional and simultaneously provide several co-benefits to community. Ecosystem service provision in urban area is influenced by several factors, namely urban design, form, size, landscape, distribution, population density, compactness, structure, space availability, and distribution. Moreover, local factors such as neighborhood features, density, municipal policy, future prospective of GI, green space coverage, age, and existing green diversity also have substantial impacts [27]. The ESS concept is essential for GI to accomplish one of the key objectives of biodiversity conservation which is critical for the ecosystem functioning and helpful in convincing practitioners and policy makers. Further, it increases the resilience by enhancing the diversity.

1.4 What is Green Infrastructure? Nature is a fascinating and complex phenomenon involving the earth’s large land mass, the even larger oceans and the almost infinite atmospheric envelope surrounding the earth, all interacting with each other as well as interacting with other celestial bodies in outer space in very complex ways. It is a constantly changing dynamic system but always remaining in equilibrium. But humans through their ingenuity, scientific, and technological arrogance are aggressively and greedily harnessing the forces of nature and interfering with and exploiting nature through their built environment, upsetting its equilibrium for their short-term comforts and benefits at the expense of their long-term survival on this planet. Green infrastructure (GI) is a means of resolving this conflict, a means of striking a balance between nature and humans. It is a peace deal recognizing the eco-centric needs and anthropocentric needs of nature and humans to enable both nature and

1.4 What is Green Infrastructure?

11

humans to sustainably survive. The secret lies in not disturbing nature’s state of equilibrium through, for example, large-scale deforestation and replacing green jungles with concrete jungles, upsetting the natural laws, rhythms, and processes. GI is the only way to prevent, slowly but occurring catastrophic outcomes such as global warming, rise of sea level displacing coastal communities, temperature rise, and climate change. Green infrastructure and blue-green infrastructure are overlapping concepts in most of the practical applications. European Commission demarcates blue-green infrastructure as ‘A strategically planned and managed, spatially interconnected network of multi-functional natural, semi-natural and man-made green and blue features including agricultural land, green corridors, urban parks, forest reserves, wetlands, rivers, coastal and other aquatic ecosystems’ [28]. Green infrastructures are land based include terrestrial protected areas, agricultural lands, eco-ducts and tunnels for animals, parks, urban green spaces, greenways, raingardens, urban forestry, urban agriculture, green walls, and green roofs in cities [29], whereas blue infrastructures are water-related natural capital refers to the components of hydrological cycle performing several hydrological functions (include mobile and standing water sources). It encompasses coastal regions, rivers, lakes, and wetlands but also designed elements such as artificial channels, ponds, water reservoirs, retention basins, and tanks as well as urban wastewater networks [30]. GI is a popular genre of nature-based solutions practiced in recent decades [31]. The European Commission refers to green infrastructure as “a strategically planned network of high quality natural and semi-natural areas, which are designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services and protect biodiversity” [3]. GI is an environmental ethics centered on the moral relationship between nature and human. It is a dual rights-based approach links eco-centric and anthropocentric concepts which considers both human and nature rights while giving prominence to their intrinsic values. The ecosystem services, structure, and processes interconnect the functions, benefits, health, and wellbeing of both human and nature [32]. Green infrastructures are NbS that can be integrated into gray-built frameworks. NbS is a canopy that encompasses a range of approaches and tactics, centered on natural ecosystems to deal with environmental and societal needs. Nature evolved slowly over billions of years. It knows the art and science of maintaining equilibrium. It can tolerate and adapt to natural disturbances. It knows how to manage the sun’s energy it receives. So, humans can and must learn these lessons from nature and copy nature. So, if GI resembles nature, automatically we will achieve climate resilience. Humans are naturally evolved species. They are part of nature and are closely connected to nature in many ways. They breathe in what the plants breathe out. There can never be any better connection than this. GI is simply a green prescription for mental and physical connectedness with nature to escape from health issues. Green infrastructure should be designed holistically (interlined systems functioning as a whole), planned comprehensively (consider social, economic, and environmental benefits, functions, and values), laid out strategically, planned and implemented publicly, grounded in principles and practices transdisciplinary professions,

12

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

and funded upfront (primary public investment, significant budget allocation). GI principles critical for strategic development and integration are as follows [33]. • Principle 1: Green infrastructure should function as the framework for conservation and development. • Principle 2: Design and plan green infrastructure before development. • Principle 3: Linkage is key. • Principle 4: Green infrastructure functions across jurisdictions and at different scales. • Principle 5: Green infrastructure is grounded in sound science and land use planning theories and practices. • Principle 6: Green infrastructure is a critical public investment. With the inevitable increase in urbanization globally GI has become central to the shaping of sustainable built environment. This has recently led to a surge in research, development, and dissemination of knowledge in GI. Researchers, practitioners, public and private organizations, and other stakeholders are beginning to realize the core values associated with GI. According to Frederick Law Olmsted and Ebenezer Howard, there are three stages of GI, namely Exploration (1995–2005), Expansion (2005–2010), and Consolidation phase (2010-up to now) [31]. Overall, GI can be considered as a holistic approach in modern-day landscape planning which addresses climate change and sustainable development that balances the needs of environment, society, and economy. Nature is an astonishingly complex global system used to be beyond imagination, but through science we have a much better grasp of it than ever before. It serves a wide range of functions which cannot be always substituted or otherwise performed by mankind, even if performed it would be costly. Green infrastructures are costeffective strategies for global challenges. They play a pivotal role in biodiversity conservation, provision of essential ecosystem services to build more resilient environment, and enhance quality of life. GI components imitating nature provide beneficial outcomes such as rainforest, being the major moisture reserve facilitating precipitation, wetlands in the removal of contaminants and delivering potable water, detain storm water, wastewater treatment, grasslands diminishing flood flow/surface runoff, prairies detaining storm water, plants with good canopy coverage intercept rainy water lowering down flow speed, plants as wind breaks and noise barriers, greens mitigating urban heat island effect, living walls, and facades enhancing ambient and indoor air quality. These benefits are derived by incorporating green infrastructures into buildings. Most of the time GI investments are low impact developments which are prioritized based on site-specific requirements. There cannot be any development project without environmental impacts, but they can be minimized or mitigated though best management practices. GI investments can be made in all sites, on regional, national, and global scale. Generally, in urban setting it is a microscale investment whereby return on investment is lower than in the large-scale projects implemented at national level [34].

1.5 Classification of Green Infrastructure

13

Increasing urban population with time has a huge impact on human health, requiring the need to address simultaneously the environmental impacts, especially heat island effect, frequent extreme weather events, environmental pollution, and exploitation of resources, which compelled policy makers to advocate green infrastructure and nature-based solutions to tackle the urban challenges. Reviving the urban environment requires a journey from black urban arena to green. It is a platform for eco-friendly and sustainable living by incorporating sustainable principles into advanced technologies. Urban nature is a distinct perception of nature which is essential for the health and wellbeing of mankind in the context of complex nature-human interactions in cities [35].

1.5 Classification of Green Infrastructure GI components are developed integrating several hydrological, technological, horticultural, and engineering technologies to deliver ecosystem services. Building professionals and urban planners face the major challenge during the implementation phase of the GI components in order to ensure urban resilience and livability of the cities. Understanding not only GI multifunctionality (provision of diverse benefits), but also understanding how these benefits differ based on spatial scale and the suitability to serve the designated purpose are essential. Based on the spatial attributes and the accrued social, economic, and environmental gains, GI provisions can be divided into micro (individual/average size), meso (spans multiple micro locations), and macroscales (spans multiple meso locations) based (Table 1.2). However, this type of classifications is highly flexible depending on the spatial interests. These highlighted aspects practiced in different scales in the country will contribute to wide range of social, economic, and environmental benefits to the community, through which sustainability policy in urban development is assured. The sustainable cities should be built by integrating these green infrastructures at the Table 1.2 Classifications of green infrastructure components Scale of implementation

GI components

Microscale (individual site)

Green walls, green roofs, green facades, street trees and hedgerows, rain garden, domestic garden, green space, permeable pavements, sustainable urban drainage systems, storm water harvesting systems

Mesoscale (neighborhood)

Urban parks, woodlands, ponds, canals, and lakes, play areas, recreational grounds, green corridors, blue corridors, orchards, community gardens, street trees and hedge rows, local nature reserves, green spaces, permeable and semipermeable pavements, rain gardens, bioretention, bioswales

Macroscale (city/ region)

Lakes and reservoirs, urban forest, regional parks, blue corridors, green corridors, green belts, intensive and un intensive agricultural land, pastures, woodlands, flood plains, greenbelts, brownfield redevelopment

14

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

right proportion with gray infrastructures, subject to choosing feasible and practical options. Among these components excludable rival private goods such as green roofs adhere to market economics, while for non-excludable public goods like streets and parks; government and public intervention is possible which requires regulation and collective management [36].

1.5.1 Green Roofs Green roof is identified as an eco-roof. Eco-roofs are climate adaptation techniques to withstand mainly the extreme precipitation and heat waves. There are mainly three types of eco-roofs such as green roof (vegetation), blue roof (water management), and white roofs (cooling purpose). A green roof system is an extension component of existing roof. It is a modular structure with several layers facilitating high-quality plant growth providing both private and public benefits contributing to ecological, social, and economic wellbeing. The layers usually present in a green roof system are lightweight growing medium with plants, high-quality water proofing, root repellent, filter membrane, drainage layer, and structural support at the bottom. Figure 1.1 illustrates the typical components of a green roof, while Fig. 1.2 is further explanatory on the functional layers. Generally green roofs are of three types such as intensive, semi-intensive, and extensive primarily varying over soil depths. The lifetime of typical green roof, bitumen, and combined green and photovoltaic roof are 60, 30, and 20 years, respectively. Table 1.3 shows the fundamental differences between extensive and intensive green roofs [38]. In buildings green roof installments greatly contribute to the improved performance of the building in numerous ways. Primarily it lowers the temperature within the building by 0.5–2 °C from the outside ambient temperature thus mitigating urban heat island effect, protects from heavy wind and UV radiation, improves the acoustic performance of the building, attenuates the urban noise by 10–20 dB due to noise absorption, diffusion, and reflection by the green roof, improves the indoor air quality through filtering the air pollutants such as nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone by about 52% and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10 ) by about 14%, reduces the runoff by 54–62% depending on the microclimate condition and type of green roof used, the green roof layers retains, filters and manages the storm water, and lastly enhances biodiversity substantially by providing a habitat for various species. In line with case study findings, 2–5% increment is recorded in net present value of property by installing green roofs [39]. According to the building energy modeling, green roofs reduce building electricity consumption from 2 to 6% compared to black roofs (conventional roof), thus lowering the energy requirement [37]. Further the studies conducted in Italy, Canada, and Stockholm concluded that diversified green roofs enhance biodiversity, pollinators’ attraction potential, and pollination and dispersion potential. Green patches therefore act as the strongest factor leading to ecosystem resilience [40].

1.5 Classification of Green Infrastructure

15

Fig. 1.1 Functional layers of typical intensive green roof [37]

Long-term experimentations on the performance of green roofs proved that there is no significant water retention by green roofs during deficit irrigation and documented unsatisfactory performance in semiarid climates with long dry period and short duration amplified rainfalls. In such cases combination of rainwater harvesting system and green roofs are recommended [41]. The general challenges faced with green roofs are high capital and maintenance cost, leakage issue, root penetration, technical issues, safety, additional building structural requirement for retrofit, return on investment takes years, legal issues, knowledge gap, uncertainty in long-term lifespan, inevitable replacement costs and disruptions, and fragmentation of ownership [36]. Figure 1.3 depicts the real green roof structures found in eco-hotels in Sri Lanka and Singapore, respectively.

16

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

Fig. 1.2 Explanatory diagram of intensive green roof. Source https://renaissanceronin.wordpress. com/2011/07/06/the-angle-of-your-dangle/

1.5.2 Green Walls and Green Facades Green walls, known to be living walls, are self-sufficient vertical gardens attached or constructed on the exterior or interior of the buildings. There are primarily two types of living walls, namely attached green walls and detached green walls. The plants are fastened to the wall itself, and they obtain water, nutrients, and fertilizers from the vertical support by means of drip irrigation or any manual or automated irrigation system. Green façades differ from green walls. They are often consisting of climbing plants which grow directly against the wall using it as a structural framework or have an indirect support system. Table 1.4 differentiates green walls from green facades. Figures 1.4 and 1.5 represent living walls, while Figs. 1.6 and 1.7 are the collection of direct and indirect green facades, respectively.

1.5 Classification of Green Infrastructure

17

Table 1.3 Differences between extensive and intensive green roof Features

Extensive green roof

Intensive green roof

Design

Relatively simple

Complex

Growing media

3 inches

At least 6 inches

Soil depth

Less than 6 inch in soil depth

Over 6-inch soil depth

Weight (kg/m2 )

60–150

300

Soil thickness (mm)

200

≥ 200

Load bearing capacity

Requires less

Requires higher capacity

Support system

Not needed

Need structural support

Plant diversity

Comparatively low

Large variety

Plant species used

Grass, herbs, moss

Lawns, shrubs, perennials, trees

Construction

Less expensive

Expensive

Maintenance

Low

High

Features

Less water holding and insulation capacity

Higher water retention and insulation capacity

Main intention

Environmental benefits

Public access

Fig. 1.3 Green roofs in different countries a Kandalama hotel in Sri Lanka. Source https://www. greenroofs.com/projects/kandalama-hotel/; b Parkroyal hotel in Singapore. Source http://www.gre enrooftechnology.com/green-roof-blog/green-roofs-in-singapore

Attention must be given in selecting best-suited plants for green wall. Following are some of the considerations on plant selection. • Mostly climbing plants are used either self-supporting plant such as root climbers and suckers and plants that need external structural support such as twining vine, leaf climbers, leaf stem climbers, and scrambling plants • Ability to tolerate harsh or less hospitable climatic condition • Tolerance to wind, heat stress, and frost • Ability to survive in growing system and site-specific environmental conditions

18

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

Table 1.4 Preliminary comparison of green walls and green facades Features

Green walls

Green facades

Plant diversity

High

Comparatively low

Plant density

High

Comparatively low

Classification

Attached/detached

Direct/indirect

Water, nutrient, and fertilizer supply

Require intensive care

Require ordinary care

Plant types

Variety of plant species

Climbing plants (self-clinging/ twining and tendrils)

Growth medium support

Found in vertical host wall

Found in base (ground/ container)

Environment

Indoor/outdoor

Indoor/outdoor

Wall coverage

Cover entire wall since the beginning

Take long time to cover entire wall

Major functionality

Mitigate UHI effect, enhance Partition, privacy, sunshade aesthetic value, air purification, improve occupant health

Fig. 1.4 Green wall at Rendezvous hotel in Singapore. Source https://elmich.com/asia/elmichvgm-green-wall-rendezvous-hotel-singapore/

• Avoid plants bearing fruit or food source to avoid the negative consequences of pest, birds, and animals. For the durability of the system there is need of careful maintenance • Supply required amount of water, nutrients, and fertilizers and not in excess

1.5 Classification of Green Infrastructure

19

Fig. 1.5 Green wall. Source https://www.buildings.com/articles/27816/living-walls-put-green-gre enbuild

Fig. 1.6 Direct green facades. Source Galagoda et al. [42]

Fig. 1.7 Indirect green facades. Source Galagoda et al. [42]

• • • • •

Occasional training and pruning to maintain the desired appearance Ensure the strength of structural support through monitoring at regular intervals Avoid breeding of mosquitoes and nesting of birds Avoidance of stagnant water Regular removal of dead plant bodies.

20

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

1.5.3 Green Spaces: Street Trees and Grass Green spaces imply the areas of land that are partially or completely covered with grass, trees or other vegetation involving in bioretention, infiltration, filtration, and percolation processes to improve groundwater recharge and control of runoff, thus mitigating floods and sewer overflows in urban context. Growth of the trees can be enhanced without the need for potable water by using treated gray water and harvested storm water; but careful consideration must be given on the appropriate selection of site and species. Figure 1.8 illustrates such typical street trees in London. Trees can provide multiple functions such as shading to human, mitigating heat island effect, shading of buildings, act as wind barrier, noise attenuation, flood risk reduction and evaporative and adiabatic cooling. These functions are highly interacting with microclimate, building massing, indoor comfort, outdoor environmental quality, and energy consumption [43]. Andersson et al. [44] proved that the cooling capacity of the greenspace declines along with the distance; in case of low-density regions the influence can stay up to 500 m, while in high-density areas with high population and dense built environment, it is viable up to the range of 300–400 m. In addition to the cooling effect, significant reduction of bird diversity richness also has been statistically proved. Unlike in coolscape, birdscape shows sudden drop in count within short distance from green. Thus, it is essential to maximize the green cover of urban areas as far as possible. The combined study of coolscape and birdscape gives an idea about impact of increased ambient temperature [44]. A case study conducted in Lisbon in Portugal applied nature-based solutions for urban regeneration. 42,247 street trees provide services valued at about $7.5 million annually, for $1.7 million spent managing the green spaces. For every $1 invested

Fig. 1.8 Street trees in London City Hall. Source https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/enviro nment/parks-green-spaces-and-biodiversity/trees-and-woodlands/london-tree-map

1.5 Classification of Green Infrastructure

21

in tree management residence receives $4.48 in energy saving, cleaner air, increased property value, and carbon dioxide sequestration [7].

1.5.4 Permeable Pavements Permeable or semipermeable pavements are porous/partially opened surfaces facilitating the infiltration of precipitation and surface runoff into the soil, thus recharging underground water to maintain natural hydrologic balance. Such pavements are constructed from permeable interlocking pavers, pervious concrete (Fig. 1.9), pavers, and asphalt, grass pavements (Fig. 1.10), pavements filled with wood chips, gravels, and stones. Usually pavements consist of two layers; a fine particle layer to expedite filtering and the other layer to provide structural support. Unlike these green components conventional pavements made up of ordinary concrete blocks and asphalt are impervious preventing any runoff infiltration. Studies proved that permeable pavements have the potential to minimize the runoff by 70–90% which is like a forest. They attenuate the noise by 10%. Due to higher reflectivity, evaporative capacity, and lower absorbance, they mitigate heat effect. A case study in Los Angeles proved that permeable and reflective pavements mitigate UHI effect by 0.8 ºC by increasing reflectivity by 10–35% [37]. They involved in pollution management through effectively removing total suspended solid (TSS), total phosphorous (TP), total nitrogen (TN), zinc (Zn), and copper (Cu). Microbes degrade metals and hydrocarbons. Installation is suitable only in parking lots, walkways, and roadsides, where vehicular traffic is low.

Fig. 1.9 Permeable concrete pavement. Source https:// www.bft-international.com/ en/artikel/bft_Technical_gui delines_for_permeable_con crete_pavements_2997614. html

22

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

Fig. 1.10 Permeable grass pavers. Source https://www. pinterest.com/pin/276408 495859194967/

1.5.5 Rain Gardens Rain gardens are shallow water depressions in the landscape containing native and taxonomically diverse vegetation including shrubs, herbs, wildflowers, sedges, ferns, and perennials. This sustainable facility is identified as one of the best practices for the management of rainwater/runoff of urban pollutant water. Usually, runoff from urban spaces such as rooftops, streets, farming lands, parking lots, and walkways carries several pollutants such as dust, waste, rubbish, sand, silt, chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, trace metals, volatile organic compounds, and heavy metals such as copper, lead, and zinc, bacteria, and other microorganisms. Rain gardens primarily involve filtration, infiltration, percolation, adsorption, decomposition, evapotranspiration, and volatilization process for contaminant removal and groundwater recharge. The choice of bed material or substrate is essential for the optimum performance of the structure; high saturated hydraulic conductivity, infiltration capacity, and low organic matter content are fundamental features to be considered [45]. Figure 1.11 depicts the structural and functional elements of a typical rain garden. As a rule, native vegetation is integrated into rain gardens while avoiding nonnative and invasive species. The vegetation plays a crucial role in performing the functionality; it involves in carbon sequestration which improves air quality. It can tolerate higher levels of precipitation and identified as rich source of nutrients such as N and P, transpiration removes excess water and cools the ambient air, up takes nutrients, deep root system increases lag time and increases infiltration opportunities, sustains microbial consortia to encourage bio-infiltration of pollutants. In the field evaluation on the performance of rain garden on pollutant removal significant reduction in NH3 –N and TN in effluent is revealed in research finding [46]. Figures 1.12 and 1.13 exemplify rain gardens. Overall ecosystem services accomplished by a rain garden are

1.5 Classification of Green Infrastructure

23

Fig. 1.11 Structural and functional diagram of rain garden. Source https://www.courtenay.ca/EN/ main/city-hall/projects-gallery/5th-street-complete-streets-pilot-project/5th-street-rain-garden. html

Fig. 1.12 Rain garden. Source https://www.groundwater.org/action/home/raingardens.html

24

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

Fig. 1.13 Rain garden. Source https://gardening-abc.com/rain-garden/

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Replenish groundwater Enhance water quality Reduce surface and subsurface runoff Mitigate potential flood risk Reduce erosion Provide habitat to native plants, fish, butterflies, and insects Add aesthetic value Enrich biodiversity.

1.5.6 Bioswales Bioswales are vegetated xeriscapes to collect, infiltrate, and filter out storm water and polluted urban water from impervious surfaces such as parking lots, roads, and walkways to replenish groundwater table and remove silt and other contaminants [47]. Bioswale is a simple design structure comprised of engineered elements such as soil, gravel, mulch, perforated pipe, curb notch, and overflow structures as indicated in Fig. 1.14. It is a ditch with vegetation and mulch in topsoil layer, followed by gravel layer to facilitate drain off, drainpipe to avoid overflow, thus protecting the structure and porous bottom layer. Figure 1.15 illustrates a typical bioswale. Principally bioswales perform four functions in storm water management such as collection, conveyance, infiltration, and filtration. Bioswales enhance the quality of water as it moves by slowing, infiltrating, and filtering by removing silt particles, heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Pb, P, N), and other pollutant from storm water [48]. According to Xiao et al. [49] quantity and quality of effluent are enhanced by the treatment process of swales; reduced nitrogen, phosphate, and total organic carbon by more than 90% at different load condition were recorded in the study [49]. Further it can facilitate water translocation and protect local water bodies. The vegetation sequester carbon thus improving air quality slows down the velocity of water and accumulates

1.5 Classification of Green Infrastructure

25

Fig. 1.14 Functional components of bioswale [4] Fig. 1.15 Bioswales. Source https://brookschurch.com/ bioswale-basics/

it and filters the suspended matter, while attached microbial assemblage decomposes the organic compounds. Benefits of having a bioswale are 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Managing urban runoff and associated pollutants Recharge groundwater Enhance the quality of surface water by lowering nutrient and sediment loads Non-point source pollution control Serve as drainage system Improve air quality Diverse vegetation Environmental protection with aesthetics

26

9. 10. 11. 12.

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

Increase community value Cost effective compared to centralized gray treatment systems Can be locally built and managed Simple technology.

This facility is best suited for regions with low water table and porous soil (sandy). Native plant varieties preferred as they are tolerant to climate changes, resistant to pest and diseases, further the deep-rooted species facilitate filtration [50]. It requires regular monitoring and proper maintenance, primarily removal of litters, leaf waste, animal or bird droppings, and dead plant bodies. Entire system ought to be cleaned at least once a year, while drains should be checked for clogging and cleaned twice a year to ensure the optimal performance of the system.

1.5.7 Bioretention Ponds Bioretention ponds are low impact developments that serve the key function of pollution management. They are the shallow depressions with gentle side slopes and water-tolerant planting with topsoil rich in organic matter or mulch (Fig. 1.16). It is an engineered landscape feature with restrictive design criteria unlike raingarden, sized for flow control with mixed soil and encompass undrain/control structures as well. It performs primarily five types of functions such as retention, adsorption, filtration, biological treatment, and infiltration prior to discharge to water course. Pollutants are adsorbed and water quality is boosted by filtration. Further, vegetation sequesters carbon and lowers ambient temperature [51]. In bioretention systems, planted systems with high-density native polyculture species are more effective than the unplanted or exotic species monoculture systems as the planted system has high hydraulic conductivity, permeability, and pollutant removal potential [52]. Table 1.5 shows the preliminary differences between bioretention and biofiltration systems.

1.5.8 Constructed Wetlands In order to balance ecosystem services in metropolitan areas that have lost their natural characteristics, constructed wetlands are sophisticated design systems that were created by humans to emulate natural wetlands. These man-made wetlands help with land reclamation while providing home for local fauna and species. Through natural processes involving wetland plants, soils, and their associated microbial consortia, they aid in improving water quality and drainage. The wastewater, runoff water, and graywater are directed to wetland to treat and eliminate pollutants, heavy metals, solids, dissolved solids, sediments, nutrients, and pathogens thus, acting as biofilter. In these systems wastewater is treated by the processes of sedimentation, filtration, digestion, oxidation, reduction, adsorption, and precipitation.

1.5 Classification of Green Infrastructure

27

Fig. 1.16 Bioretention. Source https://www.cleanlakesalliance.org/2015-update-city-stoughton/ williams-drive-bioretention-basin/

Table 1.5 Fundamental differences between bioretention and biofiltration systems Features

Bioretention/bio-infiltration

Biofiltration

Type of system

Ponding type

Flow through system

Process

Infiltration process

Conveyance process

Treatment flow

Vertical flow through treatment soil

Lateral flow through vegetation

Treatment goal

Increase the percentage of volume infiltrated

Increase hydraulic residence time

Example

Bioretention pond/cells/rain garden

Bioswales

A wetland is a structure that resembles a pond and is made up of one or more shallow treatment cells, waterways, and aquatic vegetation. Depending on the situation, it can perform a variety of functions. It serves as a farm, a source of food, a beautiful park, and a barrier against natural disasters like floods and hurricanes, resulting in positive economic, social, and environmental outcomes. The following list of constructed wetlands’ recognized functions is taken from research investigations [53]. • Microbial assemblages involve in wastewater treatment • Enhance air quality by absorbing pollutants, dust, chemicals, and aerosols from the ambient air • Gene pool protection • Productive crop cultivation • Flowering and edible plants of aesthetic and economic value • Climate regulation • Provide space for recreation, act as an endeavor for tourism, parks, etc. • Cost-effective alternative for gray water plant in terms of operation, maintenance, and durability

28

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

Fig. 1.17 Graphical illustration of a vertical flow constructed wetland. Source https://cpwupperv erband.wordpress.com/

• Enhance biodiversity, green, and calmness of nature • Maintain the balance between natural and man-made systems • Carbon sequestration. Figure 1.17 illustrates the fundamental components of a constructed wetland consisting of a sand layer in between two layers of gravel and water supply in via perforated distribution pipes and perforated drainage pipes.

1.5.9 Drainage Corridors Drainage corridors establish, rehabilitate, and mimic networks of natural drainage systems. Drainage corridors are the natural passages created by converting a channel into a stream flowing within a corridor that serves multipurpose. They are created through restoring existing streams. Generally, natural corridors require sufficient land allocation to facilitate water flow without getting stagnant and to filter the pollutants. It reduces the flood risk as storm water is directed to corridors. It provides additional habitats to flora and fauna. A dynamically functioning drainage corridor ecosystem is significant in landscape crossways. It is an elongated patch that connects several other patches in a landscape. It typically comprised three elements, namely stream channel, floodplain, and transitional upland fringe. A corridor provides space for interaction among biota, energy, microbe, and materials over time, thus facilitating critical functioning such as nutrient cycling, pollutant filtering, mitigating flood runoff, providing habitat for wildlife, groundwater recharging, ecosystem restoring, sediment movement, avoiding water standing, and allow flowing [54]. Figure 1.18 displays the drainage corridors.

1.5 Classification of Green Infrastructure

29

Fig. 1.18 Drainage corridors. a Source https://www.dreamstime.com/photos-images/drainage-dit ches.html; b Marschall et al. [55]

1.5.10 Rainwater Harvesting Rainwater is a precious water resource readily available to provide cost-effective access to water supply. Storm water harvesting is a technology for collecting, conveying, and storing precipitation/runoff water for wide range of beneficial uses. There is simple to complex man-made systems to effectively harvest storm water from rooftops, land surface, and rock catchments, but it is primarily accomplished on rooftops. Generally, rainwater harvesting systems comprised three principal components such as (a) catchment area, (b) conveyance system, and (c) collection device as shown in Fig. 1.19. (a) Catchment area: The catchment area is the first contact of precipitation. It can be roof surface/land surface or rock catchment. The catchment plan area determines the amount of rainwater to be collected. Footprint is irrespective of the shape of the building. Roof surface and gutters are to capture the rainwater and send it to the storage system. Volume of rainfall collected = catchment area (m2 ) × precipitation (mm) × runoff coefficient Runoff coefficient (dimensionless coefficient less than 1) accounts the factors lowering runoff such as catchment surface wetting, evaporation, infiltration, spillage, and leakage. Runoff coefficient values vary for different types of catchments as given in Table 1.6. Values are quite high for the roof catchments rather than ground surface and untreated ground catchments. (b) Conveyance system: It is an interconnected pipe system linking the catchment to the storage tanks to facilitate clean water collection in the tank. When designing and constructing conveyance pipes, it is essential to ensure that the first flush

30

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

Fig. 1.19 Components of storm water harvesting system. Source https://www.scribd.com/doc/281 266236/Rain-Water-Harvesting-System

Table 1.6 Default values for runoff coefficient

Type of catchment

Runoff coefficients

Rooftop

Tiles

0.8–0.9

Ground surface covering

Concrete

0.6–0.8

Bricks

0.5–0.6

Untreated ground

Sloped (< 10%) soil

0.0–0.3

Rocky

0.2–0.5

Corrugated metal sheets 0.7–0.9

Source Pande and Telang [56]

is sent to a bottom pipe to recharge groundwater as it contains washed out dirt, debris, bird droppings, gutter materials, acids, and other dust particles. (c) Collection device: These are the rainwater storage tanks located either on surface or underground to temporarily store the harvested water from guttering. Water can be collected using water tank, pots, collecting vessels, underground dams, and surface tanks. Usually, tanks are made of cement, aluminum, wood, and fiberglass. Consideration should be given in choosing the appropriate tank material, tight enclosure to inhibit algal growth, bacterial growth, and mosquito breeding and minimize the interference of human, animals, and environmental factors.

1.5 Classification of Green Infrastructure

31

In addition to these elements following can also be found in a storm water harvesting system. • Inlet filter: Screen out large trashes. • First flush system: It should be fixed in the down pipes prior to directing water to tank. It eliminates trashes that are failed to be removed in inlet filter from the initial stream of rainwater. • Overflow pipe: On the rainwater tank a drainage sprout is connected to remove the overflow water and is diverted to gardening purposes. • Controls: System that monitors water level and filtration system. • Treatment system: Filtration and disinfection process to treat water to non-potable or potable standards. • Pump: Move the water throughout the system to end point use. • Backflow preventer: Prevents the backward flow of water through the system into the makeup water system due to negative pressure. • Flow meter: Affixed with data logger to measure water production level. • Power supply can use either conventional or renewable energy sources, e.g., standalone, or grid-tied solar systems. • Water level indicator: Denotes the water level in the tank. Figure 1.20 indicates the components of a typical rainwater harvesting system. Storm water harvesting system requires regular maintenance including periodical removal of trash, debris and sediments, and repair and replacement of structural components [57]. Originally rainwater is utilized for non-potable uses such as landscaping, car wash, laundry use, irrigation, toilet flushing, industrial activities, and first rinse of washing machine, but if required it can be upgraded to potable quality after appropriate treatment and filtration processes to be used for drinking and cooking purposes. There are several indirect benefits as well, such as flood control mechanism. Limitations in accepting this as a reliable system are rainfall is not a stable water source. It varies greatly with weather and climatic patterns, uneven distribution across regions, possibility of formation of scales and depositions in the pipe system, possible leaching of materials from roofing, guttering, plumbing, and tank. Though challenging it can be integrated into building water supply as a sustainable component for water supply. Along with other surface and underground water sources collected rainwater would supplement to manage increasing water demand. This system is applicable at all levels from site/municipal to national scale.

32

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

Fig. 1.20 Typical storm water harvesting system. Source https://www.energy.gov/eere/femp/waterefficient-technology-opportunity-rainwater-harvesting-systems

1.6 Green and Gray Infrastructures Table 1.7 demonstrates the differences between green and gray infrastructures [58, 59].

Table 1.7 Comparison of green and gray infrastructures Evaluation criteria

Green infrastructure

Gray infrastructure

Perspectives

Triple bottom line (ecological, social, and economic) and management

Failed to balance sustainability pillars

Discipline

Multidisciplinary

Determined/specific fields

Stakeholder

Active involvement of multiple stakeholders in all phases of project from design to end of life

Limited involvement, mostly engage during social inclusion

Engineering solutions

Innovative designs which may be context specific

Conventional engineering system

Standardization

Not standardized; widely vary

Standardized low-cost option

Replication

Problem with replication due to Easily replicable economies of scale

Social inclusion

Core component

Rarely considered (continued)

References

33

Table 1.7 (continued) Evaluation criteria

Green infrastructure

Gray infrastructure

Physical footprint

Large

Comparatively low requirement

Ecological footprint

Low as nature-based solutions

High as resource intensive processes

Service delivery

Take years

Operated on the day itself

Return on investment

Long term

Short term

Operational and maintenance cost

Significantly lower

Significantly higher

Price volatility

Less risk

High risk

Monitoring/maintenance

Need of field knowledge/ technical experts

Standard monitoring systems

Design

Complex

Simple

Capital

Intensive

Comparatively lower

Construction materials

Not readily available

Readily and widely available, mostly manufactured with high energy content

Recapitalizing

Self-sustaining systems

Depreciate and need to be replaced at the end of life, regular upgrading, and commissioning

Environmental impact

Low impact

High impact

Lifecycle cost

Cost effective

Expensive

Benefits

Multiple co-benefits/ multipurpose

Intended benefit/single purpose

References 1. Mell, I. C. (2009). Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability, 162(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10. 1680/ensu.2009.162.1.23 2. Acuti, D., Bellucci, M., & Manetti, G. (2020). Company disclosures concerning the resilience of cities from the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) perspective. Cities, 99(July 2019), 102608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102608 3. Urbes project. (2014). Factsheet 6: Green Infrastructure, a wealth for cities. 43. https:// www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/urbes_factsheet_06_web.pdf%0A, http://pub lications.deltares.nl/EP3607.pdf 4. Dinic Brankovic, M., Mitkovi´c, P., Bogdanovic Protic, I., Igi´c, M., & Ðeki´c, J. (2018). Bioswales as elements of green infrastructure – foreign practice and possibilities of use in the district of the City of Nis, Serbia. International Conference on Urban Planning, August. ISBN 9788688601368. 5. Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Dalton, J., Dudley, N., Jones, M., Kumar, C., Maginnis, S., Maynard, S., Nelson, C. R., Renaud, F. G., Welling, R., & Walters, G. (2019). Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling Nature-based Solutions. Environmental Science and Policy, 98(May), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.014

34

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

6. Dorst, H., van der Jagt, A., Raven, R., & Runhaar, H. (2019). Urban greening through naturebased solutions – Key characteristics of an emerging concept. Sustainable Cities and Society, 49, 101620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101620 7. Faivre, N., Fritz, M., Freitas, T., de Boissezon, B., & Vandewoestijne, S. (2017). Nature-Based Solutions in the EU: Innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental challenges. Environmental Research, 159(December 2016), 509–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.envres.2017.08.032 8. Frantzeskaki, N. (2019). Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities. Environmental Science and Policy, 93(October 2018), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018. 12.033 9. Atanasova, N., Castellar, J. A. C., Pineda-Martos, R., Nika, C. E., Katsou, E., Isteniˇc, D., Pucher, B., Andreucci, M. B., & Langergraber, G. (2021). Nature-Based Solutions and Circularity in Cities. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1(1), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615021-00024-1 10. European Commission. (2015). Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities: Final report of the Horizon 2020 expert group on ‘Nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities’: (full version). Publications Office of the European Union. 11. Osaka, S., Bellamy, R., & Castree, N. (2021). Framing “nature-based” solutions to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 12(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ wcc.729 12. Seddon, N., Smith, A., Smith, P., Key, I., Chausson, A., Girardin, C., House, J., Srivastava, S., & Turner, B. (2021). Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Global Change Biology, 27(8), 1518–1546. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15513 13. O’Hogain, S., & McCarton, L. (2018). A technology portfolio of nature based solutions: Innovations in water management. In A Technology Portfolio of Nature Based Solutions: Innovations in Water Management (pp. 1–122). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73281-7 14. Seddon, N., Chausson, A., Berry, P., Girardin, C. A. J., Smith, A., & Turner, B. (2020). Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1794). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120 15. IUCN, 2012. The IUCN Global Programme 2013–16, Adopted by the IUCN World Conservation Congress, September 2012. 16. Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., & Maginnis, S. (2016). Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. xiii + 97pp. In Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. 17. Nesshöver, C., Assmuth, T., Irvine, K. N., Rusch, G. M., Waylen, K. A., Delbaere, B., Haase, D., Jones-Walters, L., Keune, H., Kovacs, E., Krauze, K., Külvik, M., Rey, F., van Dijk, J., Vistad, O. I., Wilkinson, M. E., & Wittmer, H. (2017). The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Science of the Total Environment, 579, 1215–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106 18. Maes, J., & Jacobs, S. (2017). Nature-Based Solutions for Europe’s Sustainable Development. Conservation Letters, 10(1), 121–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12216 19. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington D.C. 20. Jax, K., Barton, D. N., Chan, K. M. A., de Groot, R., Doyle, U., Eser, U., Görg, C., GómezBaggethun, E., Griewald, Y., Haber, W., Haines-Young, R., Heink, U., Jahn, T., Joosten, H., Kerschbaumer, L., Korn, H., Luck, G. W., Matzdorf, B., Muraca, B., … Wichmann, S. (2013). Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecological Economics, 93(May 2011), 260–268. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.008 21. European Commission, 2011. Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: an EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Document COM (2011) 244 final issued May 3, 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodivers ity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_v7%5b1%5d.pdf (Brussels).

References

35

22. Connop, S., Vandergert, P., Eisenberg, B., Collier, M. J., Nash, C., Clough, J., & Newport, D. (2016). Renaturing cities using a regionally-focused biodiversity-led multifunctional benefits approach to urban green infrastructure. Environmental Science and Policy, 62(2015), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.013 23. Wallace, K. J. (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biological Conservation, 139(3–4), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.015 24. Zhang, W., Ricketts, T. H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., & Swinton, S. M. (2007). Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics, 64(2), 253–260.https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024 25. Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2008.09.014 26. Wang, J., & Banzhaf, E. (2018). Towards a better understanding of Green Infrastructure: A critical review. Ecological Indicators, 85(February 2017), 758–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2017.09.018 27. Ioj˘a, C. I., Gr˘adinaru, S. R., Onose, D. A., Vân˘au, G. O., & Tudor, A. C. (2014). The potential of school green areas to improve urban green connectivity and multifunctionality. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 13(4), 704–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002 28. European Commission. (2013). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Green Infrastructure (GI)–Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital {COM (2013) 249final}, Brussels. 29. De la Sota, C., Ruffato-Ferreira, V. J., Ruiz-García, L., & Alvarez, S. (2019). Urban green infrastructure as a strategy of climate change mitigation. A case study in northern Spain. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 40, 145–151.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.09.004 30. Naumann, S., Davis,M., Kaphengst, T., Pieterse, M., Rayment, M., 2010. Design, implementation and cost elements of green infrastructure projects. Final Report to the European Commission, DG Environment, Contract: 577182. 31. Meerow, S. (2020). The politics of multifunctional green infrastructure planning in New York City. Cities, 100(November 2019), 102621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102621 32. Pakzad, P., & Osmond, P. (2015). A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Green Infrastructure Sustainability Performance in Australia. The State of Australian Cities Conference. https://soa cconference.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Pakzard.pdf 33. Benedict, M. A., & Mcmahon, E. T. (2002). Green Infrastructure : Smart Conservation for the 21 Century. Renewable Resources Journal, 20, 12–17. ISSN 0738-6532) 34. York, C. R. H., & Jacob, J. S. (2020). Harnessing Green Infrastructure for Resilient, Natural Solutions. In Optimizing Community Infrastructure. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012-816240-8.00008-2 35. Seiwert, A., & Rößler, S. (2020). Understanding the term green infrastructure: origins, rationales, semantic content and purposes as well as its relevance for application in spatial planning. Land Use Policy, 97(June 2018), 104785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104785 36. Van Gameren, A. J. L. (2020). Green roofs and climate resilience in The Hague: Spatial, financial & stakeholder analyses [University of Leiden and Delft University of Technology]. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:55e92e3c-0b43-4064-8cbb-2ea1d1e1e068 37. Foster, J., Lowe, A., & Winkelman, S. (2011). The Value of Green Infrastructure for Urban Climate Adaptation. https://www.ca-ilg.org/post/value-green-infrastructure-urban-cli mate-adaptation 38. Mcrae, A. M., Army, U. S., & Carson, F. (2016). Case study : A conservative approach to green roof benefit quantification and valuation for public buildings Case study : A conservative approach to green roof benefit quantification and valuation for public buildings. 2701(June). https://doi.org/10.1080/0013791X.2016.1186255 39. Liberalesso, T., Oliveira Cruz, C., Matos Silva, C., & Manso, M. (2020). Green infrastructure and public policies: An international review of green roofs and green walls incentives. Land Use Policy, 96(April), 104693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104693

36

1 Green Infrastructure (GI)

40. Dang, M., & Sampaio, M. (2020). The potential for rooftop agriculture in the city of Rio de Janeiro: Growing capacity, Food security and Green infrastructure. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 410(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/410/1/012016 41. Sitzenfrei, R., Kleidorfer, M., Bach, P. M., & Bacchin, T. K. (2020). Green infrastructures for urban water system: Balance between cities and nature. Water (Switzerland), 12(5), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051456 42. Galagoda, R. U., Jayasinghe, G. Y., Halwatura, R. U., & Rupasinghe, H. T. (2018). The impact of urban green infrastructure as a sustainable approach towards tropical micro-climatic changes and human thermal comfort. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 34(May), 1–9. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.05.008 43. Bozovic, R. (EnPlus consultancy), Maksimovic, C. (Imperial C. L., Mijik, A. (Imperial C. L., Smith, K. M. (London S. U., Suter, I. (Imperial C. L., & van Reeuwijk, M. (Imperial C. L. (2017). Blue Green Solutions: A systems approach to sustainable, resilient and cost effective urban development. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30628.07046 44. Andersson, E., Haase, D., Scheuer, S., & Wellmann, T. (2020). Neighbourhood character affects the spatial extent and magnitude of the functional footprint of urban green infrastructure. Landscape Ecology, 35(7), 1605–1618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01039-z 45. Turk, R. L., Kraus, H. T., Box, K. H., Bilderback, T. E., Arboretum, J. C. R., Carolina, N., Hunt, W. F., Carolina, N., & Fonteno, W. C. (2014). Rain Garden Filter Bed Substrates Affect Stormwater Nutrient Remediation. 49(5), 645–652. 46. Dietz, M.E., Clausen, J.C. A Field Evaluation of Rain Garden Flow and Pollutant Treatment. Water Air Soil Pollut 167, 123–138 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-005-8266-8 47. Climate Technology Centre & Network (2020). Connecting countries to climate technology solutions- Bioswales. (Denmark) Retrieved 04 02, 2021, from CTCN: https://www.ctc-n.org/ technologies/bioswales 48. Staddon, C., Ward, S., De Vito, L., Zuniga-Teran, A., Gerlak, A. K., Schoeman, Y., Hart, A., & Booth, G. (2018). Contributions of green infrastructure to enhancing urban resilience. Environment Systems and Decisions, 38(3), 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-0189702-9 49. Xiao, Q., McPherson, E. G., Zhang, Q., Ge, X., & Dahlgren, R. (2017). Performance of Two Bioswales on Urban Runoff Management. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures204 0012 50. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). (2005). Bioswales (p. 02). https://www. nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_029251.pdf?campaign_id=49&ins tance_id=10859&segment_id=15155&user_id=83e6aabad7076f9e85e7cc72cb40c591®i_ id=79382123 51. Kavehei, E., Jenkins, G. A., Lemckert, C., & Adame, M. F. (2019). Carbon stocks and sequestration of stormwater bioretention/biofiltration basins. Ecological Engineering, 138(June), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.07.006 52. Dagenais, D., Brisson, J., & Fletcher, T. D. (2018). The role of plants in bioretention systems; does the science underpin current guidance? Ecological Engineering, 120(July), 532–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.07.007 53. Haron, A. (2020). Integration between Torrent Protection Gray Infrastructures with Constructed Wetland to Achieve Resilience in Ras Gharib. Urban Research, 36(April), 149–168. https:// doi.org/10.21608/JUR.2020.90253 54. Sataloff, R. T., Johns, M. M., & Kost, K. M. (n.d.). Overview of Stream Corriodrs (p. 32). https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1043460.pdf 55. Marschall, I., Müller, M., & Gather, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Green Belt as a European Ecological Network - strengths and gaps. In Proceedings of the 1st GreenNet Conference. ISSN 1868-8586 56. Pande, P., & Telang, S. (2014). Calculation of Rainwater Harvesting Potential by Using Mean Annual Rainfall , Surface Runoff and Catchment area. Global Advanced Research Journal of Agricultural Science, 3(7), 200–204. http://garj.org/full-articles/calculation-of-rainwaterharvesting-potential-by-using-mean-annual-rainfall-surface-runoff-and-catchment-area.pdf? view=download

References

37

57. Kramer, G. (2014). Enhancing sustainable communities with green infrastructure: A guide to help communities better manage stormwater while achieving other environmental, public health, social, and economic benefits. In Office of Sustainable Communities, US Environmental Protection Agency (Issue October). www.epa.gov/smartgrowth 58. Celeste Young, C., Jones, R., Symons Acknowledgements, J., Lynch, Y., Walton, R., Boucher, E., Shears, I., Milkins, J., Callow, D., Murphy, A., Gooding, M., & Johnston, B. (2015). Green Infrastructure Economic Framework. ISBN 9781862727052. https://vuir.vu.edu.au/id/eprint/ 32098 59. European Environment Agency. (2017). Green Infrastructure and Flood Management: Promoting cost-efficient flood risk reduction via green infrastructure solutions (Issue 14). https://doi.org/10.2800/324289

Chapter 2

Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

Contents 2.1

Climate Change and Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Critical Impacts of Climate Change on Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Climate Change Triggered by Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Urban Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 How Do Cities Develop Climate Resilience? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Management of Flood Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Building Resilience to Drought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Mitigating UHI Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.5 Lowering Bulk Energy Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.6 Improving Coastal Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Building Climate Resilience: Through Adaptation, Mitigation, Environmental Engineering, and Learning Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Learning-Based Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Climate Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 Climate Change Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.4 Climate Change Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.5 Delivering National Climate Action Through Decarbonized Cities . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Sustainable Development Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Interlinking City Development with Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 Sustainable Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 SMART Green Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.1 SMART Growth Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Compact City and Inclusion of Smart Green Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 Why Do We Need Ecological Cities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40 43 44 46 49 50 51 56 57 63 64

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Kumareswaran and G. Y. Jayasinghe, Green Infrastructure and Urban Climate Resilience, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37081-6_2

39

66 67 67 68 73 73 74 76 78 84 87 88 89 91

40

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

2.1 Climate Change and Built Environment International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines climate change as ‘the state of climate that can be identified by the changes in the mean and/or variability of its properties that persist for an extended period, typically decades or longer’ [1]. According to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), ‘it is the change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’ [2]. The most significant threat of our century is global climate change, which demands an immediate, all-encompassing global reaction. The earth’s ability to absorb solar energy while reflecting some of it is known as the greenhouse effect. Yet, increasing unfavorable human and natural processes including deforestation, fossil fuel burning, industrial emissions, and vehicle emissions dramatically boost the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as shown in Fig. 2.1. Thus, it enhances the greenhouse gas effect, i.e., intensification of absorption and irradiation of infrared radiation. This ultimately ends up in global warming which heats up the earth surface and lowers atmosphere, causing negative impacts to all the components of climate systems such as atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere [3]. Figure 2.2 depicts the observed and stimulated global climate change based on surface temperature during the past 2000 years utilizing both natural and human influences. Unprecedented rates of climate change are reported as a result of anthropogenic activities. According to the IPCC’s sixth assessment report AR6, even if worldwide net negative emissions are achieved, only CO2 generated surface warming may be reversed gradually, and additional changes in the climate system would take decades

Fig. 2.1 Natural and human-induced greenhouse gas effect [4]

Fig. 2.2 Global climate change pattern based on surface temperature

2.1 Climate Change and Built Environment 41

42

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

to millennia. AR6 findings confirm, with high confidence, the AR5 finding of a nearlinear relationship between cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions and associated global warming. Figure 2.3 depicts the global surface temperature rise since 1850–1900 as a function of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions. The trend exhibits a near-linear relationship. Projections for different scenarios are depicted in different color tabs, where CO2 emission is considered for all anthropogenic sources. Net positive CO2 emission is witnessed over the considered time range. TCRE transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emission remains constant. Global warming results in concurrent changes in climate system in 2.5 °C global warming scenario than 1.5 °C and more widespread in higher global warming levels [5]. According to Stern report, the projected impacts of climate change would create acute pressure on food, water, biotic ecosystems, and weather pattern. Such few unfavorable impacts as presented in Fig. 2.4 are declining yield crops, melting of ice glaciers triggering sea level rise, water scarcity and nation’s survival under water stress, extensive damage to coral reefs and other aquatic biota, escalating number of species extinction, and rising frequency of extreme weather events such as flood, drought, forest fire, and heat waves. If the global temperature rise is high, the risk of abrupt and major irreversible changes will be extreme as well as the expected events will be further intensified [6].

Fig. 2.3 Global surface temperature change pattern

2.1 Climate Change and Built Environment

43

Fig. 2.4 Risk of serious irreversible impacts of climate change [7]

When discussing on climate change, there are distinct variations in the drivers of climate change as natural internal processes such as solar cycles, natural hazards like volcanic eruption, and highly dominating external forces that are attributable to anthropogenic activities [8]. Among them global warming and climate change, acidification, eutrophication, ozone layer depletion, resource depletion, and loss of biodiversity are identified as the major global environmental issues in which global warming and climate change along with resource depletion substantially influence on the built environment. According to population data from the World Health Organization and the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations, the increase in global population is anticipated to have a significant impact on developing nations in the coming decades, particularly those in Asia and Africa [9]. It is important to highlight the factors that contribute to population growth, such as underestimating women, denying them the freedom to make their own decisions, prohibiting family planning and contraception in some faiths, poverty, etc. It is meaningless to just blame the world’s problems to Asia and Africa.

2.1.1 Critical Impacts of Climate Change on Built Environment With the increased migration of rural inhabitants to cities, world urban population will be far higher than rural population due to changes in lifestyle and comfort factor in the emerging mega cities over 5 million population all over. This would add an additional burden to the environment. The synergized impacts of climate change and urbanization have critical impacts on the built environment and global warming scenarios.

44

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

The connection between climate change and built environment is complex, reciprocal, and interdependent. When emphasizing the climate change effects on buildings, they can be broadly categorized into four [10]. 1. Impacts on building structures because of natural hazards such as flood, drought, landslide, cyclone, earthquake, and tsunami 2. Impacts on building constructions such as drainage systems 3. Retardation in the performance of building materials over time 4. Indoor environmental quality of buildings considering physical climate parameters such as temperature, wind speed, and humidity. The climate change impacts on built environment are of high concern as people spend about 65–90% of their time indoors coupled with indoor air pollution is 2–5% more harmful than the ambient condition [11]. The occupant health, wellbeing, and the quality of life are highly correlated to the indoor environmental quality [12]. As a result of climate change, interior spaces of buildings are evolving as hotspots suspecting the health condition of the dwellers with increasing number of children, elders, low-income households, and internally displaced population as vulnerable and more susceptible. In Paris, about 14,800 death cases were reported in August 2003 due to heat-related diseases such as heat stokes during peak summer. One of the major causes identified for the tragedy is the failure of buildings to modify the external environment to secure occupant comfort and health safety [13]. The influence of climate change on built environment is accountable for higher mortality rates in hot summer, morbidity related to respiratory system such as asthma, increased likelihood of cardiovascular diseases, physical and psychological ill effects, and chronic health effects [14].

2.1.2 Climate Change Triggered by Built Environment Built environment together with urban development plays a substantial role in global climate change and its adverse environmental consequences. The built environment is liable for 40% of GHG emissions globally [15]. When considering the building sector, construction and operation of building retain a global share of 36% of final energy [16] in which 30–40% is mainly expended in HVAC systems in commercial buildings and are accountable for the consumption of 70% of electricity generated [17, 18]. The rise of buildings, expansion of gray area, increased levels of consumption, and concentrating diverse population in urban area leading to enormous waste generation and waste management issues [19]. An economy based on high consumption of resources in turn generates several downstream ‘resources’ in massive scale from the building sector such as used materials, combustion by products, organic and inorganic waste, gray water and black water, heat, polluted groundwater, and polluted air. The following values in Table 2.1 are all building-related emissions [18, 20].

2.1 Climate Change and Built Environment

45

Table 2.1 Global estimate of resource consumption and impacts of built environment Consumptions/Emissions

Impacts (%)

Final outcomes

Energy use

40

Air pollution

Carbon dioxide emission

35

Global warming

Water use

25

Water scarcity

Wood and raw materials

30

Deforestation and habitat loss

Solid waste

20–40

Landfills

Change in land use pattern and fragmentation

80

Agricultural land loss

Water pollution

Up to 50

Coral reef destruction

Land clearing for construction

Up to 25

Rainforest destruction

Sulfur dioxide emissions

49

Global warming, acid rain

Nitrous oxide emissions

25

Global warming, acid rain

Particulate matter

10

Global warming, photochemical smog

Paints, carpets, adhesive off-gas VOCs, wood products containing formaldehyde

Asthma and other respiratory ailments

Building materials manufacture-Dioxin

Increased cancer rates

Building sector overconsumes and overexploits natural resources, exhausting the available reserves and creating a burden to the ecosystem. Table 2.2 shows the data obtained from the metal stock society providing a general idea about the metal consumption by building and construction sector which signifies the urgency to prioritize circular economy and resource efficiency as climate mitigating options [21]. Table 2.2 Share of metal consumption by building and construction reservoir Metal

Metal containing final goods

End use (25%)

Aluminum

Siding, window frames

25

Copper

Building electrical wiring, copper tubing

50

Iron

Building beams, reinforcing bars

50

Zinc

Frames, piping, roofing, brass appliances

48

Lead

Lead sheet

58

Antimony

Flame retardants

55

Chromium

Elevators, railways

25

Manganese

Structural steel

29

Nickel

Alloys

9

Source UNEP [22]

46

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

Buildings are the largest user of energy. The energy is expended for heating, cooling, extraction, construction, equipment operation, and repairing that can never be recovered; further the building components have higher embodied energy. This vastly increased energy requirement in modern buildings has significant impact on climate change due to increased carbon footprint as non-renewable energy sources especially fossils occupying higher proportion in energy mix. Even the welldeveloped countries in the Americas, Europe and Asia, parts of Australia, and in rapidly developing nations such as India and China, coal remains as the major source of power generation. Conventional building lifecycle is a linear process including stages of design, construction, operation, maintenance, and demolition, which fail to address the environmental issues throughout its lifecycle processes of material extraction, processing, manufacturing, transporting, and procurement of building materials. This customary development process would have higher environmental costs which is most of the time not accounted for. This historical cumulative neglect in accounting for the total energy cost of the built environment has resulted in present environmental catastrophe, requiring emergency action globally. Further, the poor building design, inefficiency, lack of concern over sustainability, weak policy, standards, guidelines, and regulations to favor sustainable building exacerbate climate change and its negative corollaries [23]. Strategies can be employed to decarbonize the building sector through enforcing standards and policy, performing environmental impact assessment, adopting lowcarbon technology, shifting to renewables, green infrastructure solutions, and efficient planning control, building performance monitoring, energy-efficient infrastructures, and restricting energy utilization. All stakeholders must collaboratively function together to efficiently mitigate and avoid CO2 emissions and aid in the fight against climate change [24].

2.2 Urban Climate Change Urban climate change refers to changes to the surface characteristics of cities in urban climate context in large scale. Several factors influence urban climate, including size and morphology of the city, land use pattern, geographic setting such as elevation, and local climate. Urban climate influences on the ambient air quality (depending on pollutant emissions), atmospheric vertical temperature and humidity profiles up to 1 km from earth surface, and modified wind flow speed and pattern [25]. “Urban areas” widely known as towns, cities, and suburbs are complex, critically interconnected systems referred to as the region surrounding a city. Most inhabitants of urban areas have non-agricultural jobs. Generally urban areas are developed, with moderate to high population density having access to multiple infrastructure facilities under one roof. Abundant human structures such as houses, commercial buildings, industries, roads, bridges, and railways mark the cities [26].

2.2 Urban Climate Change

47

In the Anthropocene era, negative effects are intensified by the human interventions on natural and man-made systems especially in urban arenas. Cities are attributable to 70% of global carbon dioxide emissions and leads to climate change [27]. According to IPCC predictions, it is expected that the frequency, duration, and intensity of natural hazards in cities will continue to increase in scale due to hostile global trend in climate change, population expansion, as well as rapid, and dense urbanization. In addition to these, escalating global temperature creates urban heat island (UHI) effect in metropolitan regions, emerging urbanites as the most susceptible populace due to compensating communal wellbeing for the consolation of the living; recording worldwide wellbeing issues alluded to urban setting. Thus, the cities must be able to withstand not only shocks and risks but also long-term pressures and chronic stresses which gradually deteriorate the standard of living and weaken the fabric of the city. Such long-term stress factors are climate change, weak infrastructure, poor education and health status, economic status, obsolete technology, inequality, etc. Urban climate change has multiple impacts occurring suddenly such as storms and heat waves and impacts that gradually build up over a long period of time like global warming, leading to indirect impacts such as affecting the capacity of urban fabric to withstand socioeconomic shocks/disruptions and preexisting vulnerabilities due to deficit infrastructures on the urban population and urban system components. Among the populace low-income people, elders, and children are highly vulnerable groups as depicted in Fig. 2.5. Several disaster risk reduction measures are widely implemented to protect them from the adverse impacts of disasters. Urban climate change risks need to be predicted via comprehensive planning to reduce urban poverty which would be the ultimate results of calamity events [28].

Fig. 2.5 Urban climate change impacts

48

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

Global climate change risks such as flooding, drought, heat stress, and surge storms are cumulative and vulnerable to urban areas especially to coastal cities. 2016 was recorded as the warmest year followed by 2019 portraying the adverse climate condition. Climate change interrupts global economies and social development. SDG on climate action comprised social, economic, and environmental accomplishments prioritizing climate change. The action plan requires a shift to renewable energy sources, green buildings, zero carbon buildings, climate resilient buildings, and green investments with the aim of achieving net zero emission of greenhouse gases, meaning emissions are balanced out by their absorption by the forestry and other greenery. UN Climate Neutrality Strategy was developed in 2007 with the commitment to evaluate the total greenhouse gas emissions coherent with accepted national or international standards, undertake efforts to prevent and mitigate GHG emissions, and investigate the cost implications for the purchase of carbon offsets to achieve climate neutrality. Developing countries have been pressured into adopting neoliberal market driven as opposed to need-based economic policies. This has driven countries like Sri Lanka and Pakistan to economic bankruptcy. It is a double-edged sword—resulting in (a) the loss of whatever food self-sufficiency and local production they had and (b) virtually replacing or undermining their cost-effective, less polluting, and more efficient road and rail public transport system by a private largely road-based transport system requiring them to import expensive and highly polluting private vehicles and building expensive environmentally damaging highway network. So, all these wests-driven global efforts are in reality appearing to be more of a rhetoric or lip service than positive and realizable program in a planned and consistent manner. The latest announcement by the British Government is that they are diverting funds allocated for action against climate change and eradication of poverty in Africa to supply arms to Ukraine and escalate the war and to impose counterproductive sanctions, all of which could have been averted through peaceful negotiations and avoiding unnecessary provocations. These actions only exacerbate climate change and poverty and misery in less developed countries. International institutions, largely controlled by the developed countries, don’t genuinely act in the interest of developing countries. This has to be taken on board in promoting SDG-13. Urban development requires urgent attention on issues such as planning of land use, changing pattern of land, and excessive consumption of resources which severely affects the ecosystem. The material needs of densely populated urban cities with urban sprawl are exceedingly high to meet their day-to-day needs. The urban infrastructures are also made up of huge quantity of materials with enormous, embodied energy. Therefore, the imbalance between carbon generation and absorption is unacceptably high. Following mitigating measures are therefore necessary to achieve better outputs, (a) incorporate wherever possible GI, (b) create open spaces for people to interact with nature, (c) wise use of local materials and renewable and recycled materials, (d) use of well-designed vertical development, and (e) building in accordance with approved codes of practice, urban policies, zoning, and spatial and temporal/secular plans. As the urban population is proliferating over time, the demand for the resources will multiply, and if resources are consumed at the present

2.3 How Do Cities Develop Climate Resilience?

49

rate, there will be a crisis of resources. Promoting local industries, short supply chains, use of local raw material, and integrated waste management are a few strategies which can be adopted to deal with the above shortcomings.

2.3 How Do Cities Develop Climate Resilience? Urban climate resilience is the capacity of cities to function, whereas making certain that people who live, and/or work in cities survive and thrive combating climate risk and shocks while giving special attention to poor and vulnerable [29]. Cities are believed to be dynamic systems in uncertain climate context capable of managing, adapting, and thriving in climate risks, volatile shocks, and stresses. Urban climate change resilience encompasses climate change adaptation, mitigation actions, and disaster risk reduction measures. It ensures the resilience in terms of robust nature of city, people, and institutions to cope with stress and shocks [30]. Global economic loss of 1.7 trillion USD is incurred in terms of damage to infrastructure, environment, community, and business loss in the period from 2000 to 2012 due to natural disasters such as extreme weather events, health crisis, and seismic events. The ultimate goal of a resilient city is to ensure the health and wellbeing of human, prolonged and progressive economic prosperity, ecological health and quality, and business success despite of external threats and hazards [31, 32]. Integrating GI will be a fine solution to address environmental pollution, vehicular traffic congestion, land use change, land encroachment and fragmentation, as well as sudden and severe climatic shocks. Urban GI alone cannot achieve urban resilience in this modern world, it needs to be bind with artificial infrastructure to strengthen the resiliency and achieve better performance. This hybrid approach is the ‘blue-green-gray’ concept [33]. This approach is a strategy to produce productive optimal urban solutions through innovative comprehensive planning integrating urban components and ecosystem services [34]. The concept of blue-green structures has advanced colossally over final decades laying foundation to cultivate climate resilient urban field. Recognized gap within the talk and hypothetical ideas to be tended through planning collaboration among diverse partners in accomplishing socio-financial environmental and specialized framework adjust [35]. The key strategies to be adopted to stabilize climate resilience are (1) managing flood risk, mitigating UHI effect, (2) building resiliency to drought, (3) reduced building bulk energy demands, (4) enhanced coastal resilience, and (5) water management [36]. Besides these, study of Brown et al. [37] addressed following critical actions to build up climate resilience based on Asian urban context; climate sensitive urban planning and land use, individual and institutional capacity building, solid waste management, disaster management, early warning, emergency preparedness, and response planning, responsive health care, resilient resettlement and transport infrastructure, robust ecosystem services, etc. [37].

50

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

2.3.1 Water Management Sustainable water management is an essential requirement in urban design. It enhances the quality of life of the urbanities and adds green and resilience to arena. Figure 2.6 shows different stages of urban water management [38]. In late 90 s several context-specific interdisciplinary approaches were developed, namely low impact development in USA, nature-based solutions in EU, sponge city concept in China, and water-sensitive urban design in Australia. SDG 6 and SDG 11 on water and cities are more related to water management, while SDG 9, 12, 15, and 17 had relation to nature-based solutions and services in water management. Nature-based storm water management system tries to address following four fundamentals [38]. 1. Flood control—management of risk associated with floods (20–100 years) ensures the protection of the city and its functionality without endangered by the extreme precipitation events 2. Nature-based—storm runoff facilitated to groundwater recharge, biofiltration, bioretention, enhanced water quality and quantity of water resources, lifecycle thinking (low-carbon footprint) in material choice, construction, operation, and commissioning, promote biodiversity, quantification of construction and maintenance of the system 3. Livability—create livable green space 4. Transition to sustainable city and add value through innovative design, community inclusion, interdisciplinary approach, and advance technology. GI solutions involve in water and wastewater management in efficient manner. They reduce the surface runoff, enhance infiltration, and boost the quality of water through filtering out pollutants. When implementing GI options in water management, the final water quality must be consistent to water quality standards which

Fig. 2.6 Stages of urban water management [39]

2.3 How Do Cities Develop Climate Resilience?

51

would otherwise require treatment techniques in pollution management. When gray infrastructures are replaced with green frameworks, energy requirement for water management is greatly reduced. Urbanites will be able to make use of storm water for non-potable uses and conserve the valuable freshwater resource without wasting. Urban areas have complex interconnected relationships with other infrastructures. The positive interactions among different infrastructures can be utilized to enhance the urban performance. In case of wastewater treatment, reclaimed water can be used for industrial cooling, while the waste heat from industry plants can be used for district heating system through establishing dual pipe systems. But careful management is essential to run the entire system successfully [40]. Urban climate adaptation plan needs to take account of city water management to build resiliency. GI installation needs to be done considering the priority regions. And appropriate component should be selected for establishment considering the requirements and suitability to site. Gray infrastructure such as human-engineered integrated systems has a long history in water and wastewater management which has similar value to green structure for water management. In most of the cities gray infrastructures such as water and wastewater management system fail to function efficiently and overflow due to increased extreme flood events, intensified buildings and impervious pavements, undersized systems, costly operation and maintenance, outdated technology, and combined sewer system unable to withstand the intense down pour. In such cases integrating or shifting to GI would assist in reducing flood risk by excess storm water runoff through infiltration, evapotranspiration, and bioretention. In a case study by Sitzenfrei et al. [41], it was shown through cost analysis that a hybrid drainage system that combines green and gray infrastructure is much more cost effective (19%) than a traditional storm water management system. Yet most of the time, an integrated system is unable to produce the best results because it lacks expertise, is behind cutting-edge methods, lacks thorough planning, and requires well-orchestrated blueprints [41]. Runoff management need multidisciplinary stakeholder interaction for GI optimization process. Nature of problems is diverse; hence, priority and expertise of actors will vary and are supportive in bringing a unified solution without compensating any aspects [42]. Table 2.3 describes both green and gray infrastructure solutions for water management in terms of water supply and quality regulation, and moderate and extreme disaster management in urban context.

2.3.2 Management of Flood Risk The melting of ice caps and glaciers and the resulting rise in sea level are both effects of climate change and global warming. The probability of experiencing extremely vulnerable high intensity storms increases with a severe temperature rise. Flood risk may be thought of as the intersection of three risk factors: hazard, vulnerability, and exposure. Hazard is a threat that has the power to cause havoc on people, property,

52

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

Table 2.3 Solutions for water resource management related issues in urban locations Urban water management issue

Gray infrastructure solution

Corresponding green infrastructure solution

Functions

Drought resilience

Dams Aquifer Propelling water distribution system

Wetlands Storm water harvesting systems Green spaces Permeable pavements Urban forestry

Involve in water supply regulation through increasing water infiltration, storage capacity, and aquifer recharge

Flood resilience

Water storage

Riverine flood

Dams and embankments

Conservation and restoration of wetlands

Reduce downstream floods

Storm water flood

Storm water infrastructure

Storm water harvesting Permeable pavements Green roofs Green spaces

Reduce sewer overflow Water storage

Erosion control

Slope reinforcement

Water purification

Water treatment plant

Green space Wetlands Permeable pavements Urban forestry

Water quality regulation Removal of silt, heavy metals, and pollutants

Water temperature control and biological control

Dams Water treatment plant

Wetland Green space for shading of water resource

Control thermal pollution by reducing temperature Shading Control pests, invasive species Control water borne diseases

Firm the soil, slopes, banks, and shorelines Prevent or reduce sedimentation in water bodies

Source Bertule et al. [43]

and the environment. A threat has the probability to change into a catastrophic event based on the influence of exogenous and endogenous factors. Vulnerability, the inbuilt element of hazard distinguished as the synergistic effect of physical, social, and coping capacity, exposure is an inherent feature referred as the exposure/contact with hazard [44]. There are primarily four types of floods namely [45]. 1. Fluvial (river) flood occurrs when the water level in a river, lake, or stream rises and overflows onto the surrounding banks, shores, and neighboring land

2.3 How Do Cities Develop Climate Resilience?

53

2. Pluvial floods (flash flood/surface water) occurs when there is an extreme rainfall event 3. Surface water floods occur when an urban drainage system is overwhelmed, and water flows out 4. Coastal flood/storm surge occurs when inundation of land areas along the coast by sea water due to intense windstorm. Urban surface floods are an immense water movement in cities creating disturbance to occupants and added threats to urban areas by causing human deaths and impairments, massive property loss, damage to social integrity, destruction of physical infrastructures, etc. A research study in Europe indicated that the total flood loss from 1970 to 2006 is about 140 billion dollars in 31 European countries causing a mean annual loss of 3.8 billion dollars [46]. Flash flooding is common in urban areas due to the negligence of small streams and unplanned urban development. Though flash flood remains for a short time, it heavily damages the lives and properties. Storm water management facilitates the potential use of urban scale natural streams [47]. Figures 2.7 and 2.8 demonstrate widely practiced risk reducing measures. Storm water retained by reprofiling the water edges renders wide range of services. Primarily it reduces flooding risk of high intensity rainfall, acts as a natural filtration system to cleanse habitats and conserve wildlife, facilitates pollutant assimilation of the runoff water, provides space for recreational activity, and improves microclimate condition of the surrounding region, thus improving the urban resilience. Integrating green along with this blue component further multiplies the benefits gained. It acts as a physical link to man and nature. These public urban spaces can be modified into parks, or other landscape to serve different landscape functions. The social quality of life can be improved by providing space to relax, walk, play, and involve in some recreational activities. Presently water courses in cities are neglected and substituted with concrete frameworks due to illegal waste disposal into water bodies, and lack of maintenance, pollution, eutrophication, endangered species, and ecological capacity presented as vague without providing economic or aesthetic value as abandon, landscape constrains and lack of local government support for renovation and maintenance, lack of awareness of the local community on the significance of this water sources in flood control, and ponds turning into waste dump sites.

Fig. 2.7 Dikes and polders, dunes, dams, and barriers

54

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

Fig. 2.8 Basic approaches to flood proofing

Nowadays concern is given to waterbed management in developing countries under the supervision of local government authorities. The policies and development planning guidelines address the water resource management to conserve agricultural zones, endangered, and sensitive zones. The polluting water courses can be completely avoided by implementing strict institutional guidelines, field control mechanisms, and severe penalty for those breeching the rules. It is the combined duty of the local government bodies and urban/rural associations to create awareness among the public through conducting workshops, street dramas, and training program. Children must be educated on the importance of integrating small streams, ponds, and other courses in urban planning, abandoned water bodies have to be restored by allocating local fund, and their biodiversity has to be enhanced. This can be assisted by planting appropriate species to provide habitats for aquatic and wild varieties. There is an urgent requirement of transformative change from the traditional envisions in the management of rainwater, wastewater, and flood runoff water to accomplish urban flood resilience at local, regional, and national levels. This could be made possible through favorable policies, constructive planning, design, and implementation of urban water systems to ensure satisfactory service delivery under flood, normal, drought, future development conditions, stressed drainage system, old infrastructures, and enhance and extend the useful lives of aging gray assets by supplementing them with blue-green infrastructures while interoperability with other systems. Optimum results can be optimized through the co-functioning of green and gray infrastructures in flood management [48].

2.3 How Do Cities Develop Climate Resilience?

55

GI, a part of integrated approach in flood risk management, relies on a balance of structural and non-structural measures. GI components involve in reducing surface runoff and enhance the water infiltration. GI solutions such as wetlands, bioshields green roofs, green pavements, grasslands, permeable and semipermeable walkways, street side swales, porous pavements, wetlands, and mangroves infiltrate runoff water for groundwater recharge, dense tree canopies slow down the precipitation through inception. Further the storm water harvesting system lowers unnecessary surface runoff, lessens the flow of water to streams and rivers, and protects floodplains functions, thus lowering the damage to lives and properties through cost-effective flood risk reduction green infrastructure solutions. In addition to this modern water management technologies can be adsorbed into the urban planning for filtering, purifying, and removing the excess. Bioretentions, infiltration trenches, rain gardens, and bioswales can be constructed depending on the purpose. Impermeable pavements can be replaced with permeable or semipermeable walkways, grass lands, shrubs, bushes, and others that could infiltrate water into soil to improve its physical structure. GI reduces flooding at an effective rate than gray infrastructure by reducing surface runoff and increasing storage capacity at 15–64%. Green roofs reduce runoff between 65 and 85%, thus lowering climate disasters to enhance resilience [36]. Compared to other strategies ‘wetland restoration’ and ‘floodplain restoration’ provide higher degree of flood risk protection along with other ecosystem services [49]. Wetlands primarily provide water retention services thus can reduce the flooding impact. Renaturalized wetland has high soil infiltration and capacity for water absorption. Protecting flood plains enhances water storage capacity and increases water conveyance through flood plains. Floodplains reduce flood risk and simultaneously improve water quality, recharge groundwater, support fish and wildlife, and provide recreational and tourism benefits. An efficient flood risk management is essential in flood risk management to safeguard from the loss of lives and massive destruction of properties and infrastructures (Fig. 2.9). There are several logical, technical, criteria-based evaluation methods addressed in literature. A combination of GIS and RS can be utilized to handle the flood event and related circumstances effectively. Geospatial techniques are commendable in flood mapping, flood risk and vulnerability appraisal, and damage assessment. Biophysical and socioeconomic data can be obtained from remote sensing. A case study in Ghent proposes a GIS-based quantitative method with five criteria for urban surface flood management to build up urban climate resilience. The criteria are [46] 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Runoff mitigation Social vulnerability/vulnerable group identification and protection Identification and protection of potential flood prone area’s road infrastructure Protection of building infrastructures in flood sensitive areas Flooding exposure inequities reduction/environmental justice.

56

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

Fig. 2.9 Typical flood risk management strategies [50]

2.3.3 Building Resilience to Drought It is predicted that majority of world countries will be forced to water stress zone by 2050. Among the other regions, the largest Asian urban population is tackling with seasonal and perennial water shortages. Nowadays urban arenas face water scarce scenarios due to lowered precipitation rates. Drought condition is defined as the deficiency of precipitation extending over a long period of time, typically a season. The situation is perceptible with the increased mean temperature, heat waves, evapotranspiration and reduced precipitation, soil moisture, and groundwater recharge. Hence, there will be lack of water to meet human demands. Drought events heavily impact on the global economy as most of the sectors widely depend on water and create socioeconomic vulnerability. In order to break the business as usual scenario depicted in Fig. 2.10 during a drought incident; successful implementation of drought/crisis management, national drought policies, integrated drought management, preparedness, vulnerability assessments, mitigation plans, and plans to be enacted in participatory approach. Fig. 2.10 Hydro-illogical cycle-crisis management. Source https://unfccc.int/ files/adaptation/application/ pdf/nap_expo_session_viii_ wilhite.pdf

2.3 How Do Cities Develop Climate Resilience?

57

There is a need of replacing traditional gray frameworks with green infrastructure to conserve the precious water resource which was previously conveyed out of the city to water body without any use. GI components facilitate groundwater recharge, rainwater harvested in rooftops can be directly used for non-potable uses such as watering plants, aesthetic use, vehicle cleaning, cloth washing, first rinse in washing machines, toilet flush, and even the water can be obtained at potable quality after infiltration process. Storm water management system further slows down and reduces the surface runoff.

2.3.4 Mitigating UHI Effect The temperature of urban area is comparatively higher than the nearby rural area due to urban heat island effect (Figs. 2.11, 2.12, and 2.13). This artificial increase in temperature is mainly due to building fabrics, structures, hard surfaces, and lack of greens. Compared to rural neighborhood, built environments can have the UHI effect which would rise up to 5–8 °C warmer [51]. The highest temperature difference will usually record during nighttime. In the urban development, natural land cover is converted into dense buildings, pavements, streets, and other gray structures which absorb heat energy and retain without reflecting to atmosphere as a result of which local temperature elevates; hot microclimate condition is created thereby. Urban areas have lower wind speeds and modified wind flow patterns, reduced precipitation, energy imbalance, inadequate radiant cooling, and lower heat loss by convectionm thus warming the surface areas [52]. According to Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), 8.5 projected emission scenarios; it is predicted that annual maximum wet-bulb temperature in Doha, and Mecca would rise to 35 and 32 °C by the end of this century, while in Kuwait annual maximum temperature would exceed 60 °C and 55 °C in Mecca [54]. When considering urban structural elements such as building material, height, volume, orientation, void ratio, and density influence on the UHI effect through determining amount of net heat in the building, air ventilation, and heat exchange process between the building mass and the surrounding. The building materials such as concrete and asphalt retain higher proportion of heat energy without dissipating and augmenting the heat stress condition [55]. But during summer, night radiative loss is high from built surfaces, pavements, streets, and parks, and building materials raise the urban ambient air than the air external to city boundary. The roughness of building materials and building and interbuilding spaces are critical factor in turbulent exchange of sensible heat between the surface and ambient air. Higher levels of roughness reduce the wind speed and heat transfer, but in contrary with the increased roughness, building surface area increases leading to increased heat transfer rates [52]. Due to the excess heat, the urban outdoor spaces become unusable to the urbanites; thus they intend to use air conditioning or fan to improve the indoor environmental quality to achieve occupant comfort, hence augmenting excess heat. Further, in cities transportation and industry contribute significantly to anthropogenic excess heat due

58

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

Fig. 2.11 Explanatory diagram on UHI effect in meso and microscale [53]

Fig. 2.12 Urban heat island effect (UHI). Source https://www.pinterest.com/pin/526217537692 998560/

2.3 How Do Cities Develop Climate Resilience?

59

Fig. 2.13 Processes leading to UHI [25]

to increased vehicular emissions, massive energy consumption, and waste generation by production plants. UHI effect can be mitigated through adopting sustainable green solutions, changing built forms, passive cooling and ventilation techniques, use of sustainable building designs and materials, low-carbon technologies, energy-efficient approaches like solar absorption coolers, and thermal mass design and appropriate land use proportions that could enhance the albedo/reflectivity in order to cool the surrounding and improve the microclimate condition. Among these, introducing blue-green infrastructure is instrumental.

2.3.4.1

GI-Based Solutions in Mitigating UHI Effect

GI provisions introduced in micro (e.g., community/institutional green spaces, green roofs, green walls, domestic gardens, street trees, hedge rows, food growing areas), meso (e.g., large parks, woodlands, ponds and lakes, sports and recreational grounds, blue corridors, orchards, community agricultural areas, local nature reserves, vegetation, and sustainable urban drainage systems), and macroscales (lakes and reservoirs, urban forest, regional parks, blue corridors, green corridors, designated green belt, intensive and un-intensive agricultural lands) mitigate UHI effect significantly while delivering diverse social, economic, and ecological benefits. Usually with expansion of scale, magnitude of ecosystem services, benefits, and values delivered are mounting [56]. Following are the functional services rendered by UGI in the context of urban heat island; (1) reduce land surface temperature (LST) and air temperature, (2) cool surface and environment, (3) lower building energy requirement (energy saving) and curb-related greenhouse gas emissions, (4) enhance thermal

60

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

comfort and health and wellbeing, (5) reduce heat stress thus enhance quality of life, and (6) reduce climate/UHI-related morbidity, mortality, and disasters [57]. Table 2.4 shows how different GI components mitigate UHI effect. GI regulates the air and thermal temperature by shading, while reduces air and surface temperature by reflecting and absorbing solar radiation and preventing/ minimizing the absorption of short wave radiation (IR radiations). Green areas disband heat accumulation. Installation of GI aspects such as trees, green roofs, living wall, and vegetation is expected to reduce urban heat island effects by shading effect and evaporative cooling (shading building surfaces, deflecting solar radiation, and releasing moisture into the atmosphere). Shading and evapotranspiration have significant effect in cooling and climate regulation. GI by means of photosynthesis, transpiration, evapotranspiration of vegetation change air movement, and heat exchange to lower temperature increases humidity alleviating UHI [57]. Cooling effect of urban green spaces can exist up to 200–400 m depending on the type and arrangement of GI. Moreover, correlation between UHI intensity and UGI is the highest in the summer. The degree of UHI reduction is strongly influenced by Table 2.4 GI provisions mitigating UHI effect Location

GI provision

Key features

Temperature reduction

References

London, UK

90% green roof

4.9 * 102 m2

Temperature reductions of up to 1.05 °C

[58]

Stuttgart, Germany

Grassland

9.0 * 1010 m2 Reduce the urban temperature by 9% of urban area about 10 °C when replaced with grassland

[59, 60]

Teheran, Iran

Vegetation

1.2 * 105 m2 10% increase of vegetation cover scenario

Reduction in air temperature up to 0.34 °C

[61]

Nanjing, China

Forest vegetation

10% increase in forest cover

Reduction of LST by 0.83 °C

[62]

Chicago, Illinois, USA

Green roof

1886 m2 of city hall rooftop Used 20,000 herbaceous plants belonging to 50 species mainly native

Annual temperature reduction of 7 °C and up to 30 °C in summer further reporting 5000 USD energy savings per annum

[56]

Llieda in Catalonia, Spain

Green facades

Extreme hot region with low rainfall UHI effect monitored throughout a year

The surface temperature of the [63] wall in an area that was unshaded by vegetation was on average 5.5 °C higher than in partially covered areas. The difference was higher in August and September, reaching a maximum of 15.2 °C

2.3 How Do Cities Develop Climate Resilience?

61

the proportion of green spaces in vicinity and their spatial distribution. Numerous research has demonstrated that large aggregated, continuous green spaces immensely contribute to the reduction of UHI magnitude, providing a greater cooling effect than smaller surfaces. Among available GI provisions, the greatest cooling effect is provided by the forests (macroscale installment) [62]. Impervious urban surfaces are 2 °C warmer on average in the summer, and increasing urban tree canopy can reduce air temperatures by 1–3 °C [64]. Urban parks could reduce the air temperature of the surrounding area by 4 °C, whereas dense street trees with minimal traffic have the cooling effect of 2.2 °C [65]. Land cover change also has substantial influence on the UHI effect, converting forest cover into grasslands reported rise in temperature by 0.5 °C in summer. Similar results were demonstrated in the study of Tiwari et al. [59] where an average increase in temperature perturbations in global scale 0.23 ± 0.03 °C was obtained, hence proving trees as the better option compared with grasslands to mitigate temperature perturbations due to following reasons: (1) higher evapotranspiration rates, (2) improvised thermal condition during extreme temperatures, (3) higher magnitude of turbulent energy flux, and (4) great surface shading area under the canopies. Therefore, trees reduce the surface temperature and UHI formation, especially in densely built-up urban areas [59]. According to Shao and Kim [57] deforestation of 5413 ha in Mérida, Mexico, has risen the surface temperature by 2.36–3.94 °C which is significantly higher (0.9 °C) than in non-deforested sites. Moreover, forests in inner London provide a cooling benefit of 7.0–10.6 GWh which is equal to the annual savings of £1.23 million in 2019 [57]. Green wall of 1000 m2 made up of 97,000 plans of 25 different species for national grid living wall in Warwickshire, UK, greatly contributed to CO2 absorption [56]. European Commission [66] suggested that green roofs retain a varying amount of rainfall of up to 100% depending on the depth of substrate covering the roof, the slope of the roof, and the type of vegetation [66]. The cooling and heat reduction of GI increase with the scale of installation, for example when local plans with ~1–10 km2 of green roof deployment, reported the largest daily maximum cooling is 0.86 °C, while with regional plans (~500 km2 ), the largest daily maximum cooling can be up to about 1.5 °C [57]. Herrera-Gomez et al. [67] showed the temperature reduction of 1.5–6.5 °C by the installation of 740 ha semi-intensive or intensive green roofs [67]. Besides, Peng and Jim [68] reported the energy savings of 3.4 and 7.6 (* 107 kWh) of extensive and intensive green roofs, respectively, resulting in the economic benefit is 3.99 and 8.92 (* 106 USD), respectively [68].

2.3.4.2

UHI Analysis

Following steps are involved in the analysis of urban heat island effect [62]. 1. UHI identification using land surface temperatures (LST)—most of the time data acquired from thermal infrared remote sensors rather than meteorological ground measurements of air temperatures

62

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

2. Deciding spatial extent and city boundaries 3. Land surface temperature and urban heat island magnitude 4. City land use and landscape metrics of urban green areas—calculating land use characteristics and metrics such as edge density (edge length on a per unit area basis), largest patch index (percentage of total landscape area comprised by the largest patch), mean patch area (average area size of patches), and proportional landscape core 5. Explanatory variables—UHI magnitudes were additionally correlated with other explanatory data: the distance from the city center to the seacoast and longitude and latitude of the city center. Figure 2.14 illustrates the UHI analysis methodology adopted to develop compact eco-cities in Surabaya, in Indonesia which experienced 1 °C increase in temperature annually for last 2 decades with the difference in temperature of 1.4 °C compared to rural regions, due to increased built environment and diminished green cover and CO2 absorption leading to occupant discomfort to local community. This is evidenced by the human temperature index > 26. The study utilized spatial planning to prioritize green infrastructure development in order to mitigate urban heat island [69]. Meerow and Newell [64] adopted the following methodology in UHI analysis of Surabaya case study. 1. Identify potential UHI distribution/spatial distribution of UHI—involves identification of significant land growth area where human activity, industrial operations, GHG emissions, and temperature will be higher resulting in greater deviation in surface temperature. 2. Prioritize neighborhood for optimizing UGI installation—higher priority area is an area where large proportion of people are affected by excessive heat stress; this can be determined based on the intersections of heat exposure, behavioral exposure as well as spatial land use pattern (Fig. 2.15). • Heat exposure—identified hotspots with extreme temperature (intense development, little/no vegetation, or green space). UHI classification performed using remote sensing based on surface temperature data • Spatial land use pattern—analyze how the surface temperature changes with land use over series of time

Spatial planning strategies to prioritize green infrastructures to mitigate UHI

Fig. 2.14 UHI analysis for the development of compact eco-city

2.3 How Do Cities Develop Climate Resilience?

63

Fig. 2.15 Prioritizing neighborhoods based on the aspects of heat exposure, behavioral exposure, and spatial land use pattern

Heat Exposure

Behavioral Exposure

Spatial Land use pattern

• Behavioral exposure—the areas with high human activity such as business, industrial establishments, shopping areas, and public amenities must be prioritized for heat mitigation to ensure occupant comfort. High behavioral exposure characteristics will have more UHI due to increased energy consumption, air conditioning, and traffic congestion 3. Prioritize neighborhood—identify the distribution of green infrastructures (areas with greens and the areas that lack green), the areas in need of improving microclimate conditions.

2.3.5 Lowering Bulk Energy Demands There is a growing concern over rising energy demand and its ecological implications in recent decades. Energy is an imperative factor for urban socioeconomic development. Though the carbon-rich fossil fuels are the widely used energy sources in past decades, now it is on decline due to sustainability-based advancement in urban growth which prefers the use of non-carbonated fuels. In case of energy, it is essential for a city plan to ensure energy security and self-sufficiency to curb the negative impacts of climate change. Generally, building energy demand is high for the cooling requirement especially during hot summer in urban setting [70]. Such bulk energy demand can be reduced by designing low energy passive buildings through integrating high albedo roofing, high performance voids such as windows and structures with good air tightness, building envelope insulation, plant shading, GI installation, use of occupancy and motion sensors, and massing techniques which would greatly lower indoor and ambient air temperature while enhancing occupant comfort [71]. Installation of green frameworks greatly reduces the building energy requirement by lowering the need for active cooling. They create better microclimate condition

64

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

through passive means, provide shading effect, and act as wind break, and purifier. Evapotranspiration of living walls, green cascades, and green roofs further cool the ambient environment. Thus, interior temperature reduced leading to low cooling load of air conditioning. According to research finding dense green roof expected to lower summer energy demand over 75% [36]. Due to abundant built environment in Middle East the energy demand of the buildings during summer is huge due to higher temperature and heat island effect. It is highly dangerous to survive during power interruptions/failures. Increased energy demand causes stress in energy and water production systems [54]. The building sector is responsible for an important proportion of global energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Among these, the energy consumption of building appliances such as air conditioning, kitchenware, sanitation, and hot water accounts for more than 75% of the buildings [19]. There is need of robust nationwide environmental and energy policies to address the bulk energy demands and limit carbon intensive energy sources [70]. The naturebased solutions that can be applied to manage the energy dimensions of urban resilience are diversifying energy sources, balanced energy mix, increasing the proportion of renewable energy sources, conducting energy analysis and audits, creating awareness programs to lay a strong knowledge base, self-sufficient buildings coupled with off grid or on grid solar/wind-driven electricity, energy management and conservation behaviors, star-rated equipment, energy-efficient constructions, building renovations, better renovation policies, building codes consistent with longterm environmental sustainability addressing ecofriendly renewable energy sources, natural light, passive cooling facilitated through plant transpiration and evaporative cooling from green frameworks and water courses, reduce ambient temperature, thus lowering energy loads and pollution, fresh air circulation, creating microclimate condition, energy-saving bulbs, solar lights, automatic switch street lights, occupancy and motion sensors, building construction, and infrastructure planning at the lowest possible energy consumption [72]. The energy-associated CO2 emission trend notifies significant reduction potential in the period 2020 to 2050 with decarbonization economy (Fig. 2.16). In the diagram, reference case is based on data obtained from world countries on currently available energy plans, policies, and possible future energy efficiency, while transforming energy scenario is a decarbonization/low-carbon technology scenario to limit the global warming below 2 °C [73].

2.3.6 Improving Coastal Resilience Cities located in coastal regions are icon of growth in many countries across the world. Most of the times urban development in coastal area is criticized as unsustainable due to severe changes in land use pattern, rapid urbanization, exploitation of resources, and unplanned horizontal developments. Amidst the difficulties to meet the sustainability criteria in coastal regions due to increased vulnerability by the

2.3 How Do Cities Develop Climate Resilience?

65

Fig. 2.16 Present and future predictions of energy-related CO2 emissions on technology basis in the baseline and transforming energy scenarios [74]

frequent occurrence and intensified disaster events such as flood, drought, erosion, heat stress, and sea level rise, they build urban resilience with a great pressure on the community. Asia is reported to have the highest population in risk prone areas in low elevation coastal zone [37]. Among the cities, urban areas in proximity to coastal region are at extreme vulnerable position. They are frequently exposed to severe climate risks. It is predicted that cities along coastal belt would rise to 25% by 2050. But among these challenges, cities are recognized as capable enough to reduce the climate change impacts by curbing the greenhouse gas emission and carbon sequestration by implementing climate resilient action plans [75]. Figure 2.17 shows the coastal resilience cycle applicable in coastal urban context.

66

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities Information Management • Information and data needs to be shared at all levels and accessible to relevant stakeholders

Monitoring and Evaluation • Adapt plans and programs based on experience and lessons learned

Coastal Resilience Cycle

Planning • Interagency collaborationis needed to develop comprehensive plans that address chronic and episodi coastal hazards

Hazard Event

Implementation

Disaster Recovery •

Emergency Response

Warning and Evacuation •

Identify opportunities to reduce risk through disaster recovery

Disaster

Integrate capacity building programs to avoid disaster and respond to emergencies

Fig. 2.17 Coastal resilience management [76]

2.4 Building Climate Resilience: Through Adaptation, Mitigation, Environmental Engineering, and Learning Approach Climate strategies may undermine the social, economic, and environmental objectives to accomplish sustainable development which intends to ensure social justice, resilience, local community empowerment, and environmental integrity. The four key principles for sustainable development are [77]. • Recognizing the context for vulnerability • Acknowledging different values and interests that affect adaptation and mitigation outcomes • Integrating local knowledge into adaptation responses • Considering potential feedbacks between local and global processes.

2.4 Building Climate Resilience: Through Adaptation, Mitigation …

67

2.4.1 Learning-Based Approach Learning process is referred to acknowledging problems to stakeholders, iterative cycle of sharing knowledge, deliberation, learning from past experiences/back loop, anticipating new experiences/front loop, experimentation, learning by doing, and generating new knowledge. Shared learning is identified as an appropriate approach for building urban climate resilience due to the following reasons. • Helps systems to explore vulnerabilities • Helps to create awareness • Multidisciplinary knowledge sharing from local community, external stakeholders, information dissemination, foster experience, and skills sharing • Enhance the quality of decision making at all levels through deliberate knowledge creation and comprehensive information analysis • Innovative problem solving, identifying new ways of performing tasks • Enhance the ability to deal with uncertainties, risks, and challenges • Capacity building. Earlier climate change adaptation options worked with the concept of resilience which had prioritized technical solutions like climate proofing instead of governance issues and developments envisioning better future in long term. But over years ecological resilience, adaptive governance, co-management, and adaptive co-management gained prominence in dealing with watershed or ecosystem management challenges. Learning-based approach was applied in dealing urban challenges to climate change extremes and vulnerabilities. Shared learning process has emerged as an essential practice in achieving urban climate resilience which includes [78]. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Action research Participatory action research Learning cycles Learning by doing Social learning.

2.4.2 Climate Engineering Climate/environmental engineering options applied to counteract climate change/ alter the climate system in large scale to alleviate the adverse impacts of climate change caused by anthropogenic activities. Classification of climate engineering to reduce anthropogenic climate change based on Royal Society is as follows in Table 2.5 [79]. CDR is an anthropogenic carbon dioxide removal option that has the potential to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store in the atmosphere, when this capturing exceeds the emissions, it leads to net zero CO2 or net zero GHG emissions/ net negative emissions. Further this process effect is on the natural biogeochemical

68

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

Table 2.5 Potential climate engineering methods to curb climate change effects Climate engineering options

Description

Example

Solar radiation management (SRM)

Modification of earth’s short wave radiative budget

• Cloud brightening • Injection of stratospheric aerosols

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR)

Reducing CO2 concentration by natural/engineered carbon sinks

• Iron fertilization • Afforestation • Direct carbon sequestration

cycles in controlling global warming either in positive or negative means. Moreover, CDR influences on water availability, quality food production, and biodiversity conservation.

2.4.3 Climate Change Adaptation According to UNDP, climate change adaptation strategy is a broad action plan implemented through polices and measures addressing the climate change impacts, variability, and extremes to reduce the vulnerability levels. Adaptation to climate change is defined as ‘adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities’ [80]. At the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC in 2007 in Bali, climate change adaptation was considered as a critical pillar of any international agreement and moreover adaptation fund was established. Later in 2010 COP Adaptation Framework was established giving same priority as mitigation efforts. Though mitigation is still the dominant factor in international agendas, agreements, urban climate change policy agendas, and policy frameworks following this COP, a prominent place is established for the adaptation as well. Over time there is growing concern/interest over climate change adaptation in international community, and it became as the core issue of works particularly transnational urban climate change agendas, disaster risk reduction measures, and urban services. Long-term adaptation strategies are policy development [81]. Climate change adaptation takes to stands in international climate change process. Climate change is referred to effects of climate change in natural and human systems; hence the adaptation is the adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities. Adaptation strategies advocate lowcarbon economies emphasizing substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, use of renewable energy, recycling, ecological sanitation, organic farming, agroforestry, technological advancement (e.g., flood proof housing), attitude change or behavioral change in resource consumption, multihazard early warning systems, improved disaster risk management, insurance, conservation, and restoration projects (mangrove restoration, afforestation) which are some of the popular climate change

2.4 Building Climate Resilience: Through Adaptation, Mitigation …

69

adaptation options widely practiced [82]. Adaptation options are not always the best; they can have trade-offs, negative consequences as well. The gaps in research and development must be rectified for better outcomes, utilizing anticipatory learning, understanding the adaptation process, and addressing the climate change effects [77]. Climate change adaptation initiatives in large-scale implementation require multilateral stable and sufficient funding. Currently available ODA overseas development aid is inadequate to support the needy community especially in developing and underdeveloped nations. And most of the time it is limited to reactive funding that is used for emergency relief. Climate change adaptation plans need to be integrated into local, sectorial, national, and regional policies in the context of sustainability context. Effective implementation requires • • • • • • • • • • •

Scientific and critical thinking for problem solving and decision making Individual capacity building Institutional capacity building Research, education, knowledge, skill, experience sharing, and dissemination Training to youngsters for climate change adaptation Public awareness and participation and insurance Comprehensive and integrated planning for climate change adaptation in different scale, levels, social, and technological levels Supportive legislation, laws, standards, and regulatory frameworks Advanced tools, methodology, and technology for climate change adaptation Advanced and appropriate technology National adaptation program of action: prepared by least developed nations.

2.4.3.1

National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPAs)

NAPs are currently an option for least developed countries to obtain support/financial assistance from international community to meet urgent/immediate needs to combat climate change and provide a rigorous assessment of urgent adaptation needs. The five-year Nairobi work program on impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation to climate change (NWP) has the objective of assisting all countries in understanding and assessing impacts. Moreover, UNFCCC provides several support mechanisms particularly to developing nations to overcome climate change impacts. • Provision of funding • Insurance and technology transfer • Scientific and technical assistance to enhance their knowledge base. 2.4.3.2

Adaptation Policy Framework

It is the framework that connects climate change adaptation to global issues and sustainable development. Here, climate change adaptation policies, regulations, and strategies are developed to ensure human protection and enhancement in relation

70

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

to climate change extremes and vulnerability. According to UNDP, there are five constituent elements in adaptation policy framework/adaptation project [80]. • • • • •

Scoping and designing Current vulnerability assessment Characterization of future climate risks Development of adaptation strategy Continuity of adaptation process.

2.4.3.3

Types of Adaptation

• Anticipatory/proactive occurs before observing climate change impacts. • Autonomous/spontaneous is triggered by changes in natural/human systems. • Planned is a result of deliberate policy action to maintain/accomplish the desired state. • Private is based on self-interest of individual/private entity. • Public is developed because of collective need by government in different levels. • Reactive occurs after observing climate change impacts. 2.4.3.4

Urban Climate Change Adaptation

Urban climate change adaptation is multidimensional performed in multilevel. Mainstreaming community-based adaptation into urban context climate change adaptation options enhances local community participation in risk reduction, capacity building, and accountability and enhances potential to innovatively transform the urban climate governance and socioeconomic structures in local and national levels. CBA is essential as locality is highly susceptible to rapid urbanization, climate change effects, and related displacements. Five strategies/mechanisms are applied in Global South to utilize community-based adaptation identified through the case studies; adaptation options are highly context specific and not formally yet integrated into urban planning in most of the countries [83]. • Institutional reforms to integrate community perspectives: Uruguay • Integrating multistakeholder/new actors, institutionalize new approaches and funding mechanisms: Indonesia • Top-down planning approach and bottom-up approach involving local public in vulnerability and risk assistants • Top-down approach with local prioritization: India • Inclusive approach for urban climate change adaptation • Participatory research approach to allow locality to influence on the planning: Vietnam • Empowering local community • Mainstreaming CBA into urban development planning and decision making.

2.4 Building Climate Resilience: Through Adaptation, Mitigation …

2.4.3.5

71

Mainstreaming Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Change Adaptation

Nature-based solutions can be effectively utilized for climate change adaptation and mitigation options. Mainstreaming nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation in urban governance and planning is advocated by research scholars and government institutions to strengthen urban resilience and foster urban development in sustainability context. It focuses on climate risks in policy frameworks, urban governance, and management. It is far beyond just reducing or preventing climate risks/disasters; it involves a comprehensive plan to cope with dynamic climate changes through identifying and addressing the root causes risk. CCA is an integrated approach for climate risk reduction. Four key strategies for mainstreaming climate change adaptation in from the case studies conducted in Germany and Portugal are [84] 1. Combined application of four approaches 2. Adaptation strategies implemented in local, institutional, and interinstitutional strategies 3. Combination of diverse strategies, techniques, and measures 4. Learn from other mainstreaming options like mitigation to synergize. Adaptation mainstreaming is defined as the integration of climate change adaptation considerations into policy and practice with the aim of lowering climate risks. The mainstreaming idea has evolved from two ways. 1. Risk reduction concept: supported by UNISDR and world conferences 2. Environmental/climate change policy integration: e.g., sectorial polices to curb GHG emissions. Adaptation mainstreaming at local level taking hurricane as example. 1. First approach-reduce exposure: reduce present and future hazard exposure by vacating the hazard site Planting mangroves, water management 2. Second approach-reduce vulnerability: reduce the vulnerability of exposed site by creating a resilient environment Green infrastructure installment, buffer zone development 3. Third approach-effective response: effective post-disaster response, prepare predisaster plans, mechanisms, and structures Multihazard early warning systems 4. Fourth approach-effective recovery: effective recovery mechanism, plan, and structures Greenery stays houses, post-disaster assistances, reuse materials from destructions.

72

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

At institutional and interinstitutional level Institutionalizing climate change adaptation is essential to formalize the application in the development of structures and mechanisms. Flexible and adaptive urban water management is to avoid water stress and shortage condition. This transformation process integrating climate change prospects requires careful planning and critical infrastructure development for urban water supply and delivery. At present climate change policies are centered around adaptive capacity rather than adaptation responses which is essential to address climate change-related risks, uncertainties, and challenges. Successful implementation of adaptation responses requires adaptive capacity which is the potential/capability to attain a desired state. General barriers in switching to climate change adaptation are severe poverty in Global South, poor economic status, limited technological and institutional capacity, lack of financial provisions, climate change illiteracy, lacks partnerships in diverse scales, poor communication networks, failure in integrating climate change knowledge into risk management strategy, weak communication networks, weak leadership, and legislation. Adaptation options need to be anticipatory focusing on the long-term viability of the investment (e.g., dam construction) [85].

2.4.3.6

Adaptive Capacity

Adaptive capacity is the inherent capacity of a system to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes), to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences. The system will always try to increase its coping capacity to lower the climate hazards and vulnerability. Adaptive capacity is about how effectively a system uses resources in the pursuit of adaptation. Building adaptive capacity and development of action plan in municipal level in developing country is described in Fig. 2.18. Green infrastructure as the adaptive capacity for climate change is depicted in Fig. 2.19.

Fig. 2.18 Action plan for developing adaptive capacity in municipality

2.4 Building Climate Resilience: Through Adaptation, Mitigation …

73

Fig. 2.19 Capacity of GI for climate adaptation [86]

2.4.4 Climate Change Mitigation IPCC fourth assessment report defines mitigation as, ‘technological change and substitution that reduce resource inputs and emissions per unit of output’, although social, economic, and technological policies would produce an emission reduction, with respect to climate change, mitigation means implementing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance sinks. According to UNFCCC, ‘parties shall adopt national policies and take corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change, by limiting anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs’ [79]. According to IPCC/UNFCCC; sustainable forest management, effective agriculture management, afforestation, and reforestation are a few potential mitigations. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a mitigation technology for carbon sequestration without being released to the environment.

2.4.5 Delivering National Climate Action Through Decarbonized Cities Implementation of national level decarbonization policies in line with Paris Agreement confronts with several challenges. They can be combat with appropriate policy

74

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

implications, financing the transition and innovative metropolitan governance mechanism. G20 countries must support cities to accomplish decarbonization objectives and nationally determined contributions recognizing the urgent need for prioritizing carbon neutrality. G20 framework needs to extend their contribution in regional level as well to empower cities. Local governments must play a critical role in guiding toward transition and empowered to finance the low emission resilient city development. This can be done by aligning fiscal policies and regulations with the city investment plan. To overcome the capacity constraints, capacity building is essential for local government and administration. Supporting national and local policy frameworks and legislation ensures the availability of adequate resources, capability, incentives, and grants to undertake climate initiatives. Possible finance mechanisms and instruments to develop climate resilient cities in sustainable manner are catastrophe bonds, global climate funds, green funds; market-based instruments such as carbon pricing, performance standards, in addition to these intergovernmental cash transfers, tax, tariff, land value capture, fines, official development assistance, insurance (private risk and catastrophic insurance), philanthropic resources, and dedicated climate funds (GCF green climate fund, CIF climate investment fund, loan/grant from global environmental facility). Decarbonization projects deliver several ancillary benefits in addition to climate change mitigation; improved health and wellbeing, enhance biodiversity, improved resilience, highquality air, water and environment, boot resilience, ensure equity, and reduce GHG emissions [87].

2.5 Sustainable Development Goals Sustainable development is the key to the continued survival of life on this planet. The concept of sustainable development has three decades of evolution history. Four world summits of the UN, namely Stockholm conference in 1972, 1982 Nairobi summit, United Nations Commission on Environment and Development summit in 1983, and Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, were devoted to sustainable development. Initially the Stockholm conference emphasized the concerns for protecting and enriching the environment and its biodiversity to ensure the continued survival of humans on this planet. Then Brundtland Commission was formulated in 1987 with the mission to unite countries to pursue sustainable development as countries, especially the most developed countries, started to realize the dangerous consequences of destroying delicate balance and equilibrium of the natural environment as human has been doing over the last 200 years since the industrial revolution. Human has brutalized the environment and overexploited the natural resources. The Brundtland Report entitled ‘Our Common Future’ defined sustainable Development as the ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.

2.5 Sustainable Development Goals

75

The sustainable development goals (SDG) are the blueprint for a better and justifiable present and future. They address national and global challenges across the world at all levels. There are 17 life changing goals as illustrated in Fig. 2.20 which are targeted to be attained by the end of 2030. These global goals are embraced by member states of United Nation in 2015 at the UN Sustainable Development Summit in New York in September 2015. It is perceived as a global attempt to generate several substantial zeros and net plus scenarios; for example zero hunger, zero emission, zero carbon, carbon positive, and net plus energy are anticipated. The SDGs aim to achieve sustainable development in the aspects of economic growth, social equity, and environmental protection in an unprejudiced, cohesive, and rational approach. They are determined to ensure that humans can live with justice, dignity, peace, harmony, prosperity, and equality in a healthy environment, while all people have equitable access to basic infrastructures. It conceives a world where all sorts of people have affordable access to reliable and sustainable energy, where safe and resilient housing is guaranteed. UN has recognized that ending poverty and other deprivations are closely associated with tactics that enhance health, improve education, reduce inequality, and stimulate economic growth, confronting climate and conserving biodiversity. There are 169 SDG indicators. Pairing each local relevant SDG indicator to the appropriate SDG target is essential to secure sustainable global development. SDGs are to be implemented in each country nationally to achieve global sustainability. Every project must be designed and streamlined to comply with the SDG’s [38]. Sustainable development is not an end point. It is a continuously ongoing process of rational urban development to make cities more resilient and sustainable [89]. When integrating green-gray components into urban infrastructures, challenges facing are in accomplishing socially equitable, economically viable, and environmentally sustainable designs. Because of the conflicting interests between them, balancing the three requirements must be justifiable and a compromise.

Fig. 2.20 Sustainable development goal [88]

76

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

Entrepreneurship and innovative design may not prioritize the needs of ecological and social sustainability, ultimately ending up in conflict of interests [90]. Management is considered as the fourth pillar of sustainability. In its absence the entire system would collapse. GI directives should be accompanied by effective reporting systems, relevant measurements, monitoring, and progress review. There is a need for integrated procurement of projects with risk, quality, safety, and sustainability management to enhance the active stakeholder collaboration and thereby to achieve the intended sustainable urban development [91]. Prior to SDGs, millennium development goals (MDGs) were adopted to eradicate extreme poverty by 2015. Millennium development goals were 1. eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, 2. achieve universal primary education, 3. promote gender equality and empower women, 4. reduce child mortality, 5. improve maternal health, 6. combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, 7. ensure environmental sustainability, and 8. develop a global partnership for development. They were adopted through Millennium Declaration at the Millennium Summit in September 2000 at UN Headquarters in New York. Later, several regional, national, international agreements, and conventions were signed for environmental protection. Agenda 21 (June 1992), Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (March 2015), Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development (July 2015), and Paris Agreement on Climate Change (December 2015) were such landmark multilateralism policy frameworks. It is necessary to understand why all these aspirational declarations at various summits (a) have not led to the expected reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and (b) failed to achieve the eight millennium development goals. Are these declarations made by the very forces responsible for the crisis to merely appease the powerful green pressure groups and social pressure groups in fear of losing political power and economic hegemony? Are these efforts amounting to lip service only or are they genuine efforts? In-depth research is required to investigate the reasons for failures and who is obstructing progress. Indicated below are some key reasons: • Deliberate denial of economic democracy • Absence of facilities for participation of people at all levels in all development programs • Powerful vested interests within government and from the corporate sector and collusion between the two through lobbying.

2.6 Interlinking City Development with Sustainability Cities play a key role in sustainability efforts with the adoption of Agenda 21 in Rio Earth Conference in 1992. With the rapid urbanization (66% in 2050) of cities sustainable development has become more urgent, and it is identified as a way forward for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on climate change, while limiting urban sprawl [92].

2.6 Interlinking City Development with Sustainability

77

The sustainable development goal 11 on ‘making cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable’ reflects the paramount significance on increasing the access to green and public spaces which are essential in ensuring the quality of life and accomplishing sustainability aspects in compact city development. GI multifunctionality, city resilience, and sustainability gained prominence in the political momentum, urban development to avoid urban sprawling by promoting high-density housing, mix land use as well as efficient public amenities like transport and communication. SDG 11 intends to create climate resilient cities by eliminating the contributory factors of climate change such as carbon emissions, mitigating natural hazards, economic shocks, and heat stress, sourcing green energy, reducing energy use and water demands, ensuring equal access to infrastructures, public open green spaces, and social inclusion across the board. At present more than half of the world population resides in urban areas, while it is projected by 2050, it will rise up to 2/3 of the total populace estimated as 6.5 billion [93]. The rapid development of cities is witnessed within few decades especially in developing countries due to swift, uncontrolled, and unplanned economic growth, urbanization, commercialization, and mass migration of people from rural to urban areas. After allowing this rapid transformation, the government is unable to fulfill the complex and conflicting demands for higher standard of living, affordable and good quality housing, and equitable access to basic amenities. It requires proper urban planning through proper stakeholder consultative process and representative and democratic management to upgrade the quality of life of people, eradicate poverty and enhance access to infrastructures such as public transport, energy, water, health, etc. To limit the global temperature, rise to below 1.5 °C, cities need to reinforce their action plan, environmental policy, and development policy and agenda to combat climate change and fortify green investment to generate a low-carbon sustainable future. A well-planned, well-designed city incorporating poverty eradication mechanisms, participatory approach, renewable energy sources, green building, zero carbon economy, circular and self-sufficient economy improved indoor air quality in residences, and reduced urban sprawl are necessary to produce better outcomes in GHG mitigation. As the urban areas are very densely populated, concentrated with industries, commercial activities, and vehicular traffic congestion, they produce higher level of pollution and contaminants while consuming disproportionate share of resources. Thus, the urban planning requires a comprehensive and well-coordinated urban development plan for a green city, prioritizing sustainability, social inclusion, climate adaptation, GHG reduction and mitigation as well as addressing of other environmental concerns. Sustainable city development needs to focus on the vulnerable population especially socially and economically deprived groups such as low-income households, slum dwellers, and internally displaced people. Thus, there must be equity in resource allocation and consumption, access to public green spaces and basic amenities, and access to affordable living with decent living conditions. They should be given equal chances to involve in learning skills, disaster management, decision making, and

78

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

social cohesion. Smart green cities are a joint venture of green growth, green jobs, green investment, and clean green technologies with creativity and innovation at core. Reducing disparities and achieving inclusiveness must be achieved through a democratic consultative process only and definitely not through a repeatedly failed top-down approach.

2.6.1 Sustainable Cities A sustainable city is referred to as cities whose inflow of materials, energy, and resources as well as outflow of waste is not exceeding its capacity or ecological footprint. Sustainability of cities depends on the wide range of factors prominently on social, economic, ecological, and governance factors. The ultimate goal of sustainable cities is to generate satisfied happy citizens with good physical and mental wellbeing leading a decent living and being highly productive to contribute to the economic development of the nation [94]. The development of stand-alone sustainable city is a global priority area in urban context. The urban planning and design process intends to develop resilient, integrated, well-connected, and inclusive cities. In general, the leading challenges in managing a city are identified as increased resource consumption, exploitation of physical resources, and waste generation exceeding the assimilation capacity of the surrounding. Thus, it is essential to transform modern cities to sustainable cities while mitigating negative consequences of climate change and ensuring health and wellbeing of tenants. Figures 2.21 and 2.22 shown below are two leading examples for innovative sustainable city design which are indispensable for this decade. Governments, citizens, entrepreneurs, and industrialists collaboratively can take several steps to reduce the GHG emissions and resource exploitation to create clean cities, for which the following techniques need to be used wherever possible (a) efficient utilization of resources, (b) optimized use of local materials as raw materials instead of transporting them from faraway places, (c) self-sufficient living, (d) creating home gardens and green spaces to integrate with nature, (e) integrated waste management, (f) efficient use of land, (g) shifting to renewable energy sources, (h) efficient use of resources efficiency, (i) circular economy, etc. There is a need for governments to develop appropriate framework for city planning, detailed guidelines, and policies in consultation with professionals and stakeholders to create sustainable green cities. Three major phases are involved in developing sustainable cities [93]. 1. Assessment of impact on environment involves economic review, social review, institutional assessment, and stakeholder consultation 2. Sectoral planning and strategy: assessment of policies, strategic planning, baseline assessment of cities and identification and prioritization of green projects 3. Design, finance, and implementation include feasibility study, conceptual design including aesthetic, safety, project life and maintainability, and stakeholder consultation.

2.6 Interlinking City Development with Sustainability

79

Fig. 2.21 Sustainable city development in Dubai in desert with the intention of net zero settlement focusing on 100% renewable energy [95]

Fig. 2.22 World’s largest Tianjin eco-city rising from wastelands in China [96]

Sustainable cities result in improved health and wellbeing of the people and reduce resource consumption and GHG emission. Incorporating GI into gray and other engineered systems is a prerequisite to develop sustainable cities. Sustainable urban development intends to mitigate the gaps between green and gray infrastructures through the following actions [15].

80

• • • • • • • • • •

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

Exclusive use of clean renewable energy Carbon neutral/carbon positive city development Energy plus, zero emission city Phasing out of urban slum areas by providing appropriate homes and livelihoods for those displaced Improved access to basic amenities such as communication, transport, power, water, and free health service Efficient green public transport and discouraging private transport Enhanced green spaces/open spaces, ending deforestation, and planting more trees Installation of GI components Social inclusion Need-based development and consumerism.

GI provides important ecosystem services providing environmental, economic, sociocultural, recreational, and aesthetic paybacks leading to sustainable growth. Urban green space interconnects people naturally and enriches social capital, thus enhancing the quality of life of city dwellers and ensuring human health and wellbeing. In the meantime, it mitigates the unwarranted human pressures and interventions on natural systems, hence protecting the diverse ecosystems and existing biodiversity. The study of Valente et al. [97] has clearly demonstrated how GI promoted urban sustainability by comparing the prevailing situations in northern and southern part of Italian cities [97]. Northern Italian cities with simple and well-managed green infrastructure and woody areas have prominent social cohesion and inclusion. It has contributed to achieving higher GDP per capita and higher income levels of the urbanites; while southern cities, where the above measures were not practiced, remain stagnant with low GDP, low per capita income, and people dependent on higher social security, facing health issues and not benefiting from societal interactions. The contrast is staggering. COVID-19 pandemic has changed the priorities of life and changed the way of living of people as well. People tended to spend much time with nature and outdoor recreational space while adhering to social distancing and transport restrictions. It is expected that this would have a considerable change in future building design and boost the public perception regarding green space to promote urban sustainability [98]. It has also demonstrated the huge advantage of having a free and efficient health service. Green infrastructures assist in building sustainable cities. The concepts of GI must also be applied to building design, planning, and constructions to achieve sustainable and resilient cities. Further, the planning policies for nature-based GI solutions in urban ecosystem development must consider the needs of the environment in terms of social justice, which means the exposure/free or affordable access to innovative green spaces. In other words, equity and fairness must be considered an important criterion for lasting urban resilience. GI enhances urban sustainability and strengthens and secures the community. For successful implementation of green infrastructures into sustainable building or urban development; a context-based and people-oriented approach should be adopted

2.6 Interlinking City Development with Sustainability

81

while utilizing most appropriate technology rather than the best available technology, which may be not so beneficial and could also be more expensive. Moreover, there is a need for positive perception about the end users and prolonged collaboration and consultation with them. GI is a people-centered and not a top-down development to make it effective. Constructive engagement with the end users and their acceptance, prioritizing social inclusion and participatory approach in decision making in all phases such as conceptual phase, feasibility phase, design phase, planning phase, construction phase, and occupation and maintenance phases are fundamental to the success of all GI projects. All the research carried out in recent decades confirm this [99].

2.6.1.1

Targets for Sustainable Cities

Cities must aim to achieve several targets for the comfort and quality of life of the urban community [100]. Figure 2.23 provides examples of cities across the world, designed to achieve sustainable goals. Generally, the urban policies and development models in the context of Asian countries intend to reduce the energy consumption of the buildings, industries, transport, and commercial activities. Following are the investments required to establish long-lasting sustainable green cities [72]. 1. Self-sufficient food system Securing the food sovereignty, security, affordability, and quality within a city adds more economic and ecological value. The urbanites can fulfill their nutrient requirement through their own effort, and when the supply exceeds, it can supply to meet the demands of neighborhood thus can become a business, further it enhances soil functions and enrich ecosystem productivity. From the point of view of climate change perspectives, local food systems curb GHG emission and carbon footprint. 2. Greening of city It is a win–win opportunity. The techniques widely used in greening the cities are planning and zoning. The planning, designing, implementation, maintenance, and management require a participatory process. 3. Transport system Currently transport is the biggest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in most countries. Its land use too is very high. The expansion of private road transport consuming huge quantities of fossil fuel needs to be curtailed. They must be converted to electric, or hydrogen fueled. Integrated public transport network should be developed consisting of bus, rail, and water transport. Well-designed and comprehensively planned transport infrastructure determines the spatial scattering of urban development. Primary and secondary road development and highway developments need to be consistent with road development authorities/

82

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

Fig. 2.23 Sustainable cities around the world [101] a Cape Town, South Africa focusing on sustainability and renewable for energy, b Accra, Ghana, obtains 75% of its energy from hydro power, c Amsterdam, Netherlands—the city of eco-living with wide use of bikes and electric vehicles, d Vancouver, Canada, with lowest carbon footprint in North America, e Stockholm, Sweden— energy-efficient city using biofuels and waste heat, f Copenhagen, Denmark—sustainable bike friendly city, g Berlin, German, paying attention to organic foods, and h Curitiba, Brazil-clean city recycling 70% of waste generated

2.6 Interlinking City Development with Sustainability

83

agencies, environment, and construction guidelines. Design process must be consistent with the need of wide range of population from a low-income household to rich inhabitant. The framework should provide equitable and affordable access to all sorts of people irrespective of any disparities; for example, patients, differently abled, marginalized population, elders, children, and pregnant mothers must be able to utilize the facility with ease. One of the prominent causes for climate change is recognized as wide use of petroleum-based fuels. Thus, the framework needs to address sustainable concepts such as environmentally friendly mobility, instead of using private vehicles; public transport, shared commuting, cycling, and walking should be encouraged. Using zero emission vehicles, electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel vehicles, use of energy-efficient low sulfur fuel, replacing fossil fuel with renewables, biosourced fuels, solar powered are desirable options to shift from conventional means. The sustainable urban mobility secures affordable and accessible transport facility, low carbon, integrated urban transport planning, traffic management, computedbased trip management, e-payments reducing unnecessary travels, and advanced vehicle technology, use of IT in design and operation systems. Economic performance of the mobility infrastructure is justified by the reduced travel time, increased resource efficiency, and saved time and energy. Mobility framework determines the ease of access to other amenities such as communication, market, banking, and health care. 4. Energy-efficient building Decoupling of economic development from resource consumption and environmental degradation is essential. Over time, buildings are becoming economically and energy self-sufficient with the low-cost options like biogas and solar. This can be further facilitated through designing and constructing energy-efficient buildings and while operating energy management need to be effective and integrating or completely shifting to renewable energy sources for energy consumption. 5. Green industrial and commercial sectors Commercial and industrial sectors are the two pillars of economic development of nation. Adoption approaches such as circular economy (waste management) and resource use efficiency would lead to sustainable and self-sufficient eco-cities. Circular economy is a closed loop of several industries linked together whereby the by-product or waste of one production line of one company is taken as the raw material of another production line of the same company or another. Wide acceptance and implementation of circular economy concepts require strong government policies, public–private partnership, multistakeholder involvement, institutional capacity building on the circular economy, knowledge and experience sharing, educational, training and awareness programs, and international conferences to encourage fellow nations in practicing circular economy. 6. Resilient frameworks 7. Intelligence system

84

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

2.7 SMART Green Cities Smart city is a systematic, inclusive, intelligent approach integrating multiple disciplines in creating sustainable cities utilizing local physical resources, workforce, and their capabilities in a productive way without exploiting. Establishment of smart cities involves setting up several short-term and long-term plans with core consideration on technologies, frameworks, and social inclusion. Inclusion of environmental and social sustainability is an added unique feature on smart cities rather than a modern city. Smart city development relies in the intense use of information system for the economic progress of the urban arena. In a smart city economic growth is attained through digitizing, e-business, information and communication-based business opportunities, better workforce with the capability to handle and manage technology tools, skilled labors with wise IT knowledge, field experts, social equity, and favorable urban policies encouraging economic development. Building a smart city requires long-term vision to sustain economic growth using top-down and bottomup approach with the government support and collaborative participation of multiple stakeholders’ especially public. Smart city is a wide notion without any well-defined universal definitions, and its boundaries are still ambiguous. A depth of research studies conducted introduced several components of smart city. Figure 2.24 illustrates the fundamental system components of smart city, while Table 2.6 provides an overview of different domains of smart city in context of sustainable urban development [102–104]. The concept of smart city is a way for sustainable transformation of which development process is gradual (Fig. 2.25). It is gaining significance in policy agenda over time as it means to enhance the quality of life of people [104]. With the rising population, limited resources, and proliferating demand profiles digital solutions are essential to efficiently facilitate the service provision of cities. Digitization and technology advancement are the basis of smart city which are intended to create a positive impact on environment, knowledge dissemination, and productivity enhancement. Though in most of practical scenarios the socioeconomic-environmental triple balance is neglected in smart city development; but this triple pillars must be considered along with smart aspects to accomplish the goal of smart city development [105]. Applying the smart green city concept and ensuring smart governance is an innovative way forward normalizing the GI implementation. Conceptualizing smart governance/government requires systematic, integrated, and comprehensive urban plans developed with the help of cross-sectoral/cross-departmental and cross-scale cooperation. Following three types of management are key in the development process [107]. • Reflective management—smart and compact city is based on technical and information aspects, requiring reflective management which is formation driven and responsive/mindful of past, future, and present environmental developments and their impacts • Strategic management—green infrastructure planning requires comprehensive planning and management due to highly complex urban systems, landscape, and

2.7 SMART Green Cities

85

Fig. 2.24 Embracing a smart city system of systems approach

spatial attributes, socioeconomic, and ecological heterogeneity. Strategic management is based on multifunctionality embracing the priorities and specifications with multistakeholder involvement, wide networking, and delivering ecosystem services. It is essential to cater the needs of locality in a dynamic context adapting to local conditions • Multiscale management—green infrastructure planning and implementation/ network involves multiple spatial and temporal scales. It spans across different geographical boundaries, urban, peri-urban, and rural regions. Integrated smart and green nature-based solutions for future cities are an urgent need in people-centered building concept where smart city concept alone failed in world famous projects due to number of causes. The projects like Masdar City the world’s first zero emission city, Abu Dhabi, Songdo, a smart sustainable city, South Korea, Eko-Atlantic, and Nigeria a waterfront reclamation project is condemned since they were not meet sustainable development goals, no transparency, loneliness, and lack of communication among neighbors. Prioritizing privacy, data, health, wellbeing, quality of life, and social connectedness are very much important in building design [108]. Figure 2.26 shows how different infrastructure systems are integrated and drivers contributing to achieving future cities.

86

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

Table 2.6 Components of smart city in a broader perspective Dimensions

Constituent elements

Quality/standard of living/smart living

Access to basic amenities such as housing, health, education, transport Secured living Carbon neutral energy-efficient buildings Smart innovative technologies Ecofriendly urban living Vertical farming to fulfill food requirement Improved mobile applications Integrated waste management

Competitiveness/smart economy

Use of green technologies Research-based economic developments Industrial development with the basis of environmental sustainability Boost the innovation potential of local industries Innovation incubators Business start-ups Climate resilient economy Green jobs

Efficiency/smart energy

Renewables on grid and off grid Building energy management Retrofit for higher energy efficiency Use of occupancy and motion sensors Use of LED Fuel cells Smart energy supply, monitor, and control Adopting energy-saving mechanisms

Connectivity/mobility

Improved transport infrastructure such as railway tracks, transits, bus ways Electric vehicles/non-fossil fuel-based/biofuels Encouraging cycling and walking

Sustainability

Access to services by all sorts of population including marginalized Waste to energy concepts Low-carbon renewable sources Incorporate land use planning into urban development Increased green spaces and open spaces Energy, water, and waste management

Knowledge base

Information exchange Use of inter and intracommunication People contribute to the preparation of reliable information systems Adequate resource supply of natural resources and human (continued)

2.7 SMART Green Cities

87

Table 2.6 (continued) Dimensions

Constituent elements

Participation/social inclusion/smart governance Maintain the livability of residences and neighborhood Bottom-up approach Use of social media platforms Prioritizing needs and voice for their needs Internet of things Use of green technologies Public involvement in decision making Transparent communication Open access to data

Fig. 2.25 Evolution profile of smart city [106]

2.7.1 SMART Growth Principles Following are the ten smart growth principles defined in 1996, by Smart Growth Network of 30 national bodies representing wide range of aspects [109]. • • • • • • •

Integrated land use Compacted building design Availability of range of housing opportunities Permeable walkways in neighborhood Nurture distinctive community with a sense of unified Community-based developments Preserve and promote open green spaces, agricultural lands, environmentally sensitive areas, and habitats of endemic and wildlife species • Access to wide variety of transportation means • Ensure equity, cost-effectiveness, and predictability in decision making • Social inclusion in decision making in developments.

88

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

Fig. 2.26 Integrated smart green city [108]

2.8 Compact City and Inclusion of Smart Green Concepts Compact city is a spatial form characterized by physical compactness, high-density development, and well-equipped infrastructure, whereas smart growth is dense pedestrian and transit-friendly urbanization. Compact cities can be developed by incorporating green principles into city design, limited building density, increased connectivity to downtown areas, low-carbon green manufacture and consumption, eco-living, i.e., low-carbon and water foot print lifestyle, reduced population energy management practices, shifting to renewable clean energy technologies and use of energy-efficient equipment, practicing circular economy routinely, creating indoor and outdoor microclimate conditions, public commuting, brownfield development instead of modifying arable lands, adapting solid waste management and waste water treatment technologies, and so on. Development of smart green compact city aims to control urban sprawl while preserving and enhancing the urban green, couples and balances the concepts of green infrastructure and smart growth. Such cities have four distinct features of 1. 2. 3. 4.

Smart environment Smart multifunctionality Smart government Smart governance.

This development process requires ecology mainstreaming and understanding of complex urban systems (socio-ecological) and constant monitoring. GI is the

2.9 Why Do We Need Ecological Cities?

89

Table 2.7 Factors to be balanced in the development of SMART compact green city Smart multifunctionality

Smart government

Smart governance

Smart integration

Social concern

Strategic management

Smart attractiveness

Smart quality

Economic concern

Reflective management

Smart proximity

Smart proximity

Ecological concern

Multiscale management

Smart concentration

Smart connectivity

Transdisciplinary • Cooperation for density • Attractiveness of gray infrastructure • Green integration • Quality of green infrastructure

Smart built environment Gray

Green

Smart density

major supplier of ecosystem services in urban context supporting the health and wellbeing. But problem still exists in realizing the benefits of GI in compact cities due to unclear vision and lack of conceptual understanding in integrating GI and smart growth aspects into urban planning and development. Table 2.7 shows the factors influencing SMART compact green city concept to promote sustainable development [107].

2.9 Why Do We Need Ecological Cities? Global countries emerge a need for ecological compact cities to halt the adverse impacts of climate change and increasing and intensifying heat island effects. It is of topmost importance to consider the ecological footprint while developing the urban infrastructures. It is the threshold level of the nature for secured urban living through resisting the impairments and disturbances. Whatever the development is preceded it shouldn’t exceed the carrying capacity of the ecosystem which would otherwise affects the recovery of the disturbed and or affected component. Ecosystem infrastructure has an optimum capacity to assimilate waste and endure anthropogenic changes up to a limiting level for continuous functioning of the services. Based on the occupant’s footprint there can be two possibilities of ecological deficit referred as ecological overshoot which greatly reduce the urban resilience through weakening adaptability and ecological surplus which paves way for SDG centered developments. The ecological deficit scenarios will create an adverse living conditions especially frequent occurrence of catastrophic events such as floods, drought, extreme heat waves, indoor air pollution, diseased conditions primarily respiratory and cardiovascular disorders, green space fragmentation effects, intense urban heat island effects, sick building syndromes, “big city diseases”, traffic bottlenecks, epidemic outbreaks, and social instability [110]. Figure 2.27 depicts ecological footprint and share of ecological capacity of global lead countries, and it is obvious that the ecological footprint has exceeded the ecological capacity a decade ago and continue to follow the

90

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

Fig. 2.27 Ecological capacity versus ecological footprint

same adverse trend. As per the 2022 edition of the National Footprint and Biocapacity accounts it requires 1.75 earths to meet the current global requirements. At present cities rely on robust gray infrastructure systems that facilitate the provision of shelter, water, waste, energy, and transportation services. These connected networks are not healthy enough to withstand the adverse effects of global climate change and urbanization. Thus, there is an urgent need of urban transformation providing nature-based solutions to avoid and mitigate social, psychological, and environmental challenges due to vulnerability issues. The gray infrastructures need to be improved as green-gray-blue infrastructure. The transformation needs a critical planning of multidimensional endeavor integrating diversity, flexibility, redundancy, inclusiveness, adaptive governance, and innovation implanting resilience in all means organizations, communal, economic, and ecological while social cohesion becomes a priority. An economic cost of US $2 billion is incurred in India during the period of 2014 to 2019 because of unacceptable urban development and thus people are demanding for the sustainable climate resilient cities. This is due to frequent and intensified hazard events experienced in previous decades, namely flood, heat waves, cyclone, earthquakes, and landslides, further the situation worsens by the change in land use pattern, fragmentation of land, encroachment of built environment into natural flood plains, water logging, and poor infrastructure development.

References

91

References 1. IPCC. (2018). Annex 1: Glossary in Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the three. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_AnnexI_Glossary.pdf 2. UNFCCC. (2011). Climate change science - the status of climate change science today. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, February 2011, 1–7. https://unfccc.int/ files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf/press_factsh_science.pdf 3. Allen, M., Babiker, M., Chen, Y., Taylor, M., Tschakert Australia, P., Waisman, H., Warren, R., Zhai, P., Zickfeld, K., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., … Waterfield, T. (2018). IPCCC 1.5C: Summary for Policymakers. In Aromar Revi. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/ sites/2/2019/05/SR15_SPM_version_report_LR.pdf 4. Land Trust Alliance. (2021). Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and the Greenhouse Effect. Retrieved 04 24, 2021, from Conservation in a changing climate: https://climatech ange.lta.org/get-started/learn/co2-methane-greenhouse-effect/ 5. Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis: Summary for policymakers. In Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [MassonDelmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. (Vol. 18, Issues 3–4). https://doi.org/ 10.1260/095830507781076194 6. Stern, N. (2006). Stern Review : The Economics of Climate Change. 662. http://mudancasc limaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf 7. Mortimer, R. (2007, June). Climate Change. Retrieved from Climate Change Bill and Policy Overview: https://slideplayer.com/slide/5956406/ 8. Younger, M., Morrow-Almeida, H. R., Vindigni, S. M., & Dannenberg, A. L. (2008). The Built Environment, Climate Change, and Health. Opportunities for Co-Benefits. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(5), 517–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.017 9. United Nations. (2009). World population prospects, the 2008 revision. Retrieved from UN: Department of Economic and Social Affairs-Population Division: https://www.un.org/en/dev elopment/desa/population/publications/trends/population-prospects.asp 10. Andri´c, I., Koc, M., & Al-Ghamdi, S. G. (2019). A review of climate change implications for built environment: Impacts, mitigation measures and associated challenges in developed and developing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2018.11.128 11. Al horr, Y., Arif, M., Martha, K., Mazroei, A., Kaushik, A., & Elsarrag, E. (2016). Impact of indoor environmental quality on occupant well-being and comfort: A review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 5(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijsbe.2016.03.006 12. Mitchell, C. S., Zhang, J., Sigsgaard, T., Jantunen, M., Lioy, P. J., Samson, R., & Karol, M. H. (2007). Current state of the science: Health effects and indoor environmental quality. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(6), 958–964. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8987 13. Coley, D., & Kershaw, T. (2010). Changes in internal temperatures within the built environment as a response to a changing climate. Building and Environment, 45(1), 89–93. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.05.009 14. Kumareswaran, K., Rajapaksha, I., & Jayasinghe, G. Y. (2021). Energy poverty, occupant comfort, and wellbeing in internally displaced people’s residences in Sri Lanka. Energy and Buildings, 236, 110760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110760 15. Zalejska-Jonsson, A., Wilkinson, S. J., & Wahlund, R. (2020). Willingness to pay for green infrastructure in residential development-a consumer perspective. Atmosphere, 11(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11020152

92

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

16. Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, International Energy Agency and the United Nations Environment Programme. (2019). Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a zero-emissions, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector. In UN Enviroment programme (Vol. 224). https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ 3da9daf9-ef75-4a37-b3da-a09224e299dc/2019_Global_Status_Report_for_Buildings_and_ Construction.pdf 17. Quadrennial Technology Review. (2015). Increasing Efficiency of Building Systems and Technologies. In An Assessment of Energy Technologies and Research Opportunities (Issue September, pp. 143–181). https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-cha pter5.pdf 18. Say, C. (2008). Sustainable rating systems around the world. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) Journal, II, 18–29. http://global.ctbuh.org/resources/papers/dow nload/1139-sustainable-rating-systems-around-the-world.pdf 19. Agyemang, W., Adanu, E., Akansiseh, S., & Kolawole Ojo, T. (2019). Towards Building Resilient Cities: Opportunities, Challenges and Innovation. In H. L. C. Ishmael Mensah (Ed.), Proceedings of the China-Africa Urban Development Forum 2019 (p. 175). https://www.res earchgate.net/publication/343065653_FINALCAUDF_2020_July_2020 20. Zhang, Y., Wang, H., Gao, W., Wang, F., Zhou, N., Kammen, D. M., & Ying, X. (2019). A survey of the status and challenges of green building development in various countries. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(19), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195385 21. Gallego-Schmid, A., Chen, H. M., Sharmina, M., & Mendoza, J. M. F. (2020). Links between circular economy and climate change mitigation in the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, 121115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121115 22. International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management: UNEP. (2010). Metal Stocks in Society: Scientific Synthesis. In Environment. http://www.catedras-bogota.unal.edu.co/cat edras/gaitan/2016-I/gaitan_2016_I/docs/lecturas/s11/unep.pdfF 23. Bouzarovski, S. (2011). Energy Poverty in the EU: A Review of the Evidence. Luettavissa: Http://Ec. Europa. Eu/Regional_policy/…, 1–7. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl= en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Energy+poverty+in+the+EU+:+a+review+of+the+evidence#0 24. Ali, K. A., Ahmad, M. I., & Yusup, Y. (2020). Issues, impacts, and mitigations of carbon dioxide emissions in the building sector. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(18), 11. https://doi. org/10.3390/SU12187427 25. Masson, V., Lemonsu, A., Hidalgo, J., & Voogt, J. (2020). Urban climates and climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 45, 411–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevenviron-012320-083623 26. Casado, C. C., & Silva Zuniga, M. C. (2018). Upstream Planning For Sustainable Infrastructure Projects Urban 20 White Paper About Urban 20 About the White Papers. 20. https://www.seisakukikaku.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/diplomacy/2019/02/images/UpstreamPlan ningForUpstreamPlanning.pdf 27. The World Bank. (2010). Cities and climate change: An urgent agenda. 10, 92. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/194831468325262572/pdf/637040WP0Cit ie00Box0361524B0PUBLIC0.pdf 28. da Silva, J., Kernaghan, S., & Luque, A. (2012). A systems approach to meeting the challenges of urban climate change. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 4(2), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2012.718279 29. Asian Development Bank. (2014). Urban Climate Change Resilience: A Synopsis. https:// www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/149164/urban-climate-change-resilience-syn opsis.pdf 30. Friend, R., & Moench, M. (2013). Urban Climate What is the purpose of urban climate resilience ? Implications for addressing poverty and vulnerability. Urban Climate, 6, 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2013.09.002 31. Huff, B. E. S., Johnson, M. L., Roman, L. A., Sonti, N. F., Pregitzer, C. C., Campbell, L. K., & McMillen, H. (2020). A Literature Review of Resilience in Urban Forestry. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 46(3), 185–196. https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2020/nrs_2020_ huff_001.pdf

References

93

32. UNFCCC. (2015). Building Climate Resilience in Urban Areas. Unite Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/application/pdf/calendar_ final.pdf 33. Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Gerlak, A. K., Mayer, B., Evans, T. P., & Lansey, K. E. (2020). Urban resilience and green infrastructure systems: towards a multidimensional evaluation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44, 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020. 05.001 34. Bozovic, R. (EnPlus consultancy), Maksimovic, C. (Imperial C. L.), Mijik, A. (Imperial C. L.), Smith, K. M. (London S. U.), Suter, I. (Imperial C. L.), & van Reeuwijk, M. (Imperial C. L.) (2017). Blue Green Solutions: A systems approach to sustainable, resilient and cost effective urban development. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30628.07046 35. Bixler, R. P., Lieberknecht, K., Atshan, S., Zutz, C. P., Richter, S. M., & Belaire, J. A. (2020). Reframing urban governance for resilience implementation: The role of network closure and other insights from a network approach. Cities, 103(July 2019), 102726. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cities.2020.102726 36. Tauhid, F. A. (2018). Urban Green Infrastructure for Climate Resilience: a Review. Nature: National Academic Journal of Architecture, 5(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.24252/nature. v5i1a7 37. Brown, A., Dayal, A., & Rumbaitis Del Rio, C. (2012). From practice to theory: Emerging lessons from Asia for building urban climate change resilience. Environment and Urbanization, 24(2), 531–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247812456490 38. Sørup, H. J. D., Fryd, O., Liu, L., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., & Jensen, M. B. (2019). An SDGbased framework for assessing urban stormwater management systems. Blue-Green Systems, 1(1), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs.2019.922 39. Ramdhan, M., Arifin, H. S., Suharnoto, Y., & Tarigan, S. D. (2018). Towards Water Sensitive City: Lesson Learned from Bogor Flood Hazard in 2017. E3S Web of Conferences, 31, 2–6. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20183109012 40. Kirshen, P., Ruth, M., & Anderson, W. (2008). Interdependencies of urban climate change impacts and adaptation strategies: A case study of Metropolitan Boston USA. Climatic Change, 86(1–2), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9252-5 41. Sitzenfrei, R., Kleidorfer, M., Bach, P. M., & Bacchin, T. K. (2020). Green infrastructures for urban water system: Balance between cities and nature. Water (Switzerland), 12(5), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051456 42. Jayasooriya, V. M., Ng, A. W. M., Muthukumaran, S., & Perera, C. B. J. (2020). Optimization of Green Infrastructure Practices in Industrial Areas for Runoff Management: A Review on Issues, Challenges and Opportunities. Water, 12(1024), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12 041024 43. Bertule, M., Lloyd, G. J., Korsgaard, L., Dalton, J., Welling, R., Barchiesi, S., Smith, M., Opperman, J., Gray, E., Gartner, T., Mulligan, J., & Cole, R. (2014). Green Infrastructure: Guide for Water Management Ecosystem-based management approaches for water-related infrastruture projects. In Guide for Water Management. UNEP-DHI Partnership, IUCN, WRI, Green Community Ventures, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1177/073346 488800700208 44. Dewan, A. M. (2013). Floods in a megacity: Geospatial techniques in assessing hazards, risk and vulnerability. In Floods in a Megacity: Geospatial Techniques in Assessing Hazards, Risk and Vulnerability. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5875-9 45. Ezeabasili, A., & Okonkwo, A. (2013). Climate Change Impacts on the Built Environment in Nigeria. African Research Review, 7(4), 288. https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v7i4.18 46. Li, L., Uyttenhove, P., & Van Eetvelde, V. (2020). Planning green infrastructure to mitigate urban surface water flooding risk – A methodology to identify priority areas applied in the city of Ghent. Landscape and Urban Planning, 194(November 2019), 103703. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103703 47. Dini´c Brankovi´c, M., Igi´c, M., Mitkovi´c, P., Ðeki´c, J., & Bogdanovi´c Proti´c, I. (2020). Exploring the Potentials of Small Urban Streams in Creating Blue-Green Infrastructure in

94

48.

49.

50.

51. 52. 53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities the City of Niš, Serbia. Cavpemena Teopija I Ppakca U Gpadite‹ctvy, 14(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.7251/stp2014159d O’Donnell, E., Thorne, C., Ahilan, S., Arthur, S., Birkinshaw, S., Butler, D., Dawson, D., Everett, G., Fenner, R., Glenis, V., Kapetas, L., Kilsby, C., Krivtsov, V., Lamond, J., Maskrey, S., O’Donnell, G., Potter, K., Vercruysse, K., Vilcan, T., & Wright, N. (2020). The blue-green path to urban flood resilience. Blue-Green Systems, 2(1), 28–45. https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs. 2019.199 European Environment Agency. (2017). Green Infrastructure and Flood Management: Promoting cost-efficient flood risk reduction via green infrastructure solutions (Issue 14). https://doi.org/10.2800/324289 Hegger, D., Green, C., Driessen, P., Bakker, M., Dieperink, C., Crabbe, A., Deketelaere, K., Delvaux, B., Suykens, C., Beyers, J.-C., Fournier, M., Larrue, C., Manson, C., van Doorn-Hoekveld, W., van Rijswick, M., Kundzewicz, Z., & Casermeiro, S. G. (2013). Flood risk management in Europe: Similarities and differences between the STAR-FLOOD consortium countries. STAR FLOOD, January. http://www.starflood.eu/documents/2013/06/ flood-risk-management-in-europe-similarities-and-differences-between-the-star-flood-con sortium-countries.pdf Wilby, R. L. (2007). A Review of Climate Change Impacts on Built Environment. Built Environment, 33, 31–45. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.33.1.31 Georgiadis, T. (2017). Urban Climate and Risk. Oxford Handbooks Online, October 2018, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190699420.013.11 Kershaw, T. (2017). Chapter 4: The urban heat island (UHI). In Climate Change Resilience in the Urban Environment (pp. 41 to 44). IOP Publishing Ltd 2017. https://iopscience.iop.org/ book/mono/978-0-7503-1197-7/chapter/bk978-0-7503-1197-7ch4 Salimi, M., & Al-Ghamdi, S. G. (2020). Climate change impacts on critical urban infrastructure and urban resiliency strategies for the Middle East. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101948 Soltani, A., & Sharifi, E. (2017). Daily variation of urban heat island effect and its correlations to urban greenery: A case study of Adelaide. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 6(4), 529– 538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2017.08.001 Barker, A., Clay, G., Morrison, R., Payne, S., Gilchrist, A., Rothwell, J., & Tantanasi, I. (2019). Understanding Green Infrastructure at Different Scales: A Signposting Guide. This guide was prepared with funding from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) by the University of Manchester and the University. https://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/ staff/adam.barker/Understanding-GI-Scales-Guide.pdf Shao, H., & Kim, G. (2022). A Comprehensive Review of Different Types of Green Infrastructure to Mitigate Urban Heat Islands: Progress, Functions, and Benefits. Land, 11(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101792 Virk, G., Jansz, A., Mavrogianni, A., Mylona, A., Stocker, J., & Davies, M. (2015) Microclimatic effects of green and cool roofs in London and their impacts on energy use for a typical office building. Energy and Buildings, 88, 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014. 11.039 Tiwari, A., Kumar, P., Kalaiarasan, G., & Ottosen, T. B. (2021). The impacts of existing and hypothetical green infrastructure scenarios on urban heat island formation. Environmental Pollution, 274(xxxx), 115898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115898 Fallmann, J., Forkel, R., & Emeis, S. (2016). Secondary effects of urban heat island mitigation measures on air quality. Atmospheric Environment. 125, 199–211. ISSN 1352-2310, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.10.094 Farhadi, H., Faizi, M., & Sanaieian, H. (2019). Mitigating the urban heat island in a residential area in Tehran: Investigating the role of vegetation, materials, and orientation of buildings. Sustainable Cities and Society. 46, 101448. ISSN 2210-6707, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs. 2019.101448 Nastran, M., Kobal, M., & Eler, K. (2019). Urban heat islands in relation to green land use in European cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 37(July 2017), 33–41. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ufug.2018.01.008

References

95

63. Pérez, G., Rincón, L., Vila, A., González, J.M., & Cabeza, L.F. (2011) Behaviour of green facades in Mediterranean continental climate. Energy Conversion and Management 52(4): 1861–1867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.11.008 64. Meerow, S., & Newell, J. P. (2017). Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: Growing resilience in Detroit. Landscape and Urban Planning, 159, 62–75. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.005 65. Kumar, A., Sehgal, J., Mukherjee, M., & Goswami, A. (2022). Impact Zonation and Mitigation of UHI through remote sensing & development of blue green infrastructure network. 356. https://doi.org/10.37285/bsp.ic2uhi.20 66. European Commission. (2012). Science for Environment Policy: Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure (Issue March). https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/ docs/Green_Infrastructure.pdf 67. Herrera-Gómez, S.S., Quevedo-Nolasco, A., & Pérez-Urrestarazu, L. (2017). The role of green roofs in climate change mitigation. A case study in Seville (Spain). Building and Environment, 123, 575–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2017.07.036 68. Peng, L. L. H., & Jim, C. Y. (2015). Economic evaluation of green-roof environmental benefits in the context of climate change: The case of Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(3), 554-561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.05.006 69. Syafitri, R. A. W. D., Susetyo, C., & Setiawan, R. P. (2020). Planning for compact eco-cities: A spatial planning to prioritise green infrastructure development to mitigate urban heat island in Surabaya. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 562(1). https://doi. org/10.1088/1755-1315/562/1/012019 70. H. W Li, D., Yang, L., & Lam, J. C. (2012). Impact of climate change on energy use in the built environment in different climate zones - A review. Energy, 42(1), 103–112. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.03.044 71. Roberts, S. (2008). Effects of climate change on the built environment. Energy Policy, 36(12), 4552–4557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.012 72. ADB. (2012). Green cities. In M. Lindfield & S. Florian (Eds.), Urban Development Series. Asian Development Bank. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4386-9_12 73. Gielen, D., Boshell, F., Saygin, D., Bazilian, M. D., Wagner, N., & Gorini, R. (2019). The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energy Strategy Reviews, 24(January), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.01.006 74. Gorini, R. (2020). 25th Energy Community Electricity Forum Staying on the green path IRENA Pandemic crises and the recovery : IRENA Transforming Energy Scenario. Electricity Markets between Crisis Management and Take-Off Greening the Energy Sector – Closing down or Kicking Off?, June, 1–15. https://energy-community.org/dam/jcr:c5999a338a5a-4fc7-a351-d09442966bd6/AF062020_IRENA.pdf 75. Sharifi, A. (2020). Trade-offs and conflicts between urban climate change mitigation and adaptation measures: A literature review. In Journal of Cleaner Production (Vol. 276). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122813 76. Rahman, S. (2013). Coastal Community Resilience to Tsunami: A Study on Planning Capacity and Social Capacity, Dichato, Chile. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, 12(6), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-1265563 77. Eriksen, S., Aldunce, P., Bahinipati, C. S., Martins, R. D. A., Molefe, J. I., Nhemachena, C., O’Brien, K., Olorunfemi, F., Park, J., Sygna, L., & Ulsrud, K. (2011). When not every response to climate change is a good one: Identifying principles for sustainable adaptation. Climate and Development, 3(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.3763/cdev.2010.0060 78. Orleans Reed, S., Friend, R., Toan, V. C., Thinphanga, P., Sutarto, R., & Singh, D. (2013). “Shared learning” for building urban climate resilience-experiences from Asian cities. Environment and Urbanization, 25(2), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247813501136 79. Boucher, O., Forster, P. M., Gruber, N., Ha-Duong, M., Lawrence, M. G., Lenton, T. M., Maas, A., & Vaughan, N. E. (2014). Rethinking climate engineering categorization in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.261

96

2 Climate Resilience and Sustainable Cities

80. Levina, E., & Tirpak, D. (2006). Adaptation to Climate Change: Key terms. OECD and IEA. https://www.oecd.org/env/cc/36736773.pdf 81. Bulkeley, H., & Tuts, R. (2013). Understanding urban vulnerability, adaptation and resilience in the context of climate change. Local Environment, 18(6), 646–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13549839.2013.788479 82. UNFCCC. (2010). Fact sheet: The need for adaptation (Issue October). https://unfccc.int/ files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf/press_factsh_adaptation.pdf%0A, http://unfccc. int/files/press/application/pdf/adaptation_fact_sheet.pdf 83. Archer, D., Almansi, F., DiGregorio, M., Roberts, D., Sharma, D., & Syam, D. (2014). Moving towards inclusive urban adaptation: approaches to integrating community-based adaptation to climate change at city and national scale. Climate and Development, 6(4), 345–356. https:// doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.918868 84. Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Artmann, M., Haase, D., Knapp, S., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Zaunberger, K., & Bonn, A. (2016). Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: Perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society, 21(2). https://doi.org/ 10.5751/ES-08373-210239 85. Ziervogel, G., Shale, M., & Du, M. (2010). Climate change adaptation in a developing country context: The case of urban water supply in Cape Town. Climate and Development, 2(2), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.3763/cdev.2010.0036 86. Matthews, T., Lo, A. Y., & Byrne, J. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138(March), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landur bplan.2015.02.010 87. Lanfranchi, G., Kooka, K., Richard, O., & Shield, M. (2019). Delivering National Climate Action Through Decarbonized Cities. In Policy brief on Climate change and Environment. G20-Insights, 1–23. https://www.g20-insights.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/t20japan-tf3-12-national-climate-action-decarbonized-cities-1.pdf 88. Palsgaard. (2021). UN SDG Support. Retrieved from Palsgaard: https://www.palsgaard.com/ polymers/responsibility/un-global-compact-goals/un-sdg-support 89. Pakzad, P., & Osmond, P. (2015). A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Green Infrastructure Sustainability Performance in Australia. The State of Australian Cities Conference. https:// soacconference.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Pakzard.pdf 90. Tubridy, D. (2020). Green climate change adaptation and the politics of designing ecological infrastructures. Geoforum, 113(April), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020. 04.020 91. Diaz-sarachaga, J. M. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals in Green Infrastructure Rating Systems. November, 1–10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310845298_Sus tainable_Development_Goals_in_Green_Infrastructure_Rating_Systems 92. Zinkernagel, R., Evans, J., & Neij, L. (2018). Applying the SDGs to cities: Business as usual or a new dawn? Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(9), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093201 93. Global Green Growth Institute. (2016). Green City Development Guidelines (Issue 2, p. 65). https://gggi.org/ 94. European Commission. (2018). Science for Environment Policy In-depth-report: Indicators for sustainable cities. In-depth Report 12 (Vol. 2015, Issue 12). https://doi.org/10.2779/ 121865 95. Bacchi, U. (2019, 10 28). ‘Living laboratory’: New Dubai city pushes for green revolution in the desert. Retrieved 05 09, 2021, from Thomson Reuters Foundation News: https://news. trust.org/item/20191028103204-lpspo/ 96. Vince, G. (2012, 05 03). Smart Planet_Sustainability-China’s eco-cities: Sustainable urban living in Tianjin. Retrieved 05 09, 2021, from BBC Future: https://www.bbc.com/future/art icle/20120503-sustainable-cities-on-the-rise 97. Valente, D., Pasimeni, M. R., & Petrosillo, I. (2020). The role of green infrastructures in Italian cities by linking natural and social capital. Ecological Indicators, 108(August 2019), 105694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105694

References

97

98. Zander, S. V., David, N. B., Vegard, G., Helene, F., & Megan, N. (2020). Urban nature in a time of crisis: recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo, Norway. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb396%0AManuscript 99. Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Staddon, C., de Vito, L., Gerlak, A. K., Ward, S., Schoeman, Y., Hart, A., & Booth, G. (2020). Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(4), 710–732. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1605890 100. Rivera, M., & Lagos, A. (2013). Establishing a Sustainable Development Goal on Cities. December, 12. https://doi.org/10.2312/iass.2013.005 101. Bhattacharyya, R. (2020, 08 10). 12 Of The Most Sustainable Cities From Around The World. Retrieved 05 09, 2021, from travel earth: https://travel.earth/12-most-sustainable-cities-aro und-the-world/ 102. Alawadhi, S., Aldama-Nalda, A., Chourabi, H., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Leung, S., Mellouli, S., Nam, T., Pardo, T. A., Scholl, H. J., & Walker, S. (2012). Building understanding of smart city initiatives. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 7443 LNCS, 40–53. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-642-33489-4_4 103. Bakıcı, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2013). A Smart City Initiative: The Case of Barcelona. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-0120084-9 104. Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G., & Scorrano, F. (2014). Current trends in smart city initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities, 38, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cities.2013.12.010 105. Ahvenniemi, H., & Huovila, A. (2021). How do cities promote urban sustainability and smartness? An evaluation of the city strategies of six largest Finnish cities. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(3), 4174–4200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-007 65-3 106. Das, A., Sharma, S. C. M., & Ratha, B. K. (2018). The new era of smart cities, from the perspective of the internet of things. In Smart Cities Cybersecurity and Privacy. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815032-0.00001-9 107. Artmann, M., Kohler, M., Meinel, G., Gan, J., & Ioja, I. C. (2019). How smart growth and green infrastructure can mutually support each other — A conceptual framework for compact and green cities. Ecological Indicators, 96(June), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind. 2017.07.001 108. Yamuna Kaluarachchi. (2020). Potential advantages in combining smart and green infrastructure over silo approaches for future cities. Front. Eng. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42 524-020-0136-y%0ARESEARCH ARTICLE Yamuna 109. Kramer, G. (2014). Enhancing sustainable communities with green infrastructure: A guide to help communities better manage stormwater while achieving other environmental , public health , social, and economic benefits. In Office of Sustainable Communities, US Environmental Protection Agency (Issue October). www.epa.gov/smartgrowth 110. Feng, X., Xiu, C., Bai, L., Zhong, Y., & Wei, Y. (2020). Comprehensive evaluation of urban resilience based on the perspective of landscape pattern: A case study of Shenyang city. Cities, 104(February 2019), 102722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102722

Chapter 3

Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

Contents 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Urban Sprawl and Its Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urbanization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Megacities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban Planning (UP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 Urban Planning Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Components of Urban Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Sustainable Urban Planning Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1 Sponge City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.2 Decentralized Urban Design (DUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.3 Water-Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.4 Low Impact Development Design (LID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.5 Sustainable Development Urban Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.6 Healthy Water Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99 100 106 107 112 114 116 117 118 122 128 132 136 138 140

3.1 Urban Sprawl and Its Implications Urban sprawl, also known as urban encroachment, is a low-density, intermittent advancement model that includes complicated multiple interactions of the social, ecological, economic, psychological, physical, structural, and engineering systems; it is highly complex and unpredictable in resilient city development [1]. The disorderly growth of cities has irreversible environmental consequences. It is mostly represented in the expansion of the built environment and the encroachment of farmland, forestland, and grasslands. This unregulated urbanization hastens the fragmentation of the urban environment, leading to a range of social, health-related, and ecological consequences. The destruction of biological system balance and ecosystem services is among the ecological challenges, along with habitat loss and the subsequent loss of biodiversity, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Kumareswaran and G. Y. Jayasinghe, Green Infrastructure and Urban Climate Resilience, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37081-6_3

99

100

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

frequent flooding, heat island effects, water logging, and encroachment on environmentally sensitive land features like wetlands and grasslands. Moreover, the urban social structure is being impacted by diminishing social interactions, a lack of a sense of community, marginalization, and less cohesiveness as a result of increased automobile use, pollutants from industry, and mobile sources. Growing urban dimensions may disrupt the common flow of energy and materials between natural and artificial settings; this would have a negative impact on the sustainability and reliability of ecosystem services and could potentially increase the recurrence and severity of disastrous events such as surges and intense heat waves. Researchers report the destruction of ancient monuments in Mesoamerica, South and Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world as a result of spreading designs and overexploitation of terrains. During the development process, the land is divided into a number of small units known as isolate patches, which is directly connected to urban sprawl. Despite it has little effect on the overall area, it has a major influence on ecosystem services and disconnects the system’s biophysical components, changing their interconnections. As a result, adopting GI would reestablish patch connectivity [2]. The transformation of degraded agricultural and forest areas into constructed areas, as well as the uncontrolled vertical and horizontal expansion of developed areas, urban sprawl results in very congested and gray landscapes with restricted green spaces and condensed greenery spatial enlargement. Furthermore, because of increased population density and activities that create socially unequal status, sprawling leads to insufficient access to public services. Urban sprawl calls into question the urban ecosystem’s connection and resilience capabilities. In the city’s man-land system, there should be a balanced and strong interplay between the three spatial aspects of urban growth, such as scale-density-structure. These three factors should be harmonized and compatible in order to achieve urban resilience and sustainable development goals in order to establish self-sufficient cities and safe human settlements. To treat the acute shocks and chronic stress an exceptional morphology and suitable urban density within moderate scale layout is advised. Any increase or decrease in any of these factors would reduce resilience by generating safety concerns.

3.2 Urbanization Historically, urbanization has been inextricably tied to social and economic transformations. The urbanization process is marked by rapid land encroachment, fragmentation, and transformation. The adaptations made in natural landscape systems have a substantial impact on the composition, process, and operations. Cities are susceptible to catastrophes and extreme weather events as a result of urbanization, severely damaging the city’s social, physical, and environmental infrastructures. Furthermore, rapid urbanization is a key impediment to accomplish millennium and sustainable development goals since residents face chronic stress as well as increased disaster

3.2 Urbanization

101

Fig. 3.1 Urban population growth [4]

risk. As a result, urban security development, disaster risk reduction/mitigation, and climate change mitigation are major concerns in building climate resilient cities [3]. According to worldwide population trends, developing countries, mostly Asian and African nations, are experiencing significant growth rates. As a result, urbanization is more noticeable in developing countries than in developed and less developed countries. According to Fig. 3.1, urban population growth is expected to accelerate by 2020. Cities occupy 56.2% of the world population, exhibiting rapid growth in Latin America and the Caribbean, where the urban population has nearly doubled to 81.2%. Whereas North America has the biggest proportion (83.6%). The graph (Fig. 3.2) depicts the urban and rural population in developed and underdeveloped regions from 1950 to 2010, as well as projections until 2050. It demonstrates the rapid population expansion in metropolitan areas and the steady decline in rural areas over time in a significant manner. Figure 3.3 displays the world’s urban and rural population growth from 1950 to 2050 [5]. Urbanization (growth) is influenced by two factors: rural push, which encourages people to shift from rural to urban settings, and urban pull, which attracts people toward cities [8]. 1. Push factors: includes poverty, disasters, economic stagnant, unemployment, low standard of living, lack of educational and health facilities, low standard of housing and infrastructures. 2. Pull factors: occupational opportunities, technological advancement, modern and improved lifestyle, better infrastructures, and modern culture.

102

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

Fig. 3.2 Urban population growth in developed and less developed regions (1950–2050) [6]

Fig. 3.3 Urban and rural population of the world 1950–2050 [7]

Whereas push and pull dynamics contribute to a positive trend in megacity development, they also place enormous strain on urban systems and the resource base. According to UN statistics, 90% of the urban population will be concentrated in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, with developing nations hosting 80% of the largest cities/

3.2 Urbanization

103

3.50 3.00 2.50

World

2.00

High-income countries

1.50

Middle-income countries

1.00 0.50

Lower-middle-income countries

0.00

Upper-middle-income countries

1950 - 1955 1955 - 1960 1960 - 1965 1965 - 1970 1970 - 1975 1975 - 1980 1980 - 1985 1985 - 1990 1990 - 1995 1995 - 2000 2000 - 2005 2005 - 2010 2010 - 2015 2015 - 2020 2020 - 2025 2025 - 2030 2030 - 2035 2035 - 2040 2040 - 2045 2045 - 2050

Average Annual Rate of Change of the Percentage Urban

megacities. In 2007, the worldwide urban population surpassed the rural population for the first time in history (by more than 50%). But nonetheless, the distribution/ degree of urbanization varies greatly across countries [9]. For Figs. 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8,

Low-income countries

Year

Fig. 3.4 Average annual rate of change of the percentage urban on the income basis (1950–2050). Source United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division [7]

3.50 World Sub-Saharan Africa

2.50

Africa

2.00

Asia

1.50 1.00

Europe

0.50

Latin America and the Caribbean

0.00

South America

-0.50 -1.00

1950 - 1955 1955 - 1960 1960 - 1965 1965 - 1970 1970 - 1975 1975 - 1980 1980 - 1985 1985 - 1990 1990 - 1995 1995 - 2000 2000 - 2005 2005 - 2010 2010 - 2015 2015 - 2020 2020 - 2025 2025 - 2030 2030 - 2035 2035 - 2040 2040 - 2045 2045 - 2050

Average Annual Rate of Change of the Percentage Urban (%)

3.00

Northern America

Fig. 3.5 Average annual rate of change of the percentage urban in world countries (1950–2050). Source United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division [7]

104

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

6.00 World 5.00 Africa 4.00 Oceania 3.00 Latin America and the Caribbean

2.00

Europe

1.00

Asia

0.00 1950 - 1955 1955 - 1960 1960 - 1965 1965 - 1970 1970 - 1975 1975 - 1980 1980 - 1985 1985 - 1990 1990 - 1995 1995 - 2000 2000 - 2005 2005 - 2010 2010 - 2015 2015 - 2020 2020 - 2025 2025 - 2030 2030 - 2035 2035 - 2040 2040 - 2045 2045 - 2050

Average Annual Rate of Change of the Urban Populauion (%)

• More developed regions comprise Europe, Northern America, Australia/New Zealand, and Japan. • Less developed regions comprise all regions of Africa, Asia (except Japan), Latin America, and the Caribbean plus Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. • The group of least developed countries, as defined by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolutions (59/209, 59/210, 60/33, 62/97, 64/L.55, 67/L.43, 64/ 295, and 68/18) included 47 countries in June 2017: 33 in Africa, nine in Asia, four in Oceania, and one in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Northern America South America

Period

7.00 World

6.00 5.00 4.00

More developed regions

3.00 2.00

Less developed regions

1.00 0.00 1950 - 1955 1955 - 1960 1960 - 1965 1965 - 1970 1970 - 1975 1975 - 1980 1980 - 1985 1985 - 1990 1990 - 1995 1995 - 2000 2000 - 2005 2005 - 2010 2010 - 2015 2015 - 2020 2020 - 2025 2025 - 2030 2030 - 2035

Average Annual Rate of Change of the Urban Population (%)

Fig. 3.6 Average annual rate of change of the urban population. Source https://population.un.org/ wup/DataQuery/

Period of Year

Least developed countries Less developed regions, excluding least developed countries

Fig. 3.7 Average annual rate of change of the urban population. Source https://population.un.org/ wup/DataQuery/

105

6.00 5.00 World 4.00 High-income countries 3.00 Middle-income countries

2.00 1.00

Lower-middle-income countries

0.00

Upper-middle-income countries

1950 - 1955 1955 - 1960 1960 - 1965 1965 - 1970 1970 - 1975 1975 - 1980 1980 - 1985 1985 - 1990 1990 - 1995 1995 - 2000 2000 - 2005 2005 - 2010 2010 - 2015 2015 - 2020 2020 - 2025 2025 - 2030 2030 - 2035 2035 - 2040 2040 - 2045 2045 - 2050

Average Annual Rate of Change of the Urban Population (%)

3.2 Urbanization

Low-income countries

Period of Year

Fig. 3.8 Average annual rate of change of the urban population based on the income division of the countries. Source https://population.un.org/wup/DataQuery/

• Other less developed countries comprise the less developed regions excluding the least developed countries. • The country classification by income level is based on the 2016 GNI per capita from the World Bank. • Sub-Saharan Africa refers to all of Africa except Northern Africa. Figures 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 provide an overall idea of average annual rate of change of the urban population (percent) in the world on different basis. The world is rapidly urbanizing and will be entirely urbanized in the near future. Urbanization promotes the transformation from an agricultural-based economy to an industry-based economy, and it creates new possibilities while also posing new substantial challenges. Due to a lack of competent governance, urban growth and sustainability are conflicting in developing countries. Governments fail to solve this issue due to a lack of attention to the sustainable living conditions of the urban poor and the unpredictable mass migration from rural to urban regions [9]. Following are the common problems faced by the urban residents of developing and less/least developed nations due to mass migration. • • • • • • •

Lack of access to basic amenities and public/environmental goods Vehicular congestion Environmental degradation Violence and criminality Socioeconomic insecurity Resource exploitation and unequal distribution Lack connectivity and livability.

106

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

Table 3.1 Confronting issues in megacities in the South Asian context Confronting issues in mega cities

South Asian countries

Groundwater level reduction due to overextraction with increased Dhaka, Delhi population Saltwater intrusion

Karachi, Mumbai

Industrial pollutants affecting water quality

Mumbai

Chloride and nitrate pollutants

Delhi, Karachi, and Kolkata

Despite having one-fifth of the world’s population densely concentrated in a small area, the megacities in South Asia still encounter numerous obstacles as shown in Table 3.1, including poor groundwater quality, groundwater pollution from excessive sewage loads, canal seepage, and pollutant loads, ineffective pollution control measures, and a lack of wastewater/sewage treatment. It requires regular monitoring of water quality both surface and underground, improved water supply operations, water regulations, water treatment facility, safe storage processing, treatment up to required standards prior to discharge (WHO/EU/US EPA), as well as desalination plants to avoid saltwater intrusion [10].

3.3 Cities Cities are defined as, ‘set of infrastructures, and buildings that create an environment to serve a population living within a relatively small and confined geographic area’. Cities are comprised of human communities and physical systems/infrastructure interdepending on and interacting with one another as well as flow of resources beyond their physical location. Cities are complex in nature, with ease of access to service provisions such as transport, banking, communication, and health care. It is expected that 70% of inhabitants would reside in cities by 2050, which was about 10% in 1913 and 43% in 1990, and 54% in 2014 [11]. Further, forecasts the doubling of urban population in developing countries with the tripling of land extent by 2030. Cities identified as economic hub accountable for 70% of global GDP with ample labor pool where business entities are concentrated, and majority of economic transactions/activities proceeded. Skills, knowledge, capacity, power, authority, and technology are abundant in cities [12]. About 6000 years more until the classical antiquity when people established large cities to live together for security, prosperity, trade and to worship. Large conglomerations, trade events, national events, cultural events, exhibitions, fashions attracted toward cities. Over the time cities became the centers of learning, innovation, and sophistication. Urban areas accountable for 80% global greenhouse gas emissions, where 20% of the largest cities consume about 80% of energy. The built environment with extensive gray infrastructures characterizes metropolitan regions from rural areas. Moreover, the heat island effect, industry,

3.4 Megacities

107

and traffic are all currently on the increase [13]. With an expanding urban population, climate change, densification, and a rapid rate of urban expansion, cities are becoming more vulnerable to disaster/hazard occurrences than rural places, but to varying degrees. Because most cities are unable to effectively deal with the complicated concerns of unplanned urban expansion, rapid urbanization results in densification and urban sprawl that becomes a slum. The trend of declining urbanization has not been recorded by any cities worldwide. Thus, it is crucial to consider long-term resilience to preserve urban livability. Disaster vulnerability is high in cities due to high population density, higher concentration of built structures, infrastructures, and resources within limited space; thus, the loss of lives, assets, devastation of properties, and recovery process would be difficult and delayed. Hence, it is essential to plan and regulate the urban development in addition to strengthening the disaster resilience of cities [14]. The following are essential elements in building city resilience. • • • • • • • • •

Efficient and smart city governance Spatial dimensions requiring spatial policies, standards, metadata Strategic framework Well-defined responsibilities for urban planning, land use, infrastructure development, resource management, housing, sanitation, transport Effective communication and networking Information dissemination ensuring access to public Social inclusion Innovative use of spatial information tools: flexible tools, techniques, and policies Citizen-centric urban sensing.

3.4 Megacities The development of polycentric megacities is the foundation for urban planning in the twenty-first century. Megacity development is becoming more prevalent as a result of factors such as globalization, trade development, prospering businesses, employment possibilities, and cities serving as centers of international communication [15]. Mega cities are defined as “urban agglomerations with more than 10 million inhabitants” in the 2018 report on “World Urbanization Prospects” published by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations [16]. In 2018, United Nation enumerated 33 megacities while ‘City Population’ website listed 37 (https://www.citypopulation.de/) and Demographia included 35 megacities in 2020 [17]. Table 3.2 shows a list of megacities found globally. Many of urban agglomerations are concentrated in rapidly developing nations such as China and India. The countries like USA, Brazil, Pakistan, and Japan also have substantial number of mega cities. New York City and Tokyo were the first known megacities (since 1950), and Tokyo is the largest city at present (according to Demographia 37,977,000 population in 2020). It is expected that most of the megacities will be concentrated in Asia and Africa by 2050.

108

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

Table 3.2 Megacities found across the world countries as of 2020 Country

Megacities

China

Beijing, Chengdu, Chongqing, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Xiamen

India

Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai

United States

Los Angeles, New York City

Brazil

Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo

Pakistan

Karachi, Lahore

Japan

Nagoya, Osaka, Tokyo

United Kingdom

London

France

Parris

Thailand

Bangkok

Colombia

Bogota

Argentina

Buenos Aires

Egypt

Cairo

Bangladesh

Dhaka

Vietnam

Ho Chi Minh City

Turkey

Istanbul

Iran

Tehran

South Korea

Seoul

Russia

Moscow

Mexico

Mexico City

Philippines

Metro Manila

Peru

Lima

Nigeria

Lagos

Indonesia

Jakarta

South Africa

Johannesburg

DR Congo

Kinshasa

Although the 1% rate of growth of megacities is still manageable, governing rapidly expanding megacities is challenging. Rapid urbanization increases the risk of food insecurity, inadequate housing, a lack of access to essential services like clean water and sanitary facilities, employment, traffic congestion, underdeveloped infrastructure, and a weak economy, which can result in the growth of slums, health problems, problems with land use and the environment, poverty, and homelessness, as witnessed in Mumbai, India. Over time, the megacities have grown into a burden for humanity from a demographic, ecological, and socioeconomic perspective. Megacities are typically polycentric (not always) more than being a center of business development. A unique feature of mega city is the agglomerations are linked not only physically but also functionally, economically, culturally, and so on. The urban

3.4 Megacities

109

growth and development are not linear, but are complex, asymmetric, and unpredictable. Based on the Human Development Index (HDI), ranking megacities can be categorized under four quartiles [18]. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Very high HDI category: Germany, USA, Japan High HDI category: Russia, China, Brazil Medium HDI: Indonesia, India, Philippines (developing) Low HDI: Pakistan, Nigeria, democratic republic of Congo (underdeveloped).

United Nations reckoned that the top-ranking global cities in 2010 included in Table 3.3 that are expected to remain in the list in 2025 as well. It is reckoned that urban growth is more likely to take place in developing nations till 2030 particularly rapid unplanned urban development creating critical problems/ threats in Asia and Africa due to low-quality housing condition. Mega city development is a matter of concern as most of them are in developing nations, acting as instrument for socioeconomic development, and iconic diplomatic locations in business context [19]. With the urbanization and emerging mega cities, knowledge, skills, and experience sharing and need for availability, integration, and management of reliable spatial data/ location reference became essential [3]. Spatial data management for mega cities includes • Spatial information management (e.g., land, property) • Spatial data infrastructure (e.g., policy, norms, standards, strategies, institutional frameworks, and technical tools) • Knowledge and skill transfer and management • Partnerships • Business models • Good e-governance with spatial data management Table 3.3 Top-ranking megacities in 2010 and 2025 Rank

City

Country

Population in 2010 (millions)

Projected population in 2025 (millions)

1

Tokyo

Japan

36.67

37.09

2

Delhi

India

22.16

28.57

3

Sao Paulo

Brazil

20.26

25.81

4

Mumbai

India

20.04

21.65

5

Mexico City

Mexico

19.46

20.94

6

New York

USA

19.43

20.71

7

Shanghai

China

16.58

20.64

8

Kolkata

India

15.55

20.11

9

Dhaka

Bangladesh

14.65

20.02

10

Karachi

Pakistan

13.12

18.73

110

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

• Improved analysis and decision making using spatial data • Ensure public safety and national security • Asset management. Spatial data tools have an extensive role to play in city administration. Services delivered are • • • • • • • •

Urban design: planning code, land zoning, environmental plans Urban development Environmental management Community participation Economic development Transport planning: real-time online monitoring, integrated networks Utility services: asset management, disaster management Public safety: crime modeling, emergency management.

Multifaceted expansion of complex land use systems with substantial rate of population rise is notable in megacities. Megacities with enormous population size create new complex dynamics, governance, and extensive changes in social, economic, cultural, and political systems and processes. Solutions for global sustainability must be developed and advocated in mega cities which requires the following considerations [20, 21]. • • • • • • •

Requires region-based development and spatial transformations Effective decision making and problem solving Knowledge creation for predicting future scenarios and orientations Diverse actor involvement, transdisciplinary approach Transnational collaboration Research based Global essence, substantially important in accomplishing sustainable development targets for global development • Drivers of change, enhanced quality of living • Territorial intelligence governance. Development of megacities results in several critical social, ecological, and environmental issues as 70% of urban growth is informal while 30% urban population in developing countries inhabits slums. While in South Africa, 90% of growing settlements are urban slums. Multitude of problems to be managed within mega cities due to rapid urbanization. Following are some of the major challenges for sustainable development of mega cities [21, 22]. • • • • • • •

Urban ecological imbalance by the reduction of urban greens High-density architecture Transportation problems and traffic congestion Climate change impacts Environmental pollution-solid waste, air, and water pollution Capacity overloads Resource exploitation

3.4 Megacities

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

111

Socioeconomic disparities Spatial segregation Inheritance constraints Insecurity and crimes Informal and unplanned developments Limited-service provision Resource inadequacy Leads to urban slum development Food, water, and energy insecurity Lack of livability and connectivity Buildings fail to reflect cultural identity Weak urban governance Unsustainable land use, degradation, and fragmentation Deforestation Informal real estate markets Increased frequency and intensity of hazards/disasters and difficult to manage Socio-cultural imbalance Weak governance and steering structure Land governance and land administration issues Illegal construction within urban periphery/informal settlements Natural hazards and crisis/emergency management Unclear and overlapping responsibilities.

Development of mega cities is inevitable with globalization and competition. It is a complex dynamic process requiring multiscale operation and interaction from local, national, regional, as well as international collaborations and strong policy environment. Urban agglomerations are accountable for extensive changes in land use, land cover, and intense resource consumption. Structural economic and social processes also influence urban growth and spatial development. Moreover, it has been associated with the adaptive process of dynamic changes for continuity. Transformation in urban policy and governance is an urgent need to address the challenges in developing a smart and sustainable city/mega city/urban agglomeration. The structure, size, functionality, and morphology keep changing over years with changes [23]. The concept of digital city, data city, smart city, and digital earth technologies plays a key role sustainable and efficient growth of mega cities. For example, Hong Kong has proposed its smart city blueprint to survive in urban vitality. Systematic strategies in the development of mega cities in China are [22] 1. Consideration of geological and spatial factor in urban planning 2. Sponge city as a national strategy for urban planning which addresses resilience, low impact development, and sustainable resource management 3. Maintaining the urban population reasonable below the urban carrying capacity through constant monitoring of urban growth and development 4. Appropriate urban layout for industry/city center/high technology/commercial placement 5. Urban water conservation and management

112

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

6. Smart sustainable city development ensuring high-quality life 7. Innovative development and utilization of underground and semi-underground spaces using geospatial technology and sound engineering 8. Renewable energy investment and green transformation. Other potential measures that could be adopted in the development of megacities are (a) social safety nets to protect vulnerable population, (b) well-planned systematic infrastructure development, (c) future disaster predictions, (d) proactive intervention of multiple stakeholders, (e) establishing good quality housing units, (f) well-connected innovative public transits, (g) land use planning, management and zoning, (h) development of high-rise buildings instead of low-rise buildings avoiding urban sprawl, (i) buildings allowing future developments and expansion, (j) integrating green space, (k) developing as trade zones, (l) coupling every development aspects with sustainable development and decouple from resource exploitation, (m) switching to alternate fuels and energy sources, (n) good governance that is transparent, and accountable, (o) favorable policy frameworks such as financial policy, health policy, land use policy, tax policy, budget allocations, and education.

3.5 Urban Planning (UP) Urban planning is a technical and political process concerned with the development, use, and protection of land and environment, public welfare, and the design of the urban environment, including air, water, and the infrastructure passing into and out of urban areas such as transportation, communications, and distribution networks, providing benefits from individual (user level) to entire biosphere (system level). ‘Sustainable development goals’ and ‘New urban agenda’ are the international instruments providing guidance on conserving and developing environment and life from the impacts of climate change and rapid urbanization. They facilitate the establishment of favorable public policies and introduce clean renewable novel technologies. Among the sustainable development goals, SDG 11 lays the foundation for the urban policies and urban planning strategies. In urban context, public policies need to be incorporated into urban planning to create sustainable cities with technological interventions based on standards and guidelines. The effectiveness of policy implications should be checked during implementation, monitoring, and controlled as per the standards. Urban planning considers spatial, functional, strategic, land use, and infrastructure planning that are essential in sustainable development processes. Urban infrastructure development encompasses several technologically advanced modern assemblies such as low, medium, high, and mega density structures, residential, commercial, entertainment, schools, hospitals, banks, transport, venerable places, and social gathering places [24]. Urban planning needs to consider of following issues that are crucial in urban planning. • Swift urbanization • Urban poverty • Climate change

3.5 Urban Planning (UP)

113

• Conflicts, crimes, violence, and disasters • Socioeconomic disparities among different social groups in the country. Incorporation of climate change mitigation and adaptation solutions via urban planning initiatives is essential. Better-planned cities that rise vertically leave land for natural environment and its flora and fauna. The space management is an essential requirement with growing population and proliferating human demands. This critical issue can be addressed through creating open spaces throughout the site by intelligent integrated land use, application of vertical thinking to space over roads, and design central urban residences by super high-rise structures. Urban planning prioritizing climate change initiatives includes well-planned housing structures that use less energy for light, ventilation, and heating; instead optimizing the chance to harvest natural light and ventilation, shifting to the use of renewable energies such as wind, solar, hydro, tidal, biomass, and hydrogen energy lowering the dependency on fossil fuels for urban usage, systematic food manufacturing methodologies utilizing low water and land requirement techniques such as hydroponics and vertical farming can be practiced to obtain improved yield, efficient use of spaces in high-rise mega structures by converting rooftops into green space or else installing solar panels to generate electricity, public commuting to reduce pollution and carbon footprint, and further recommends implementing integrated waste management. With the rise of urban areas, consumption levels and concentrated diverse population waste generation and management become problematic. Thus, municipalities face significant challenges in preventing the waste generation and sustainably managing the generated waste. MDG 6 and 7 indirectly deal with waste management. They intend to reduce the proportion of people access to sanitation and clean water. Waste management hierarchy level arranges the waste handling mechanisms from the most effective to least effective as avoidance/prevention, reduction, reuse, recycle, energy recovery, and waste disposal as shown in Fig. 3.9 [25]. Some aspects open the households/institutes to new ventures for example reuse of plastic and glass bottles, recycling of scrap metal. Non-food related can be given to scrap metal dealers, scavengers, smoked food sellers, blacksmith, metal workers, mechanics, and farmers, which provide income, livelihood, and good health and wellbeing. The disease conditions such as malaria spread by open dumping, landfill, stagnant water and other disease conditions typhoid, cholera, and diarrhea caused by contaminated food and water; tetanus spread by dirt are related to poor sanitation. These ill health conditions can be avoided. The R technologies encompass the following practices: 3R, 4R, 5R, 6R, 7R, 8R, and 9R systems in urban waste management. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

3R: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle 4R: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Recover 5R: Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repurpose, and Recycle 6R: Rethink, Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Repair 7R: Refuse, Reduce, Repurpose, Reuse, Recycle, Rot, and Rethink 8R: Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Refill, Repair, Regift, Recycle, and Repeat

114

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

Fig. 3.9 Waste management hierarchy. Source https://baxcompany.com/insights/circularity-of-pol ymer-composites/waste-management-hierarchy/

7. 9R: Rethink, Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Regift, Repair, Rent, Recycle, and Rot. Circular economy identified as R0-R9 Approach/9R Framework is one of the most discussed concepts of this decade in urban planning. Circularity is a better choice for the sustainable environment. It aims to reduce material consumption and waste generation. Figure 3.10 denotes the different strategies of circular economy in production chain. Higher level of circularity implies that the material remains longer period in the chain. Transition to circular economy requires both socioinstitutional change and innovations. There are three types of possible innovations such as innovations in core technology, innovation in product design, and innovations in revenue model [26, 27].

3.5.1 Urban Planning Team The stakeholders that involve in urban planning are shown in the diagram (Fig. 3.11) [28]. Urban planning requires fundamental integrated approach than the conventional silos. Thus, the planning team consists of professionals from multiple disciplines associated with urban development; the related parties are • • • • •

Resilience manager Designer Architect Landscape architect Environmental engineer

3.5 Urban Planning (UP)

115

Fig. 3.10 Circular strategies within the production chain, in order of priority

Policy and law makers Strategic planners Developers Consultancies Asset owners Users

Fig. 3.11 Multiple stakeholders involved in urban planning

• • • • • • • • • •

Water and energy professionals Urban planner Infrastructure engineers Local community Land use planner Regional planner Settlement planner Transport planner Structural/soil engineer Sociologist

116

• • • •

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

Economist Demographist Climate expert Legal expert on regulatory laws.

3.5.2 Components of Urban Plan There are mainly three components in urban plan process, and they are

Database

Analysis

Synthesis

Database 1. Demographic data 2. Physical data such as geographical, geological, and land use 3. Infrastructure—the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions 4. Available proposals. Analysis 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

National and regional context Function of the town Economy: GDP, employment patterns Environment: sensitivity, climate change Social: cultural aspects (incl. festivals), social issues Physical: Built environment, zoning (residential, commercial, industrial), transport network 7. Special features: conservation areas, historic buildings 8. SWOT analysis. Synthesis 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Vision (optional) Objectives Strategies—zoning, transport, industry, waste disposal Plan Concept Overall plan (Structure Plan) Precinct plans Transport plan Conservation plan Urban design scheme (3D images)

3.6 Sustainable Urban Planning Designs

117

11. Detail plans (relocations, landscaping, etc.) 12. Regulations 13. Projects—strategic development.

3.6 Sustainable Urban Planning Designs At the international conference on ‘future of cities’ in 1956 at Harvard’s Graduate School, urban design was considered as a detached profession. During the early stages, urban design solely focused on the aesthetics of cities but later the scopes, objectives, and intended goals broaden, now it plays a prominent role in discoursing triple bottom lines of sustainability in developing resilient, sustainable, and durable cities [29]. Urban design is a discipline emerged in the second half of the twentieth century as a part of modern urban context. It involves establishing integrated urban fabrics to build up quality and liveable arenas suitable for human living. It acts as a filler to avoid the gaps or failures in built environment development such as engineering, planning, and architecture. The concept of sustainable design evolved later adsorbing different concepts in different countries across the world. It concerns over environmental, social, economic, temporal, spatial, functional, contextual, perceptual, morphological, and even visual principles related to design [30]. But in delivering the outcomes, the balance of sustainability aspects is missed most of the time, and private entities have little concern over the environment and prioritize economic gains and manage financial constraints/prudent, while government and political agendas try to negotiate between social and economic perspectives. This must be addressed in sustainable urban designing through bringing the apparent environmental concern and significance to existent to manifest holistic public agendas. The sustainable urban design needs to widen its scope through 1. Client requirements at present and possible flexible changes in future 2. Community 3. Natural environment and design principles of 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Futurity Environmental diversity Carrying capacity Precautionary principle Equity/quality of life Local empowerment Polluter pay principle.

118

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

In order to address the issues of urbanization, climate change, and water-related issues like urban water logging, scarcity, and pollution, a number of urban design approaches have been developed and are currently being widely used to support comprehensive urban planning by developed and developing nations of the world, such as the USA, UK, Germany, Japan, China, and Singapore. The management of storm water, groundwater, surface water, runoff water, and wastewater are all included in integrated urban water management (IUWA), which is often supported by these strategies [31]. In 2013, China became the first country to formally accept the IUWM concept [32]. Table 3.4 demonstrates how nature-based urban designs and land development strategies are used in sustainable urban planning to manage water and prevent related calamities like floods and logging [33]. Various urban designs have been put out with various goals in accordance with demand and site- or country-specific constraints, but all with the ultimate intention of offering sustainable solutions to global problems [34].

3.6.1 Sponge City A sponge city is an emerging concept in integrated urban water management. This initiative is proposed in China to optimize urban water systems. A sponge city is a city that has the capacity to mainstream urban water management into the urban planning policies and designs. It has the appropriate planning, legal frameworks, and tools in place to implement, maintain, and adapt the infrastructure systems to collect, store, and treat. These areas are designed, or in many cases redesigned, to use a combination of storage tunnels, permeable pavements of asphalt and cement, rain gardens, constructed ponds, biodetention, vegetative swale, and wetlands to store as much water as possible rainwater. The Sponge City indicates a particular type of city that does not act like an impermeable system not allowing any water to filter through the ground, but more like a sponge actually absorbs the rainwater, which is then naturally filtered by the soil and allowed to reach into the urban aquifers [50]. Sponge city involves in integration of green, and gray infrastructure plays a key role in the urban transformation that reflects the adsorption function of the city. It is an advanced ecological storm water management. Though different names given in different countries the core concept are the same, these are low impact developments to manage storm water, mitigate climate change, manage green space, and pollution control mechanisms employed [48]. The implementation of sponge city practice is depicted in Fig. 3.12. With the rapid blind urbanization processes in China cities, syndromes were worsened; disordered utilization, excessive emissions, and frequent disasters become more common [51]. Along with resource deficit, environmental pollution, water scarcity, and poor water permeability, urban water logging created severe impacts on health and wellbeing of urbanites and threatened the socioeconomic developments in China. Urban water logging caused the destruction of massive properties and loss of human lives in the later 90s and 2000s. The major cause for the city flooding with

3.6 Sustainable Urban Planning Designs

119

Table 3.4 Sustainable urban designs adopted in world countries Sustainable urban designs

Countries

Major intention

References

Low impact urban New Zealand design and development (LIUDD)

Protect aquatic and terrestrial ecological [34] integrity while allowing urbanization at all densities

Low impact development design (LID)

United States (North America)

Rainwater and pollution management

[35, 36]

Water-sensitive urban design (WSUD)

Australia

Manage and utilize storm water Mitigate climate change effects

[37–40]

Sustainable development urban design (SDUD)

UK

Quantity, quality, and amenity management

[29, 41–43]

Decentralized urban design (DUD)

Germany

Decentralized storm water, and runoff management and potential applications

[44–46]

Well-balanced hydrological system (WBHS)

Japan

Balance among water use, flood control, [47] and environment

Healthy water cycle city (HWC2)/Rain/ Moist city

South Korea

Green storm water harvesting system, zero discharge of rainwater

Sponge city

China, Bicester in Rainwater management, flood control, UK brownfield development, create microclimate condition, water quality Singapore enhancement, ecological resilience

Active, beautiful, clean waters program (ABC)

[35]

[34, 48, 49]

urban water logging is identified as the change of natural hydrological cycles and modified ecological environment due to increased impervious surfaces [49]. Sponge city construction provides effective solution to water logging, flooding, and shortage issue [52]. Currently this development is integrated into urban planning in several states of China including Beijing, Shanghai, Wuhan, Suining, Xi’an, Jiaxin, and Zhuanghe [34]. Sponge city development can reasonably satisfy the water demand through conservation strategies. This concept was stemmed out from other similar practices followed in world countries primarily best management practices (BMP) in USA for storm water pollution and non-point source pollution control. Sponge city projects intended to attain the goal of green infrastructure and sustainable development. They adapt to different environmental changes and manage disaster scenarios. The green components like grasslands, permeable pavements, green spaces, and rainwater garden store

120

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

Fig. 3.12 Sponge city implementation [51]

the storm water and surface runoff during peak rainfalls and release them for use during droughts. Further the water is allowed to recharge groundwater table through permeable surfaces without flooding [53]. Urban flooding resulted from urbanization and climate change has global concern, to cope up with the frequent occurrence of storm-induced urban pluvial flooding sponge city concepts evolved over time. Though there are contradictions, and public/ institutional reluctance to accept contemporary transformations was there, later the trend changed. Most of the time people agree to pay reasonable surcharges on domestic water fee which shows the positive public perception and willingness to pay [54]. This approach is integrated into entire urban development scope. The components are incorporated into buildings, roads, pavements, drainage systems, roofs, parks, and other public places to facilitate water absorb detent, purify, and drain water. Practices adopted in sponge city development are illustrated in Fig. 3.13. The prime functions of sponge city approach are, • • • • • • • • • •

Water supply Peak flow reduction Flood risk reduction Drought mitigation Mitigating UHI effect Water purification and quality enhancement Storm water purification Wastewater treatment Water transfer Biodiversity conservation.

The review of case studies conducted in China identified the following challenges in implementing sponge city program which is multiobjective and complex;

3.6 Sustainable Urban Planning Designs

121

Fig. 3.13 Practices adopted for sponge city development in China [55]

(1) lack of holistic systematic approach/integrated comprehensive model for planning, designing, and operating the entire system, (2) limited knowledge/lack of expertise and technical guidance, (3) lack of long-term plans, (4) lack of funding, (5) lack of public interest and resistance to change, (6) inadequate return, i.e., absence of proper tool to measure cost-effectiveness/valuation and quantification/economic assessment, (7) lack of life cycle approach, (8) lack of stakeholder involvement, and (9) higher complexity in water networks, processes, components, their performance, and their interaction with water cycle [53]. The following measures are recommended to overcome these drawbacks [54–57]. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Facilitating seed funding by the government Developing appropriate business models Enhancing the quality of engineering designs Site-specific regulatory framework Proper designing, planning, construction, and implementation strategy Innovative low impact development/green infrastructure financing Require low impact development/green infrastructure professional training and certification Establishing favorable government policies Establishing public–private partnerships (both local and international) Provides government credit security Knowledge dissemination on sponge city concept through public outreach activities and educational programs, including into curriculum Government subsidy Multiple money-raising approaches Encouraging government and private grants Ensuring private benefits Encouraging social inclusion

122

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

• Appropriate economic quantification systems to justify the investment—e.g., multicriteria analysis for urban water system and urban water ecological services • Sustainable water management with careful consideration on climate change, population growth, economic development, water scarcity, technology innovation, water vulnerability, urban development prospectus, water pollution, and flooding.

3.6.2 Decentralized Urban Design (DUD) Decentralized urban planning is a multidimensional paradigm design considering several environmental parameters while assisting in urban surface development to favor agriculture land, and environmental protection with less impact to natural and farmland resources. These sustainable plans protect and restore farmlands and range lands that are degraded with urbanization [58]. Urban sprawl heavily changes the land use and land cover of the landscape. Unplanned and uncontrolled urban sprawl is controlled with small, decentralized city center establishment after proper suitability analysis and growing on their own as evidenced in Iran, though the urban development allowed impervious surfaces to an extent ensured the land suitability to intended functions such as farming, agriculture, forestry, and environmental protection. This design sheds concern over urban compactness and connectivity to patches to interlink with nature. Compared with other aspects, urban decentralized approach discusses extensively based on water and wastewater management perspectives. There are primarily two types of wastewater management/urban design systems, namely centralized and decentralized. Their fundamental differences are tabulated in Table 3.5; the systems must be checked based on sustainability, technical, and regulatory perspectives to choose the best option. A proper water management system enhances the quality of life of people. Urban wastewater management system (UWM) can be divided into three as onsite, package, and community systems. This categorization is clearly visible in Bangkok. Onsite technology is usually employed for a single housing unit/hotel whereby in community system several residential units combined. Urban storm water runoff is a valuable resource that turn into a potential pollutant source. With the urbanization and increased impervious surfaces, the storm water infiltration into groundwater/catchment infiltration capacity reduced leading to modified stream morphology with frequent water logging and flooding events. This creates consequent impacts on biodiversity, land erosion, landslide, habitat loss, land quality deterioration, loss of vegetation, etc. Earlier centralized systems were practiced in UWM which cannot provide optimal solutions in pollution control and fail in effectively managing sanitation. Most of the time these end-of-pipe technologies create problem somewhere else instead of solving the problem. Thus, this technology is outdated in most of the countries. And people shifted to viable alternative sustainable solutions like decentralized water supply and wastewater systems which is more reliable and flexible. The operations

3.6 Sustainable Urban Planning Designs

123

Table 3.5 Characterization of centralized and decentralized wastewater systems Characteristics

Centralized systems

Decentralized systems

System framework

One single system

Several cluster systems

Land use

Extensive

Not extensive

Treatment technology

Advance and complex

Simple

Management

Complicated bureaucratic

Simple

Construction

Difficult and time-consuming

Easy to establish

Operation and Maintenance

Require expertise

Easy

Location

Offsite

Onsite systems (Near the point of generation)

Cost

Expensive

Cost effective

Capital investment

Huge

Relatively low

Operation and maintenance cost

High (consulting, training, managing)

No additional cost if properly operated and maintained

Volume of water manages

Large

Small to medium

Site suitability/ Community size

Urban areas Highly populated regions Large community size

Rural/suburban areas Low densely populated region Small community

One cluster includes

Entire city

1–100 residential units

Treatment efficiency

low

Comparatively higher removal of BOD and TSS

Workforce requirement

Experts required

Local staff recruited

Added benefits

Reuse of reclaimed water is low

Resource recovery Reclaimed water used for non-potable uses Use sludge as fertilizer Provide livelihood for its community

Economic, social, and environmental cost

Comparatively higher

Comparatively lower/minimal

can be performed even close to the source of generation. It facilitates rainwater harvesting, wastewater treatment and quality enhancement, metal/mineral/nutrient recovery in a cost-effective manner [59]. Figures 3.14 and 3.15 graphically compare and contrast centralized and decentralized urban water management in terms of components, water movement pathways, and treatment series or phases. Decentralized urban water systems are essential in climate resilient urban planning and secure the urban infrastructure [45]. Decentralized water management is a reliable approach in addressing rising water demand, and significant in alleviating/ controlling water-related problems such as flooding, water scarcity, thus lowering the pressure on the potable water systems to considerable extent though not fully

124

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

Fig. 3.14 Centralized and decentralized components and pathways in urban water management

Fig. 3.15 Treatment series in decentralized and centralized systems. Source https://www.researchg ate.net/figure/Treatment-train-for-the-decentralized-and-centralized-scenarios_fig1_310392336

3.6 Sustainable Urban Planning Designs

125

addressed. The system encompasses primarily storm water harvesting and gray water cycling components. In China people tend to go for gray water treatment facility than rainwater as it is not a reliable source showing prominent changes in water volume with seasonality. Decentralized rainwater management is multifaceted practical solution to conserve environmental quality, water and energy saving in urbanized context. It ensures long-term environmental, social, and economic sustainability unlike the conventional centralized systems which are intended flood control alone most of the time. The developed nations like Germany and Singapore are more popular for their storm water management strategy but in two different approaches. When compared to Singapore, German has achieved its intended goals via decentralized water management system at a higher economic efficiency. Singapore an industrialized small mass land facing water scarcity with high population density has taken several steps to conserve and purify storm water in massive scales to ensure water security and control flooding. It has developed comprehensive framework of drains, ditches, canals, and roofs to collect rainwater and divert to reservoirs, rivers, and tanks to store and treat to potable quality. The Berlin City of German has broad strategy implications for non-pollution control through green infrastructure installments and decentralized water management designs. It used low impact source control solution, conserving the quality of surface water, replacing the potable water use with storm water, thus reducing the stress. In addition, green roofs involve climate change mitigation, lowering UHI effect, and energy saving for cooling [46]. Decentralized wastewater management involves collection, treatment, reuse, or disposal of wastewater in its proximity to waste generation point. There are several technologies employed for wastewater treatment in both centralized and decentralized systems. Decentralized systems are beneficial and complementing centralized systems at present with increasing demand for the following reasons [60]. • Highly flexible with dynamic changes in the urban infrastructure • Rural and suburban areas far away from centralized system, thus costly for construction, operation, and maintenance • Centralized systems are highly expensive with difficult topographical locations like hilly regions. Research findings demonstrated DUWM as technically and economically significant sustainable urban development design which can be integrated into both public and private properties to sustain long-term stability in socioeconomic and environmental perspectives. The technical efficiency of the system is high as a result of good operation and maintenance while economically feasible and productive due to simple technology, low cost for sewer lines, no additional expenditure, reuse of reclaimed water for non-potable uses, social and ecological value added [61]. DUWM is suitable to residential, industrial, and mixed development zone in urban context in different socioeconomic conditions utilizing various land use patterns. Innovative decentralized wastewater technologies build up robust, resilient, efficient, sustainable, and adaptable urban water systems to address the need of urban community. DUWM technologies can be tested initially in small scale and economies of scale

126

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

Fig. 3.16 Triangular model of urban water sustainability [62]

can be expanded with political, institutional, technological policy framework support along with public acceptance [62]. Triangular model of urban water sustainability is depicted in Fig. 3.16. Sustainable and resilient water systems adhere to the triangular model of urban water sustainability. The model depicts the competing priorities of sustainability such as environmental protection, social justice, and economic growth. It is practically very difficult to balance the system. The elemental aspects are • Social: Equity in water distribution, democratic decision making with social inclusion • Economic: Economic efficiency, ensure water availability at standard quality and quantity, avoid water scarcity • Ecological: Long-term availability of renewable freshwater sources. More than the sustainability the system needs to be resilient and robust to perform the functionality at any cost, i.e., capable to respond and adapt to changes, and adsorb disturbances, flexible enough to mitigate system failures. The study conducted in Germany recommended installation of green roof and facades, integration of rainwater harvesting and decentralized storm water management to reduce peak load and overload of the systems as potential solutions for passive building cooling. Building climatization is facilitated by passive and active evaporation. The evapotranspiration of a cubic meter of water consumes 680 kWh of heat. Installation of these green components adds additional moisture to surrounding by evapotranspiration, thus improving the internal microclimate through lowering the indoor temperatures and modify the external environment to suit buildings. Adjoining

3.6 Sustainable Urban Planning Designs

127

the rainwater harvesting strategy with building climatization was a feasible option as the adiabatic cooling systems had higher efficiency than the expected levels [63]. The study of Adil and Ko [44] brought out another perspective of decentralized urban planning based on energy perspectives. Integrating decentralized energy systems will be a new transformation in energy sector. Urban planning requires well-planned urban energy infrastructure for renewable energy generation, distribution, and consumption such as solar/photovoltaics, thermal, biomass, hydro, and wind which are low-carbon smart technologies. Nowadays attention is drawn toward smart grids, distributed generation, microgrids, smart microgrids which add technical sophistication and smartness in urban energy planning and policy development with the implications for climate change mitigation and adaptation. This requires in depth socioeconomic, physical, and technical analysis on the feasibility for energy decentralization and democratization. There are several energy system models available to be controlled by consumer/community/company/third-party administrative control [44]. Decentralization is an eco-innovation providing effective solution to tackle sustainability in wastewater management. It involves onsite treatment of gray water, recovery, and reuse of resources from the wastewater domestic/municipal/industrial, a new paradigm of circular economy. Most of the time decentralized solutions are compatible with the local context as it is the local community which is going to make use of the treated water or extracted resources. If the water is purified up to potable quality it can be used for drinking purpose or else to enhance agricultural productivity, landscape management, recreation, groundwater recharge, industrial (coolant/ process water in power plants), and non-irrigational use in urban areas (car wash, toilet flush, ac coolant, laundering, street wash). Decentralization is a holistic approach which maximizes the citizen involvement in planning, designing, operation, maintenance, and decision making. US EPA identified decentralized systems as reliable, cost effective, and sustainable systems for less populated regions to ensure public health, water quality, and improved sanitation [64]. Basic requirements in a systematic wastewater management system are • Health and hygiene concern in end-of-pipe disposal/emissions reuse after treatment in order to avoid the exposure to harmful substances and pathogens. Pretreatment and disinfection at the final stages are recommended to ensure health and safety. • Environment health and natural resources: Degree of recycling, recovery of resources, metals, and nutrients, • Nuisance factors: Need to be focused as the decentralized systems are close to residential units. Odor issues are more common. • Aesthetic value: As close to the residential areas system need to maintain the aesthetic value of the environment. • Social factors: Public acceptance, convenience, community development. • Institutional factors: Institutional support and compliance to legal frameworks.

128

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

• Financial and economic factors: Financial capacity of the local community to pay for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the system. • Technology: Innovative and robust technology for construction, operation, and monitoring, appropriate technologies.

3.6.3 Water-Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) The intergovernment agreement on a National Water Initiatives defines WSUD as “the integration of urban planning with the management, protection and conservation of the urban water cycle that ensures that urban water management is sensitive to natural hydrological and ecological processes”. Simply it is an interdisciplinary approach (environment, engineering, physical and social science) integrating sensitivity to water into urban designs, hence giving significance to water in urban planning and design processes (Fig. 3.17). This technique can be applied to landscapes as well as to build environments/buildings. Key players/organizations involved in the urban planning are government departments, municipality, regulators, service providers, developers, and community. The special feature of this sustainable design is that it is applicable to all levels of economies of scale such as site, urban, and regional scales. This is widely practiced in Australia, UK, USA, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Figure 3.18 encompass few sites evidencing the livability of WSUD concept. WSUD has created a new paradigm in sustainable urban water management initially in Perth, Western Australia though the concept initially sprang up addressing storm water quality management later evolved as a holistic approach focusing on rainwater, wastewater, and streams of potable water in broader perspective. Figure 3.19 shows the evolution history of water-sensitive city over time. This strategy was proposed as an alternative urban plan framework to avoid the dependencies in environment on large water infrastructures. WSUD became more popular in Australia within short time frame, over decades it got incorporated into policy frameworks of all governments, different technologies, standards, institutional and instrumental mechanisms, guidelines [66]. The adoption of WSUD is favored by, • Regulatory framework: Supportive government policies, laws and guideline, administrative and political support, instrumental and institutional capacity • Sustainability assessment: Feasibility studies, economic analysis

Fig. 3.17 Simple concept of water sensitivity city

3.6 Sustainable Urban Planning Designs

129

Fig. 3.18 Livability of water-sensitive urban design in Melbourne, Australia. Source Wong et al. [65] a–h: a Royal Park Wetland, Parkville; b Baltusrol Estate, Moorabbin; c Lynbrook Boluevard, Lynbrook; d Cremorne Street, Richmond; e Victoria Harbour, Melbourne Docklands; f Baltusrol Estate, Moorabbin; g Batman Ave Tree Planters, Melbourne Docklands; h NAB Building Forecourt Wetland, Melbourne Docklands

• Appropriate innovative technologies and design • Public acceptance and social inclusion. WSUD is considered as a policy initiative regarding water demand management later emerged as urban planning design that is responsive to the regional landscape and resource limitations. This gives a sense of placemaking which a psychological value as it fulfills functional and physical needs of the community, thus boosting the native feeling of the community while giving the security, ownership, healthiness, and wellbeing [68]. Following are the customary water-sensitive urban design techniques used globally. • For water conservation—infrastructures, hydrozones, xeriscapes, storm water harvesting tanks, gray and black water reuse, wind breaks • Water quality—turfs, streams, wetlands both natural and constructed, infiltration systems such as leaky wells, trenches, soak ways

130

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

Fig. 3.19 Evolution of water-sensitive city [67]

• Water balance—detention basins of wet, dry, and extended dry, urban forest, parking lots, vegetation, vegetated swales, buffer strips, bioretention ponds, permeable, and porous pavements. The interacting components of a typical water-sensitive urban design are exhibited in Fig. 3.20. WSUD strives to mitigate the adverse impacts of urban hydrological development on the environment. In terms of pollution control, flood control, and rainwater harvesting, this offers a viable answer for small-scale water management systems. It is a different source control technique that makes use of green infrastructure. With the introduction of the WSUD idea in the early 1990s (1994), perceptions on long-term socioeconomic and environmental sustainability in urban planning shifted [37]. Formerly, rainfall was considered a nuisance or burden rather than a valuable resource in traditional urban design. Potential constraints in implementing WSUD which if unaddressed jeopardize acceptance of WSUD both long term and to the wider community are [69]. • • • • • • •

Lack of policy frameworks Lack of design frameworks, standards, and modeling Poor functioning and management Uncertainty in project cost and marketing Financial barriers Lack of public acceptance and community consultation Lack of knowledge and understanding.

3.6 Sustainable Urban Planning Designs

131

Fig. 3.20 Interacting components of WSUD in urban context. Source https://www.researchgate. net/figure/Components-of-water-sensitive-urban-design-and-their-interactions-highlighting-theplace_fig2_324836770

The way forward • • • •

Ensuring the effective operation and management Better water pricing structure to accept it as an affordable alternative water supply Knowledge dissemination through educating all the interested parties Developing the social inclusion and boost supportive social value.

General objectives of WSUD identified from in-depth literature review are summarized as follows [39, 40, 70, 71]: • • • •

Managing natural hydrological cycle Enhance quality of surface water, groundwater, and treated water Improve urban amenity Reduce human exposure to occupant/thermal discomfort and heat stress/UHI effect • Minimize the demand and reliance on potable water systems

132

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

• • • •

Pollution control and prevention by efficient removal of TP, TN, and TSS Onsite local treatment and reuse, and resource recovery Reduce storm water runoff and peak flow Increase social amenity in urban areas through integrating blue-green into urban setting, thus enhancing social, economic, aesthetic, ecological, and cultural values • Promote closed-loop circular economy and cost-effective development along with value addition • Promote aquatic resources and build up community resilience. Land use-energy-water nexus is tripartite that is mutually dependent which is significant in global survival and urban planning to address the future challenges of climate change. Water management is the heart in urban planning [38]. Broadbent et al. [40] demonstrated that WUSD designs combined with green infrastructures considerably improve occupant comfort in urban environments by decreasing surface and ambient air temperatures, resulting in a cooler microclimate. Further building cooling, shading, and ventilation are notified in close proximity to the design area, while a temperature drops of 1.8 °C is recorded near the water bodies by the downwind cooling effect, and the cooling effect of WUSD features demonstrated temporal and spatial variability throughout the day and night [40].

3.6.4 Low Impact Development Design (LID) LID techniques are gaining interest among policymakers to move forward sustainable cities [72]. LID is a site-specific, infiltration-based sustainable storm water management approach in land management that controls surface/storm water runoff by managing it close to source and intends to limit surface imperviousness and conserve environment [36]. Several research studies concluded that LID solutions can curb peak discharges from 60 to 95%, green roof reduce storm water runoff by 60–70% compared to conventional roofs and peak discharge by 30–78%. This concept was introduced in Maryland as an option to reduce adverse impacts of increasing impervious surfaces [73]. This planning design is broadly practiced in Europe, USA, Japan, China, South Korea, Germany, and many other nations as shown in Fig. 3.21. Exploring and expanding LID practices recognized as GI practices are an opportunity to create holistic urban areas that are healthy, safe, and sustainable to sustain life. Compared to large-scale centralized drainage systems, LID techniques are becoming more feasible as they are decentralized and microscale facilities that can be applied to dense urban areas. LID solutions can be classified as structural and non-structural. 1. Structural measures (Engineering structures) LID features include infiltration structures such as permeable/porous pavements and infiltration trenches, and bioremediation components such as rain gardens, bioswales,

3.6 Sustainable Urban Planning Designs

133

Fig. 3.21 Worldwide LID applications [74]

and green roofs, sunken green space, and stream naturalization, water conservation by blue roofs, rainwater storage tanks. 2. Non-structural measures Appropriate space management, proper land use management, minimal/no disturbance pertaining to land development, limit the expansion of impervious surfaces. Figure 3.22 shows different structural components incorporated in LID and associated functioning of the physical feature to perform sustainable storm water management. The mechanical and biological processes involved are described as follows. 1. Flow control: regulation of storm water runoff flow rates 2. Detention: temporary storage of storm water in underground vaults, ponds, and depressed areas and metered discharge to control peak flow rates 3. Retention: on-site temporary storage for the sedimentation of suspended solids 4. Filtration: sequestration of sediments through permeable medium such as sand and root system 5. Infiltration: storm water flows through (vertical) and into subsurface soil while removing pollutants by means of chemical and bacterial degradation, and facilitating groundwater replenishment 6. Treatment: use of phytoremediation or microbial colonies to metabolize in runoff contaminants in order to enhance storm water quality. LID techniques like Sponge city, SWUD provide not only environmental benefits but also accelerate the socioeconomic returns as well. The functions performed by LID are presented in Tables 3.6 and 3.7 in different contexts [36, 75, 76]. LID is an effective sustainable urban planning methodology in dealing with urbanization, resource scarcity, climate change, water issues and meteorological disasters. This is a biomimicry attempt to natural hydrological cycle. The research study of

134

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

Fig. 3.22 Diverse structural components incorporated in low impact development design and their functional mechanism for storm water management. a, b, and c: Mechanical; flow control, detention, and retention; d, e, and f: Biological; filtration, infiltration, and treatment. Source Kim [74], http://uacdc.uark.edu/models/low-impact-development; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Low-impact_development_(U.S._and_Canada)

Shafique and Kim [35] conducted in South Korea identified the following barriers in implementing LID strategy [35]. • • • •

Lack of knowledge and expertise Uncertainty in lifecycle cost and benefits Lack of design, planning, and implementing Still practiced in small scale, requires expanding economies of scale to deal with urban issues like water stress, flooding • Lagging in partnership among different stakeholders in expanding the LID project

3.6 Sustainable Urban Planning Designs

135

Table 3.6 Multifunctionality of low impact design in sustainability perspectives Environmental benefits

Economic benefits

Social benefits

Water quality and quantity improvement

Reduced investment

Effective solution to water scarcity

Effective quantity control-Total volume, runoff reduction, peak flow reduction, and peak delay

Reduced operation and maintenance cost

Enhance health and wellbeing of occupants by integrated GI

Pollutant removal-TSS, COD, TP, TN

Reduced cost for conveyance system

Improved connectivity between nature and environment

Increase storm water infiltration

Energy and water saving by improved performance

Water reuse

Reduce soil erosion

Can enjoy storm water fee discount and open space credit

Landscape functions

Manage flash flood events

Enhanced property value

Enhance recreational and aesthetic value

Mitigate heat stress Boost the city resilience to cope with environmental risks Replenish groundwater Preserve the natural environment

Table 3.7 Different functionality of fundamental low impact design during minor and extreme storm events Stream flow dynamics

Stream naturalization

Rain gardens/permeable pavements

Minor storm events

Minimal reduction in flow

Function efficiently facilitating infiltration and evapotranspiration

Extreme storm events

Highly productive functioning

Becomes saturated and less effective functioning

• Lacks in participatory approach • Inadequate financial support • Lack of incentives to promote investment. The challenges faced in implementing LID can be overcome through below mentioned effective measures. • Development of appropriate local water management policy, water circulation amendments, laws, and guidelines • Creating sound knowledge base through research, development activities, innovation, and incubations

136

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

• Use of innovative and cost-effective technologies/tools/and policies in LID to optimize the benefits gained • Promote local and international partnership as well as private–public collaborations for technology transfer, sharing experience and expertise, as well as financial investments • Social inclusion and public acceptance • Multiple stakeholder efforts and coordination • Synergize different LID practices to optimize the output/multiple sustainability paybacks/welfares • Use of Internet of things (IoT), online real-time monitoring, IT, cloud computing, and big data management in urban water management. The best optimal LID facility is chosen over the other options using a set of criteria for decision making. The criteria prioritize water quality control, water quantity, runoff reduction potential and efficiency, and overall cost considering both construction and maintenance. The options can be arranged as bioretention, green roof, water storage tank, and green space, respectively. Depending on the requirement more than one facility can be combined to produce the best intended output. There should be a comprehensive supportive tool in quantifying the performance of LID structures in decision making to select the most appropriate LID facility or combination of facilities considering all the environmental, technical, climate parameters, site-specific conditions and goals, specific client requirement, multifunctionality, and socioeconomic factors [75]. Several simulation–optimization models used at present to choose the best LID models under uncertainty like flood risks, economic statistics, and rainfall pattern. They are deterministic, stochastic models, hydrological models, integrated fuzzy simulation–optimization model, storm water management model and genetic algorithm. To improve the accuracy and precision in flood risk assessment a reliable model that is socially economically and environmentally need to be impressive [76, 77].

3.6.5 Sustainable Development Urban Design Sustainable development urban design is a relative and adaptive urban design process which is a part of attempt in achieving global SDG agendas [42]. It is recognized as an essential planning design to build up sustainable and durable cities when the clean energy, climate resilient goals, cradle to grave and liveable city concepts draw the attention in the Netherlands. It always pursuit low carbon or zero carbon development while balancing economic and social aspects of city development. This urban planning intends to satisfy the requirements of people, planet, and prosperity benefits in building healthy, energy neutral, carbon plus, liveable, and climate resilient city. Figure 3.23 depicts the fundamental concept of sustainable development urban design.

3.6 Sustainable Urban Planning Designs

137

Fig. 3.23 Concept map of sustainable development urban design. Source https:// www.pinterest.com/pin/394 0718403120990/

Sustainable spatial development (SSD) is considered as a new appealing approach to sustainable development urban design to ease the complex planning processes particularly redesign, retrofitting, restructuring, innovative designing of climate resilient cities. SSD involves responsible, durable, and flexible planning using the natural resources and social capital. The planning requires right scale, flexible design considering future modifications, and not outdated in constantly changing social and technical contexts [43]. However, in practical cases most of the time it is limited to energy management and efficiency solutions in buildings, and some environmental measures. But it can be integrated in entire city or regional design, planning, and landscape architecture as well. In case of sustainable designing every professional has a role to perform to ensure holistic change and improvement from individual to biosphere components. Two exemplary evidence that can be witnessed are ‘Urban design protocol’ of New Zealand and ‘National planning policy of UK’ which gave precedence to sustainability as a whole and in depth. New Zealand demand cities to be competitive, creative, environmentally friendly, and liveable, whereby UK specify urban designs to be usable, durable, and adaptable which is the key to sustainable development. According to the case study of Aina et al. [41], Saudi Arabia is lagging behind in environmental sustainability, and related law and policies. There is low concern for sustainability in urban planning as well [41]. The study findings suggested top-down control/centralized of urban governance for sustainable development. In accordance with Portugal in Southern Europe, sustainable building and urban designs exhibit substantial improvements over decades in know-how implementations [78]. In recent years a positive trend is notable in transformation in urban governance focusing on projects lowering ecological footprint such as smart city, Neom city, and favorable policy development with the surge external pressures and positive political environment. But still there are allegations to combine bottom-up approach and decentralization which ensures public participation and multistakeholder partnership in accomplishing the goals of sustainable governance. Top-down approach

138

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

is preferred to have a powerful leadership to act as a driver of change to establish and implement proper legislative framework and administrative procedures to sustain nurture sustainable development. Principles of good governance to promote sustainability are • • • • • • •

Decentralized decision making Social inclusion Accountable and transparency in decision making Multistakeholder partnerships Proactive and adaptive strategies Door for creativity, research, innovation, and development Technology advancement oriented.

Environmental assessment is a decision-making tool integrated into urban planning to choose over plans/policies/programs to accomplish sustainable development and this procedure can be incorporated with policies and procedures to form sustainability framework. The better performance in urban designing against sustainability indicators require the synchronized use of both top-down and bottom-up approach which enable the local community to participate in decision making in all phases of lifecycle since the design phase, community integration is indispensable as the local context is a fundamental component to be considered as it is the locality which is going to utilize/ manage the facility most of the time. Their voices should be heard and problems, needs, and aspirations must be addressed to end up with liveable urban place which is a sustainable solution [29]. There is a need of proper grass root level approaches to fill the gaps in conventional urban design; it involves comprehensive analysis of local context in detail with facts and figures without relying on secondary data. Only the people can better explain the actual local scenarios than the planners or designers. It improves the sensitivity of the local issues, further empowers the local community and capacity building to protect and manage natural environment. Following are the phases in a typical high level urban design model that clearly shows the ignorance of social inclusion in design phase. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Problem identification and defining Rationale development Analysis of opportunities and barriers Conceptualizing and appraisal of available urban design options.

3.6.6 Healthy Water Cycle In China, the establishment of healthy water cycle emerged as an effective solution to address the bottleneck factors for incessant socioeconomic development of the country. This fundamental approach is anticipated to resolve water scarcity and degradation of water sources to expedite the sustainable utilization of water resources

3.6 Sustainable Urban Planning Designs

139

and environmental restoration. This initiative was applied to several cities of China such as Beijing, Dalian, and Shenzhen. In early 2000s China had faced severe water stress due to increased consumption of water for domestic, industrial, agricultural activity and due to water pollution with urbanization and accelerated population growth. Even in the bottleneck situation, the water supply distribution by surface water, groundwater, and gray water/storm water was 80.1%, 19.5%, and 0.4%, respectively, in 2002. These values clearly portrayed the concern over the harvesting of rainwater and wastewater treatment [47]. Healthy water cycle city urban planning either eradicates the human interference on the natural hydrological cycle (Fig. 3.24) or maintains the intervention below reasonable limits to accomplish the following objectives. • • • • • • •

Integrated water management and urban water cycle restoration Manage water consumption Advance wastewater treatment Effective reuse of treated wastewater and sludge Recovery of resources Non-point source pollution control Restoration of freshwater bodies such as lakes and streams.

Healthy water cycle is a strategy to harmonize nature and mankind. There is an insistent need of developing HWC theories introducing different sustainable mode of water and resource reuse as well as recycle.

Fig. 3.24 Dynamic and complex global hydrological cycle. Source https://www.pinterest.com/pin/ 429601251927316581/

140

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

References 1. Vargas-Hernández, J. G., & Zdunek-Wielgołaska, J. (2020). Urban green infrastructure as a tool for controlling the resilience of urban sprawl. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00623-2 2. Teresa, A. R. (2020). Front yards as green infrastructure: Fragmented yard ecosystems across single-family neighborhoods in Los Angeles [University of California]. https://escholarship. org/uc/item/83n8m5f7 3. Doytsher, Y., Kelly, P., Khouri, R., Mclaren, R., Mueller, H., & Potsiou, C. (2010). Rapid Urbanization and Mega Cities: The Need for Spatial Information Management. FIG Congress, April, 11–16. https://www.fig.net/resources/monthly_articles/2010/march_2010/ march_2010_potsiou_etal.pdf 4. Buchholz, K. (2020). How has the world’s urban population changed from 1950 to today? Retrieved 11 15, 2021, from World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/ 11/global-continent-urban-population-urbanisation-percent/ 5. Public Health Notes. (2021). Urban and rural population of the world, 1950–2050. Retrieved 11 15, 2021, from Public Health Notes: https://www.publichealthnotes.com/howdy-urbanizat ion-everything-we-must-know/urban-and-rural-population-of-the-world-1950-2050/ 6. EEA. (2017). Data and Maps: Maps and Graphs: Urban and rural population in developed and less developed regions. Retrieved 11 15, 2021, from European Environment Agency: https:// www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/urban-and-rural-population-in 7. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2018). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Retrieved 11 15, 2021, from World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision: https://population.un. org/wup/DataQuery/ 8. Yin, S. (2017). Assessing City Resilience: Using the UNISDR Local Government SelfAssessment Tool in Koh Kong, Cambodia. This Research Is Granted by the Urban Climate Change Resilience in Southeast Asia (UCRSEA) Project, Which Is Funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), June. https://www.tei.or.th/thaicityclimate/public/research-12.pdf 9. Rana, M. M. P. (2011). Urbanization and sustainability: Challenges and strategies for sustainable urban development in Bangladesh. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 13(1), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-010-9258-4 10. Haque, S. J., Onodera, S., & Shimizu, Y. (2013). An overview of the effects of urbanization on the quantity and quality of groundwater in South Asian megacities. Limnology, 14(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10201-012-0392-6 11. Dale, S. (2015). Innovative Scorecard for Evaluating Resiliency in our Cities. Planet@Risk, 3(1), 154–157. Davos: Global Risk Forum GRF Davos. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.839.1491&rep=rep1&type=pdf 12. Sim, T., Wang, D., & Han, Z. (2018). Assessing the disaster resilience of megacities: The case of Hong Kong. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041137 13. Panda, Abhilash and Amaratunga, & Dilanthi. (2016). Making Cities resilient to disasters: “new” ten essentials. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Building Resilience, 109–129. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/30298/%0AThe 14. Suárez, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Benayas, J., & Tilbury, D. (2016). Towards an urban resilience index: A case study in 50 Spanish cities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(8). https:// doi.org/10.3390/su8080774 15. Kalema, R. (2000). Intergovernmental Relations in South Africa: A Comparative Analysis. In Provincial Government in South Africa, Conference held at Umtata, 16–18 August 2000 (Issue August). http://www.kas.de/db_files/dokumente/7_dokument_dok_pdf_4883_2.pdf 16. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, P. D. (2019). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision. In Demographic Research (Vol. 12). https://population.un.org/ wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-Report.pdf

References

141

17. Demographia. (2020). Demographia World Urban Areas, 16th Annual Edition, 2020.06. In Demographia (Issue 16th Annual Edition). http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf 18. Safarik, D., Ursini, S., & Wood, A. (2016). Megacities: Setting the Scene. CTBUH International Conference: Special 2016 Conference Themed Issue: Megacities, 4, 30–39. https://www.jstor. org/stable/90006407 19. Makinde, O. O. (2012). Urbanization, housing and environment: Megacities of Africa . International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 1(3), 976–993. http://isdsnet.com/ijdsv1n3-26.pdf 20. Qureshi, S. (2010). The fast growing megacity Karachi as a frontier of environmental challenges: Urbanization and contemporary urbanism issues. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 3(11), 306–321. http://www.academicjournals.org/jgrp/abstracts/abstracts/abstract2 010/Nov/Qureshi.htm 21. Kraas, F., Aggarwal, S., Coy, M., & Mertins, G. (2014). Megacities: Our global urban future. Megacities: Our Global Urban Future, 1–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3417-5 22. Li, D., Ma, J., Cheng, T., van Genderen, J. L., & Shao, Z. (2019). Challenges and opportunities for the development of MEGACITIES. International Journal of Digital Earth, 12(12), 1382– 1395. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2018.1512662 23. Kourtit, K., & Nijkamp, P. (2013). In praise of megacities in a global world. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 5(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12002 24. Marsal, L., Llorente, T., Braga, G., Curtis, S., García-Brustenga, J., Garcia, J., Wakhlu, V., Sisto, R., Marti, E., Kontinakis, N., & Walsh, S. (2017). Implementing Sustainable Development Goal 11 by connecting sustainability policies and urban-planning practices through ICTs. 30. https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/igo 25. Agyemang, W., Adanu, E., Akansiseh, S., & Kolawole Ojo, T. (2019). Towards Building Resilient Cities: Opportunities, Challenges and Innovation. In H. L. C. Ishmael Mensah (Ed.), Proceedings of the China-Africa Urban Development Forum 2019 (p. 175). https://www.res earchgate.net/publication/343065653_FINALCAUDF_2020_July_2020 26. Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127(December), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 27. Potting, J., Hekkert, M., Worrell, E., & Hanemaaijer, A. (2017). Circular economy: Measuring innovation in the product chain. In PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL Publication Number: 2544). https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/pbl-2016circular-economy-measuring-innovation-in-product-chains-2544.pdf 28. Bozovic, R. (EnPlus consultancy), Maksimovic, C. (Imperial C. L.), Mijik, A. (Imperial C. L.), Smith, K. M. (London S. U.), Suter, I. (Imperial C. L.), & van Reeuwijk, M. (Imperial C. L.) (2017). Blue Green Solutions: A systems approach to sustainable, resilient and cost effective urban development. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30628.07046 29. Dias, N., Curwell, S., & Bichard, E. (2014). The Current Approach of Urban Design, its Implications for Sustainable Urban Development. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18(September), 497–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(14)00968-x 30. Carmona, M. (2009). Sustainable urban design: Principles to practice. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 12(1), 48–77. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2009.027528 31. Wang, H., Mei, C., Liu, J. H., & Shao, W. W. (2018). A new strategy for integrated urban water management in China: Sponge city. Science China Technological Sciences, 61(3), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-017-9170-5 32. Shao, W., Zhang, H., Liu, J., Yang, G., Chen, X., Yang, Z., & Huang, H. (2016). Data Integration and its Application in the Sponge City Construction of CHINA. Procedia Engineering, 154, 779–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.07.583 33. Liberalesso, T., Oliveira Cruz, C., Matos Silva, C., & Manso, M. (2020). Green infrastructure and public policies: An international review of green roofs and green walls incentives. Land Use Policy, 96(April), 104693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104693 34. Ma, Y., Jiang, Y., & Swallow, S. (2020). China’s sponge city development for urban water resilience and sustainability: A policy discussion. Science of the Total Environment, 729, 139078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139078

142

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

35. Shafique, M., & Kim, R. (2018). Recent progress in low-impact development in South Korea: Water-management policies, challenges and opportunities. Water (Switzerland), 10(4). https:// doi.org/10.3390/w10040435 36. Tredway, J. C., & Havlick, D. G. (2017). Assessing the Potential of Low-Impact Development Techniques on Runoff and Streamflow in the Templeton Gap Watershed, Colorado. Professional Geographer, 69(3), 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2016.1252272 37. Ahammed, F. (2017). A review of water-sensitive urban design technologies and practices for sustainable stormwater management. Sustainable Water Resources Management, 3(3), 269– 282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-017-0093-8 38. Ashley, R., Lundy, L., Ward, S., Shaffer, P., Walker, L., Morgan, C., Saul, A., Wong, T., & Moore, S. (2013). Water-sensitive urban design: Opportunities for the UK. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Municipal Engineer, 166(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1680/ muen.12.00046 39. Barton, A. B., & Argue, J. R. (2007). A review of the application of water sensitive urban design (WSUD) to residential development in Australia. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 11(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2007.11465309 40. Broadbent, A. M., Coutts, A. M., Tapper, N. J., Demuzere, M., & Beringer, J. (2018). The microscale cooling effects of water sensitive urban design and irrigation in a suburban environment. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 134(1–2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-0172241-3 41. Aina, Y. A., Wafer, A., Ahmed, F., & Alshuwaikhat, H. M. (2019). Top-down sustainable urban development? Urban governance transformation in Saudi Arabia. Cities, 90(May 2018), 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.03.003 42. Bentivegna, V., Curwell, S., Deakin, M., Lombardi, P., Mitchell, G., & Nijkamp, P. (2002). A vision and methodology for integrated sustainable urban development: BEQUEST. Building Research and Information, 30(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/096132102753436468 43. Meijer, M., Adriaens, F., van der Linden, O., & Schik, W. (2011). A next step for sustainable urban design in the Netherlands. Cities, 28(6), 536–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2011. 07.001 44. Adil, A. M., & Ko, Y. (2016). Socio-technical evolution of Decentralized Energy Systems: A critical review and implications for urban planning and policy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 57, 1025–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.079 45. Schuetze, T., & Chelleri, L. (2013). Integrating decentralized rainwater management in urban planning and design: Flood resilient and sustainable water management using the example of coastal cities in The Netherlands and Taiwan. Water (Switzerland), 5(2), 593–616. https://doi. org/10.3390/w5020593 46. Zhang, D., Gersberg, R. M., Ng, W. J., & Tan, S. K. (2015). Conventional and decentralized urban stormwater management: A comparison through case studies of Singapore and Berlin, Germany. Urban Water Journal, 14(2), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2015.107 6488 47. Zhang, J., & Xiong, B. Y. (2006). Towards a healthy water cycle in China. Water Science and Technology, 53(9), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.274 48. Sun, Y., Deng, L., Pan, S.-Y., Chiang, P.-C., Sable, S. S., & Shah, K. J. (2020). Integration of green and gray infrastructures for sponge city: Water and energy nexus. Water-Energy Nexus, 3, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wen.2020.03.003 49. Xia, J., Zhang, Y. Y., Xiong, L. H., He, S., Wang, L. F., & Yu, Z. B. (2017). Opportunities and challenges of the Sponge City construction related to urban water issues in China. Science China Earth Sciences, 60(4), 652–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-016-0111-8 50. Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Staddon, C., de Vito, L., Gerlak, A. K., Ward, S., Schoeman, Y., Hart, A., & Booth, G. (2020). Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(4), 710–732. https://doi. org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1605890 51. Nguyen, T. T., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., & Wang, X. C. (2020). A new model framework for sponge city implementation: Emerging challenges and future developments. Journal of Environmental Management, 253(October 2019), 109689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109689

References

143

52. Zhang, L., Sun, X., & Xue, H. (2019). Identifying critical risks in Sponge City PPP projects using DEMATEL method: A case study of China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 949–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.067 53. Zhang, K., Fong, T., & Chui, M. (2019). Review papers A review on implementing infiltrationbased green infrastructure in shallow groundwater environments: Challenges, approaches, and progress. Journal of Hydrology, 579(August), 124089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019. 124089 54. Wang, Y., Sun, M., & Song, B. (2017). Public perceptions of and willingness to pay for sponge city initiatives in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 122, 11–20. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.02.002 55. Nguyen, T. T., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., Wang, X. C., Ren, N., Li, G., Ding, J., & Liang, H. (2019). Implementation of a specific urban water management - Sponge City. Science of the Total Environment, 652, 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.168 56. Wang, Yang, Liu, X., Huang, M., Zuo, J., & Rameezdeen, R. (2020). Received vs. given: Willingness to pay for sponge city program from a perceived value perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120479 57. Jia, H., Wang, Z., Zhen, X., Clar, M., & Yu, S. L. (2017). China’s sponge city construction: A discussion on technical approaches. Frontiers of Environmental Science and Engineering, 11(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-017-0984-9 58. Sakieh, Y., Salmanmahiny, A., Jafarnezhad, J., Mehri, A., Kamyab, H., & Galdavi, S. (2015). Evaluating the strategy of decentralized urban land-use planning in a developing region. Land Use Policy, 48, 534–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.004 59. Zhang, D., Gersberg, R. M., Wilhelm, C., & Voigt, M. (2009). Decentralized water management: Rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse in an urban area of Beijing, China. Urban Water Journal, 6(5), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/15730620902934827 60. Van Afferden, M., Cardona, J. A., Müller, R. A., Lee, M. Y., & Subah, A. (2015). A new approach to implementing decentralized wastewater treatment concepts. Water Science and Technology, 72(11), 1923–1930. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2015.393 61. Suriyachan, C., Nitivattananon, V., & Amin, N. T. M. N. (2012). Potential of decentralized wastewater management for urban development: Case of Bangkok. Habitat International, 36(1), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.06.001 62. Leigh, N. G., & Lee, H. (2019). Sustainable and resilient urban water systems: The role of decentralization and planning. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su1 1030918 63. Schmidt, M. (2000). Energy and water , a decentralized approach to an integrated sustainable urban development. 1–6. 64. Capodaglio, A. G. (2017). Integrated, decentralized wastewater management for resource recovery in rural and peri-urban areas. Resources, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/resources602 0022 65. Wong, T. H. F., Rogers, B. C., & Brown, R. R. (2020). Transforming Cities through WaterSensitive Principles and Practices. One Earth, 3(4), 436–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear. 2020.09.012 66. Wong, T. H. F. (2006). Water sensitive urban design - the journey thus far. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 10(3), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2006.11465296 67. Salinas Rodriguez, C. N. A., Ashley, R., Gersonius, B., Rijke, J., Pathirana, A., & Zevenbergen, C. (2014). Incorporation and application of resilience in the context of water-sensitive urban design: linking European and Australian perspectives. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 1(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1017 68. Vernon, B., & Tiwari, R. (2009). Place-making through water sensitive urban design. Sustainability, 1(4), 789–814. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1040789 69. Leonard, R., Walton, A., Koth, B., Green, M., Spinks, A., Myers, B., Malkin, S., Mankad, A., Chacko, P., Sharma, A., & Pezzaniti, D. (2014). Community acceptance of water sensitive urban design: six case studies (Issue Technical Report Series No. 14/3). http://www.goyderins titute.org/_r393/media/system/attrib/attachment/368/U.1.2WSUDTask2Report_final.pdf

144

3 Urbanization and Sustainable Urban Planning

70. Hoban, A. (2018). Water sensitive urban design approaches and their description. In Approaches to Water Sensitive Urban Design: Potential, Design, Ecological Health, Urban Greening, Economics, Policies, and Community Perceptions. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B9780-12-812843-5.00002-2 71. Donofrio, J., Kuhn, Y., McWalter, K., & Winsor, M. (2009). Research article: Water-sensitive urban design: An emerging model in sustainable design and comprehensive water-cycle management. Environmental Practice, 11(3), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1017/S14660466099 90263 72. Matos, C., Briga Sá, A., Bentes, I., Pereira, S., & Bento, R. (2019). An approach to the implementation of Low Impact Development measures towards an EcoCampus classification. Journal of Environmental Management, 232(October 2017), 654–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2018.11.085 73. McPhee, Z. (2019). Optimizing Low Impact Development Controls for Sustainable Urban Flood Risk Management [University of Windsor]. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. https:// scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/7647 74. Kim, R. (2016). 한국의 저영향개발과 그린인프라: 현황과 발전 방향 Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure in South Korea: Trends and Future Directions. Ecology and Resilient Infrastructure, 3(2), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.17820/eri.2016.3.2.080 75. Li, Q., Wang, F., Yu, Y., Huang, Z., Li, M., & Guan, Y. (2019). Comprehensive performance evaluation of LID practices for the sponge city construction: A case study in Guangxi, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 231(September 2018), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2018.10.024 76. Movahedinia, M., Samani, J. M. V., Barakhasi, F., Taghvaeian, S., & Stepanian, R. (2019). Simulating the effects of low impact development approaches on urban flooding: A case study from Tehran, Iran. Water Science and Technology, 80(8), 1591–1600. https://doi.org/10.2166/ wst.2019.412 77. Lu, W., & Qin, X. (2019). An Integrated Fuzzy Simulation-Optimization Model for Supporting Low Impact Development Design under Uncertainty. Water Resources Management, 33(12), 4351–4365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02377-7 78. Correia Guedes, M., Pinheiro, M., & Manuel Alves, L. (2009). Sustainable architecture and urban design in Portugal: An overview. Renewable Energy, 34(9), 1999–2006. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.renene.2009.02.014

Chapter 4

Green Buildings

Contents 4.1 4.2 4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

Implications of Green Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Assessment Schemes for Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Green Building Rating Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Components of Green Building Rating Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Integrating Resilience Aspect to Green Building Rating Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Green Building Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Green Building Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Different Types of Green Building Rating Systems Across the World Countries . . . . . . 4.4.1 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System . . . . . 4.4.2 BREEAM Rating System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 CASBEE Rating System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.4 Green Star Rating System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.5 Envision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.6 Green Globes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.7 Pearl: Estimada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.8 Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE™) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.9 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DNGB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.10 Sustainable Building (SB) Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.11 GBI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.12 Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.13 ITACA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.14 Neighborhood Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Architectural Perspective in Green Building Designing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Productivity and Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.3 Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.4 Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.5 Cost-Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.6 Historical Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.7 Safety and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.8 Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key Architectural Design Aspects in GI Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.1 Building Location and Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.2 Building Massing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.3 Incorporating Sunlight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Kumareswaran and G. Y. Jayasinghe, Green Infrastructure and Urban Climate Resilience, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37081-6_4

146 148 149 151 156 162 169 169 170 173 174 176 177 177 178 178 179 180 181 181 182 183 185 185 186 186 186 186 186 187 187 187 187 188 189 145

146

4 Green Buildings

4.6.4 Enhancing Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.5 Incorporating Wind Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.6 Space Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.7 Special Building Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.8 Material Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

190 190 194 195 195 196

4.1 Implications of Green Buildings According to the US Green Building Council, green buildings are defined as “design and construction practices that significantly reduce or eliminate the negative impacts of building on the environment and its occupants with regard to site planning, safeguarding water use and water use efficiency, promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy, conserving materials and resources, as well as promoting indoor environmental quality” (USGBC). Green buildings render several direct and indirect benefits in local, national, regional as well as global scale that are most of the time perceived in life cycle perspective which considers the entire life cycle phases of the building from design stage to demolition and even after demolition such as recycling [1]. Conventionally, the building construction involves building designing by architects, followed by engineer’s design services which results in poorly performing buildings and designs. But in case of strategic design of green building systems, it encompasses design team; fabric and systems design evolves together result in better performing systems using lesser energy and producing low environmental impact. Green buildings primarily focus on environmental and human health-related attributes whereby sustainable buildings widen the scope by incorporating social and economic aspects [2]. As a solution to all the problems in the future of green evolution, green building designing is a supportive tool to construct better buildings. These are highperformance buildings that adhere to strict guidelines for minimizing the use of nonrenewable resources while yet meeting specific benchmarks for minimizing natural resource usage. With the goal of creating a healthy and productive environment, green building design incorporates construction techniques. These are green constructions built on the principles of sustainability’s triple bottom line: the environment, the economy, and society [3, 4]. Green building concepts are not new techniques; they can be witnessed even in pre twentieth centuries. Cliff dwellers, Pueblo Indians, Native Americans’ dwellings, and barns are few exemplary evidence of such green building models (Fig. 4.1). In recent years, there is a growing interest in sustainable construction and renovations due to increased energy prices, oil price fluctuation, proliferated demand as a result of green approach turning as a brand while enhancing the image, additional incentives to renewable energy alternatives and related investments. Nowadays green buildings are emerging as a marketing tool as it demonstrates the tangible

4.1 Implications of Green Buildings

147

Fig. 4.1 Green buildings belonging to pre centuries. a The Cliff Palace at Mesa Verde National Park, b Native Americans’ Dwellings, c The multistoried adobe buildings of Taos Pueblo in New Mexico, d The Ancient barns. Source Rosales [5]

commitment to the environmental health and social responsibility. Green buildings can hold different purposes and functions, but they have the common goals of providing healthier and more comfortable environment for its occupants, modest resource consumption by employing energy-efficient and water-efficient technologies and appropriate management, reducing waste generation, improving indoor air quality, and integrating clean energy mechanisms such as feasible renewable energy technologies whenever possible. These green infrastructures help to lead a connected life with the nature mean while lowering the impacts on environment [3]. Green infrastructure advances provide substantial benefits compared to conventional construction methods, which is why green frameworks have been widely used during the last decade. Past studies and case studies have shown that GI investments outperform conventional ones in economics, ethics, and the environment. Although having a 2–5% initial capital expenditure premium above conventional structures, it saves 20% on average over the course of a lifespan [6], making it consistently less costly when viewed from a life cycle viewpoint. By separating economic growth from resource use, it also provides a morally sound response to environmental contamination and the depletion of economic resources. The occupants of green buildings are 3– 5% more productive than the residents of ordinary buildings due to improved indoor air quality, comfort, nature connectedness, and high quality of life [2]. Compared to conventional commercial buildings green buildings are more resilient, durable, and long lasting. Generally ordinary structures are designed for a lifetime of 10–15 years, whereby green building is anticipated for longer life (about 40 years) due to highquality building contents with suitable operation and management. There are seven principles of sustainable construction, namely: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii.

Reduction of resource consumption Resource reuse Utilize recyclable resources or incorporate recycled content Conserve nature Eliminate toxicity Apply lifecycle costing Focus on quality.

148

4 Green Buildings

Design factors that influence on green building development are listed below [7]. 1. Building components/envelope: external and interior walls, door, window, ceiling, roof, floor, and shading systems 2. Building design: building blueprint/layout, floor plan, building volume, ceiling height, building orientation, fenestration, and occupancy 3. Climate factors: weather data such as temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, solar radiation, insolation, day lighting, ground heat, and sky model 4. Electrical and electronic components: heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system, and lighting controls 5. Energy systems: renewable energy systems inclusive of solar (thermal, photovoltaic), wind, geothermal, biomass, and greenery like green walls, and roofs. Though the GI is of significant importance still there are barriers in wide adoption; primarily financial, market, industrial, legal, and performance risks are discussed in literature as it is a complex process unlike the routine. Perceived higher cost, lack of information regarding green buildings and associated benefits, lack of experience and skills regarding green standards, no proper mechanism for building life cycle costing, failures on knowledge dissemination by real estates are identified as the major constraints. Due to these reasons investors and public fear to invest, as they are not completely convinced to make investment that they do not understand the concept and perceive it as a risky endeavor that would fail to payoff. There are still legal and governmental restrictions; i.e., certain rules and laws established regionally and nationally act as a barrier in implementing environmentally sound building practices and slow down the change. Few such notable constraints are in using low-flush toilets, composting, transparent photovoltaic panels, and conflicts in accounting when building budget and operation and maintenance budget in separate hands (change of responsibility of stakeholders) [8].

4.2 Environmental Assessment Schemes for Buildings There is a need of comprehensive and goal-oriented methodology for assessing the environmental sustainability of built environments. Possible evaluation tools for built environment are: rating systems, life cycle assessment-based tools, technical guidelines, checklists, certifications, awards, and assessment frameworks. Among them, major approaches that are consistent in evaluating the environmental performance with respect to well defined standards, guidelines, and criteria are: 1. Life cycle assessment and 2. Building rating systems [9]. Green building rating tools are effective solutions ensuring green constructions. There are mainly four generations of building assessments [10]. 1. First generation: pass or fail certification system 2. Second generation: additive systems 3. Third generation: weighted additive systems

4.3 Green Building Rating Systems

149

4. Fourth generation: advance systems, functions based on concepts like life cycle cost, building environment efficiency. Most of the green building rating systems available today are belonging to the second and third generations. Compared to others, fourth-generation systems would be complex with advance concepts but are more reliable and accurate.

4.3 Green Building Rating Systems Green building rating system is intended to create clean built environment on sustainability pillars and is developed from environmental assessment tools which holds a prominent place in construction sector [11]. Since the surge of energy crisis in 1960, steps were taken in all levels and sectors to enhance energy efficiency and reduce/control environmental pollution chiefly through research and development [12]. Building and construction sector contributed to adverse environmental impacts while being affected by hostile climate change consequences [1]. Globally, there are several green building rating systems to establish a common standard of measurement and to promote integrated, whole building design practices. The rating system was created to transform the building market through recognizing the environmental leadership in the building industry [13]. Green building is the ‘one that meets the criteria for environmental performance; encompassing strategies, techniques, and construction products that are less resource intensive, pollution producing than regular construction’ [14]. Green building rating system/tool is an effective mechanism to check whether the building complies to the requirements of a green building. It encompasses a set of standards to enhance sustainability in the construction sector providing comprehensive assessment of the environmental performance of the building based on multiple criteria [15]. Green building rating tools encompass three type systems, namely: 1. Indicator system: categorizes different building performances as energy, water, indoor air, management, and waste 2. Scoring system: credits assigned to the indicators based on weightage factor 3. Rating system: assess the overall performance of the building structure based on the results of the scoring system. There are four levels in each rating systems including categories, subcategories, criteria, and indicators. Generally, there are three categories as depicted in Fig. 4.2 such as environmental, social, and economic with the decreasing weightage in the same order. Most of the rating systems have sparingly addressed the economic aspects. Over time a substantial rising trend is noted in social aspect and ambiguous rising pattern in economic concerns while witnessing a significant declining trend in environmental concern in the period of 1990 (76%) to 2019 (56%) [4]. Categories and criteria of rating systems are constantly updated to keep the sustainability trend of building development. The criteria can have both credits and prerequisites to meet the requirements.

Pollution control carbon reduction toxicity avoidance resources (energy, water, materials) Heat island effect Climate change adaptation and mitigation

Human safety and security Public wellbeing Social responsibility of the building Convenient service as to meet the requirement of all sort of people Occupant comfort User satisfaction Improved health Enhanced productivity Ease of access

Economic

4 Green Buildings

Social

Environmental

150

Lifecycle assessments Feasibility studies Economic analysis Quantification and valuation

Fig. 4.2 Most sensitive criteria of major categories of green rating systems

The rating system adopts diverse international and local standards, regulations, and codes to set reference levels for performance evaluation such as American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), International Standards Organization (ISO), local national building codes, building regulations due to country-specific limitations and lack of universal data. Most of the rating systems follow a simple arithmetic calculation in the final score calculation while DGNB system utilizes relevance value concept of ‘share of total score’ [10]. Lack of common building regulation and building standard is a drawback for the business entities trying to establish global standard across their portfolios. Because building standard of one rating system would be lower than the other. For e.g., UK BREEAM standard is higher than the Australian Green Star [16]. Energy performance of the building is evaluated using ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010/ANSI/ IESNA standard 90.1 as the baseline using energy simulation tool [17]. Reusing existing buildings with green retrofits instead of new green buildings is a logical and wise solution to curb environmental effects as soon as possible. Energy star established by US EPA in 1992 is initiated with the concept of energy-efficient product. It takes into account of energy efficiency and related GHG emission [8]. Moreover, the assessment tools are not regularly updated, it required integrated approach for effective and efficient performance, most of the environmental impact analyses are based on assumptions, and occupancy as well as operation profile is hardly considered [18]. Most of the time green building rating systems have been developed by several countries and regions as to suit their country-specific characteristics such as geographical context, history, culture and traditions, distinct climate conditions, building age, structure and type, as well as social, economic, and ecological priorities of construction [2]. Four out of five are country-specific and general rating systems are hardly launched [1, 11]. Even though ‘one size fits all’ approach is essential for ranking across the world countries [6], most of the time comparison of building performance is bit difficult under different rating systems as they follow different approach, context, structure, selection criteria, standards, and weighing [14, 19].

4.3 Green Building Rating Systems

151

Table 4.1 shows the green rating systems available in world countries. There are about 49 rating systems available worldwide, in which 18 have certified accredited professionals. Most of the certification requires professional education, working experience, attending training course, pass in the examination for particular green building standard, and sometimes extra credit as well [1]. Prior to selecting the most suitable rating system, it is critical to do a SWOT analysis. The system that delivers more benefits to the investor, boost market value, and enhance image at a reasonable cost (registration, installation, certification cost) is recommended. Relevance, measurable, applicability, and availability are some of the screening criteria for rating systems [22, 23]. Rating tools provide a standard mechanism to benchmark the building ecoefficiency and neighborhood development, more than just estimating the environmental impacts. Nowadays international rating turning as a marketing strategy reflecting corporate social and environmental responsibility. Less informative criteria and methodology followed, heavy requirements for documentation, fail to apply in local context/inconsistency across geographical borders hindering the adoption of rating systems. There are two types of tools used in rating systems for the assessment such as life cycle analysis and multiple criteria (Table 4.2). Multiple criteria decision-making technique is called analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for prioritizing and developing relative weightage to the criteria. AHP approach is used is several countries for criteria weightage. The points obtained for each category are multiplied by a relative environmental weightage factor of each section. Then the weighted score is summed up to a single score, depending on the score ranking provided [24].

4.3.1 Components of Green Building Rating Systems The green rating system for built environment is a set of performance standard for certifying both new and existing built environments which are either public or private in the form of commercial/industrial/residential/institutional building and high-rise buildings of all sizes. The ultimate intention of rating systems is to support sustainable, high performance, healthy, durable, affordable, and environmentally sound practices in built environment. The prime goalmouths of green rating have been: • • • • • • •

Sustainable site management Water conservation, management, and efficiency Energy/renewable energy usage, management, and efficiency Conservation of material and resources Enhancing indoor environmental quality and social and cultural value Innovations Lead, educate, and aware clients/public.

2000

2001

2002

11

12

13

PromisE

CASBEE

Ecoprofil

BEAT

2000

EEWH

10

1999

7

NABERS/ABGR

EcoQuantum

1999

6

GBA/GBTool

GG

1998

5

LEED

1999

1998

4

EcoEffect

2000

1997

3

BEPAC

8

1993

2

Standard

BREEAM

9

Year

1990

No.

1

Finland

Japan

Norway

Denmark

Canada

Netherlands

China (Taiwan)

Australia

Canada

USA

Sweden

Canada

UK

Countries

Extended name

National Australian Built Environment Rating System/Australian Building Greenhouse Rating system

The Green Building Assessment (GBA)

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

–

Building Environmental Performance Assessment Criteria

Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method

VTT Technical Research Station

Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)

Norwegian Building Research Institute (SINTEF Byggforsk)

Danish Building Research Institute (SBI)

ECD Energy and Environment Canada

IVAM

(continued)

The Finnish Environmental Assessment and Classification System

Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency

Ökoprofil

Building Evaluation Assessment Tool

Green Globes

–

National Council for Sustainable Development under the Green Building Labeling System Ministry of the Interior (MOI)

The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH)

International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment

US Green Building Council (USGBC)

The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, and the University of Gavle

The University of British Columbia

Building Research Establishment Ltd. (BRE)

Leading organization

Table 4.1 Green building rating systems available in world countries

152 4 Green Buildings

2006

2007

2007

2008

2008

28

29

30

2006

25

26

2006

24

27

2006

2005

21

2006

2005

20

22

2005

19

23

2004

18

AQUA-HQE

NGBS

SICES

EPRS

CSH

DGNB

ASGB

GPR

LBC

GM

Si-5281

HQE

GRIHA

GS

TGBRS

2003

2003

16

KGBC

2002

15

17

CEPAS

2002

Standard

Year

No.

14

Table 4.1 (continued)

Brasil

America

Mexico

Abu Dhabi

UK

Germany

China

America

America

Singapore

Israel

France

India

India

Australia

Korea

Hong Kong

Countries

Extended name

Vanzolini Foundation at the Polytechnic University of Sao Paulo

National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)

The Mexico Green Building Council (MGBC)

Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council GBI

Department for Communities and Local Government

The German Sustainable Building Council (Non-profit organization)

Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of People’s Republic of China

Built It Green

International Living Future Institute

Building and Construction Authority (BCA)

Standard Institute of Israel

Cerway

The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)

The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)

Green Building Council Australia

Korea Green Building Council

Alta Qualidade Ambientale

National Green Building Standard

(continued)

Sustainable Building Rating Tool/Sistema de Calificación de Edificación Sustentable

Estidama Pearl Rating System

Code for Sustainable Homes

Deutscbe Gesellschaft Fur Nachhaltiges Bauen

Assessment Standard for Green Building

GreenPint Rated

Living Building Challenge

Green Mark

Israel Standard 5281: Building with Reduced Environmental Impact

Haute Qualite Environment

Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment

Teri Green Building Rating System

Green Star

Korea Green Building Certification System

Building Department of Hong Kong Special Comprehensive Environmental Performance Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China Assessment Scheme

Leading organization

4.3 Green Building Rating Systems 153

2012

2013

2014

45

2010

42

43

2010

41

44

2010

2010

39

2010

38

40

2009

2010

36

2009

35

37

2009

2009

EDGE

IGBC

ARZ BRS

BEAM Plus

BNB

TREES

GREENSHIP

LOTUS

GPRS

VERDE

GSAS

BERDE

GBI

ITACA Protocal

2009

32

33

LiderA

2008

34

Standard

Year

No.

31

Table 4.1 (continued)

America

India

Lebanon

Hong Kong

Germany

Thailand

Indonesia

Vietnam

Egypt

Spain

Qatar

Philippine

Malaysia

Italy

Portugal

Countries

International Finance Corporation World Bank group Green

Indian Green Building Council

Lebanon Green Building Council (LGBC)

Hong Kong Green Building Council and the BEAM Society Limited

The Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community

Thai Green Building Institute

Green Building Council Indonesia

Vietnam Green Building Council (VGBC)

Egypt Green Building Council

Green Building Council España (GBCE)

Gulf Organization for Research & Development

Philippine Green Building Council (PHILGBC)

Architectural Association of Malaysia (PAM)

Institute for Innovation, Procurement Transparency and Compatibility Environmental-National Association of Regions and Autonomous Provinces (ITACA)

Manuel Duate Pinheiro, Ph.D.

Leading organization

(continued)

Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies (EDGE)

Indian Green Building Council Rating system

ARZ Building Rating System

Built Environmental Assessment Method

Assessment System for Sustainable Building

Thai’s Rating of Energy and Environmental Sustainability

–

–

The Green Pyramid Rating System Levels

Herramienta VERDE

Global Sustainability Assessment System

Building for Ecologically Responsive Design Excellence

Green Building Index

Protocollo Itaca

The Sistema de Acaliacao da Sustentabilidade (Certification System of Environmentally Sustainable Construction)

Extended name

154 4 Green Buildings

WELL

CASA Colombia

CEDBIK-Konut

2014

2017

2018

47

48

Source [1, 4, 13, 20, 21]

Standard

Year

No.

46

Table 4.1 (continued)

Turkey

Colombia

America

Countries –

Extended name

Turkey Green Building Council

Cevre Dostu Yesil Binalar Dernegi

Consejo Colombiano de Construccion Sostenibe (CCCS) –

The International WELL Building Institute (IWBI)

Leading organization

4.3 Green Building Rating Systems 155

156 Table 4.2 Assessment tool and corresponding rating systems

4 Green Buildings

Tool type

Rating systems using the technique/tool

Multicriteria

BREEAM LEED Green star CASBEE

Life cycle analysis

BEES BEAT EcoQuantum

Source [24, 25]

Most of the green building rating systems are similar with major common aspects and considerations. Comprehensive analysis of different green building rating systems identified site, energy, water, indoor environmental quality (IEQ), material, waste and pollution, and management as key criteria [15]. Among these, energy, IEQ, and water are the topmost rating components with higher credit allocations. The optimum desirable ratings can be achieved by fulfilling prerequisites and credits as much as possible in an economically viable manner. Categories of different green building rating system are shown in Table 4.3, and it is obvious that the highest priority is given to energy conservation compared to other credit criteria. Innovation criterion is an emerging criterion either as credit or bonus, accounted in LEED, BEAM Plus, Green Star, GBI Tool, and IGBC Rating. Climate factor is addressed in almost all the rating systems either directly or indirectly [26]. Furthermore Tables 4.4 and 4.5 present the systemic components of rating systems and ranking and scoring of different green rating systems, respectively. Table 4.6 summarizes the best possible ways to earn good credits in any green building rating system.

4.3.2 Integrating Resilience Aspect to Green Building Rating Systems It is an imperative requirement for the emerging buildings to accommodate rising population while being able to cope with future adverse climate scenarios, load, and stresses. The building shouldn’t be alone designed and constructed based on the past climate conditions; instead, future scenarios need to be predicted, analyzed, and integrated into building design. Over time in the dynamics of global climate change, green rating systems need to bind with resilience frameworks in terms of climate, social, structural, economy, and environment to manage future risks. This can be facilitated through allocating points/introducing new credit criteria for resilience to ensure resilient infrastructures. Buildings has to be built in an interdisciplinary perspective considering each and every component of the building to absorb disturbances. According to Castro and

4.3 Green Building Rating Systems

157

Table 4.3 Categories are green building rating systems Rating system

Category

Score

Total score

LEED

Integrative process

1

110

BREEAM

CASBEE

Location and transportation

16

Sustainable sites

10

Water efficiency

11

Energy and atmosphere

33

Materials and resources

13

Indoor environment quality

16

Innovation

6

Regional priority

4

Management

21

Health and wellbeing

25

Energy

37

Transport

13

Water

10

Material

12

Waste

9

Land use and ecology

10

Pollution

13

Innovation (additional)

10

150

Environmental quality [EQ = 1] Indoor environment

0.4

Quality of service

0.3

Outdoor environment

0.3

1

Environmental load [EL = 1] Energy

0.4

Resources and materials

0.3

Offsite environment

0.3

1

Built environment efficiency BEE = EQ/EL BEAM Plus

Site aspects

25

Materials aspects

23

Energy use

44

Water use

10

Indoor environment quality

35

Innovations and additions (additional)

6

137

(continued)

158

4 Green Buildings

Table 4.3 (continued) Rating system

Category

Score

Total score

Green Star

Management

14

100

Green Globe

DGNB System

Green Building Index (GBI Non-residential)

Indoor environment quality

17

Energy

22

Transport

10

Water

12

Materials

14

Land use and ecology

6

Emissions

5

Innovation (additional)

10

Project management

50

Site

120

Energy

395

Water

110

Materials and resources

125

Emissions

50

Indoor environment

150

Effects on global and local environment

11

Resource consumption and waste generation

9

Lifecycle cost

3

Economic development

4

Health, comfort and user satisfaction

16

Functionality

5

Design quality

5

Technical quality

11

Planning quality

13

Construction quality

8

Energy efficiency

35

Indoor environmental quality

21

Sustainable site planning and management

16

Material and resources

11

Water efficiency

10

Innovation

7

1000

85

100

(continued)

4.3 Green Building Rating Systems

159

Table 4.3 (continued) Rating system

Category

Score

Total score

Green Mark (Non-residential new buildings version 4.1)

Energy efficiency

116

190

IGBC Rating (IGBC green new building)

Water efficiency

17

Environmental protection

42

Indoor environmental quality

8

Other green features

7

Sustainable architecture and design

5

Site selection and planning

14

Water conservation

18

Energy efficiency

28

Building material and resources

16

Indoor environmental quality

12

Innovation and development

7

100

Source [2, 10, 27, 28]

Kim [38] following are identified as the key features of built environment resilience [38]: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Diversity—multiple forms and behavior Efficiency—optimal performance with wise resource use Adaptability—flexibility to respond to changes/pressure Cohesion—linkage process.

It is essential to align credit criteria to meet resilience requirements/key features of resilience need to be accomplished by credit criteria to enhance the integrity and resilience of building systems. Most of the time credit criteria of rating systems partially or completely fulfill efficiency and fail to integrate other components of resilience. Intense and frequent natural disasters such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, and tornadoes cause heavy structural damages, thus essential to enhance building resilience. There are significant gaps in integrating resilience concepts into rating system. Extreme temperature and heat stress effects, precipitation-related risks such as flood, drought, water availability, storm frequency and intensity; air quality, pest infestation risk, wildfire risk, sea-level rise are projected regional climate change trends [35]. Resilient design principles that can be considered in sustainability rating system are: • • • •

Eco-friendly communities Drainage design based on future climate models HVAC systems designed for future, warmer, capacities Local, inexpensive materials and resources

×

×

Indoor environmental quality

Innovation

×

Transport

×

×

×

Health and wellbeing

×

×

×

Land use and ecology

Regional priority

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

Green Star

×

×

×

×

×

CASBEE

Waste and pollution

Social and cultural

×

×

Materials and resources

×

×

×

Energy and atmosphere

×

BREEAM

×

×

LEED

Water efficiency ×

Sustainable site

Management

Assessment criteria

Table 4.4 System components of sustainable rating tools

×

×

×

×

×

SB Tool

×

×

×

×

×

×

GBAS

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

Green Globes

×

×

×

DGNB

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

Green SL

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

Green Building Index

×

×

×

×

×

×

×

GRIHA

(continued)

×

×

×

×

×

×

IGBC

160 4 Green Buildings

×

LEED

Source [2, 6, 9, 12–14, 29–31]

Architecture and design

Quality of services

Process quality

Technique quality

Economy

Assessment criteria

Table 4.4 (continued)

BREEAM

×

CASBEE

Green Star

×

×

SB Tool

GBAS

Green Globes

×

×

×

DGNB

Green SL

Green Building Index

GRIHA

×

IGBC

4.3 Green Building Rating Systems 161

162

4 Green Buildings

Table 4.5 Ranking and scoring systems LEED v 4 for new construction and major renovations

BEAM plus v1.2 for new buildings

GBL 2014 for residential and public building design

Ranking

Scores

Ranking

Scores Ranking

Certified 40–49

Bronze

40–54

One star

≥ 50

Green mark 90 and above platinum

Silver

50–59

Silver

55–64

Two stars

≥ 60

Green mark 85 to < 90 gold plus

Gold

60–79

Gold

65–74

Three stars ≥ 80

Green mark 75 to < 85 gold

Ranking

Scores

Platinum Above 80 Platinum Above 75 ITACA rating system

Green Mark rating system

Score

Green mark 50 to < 75 certified

GRIHA rating system

GBI rating system

Ranking

Scores

Ranking

Scores

Ranking

Scores

D (not certified)

< 40

One star

50–60

Platinum

86 +

C

40 to < 55

Two stars

61–70

Gold

76–85

B

55 to < 70

Three stars

71–80

Silver

66–75

A

70 to < 85

Four stars

81–90

Certified

50–65

A+

85–100

Five stars

91 and above

Source [15, 25, 28, 32, 33]

• • • • • • • • •

Low energy inputs Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions Renewable energy for less reliability on grid power Strong building envelope Water capture and storage Water usage reduction to counter increasing temperatures Water, fire, and pest resistant materials Weather resistant pavement design Wildfire air quality control.

4.3.3 Green Building Organizations Green building rating and certification are performed by green building organizations that are interlinked and networking to provide international green services to wide range of consumers [31]. These non-profit institutions work with the intention to uplift the nations and enhance the growth of industries in a sustainable manner by incorporating green principles into national agenda and building codes. The World Green Building Council found in 1998 is the largest international organization influencing the green building market. It is a network that strengthens the national green building councils performing in more than 100 countries [1, 6]. The

4.3 Green Building Rating Systems

163

Table 4.6 Summary of credit criteria of different green building rating tools Energy

Water

Site selection

Use renewable energy technologies both onsite and offsite such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower (self-sufficient energy supply and reducing environmental and economic impacts of fossil fuel energy use)

Wastewater treatment to different quality depending on requirement (potable and non-potable water quality standards)

Sustainable site selection

Innovative, energy-efficient electrical and electronic appliances for optimum performance and energy saving • LED lighting • Task lighting and self-ventilators • Star rated appliances

Use of high water-efficient Brownfield redevelopment appliances such as water-efficient faucets, showerheads, urinals, taps, and toilets, self-closing taps, green water-efficient water closet, higher efficiency toilets HET, and waterless urinals

Operational management and lighting control • Reduced operating hours of lights using occupancy sensors • Use of motion sensors to save energy • In the multistory building, LED sensor lights used in common areas, walkways, ramps • Lighting at the entrance lobby at ground floor is a mix of photo sensor lighting which will automatically switch on at the night time and off in the day time

Water-efficient landscaping • Eliminate potable water use • No permanent landscape irrigation systems installed on site • Use of precision irrigation systems such as Sprinkler and drip irrigation • Use of drought tolerant plants that require minimal irrigation/Use of plants that require minimal irrigation • Use of climate resilient native plant species • Grouping of plants according to their water requirement • Maintain healthy soils

Conserve environmentally sensitive regions, reserves, and biodiversity hotspots

Light pollution reduction • Downward wall washing fixtures • Step lighting • Bollard lighting to light up pathways • Interior lightings- turned off during non-business hours • Shading cover to prevent night sky pollution (non-cutoff, semi-cutoff, cutoff, full cutoff)

Water-efficient air conditioning • Condensed air conditioning water is directed toward the irrigation • Flowerpots and other plants were kept below the air conditioning system

Mode of settlement

(continued)

164

4 Green Buildings

Table 4.6 (continued) Energy

Water

Site selection

Passive building design, orientation, and location facilitating natural light and ventilation

Integrated water management

Enhancing and protecting site ecology • Reduce site disturbance • Restore open space • Development of footprint

Fulfilling minimum energy performance through design complying with mandatory provisions and prescriptive requirements of ASHRAE or any appropriate standard Minimum energy performance by means of alternative building designs, reduced energy demand and consumption, and reduced CO2 emissions

Water use reduction • Collected rainwater was sent to the implemented tanks for sedimentation and stocking. The water volume was then filtered for usage • 100% drinking water is taken from deep wells • Wastewater treatment to reduce pressure on virgin water sources

Erosion/dust control to protect from heavy wind and storm • spraying water using vehicles • cover using waterproof material • stone barriers • biodegradable erosion control measures

Energy-efficient building designs (carbon neutral building/low carbon design/ zero energy buildings) Carbon offset

Water metering and submetering systems for leak detection and control

Sedimentation control • use vegetated filter strips • use sedimentation traps

Heat island effect • Heat island effect roof (green roof, blue-green roof, cooling roof, higher solar reflectivity index material for roof) • Heat island effect-non roof/ heat (insulation glass, higher solar reflectivity building envelope and other building materials)

Innovative design and process Development density and community development • Hybrid system • Storm water, gray water, and canal water, treated wastewater discharged through constructed wetlands • Innovative water transmission powered by solar or other renewable energy

Interior lighting as to minimize Eliminate or reduce potable electricity consumption water consumption • Controllable solar tubes • Light beam • Best color rendering • Increased efficiency

Public transport access and parking capacity

Reduction of stress/pressure on freshwater systems

Maintain vegetated ground cover, permeable and semi-permeable pavements

CFC reduction in HVAC system/fundamental refrigerant management to reduce ozone depletion Use of R134a or R600a refrigerant with zero ozone depletion Potential and very low satiability in water which does not pose a hazard to the ecology

(continued)

4.3 Green Building Rating Systems

165

Table 4.6 (continued) Energy

Water

Site selection

Efficient building energy management system

Water-efficient chillers and cooling towers to achieve higher efficiency

Weather resistant pavement design

Advanced energy metering for monitoring energy performance of the building, submetering will better perform the process. Additional cost of metering can be addressed by reduced equipment cost and simple calibration process

Storm water design and quality control

Building capacity

Building demand response

Rainwater harvesting

Common areas: relational and common spaces

Carry out fundamental building system commissioning to verify energy-related systems installed in the project

Drainage design based on future climate models

Proximity to basic provisions, commercial, cultural, religious, and other services

Measurement and verification

Bicycle storage and changing rooms

Optimize energy performance: increasing building energy performance surpassing prerequisites/standards thus lowering GHG emissions

Alternative transport • Low emitting vehicles • Energy-efficient vehicles • Sulfur free fuel • Using renewable energy sources

Peak energy demand reduction: reduce energy usage during peak hours and shift the use to off-peak times Global warming impacts of fire suppression system Energy-efficient transportation systems HVAC systems designed for future, warmer, capacities Advanced performance of opaque building enclosure, transparent envelope, and air tightness of building envelope system

(continued)

166

4 Green Buildings

Table 4.6 (continued) Water

Energy

Site selection

Enhance air conditioning performance during summer and winter: advanced performance of fluid distribution systems Emergency response plan Indoor lighting: minimum and maximum illuminance, eliminate flicker and stroboscopic effect, daylight factor, lamp luminous efficacy, luminaire maintenance factor and management plan, glare control, self-lighting, UGR unified glare ration, uniform room lighting, CRI color rendering index, occupancy sensors, recycling light sources Materials

Indoor environmental quality

Culture and social

Waste and pollution

Incorporating recycled, recovered, and renewable content such as timber, steel, bricks, construction and demolition waste

Accomplishing occupant comfort through satisfying thermal comfort, acoustic quality, visual comfort, indoor air quality, and lighting comfort

Building designs reflecting the cultural value, aspirations, and acceptances

Integrated solid waste management for managing construction, operation, refurbishment, and demolition waste

Material selection • Avoid use of toxic material • Incorporate local products • Rapidly renewable material • Composite timber and agri-fiber products used on the interior of the building must contain no added urea–formaldehyde resigns • Low VOC containing sealants and adhesives is used as the paints and coatings

Wise use of materials Allocating a building space for cultural • avoid volatile organic compounds identity • use of exhaust fans (ceiling exhaust fan) • use of eco/green labeled products • Low emitting materials to reduce contaminants (painting, coatings, carpet systems, composite timber, agri-fiber products)

Practice 3R to 9R strategies

(continued)

4.3 Green Building Rating Systems

167

Table 4.6 (continued) Materials

Indoor environmental quality

Culture and social

Waste and pollution

Include certified products (certified timber)

Suitable ventilation systems and HVAC, and ventilation effectiveness

Promote social inclusion and community empowerment

Avoiding materials with pollutant/toxic content such as CFC, halogen, and etc.

Use eco-friendly products with lower embodied energy, and carbon footprint locally manufactured

Minimum indoor air quality performance • Indoor chemical and pollutant source control

Promote building Air pollution design to increase the reduction cultural identity of regional, local, community, neighborhood settings

Use of durable and resilient materials

Air monitoring Prioritizing social system to ensure wellbeing, public occupant comfort and health, and safety wellbeing; CO monitoring alarm and CO2 monitor

Water pollution reduction

Material life cycle assessment

Quality views, daylight factor, and glare control/ anti-glare, illuminance levels

Environmentally friendly communities

Practice R0-R9 circular economy approach

Incorporate phase change materials

Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control for minimum indoor air quality performance • Entire building complex can be named as a non-smoking area and signs have been exhibited for the attention of the visitors and occupants • Minimize exposure of building occupants, indoor surfaces and ventilation air distribution systems to ETS

Integrating resilient design principles • It requires integrating future climate projection instead of historical data into assessment criteria • Integrating regional resilience-based climate projections into regional priority credit

Resource and building reuse (structural and non-structural components)

Integrated pest management

(continued)

168

4 Green Buildings

Table 4.6 (continued) Materials

Indoor environmental quality

Maintaining the residuals of existing buildings Encourage the main portion of the building structure and shell including exterior skin, framing, in place when renovating

According to the ASHRAE 62.1–2007, Sect. 5.1, provided requirements on the location and size of ventilation opening for naturally ventilated buildings

Local, inexpensive materials and resources

Establishing minimum standards for indoor air quality (IAQ) and preventing the development of indoor air quality problems

Water, fire, and pest resistant materials

Wildfire air quality control

Culture and social

Waste and pollution

Humidity control Extraction system Air filtration systems Control indoor contaminants during construction, advanced protection from radon and pollutants from garage Construction IAQ management plan • During construction • Preoccupancy Source [4, 7, 18, 25, 34–37]

Green Building Councils (GBCs) are generally consensus-based non-profit organizations (not all the organizations) with diverse and integrated representation from all sectors of the property industry and academia. GBC is the governing body responsible for developing, implementing, and maintaining the green rating systems. The body involves in a series of major responsibilities of issuing GREEN Accreditation Certificate, constant monitoring, and commissioning thereafter to ensure operation in accordance with the design.

4.4 Different Types of Green Building Rating Systems Across the World …

169

4.3.4 Green Building Certification Certification process of different certifying bodies encompasses different steps with many similarities [6]. There are stages even after certification to ensure that the construction meets the required standard in performance [23]. The certification levels for different rating systems are tabulated here (Table 4.7). Generally, certification is valid for a specific period of time usually three years [10].

4.4 Different Types of Green Building Rating Systems Across the World Countries Green building rating tools are in use for the last three decades established by developed, developing nations and the collaborative effort of group of nations (e.g., SB Tool-21 nations) particularly focusing on environment, energy, and sustainability of built environments. The distribution and evolution of tools are graphically illustrated in Figs. 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. Rating tool provides a green-level certificate/award and national/international recognition as an output based on the scoring system [12]. Table 4.7 Certification provided by different rating systems Rating system

Ranking

LEED

Certified, silver, gold, and platinum

BREEAM

Unclassified, pass, good, very good, excellent, and outstanding

CASBEE

1 star to 5 stars

Green Globes

1 Green Globe to 5 Green Globe

DGNB system

Bronze, silver, gold, and platinum

Green Star

Zero star to six star

GRIHA

1 star to 5 stars

Green Mark

GM Gold, GM Gold Plus, and GM Platinum

IGBC System

Certified, silver, gold, and platinum

Pearl (Estimada)

One to five pearls

Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE™) Pass, good, very good, excellent, and exceptional Beam Plus Source [9, 27]

Bronze, silver, gold, and platinum

170

4 Green Buildings

Fig. 4.3 Distribution of green rating systems across the world. Source Mohamed [39]

Fig. 4.4 Timeline of green building rating systems. Source Zhang et al. [1]

4.4.1 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) developed by US Green Building Council (USGBC) is a popular international scheme and serving as the basis for the development of other rating tools. It is a consensus-based market-driven green building rating system to evaluate the environmental performance in whole building perspective encompassing design, construction, and operation phases of building except predesign [24].

4.4 Different Types of Green Building Rating Systems Across the World …

171

LEED systematically evaluate the environmental performance/impacts of the building using a set of predefined standards and encourage people, organization, business, and local government authorities for investing or developing sustainable green infrastructures [40]. It is an amalgamation of knowledge and best practices from broad variety of fields including construction, design, engineering, architecture, landscape, interior design, and material engineering [11]. LEED is a dynamic rating system getting updated over time depending on the requirement. Latest is the fourth version of LEED (LEED v4). It belongs to project stage taxonomy comprising versions of LEED designed for six main areas including new construction, existing buildings, commercial interiors, core and shell, homes as well as neighborhood developments. However, it does not evaluate the industrial buildings [12]. Irrespective of type of rating LEED intends to address global climate change, public health promotion, protecting and enhancing natural resources such as water, material, and biodiversity, enhancing quality of life, social and ecological justice and equity, develop a greener economy [41]. This rating primarily focuses on five broad areas such as [31]: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Site development Water efficiency Materials efficiency Energy efficiency Indoor environmental quality. LEED rating formula where Qi is the score achieved by an indicator [42]. Score =

∑

Qi .

i

LEED system was globally adopted by 160 countries, and over 79,000 projects were LEED certified since 2000, particularly widely applied in European countries like Italy, Turkey, Spain, Finland, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and Sweden [32]. LEED certification is performed and governed by USGBC and third-party valuation is not applicable [16]. LEED costly takes about four months to complete certification process. LEED is a complex paper-based system, rigid, and expensive to administer. Recertification is possible for previously LEED certified buildings either annually or at least once in five years to keep the status of LEED certification. Whatever the certification done it is a requisite to have building energy and water use data minimum for a period of three months up to 2 years [27]. The building rating involves following series of procedure for certification; rating approach followed in the LEED certification is illustrated in the diagram [14].

172

• • • • •

4 Green Buildings

Quantitative measure Project registration Documentation and application, Building certification, Professional accreditation.

Registration

Design submittal

Design review

Construction submittal

Construction review

Rating

Award

One of the major drawbacks of LEED certification reported by USGBC is failure in integrating performance and outcome base data reporting. Clients are simply obtaining points for site-level targets for certification which actually does not reflect environmental benefit. Unlike CASBEE and BREEAM allocate points on an absolute basis rather than percentage reduction compared with benchmark values as done in LEED. From the California case study finding equal points not awarded for equal impact categories in energy and water. Identifying and addressing inter-system integration is essential to enhance the environmental outcomes, and better integrate points to outcomes. LEED v4 has introduced new impact categories such as reverse contribution to global climate change, enhance individual human health and wellbeing, protect and restore water resources, protect, enhance and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services, promote sustainable and regenerative material resources cycles, build a greener economy, and enhance social equity, environmental justice, and community quality of life [43]. LEED v4 is established surpassing older versions of v2.0, v2.2, and v3 [17]. Although all credits are equally weighted in LEED v.4, the number of credits assigned to each issue is different. Health promotion strategies are incorporated into LEED v4 to ensure delivering full potential health value. However, this requires systematic approach of LEED practitioners in intentional selection of strategies, practice, and decision making. Health and wellbeing can be improved at different scale and capacity from site users (residents, employees, visitors, contractors, stakeholders, and design team) associated local community, supply chain, and waste stream communities to the global population. Though health promotion is not a formal technical guideline for LEED v4, it addresses the health and wellbeing through stated (for occupants), understated/ unstated (supply chain and waste stream communities), and pathway-dependent health benefits (for surrounding community) credits and prerequisites reflecting and not directly reflecting benefits and co-benefits for health promotion. Opportunities to promote health and wellbeing are [44]:

4.4 Different Types of Green Building Rating Systems Across the World …

1. 2. 3. 4.

173

Material and resources: occupant/site user health Indoor environmental quality, thermal comfort: site user Unstated-green cleaning materials Pathway-open green space.

4.4.2 BREEAM Rating System BREEAM, the oldest environmental assessment tool developed in UK, is the most popular and widely used tool launched and operated by Building Research Establishment (BRE) [40]. It is governed by UK accreditation service, and the rating is updated annually [16]. It belongs to structure type taxonomy. It is applicable at different lifecycle stages of building while covering a range of building types. The first version of BREEAM was established in 1993 for offices. BREEAM is available in different versions such as [31]: • • • • •

BREEAM for Communities Master planning Infrastructure Civil Engineering and Public Realm New Construction Buildings In-use Buildings, and Refurbishment Fit-out Buildings.

BREEAM, the pioneer international rating tool served as a reference rating system for the development of rating systems in other countries such as Canada, Singapore, Norway, New Zealand [12]. BREEAM rating system is adapted in many nations such as UK, USA, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Austria. Globally, there are over 556,600 BREEAM certified buildings since 1990. The hierarchy levels of key criteria are structured as issues, categories, and credit levels. It has about 10 issues, 69 categories, and 114 criteria. The major issues considered in BREEAM rating are management, health and wellbeing, energy, transport, water, materials, waste, land use and ecology, pollution, and innovation. It adopts a credit-based scoring system with preweighted categories, and generally credit points allocated as per the present standard/performance. According to Yu et al. [42] the formula used in calculating score is Score =

∑[ i

(∑ Wi ∗

Qi Toti

)] ,

where Wi = weight of an indicator category Q i = the score achieved for an indicator ∑ Q i = total score obtained for an indicator category Toti = Total maximum score available for an indicator category.

174

4 Green Buildings

BREEAM can be used to evaluate mixed use buildings such as new building, existing, refurbished, extension of existing building or even combined. Two type of certification is possible here. Interim BREEAM certification provided for design state assessment, this is provided prior to operation, based on the expected performance of designed parameters. Then BREEAM certification can be obtained after the operation begins; it is a post-construction assessment, where certification provided based on built performance (evidence) ensuring the performance of the building in accordance with designed/planned [27]. Third-party valuation and certification labeling are carried out by BRE. The certification procedure used in BREEAM is depicted in the diagram [14].

Registration

Assessment by BREEAM assessor

Assessment report filed

Review of assessment report

Certification

An added benefit of rating systems BREEAM, CASBEE, DGNB, and HQETM is their applicability to all types of buildings while considering different lifecycle phases of building. Unlike LEED, BREEAM is integrated into local legislation, and follows UK building codes and standards. Moreover, it is a mandatory requirement to hire an assessor during the process while it is not compulsory in LEED [8]. BREEAM schemes incorporated post-construction reviews/post-occupancy performance of the buildings to ensure the building performance as promised during design stage [24].

4.4.3 CASBEE Rating System The Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) rating system was launched by Japan Green Building Council/Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC) in conjunction with academia, government, and industries [27]. Third-party valuation, certification, and governance are performed by JSBC [16]. Certification is valid only for three years, and then recertification can be performed in line with latest edition of rating system. CASBEE consists of four versions corresponding to different lifecycle stages of building such as [9]: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Predesign: applicable for site selection and building planning New construction: first three years after building completion Existing building: at least after one year of operation Renovation: for building refurbishment.

Different versions and their corresponding establishment time as follow, and is updated over time as required. • CASBEE for office-2002 • CASBEE for new construction-2003

4.4 Different Types of Green Building Rating Systems Across the World …

175

• CASBEE for existing buildings-2004 • CASBEE for renovation-2005. This rating system is appropriate for wide range of built environments such as schools, apartments, office buildings [12]. There are six assessment standards such as buildings, market promotion, urban development, homes (detached), cities, and property appraisal. The number of criteria and subcriteria in issues varies with the type of building; for example, there are about 6 categories and 50 subcriteria in the CASBEE for evaluating office. The system has four categories of assessment such as energy efficiency, resource efficiency, local environment, and indoor environment. The key features of CASBEE can be hierarchically structured in four levels; principally, there are two issues such as environmental quality of building (Q) and the environmental load reduction of the building (LR) [45]. CASBEE assesses the projects using Building Environmental Efficiency (BEE) metrics (shows the positive effects of building performance to its occupants and environment), which is the ratio between the two parameters of built environmental quality and performance (Q) and built environmental load (LR) as given by the following equation [16]. BEE = Q/LR, where Q considers the “improvement in everyday amenities for the building users, within the virtual enclosed space boundary”; it takes into account of indoor environment, quality of service, and outdoor environment on site categories, while LR calculates the “negative aspects of environmental impact that go beyond the public environment” that are computed based on energy, resource and materials, and offsite environment. Q and LR range between 0 and 100 and are having number of indicator layers. Each layer assigned a weightage factor [42]. Q and LR are valued ranging from 1 to 5-point score. These scores are multiplied with the weightage factor/coefficients, then summed up to calculate final score for Q and LR is conveyed through BEE index [37]. Here in this equation, SQ Building environmental quality and performance and SLR Building environmental loads are calculated using the following equations. SQ =

m ∑

qi .K qi ,

i=1

SLR =

m ∑

li .K li ,

i=1

where q and l = achieved level of performance of the ith criterion in categories of quality and loads

176

4 Green Buildings

Table 4.8 CASEBEE ranking system based on BEE value Rank

Assessment

BEE value

Expression

S

Excellent

BEE ≥ 3 and Q ≥ 50

5 stars

A

Very good

1.5–3.0 or BEE ≥ 3 and Q < 50

4 stars

B+

Good

1.0–1.5

3 stars

B

Fairy poor

0.5–1.0

2 stars

C

Poor

< 0.5

1 star

K qi and K li = corresponding weighting coefficients m = number of criteria in each category n = number of criteria in each category. Sum of these values is assigned to the numerator Q and denominator L and is finally calculated using the following equations. Q = 25 ∗ (SQ − 1), L = 25 ∗ (5 − SLR). From the above equation when a graph is plotted, steeper slope is obtained when Q is higher and LR is lower; thus, BEE is high resulting in more sustainable building [28]. Table 4.8 provides information on the CASBEE ranking obtained based on calculated BEE values.

4.4.4 Green Star Rating System Green Star is a comprehensive green rating system that evaluates the environmental performance of the building during the stages of conceptual, construction, and built stages. It doesn’t assess the environmental impact during operational phase. This rating system was developed in Australia by the Building Construction Authority (BCA) with the main objective to develop eco-friendly building in planning, design, and construction phases in order to curb the adverse building impacts [28]. The rating system is updated annually. Third-party valuation, certification, and governance are carried out by Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) [16]. Green Star rating system is adopted in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, while not applied within the European Union, as it is designed to suit the buildings in hot climate context [25].

4.4 Different Types of Green Building Rating Systems Across the World …

177

The assessment criteria of the scheme comprised of preweighted categories such as environmental management, energy use, water use, transport access, indoor environmental quality, land use ecology, emission, and material use, except for innovation. It is one of the easiest applicable rating systems that reduces water and energy consumption [46]. Green star uses a simple certification based on stars: four stars for low, five stars for moderate, and six stars for highly sustainable buildings [34]. The certification process is represented using the flow chart [47].

Registration

Determine submission date

Submit report

Certification awarded

4.4.5 Envision It is a sustainability rating tool recently developed by Harvard University in collaboration with the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure with the objective of providing a rating system for all civil infrastructures of all sizes. It is a decision-making tool to assess the sustainability performance of the infrastructures/projects that incorporates sustainability in different life cycle phases of design, planning, construction, use, maintenance, and end of life. This rating system has five credit categories, namely quality of life, leadership, resource allocation, natural world, and climate [41].

4.4.6 Green Globes Green Globe is an online platform for self-assessment system/protocol launched in Canada from BREEAM. It was introduced to USA in 2004. The goal pursues in assessing the sustainability of commercial buildings in design, operation, and management phases. The certification is possible for three types of buildings such as Green Globes’ standard for new constructions, existing buildings, and sustainable interiors (using lifecycle assessment or environmental product declarations). Thirdparty verification also there [41]. The assessment criteria include energy use, water use, materials/resources/product inputs, indoor environment (indoor air quality and occupant comfort), environmental management, pollution (solid waste, emissions, effluents) transport, site ecology, and other sustainable system processes [46]. This tool can be used by any person with fundamental knowledge in building parameters. Green Globe uses simple, user-friendly, and interactive guide/ methodology to be followed. It provides rating both at initial (design assigned) and final stages (construction documentation) of the assessment. Green Star is

178

4 Green Buildings

Project registration

Log in to online assessment tool

• Purchase of Green Globe online assessment tool

• Choose appropriate project stage: project initiation, site analysis, programming, schematic design, design development, construction documents , contratcting and construction, and commissioning

Assess schematic design

Assess construction document stage

• Along with planning aproval • Prliminary Green Globes rating provided

• Along with building permit approval • Final Green Globe rating provided

Completion of online questionnaire

Green Globe certification

• Obtained report mentioning project achievements, suggestions for building performance improvement

• when obtaining atleast 35% score • Independent third party verification

Fig. 4.5 Certification process of Green Globe rating system

affordable, flexible, and less resource intensive compared to LEED. Certification is obtained to prove the sustainability and environmental performance of the project. The certification process is described in Fig. 4.5 [36].

4.4.7 Pearl: Estimada Pearl rating system established for emirate of Abu Dhabi in United Arab Emirates in 2010 by Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council involving multiple stakeholders. The four main pillars of Estimada include environmental, economic, social, and cultural concepts. Rating system consists of required/mandatory requirements and optional credits which are voluntary performance credits to earn points. Maximum point that can be accomplished is 140 [24].

4.4.8 Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE™) HQE™ was launched in 1994 in France. Certification and governing are performed by the HQE™ association. It assists multiple stakeholders involved in building development and ensuring high environmental quality buildings. The rating system covers the entire building lifecycle from design, construction, operation, as well as refurbishment. Certification can be obtained for residential, non-residential buildings such as

4.4 Different Types of Green Building Rating Systems Across the World …

179

Table 4.9 Classification of categories based on the building types Environment

Energy

Comfort

Health

T1 Building’s relationship with its immediate environment

T4 Energy management

T8 Hygrothermal comfort

T12 Quality of spaces

T2 Quality of components

T5 Water management

T9 Acoustic comfort

T13 Air quality and health

T3 Sustainable worksite

T7 Maintenance management

T10 Visual comfort

T14 Water quality and health

T6 Waste management

T11 Olfactory comfort

commercial, administrative, and service buildings and detached houses. Moreover, special schemes were developed for urban planning and development projects. There are three organizations, namely Certivèa, Cerqual, and Cèquami that are accountable for national evaluations and Cerway in charge of international projects. The rating system has four major sections of environment, energy and savings, comfort, and health and safety with 14 categories/targets to earn credit. The target varies with the type of building evaluated [9]. For example, when we consider residential buildings, 14 targets (T stand for target here) are categorized under four major areas as shown below (Table 4.9), whereby, for non-residential building, T5 comes under environment category and no T7. This rating system category is not assigned any weightage, and all are given equal importance. During the evaluation process, three levels such as basic, performing, and high performing are given for each target. To be certified, a building must achieve the high performing level in at least three categories and the basic level in a maximum of seven categories. Ratings provided are pass, good, very good, excellent, and exceptional. International versions available are non-residential building in operation 2015, infrastructures 2015, habitat and environment, non-residential building under construction 2015, residential building under construction 2015, and management system for urban planning projects 2016.

4.4.9 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DNGB) The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DNGB) was launched by German Sustainable Building Council in collaboration with Federal Ministry of Transport, Building, and Urban Affairs in 2009. The rating system was established with the prime objective of fostering sustainable building in life cycle assessment perspective. This environmental assessment tool is applicable to 13 different types of buildings in national and international context. The DGNB is referred as Environmental Product Declaration developed based on ISO 14025 and EN 15804 standards. Most of the time evaluation is a quantitative process. There are six major categories

180

4 Green Buildings

to offer credit in which ecological quality, economical quality, socio-cultural and functional quality, and technical quality are equally weighted (22.5% each) while process quality (10%) is given less significance. Quality of location is the other category that is weighted/rated independently. There are some prerequisites like indoor air quality, design for all, fire safety and sound/noise attenuation and insulation in the categories without credit to ensure minimum performance. Categories are weighted by a coefficient factor, and the final score is obtained by summing the individual scores of each category. International version available is Core 14, and the system is nationally adapted in several countries such as Austria, Bulgaria, China, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, and Thailand [9].

4.4.10 Sustainable Building (SB) Tool Sustainable building (SB) tool or previously known as green building (GB) tool was launched in 1995 by International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE), an international non-profit body formulated in collaboration with ten nations such as Austria, Canada, Portugal, South Korea, Italy, Czech Republic, Taiwan, Spain, Malta, and Israeli. Earlier this rating system was designed to assess the environmental performance of green buildings but later was upgraded to sustainable buildings broadening the scope. SB tool is recognized as the most advanced and emerging rating system [12]. This rating tool has been developed and modified as a flexible assessment framework to be internationally applicable to several geographical locations/can be easily customized under different national contexts. It was made sure that the energy and environmental performance standards would match the national and international context. The criteria are available from 60 to 120; based on the global/ regional and or local significance the criteria can be modified/chosen. In order to accomplish the intended objectives, and to avoid subjectivity, generally weighting (reweighting/weighting modifications) and benchmarking processes are carried out by an authorized third party [9]. SB tool has highly limited applications. It covers only residential, office, commercial, and educational buildings and not applicable to building refurbishment and urban planning projects. A unique feature of this rating system is being designed for certifying a low performance level of a building. It encompasses the predesign, design, construction, and operation phases of buildings, however, exclude use/maintenance stages. The modules used in assessment during predesign phase varies from other. Evaluation process is based on sustainability perspective taking account of social, economic, and environmental aspects [10]. SB tool consists of four hierarchical levels in performance evaluation framework namely issues, categories, criteria, and subcriteria from top to bottom. A weighting system is used where weightage factor varies with the type of buildings assessed. Values assigned from 1 to 5 depending on the contribution of the project to individual, community, nation, and environment. Finally adjusted scored summed up for

4.4 Different Types of Green Building Rating Systems Across the World …

181

a project final score. SB tool prioritizes environmental concerns through take into consideration of expert judgment and scientific facts [45].

4.4.11 GBI GBI is a national rating tool developed by Malaysian Institute of Architects (PAM), and the Association of Consulting Engineers Malaysia (ACEM) in Malaysia in 2009. This system principally has a national focus in terms of geographical location and designed specifically for tropical hot climate context. Building types considered for assessment are building and township. Salient features in the credit criteria are energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, sustainable site planning and management, material and resources, water efficiency, and innovation. The GBI intended to bring diverse stakeholders to one platform to deal with environmental issues and to promote built environment sustainability [28].

4.4.12 Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) LEED India and GRIHA are the most common and widely accepted rating tools in India. Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) is the National rating system for green buildings developed in India in 2006. GRIHA incorporates all the building codes, standards, environmental, and energy principles of India and tries to balance with international standards as well. Consideration is given not only the well-established concepts/principles but also to emerging concepts. This tool intends to assess the environmental performance of the building both qualitative and quantitatively throughout the entire building lifecycle. This rating system idea was perceived by TERI, and it was devised as to match the construction practices/ culture of the building sector, considering country-specific climate conditions, and indigenous solutions. The tool was developed jointly by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India. GRIHA is a credit-based rating system that has prerequisites to meet minimum requirements. Criteria are updated for every three years. This rating system is applicable for different scale of function and benefits the client as well as the community. It is applicable to residential, commercial, as well as institutional buildings. There are eight categories under which credits earned including sustainable site and planning, health and wellbeing, building planning and construction, energy end use, energy renewable, recycle recharge and reuse of water, and waste management. The maximum credit points that can be earned is 100, together with 4 points for innovation in design, 104 points can be scored. About 2000 buildings certified so far. There is a growing concern in certifying green buildings from private entities, government bodies, designers, and builders.

182

4 Green Buildings

GRIHA follows a questionnaire-based approach. On the completion of questionnaire, a report is generated which contains the rating obtained, sustainability achievements as well as pinpointed room for development/recommendations. And third-party verification by an assessor is performed to complete the certification process. It is comparatively simple, less documentation intensive, and cost-effective rating system compared to LEED [33].

4.4.13 ITACA ITACA is a national rating system developed by an Italian interregional group in the Institute for Transparency of Contracts and Environmental Compatibility in 2001. ITACA rating system is adopted in Italy to assess the building environmental quality. It gives more priority to energy and water management aspects, while indoor environmental quality is also given significant consideration to ensure the quality of confined spaces and indoor environmental comfort. ITACA can be optimized by shedding more focus to site selection if it is to be applied outside the Europe. This rating system can be easily contextualized. Key areas of certification are site quality, resource consumption, environmental loads, indoor environmental quality, and service quality. Each area consists of number of technical sheets, and scores are given to each sheet. Generally, scores are ranging from “poor” (− 1) to excellent (+ 5); the weighted sum of the score obtained from the five major areas provides the final building score. The score evaluation scale is represented in the Table 4.10. If a credit criterion is fulfilled with + 5, the total score assigned to that particular criterion will be received if not percentage of score will be received [25].

Table 4.10 Score table for ITACA Scores

Description

−1

Performance lower than the standard and the current practice

0

Minimum acceptable performance defined by laws or regulations/current practice/ reference building standard (building as per the guidelines)

1

A slight improvement in performance compared to existing regulations and current practice

2

Represents a moderate improvement in performance compared to existing regulations and current practice

3

A significant improvement in performance compared to the regulations, and common practice/the best current practice

4

A moderate increase of current best practice

5

A performance with experimental character, considerably better than the advanced current practice

4.4 Different Types of Green Building Rating Systems Across the World …

183

For e.g., public transport access 2 points out of 100. If + 5 obtained in scoring = 2 points obtained If + 3 obtained in scoring = 2/5 * 3 = 1.2 points obtained.

4.4.14 Neighborhood Development Rapid urbanization, urban sprawl, and escalation urban population size have been major concern for environmental degradation. Thus, it is essential to shed focus on built environment, community development, public transport access, and provision of services. Green building organizations across the world countries launched and in the process of developing rating system versions applicable for neighborhood development with the objective to develop sustainable community. Based on the popular manuals and protocols for community development; sustainable land (planning, designing, microclimate), location, transportation, resource, energy, ecology, business, and wellbeing (comfort and quality of life) are identified as criteria for neighborhood development. Among these criteria significant consideration is given to sustainable land and then to ecology. There are international neighborhood sustainability rating systems applicable to diverse local context. Among such tools, BREEAM, LEED, and CASBEE are well diffused to communities around the world for sustainability assessment tools [48].

4.4.14.1

LEED Neighborhood Development

LEED Neighborhood Development (LEED ND) was developed in 2009 by USGBC accompanied by Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). LEED ND incorporates sustainable building perspectives, infrastructure, smart growth, urbanism, and green building concepts into urban community development. Much emphasis is given to aspects like site selection, design, and construction. It relates the development to local and regional context chiefly applied in North American region. This rating system has 53 criteria. However, the size of community for rating is not clearly defined, but should be at least two buildings and if exceeding 320 acres need to be divided into small parts for rating process. Though it is launched in USA, it is adopted in Canada and China as well. It has five categories to assess the sustainability. 1. Smart location and linkage: alternative transport, prevent urban sprawl, conserve undeveloped land, brownfield redevelopment, wetland and waterbody conservation, proximity to basic amenities and job, agricultural land conservation, habitat restoration 2. Neighborhood pattern and design: compact development, connected and open community, walkable streets, mixed income diverse communities, mixed use

184

4 Green Buildings

neighborhood centers, transit facility, local food production, infrastructure, and service access 3. Green infrastructure and buildings: sustainable constructions, energy efficiency, water efficiency, waste management, reduction of environmental footprint in building construction, operation and maintenance, certified green buildings, adaptive building reuse 4. Innovation and design process: innovative technologies and strategies 5. Regional priorities. 4.4.14.2

BREEAM for Communities

BREEAM for Communities (BREEAM Com) is developed in UK in 2009 and then updated in 2012 to assess sustainability of development projects that yield the social, economic, and environmental benefits enjoyed by a community. However, compared to other aspects this rating is much concerned and giving higher priority to business opportunities. BREEAM Com follows the similar methodology practiced in BREEAM. It has about 51 criteria and rating is applicable all over the world for both new developments and regeneration projects. It intends to reduce the overall impacts of building development projects. The size of urban community considered in BREEAM Com is ranging from 10 to 6000 units. There are three stages in the certification process [49]. 1. Registering project 2. Development with an interim 3. Final certificate. The rating system comprised of eight categories [29]. 1. Climate and energy: passive building designs, energy efficiency to reduce climate change impacts 2. Resources: efficient and effective resource use throughout entire building stages 3. Place shaping: location design and layout 4. Transport and movement: focus on public transport access, cycling, and walking 5. Ecology and biodiversity: environmental/ecological site conservation, pollution reduction 6. Buildings: emphasizes sustainability performance 7. Business and economy: generating and encouraging local business opportunities 8. Community. 4.4.14.3

CASBEE for Urban Development

CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD) was launched in Japan in 2006 to evaluate the performance of urban areas inclusive of conglomeration of buildings and outdoor spaces. It is widely applied in Japan and other Asian countries. It is applicable to both new and redevelopment projects and sizes can be heterogenous (single

4.5 Architectural Perspective in Green Building Designing

185

building unit to medium size city). The rating gives higher priority to social aspects such as history, culture, tradition. Further, it intends to enhance the local stakeholder involvement. The system has two categories, six subcategories mentioned below, and about 80 criteria [49]. 1. Environmental quality in urban development a. Natural environment b. Service functions for the designated area c. Contribution to local community. 2. Load reduction in urban development a. Environmental impacts on microclimates, façade, landscape b. Social infrastructure c. Management of local environment.

4.5 Architectural Perspective in Green Building Designing “Sustainability and quality of life are highly influenced by the buildings in which we live and work. At their best, buildings can be inspiring, efficient structures which facilitate health and creativity, and enable us to live in harmony with one another and the planet”, said John Shore. Architecture plays a key role in green building designing. Sustainable architecture principles involved are [13]: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Efficient use of selected site Energy efficiency: mainly use of renewable energy Water efficiency Material efficiency: local resources and labor pool Indoor comfort and human health Waste management Recycling.

The better performing green building is centered and surrounded by the integrated team process and design approach. The key eight design objectives contributing to create a green building are sustainable, safety and security, functionality, aesthetics, historic, productivity and health, accessible, and cost effective.

4.5.1 Functionality The building is to be designed and built as to meet client’s present as well as future requirements, such as considering possible expansion or modification in future. Proper designing of spatial ambience, building services, and ventilation are essential.

186

4 Green Buildings

4.5.2 Productivity and Health It intends to protect and improve the occupant health and wellbeing through functioning as a joined healthy system under one roof. It focuses on building components, instrumentation, building system maintenance, etc.

4.5.3 Accessibility Make sure that the building is appropriate to be used by all kind of occupants including differently abled, children, and elderly people. The building elements such as staircase and door width are of great concern.

4.5.4 Aesthetics It is a broad perspective which varies with the individual interpretation. It tries to complement wide arenas such as building architecture, landscape architecture, interior designs, cultural aspect, adjacent buildings.

4.5.5 Cost-Effectiveness Buildings need to be cost effective in terms of lifecycle perspective encompassing construction, operation, maintenance, demolition, and reuse cost. Emphasis is given on the innovative aspects in building design, strategic location selection, energyefficient applications, gray water treatment plants, building blue print and efficient use of space, applying passive design principles in facilitating natural ventilation and lighting, integrated solid waste management, appropriate use of technology, materials, and design features, regular building monitoring, commissioning and maintenance, building management system, and effective management to control the cost factor.

4.5.6 Historical Preservation It adds an intangible value to the building through preserving authenticity and historical inheritance of the nation. It is performed by incorporating a historical touch in building designs, fabrics, materials, and decorative which enhances the building sale value and image.

4.6 Key Architectural Design Aspects in GI Development

187

4.5.7 Safety and Security It ensures the safety to building, its occupants and community by strictly following to building code of constructions and other related regulations. The possible issues and expected risks should be addressed in advance. It is of prime focus since the construction phase to demolition. Accidents, potential stress, injuries, ergonomics, indoor environmental quality, indoor air quality, electrical safety, water safety, persistence to natural haphazard, first aid are of concern.

4.5.8 Sustainability Green building design principles are the sustainability ingredients of any building. Key norms are optimizing site potential, protection, and reduced consumption of natural resource such as water and energy, incorporating clean renewable energy strategies, prevent and reduce pollution, use of environmentally friendly materials such as certified products and recycled content, enhance indoor environmental quality, effective maintenance and management, and flexible design.

4.6 Key Architectural Design Aspects in GI Development 4.6.1 Building Location and Orientation The buildings must be located in a strategic potential site (as to meet the building functionality)/brownfield redevelopment site with well-developed infrastructure facilities, i.e., the ease of access to fundamental amenities such as water and energy utilities as well as other common facilities such as transport, banking, postal, market, shopping centers, telecommunication, hospitals, schools, pharmacy, educational institutions, information infrastructure, private entities, and public spaces such as parks, beaches, gardens, nature reserves, historical sites. Building orientation deals with facing a building as to optimize certain aspects of its environment such as surrounding appeal, appearance, and built-in line with building regulations. Planning and positioning the building with respect to sun path (as shown in Fig. 4.6 main living is located in southern side while bedroom in north/oriented with long side facing north and south), general or localized wind patterns (Figs. 4.7 and 4.8), and topography of the site are essential components of building orientation. Possible future developments should also be considered in discussion with the client. It is important to consider wind direction, pattern, frequency, and speed to design a climate responsive house. These are highly dependent on building weather tightness, location, and size of building voids such as windows, choice of roof type, wall layer, bracing requirements, and building exterior design.

188

4 Green Buildings

Fig. 4.6 Building orientation for optimum energy (sun path). Source https://nextdayinspect.com/ building-orientation-for-opt imum-energy/

Fig. 4.7 Air movement. Source https://swazischool.wordpress.com/gallery/openings-2/

4.6.2 Building Massing Massing is a significant element having substantial impact on the building components such as surface area of building envelopes, walls, roof, and foundation of the configuration. The integration is contingent on the specifics of each location and its

4.6 Key Architectural Design Aspects in GI Development

189

Fig. 4.8 Wind pattern. Source https://gharpedia.com/blog/importance-of-site-location-wind-direct ion-in-site-analysis/

goals. It is a vital aspect to meet the limitations of heights due to set back requirements, visual integrity of high-profile areas, and to check out the overall design of the idea. Massing technique intends to reduce energy loads and take full advantage of the natural energy using the general shape and size of the structure in best possible manner. It is an imperative factor in passive heating, cooling, and natural lighting. Building orientation plays a key role in massing. The appropriate orienting of the building maximizes the amount of harvested energy. The sun heats buildings and by designing the building in a way that absorb up the sunlight or reflect it in warmer times can help to reduce HVAC usage. Thus, massing lowers building energy consumption as depicted in Fig. 4.9. Buildings that have dark roofs or pavements absorb more heat from the sun while the cool roofs either reflective or vegetated roof reflect higher portion of light without being soaked up. Good massing allows deciding on the best size, shape, and orientation of the building depending on the sun path to facilitate comfortable living.

4.6.3 Incorporating Sunlight Integrating sunlight to buildings is a multifunctional technique widely practiced in designing. It is significant in enhancing the performance of the building and health and wellbeing of its occupants. It acts as a physiological connection between human and nature by relieving them from mental stress. This feeling of natural psychologically boosts the people thus increasing the productivity of the occupants. In addition to this, it provides environmental, social, and economic benefits as well.

190

4 Green Buildings

Fig. 4.9 Building massing lowering energy consumption

Optimizing day light use highly reduces the electricity consumption, improves the aesthetics with different lighting effects with the help of different shading systems, and creates a healthy surrounding by improving indoor environmental and air quality. But the design strategies should be followed in integrating the daylight as an energy source to optimize its functions as illustrated in Fig. 4.10. Direct sunlight or excess heat should be avoided as it causes unpleasant glare and interior temperature rise. Designing requires sound knowledge in sun path, alignment of appropriate light requirement with the function of the space, detailed study of different day light systems, and appropriate use of shading systems. Techniques to intake light into building include light well, roof monitors, light shelf (Fig. 4.11), external reflectors, atrium, light duct, clear story, as well as reflective blinds (Fig. 4.12).

4.6.4 Enhancing Views It is a dialogue between the interior and exterior space of the building by breaking the monotony of indoor spaces. Aesthetic views enhanced by integrating more open spaces (Fig. 4.13), and it improves the mental health by creating a comfortable and connected environment. Views can be enhanced by appropriate site selection, building orientation, openness to the surrounding space, privacy levels in space management, and making use of topographical features.

4.6.5 Incorporating Wind Flow It deals with incorporating natural wind flow into building without using mechanical or artificial air systems. Wind flow serves dual function of natural ventilation and passive space cooling. It creates healthy connected comfortable indoor space

4.6 Key Architectural Design Aspects in GI Development

191

Fig. 4.10 Building designs facilitating day light harvest

with enhance indoor air quality. Natural air flow is essential to provide healthy and comfortable living environment. The continuous air exchange with the surrounding refreshes the interior space. It removes excess humidity and boosts up evaporative cooling. Thus, it cuts down the energy cost that would have incurred by active means. However, there are restrictions in incorporating natural wind flow including local climate condition, surrounding condition, building type, and building guidelines. Following strategies are used in designing to harness natural air flow. 1. Stack ventilation creates cooling effect as a result of temperature difference. The less dense warm air generated from the occupants, equipment, and building components rise above while cooler air enters in through openings to fill the vacuum generated. The process is shown in Fig. 4.14. 2. Minimize interior (partition walls, furniture) as well as exterior (vegetation, hardscapes) obstructions to enhance air intake. 3. Facilitating cross-ventilation by placing windows/void spaces in opposite directions/pressure zones (Fig. 4.15). Consider the windward and leeward on walls and roofs. Openings directed windward. 4. Optimum number of voids operated at right schedule to control wind flow and long facades. 5. At least 3 m distance to the ceiling from floor. 6. Skylights/ridge vents to facilitate thermal comfort during nights. 7. Building shading and evaporative cooling through planting trees, painting exterior building walls with white/light color.

192

4 Green Buildings

Fig. 4.11 Internal and external light shelf and different level of light penetration and solar access

8. 9. 10. 11.

Ground cover to reduce ground temperature. Pons and water fountains to facilitate evaporative cooling. Indoor courtyards and wind tubes. Roof ventilation system such as monitor roof, wind turbines, and ridge ventilators.

4.6 Key Architectural Design Aspects in GI Development

Fig. 4.12 Building design elements to intake natural light

Fig. 4.13 Enhanced views by integrating building to open natural environment

Fig. 4.14 Building stack ventilation effect

193

194

4 Green Buildings

Fig. 4.15 Cross-ventilation in building voids

4.6.6 Space Organization It is a key aspect to enhance the building performance and quality of life. Spatial organization is to plan an interior space in order to create functional efficiency in building layout illustrated in Fig. 4.16. It consists of two constituents, such as functional efficiency and flexibility of spaces. Functional space organization involves the productive use of space addressing effective and efficient space utilization and building services. It considers the spatial

Fig. 4.16 Space management

4.6 Key Architectural Design Aspects in GI Development

195

progression as well. Design strategies to improve efficient space increase the ratio of usable space to building blue print, reduce building footprint by maximizing open spaces, less circulation spaces, use rarely used spaces such as areas under stair case, corners, corridor spaces, create versatile space and fittings that are multifunctional, and capture balance areas for active use, provide wireless network access to ensure wide space use for effective work, and optimized furniture size as to serve different activities on different times. Flexibility refers the ability to change the building spatial arrangements, subdivisions with respect to topography, natural setting, optimized utilization of natural levels as to suit various functions, and adaptability of the building to alter special functions based on the requirement.

4.6.7 Special Building Elements Certain special building structures are integrated into construction to enable vertical green development and manage natural daylight and ventilation. Green development is achieved by building green roofs, green garden, green facades, pergolas, and living walls. Other design elements to control daylight and wind flow are shading systems such as blinds, louvers, holographic optical element, prismatic panels, light shelves, solar panels in either vertical or horizontal layout, light tubes or tunnels, double/ triple glazing.

4.6.8 Material Selection Material selection is of substantial attention during the procurement and construction phases. Strategic points to be considered in choosing materials are: giving priority to locally available materials rather than import goods as to encourage local ventures and to reduce GHG emissions during logistics transport, preference is given to certified products for an example certified timber over the ordinary, and eco-friendly materials that cause no or low lifecycle impacts on the environmental systems and public health, incorporating recycled content, reusable materials, materials with low embodied energy into construction, using materials in a productive way without wasting. The popular and multibeneficial construction strategies such as modularization and prefabrication can be practiced. In prefabrication process building elements/ structural components are manufactured offsite and assembly of components is done onsite same as in modularization installing is performed onsite while entire units manufactured offsite unlike small structural units. These techniques could improve the safety and quality, save time, energy, and other resources, as well as streamline project schedule while having great control over project.

196

4 Green Buildings

References 1. Zhang, Y., Wang, H., Gao, W., Wang, F., Zhou, N., Kammen, D. M., & Ying, X. (2019). A survey of the status and challenges of green building development in various countries. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(19), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195385 2. Illankoon, I. M. C. S., Tam, V. W. Y., Le, K. N., & Shen, L. (2017). Key credit criteria among international green building rating tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 209–220. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.206 3. GBCSL. (2021). GREEN SL® Rating System for Built Environment. 4. Wen, B., Musa, N., Onn, C. C., Ramesh, S., Liang, L., & Wang, W. (2020). Evolution of sustainability in global green building rating tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 259, 120912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120912 5. Rosales, G. (2017). Tour of the ages: A walk through Mesa Verde cliff dwellings. Retrieved 08 03, 2021, from Albuquerque Journal: https://www.abqjournal.com/1026443/of-the-5.html 6. Say, C. (2008). Sustainable rating systems around the world. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH)Journal, II, 18–29. http://global.ctbuh.org/resources/papers/dow nload/1139-sustainable-rating-systems-around-the-world.pdf 7. Alwisy, A., BuHamdan, S., & Gül, M. (2018). Criteria-based ranking of green building design factors according to leading rating systems. Energy and Buildings, 178, 347–359. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.08.043 8. Ashuri, B., & Durmus-Pedini, A. (2010). An overview of the benefits and risk factors of going green in existing buildings. International Journal of Facility Management, 1(1), 1–15. https://community.ifma.org/cfs-file/__key/telligent-evolution-components-attachments/ 13-465-00-00-01-05-75-18/2010_5F00_An-Overview-of-the-Benefits-and-Risk-Factors-ofGoing-Green-in-Existing-Buildings_5F00_Article.pdf 9. Bernardi, E., Carlucci, S., Cornaro, C., & Bohne, R. A. (2017). An Analysis of the Most Adopted Rating Systems for Assessing the Environmental Impact of Buildings. Sustainability, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071226 10. Varma, C. R. S., & Palaniappan, S. (2019). Comparison of green building rating schemes used in North America, Europe and Asia. Habitat International, 89(May), 101989. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.habitatint.2019.05.008 11. Citerne, F., Goldsmith, D., & Beliveau, Y. (2014). Overview of International Green Building Rating Systems. 50th ASC International Conference Proceeding, 1–8. http://ascpro0.ascweb. org/archives/cd/2014/paper/CPGT206002014.pdf 12. Ahmed, M., Abul, M., & Mallick, J. (2013). World green building rating systems: A comparative study. International Conference Cum Exhibition on Building Utilities 2016, March, 4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323771840_World_Green_Building_Rating_Sys tems_A_Comparative_Study 13. Altin, M. (2016). Chapter 43: Green Building Rating Systems in Sustainable Architecture. In Green Building Rating Systems in Sustainable Architecture (pp. 601–611). https://www. researchgate.net/publication/317406573_Green_Building_Rating_Systems_in_Sustainable_ Architecture 14. Doan, D. T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Naismith, N., Zhang, T., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., & Tookey, J. (2017). A critical comparison of green building rating systems. Building and Environment, 123, 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.07.007 15. Gou, Z., & Lau, S. S. Y. (2014). Contextualizing green building rating systems: Case study of Hong Kong. Habitat International, 44, 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014. 07.008 16. Reed, R., Wilkinson, S., Bilos, A., & Schulte, K.-W. (2011). A Comparison of International Sustainable Building Tools – An Update. The 17th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, January, 16. https://www.academia.edu/79182729/A_Comparison_of_Intern ational_Sustainable_Building_Tools_An_Update_The_17th_Annual_Pacific_Rim_Real_E state_Society_Conference_Gold_Coast

References

197

17. Rastogi, A., Choi, J., Hong, T., & Lee, M. (2017). Impact of different LEED versions for green building certification and energy efficiency rating system: A Multifamily Midrise case study. 205(August), 732–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.149 18. Awadh, O. (2017). Sustainability and green building rating systems: LEED, BREEAM, GSAS and Estidama critical analysis. Journal of Building Engineering, 11, 25–29. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jobe.2017.03.010 19. Ismaeel, W. S. E. (2018). Midpoint and endpoint impact categories in Green building rating systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 783–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018. 01.217 20. Osaji, E. E. (2021). Exploration of Building Energy and Environmental Assessment Certification (BEEAC) tools. http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/61038/ 21. Tang, K. H. D., Foo, C. Y. H., & Tan, I. S. (2020). A review of the green building rating systems. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 943(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1757-899X/943/1/012060 22. Fowler, K. M., & Rauch, E. M. (2006). Sustainable Building Rating Systems Summary. In Pacifc Northwest National Laboratory (Issue PNNL-15858). https://www.pnnl.gov/main/pub lications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-15858.pdf 23. Freitas, I. A. S., & Zhang, X. (2018). Green building rating systems in Swedish market - A comparative analysis between LEED, BREEAM SE, GreenBuilding and Miljöbyggnad. Energy Procedia, 153, 402–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.10.066 24. AbdelAzim, A. I., Ibrahim, A. M., & Aboul-Zahab, E. M. (2017). Development of an energy efficiency rating system for existing buildings using Analytic Hierarchy Process – The case of Egypt. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 71(August 2015), 414–425. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.071 25. Asdrubali, F., Baldinelli, G., Bianchi, F., & Sambuco, S. (2015). A comparison between environmental sustainability rating systems LEED and ITACA for residential buildings. Building and Environment, 86, 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.01.001 26. Trusty, W. B., Horst, S., Thena, T. A., Materials, S., Street, J., & Box, P. O. (2007). Integrating LCA Tools in Green Building Rating Systems. Athena, 1–7. https://www.irbnet.de/daten/ico nda/CIB2759.pdf 27. Lee, W. L. (2013). A comprehensive review of metrics of building environmental assessment schemes. Energy & Buildings, 62, 403–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.03.014 28. Muhammad Ashraf Fauzi, N. A. M. (2013). Green Building assessment tools: Evaluating different tools for green roof system. International Journal of Education and Research, 1(11), 1–14. 29. Berardi, U. (2013). Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems. 1573–1591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-013-9462-0 30. He, Y., Kvan, T., Liu, M., & Li, B. (2018). How green building rating systems affect designing green. Building and Environment, 133, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.007 31. Shan, M., & Hwang, B. Gang. (2018). Green building rating systems: Global reviews of practices and research efforts. Sustainable Cities and Society, 39, 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scs.2018.02.034 32. Pushkar, S. (2020). Heliyon Evaluating LEED commercial interior (LEED-CI) projects under the LEED transition from v3 to v4: the differences between China and the US. Heliyon, 6(April), e04701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04701 33. Sande, I. I., & Phadtare, N. S. (n.d.). Comparative study of LEED and GRIHA rating system. Journal of Information, Knowledge and Research in Civil Engineering, 3(2), 168–174. issn: 0975-6744 34. Abdel, S. H. E., Zobaa, A. F., & Abdel, H. M. (2015). Assessment of energy credits for the enhancement of the Egyptian Green Pyramid Rating System. Energy Policy, 87, 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.09.033 35. Champagne, C. L., & Aktas, C. B. (2016). Assessing the Resilience of LEED Certified Green Buildings. Procedia Engineering, 145, 380–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.095

198

4 Green Buildings

36. Smith, T. M., Fischlein, M., Suh, S., & Huelman, P. (2006). Green building rating systems: a comparison of the LEED and Green Globes Systems in the US. Report, Retrieved On, 4(September), 61. http://www.nlcpr.com/Green_Building_Rating_UofM.pdf 37. Stankovic, B., Kostic, A., & Popovic, M. J. (2013). Energy for Sustainable Development Analysis and comparison of lighting design criteria in green building certification systems — Guidelines for application in Serbian building practice. Energy for Sustainable Development, 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.12.001 38. Castro, D. De, & Kim, A. (2021). Adaptive or Absent: A Critical Review of Building System Resilience in the LEED Rating System. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126697%0AAbst ract 39. Mohamed, M. (2020). Green Building Rating Systems as Sustainability Assessment Tools: Case Study Analysis. Sustainability Assessment at the 21st Century. https://doi.org/10.5772/ intechopen.87135 40. Nguyen, B. K., & Altan, H. (2011). Comparative review of five sustainable rating systems. Procedia Engineering, 21(0), 376–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2029 41. Karji, A., Woldesenbet, A., Khanzadi, M., & Tafazzoli, M. (2019). Assessment of Social Sustainability Indicators in Mass Housing Construction: A Case Study of Mehr Housing Project. Sustainable Cities and Society, 50(April 2017), 101697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs. 2019.101697 42. Yu, W., Li, B., Yang, X., & Wang, Q. (2015). A development of a rating method and weighting system for green store buildings in China. Renewable Energy, 73, 123–129. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.renene.2014.06.013 43. Greer, F., Chittick, J., Jackson, E., Mack, J., Shortlidge, M., & Grubert, E. (2019). Energy and water efficiency in LEED: How well are LEED points linked to climate outcomes? Energy & Buildings, 195(October 2017), 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.05.010 44. Worden, K., Hazer, M., Pyke, C., & Trowbridge, M. (2019). Using LEED Green Rating Systems to Promote Population Health. Building and Environment, 106550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. buildenv.2019.106550 45. Suzer, O. (2015). A comparative review of environmental concern prioritization: LEED vs other major certification systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 154, 266–283. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.02.029 46. Yusoff, W. Z. W., & Wen, W. R. (2014). Analysis of the International Sustainable Building Rating Systems (SBRSs) for Sustainable Development with Special Focused on Green Building Index (GBI) Malaysia. Journal of Environmental Conservation Research, 2(1), 11. https://doi. org/10.12966/jecr.02.02.2014 47. Cordero, A. S., Melgar, S. G., & Márquez, J. M. A. (2019). Green building rating systems and the new framework level(s): A critical review of sustainability certification within Europe. Energies, 13(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13010066 48. Säynäjoki, E., Kyrö, R., Heinonen, J., & Junnila, S. (2012). An assessment of the applicability of three international neighbourhood sustainability rating systems to diverse local conditions, with a focus on Nordic case areas. International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 03, 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/2093761X.2012.696319 49. Haapio, A. (2012). Towards sustainable urban communities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32(1), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.08.002

Chapter 5

Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

Contents 5.1

Assessing the Economic Value of Green Infrastructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Quantification of Green Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Green Infrastructure Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Green Infrastructure Valuation Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Valuation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Total Economic Value (TEV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Fiscal Assessment of Non-market Environmental Goods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.1 Revealed Preference Valuation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2 Stated Preference Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.3 Benefit Transfer (BT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.4 Avoided Cost Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Global Case Studies on Economic Valuation of GI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.1 Indices to Measure Urban Greenness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.2 Outdoor Thermal Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.3 Economic Evaluation of Green Roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.4 Coastal Protection Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.5 Economic Valuation for Urban Strategic Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.6 Carbon Assessment Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.7 Air Pollution Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.8 Willingness to Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

199 201 212 213 214 215 217 219 221 222 222 224 225 225 228 229 229 231 232 235 236 237 238 240

5.1 Assessing the Economic Value of Green Infrastructures Green infrastructures (GI) have the potential to contribute significantly to a nation’s economy through various channels, impacting both micro- and macroscales. Direct and indirect effects of GI need to be evaluated and quantified to fully understand © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Kumareswaran and G. Y. Jayasinghe, Green Infrastructure and Urban Climate Resilience, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37081-6_5

199

200

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

their economic value. In this regard, economic assessments are commonly utilized to prioritize and select cost-effective GI options that generate optimal outputs. Despite the availability of various methods to assess the quality of GI, their reliability remains a subject of debate. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) Life cycle costing (LCC) Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) Triple bottom line.

In most cases, the models used to assess green infrastructure suffer from limitations in incorporating social and environmental perspectives. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the social, economic, and environmental values when quantifying the impact of GI. This is because the integration of GI can have a shared cost–benefit on the environment, the local community, and various stakeholders. According to Fig. 5.1, there has been a transformation in Lynbrook, Victoria over time, and the changes before and after the installation of green infrastructure clearly demonstrate how it has impacted local climate conditions, aesthetics, flood control, water quality management, and environmental protection. The economic analyses of ecosystem services/green infrastructures performed to assist in [1]; • National economic development in terms of GDP, job opportunities, and gross output, e.g., The economic valuation of ornamental horticulture and landscaping in UK contributed to $24.2 billion to national GDP in 2017 while supporting 568,700 job opportunities (370,300 direct jobs) and attributable to tax revenue of $5.4 billion [2]. • Decision making • Prioritizing requirements/site/GI component • Awareness raising • Accounting • Planning and designing (building/urban, etc.)

Fig. 5.1 Time frame of the establishment of blue-green corridor in Lynbrook, Victoria in Australia

5.1 Assessing the Economic Value of Green Infrastructures

201

Table 5.1 Economic benefits delivered by green infrastructure services Green infrastructure services

Economic benefits

Climate change adaptation and mitigation

Earning through carbon market/carbon credit exchange, energy, and water saving

Flood alleviation and management

Economic damage avoided by flood inundation

Quality of place

Assist in capital budgeting, save health cost

Health and wellbeing

Reduced economic health cost

Land and property value

Increased market value

Economic growth and investment

Increased brand value and image of the entity

Labor productivity

Increased business turnover

Tourism

Foreign currency exchange, income generation for local community (stay, food, tourist guide, local product sale, souvenirs)

Recreation and leisure

Entrance fee, reduced economic health cost

Land and biodiversity

Increased property value

Products from the land

Income generation through selling biodiversity products such as food, medicine, fruits, fuel wood, and fodder

Local community empowerment

Job opportunities to locality

Source [3–6]

• Estimation of economic viability and liability • Monetizing the added GI urban land value as the value of land keep on rising • Defining the economic benefits of green infrastructures (Table 5.1). Ecosystem service assessments can be performed in biophysical, social, and economic methods based on sustainability pillars. Figure 5.2 illustrates the ecosystem assessment framework. Table 5.2 shows the economic assessment techniques used in assessing several green infrastructure components. The following techniques are applied in economic analysis to choose the best green infrastructure option.

5.1.1 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool used in environmental management to assess the environmental impact of products, processes, or services throughout their entire lifecycle. Typically, it considers the flow of material and energy from cradle to grave, but depending on the circumstances, the system boundary can be set to cradle to gate or gate to gate. The different stages involved in a life cycle approach include raw material extraction, storage, transport and processing, manufacturing, storage of finished products, transport, retail, consumption/operation, maintenance, end use/

202

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

Fig. 5.2 General assessment methods of ecosystem services. Source https://vivagrass.eu/ecosys tem-services/valuation-of-ecosystem-services/

Table 5.2 Different economic assessment tools used in the evaluation of green infrastructure components Green infrastructure components

Economic assessment technique

Landscape horticulture

Input–output analysis

Green roof and green walls

Hedonic pricing, shadow pricing, cost–benefit analysis, lifecycle cost analysis

Green storm water management

Avoided cost method

Urban forests and biodiversity

Choice modeling, choice experiment

Parks

Willingness to pay

Natural heritage

Choice modeling

Rain garden

Lifecycle assessment

Street trees

Cost of equivalent replacement, willingness to pay

Recreational travels

Travel cost method

Green belt development

Willingness to pay, cost–benefit analysis

Source [1, 7–9]

recycling, disposal, and decommissioning. As environmental protection becomes increasingly important and the impact of products and services on the environment becomes more evident, LCA provides a better understanding of these impacts. The environmental impacts considered in LCA include global warming/climate change, ozone depletion, resource depletion, eutrophication, ecotoxicity, and human toxicity. Figures 5.3 and 5.4 demonstrate the origin of LCA and the cradle-to-grave approach commonly used in LCA studies.

5.1 Assessing the Economic Value of Green Infrastructures

1980 Resource Analysis

1990 Greenhouse Assessment

203

2000 Life cycle Assessment

1970 Energy Analysis

Fig. 5.3 Origin of LCA

Use

Processing

Component fabrication

Product assembly

End of use processing

Packaging and Distribution

Material extraction

Reuse

Remanufacture/ Recycle Waste Treatment

Fig. 5.4 Cradle-to-grave approach in LCA

5.1.1.1

What Is LCA?

Lifecycle assessment (LCA) is a systematic procedure for compiling and analyzing the inputs and outputs of materials and energy, along with the associated environmental impacts directly related to the functioning of a product or service system throughout its lifecycle. The lifecycle is defined as the consecutive and interlinked stages of a product or service system, from the extraction of natural resources to the final disposal. There are two approaches to LCA: attributional LCA, which analyzes the physical environmental impact, and consequential LCA, which evaluates how environmental impacts change in response to decisions made on a lifecycle perspective. Table 5.3 presents information on different life cycle assessment tools utilized

204

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

worldwide. LCA is a technique for assessing the potential environmental aspects and potential aspects associated with a product (or service), by • compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs • evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with those inputs and outputs • interpreting the results of the inventory and impact phases in relation to the objectives of the study. 5.1.1.2

Significance of LCA

• Recognizing the opportunities to enhance the product/process’s environmental performance during their life cycle (product/process improvement, design, and redesign) • Informing decision-makers in industry, government, and non-government organizations (for the purpose of strategic planning, priority setting) • The selection of appropriate techniques and indicators to evaluate environmental performances • Marketing (granting a green label/ecolabel, an environmental claim, or producing an environmental product declaration) • Publication of information on the product • Decides on exclusion or admission of products from or to the market • Assists in the formulation of company policy (purchasing, waste management, product range, how to invest the money). 5.1.1.3

Standards

International standards associated with LCA are (1) ISO-14040: Principal and Framework (2) ISO-14044: Requirements and Guidelines. 5.1.1.4

Methodology of LCA

Generally, LCA follows four major steps/activities defined by international organization for standardization (ISO). Life cycle assessment framework is clearly described in Fig. 5.5. (1) (2) (3) (4)

Goal and scope definition Inventory analysis Impact assessment Interpretation.

5.1 Assessing the Economic Value of Green Infrastructures

205

Table 5.3 Globally available software tools for life cycle assessment Region

Country

Name of the LCA tool

Management

Year of launch

Asia

Japan

NIRE-LCA

National Institute for Resource and Environment

1996

Europe

Finland

BeCost

VTT

– 1992

North America

–

KCL-ECO

VTT

France

ELODIE

CSTB’s Environment 2006 division

France

TEAM™

Ecobilan

1995

France

EQUER

Ècole des Mines de Paris, Centre d’Énergétique et Procédés

1995

France

PAPOOSE

TRIBU Architects

–

Germany

GABI

IKP University of Stuttgart, PE Product Engineering GmbH

1990

Germany

GEMIS

Oeko-Institut (Institute for applied Ecology)

1990

Germany

LEGEP®

LEGEP Software GmbH

2001

Germany

OpenLCA

GreenDeltaTC GmbH

2013

Germany

Umberto

Ifu Hamburg GmbH

–

Italy

eVerdEE

ENEA

2004

Netherlands

SIMAPRO

Pre-Consultants

1990

Netherlands

EcoQuantum

IVAM

2002

Switzerland

Eco-Bat

University of Applied 2008 Science of Western Switzerland

–

REGIS

Sinum AG

1993

UK

CCaLC Tool

The University of Manchester

2007

UK

Envest 2

BRE 2003

2003

USA

BEES 4.0

NIST

1998

Canada

Environmental Impact Estimator

ATHENA Sustainable Material

2008

Canada

ATHENA™

ATHENA Sustainable Material Institute

2002

206

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

Goal and Scope definition Direct Applications 1. Product development and Inventory Analysis

Interpretation

improvement 2. Strategic planning 3. Public policy making 4. marketing

Impact Assessment Interpretatio

Fig. 5.5 Life cycle assessment framework

Goal and Scope Definition Defining goal and scope of a project is the first and most important step of a LCA study where basis, purpose, scope, and hypothesis of the evaluation are defined. A. Project basis In framing the project, it is essential to sketch the plan on how to accomplish the goals of the study, especially the purpose, intended audience, and how to make use of the results obtained. The intended audiences are. • Internal staff: include designers, engineers, scientist, etc., that plan, design, and implement actions to reduce environmental footprint. • Management: involves in strategic decision making about the investment in technology. • Public: information sharing regarding the environmental impacts of products. • Other stakeholders: engage in meeting project goals, support in curbing environmental burdens. B. Project scope Under project scope functional unit and system boundary are defined. Functional unit is set based on production system and the function performed by the particular system. System boundary is set based on the possibility and requirement of the study. There can be three types of system boundary. 1. Cradle to grave 2. Cradle to gate 3. Gate to gate.

5.1 Assessing the Economic Value of Green Infrastructures

207

Table 5.4 Project purpose Type of use

Individual

Comparative

Internal use

Benchmark for future improvement

Compare with alternative designs

External use

Report environmental information to client/public

Compare with competing products

C. Project purpose Purpose of the study can be either internal or external and individual or comparative (Table 5.4).

Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCI) Life cycle inventory (LCI) is a method used to quantify the inputs and outputs associated with the entire life cycle of a product or process. This includes inputs such as raw materials, water, energy, land, and transportation requirements, as well as outputs such as atmospheric and water emissions, solid waste, and other releases. To perform an LCI, a process tree is created to map out and connect all processes from raw material extraction to wastewater treatment. Mass and energy balances are closed, ensuring that all emissions and consumptions are accounted for. The method quantifies the emissions associated with the input and output of each process or phase, including energy generation. An LCI study generates results that quantify the amount of energy and materials consumed, as well as the contaminants produced and released into the environment. These results can be presented in different ways, such as by process or life cycle stage, by media, or in any combination thereof. Importance of LCI in real-life applications is • Assist in comparing different products/processes/material to option out the more environmentally desirable one • Can be used in policymaking • Helps government to develop regulations regarding resource use and environmental emissions • Aid in decision making by enabling companies or organization to – Develop a baseline for a system’s overall resources requirements for benchmarking efforts – Identify components of the process that are good targets for resource reduction effort – Aid in the developments of new products or processes that will reduce resource requirements or emissions – Compare alternative materials, products, processes, or activities within the organization – Compare internal inventory information to that of other manufactures.

208

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure Goal and scope definition Preparation for data collection

Revised data collection sheet

Data collection sheet Data collection Collected data Validation of data Validated data Relating data to unit process Validated data per unit process Relating data to functional unit Validated data per functional unit Data aggregation Calculated inventory Refining the system boundary Complete inventory

Fig. 5.6 Lifecycle inventory procedure

LCI has several limitations, including the fact that the inventory phase typically requires significant time and effort, making errors more likely. Moreover, published data on the environmental impacts of different materials, such as plastics, aluminum, steel, and paper, is often inconsistent and not directly applicable due to varying goals and scope. It is expected that the quantity and quality of data will improve in the future. In addition, mass and energy balances may be incorrect and violate the laws of thermodynamics, and the results may be improperly generalized. To ensure the reliability of data, it is important that it is accurate, precise, complete, consistent, representative, reproducible, and time-sensitive. Data validation can be achieved through methods such as mass balance, energy balance, and comparative analysis release factor. Procedure for life cycle inventory is denoted in Fig. 5.6. Key steps of LCI 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Development of process flow diagram Develop data collection plan Data collection Evaluation Report results.

The refinement of the system boundary or exclusion of life cycle stages or unit processes can be done based on the results of sensitivity analysis, where inputs and outputs lacking significance can be excluded. In addition, the inclusion of new

5.1 Assessing the Economic Value of Green Infrastructures

209

unit processes and inputs/outputs that have been shown to be significant through sensitivity analysis is also possible.

Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Life cycle impact assessment is the process of characterizing the environmental impacts of inputs and outputs for each unit process in a product’s life cycle. The resource use, consumption, and emissions generated during the product’s life cycle are translated into environmental effects, which are then grouped and quantified into a limited number of impact categories. These impact categories may then be weighted for their relative importance. LCI results such as resources used, and emissions evaluated for potential for human health and environmental impacts.

Compound specific waste and emission inventory data + Information on environmental fate and potency of specific compounds = Impact assessment

Steps in LCIA (a) Selection of impact categories, indicators (b) Classification mandatory

Mandatory

(c) Characterization (d) Normalization (e) Weighting

Optional

(a) Selection of categories Identifying and selecting the relevant impact categories and their indicators under study; the scale of impact can be from global to local. • • • • • •

Global warming Acidification Ozone-depleting potential Eutrophication potential Human toxicity Ecotoxicity

210

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

• Resources depletion potential • Photochemical ozone formation • Land availability. (b) Classification Assigning inventory data such as inputs and outputs to the impact categories based on expected types of impact on the environment (e.g., classifying carbon dioxide emission to global warming). (c) Characterization Once the classification step is completed quantification of the environmental impacts exerted by each inventory on the potential impact category is assessed. Modeling LCI results to the impact categories using science-based conversion factors (e.g., modeling the potential impact of carbon dioxide and methane on global warming). (d) Normalization Normalization is referring relative magnitude for each impact category of a product system under study. Normalization is a process that divides a characterization value (characterized impact) of an impact category of a product system by normalization reference of the same impact category. (e) Weighting Aggregating category indicator results according to their relative importance. Emphasizing the most important potential impacts. End points 1. Damage to human health (years of life lost): environmental mechanisms that damage human health are climate change, ozone depletion, ionizing radiation, photochemical ozone formation, particulate matter formation, toxicity, and water stress. 2. Damage to ecosystem quality (disappeared fraction of species): climate change, photochemical ozone formation, acidification, eutrophication, toxicity, land stress, and water stress 3. Damage to resources (extra energy demand): includes water stress, fossil resource depletion, and mineral resource depletion. Interpretation Interpretation is a systemic procedure to identify, qualify, check, and evaluate information from the conclusions of the inventory analysis and/or impact assessment of a system and present them in order to meet the requirements of the application as described in the goal and scope of the study. It consists of three steps. 1. Identification of the significant issues based on the results of the LCI and LCIA phases of life cycle assessment 2. An evaluation that considers completeness, sensitivity, and consistency checks

5.1 Assessing the Economic Value of Green Infrastructures

211

3. Conclusions, limitations, and recommendation: The objective of the interpretation is to draw conclusion, identify limitations, and make recommendations to the intended audience of the LCA study. 5.1.1.5

Lifecycle Approach in Green Infrastructure Evaluation

When used appropriately to quantify or evaluate the performance of green infrastructure (GI) throughout its entire life cycle, the LCA approach can be improved as a holistic transdisciplinary approach [9]. In order to enhance the reliability and effectiveness of environmental assessment, the LCA approach has been integrated into several green building rating systems as a credit criterion. Although incorporating LCA is a complex process with several constraints, it plays a crucial role in quantifying environmental impacts using either a bottom-up or top-down approach. To obtain reliable output in environmental building assessment using the LCA approach, the universally accepted method is to follow the order mentioned below [10]. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Defining elementary flows Classification Midpoint categories Endpoint categories.

The process of characterization modeling employs three approaches, namely marginal, linear, and average. The priority is given to midpoint categories like depletion of non-renewable energy sources (DNR) and global warming potential (GWP). Meanwhile, resources and human health are more focused on endpoint categories. However, there are limitations to this approach such as availability and adequacy of data, difficulty and expense in collecting data, comparability across geographical boundaries, lack of common data protocol, and lack of open access to LCI database, and appropriate benchmarks to compare results. To assist in decision making, there are LCA-based tools available, such as ATHENA in North America, Envest in the UK, and EcoQuantum in the Netherlands. According to ATHENA, the embodied effects of building components such as building structure, cladding, and roofing are determined by considering factors such as embodied energy, air pollution, water pollution, solid waste, global warming potential (GWP), and weighted resource use [11]. The lifecycle assessment conducted on the bio-infiltration rain garden facility at Villanova University employed a cradle-to-grave approach, encompassing the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases to evaluate the sustainability of the GI in three dimensions. The study found that the construction phase was the most environmentally destructive and costly, while the operation phase provided a broad range of benefits. The decommissioning phase considered the potential for reuse of the GI. The inventory analysis involved the mass and energy balance of inputs and outputs for all three phases, with inputs generally consisting of resources and energy from either renewable or non-renewable sources, and outputs comprising solid waste, water and air emissions, and energy as by-products. The study utilized SimaPro 7.2

212

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

process flow modeling program, US LCI database, Ecoinvent database, the European life cycle database (ELCD), and i-Tree Eco (an urban forest effect model) to estimate the impact of forest on the community/city and reveal environmental impacts, taking into account vegetation, meteorological, and local air pollution data. Impact categories evaluated in the three phases of the GI facility include global warming potential, acidification potential, human health (cancer and non-cancer), respiratory effects, eutrophication potential, ozone depletion potential, ecotoxicity, smog formation potential, labor, and cost. The LCA suggests looking for alternatives to silica soil amendment and bark mulch, which have a significant environmental footprint in the construction phase. Well-planned maintenance and decommissioning plans are crucial during the design stage. Reuse is a better decommissioning option than disposal, which would diminish the positive impacts of the rain garden facility provided during the operation [9].

5.1.2 Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) The cost–benefit analysis adheres to the fundamental principles of welfare economics, wherein it considers the economic value of costs and benefits linked to various adaptation options or alternatives and evaluates the resulting net gain over a specific period. The output of CBA includes [12]. • Net present value • Internal rate of return and • Benefit–cost ratio. Hence, cost–benefit analysis offers a quantitative approach in decision making, making it comparable to other factors. However, it is limited by the difficulty in assigning monetary values to non-monetary costs and benefits, and it focuses solely on efficiency. In contrast, a psychological cost–benefit analysis evaluates the satisfaction of needs and wants. The analysis considers both known and unknown/ uncertain factors when assessing costs and benefits. Although conventional cost– benefit methodologies have a limited coverage of values and assumptions and weak sustainability, they do consider uncertainties and long-time scales, as well as related discount rates in the assessment [12]. It includes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Market value to direct use benefits Shadow pricing/preference pricing for direct use benefits Acquired values that can be converted to monetary value Indirect benefits (social and environmental welfare/values) that can be given ranking/equivalent value to monetary value, e.g., using multicriteria analysis 5. Existence value/ethical values. Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is different from environmental impact assessment (EIA). Table 5.5 shows the fundamental differences between EIA and CBA.

5.1 Assessing the Economic Value of Green Infrastructures

213

Table 5.5 Preliminary differences between EIA and CBA Features

Environmental impact analysis (EIA)

Cost–benefit analysis (CBA)

Quantification

Less quantitative

More quantitative

Value assessment

Multiple units/numerous weighting and ranking

Using single unit/money

Assessment approach

Highly objective physical science

Subjective social science of economics

Theoretical basis

Follows well-defined empirical methodology and avoids subjectivity

Strong and detailed basis on human behavior and preferences

Assessment

Direct assessment of environmental impacts

Socioeconomic interpretation/ indirect

Project view/appraisals

Physical view of project

Human view of project

Scope

Wide scope

Narrow scope

Source Bateman [12]

5.1.3 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis The non-monetary cost–benefit analysis is applied in cases where benefits cannot or do not need to be measured in terms of money. This approach identifies the most efficient option or the option that requires the least amount of resources, taking into account all parameters without assigning monetary values. It is not an absolute indicator but rather a relative one that can be correlated with monetary value. This analysis is unique in that it addresses uncertainty and equity to some extent and considers climate change, residual effects, and health impacts. This method is required when the benefits of different options are considered equal, and it is the most cost-effective option for policy or regulatory decision making. The methods used for evaluation and costing in cases where benefits cannot be measured in monetary terms are as follows [13]: 1. Multicriteria analysis: The approach involves a qualitative assessment of available adaptation options using a set of criteria that are weighted, and a final score is given. However, the subjectivity of scoring can pose a problem, which can be addressed by following a structured methodology. This methodology takes into account several factors, both with and without monetary value, and considers equity. It aims to choose the best option preferred by the decisionmaker among the alternative options by considering multiple criteria in complex decision-making processes to yield an optimal solution. It involves mathematical modeling, optimization, and statistical analysis, making it a flexible approach to evaluating several socioeconomic issues. The approach can be performed in two ways: collective analysis of individual preferences or group scale assessment. In technical dimensions, it scales, ranks, and aggregates multiple variables through weighting optimization [14].

214

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

2. Analytical hierarchy process: This approach is employed by groups of individuals to address a shared issue in the context of government or business entities. It involves examining a range of potential solutions to identify the most appropriate one for the problem at hand. The problem is first broken down into several hierarchical levels to identify the various factors involved, their importance, and the underlying cause of the problem. This process of breaking down the problem makes it easier to understand and analyze the various components. 3. Expert assessment: If models are not available or the circumstances are resourceintensive or expensive, expert assessments may be used to make decisions with a certain level of uncertainty. The decision is made after conducting structured, thorough, and systematic interrogations with experts who are knowledgeable and experienced in the subject matter. 4. Stakeholder preference: Involves ranking of the alternative options based on the preference. Preference is influenced by individual psychology, social, and cultural factors. 5. Institutional values: Involves a comprehensive analysis of institutional environment/values (goals, norms, rules, culture) that influence the GI projects. It investigates the methods and processes used by both institutions and by the local government/councils.

5.2 Quantification of Green Infrastructure Quantifying the services provided by green infrastructure (GI) is crucial for integrating natural capital into policy development and decision making [15]. The quantification process improves the resilience and sustainability of the entire system. Quantifying the ecosystem services provided by GI is a complex process that requires consideration of various aspects such as spatial, financial cost–benefit, and stakeholder interviews to understand their perception, pros, and cons [16]. Quantifying and valuing GI initiatives are challenging due to the complexity of the system. The associated costs of GI are mainly financial and opportunity costs. Capital costs are more intensive than the recurring costs for managing, monitoring, maintaining, and communicating, which are often not properly quantified. Capital costs are incurred in creating and enhancing GI projects, including surveying, planning, designing, purchasing land, resources, labor, raw materials, water, and energy. Opportunity cost refers to the economic opportunity foregone by selecting the GI project over the best alternative [17]. Quantification and valuation of GI practices or ecosystem services (ES) in monetary terms can aid in cumulative valuation of the entire framework development. However, several barriers exist in valuation, such as lack of research studies on GI quantification and valuation, different climate parameters, atmospheric conditions, and site-specific features that render the tools inapplicable, complex ES provided by single GI, and no clear divisions in ES provided. Therefore, a holistic assessment of GI valuation is required [18]. A framework to evaluate ecosystem

5.3 Green Infrastructure Valuation

215

Table 5.6 Framework to evaluate ES of GI Ecosystem service

Quantification metrics

Quantification method

Valuation method

Water management

Volume of storm water runoff reduction or reuse Reduction in water bills

Soil conservation service (SCS) curve number method/hydrographs/rational method to determine runoff volume and Green-Ampt method (infiltration practice)

Avoided treatment cost, monetary value of captured water reuse

Energy management

Reduced building energy use, Reduced energy cost for water treatment

Energy balance

Monetary value on electricity/ natural gas saving in building

Air quality

Total air pollutant uptakes (NO2 , SO2 , O3 , PM10 ) Total amount of pollutant emissions reduced by energy savings

Direct emissions uptake + indirect emissions avoided Deposition models Cost–benefit transfer

Monetary value of air pollutant uptake

Climate change

Total amount of carbon offset Avoided CO2 emissions through energy saving

Direct carbon sequestration quantification + indirect carbon offset using conversion factors

Monetary value for carbon offset depending on carbon market price

Social wellbeing

Increased property value

Hedonic pricing Benefit transfer

Monetary value of increased price of land/building

Source Jayasooriya and Ng [18]

services and green infrastructure is presented in Table 5.6. Sustainability indicatorbased assessment is used to appraise the performance of GI, with economic, sociocultural, human health, and ecological indicators being the most common. These indicators can be used in combination to create appropriate frameworks. Each indicator consists of a set of performance indicators, and composite indicator-based models can be applied on different scales and typologies [19].

5.3 Green Infrastructure Valuation A potential valuation is capable of accounting for the social, economic, biophysical, environmental, and psychological benefits provided by urban green infrastructures. It is a complex, comprehensive, and integrated approach in identifying, analyzing, and valuing the multiple benefits and co-benefits obtained in different scales throughout the entire lifecycle of the project. It is a value addition process

216

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

to the property requiring a sound scientific knowledge background which could be assisted by educational and R&D sector [5]. Economic valuation is the quantification of benefits (use and non-use values) using a common metric to facilitate comparison among projects [20]. Ecosystem service valuation is both context and decision specific, as the choice of decision is made in the presence of alternative courses of actions, and their associated benefits and cost, e.g., for economic valuation of ecosystem services and GI [7]. Economic valuation helps to increase the community awareness regarding GI investments and create a favorable environment for national-level/local government policy discourse and green investments [21]. The economic valuation considers not only the value of product and service produced but also the benefit and cost associated with the production process. In the case of green infrastructures, it is identified as ‘investment value’, which includes cost for land purchasing, designing, construction, maintenance, revenue generation through the use of facility, and exploitation. Project-level economic valuation is used to estimate the economic efficiency of the project employing cost–benefit analysis to check how far the accrued benefits, i.e., use and non-use values exceeding the project cost or investment value. The tools used to assign monetary value to the cost and benefit are shadow pricing, CV, HP, TC, and market pricing. Sensitivity analysis was performed on the CBA [22]. With the widening of scope and geographical scale of GI/sustainability projects tool for economic value assessment varies [1]. Since the last three decades there is a growing impetus for assigning monetary value to green infrastructures and ecosystem services. The green infrastructure concepts, tools, applications are globally being adopted and reflecting in the national policies of countries like UK, Sweden, and decision making as well. But still the nations are confronting the reliability of available quantification and valuation tools. Whatever the decision is taken in urban or national scale, it is of the essence to assign fiscal value. Thus, a well-planned investment, policy development, design, and management are necessary to protect the environmental assets/ecosystem services and add value to the assets. The four key considerations are [23] 1. Protection: foster balanced assessment for removal of trees or any ecosystem service and determine the avoidable loss 2. Compensation: to secure commensurate payment for the damage incurred to the ecosystem service 3. Design: to compare different design options and articulate final design outcomes among the wider audience; this involves enhancing design outcomes and communicating them 4. Management: to enhance the designing, planning, and collaboration for green infrastructure delivery through evidence-based management. The failure of widespread adoption of GI often results from the lack of recognition of the financial value associated with the ecosystem services and other valueadded services offered by the infrastructure. This may be attributed to the absence of comprehensive valuation toolkits that integrate financial, social, and environmental cost perspectives. Currently, there is no standardized valuation process that can be

5.3 Green Infrastructure Valuation

217

applied at either the urban or national level. While valuation processes may not be a feasible option for site-scale GI projects due to limited GI applications, resource scarcity, and financial constraints, they are still appropriate for urban or regional scale projects, which have access to resources, multiple GI installations, and are financially and temporally intensive processes. Incorporating ecosystem valuation into the budget and accounting systems of municipalities and associated databases is crucial. Valuing ecosystem services is necessary to integrate them into urban planning, decision making, design, accounting, and public asset management. Spatial distribution mapping, modeling, and valuation of ecosystem services are vital for policy development and urban planning. If local government authorities or green infrastructure-related organizations assign an economic value to the benefits provided by GI, it would encourage widespread implementation. Valuation would also aid decision making at all levels, including individual, national, administrative, and policymaking. Improvements in urban governance and committed urban management are needed to streamline the assessment and valuation process. Economic valuation of green frameworks gives a tangible and easily understandable monetary value, alleviating fear and risk associated with GI implementation. Thus, the local public, city planners, and entities would be more likely to invest in green initiatives [14].

5.3.1 Green Infrastructure Valuation Tools The valuation tools used for ecosystem services should possess critical features such as scalability, adaptability to local context, generalizability across geographical territories, simplicity, flexibility, quantifiability, standardization, stand-alone nature, readiness, socially and economically viable, comprehensive, coverage of multiple ecosystem services, multiple goal-oriented, up-to-date, and scientifically sound. To integrate incoming ecosystem features and address shortcomings, tools should be improved and updated regularly. These tools can be web-based, textual guide, computer software, or spreadsheetbased, and created to serve different objectives. Examples of such tools are Nature Value Explorer (NVE), Benefits Estimation Tool (BEST), Green Infrastructure Valuation toolkit (GI-Val), a guide to value green infrastructure, and others [8]. Table 5.7 presents a list of tools used to value tree assets without the need for an expert. These tools can be particularly helpful when carried out on a large scale. There are successful applications of the above tools in accomplishing tree protection; CAVAT application in Elephant Park, Southwark protected 30% of existing onsite trees and enabled 350 and 900 new plantings onsite and offsite, respectively. GI-VAL facilitated large-scale tree planting investments in Wirral Waters, Northwest England. The application convinced the initial investment of 2 million dollars with the 12.7-million-dollar gross value addition by the GI [23]. A case study in Kronandalen Lulea northern Sweden for urban and infrastructure development, water and storm water management for a development scheme used

218

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

Table 5.7 Green infrastructure valuation tools and their approach Tree asset

Tools available

Approach used and remarks

Individual tree

Capital asset value for amenity trees (CAVAT)

Cost of equivalent replacement (COR) Tree considered as private amenity

Council of tree landscape appraisers (CTLA)

COR approach Tree considered as public amenity

Capital asset value for amenity trees (CAVAT)

Stripped down COR approach Strategic management

i-Tree Eco

Strategic management Used in development or compensation context Use CTLA/CAVAT for structural value estimation

Benefits of SuDS Tool (W045 BeST)

Applied for sustainable drainage schemes

Green keeper

Intended for parks and other accessible green spaces

Green infrastructure valuation tool kit (GI-VAL)

Used in designing

Natural capital planning tool

Used in planning and design context

Tree population (considered as public amenity stock)

Green infrastructure (Wide scale: multiple ecosystem services considered)

Source [8, 23]

two BGI valuation tools such as Benefits Estimation Tool (BEST) (UK) and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) (Netherlands). While using the tools developed by other countries (which follow national standardized values), sitespecific/country-specific conditions, and local monetized values of adopting nation need to be considered due to uncertainty in valuation. These both tools provide a structured approach to estimate the diverse long-term economic benefits of BGI. The benefit categories need to be wisely chosen in BEST, as there is the probability of double counting. Few categories and cause of assessment included in previous military site and forest baseline studies listed as follows (Table 5.8) [24]. Few categories of TEEB include health, energy, value of homes, and social cohesion. Both BEST and TEEB use a fixed time scale of 30 years and a discount rate of 3%. TEEB uses few benefit categories, user friendly, requires site-specific information, predefined calculation, and monetary values and doesn’t use confidence scoring in contrast to BEST. The Koranan study concluded broad differences between these two tools unlike previous studies based on the results obtained. And BEST was found to be a more suitable tool. ‘Nature value explorer’ is publicly available web-based application to quantify and valuate ecosystem services and specifically impacts of land use change and land cover change on regulating and cultural ecosystem services in Flanders (Belgium). It is a part of strategic environmental assessment and cost–benefit analysis. It is widely

5.3 Green Infrastructure Valuation

219

Table 5.8 Benefit categories selected and causes for selecting them for the military site and forest baseline studies using BEST tool Categories

Cause of selection

Groundwater recharge

Fraction of impermeable surface

Carbon sequestration

Tress/vegetation

Health

Green cover/local green spaces

Biodiversity and ecology

Green spaces, urban structures replacing nature covers

Building temperature

Energy saving by incorporating greens into building

Flooding

As a result of urbanization

Water quality

Storm water runoff quality management

Amenity

Impacts due to the increase of new residential units and local green spaces

Education

Academic visits by educational institutions

Recreation

Physical activity and wellbeing

Source Hamann et al. [24]

used in Belgium as supportive evidence to infrastructure development projects and policy discourses. The application helps in identifying and conserving ecosystem services, exploring alternative land use strategies. Though it is useful to ordinary users still debatable among scientific community due to; limited ecosystem services in ecosystem reliability are a weak point; uncertainty analysis, regulating (flood mitigation, erosion control, pollination), and provisioning services (food, wood), methodology to quantify cultural services are lacking in the tool. Ecosystem services considered in the application are cultural services, denitrification, N, P, C sequestration in soil, and forest, impact air quality, and noise buffer [25].

5.3.2 Valuation Methodology Valuation is assigning fiscal value for the physical quantities to investigate the overall impact on ecosystem services. Comprehensive valuation of GI requires combined use of valuation techniques. The choice of valuation methodology depends on the nature of the problem/case, scale of the problems, type of values to be taken into account, availability of data, human, time, and financial resources to execute. The valuation process is exercised at three levels and each level adopts different methods of valuation as shown in Table 5.9. There are mainly three approaches used in green infrastructure projects [13]. 1. Ecosystem good and services approach: this involves maintaining and restoring natural systems providing ecosystem services to the community in urban context

220

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

Table 5.9 Different levels and methods of valuation process Valuation level

Approach

Valuation method

Individual level

Market analysis

Cost–benefit analysis, willingness to pay, willingness to avoid loss, benefit transfer

Community level

Democracy type approach

Assessment of community intrinsic values

Institutional level

Local government frameworks

Formal and informal rules

Source Broekx et al. [25]

2. Green space network approach: it is a mimic process to enhance the functioning and connectivity of the cities. It involves retaining green spaces without transforming and interlining green spaces and natural corridors in the urban area 3. Green engineering approach: installing green infrastructure components into buildings/city instead of gray/conventional engineering structures. In the assessment it is essential to identify all the social, economic, and environmental final benefits of green infrastructures in value chain, one single facility may provide multiple benefits and also interconnected with other functionalities. Thus, it is essential to understand the connectivity of the GI. Considering intermediary benefits will lead to double counting. Physical flow accounts, asset accounts, functional accounts, and ecosystem accounts are the four main types of accounting. Among which ecosystem accounts [13]. 1. Market value to direct economic benefits 2. Shadow/proxy price for indirect benefits (social and environmental welfare/ values) 3. Acquired values 4. Existence value/ethical values. Valuation of cost and benefits is essential for any project from R&D to final disposal or life after disposal in life cycle perspective. Valuation is required to take a decision whether a project is favored and needs to proceed compared to other. It is identified as capital budgeting. Widely applied methods in capital budgeting and economic life cycle analysis are [26]. 1. Net present value (NPV): Present value of cash outflows (capital, replacement, refurbishment cost) subtracted from cash inflows over a specific period of time. The cash flows can be considered as cost (outgoing) and benefit (incoming) as well depending on the direction of the flow. It is the present value of money in the future at current equivalent. It considers the opportunity value and risk are taken into consideration when setting the discount rate. NPV is represented by the following equation, where

5.4 Total Economic Value (TEV)

221

NPV =

T ∑ (b − c)t 0

b c T t i

(1 + i )t

Benefits Costs Time horizon The year in which cost/benefit incur Discount rate.

Multiplier analysis is employed for regional-level analysis to assess the impact of green infrastructure on the regional economy. This approach examines the input– output (I/O) relationships between a specific economic activity, such as the establishment of green infrastructure, and other economic activities, including recreation, land use change, regional excess burden, labor costs, nature development, tourism, cultural heritage access, and other investment-related benefits [22]. 2. Internal rate of return (IRR): The rate at which cash flows is brought to zero in net present value. It is accrued annually. 3. Payback period (PBP)/discounted payback period: Period/number of years required to recover the investment. Lesser payback periods are desirable for investments. Time value of money is not considered. But in discounted PBP time value is accounted. Discounting is used to convert future cost and benefits to present using a discount rate. It estimates the future value of money as a proportion of value at the time of investment. Generally, GI have low discount rates (0–3.5%), various rates recommended in several projects, but the rates are far lesser than the commercial/private projects.) for long-term investments but they produce greater social/health and environmental outcomes on non-monetary returns. Discount rate for Western European countries is 3.5% [27]. 4. Benefit–cost ratio (BCR)/cost–benefit ratio (CBR): Ratio of benefit and cost can be calculated either simple or discounted. Appropriate method or hybrid method inclusive of quantitative and qualitative can be used depending on the project type, time, and resources for decision making. The benefits that can be valued are • Direct economic benefits having a market value • Indirect economic, social, environmental benefits not having a defined market value, shadow pricing is applicable • Benefits with acquired values.

5.4 Total Economic Value (TEV) Green infrastructure has numerous social, economic, and environmental benefits. To avoid potential harm to the environment and society due to development projects, the concept of total economic value (TEV) was introduced. Currently, TEV is used to

222

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

estimate the value of ecosystem services provided and enhance ecosystem and human health and welfare. It is used in environmental accounting to assess and monitor the economic value of assets that vary over time. The concept of TEV was developed to manage diverse benefits provided by ecosystems and biodiversity. This is illustrated in Fig. 5.7. Use values can be quantified easily using market methods such as market price, replacement cost, mitigation cost, opportunity cost, damage cost avoided, and dose–response cost. Non-use value implies that the resource exists (existence value), and people can utilize it now or later in the future (bequest value). Human value is the total economic value, while non-human value is the intrinsic value, i.e., the value of the resource in its own right.

5.5 Fiscal Assessment of Non-market Environmental Goods Green infrastructures are considered public goods, which have a high degree of non-excludability and non-rivalry, meaning that they cannot be easily excluded or prevented from public use and that their use does not reduce their availability to others. As a result, market mechanisms fail to quantify the value of these goods and therefore stated preference methods are used to address this problem [27]. The valuation approach includes preference methods to assess people’s preferences for a given situation, such as willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to avoid damages (WTA). Figure 5.8 denotes the methods used for monetary assessment of non-market environmental goods.

5.5.1 Revealed Preference Valuation Method Revealed preference valuation method includes production function method (PF), travel cost method (TC), hedonic pricing (HP), and shadow pricing (SP). 1. Production function method (PF): Assumes that there is existing relationship between the ecosystem services/biodiversity and the production of particular good or service; here the value of ecosystem services is determined based on the analysis of changes in production caused by environmental changes. 2. Travel cost method (TC): Generally used to estimate recreational use values (travel expenditure a user willing to incur to enjoy the public green infrastructure/ amenity). The calculation process considers travel costs, entry fees, opportunity cost for the time spent on travel, and visit to alternative places, number of trips (based on individual demand), income, and demographic features. It measures direct and indirect use values only. The major drawback of the method is failure in capturing non-use values of environmental goods [27]. 3. Hedonic pricing (HP): This is a well-established data-intensive methodology that considers direct and indirect use value only. It involves estimating the pleasant and unpleasant quality of ecosystem services such as air quality, water quality,

eg., ecotoursim,

Nonconsumptive

eg., Soil formation

Intermediate ecosystem services

Indirect use value

Fig. 5.7 Concept of total economic valuation. Source [12, 20, 22, 28]

eg., non timber forest product

Consumptive use

Direct use value

Use value (commercial and non-commercial

Retained future use of resource

Option value

eg., flood control

Ecological function

Total economic value

Benefit by the existence of resource

Existence value

Future benefits of the resource

Bequest value

Non- use value

5.5 Fiscal Assessment of Non-market Environmental Goods 223

224

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure Production function method (PF) Revealed preferences (RP)

Hedonic pricing method (HP)

Non-market valuation methods

Valuation approach Stated preferences (SP)

Benefit (value) transfer method (BT)

Travel costs method (TC)

Contingent valuation method (CV) Choice modelling techniques (CM)/ Choice experiment (CE)

Unit transfer Function transfer

Opportunity cost Pricing approach

Cost of alternatives Mitigation behavior Government payments Dose-response method

Fig. 5.8 Non-market valuation methods. Source [12, 26, 28]

pleasant views, and proximity to recreational space ant. The estimation is done based on the relationship between the property value and environmental amenities, and property as well as neighborhood features. It assesses the proportion of value of environmental amenity. It assumes the environmental attribute as a sum of individual attributes [26]. For example, according to hedonic pricing by the US General Service Examination in 2011, green roofs are estimated to have the real estate value of US$ 130 per m2 across USA. 4. Shadow pricing (SP): It involves assessing the value of a commodity or property by considering the benefits/value provided by close by economic variable. It provides a proxy price to the good/service. For example, the price of a building located near an open space/water body/greenery will be higher with the added benefit of the service provided by the amenity. Extra fee charged for business meetings in conference halls/rooms with rooftop garden, entrance fee to public park. This takes into consideration the environmental/social value provided by the amenity in the urban context [13].

5.5.2 Stated Preference Methods Stated preference methods involve assigning fiscal value to non-market goods and services based on the preferences from survey. This approach includes contingent valuation (CV), and choice modeling techniques (CM)/choice experiment (CE).

5.5 Fiscal Assessment of Non-market Environmental Goods

225

1. Contingent valuation (CV) CV is widely used in surveys to evoke the preference levels of the people with regard to ecosystem services. It is the willingness to pay or willingness to accept (compensation for the loss of environmental amenity) for the stimulated change due to the production of good or service. The major drawbacks associated with CV are highly subjective, overestimating the amount for pay, and underestimating the amount for willingness to accept. CV is fundamental that looks for WTP of people for a project or investment. CV is recommended for the evaluation of recreational policies in Scotland, e.g., wildlife landscape benefits of environmental stewardship scheme, biodiversity of site of specific scientific interest, species protection, and habitat restoration. 2. Choice modeling techniques (CM)/Choice experiment (CE) CM is used in surveys to evoke the preference levels of the people with regard to ecosystem services. Best worst approach is used to analyze the best and worst alternative choices; participants are given a number of alternative options and asked to choose the most preferred choice. CM is more detailed and logical than CV. It focuses on the price of the components of investments as well, e.g., Woodland biodiversity, forest biodiversity, improvements in forest biodiversity attributes.

5.5.3 Benefit Transfer (BT) It is not a valuation technique. It is used to transfer economic value from one context (different study sites/time/place) to another. It is highly essential in initial policymaking decisions through proving floor for practical applications of environmental evaluation.

5.5.4 Avoided Cost Method Valuation based on the estimated cost for conventional approach in addressing risk equalized to the green infrastructure approach, e.g., cost of conventional wastewater treatment plant compared to the cost of ecosystem service provided by wetlands in contaminant removal and enhanced water quality [26]. Different types of valuation techniques, and corresponding models applied in assessing the ecosystem services are tabulated below (Table 5.10).

226

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

Table 5.10 Summary of valuation tools and models applied in green infrastructure valuation studies conducted worldwide Ecosystem/regulating services

Valuation technique/tool

Model

Climate regulation-Carbon stock

Calculating carbon stock of a Carbon pricing single tree at a specific patch (tree diameter at breast height, stem lengths, and the percentage branch volume of total tree volume) and extrapolate to urban scale Estimating the fixed stock value of carbon using market carbon price Using annual growth rate of trees (primary data) carbon sequestration per annum can be estimated

[29]

Cultural service-Employment and economic impact

Number of households employed as gardening/GI maintenance services (average wage, working hours, working days) Landscaping jobs Nursery jobs

[29]

Water regulation (storm Replacement costs, water) preventative costs, disaster management costs, and costs of ecosystem failure Substitute costs Disaster regulation

References

[29]

Healthcare cost, property cost

[29]

Water purification

Productivity cost

[29]

Food provisioning

Opportunity cost

[29]

Runoff retention/flood mitigation

SCS-CN method to estimate runoff retention Unit cost method to calculate direct economic damage

Hydrology and water quality evaluation and enhancement

Stimulate more detailed L-THIA-LID 2.2 impervious surfaces, and cost estimation, to replace with bioretention facility 11 GI features and their different combination levels considered Most cost-effective option can be chosen

InVEST flood mitigation [15] Model

[30]

(continued)

5.5 Fiscal Assessment of Non-market Environmental Goods

227

Table 5.10 (continued) Ecosystem/regulating services

Valuation technique/tool

Model

Temporal and spatial simulation of hydrological process, management, and quality

Hydrological models [30] (computer-based)/ long-term hydrological impact assessment model

Ecosystem services applied in storm water management Blue-green infrastructure

Sustainable drainage system Improve water quality of sewer overflows It addresses the uncertainties in water quantity, quality, biodiversity and amenity, and benefit valuation in the analysis

SuDS Tool (B£ST): used [31] in UK

Urban and community forestry analysis

Used in valuing urban forest trees in Melbourne City

i-Tree Eco label used in USA

Green project management

Investment framework for environmental resources-measurable but doesn’t provide fiscal value Follow smart criteria, asset valuation, assessment of risk, uncertainty, benefits, lags, operating costs, and technical feasibility

INFFER

Storm water control using rain garden

Lifecycle assessment Analyze social, environmental, and economic performance of the green infrastructure

Floodplain landscape management, urban park management

References

[13]

[9]

Spatial multicriteria analysis (SMCA)

[14]

Air pollution reduction Green wall and green roof CFD simulation model reduce air pollution in urban street (40% reduction in NO2 con. and 60% of PM reduced)

[32]

Hedgerow management Discontinuous hedgerows and atmospheric increase air pollutant contaminant levels concentrations from 3 to 19% keeping no hedge scenario as reference levels

[32]

Storm water management

Green storm water infrastructure (GSI) valuation methodology

Wind tunnel simulations

Combined multiobjective [33] evolutionary optimization algorithm (MOEA), and hydrologic simulation model

228

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

5.6 Global Case Studies on Economic Valuation of GI Quantification of economic value of Johannesburg’s urban forest intended to signify the public investment, and room for economic enhancement in terms of monetary value considered carbon sequestration, employment, and economic contribution. Market-based valuation methodology such as carbon pricing, employment opportunities, and contribution over entire supply chains are used. Assessment of natural and environmental resources of the City of Cape Town incorporated the value of market benefits, non-market benefits, expected future value in the valuating methodology [29]. The study performed in Darst sewershed demonstrates combined implementation of GI practices is better than individual applications. Depending on the extent of combination and adoption runoff volume (0.2–23.5%) and pollutant load reduction (TSS: 0.18–30.8%, TN: 0.2–27.9%, TP: 0.2–28.1%) can be substantially lowered. Increasing the number of GI installments will not necessarily enhance the performance continuously as it depends on the site-specific characteristics as well (no significant additional deductions). Design life of 20 years considered in the evaluation of annual cost, cost-effectiveness [30]. Water-sensitive urban design investments are capable of providing a wide range of tangible and intangible benefits to the local community, environment, and lifestyles. In quantifying their benefits in the evaluation process, non-marketing valuation techniques are used to assign fiscal value to intangible benefits. It helps in decision making through recognizing cost-effective projects. It is preferred to incorporate the results of quantification into cost–benefit analysis [20]. The study conducted in New York City found that prioritizing storm water management/absorption alone leads to disproportionate distribution of ecosystem services. But the variations can be highly reduced when multiple GI components like carbon sequestration, microclimate regulation, recreational value, contaminant reduction, air pollutant removal; weighted together while considering population density of the region that enjoy the benefits. This uneven distribution can be rectified by the use of spatial multicriteria analysis that takes into consideration landscape approach/ spatial data in the ecosystem service assessment/valuation. Further it helps in identifying hotspots and cold spots of ecosystem services and assists in decision making, urban planning and policy discourses, and designing of GI services. The problems encountered in SMCA are spatial data obtained from different sources, sizes, quality, resolution, and accuracy which would result in reduced accuracy. This could be dealt with multistakeholder partnership in participatory valuation approach. SMCA: It is a type of MCA and can be either explicit or implicit. It accounts for geographical component/spatial data of the corresponding location/event. Used in the evaluation of floodplain landscape management, urban park management, identify trade-offs and synergies of urban ES in site planning [14]. Yongding River green ecological corridor is a massive green infrastructure project established in Beijing interlinking seven artificial lakes and wetlands with the objectives of water storage, water purification, climate regulation, and aesthetics.

5.6 Global Case Studies on Economic Valuation of GI

229

The model used to determine the accomplishment of ecological functionality of ecosystem processes of GI is Variable infiltration capacity VIC version 4.2c model (hydrologic model to manage water) utilizing both ecological and social data from survey. But the GI performances were unsatisfactory except aesthetics due to number of reasons such as variable flow rates, lack of depth of water storage, high nutrition retention of wetlands, and inadequate evaporative cooling. The study concludes the need for coupled green and gray infrastructure development to provide effective multifunctional landscape to instead of stand-alone green development due to the constraints in GI in provision of desired levels of ecosystem services to accomplish urban sustainability. Conceptual framework applied evaluation of ecosystem services is shown in Fig. 5.9 [34].

5.6.1 Indices to Measure Urban Greenness Green view index (GVI), standardized GVI (sGVI), and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) are few indices that play a key role in measuring urban greenness/ greenery coverage. GVI measures the eye-level visibility of urban green vegetation, taking into account of public viewpoint of green; but it is highly site-based metric/ geographical point target of greenery and thus cannot be used to cover the entire area by aggregating values obtained from different points in area. If done so it would be a biased estimation. Urban network would encompass heterogeneous sites, and thus it can’t be computed to entire network. sGVI is an aggregation approach using Voronoi tessellation employed to avoid the point density bias/error caused by simply aggregating means. It is a weighted aggregation of GVI points in an area/road network. For example, case study in Yokohama City, Japan. NDVI obtains top-down view of the greenery with the help of satellite images, but it fails to comprehend the public perception of urban green as the viewpoint is elevated and horizontal for the users. Conventionally land use data, NDVI, and infrared light are used to measure greenery coverage [35].

5.6.2 Outdoor Thermal Comfort ENVI-met is a software used for microclimate modeling to analyze the outdoor thermal conditions of various greenery in urban areas. It investigates the interactions between surfaces, plants, and air. It operates at a temporal resolution of single extreme weather days, while analyzing the energy demand and CO2 emissions based on yearly records. IDA Indoor Climate and Energy (ICE) is a tool for building performance and energy simulation. It assesses the impact of urban green infrastructure on indoor thermal comfort, building energy demands, moisture condition, and carbon dioxide emissions. Microclimate modeling (ENVI-met) and thermal building simulation (IDA) can be coupled to investigate the impact of GI, such as green roofs,

230

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

Fig. 5.9 Conceptual framework used in the evaluation of ecosystem services in Yongding River green ecological corridor

5.6 Global Case Studies on Economic Valuation of GI

231

facades, living walls, and street trees in the urban context, on either the building or city scale. The output of ENVI-met modeling is used as input for energy modeling. The results demonstrate the potential of GI to reduce the heat island effect and indoor overheating by decreasing the building’s energy load for mechanical cooling through facilitating passive cooling. A year-long assessment will provide more effective, informative, and reliable results. This will assist decision making in urban planning and administration in integrating GI and adopting climate change adaptation and mitigation options to address climate change.

5.6.3 Economic Evaluation of Green Roof Green roof cost/financial analysis: hybrid analysis performed as an attempt to provide a framework to quantify the economic value of green roofs contrasting with conventional roofs considering a lifecycle of 25 years for green roofs. This is essential for capital budgeting. This study considered 100% green roof without white roof/solar roof/combined solar and green roof which other types of energy-efficient sustainable roofs providing diverse functionality. Green roof benefits considered in most of the studies: greater longevity, improved air quality, rainwater runoff reduction, and energy cost saving [36]. Table 5.11 informs the positive net outcome of green roof economic analysis. Standard Methodology 1. Characterization Scale of installation (building/city), building type (residential, industrial, commercial), local climate trend as it influences the design, efficacy, and feasibility of the project, life cycle, physical structure including green roof size, fuel source, load bearing capacity (dead and live loads), type of green roof (intensive/extensive). 2. Methodology Economic analysis Table 5.11 Significant research outcomes for economic evaluation of green roof Research focus

Methodology

Finding

References

25-year period analysis of green roof and conventional roof

Lifecycle cost analysis

Cost–benefit ratio greater than 1, green roof savings up to $5385.45

[36]

Profitable even up to 5% discount rate. For the time horizon of 20 years, pay back is 14 years providing several direct benefits and enhanced regional economy

[22]

Development of green belt CBA and I/O analysis

232

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

Selecting the highly valid approach and most appropriate economic analysis is essential. The major intention is the cost reduction to the client. Always look for the revenue generation, possible cost saving, cost avoidance potential, performing identical analysis to both green and conventional roofs in same time frame will be comprehensive. Life cycle cost analysis is used to demonstrate cost saving, disparity in lifecycle (40 years, 17 years), and repeatability factor (green roof reusable without replacement/disposing). LCCA—Estimate the total cost of ownership and assess the long-term costeffectiveness of the project. It analyzes the cash flow for the projects for equal analysis period irrespective of life span (25-year period analysis usually performed for roofs). Base data for LCCA approach can be derived from: the national institute of building handbook 135, lifecycle costing manual for the federal energy management program (FEMP), and annual supplement to handbook 135. Net present value of the project also is calculated. 3. Determination of cash flows Cost saving by means of avoiding roof replacement, energy saving in hot and cold climates through acting as an insulator. Reduce cooling demand during hot season and reduce heating demand during winters through preventing heat transfer from buildings. Maintenance cost is higher for a couple of years till the vegetation wellestablished. 4. Cost–benefit analysis 5. All the associated costs can be divided into fuel (energy saving) and non-fuel costs.

5.6.4 Coastal Protection Models Coastal protection (or restoration) and hazard mitigation strategies employing GI approaches are gaining prominence over time with increased cost-effectiveness and multifunctionality. The possible GI components that can be integrated into shoreline development for protecting local community and built environment are mangroves, wetlands, reefs (coral and oyster), seagrasses, salt marshes, and dunes. Decision making in green infrastructure selection for the coastal areas is highly contextspecific that involves critical consideration of spatial data/variations, cost constraints, risk level/hazard index of the area of interest (sea-level rise), physical and social vulnerability. Benefits of GI components established in coastal region include [37]. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Coastal protection such as flood risk mitigation and erosion control Protect vulnerable people and property loss Potential future hazard mitigation (storms and sea-level rise) Recreation

5.6 Global Case Studies on Economic Valuation of GI

233

5. Fisheries 6. Carbon storage and sequestration 7. Climate change mitigation. In VEST coastal vulnerability model: an open-source tool generates coastal vulnerability index for providing information for habitat protection through identifying hotspot areas highly prone to erosion and inundation (higher level of exposure). This model uses seven biogeo-physical variables such as shoreline type, relief, wave surge potential, wind exposure, sea-level change, and social exposure (people, property, and infrastructure) to better represent the region. Research conducted in coastal line of USA using this index-based model approach identified the moderate and high exposure areas of Texas and Galveston as the risk-prone region and prioritized the protection measures. This simple ranking approach spots on the region to carry out the protection/restoration efforts to greatly minimize the coastal hazards through enhancing adaptive capacity. But this model cannot provide detail information on which extension/potential value GI installment provide protection. This requires the use of other complex models such as erosion models. The vulnerability maps of the model can be used to communicate to local community, stakeholders, and government bodies involving in decision making/policymaking, e.g., coral reef restoration project of Caribbean islands, Grenada; from the study results Grenville Bay was chosen to construct artificial water break for erosion control and coral colonization. Quantification of GI services requires the estimation of related water, energy, carbon, soil nutrient, and pollutants as they are the measurable factors of outcomes. Stochastic ecohydrological model: a coupled water and soil nutrient models using water and nutrient fluxes, is used for the quantification of ecosystem services such as cooling/urban temperature regulation, storm water management, nutrient (nitrogen) retention, and soil carbon sequestration provided by urban street trees. Variables such as soil moisture and nutrient content and the management activities such as permeable area, irrigation, and fertigation are taken into model development. Seasonal hydrological and climatic variations enhanced urban design, boundary conditions (level of imperviousness/impervious configurations surrounding the tree), soil composition (structural soil), species selection, maintenance, and proper management strategies have significant influence over the ecosystem service provision. These contexts are considered in modeling. This model based on simple hydroclimatic forcing, ecohydrological fluxing and ecosystem services. This is well applicable to urban context even with limited data availability. It naturally integrates the uncertainty and intermittency in rainfall pattern [38]. Quantification of flood mitigation in Otter Creek floodplains and wetlands to Middlebury used hydrograph methods. Hydrographs were prepared for a storm event (tropical storm Irene) and nine flood events for two scenarios such as with and without flood mitigation measures. For each scenario extent of flood, severity, monetary value of devastation of inundated structures, the study concluded 54–78% average damage reduction; thus, the annual economic saving of $126,000 to $450,000 is estimated by the flood mitigation measures. Reduced downstream flood inundation cost up to 92%

234

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

across different flooding densities and frequencies. Methodology employed includes five major processes: scenario-based method [39]. 1. Hypothetical flood peak flow modeling (scenario that lacks wetlands and floodplains) 2. Estimation of flood estimation for two scenarios such as with and without wetlands 3. Identification of flooded structures in both scenarios 4. Estimation of expected damages for each structure as a function of flooding depth and house value 5. Calculation of avoided costs (difference between the total cost of damage of both scenarios). Compared to other coastal disasters floods cause a significant number of fatalities and economic losses across the world. Wetlands and flood plains are the two green infrastructures playing key role in flood mitigation/downstream flooding by retaining water and reducing the speed of flow. Wetlands are performing well in controlling small, frequent floods while flood plains effectively reduce peak flow/severe flood events. Available quantification and valuation techniques to quantify water-based ecosystem services/green infrastructures are 1. Empirical approach estimates biophysical ecosystem services 2. Advanced hydrological models 3. Models developed as supporting tool for ecosystem services. The case studies conducted in Barcelona and Badalona of Spain had used the conventional cost–benefit analysis (considered direct and indirect tangible benefits that can be monetized) to investigate the socioeconomic viability of GI in order to economic assessment for urban drainage planning. Cost–benefit analysis was done assuming business as usual scenario as reference context to test the green infrastructure scenario (avoided cost and added value)/context of climate change adaptation options. The benefits taken into consideration are flood reduction, water quality improvement, reduction of sewer overflows, air quality improvement; mitigate UHI effects, habitat provision, reduced energy consumption, etc. Flood risk mitigation uses expected annual damage (EAD) estimated using 1D/2D urban drainage model, damage models, and continuous rainfall simulation. Reduction of combined sewer overflows monetized using 1D urban drainage model with continuous rainfall simulation. Capital, operational, and maintenance cost of different GI components such as green roofs, infiltration trenches, permeable pavements, bioretention cells, and retention and detention ponds derived from literature and local experience (research projects, documents) [4]. Quantification of flood mitigation services both structural and non-structural/ runoff mitigation provided by green space in Hyderabad, India, was performed.

5.6 Global Case Studies on Economic Valuation of GI

235

Estimating the flood mitigation performed by green spaces through bioretention/economic damage avoided due to flood inundation and evaluate environmental performance index. This will support in developing flood resilience plans incorporating blue-green nature-based solutions [15].

5.6.5 Economic Valuation for Urban Strategic Planning Economic evaluation of green infrastructure is essential for the initial phase of holistic regional/urban strategic planning for decision making. It fosters financial stability in the long run when trade-offs properly addressed in planning. Contingency valuation (survey-based) and willingness to pay (face-to-face interviews, pretested questionnaire to enhance the reliability and accuracy of WTP through participatory approach) tools applied for green infrastructure investment projects such as path improvements, river renaturation, city greening, and sit and resting possibilities in Neckar, Germany. This study used WTP study on cycling and pedestrian pathway development along Neckar River project conducted in Esslingen City of Germany as the reference/ benchmark. The study concluded positive proof in enhancing social stability and cost efficiency in GI investment in projects. 38.2% revealed the WTP future GI projects while remaining disagreed. The general causes for rejecting the WTP from the study are prevailing higher tax rates and expecting the public bodies to finance the GI investments, low household income, and other financial investments/commitment already made [27]. In Sheffield, England, a 10-year study project on economic viability assessment of future urban development’s basing nature-based solutions was carried out. Regeneration schemes for city center development include residential and office units integrating green infrastructures (urban streets and park) providing recreational value. Economic modeling was used to assess the willingness to pay to enhance urban livelihood. WTP for street scheme is an additional 1% while 5% for park development due to higher quality of large green space in line with previous research findings. In the UK national average for property associated with green space is 4% (varied from 2.6 to 11.3%); this increase in property value exhibits the multifunctional gain to private/user [1]. The study employed ‘Development appraisal methodology’ for decision making whether to precede the project or not. The developer makes sure that the GI investment would be able to compensate for the risk, uncertainty, and the efforts input for the project. Residual valuation method used to assess the financial viability of the development project. Development value − Development cost = Residual or Developer’s profit Development value − (Development cost + Developer’s profit) = Maximum price for land

236

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

Development value: sale and lettings Development cost includes construction cost, labor cost, land cost, finance cost, site works, and building cost. The study demonstrated that although residents WTP for the green infrastructure development benefiting the community they believe development cost would outweigh benefit/income enjoyed by the developer. They insist on the need of multistakeholder collaboration especially relevant government bodies, city authority body, local community, and NGOs to invest on the common good of GI for the betterment, as the GI development projects cannot be undertaken by private entities due to the limitation in applying market mechanisms. This study is for establishing green cycle belt (bicycle route) enhancing urban green connectivity and promoting ecofriendly commuting, public health, air quality, physical activity recreation, tourism in Bruges, Belgium; no alternatives considered. T = 40 years for green roofs, 20 years for land consolidation projects, 10 years for plants, trees, and hedges, Discount rate = 2–7% depending on market risk, and 3% moderate discount rate used here. Step 1: monetization of cost and benefit Step 2: estimating the total economic value of the GI investment Step 3: appraisal of the investment. Considering the results of CBA, and I/O analysis (indirect benefits) and payback period the project was concluded as profitable with net positive benefits to regional economy [22].

5.6.6 Carbon Assessment Models Assessing the performance of GI based on a set of standard criteria is critical in various temporal and spatial scales. Carbon capture and offset by plant biomass and soil are a crucial advantage of GI. Diverse carbon assessment models and tools are widely used at present to evaluate carbon cycle in different ecosystems. But the majority of the assessments use land use and land cover classification system (LULC) considering land management, climatic, and geographic criteria. Land use and land cover change can significantly influence the carbon pool mainly in soil. The processes of photosynthesis (sequester and store CO2 ), decomposition, respiration, and combustion (release CO2 ) play a major role in CO2 fluxes between carbon pools and atmosphere. The carbon cycle can be represented as the following equation [40]. ΔCLUi = ΔCAB + ΔCBB + ΔCDW + ΔCLI + ΔCSO + ΔCHWP ΔCLUi = carbon stock changes ΔCAB = above ground biomass (living vegetation above soil)

5.6 Global Case Studies on Economic Valuation of GI

237

Table 5.12 Models and their output for ecosystem service quantification Model

Output

i-Tree Eco (UFORE)

Annual total carbon storage by trees, annual net carbon sequestration by trees, pollution removal by urban forest in hourly basis, effect on building energy consumption and impact on rainfall

i-Tree streets (STRATUM)

Energy saving, air quality improvement, carbon dioxide reduction, storm runoff control, rise in property value

i-Tree

Biomass of urban street trees (forest tree)

ARIES

Carbon sequestration and release of soil and vegetation

InVEST

Regulating and provisioning services: carbon sequestration (net carbon storage), nutrient management, food and fiber production, pollination, water provisioning, coastal protection

ΔCBB = below ground biomass (biomass of live roots and roots with diameter less than 2 mm not considered) ΔCDW = dead wood (greater than 10 cm in diameter) ΔCLI = litter (greater than 2 mm and less than 10 cm) ΔCSO = soils (soil organic matter) ΔCHWP = harvested wood products. IPCC guidelines for assessing and reporting GHG emissions for (AFOLU) agriculture, forestry, and other land uses included two standard methodologies for GHG emission accounting such as gain–loss method and stock-difference method. The land categories mentioned in the report are forest, crop, grassland, wetland, settlement, and other lands. Considering the Australian approach, i-Tree Eco, Envision, Aries, and FulCam are identified as comprehensive tools for assessing the GI performance through a set of criteria comprising credibility, accessibility, transparency, applicability, tested, and ease of use. This study concluded i-Tree Eco tool (UFORE model) as the most appropriate tool for evaluating the assessing carbon performance of GI. Carbon sequestration predictor for land use change (CSP). Integrated valuation of ecosystem services and trade-offs (InVEST) and natural artificial intelligence for ecosystem services (ARIES) tools can be easily generalizable, open, free, tools for public use, and easy to understand the outcome of the model as they produce maps. Few models widely applied, and their outputs are tabulated below (Table 5.12).

5.6.7 Air Pollution Models GI involves in significant atmospheric pollutant reduction by the process of deposition favored by increased leaf area index, and pollutant redistribution in microscale (10–500 m); flow abatement, deflection and deposition and enhanced atmospheric turbulence (enhanced dilution by increased surface roughness as proved in previous

238

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

studies) in macroscale (5–100 km) thus protecting public health. Tiwari et al. [32] applied air pollution dispersion models on both micro- and macroscales. But uncertainties encountered in applying GI modeling such as overestimation of dry deposition. The study concluded the need of coupling of air pollutant deposition and dispersion models to enhance accuracy [32]. 1. Microscale air pollution models These models are used to evaluate the temporal and spatial variation of pollutant concentration, thus exhibiting the air quality near the source of pollution (traffic emissions, source of emission), where dispersion occurs by means of source-induced turbulence, meteorological condition, pollution chemistry, and geometric features in close proximity. It is useful in analyzing short-term change in air quality. The following are some of the microscale air pollution models. • Box and wind tunnel model: based on the conservation of principle. The physical and chemical processes of air contaminant dispersion, dilution, and deposition are simulated using this model • CFD model: simulates the GI impacts in a very fine spatial resolution and involves numerical simulation of wind flow and mass transfer • Gaussian plume models (e.g., RLINE of US EPA) • Receptor models • Hybrid models. 2. Macro scale models Predict air pollution dispersion influenced by meteorological and topographical conditions. It is essential in evaluating long-term changes in air quality. Models applied are • Gaussian/modified Gaussian plume models: (e.g., ADMS-Urban, SCREEN3, AERMOD) • Statistical models: include land use regression models, machine learning models. Evaluate pollutant concentration using mathematical relationships using emission, climatological, and ambient data • CFD models: to be used in macroscale requires higher computational time and resources.

5.6.8 Willingness to Pay The concept of ‘willingness to pay’ for a GI is a model introduced in the literature. This means the price to be paid for purchasing or renting a residence or any special charges for GI. The model is based on the demand and supply economics as well as restrictions on payment. Needs and wants to arise from demographic, socioeconomic, psychological, socio-psychological factors were considered. Supply is

5.6 Global Case Studies on Economic Valuation of GI

239

the attributes of the sustainable residential building and any GI project encompassing physical structures, intangible aspects such as brand, image, financial elements, and green components. Restriction studies the available financial resources, loans, government incentives for GI investment, financial rules, and regulations. Willingness to pay is a valid method for public awareness raising [7]. WTP questioning can be of referendum setting (yes or no for a specific amount of additional payment mentioned) or open-ended depending (amount of additional money that users willing to pay without giving a choice in the questionnaire) on the research requirement and ensuring accuracy in valuation [27]. The study performed a meta-analysis of willingness to pay for recreation urban parks in Oslo. Though the urban parks provide a wide range of services, such as cultural, regulating, provisioning, and habitat services, particular study for policymaking considered only the recreational service of the urban parks under the category of cultural services. Here used benefit transfer, and value transfer with meta-analysis method. The meta-analysis used the weighted average of willingness to pay from several original studies conducted in USA, China, and Australia. While taking into account of population density, park/green space size, GDP/capita of Norwegian to determine the marginal willingness to pay for the particular park in Oslo [7]. The findings of a large-scale survey conducted on Blonk Street, the Wicker in Sheffield, a previously flood-prone area, revealed that participants, particularly younger ones, were willing to pay up to an additional 2% of their monthly rent or mortgage payment to reside in a high-quality urban green environment that provided diverse functionality, amenities, and aesthetic value (Table 5.13). The willingness to pay was greater with increased greenery, accessibility, functionality, physical infrastructure, and visibility. These results were consistent with the research findings of the VALUE investigation carried out in Manchester. The study employed a valuation methodology that combined willingness-to-pay surveys with contingent valuation, using 3D visualizations, such as virtual landscape models (to build future investment scenarios), Symmetry 3D real-time visualization software, and GIS data to provide virtual physical infrastructure for the investment. The willingness to pay was significantly correlated with socioeconomic variables, especially age and educational level (younger age group and lower education level). The VALUE project/investment strategy aimed to develop socially, economically, and ecologically resilient and sustainable neighborhoods that could withstand potential flood incidents, foster vibrant community development, increase accessibility, and create a livable, aesthetically pleasing, and economically valuable city. A transnational approach to GI valuation is feasible, and the outcomes can be compared, although the national development contexts may differ if a structural and systematic methodology is used. Currently, the natural intrinsic value of GI is transformed into commoditized/ economic value for the valuation process. This transition is necessary to develop an economic rationale to support green investment based on cost–benefit analysis and return on investment [21].

240

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

Table 5.13 GI features/performances positively and negatively affecting on WTP Factors having positive impact on WTP

Factors having negative perception on WTP

Attractive landscape

Additional rent/mortgage payment

Openness

Unaffordability

Increased property value

Expecting government/private entities to pay

Reduced pollution/contaminant levels

Felt unnecessary investment

High-quality living

Felt no value

Local revenue generation option

Socioeconomic factors

Improve storm water quality and reduce runoff Flood risk reduction Improved safety More connected to nature

References 1. Wild, T. C., Henneberry, J., & Gill, L. (2017). Comprehending the multiple ‘values’ of green infrastructure – Valuing nature-based solutions for urban water management from multiple perspectives. Environmental Research, 158(November 2016), 179–187. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.envres.2017.05.043 2. Oxford Economics. (2018). The Economic Impact of Ornamental Horticulture and Landscaping in the UK. https://issuu.com/fernandoruz/docs/the-economic-impact-of-ornamental-h 3. Alizadehtazi, B., Gurian, P. L., & Montalto, F. A. (2020). Observed Variability in Soil Moisture in Engineered Urban Green Infrastructure Systems and Linkages to Ecosystem Services. Journal of Hydrology, 125381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125381 4. Locatelli, L., Guerrero, M., Russo, B., Martí nez-Gomariz, E., Sunyer, D., & Martí nez, M. (2020). Socio-economic assessment of green infrastructure for climate change adaptation in the context of urban drainage planning. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(9). https://doi.org/10. 3390/su12093792 5. Van Oijstaeijen, W., Van Passel, S., & Cools, J. (2020). Urban green infrastructure: A review on valuation toolkits from an urban planning perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 267(December 2019), 110603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110603 6. York, C. R. H., & Jacob, J. S. (2020). Harnessing Green Infrastructure for Resilient, Natural Solutions. In Optimizing Community Infrastructure. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012-816240-8.00008-2 7. Barton, D. N., Stange, E., Blumentrath, S., & Traaholt, N. V. (2015). Economic valuation of ecosystem services for policy: A pilot study on green infrastructure in Oslo. http://www.openness-project.eu/sites/default/files/NINAReport%201114%20-%20Ecos ystem%20service%20valuation%20Oslo%20pilot_final_web.pdf 8. Celeste Young, C., Jones, R., Symons Acknowledgements, J., Lynch, Y., Walton, R., Boucher, E., Shears, I., Milkins, J., Callow, D., Murphy, A., Gooding, M., & Johnston, B. (2015). Green Infrastructure Economic Framework. https://vuir.vu.edu.au/id/eprint/32098 9. Flynn, K. M., & Traver, R. G. (2013). Green infrastructure life cycle assessment : A bioinfiltration case study. Ecological Engineering, 55, 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng. 2013.01.004

References

241

10. Ismaeel, W. S. E. (2018). Midpoint and endpoint impact categories in Green building rating systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 783–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018. 01.217 11. Trusty, W. B., Horst, S., Thena, T. A., Materials, S., Street, J., & Box, P. O. (2007). Integrating LCA Tools in Green Building Rating Systems. Athena, 1–7. https://www.irbnet.de/daten/ico nda/CIB2759.pdf 12. Bateman, I. J. (2019). Valuing preferences regarding environmental change. In Valuation of the environment, methods, and techniques: The contingent valuation method (Issue January, pp. 1–256). https://doi.org/10.5005/jp/books/10202_34 13. Jones, R. N., Symons, J. and Young, C. K. (2015) Assessing the Economic Value of Green Infrastructure: Green Paper. Climate Change Working Paper No. 24. Victoria Institute of Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Melbourne. https://www.vises.org.au/docume nts/2015_Jones_et_al_Assessing_Economics_GI_Green-Paper.pdf 14. Kremer, P., Hamstead, Z. A., & Mcphearson, T. (2016). The value of urban ecosystem services in New York City: A spatially explicit multicriteria analysis of landscape scale valuation scenarios. Environmental Science and Policy, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.012 15. Kadaverugu, A., Nageshwar, C., & Viswanadh, R. G. K. (2020). Quantification of flood mitigation services by urban green spaces using InVEST model: a case study of Hyderabad city, India. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-00937-0 16. Van Gameren, A. J. L. (2020). Green roofs and climate resilience in The Hague: Spatial, financial & stakeholder analyses [University of Leiden and Delft University of Technology]. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:55e92e3c-0b43-4064-8cbb-2ea1d1e1e068 17. European Commission. (2012). The Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure The Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure (Issue March). https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/eco systems/docs/Green_Infrastructure.pdf 18. Jayasooriya, V., & Ng, A. (2019). Development of a framework for the valuation of Eco-System Services of Green Infrastructure. 20th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, July, 3155–3161. http://www.mssanz.org.au/modsim2013/L20/jayasooriya.pdf 19. Pakzad, P., & Osmond, P. (2016). Developing a sustainability indicator set for measuring green infrastructure performance. 216(October 2015), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015. 12.009 20. Gunawardena, A., Iftekhar, S., & Fogarty, J. (2020). Quantifying intangible benefits of water sensitive urban systems and practices: an overview of non- market valuation studies. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 00(00), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583. 2020.1746174 21. Mell, I. C., Henneberry, J., Hehl-lange, S., & Keskin, B. (2016). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening To green or not to green: Establishing the economic value of green infrastructure investments in The Wicker, Sheffield. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 18, 257–267. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.015 22. Vandermeulen, V., Verspecht, A., Vermeire, B., Huylenbroeck, G. Van, & Gellynck, X. (2011). Landscape and Urban Planning The use of economic valuation to create public support for green infrastructure investments in urban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 103(2), 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.07.010 23. Jaluzot, A., & Ferranti, E. J. (2019). First Steps in Valuing Trees and Green Infrastructure. A Trees and Design Action Group (TDAG) and University of Birmingham. http://epapers.bham. ac.uk/3226/ 24. Hamann, F., Blecken, G., Ph, D., Ashley, R. M., Ph, D., Viklander, M., & Ph, D. (2020). Valuing the Multiple Benefits of Blue-Green Infrastructure for a Swedish Case Study : Contrasting the Economic Assessment Tools B £ ST and TEEB. 6(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY. 0000919

242

5 Assessment, Quantification, and Valuation of Green Infrastructure

25. Broekx, S., Liekens, I., Peelaerts, W., Nocker, L. De, Landuyt, D., Staes, J., Meire, P., Schaafsma, M., Reeth, W. Van, Kerckhove, O. Van Den, & Cerulus, T. (2013). A web application to support the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.003 26. City of Melbourne. (2019). Quantifying the benefits of green infrastructure in Melbourne: Literature review and gap analysis. https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/ quantifying-benefits-green.pdf 27. Wilker, J., & Rusche, K. (2013). Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability Economic valuation as a tool to support decision-making in strategic green infrastructure planning. Local Environment, 0(0), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839. 2013.855181 28. Barsoum, N., Gill, R., Henderson, L., Peace, A., Quine, C., Saraev, V., & Valatin, G. (2016). Links between biodiversity and rotation length. Forest Research Report, September. https:// doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12927.51360 29. Schäf, A., & Swilling, M. (2013). Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environment under pressure - The Johannesburg case. Ecological Economics, 86, 246–257. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecolecon.2012.05.008 30. Chen, J., Liu, Y., Gitau, M. W., Engel, B. A., Flanagan, D. C., & Harbor, J. M. (2019). Science of the Total Environment Evaluation of the effectiveness of green infrastructure on hydrology and water quality in a combined sewer over flow community. Science of the Total Environment, 665, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.416 31. Ashley, R., Gersonius, B., Digman, C., Horton, B., Smith, B., & Sha, P. (2018). Including uncertainty in valuing blue and green infrastructure for stormwater management. November 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.08.011 32. Tiwari, A., Kumar, P., Baldauf, R., Zhang, K. M., Pilla, F., Di, S., Brattich, E., & Pulvirenti, B. (2019). Science of the Total Environment Considerations for evaluating green infrastructure impacts in microscale and macroscale air pollution dispersion models. Science of the Total Environment, 672, 410–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.350 33. Mcgarity, A., Hung, F., Rosan, C., Hobbs, B., Heckert, M., & Szalay, S. (2015). Quantifying Benefits of Green Stormwater Infrastructure in Philadelphia. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2015: Floods, Droughts, and Ecosystems © ASCE 2015 Quantifying, 409–420. http://wingohocking.swarthmore.edu/public/EWRI_Austin_2015_Paper_Final.pdf 34. Wong, C. P., Jiang, B., Kinzig, A. P., & Ouyang, Z. (2018). Quantifying multiple ecosystem services for adaptive management of green infrastructure. Ecosphere, 9(11). https://doi.org/10. 1002/ecs2.2495 35. Kumakoshi, Y., Chan, S. Y., Koizumi, H., & Li, X. (2020). Standardized Green View Index and Quantification of Different Metrics of Urban Green Vegetation. Sustainability, 12(7434), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187434 36. Mcrae, A. M., Army, U. S., & Carson, F. (2016). Case study : A conservative approach to green roof benefit quantification and valuation for public buildings Case study : A conservative approach to green roof benefit quantification and valuation for public buildings. 2701(June). https://doi.org/10.1080/0013791X.2016.1186255 37. Ruckelshaus, M. H., Guannel, G., Arkema, K., Verutes, G., Griffin, R., Guerry, A., Silver, J., Faries, J., Brenner, J., Ruckelshaus, M. H., Guannel, G., Arkema, K., Griffin, R., Guerry, A., Silver, J., Faries, J., Brenner, J., Rosenthal, A., H, F. M., … Griffin, R. (2016). Evaluating the Benefits of Green Infrastructure for Coastal Areas: Location, Location, Location Evaluating the Benefits of Green Infrastructure for Coastal. Coastal Management, 44(5), 504–516. https:// doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2016.1208882 38. Revelli, R., Porporato, A. (2018) Ecohydrological model for the quantification of ecosystem services provided by urban street trees. Urban Ecosyst 21, 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11252-018-0741-2

References

243

39. Watson, K. B., Ricketts, T., Galford, G., Polasky, S., & Niel-dunne, J. O. (2016). Quantifying flood mitigation services: The economic value of Otter Creek wetlands and floodplains to Middlebury, VT. Ecological Economics, 130, 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016. 05.015 40. Pakzad, P., Osmond, P., & Philipp, C. H. (2015). Review of tools for quantifying the contribution of green infrastructure to carbon performance. ICUC9 - 9th International Conference on Urban Climate Jointly with 12th Symposium on the Urban Environment, November, 1–7. http://www. meteo.fr/icuc9/LongAbstracts/tukup7_@28cont@29-5-8781681_a.pdf

Chapter 6

Urban Resilience and Frameworks

Contents 6.1 6.2

6.3

6.4 6.5

6.6

Introduction to Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Temporal and Spatial Scale of Urban Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Infrastructure Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ten Essentials of City Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Organize for Disaster Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Identify, Understand, and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 Strengthen Financial Capability for Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4 Pursue Resilient Urban Development and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.5 Safeguard Natural Buffers to Enhance the Protective Functions Offered by Natural Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.6 Strengthen Institutional Capacity for Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.7 Understand and Strengthen Societal Capacity for Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.8 Increase Infrastructure Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.9 Ensure Effective Disaster Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.10 Expedite Recovery and Build Back Better . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Role of GI in Building Urban Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1 Systematic Approach in GI Adaptation for UR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Globalizing Urban Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1 C40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2 U20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . International Urban Resilience Frameworks/Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.1 Rockefeller Foundation’s City Resilience Index (CRI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.2 UNISDR’s Disaster Resilience Scorecard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.3 Comprehensive Resilience Assessment Framework for Transport Systems in Urban Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.4 Urban Resilience in Climate Change Adaptation: A Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.5 Resilience Maturity Model (RMM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.6 Urban Resilience Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.7 Integrated Framework for Urban Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.8 UDRI Framework: Urban Design Resilience Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.9 A Framework for Adaptive Co-management and Design for Operationalizing Urban Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.10 PEOPLES Resilience Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Kumareswaran and G. Y. Jayasinghe, Green Infrastructure and Urban Climate Resilience, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37081-6_6

246 248 249 249 250 252 253 253 254 254 255 255 255 256 256 257 259 263 264 264 265 266 267 269 270 272 272 273 273 274 276 245

246

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

6.6.11 Knowledge Product Evaluation (KnoPE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.12 Complex Adaptive System Framework (CAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.13 Local Government Self-Assessment Tool (LGSAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.14 Adaptive Cycle Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.15 Dynamic Models (DM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.16 Community Flood Resilience Categorization Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.17 Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.18 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.19 Community Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

276 276 276 277 277 278 279 280 282 285

6.1 Introduction to Resilience The term ‘resilience’ has diverse meanings across fields, but it is commonly described as a system’s ability to endure, adapt, and recover from a shock/stress/trauma and establish equilibrium/stability [1]. Engineering resilience, ecological resilience, and evolutionary resilience are the three forms of resilience [2]. (a) Engineering resilience The capacity of a system to restore to its original state after an external disruption or disturbance is referred to as engineering resilience. It is known as a bounce back system in equilibrium, for example, hazard mitigation policies, climate change adaptation, and infrastructure hardening (designed to decrease hazard risk and physical shocks [3]. (b) Ecological resilience The capacity of a system to recover after a disturbance or major structural and compositional change is referred to as ecological resilience. The system switches to a new stable state after absorbing perturbations, resulting in many equilibrium states. It is known as the bounce forward system. In the case of ecological resilience, an environment will recover from an environmental stress or an ecological disturbance over time, returning to its original state or to a new stable state. Ecosystem has a self-healing ability with time dimensions. The basis for diversity and the preservation of dynamic equilibrium is the periodic ecological succession following a disturbance. An excellent example would be periodic forest fires [1]. (c) Socio-ecological resilience It is also known as evolutionary resilience and is based on the idea that complex systems, such as climate change and climatic extremes, are constantly changing and do not return to an equilibrium state after a disruption. Complicated systems carry more uncertainty by nature. Complex systems are closely connected to socio-ecological resilience. It is a transformative forward system; as a result of numerous dynamic processes, renewal, reorganization, and development, the

6.1 Introduction to Resilience

247

character of the system evolves through time with or without external disruptions. Social-ecological resilience, non-equilibrium, a system’s capacity to adapt to change or disturbance, nonlinear improvement, and possibility for innovation and progress are all examples of social-ecological resilience, innovation, rearrangement, and learning [3]. Resilience is defined as a continually changing process in the panarchy model of adaptive cycle (Fig. 6.1), which explains resilience from an evolutionary perspective. It is a cyclical process that includes the phases of rapid growth, conservation, creative destruction (where changes occur), and rearrangement. It takes into account the interplay of components as well as flexibility and transformability. An adaptive cycle comprises four stages divided into two loops. The fore loop consists of quick development and conservation, whereas the back loop consists of release and restructuring. It illustrates a recurring pattern with significant alterations in the back loop [4]. Basic features in the four phases of adaptive cycle are [5], 1. Growth phase—Rapid accumulation of resource, competition, seizing opportunities, rising level of diversity and connections, high but decreasing resilience 2. Conservation—Resources stored, large resource use system maintenance, stability, certainty, reduced flexibility, low resilience 3. Creative destruction—Chaotic collapse, release of accumulated capital, uncertainty when resilience is low but increasing 4. Reorganization—Time of innovation, restructuring, greatest uncertainty but high resilience. Fig. 6.1 Dimensions of panarchy model exhibiting the relationship among resilience, potential, connectedness in an adaptive cycle

248

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

6.2 Urban Resilience Urban resilience is a complex, multifaceted, and ever-changing phenomena, or policy agenda. Urban resilience definitions remain ambiguous. Feng et al. [6] defined urban resilience as “the degree of change to which a city can accept before restructuring around a series of new structures and processes”. Despite the notion of urban resilience was developed in the 1960s, it was incorporated into urban planning by the 1990s [6]. It primarily focuses on climate change, ecological, social, technical, and economic viewpoints as they interact with one another. It constantly seeks to stabilize cities by safeguarding them from possible disaster risks such as flooding, drought, severe temperatures, bulk energy needs, social fragility, poor health, natural and man-made calamities, and so on [7]. Consequently, using a variety of adaptation and mitigation measures, we may reduce the loss of biota, their possessions, activities, livelihood, and infrastructure. Effective urban and territorial planning, integrating multiple disciplines in problem solving and decision making, expert engagement, and competency may all improve urban resilience [8]. UN institutions such as UNISDR, UNDP, and UN Habitat are actively involved in increasing city resilience through their powerful and influential initiatives such as the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities Network and UNISDR’s ‘Making Cities Resilient’ Campaign [9]. Understanding infrastructural, geographical, and temporal scale resilience in urban contexts is critical. Figure 6.2 depicts the integration of several disciplines in comprehending the complex and highly unpredictable urban dynamics. Resilient city is identified as a city capable to maintain the same functionality, structure, systems, identity, and feedback even after a hazard/risk/shock/stress event,

Fig. 6.2 Multidisciplinary perspective of urban resilience [10]

6.2 Urban Resilience

249

it has the capacity to absorb the present and future shocks and stresses on the social, physical, economic, and technical systems of a city [11]. About 2200 cities across the world had pledged to take deliberate action to enhance the city resilience by joining the UNISDR campaign [12]. Resilient cities have five prominent features of (1) biodiversity, (2) versatility, (3) multiscale network, (4) modularization, and (5) adaptive design. They are not only robust, elastic, redundant, comprehensive, unified, ingenious but also necessitate a productive metropolitan management, good, interconnected frameworks.

6.2.1 Temporal and Spatial Scale of Urban Resilience Temporal scale urban resilience refers to the exploration/observation of urban system dynamics over a time range either short- or long-term analysis of shocks and their prevention and reaction/stress and their adaptation and mitigation. The investigation can be conducted during/before/after a disaster or preventive adaptation or recovery or adaptation or transformation process. This is essential to mitigate the possible potential vulnerabilities of the system in face of future disasters/shocks. 1. Short-term approach/medium: recovery, preventive adaptation 2. Long-term approach: adaptation, transformation. The spatial scale of urban resilience investigates the capacity of local actions in response to local or external causes coming from global change on several scales. Developing resilience requires cities to understand the complexity of urban components, their relationships, their responses to uncertainty, and their interactions at multiple temporal and geographical dimensions. This need is congruent with landscape spatial arrangements, dynamic progression, and multiscale biological activities.

6.2.2 Infrastructure Resilience Infrastructures are intricately linked systems. Infrastructure planning is a component of urban resilience: As cities’ infrastructure ages, their sensitivity to climate change and hazards increases, making resilient city development a tough undertaking. Throughout decades, resilience has grown in importance, becoming integrated into policy (UK, Australia), and serving as a key performance measure in Canada. Strong institutional capacity building and a scientific knowledge basis are required for policy solutions. In the case of infrastructure resilience, a balance between technical and economic efficiency should be maintained; while converting to highly technological choices, it should also be cost effective. Increasing emphasis on economic efficiency would affect/reduce the system’s redundancy and diversity, diminishing its resilience.

250

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

Understanding how climate change affects infrastructure systems is now essential for urban planning, long-term investment, and growth. For instance, it is necessary to base infrastructure design, construction, operation, and maintenance on future climate projections rather than only on historical data as it is now done. Infrastructures that are currently in place must be improved. Future planning is crucial since technology is prone to change, upgrading, and obsolescence. Factors/aspects determining the infrastructure resilience are 1. Technological: tedious task automation, collaborations, durable resource use 2. Organizational: human work, organization, and maintenance 3. Institutional: accessible and affordable services to public at all governance levels.

6.3 Ten Essentials of City Resilience The human population is greatly affected by disasters; in the twenty-first century, disasters alone affected more than 3 billion people and resulted in more than 1.2 million fatalities. According to estimates, disasters cost directly more than 2.5 billion USD. The frequent occurrence of haphazard and massive fatalities (such as Hurricane Karina, the earthquake and landslides in Japan, and the seismic hazard in Haiti) raises public awareness of the importance of urban development based on resilient city development essentials [13]. Development of cities accumulated risk for both people and property. Millions of people became the victims and hundred thousand were killed in Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004 and Nargis cyclone in Myanmar. It is expected that climate change would cost 20% of GDP by the end of this century [14]. A disaster resilient city has the key features of capacity to reduce or avoid current and future hazards, susceptibility to hazards, well-established functioning mechanisms and structures for disaster response, and recovery [15]. Disaster resilience helps in identifying, understanding, evaluating, and managing disaster risk. Disaster risk reduction is the resilience to prevent the losses and damages that would be incurred by disasters. It is the withstanding capability [9]. Components of urban disaster resilience are • Infrastructural: vulnerability of built structures (roads, buildings, bridges, transport) capacity to recover and response, critical infrastructures, include housing, health, transport • Institutional: governmental and non-governmental systems that administer community • Economic: measure of economic diversity, employment, business, and their capability to sustain following a disaster event • Social: community demographic profile (social capital, economic status, age, gender, ethnical group, disability). The concept of ‘Making cities resilient’ was introduced by United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) UNISDR in 2010 with the intention to address

6.3 Ten Essentials of City Resilience

251

risks related to urban resilience, enhance the health and safety wellbeing of occupants, and to strengthen the contribution of local government authorities in risk mitigation. Though the authority in all hierarchical level involves in disaster risk mitigation, local government bodies can better perform as they are directly dealing with the community that are exposed to risk hazard. It emphasizes the need of inclusive, transparent, accountable, and competent local governance for building resilient cities ensuring sustainable urbanization [9]. The campaign launched was “Making cities resilient campaign: My city is getting ready”. The concept mainly focuses on the sustainable practices to discourse disaster risks in urban development with the collaboration of multiple stakeholders in all levels from local to national partners. “Ten essentials for making the cities resilient” based on Hyogo framework for action lay foundation to understand the city resilience for disasters in local scale. Later, they were modified in line with Sendai Framework for disaster risk reduction. The ten essentials for Making cities resilient (resilient strategy/action plan/road map) are (Fig. 6.3) [11, 16]. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Organize for disaster resilience Identify, understand, and use current and future risk scenarios Strengthen financial capability for resilience Pursue resilient urban development and design Safeguard natural buffers to enhance the protective functions offered by natural capital

Fig. 6.3 Ten essentials of city resilience integrated in action plan [17, 18]

252

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

Strengthen institutional capacity for resilience Understand and strengthen societal capacity for resilience Increase infrastructure resilience Ensure effective disaster response Expedite recovery and build back better.

These ten essentials are divided into three categories because of their close links. The first three themes include corporate or municipal governance and financial capability, which set the groundwork for building resilience. Topics four to eight cover integrated planning and catastrophe preparedness, while the final two cover disaster response planning and post-disaster recovery. Combining these results in an action plan or municipal resilience strategy plan. The development of a city that can predict, prevent, absorb, adapt, change, and swiftly recover from shocks, risks, and stressors requires the ten essentials of a successful city. How well these requirements were implemented is a key indicator of a city’s resilience. The level of performance can be evaluated subjectively, quantitatively, or using a combination of both approaches.

6.3.1 Organize for Disaster Resilience It refers to defining organizational structure and processes to identify, understand, mitigate, and prevent the impacts and vulnerabilities of disaster events. Generally, this structure varies from nation to nation. It consists of three major aspects such as • Planning • Organization, coordination, and participation • Integration. Disaster resilience should be achieved by integrated comprehensive planning in accordance with the Sendai Framework (2015–2030), while meeting the ten essentials of resilient cities. Full compliance with the Sendai Framework in DRR would provide a solid foundation for resilience. The plan may be implemented as planned with the help of a devoted and talented team, strong and committed leadership at the local authority level (mayor), and enough resources such as physical, human, and financial resources that are made available on time. To achieve the stated goals, all departments must recognize the importance of disaster risk reduction measures and act in accordance with the framework. Disaster resilience should be integrated as a key function of urban management like sustainability and infrastructure. Significant consideration should be given to disaster resilience in decision-making processes, budgeting, and functional areas. Other tasks involved in organizing disaster resilience are [14]. • Shared knowledge and experience from other countries through learning programs like climate change, resilience initiatives • Integrating resilience in to existing and new policies

6.3 Ten Essentials of City Resilience

253

• Establishment of short-term and long-term strategic plans, laws, acts, standards • Mechanisms for regular monitoring, discussing, and reporting on the resilience implications in policy discourse.

6.3.2 Identify, Understand, and Use Current and Future Risk Scenarios A thorough understanding of historical and current possible risk and hazard occurrences would aid in disaster risk reduction strategies. Future potential threats can be predicted by thoroughly analyzing current events. This essential involves six stages, namely • • • • • •

Hazard assessment Infrastructure risk Exposure Vulnerability Cascading impacts Presentation and update process for risk information.

Complete knowledge of the occurrence of risks, frequency, severity, intervals, and relevant background data should be obtained during the urban planning and development process, and information should be kept up to date at agreed intervals. Moreover, risk and hazard information should be communicated with other utility providers and stakeholders in order to reduce cascading consequences. To better understand the nature of risk and mitigate it, threats must be identified from simple units such as water and power to larger systems such as cities. These distinct system elements are interconnected, and if one fails, the entire system suffers, resulting in a cascade effect. Thorough understanding of the cascading impact during various disaster scenarios is required, and relevant parties must be informed. Hazard maps must be created and updated at regular intervals based on the data obtained. For frequently/regularly recurring haphazard [19], high-quality maps are preferred.

6.3.3 Strengthen Financial Capability for Resilience Funding is important for fostering resilience. For the predisaster stage of the disaster risk to be resolved, a well-planned financial strategy is necessary. Instead of focusing on recovery and rehabilitation, innovative investments should be made to avoid or mitigate disaster situations because prevention is always superior to treatment. Also, one must be aware of and grasp the financial effects of the disaster on the populace and the nation. The following elements should be taken into account when enhancing financial capabilities.

254

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

• Innovative investment approach for urban resilience • Integrated and comprehensive financial plan with inclusive budget for resilience and disaster management • Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) measures • Beneficial and affordable insurance schemes • Incentive program. Government funding for DRR is frequently made accessible through budgetary allocation, taxes, public–private partnerships, international and national grants, and local and international NGO programs. To advance the project in a healthy way, it is always preferable to acquire a number of funding sources. Projects that receive joint funding are often preferred because they have stronger collaborations and succeed more frequently than those that receive funding separately. Budgets are ring-fenced, contingency plans are in place, and the financial strategy must be thorough in respect to DRR. Insurance serves as a means of risk transfer, whereas incentive programs promote resilience and DRR initiatives by providing support for them.

6.3.4 Pursue Resilient Urban Development and Design This essential ensures that the built environment, urban development, and designing to be done adhering to building codes, regulations, and contextual decisions. This encompasses land use zoning, land management, risk planning and management, new building and infrastructure planning, design, and implementation. Cities with risk or hazard mapping should perform and update land use zoning on a regular basis. Urban policy, multidisciplinary guidelines, and construction rules should all be founded on reliable resilience techniques when developing an urban arena. Furthermore, at predetermined intervals, construction codes, rules, and standards must be changed. Collaborative advice from knowledgeable individuals from many professions, such as architects, material engineers, city planners, landscape architects, designers, etc., would be advantageous.

6.3.5 Safeguard Natural Buffers to Enhance the Protective Functions Offered by Natural Capital It is critical to value natural assets and their ecological services in order to effectively utilize and conserve them for disaster risk reduction initiatives. Understanding ecosystem function and services such as carbon sequestration, air filtration, groundwater recharge, enhancing aesthetic value, and food production, incorporating blue-green frameworks into urban policy, and transboundary environmental issues involving the protection and management of national capital or natural assets from other administrative regions are all part of this.

6.3 Ten Essentials of City Resilience

255

6.3.6 Strengthen Institutional Capacity for Resilience This essential explicates that all the stakeholder institutions need to strengthen their capacity in delivering their roles and responsibilities in building urban resilience. This includes capacity building, availability of all required of resources, skills and experiences for predisaster planning, response action, government/private entity/ NGOs involve in educating and providing training public and students on the DRR, disaster response resilience, risk and hazard, coordinated awareness program and campaigns for dissemination of disaster, risk, hazard information and safety precautions during disaster incidents to more than 75% of urban population, data sharing to make the city population aware on the city resilience through a widely used method, language understood by the public is used for training sessions. When there is demographic variety, training materials in all regularly used languages should be provided. Furthermore, these cities must actively participate in disaster management knowledge sharing. They can learn from the experiences and problems of other cities, or they can perform by serving as role model cities.

6.3.7 Understand and Strengthen Societal Capacity for Resilience Societal capacity for resilience can be boosted through cultural legacy and education in disaster management. It enhances social connectivity, and culture of mutual help to achieve climate resilience and curb the magnitude of disaster impacts. This essential includes several elements networking together such as local community, community-based organizations, private sector assessed for business continuity plans which portray the social capacitance, public engagement strategies such as grasping the volunteer youngsters actively involving in pre and post-disaster actions, people involvement through multimedia channels likely social networks such as Facebook, WhatsApp, radio, mobiles, and newspapers for data/information flow, trainings in regular intervals (6/12 months), and campaigns, identification of socially vulnerable population and update such population mapping, establishing, educating, and training neighborhood emergency response groups, integrating disaster management into curriculum in schools, higher education and even in work place as well as conducting capacity building program to better cope with the disaster scenarios.

6.3.8 Increase Infrastructure Resilience It is the capability of the critical infrastructures to tackle possible disasters and manage associated risk. It comprised of critical infrastructure review, protective infrastructure, physical infrastructure such as sanitation, energy, transport, and water,

256

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

health, education, and other basic amenities. The critical infrastructure review includes the plans and forums for understanding risk in different types of infrastructures. An infrastructure plan is essential to identify the stresses for the continuity plans and protect infrastructures, services, and utilities. There should be adequate supply of first responder assets to handle even the most severe disaster scenario. First responder assets include fire distinguishers, fire fighting vehicles, police vehicles, police force, navy, ambulances, helicopters, emergency food, medicine, accommodation, and backup generators.

6.3.9 Ensure Effective Disaster Response Effective disaster response necessitates accurate monitoring and detection of disaster potential through the use of modern online real-time monitoring technology to forecast changes in weather conditions and to alert the public to adjust their behavior as a safety measure. This essential considers early warning, comprehensive event management plan inclusive of disaster management, preparedness, and emergency response to local emergency circumstances, availability of workforce, equipment, mock drills/realistic exercises conducted at regular intervals (1 year) for most probable and severe cases that are validated by professionals, constant supply of basic amenities such as shelter, food, water, medicine, fuel, and other fundamental relief goods, management and coordination of inputs of relief agencies. Ensuring adequate contingency funds for response and recovery, as well as viable mechanisms for rapid and transparent fund disbursement are essential.

6.3.10 Expedite Recovery and Build Back Better It is a critical essential of Sendai Framework which focuses on predisaster plans, postdisaster recovery, loops identified, and lessons learnt to build up a robust resilient city through preparing effective predisaster plans from the experience learnt from previous events. There should be an effective mechanism to feed the lessons learnt from the failures to be considered in future projects. Planning and the process of recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction keep the needs of survivors and affected communities at the center of functioning. For an example temporary settlement, counseling, livelihood assistance/economic start-ups are arranged at higher resilience standards in consistent with long-term priorities. Build back a better concept requires reconciliation in terms of social, economic, and psychological aspects. Few notable actions performed in predisaster and postdisaster recovery are included. • Incorporating disaster risk reduction in all investments • Schools as temporary shelter

6.4 Role of GI in Building Urban Resilience

• • • • • •

257

Informing on deaths to respective government body, and relatives Debris/waste management Local and international funding Takeover the abandoned property Economic revival Recovery measures in health, education, economy, environment, physical infrastructures, culture, and governance following a disaster incident.

6.4 Role of GI in Building Urban Resilience Though there is no direct linear relationship between the GI leading resilience of the urban sprawl, there is a proved holistic connectivity. To establish resilient cities, the ecological services and other functions provided by the GI or urban environment must be resilient. To achieve this aim, the quality, quantity, and variety of urban areas must be improved. Green infrastructure, responsive biodiversity, green technology, and adaptive management strategies are essential for building resilience. Furthermore, it anticipates catastrophes, stress, shocks, and disturbances; a comprehensive strategy is necessary to handle these changes in order to promote resilience in order to increase social and ecological benefits such as social connectedness, excellent infrastructure, and reliability [20]. The European Union has designated and promoted GI as one of the asset allocation objectives that supports regional policies and sustainable development, and it advocates smart specialization as a method of supporting such progress [21]. GI is becoming more frequently recognized as the most physical and operational framework for mitigating and adapting to socio-ecological challenges through multidimensional ecosystem services [22]. Small initiatives or stand-alone projects can help to boost GI efforts by increasing municipal resilience or a larger-scale transformation [23]. The addition of GI to the existing gray infrastructure, as given in Table 6.1, may promote resilience of communities. GI projects may also help to maximize advantages and manage competing land use pressures and demands from housing, business, transportation, energy, farming, nature preservation, leisure, and aesthetics [21]. To improve ecosystem services, governments can use GI that has a significant positive influence on the regional environment. Another strategy to improve the local environment in this situation is to do research on the most effective GI allocation. Such elements interact to influence resilience [28]. Urban resilience is greater where natural sources are stronger, as illustrated by Fig. 6.4. The EU’s GI policy seeks to make GI more widely used in urban planning in an effort to address the many benefits nature offers us. Due to its lack of status as a planning entity, GI must be included into comprehensive regional and urban planning techniques in order to have a beneficial impact on the resilient and sustainable development of urban environments (Fig. 6.4). The process for gaining

258

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

Table 6.1 Concepts of GI implemented worldwide that aid in urban climate resilience Implemented concepts

Countries

References

“blue-GI” landscape design idea that integrates USA, Netherlands, ecosystems with greenery which puts an emphasis on Belgium, Japan, India biophysical mechanisms such controlling the volume of storm water and its quality, storage, retention, and absorption

[24]

Urban planning and design and sustainable storm water management work together across disciplines to create water-sensitive settlements, producing comprehensive solutions for economic, environmental, social, and cultural conservation

Australia

[25]

Natural flood remedies and treatments that take into account natural resources through preserving, enhancing, or regenerating biodiversity and ecosystems Nature-based solutions increase urban resilience on an environmental, economic, and social levels

Europe

[26]

Minimal impact design to control urban runoff water using modest, cost-effective landscape features instead of controlling storm water through large, artificial, and expensive structures

North America and New Zealand

[27]

planning approval has to be modified in order to fulfill new requirements including multifunctionality and connectivity (Table 6.2). The removal of barriers and application of GI may improve how people utilize public spaces, activate pedestrian pathways, and offer more recreational and health services within the city, in addition to being favorable for preserving ecosystem functions. These benefits are especially apparent in the major metropolitan regions such as the Shenxi Industrial Corridor in the southwest, the Industrial Corridor of Huishan, the Technological Development Zone of Huishan in the northeastern half [29]. We observe connections among the many elements that might promote resilience. Institutional assistance is required to govern and advance GI, for instance, or to ensure that engineering systems embrace inclusiveness and foster connection

Fig. 6.4 Connectivity between the distribution of ecological sources and the urban resilience

6.4 Role of GI in Building Urban Resilience

259

Table 6.2 Roles of sustainable green infrastructure for urban resilience Sustainable GI structures/strategies

Role in UR

Green roofs, water channels, sustainable vegetation management, Flood management woodland corridors, green drainage and flood management, greenery areas blended into urban landscapes along with sensing devices and actuators for automated systems, as well as smart venting systems that gently open and close Design features that mainly relies on “green” approaches and natural wetlands They can act as a buffer and react to the stresses over time, allowing ecological systems to react to every intervention and change

Management of coastal infrastructure

Waste from urban areas may be handled as resources and can be processed and interconnected to other crucial city services using SGI ideas, as opposed to being moved away from human territories IPR (Indirect Portable Reuse in Southern California) is already being used in some regions where effluent has been turned into drinking water and is recognized to be possibly safer than snowmelt

Waste management

Water-based blue-green elements can be added to existing Urban recreation infrastructure by incorporating garden wetlands for storm and flood prevention. Future cities will have greater convenient connectivity for the usage of green roofs and rain gardens which offer aesthetic appeal that may be utilized for multipurpose urban leisure places. Smart leisure places can mirror and blend into their local cultural and natural surroundings by using technology Urban plants and high-tech green roofs can collect, store, and reuse precipitation locally

Water retention

and social networks. Continuous connectivity and the functioning of social networks are provided by hybrid systems, which act as efficiently during disasters and can hasten city recovery [30]. In order to encourage greater closeness among people and GI areas (quantity and size), strategies and regulations should encourage consistent spread of GI across the city and differ both in regard to function and design. This will decrease access disparity [31]. GI can help improve UR linked to peoples’ wellbeing if more individuals have exposure to (are in close proximity to) urban regions with it.

6.4.1 Systematic Approach in GI Adaptation for UR A systematic approach is required to support fundamental ideas like connectivity, proximity, quantity and size, accessibility, and distribution as well as multifunctionality [32]. The concept of connected framework may be a constructive way to consider GI’s commitment to urban adaptability. The phrase “coupled infrastructure system” (CIS) refers to a set of operational infrastructures that serve as the foundation for both the interactions that take place between individuals and their surroundings as well

260

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

Table 6.3 Overview of dimensions of coupled infrastructure system to appraise urban resilience Dimension

Type of resilience

Description

Policy

Institutional

Types of regulations, policies, initiatives, and programs that promote the implementation of GI in cities

Performance

Climate, economic and ecological

Metrics used to assess the impacts of GI on the reduction of floods and the resilience of water infrastructure systems

Multifunctionality Climate, economic, and ecological Provision of wide range of ecosystem Connectivity Climate, economic, and ecological services through diversified options to respond risk and uncertainties in a flexible manner Methods used to evaluate the connectivity of GI systems Social

Climate and economic

Ways in which social resilience related to GI can be assessed in cities

as the feedback that results from those interactions. Cities function as CISs when interacting urban systems’ physical and soft infrastructures. While policies, social systems, and knowledge are a few examples of soft infrastructures, the constructed environments of cities consist of waterways, buildings, bridges, and other physical frameworks. It is possible to think of green infrastructure as a component of urban systems that serves as a tool for assessing the strength of the city and generating a variety of consequences. In a comprehensive perspective, there are five key components of CIS interacting with each other to accomplish urban resilience in GI context. They are soft infrastructure, built/hard infrastructure refers to performance, multifunctionality, natural/connectivity, and social. Human knowledge aligned with participatory approach involving diverse population is an essence dimension that combines these five aspects for the successful implementation GI in cities [21, 30]. Table 6.3 provides an overview of the five dimensions of CIS to assess the urban resilience based on green infrastructure.

6.4.1.1

Policy

There is a need of strong policy and regulatory frameworks for establishing and wide adoption of GI in climate building resilience into urban arena. Favorable practices are being encouraged while discouraging unfavorable practices in several countries around the world by adopting required laws and regulations. Mandatory requirements of the building codes of certain cities to include green roofs or other green spaces, rainwater harvesting system, gray water recycling, charging for the coverage of impervious surfaces through a fee-based system, promoting public commuting, ordinance to tree planting to maintain tree canopies. Positive approaches were enhanced through subsidizing. GI policy developments in line with national and regional policy

6.4 Role of GI in Building Urban Resilience

261

Table 6.4 Different factors of engineering resilience and their corresponding functions Factors

Functions

Robustness

The ability of the system to control the interference in achieving the goals and avoid failures, simply meant as the system resiliency

Redundancy

Alleviate decrement in functionality

Resourcefulness Enhance functionality of the system through identifying the factors that interrupt system performance and prioritize Rapidity

Enhance functionality of the system through speedup the recovery process of interrupted system

supported by diverse stakeholders and achieved via participatory approach. Decentralization is the key behind success as it strengthens the robustness of the system. It further improves the functionality and speeds up recovery from failures.

6.4.1.2

Performance

GI frameworks are engineered systems designed to restore the systems to predisturbed state from shocks and disturbances that affect the resiliency. These systems are complex due to the influence of societal, environmental, economic, and technical roles as well as increasing demands in all means. Table 6.4 shows the factors/features of engineering resilience and how they function to build resilience.

6.4.1.3

Connectivity

In the perspective of an urban setting, connectivity comprises structural and functional dimensions. The studies and use of GI should concentrate on the general enhancement of GI connections in order to attain sustainability in cities. A fair amount of connectivity (both structural and functional) helps to prevent/reduce the isolating effect, habitat loss and fragmentation, preserve ecosystem functions, and efficiently secure the ecosystem services [33]. Further facilitates the steady flow of ecological services such as the flow of information, energy, matter, and knowledge. It is a complicated process to evaluate the level and effects of connectivity. In order to optimize its advantages, such as temperature management, quality of water, and reduction of runoff, incorporation of GI into urban design should investigate the construction of a coherent network of GI (connectivity) supported by ecological services [32, 34]. This aspect of connectivity in GI system is consistent with the idea of “systems of cities,” wherein multiscale linkages join urban areas and natural reserves and permit the movement of ecological processes, energy, information, materials, humans, animals, and innovation [30]. Landscape elements known as barriers prevent biological processes from happening between ecological zones, and their elimination would greatly increase the network’s capacity for connectivity.

262

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

Connectivity enhances and ensures the functions and services of ecosystem; it acts as a conduit among the fragmented habitats and maintains a balance and facilitates ecological process while reducing exclusion effect or isolation effect. Connectivity always tends to stabilize and protect the ecosystem and its biodiversity. Movement of species flow from one patch to another can also be stated as connectivity. There are primarily two types of connectivity, namely functional and physical connectivity which are significant in urban settings. Functional connectivity is a critical aspect. Physical connectivity deals with physical/tangible relationships between GI components whereby functional connectivity allowing species flow across the landscapes involve the behavioral interactions of the biota with the green infrastructures. There is a need of appropriate connectivity protection technique to better address the challenges and threats [22]. A few strategies for improving connectivity include making sure that important areas are protected, locating the pinch points that indicate rich functional connectivity and suggest the need to strengthen ecological processes and ecosystem barriers, and prioritizing high-density corridors for conservation. Space planning and distribution play a significant role in city design by extending the green coverage to residential, commercial, and barrier areas. Worldwide the trashing and partitioning of green areas has become business as usual; eventually diminishing accessible core patches weakening connectedness among landscapes. When the edge and perforation impact increase, the ecological processes are significantly constrained and altered. Ecosystem structure and processes are based on-energy, materials, nutrients, water, soil, vegetation. Functional and physical connectivity links GI to ecological network through the flow of energy, water, material, water, and nutrient flow [35]. Mobility infrastructure highly reduces the spatial inequalities between rich and poor, facilitating connectivity among people. It increases communication, interaction, and efficiency of work performed [36].

6.4.1.4

Social

Social resilience is the capability of the community to endure, counter and acclimatize to the changes in the system and associated environment through planning and preparedness. This supports the people to recover from disasters, crisis situations, failures, violence, crimes, and risk incidents, and enhance their ability to project future risks and manage them effectively. Social resilience could be measured through the social networks that connect resources to vulnerable social groups, preexisting social vulnerabilities, and exclusion, and by local and regional governance systems. GI planning should involve different stakeholders providing equal chances to public participation and ecological aspirations. There is a need of having sound knowledge on the social vulnerabilities, governing systems, expected vulnerabilities and risks to create a better system with good social cohesion. The vulnerabilities can be addressed technically by tackling critical planning, preparedness, social diversity, and acclimatization.

6.5 Globalizing Urban Resilience

6.4.1.5

263

Multifunctionality

The primary distinguishing feature of GI initiatives is their multifunctionality, which enables several ecological, social, and economic advantages in the same physical space. GI initiatives may be seen as a win–win, comprehensive strategy that addresses a number of issues within a platform that is financially sound. GI initiatives differ from grey views, which are frequently created to accomplish one purpose, such as drainage, due to their multifunctionality [37]. The main way that GI contributes to urban resilience would be through its multifunctionality, which enables it to function adaptably in the face of varying ecosystem services. The versatility of GI is a reflection of systems thinking (adaptation and transformation). According to Baró et al. [38] an area that is ideal for flood protection can also be used for recreation, the maintenance of cultural heritage, natural grazing land for cattle, and a wildlife habitat [38]. Solutions for urban planning that are multidimensional and tackle the consequences of climate change are more likely to increase UR [39]. As a result, urban design may include GI into cities, which can assist to address a range of social and environmental challenges and have a number of positive effects, such as enhancing urban climate change adaptability [22]. Involving all stakeholders in the planning and design of GI fosters commitment develops trust and yields durable results. As such, the whole system of urban settings could be protected through widespread involvement and collaboration.

6.5 Globalizing Urban Resilience Globalizing urban resilience, new urban governance and contemporary approach is a complex process with dense network of government, urban policy makers, planners, private sector, NGOs, INGOs, World Bank, UN Habitat, international funding bodies, social and environmental activists, local community, and global consultants. 100 Resilience Cities Program (100RC) is a global initiative to support the urban development agenda. So that common laws, regulations, assessment tools, technical and management guidelines can be circulated around the global cities. Global urban resilience is centered on three core interlinked concepts of resilience, smartness, and sustainability [40]. 100RC program is initiated by Rockefeller Foundation to mark their 100th year anniversary with the objective of ‘helping cities around the world become more resilient to the physical, economic, social challenges that are a growing part of the twenty-first century’. The major strategies applied in developing urban resilience by 100RC urban network are 1. Providing assessment tools to measure urban resilience 2. Assists in developing urban resilience strategies through delivering strategic partnership 3. Provide platform for private public partnerships

264

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

4. Delivering financial support to hire a CRO Chief resilience officer for a period of two years 5. Ensure resilience dividend 6. Sharing knowledge, experience, and best practices.

6.5.1 C40 City networks are a complex governance arrangement that had a marked growth and interest over a decade competing with low-carbon technologies, climate resilient economy, and innovative policies for sustainable urban development. City networks involve multiple national and international collaborations, and pooled global influences. It paves way for global urbanization with extensive cross-national networking. It deploys climate change governance and moves to new urban centrality to deal with global crisis like global warming. About nine urban climate networks had been established in last two decades in which C40 gained prominence due to its effective climate initiatives, sophisticated and well-organized collaborations. It provides a strong platform to share knowledge, collaborate, and deliver effective global climate action. Group of Eight (G8), group of twenty (G20), and C40 are few such network models/ transnational frameworks. C40 is a diplomacy network involving stakeholders that strongly adheres and follows the UN climate frameworks, COP Collaborating with WHO healthy cities, intertwining health and climate actions. More than green investments it assists in effective problem solving [41]. Both developed and less developed nations held membership in C40 network to act collaboratively to deal the common issue of climate change. It had the primary objective of enhancing learning and information sharing thus had a decentralized governance structure unlike other transnational networks. C40 is a climate leadership group forming a network with global commitment to combat climate change issues. Though it was originally started in local level later became a global network. The effective functioning is ensured by multistakeholder governing body and high-level climate change policy performance [42]. Cities for climate protection campaign (CCP) collaborate with multiple stakeholders and for learning best practices in developing local climate change policies, and improve adaptive capacity, guides in policy adaptation, policy learning would lead to policy change which is a complex process involving diverse actors.

6.5.2 U20 U20, The Chicago Climate Charter and the California-Quebec agreement treaties had brought substantial change in international governance; it made federal cities/ states/provinces to take part in global diplomacy and dealing directly/getting direct exposure in tackling global issues like climate change. The subnational actors like mayors and governors conducting summits/world conferences, involving in policymaking, implementation and enforcement of laws/legal rules, entering international

6.6 International Urban Resilience Frameworks/Models

265

agreements, and integrating international norms into municipal ordinances, to sort out transnational challenges which federal government failed/ignored to address, and stepped into transformation in development track of a nation into a right track [43]. Involvement of subnational government actors began with international organizations dealing with urban issues. UN Habitat United Nations Human Settlement Program. During G20 Japan, Urban 20 (U20) is formalized as the working/engagement group of G20 which signifies the role of cities/subnational governments is handling global threats like climate change [44].

6.6 International Urban Resilience Frameworks/Models Urban resilience frameworks are conceptual diagrams based on the body of research and practice development offering a reference point to resilience through summarizing the set of ideas and practices promoting resilience. Resilience framework can be categorized in to three, namely city level, state level, and national level resilience frameworks [45]. 1. City level resilience frameworks • National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2015 (NIST) • NIST community resilience program evaluated existing community resilience frameworks and provided three types of metrics to measure the community improvements though proactive planning such as recovery period for rehabilitation, economic metrics (income, tax, amenities, sustained growth), and social metrics (safety, security, survival, sense of belonging • San Francisco Planning and Research Association (SPUR) Framework • Developed to make San Francisco a disaster resilient city through mitigating policies UNISDR Disaster Resilience Scorecard for Cities. 2. State level resilience frameworks • Oregon Resilience Plan. 3. National level resilience frameworks • FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency Hazus methodology. Hazus is a hazard specific framework applicable to disasters such as earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. This methodology contains models to measure the potential social, economic, and physical impacts and losses caused by using GIS technology. Steps involved, a. Performances normalized to economic cost b. Assesses the loss to be avoided by the mitigation measures c. No estimation on mitigation cost and return on investment. • PEOPLE Framework

266

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

It is a multidimensional framework and not hazard specific that can be applied in different spatial scales ranging from city to national scale in diverse temporal scale. Quantification of resilience is essential for systematic urban development. The resilience performance can be assessed and quantified using the following tools while providing insight about best urban practices to achieve resilience [46]. 100 resilient cities measurement framework of Rockefeller Foundation (100 RC) Survey based

New Zealand based method Global X Network method (GXN) UN Habitat disaster management system Resilience Alliance’s measurement framework Grosvenor resilience measurement system UNDP resilience measurement system

Statistical based methods

These methods were developed to serve different purposes based on different goals, principles, methodology, and data collection and analysis. They are surveybased/statistical data-based/multidimensional method. One of the major drawbacks of these methods is failure in less addressing or not covering the urban system components and interaction dynamics especially adaptation. With the rising intensification in urban and peri-urban areas understanding and identifying risks is an essential component to get rid of huge economic losses resulting from frequent natural disasters. There is no single universally accepted model/approach to measure disaster resilience due to diverse contexts and varying requirements [47]. It is essential to measure the present level of resilience to set it as a reference/benchmark to develop a resilient city [48]. Moreover, resilience index or measurement system needs to be simple, transparent, redundant, affordable, and multidimensional, facilitating comparison across organizations over different time horizons.

6.6.1 Rockefeller Foundation’s City Resilience Index (CRI) The framework as depicted in Fig. 6.5 has four key components of health and wellbeing, economy and society, infrastructure and ecosystems, and leadership and strategy. Through city resilience wheel the factors contributing to urban resilience can be understood. The 12 capacities in the framework determine the resilience. It emphasizes expert-driven top-down decision making furthermore private sector is assigned to have critical responsibilities in city resilience building.

6.6 International Urban Resilience Frameworks/Models

267

Fig. 6.5 Rockefeller Foundation’s CRI framework

6.6.2 UNISDR’s Disaster Resilience Scorecard Resiliency Scorecard is a quantitative tool developed by AECOM in collaboration with IBM following and based on the ten essentials of city resilience open to public use in 2014 (Fig. 6.6). This tool has about 81 assessment questions, and each question is scored from 5 to 0 best to worst performance, respectively (Table 6.5). Finally, a normalized score is obtained which gauges the position of the city for the corresponding year. This helps cities to investigate disaster risks and implement disaster risk reduction policies [9]. This scorecard aids cities in assessing the degree of preparedness and their status to respond natural disasters relative to ten essentials. It identifies the gaps and develops critical action plans to enhance resilience. Thus, the cities can understand all the elements of urban resilience, can prepare multiyear action plans, and implement and track the status to accomplish the city essentials.

268

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

Along with DRS, UNISDR publish ‘The Global Assessment Report (GAR) biannually. Moreover, ‘Project Rise’ campaign also organized to create awareness and raise funds for city resilience.

Essential 1:Engage, Share, Understanding, Coordinate Esssential 2:Create Financing and Incentives

Essential 10:Learn and Build Back Better

Essential 9:Create Warning Systems and Rehearse Preparedness

Essential 3:Identify and Understand Perils, Probabilities, and Impacts

Essential 8:Enhance and Protect Ecosystem Services

Essential 4:Make Critical Infrastructure Disaster Resilient

Essential 7:Build Public Awareness and Capacity Essential 6:Apply Risk-Aware Planning, Land Use and Building Codes

Essential 5:Make Education & Healthcare Infrastructure Disaster Resilient

Fig. 6.6 Ten essentials of AECOM and IBM resilience scorecard

Table 6.5 Score description Score

Description

0

No risk factors/efforts identified

1

Risk factors are not considered

2

Risk factors are on the agenda for discussion

3

Risk factors are in the process of being identified

4

Risk factors are identified and included in some detail

5

Present and future risks are fully considered with scientific data and multistakeholder hazard information supporting strategic decisions

6.6 International Urban Resilience Frameworks/Models Table 6.6 Layers and urban local indicators

Layer

269

Indicators

Zero

6

One

31

Two

77

Three

122

A case study conducted in Nepal used scorecard method for measuring the Disaster Resilience of Municipalities. The present status of the city essentials, lagging, and achievements can be identified. Most of the time primary data were collected through the workshops, questionnaire surveys and validated through the key informant interviews and secondary data coordinating with the local government [47]. Sim et al. [9] evaluated the disaster resilience of Hong Kong (for natural hazards) using the Sendai Framework for Local Urban Indicators/known as Scorecard (UNISDR assessment tool for city resilience) adopting innovative approach of combining top-down and bottom-up participatory method [9]. In the assessment methodology, there are four layers each consisting of a number of indicators as mentioned in Table 6.6. Usually, layer zero is used for national level measurements.

6.6.3 Comprehensive Resilience Assessment Framework for Transport Systems in Urban Areas Comprehensive Resilience Assessment Framework for Transport Systems in Urban Areas (CRAFT) is a novel, cross-disciplinary model-based methodology designed for assessing resilience of metropolitan transport networks. The model functions precisely using modular approach in which there are three modules to sort out problems of corresponding area and combining to provide results on resilience levels. It identifies and assesses resilience in three levels: Fig. 6.7 illustrates the CRAFT framework [13]. • System component level: consider physical damage to bridges, and tunnels • System level: road network disruptions, reconfiguration of traffic and network level functionality, multimodel transportation system • Regional economic level: Effect on GDP, employment, inflation. Though it is a data intensive model it effectively addresses the shortcomings in conventional approach and output more accurate estimation of resilience. This model is coupled for disaster events and transportation (case study on the Greater Los Angeles). CRAFT is not hazard specific, which can be used for any hazard for

270

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

Fig. 6.7 Simple conceptual illustration of CRAFT framework

resilience assessment. Transportation networks are critical players during disaster response and recovery (rescue victims, first aid, food and medical aid, economic recovery in long run) Disruptions in transportation system and obsolete infrastructure would further aggravate the disaster condition and delay the recovery process. CRAFT in hazard analysis helps to allocate essential resources rapidly to critical corridors, maintaining less congestion levels through avoiding heavy vehicles, encourage stay at home behavior during and post-disaster, thus lowering travel demand by incentives.

6.6.4 Urban Resilience in Climate Change Adaptation: A Conceptual Framework The framework would be useful in the future urban planning and policy development in the context of climate change adaptation. The developed framework is illustrated in Fig. 6.8. Framework developed following the methodology [49]. • Initially identified the conceptual elements of resilience covering the areas of engineering, ecological, and sociopolitical resilience in evolutionary perspective • Aligned them with the climate change adaptation and city context • Finally, conceptual framework development on urban climate resilience. Framework brief: Climate change caused unprecedented stress and shocks to urban systems. There are two types of climate change continuous climate change which are normal and steady condition and abrupt climate change that include

6.6 International Urban Resilience Frameworks/Models

271

Fig. 6.8 Conceptual framework: urban climate resilience

abnormal weather occurrences, and severe meteorological conditions that affect urban areas. Abrupt climate change analyzed for disaster risk reduction, while continuous climate change insist reshaping urban system for an improved quality. The framework is comprised of three parts. 1. Climate change disturbance system 2. Process of system transition 3. Preemptive and responsive process.

272

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

6.6.5 Resilience Maturity Model (RMM) There are several models and frameworks aimed in building urban resilience; however, models for operationalizing resilience are still undeveloped due to wide scope and complexity in the concept of resilience. RMM provides a roadmap for operationalizing resilience in the building process through providing several practical solutions in urban context and act as a guide. It assists multiple stakeholders ranging from local to international authorities, policy makers, and practitioners to operationalize city resilience process [50]. 1. Provide a holistic and comprehensive view of resilience in a multidimensional perspective 2. Facilitating effective communication among diverse stakeholders as a continual action to enhance their inclusion, dedication, and commitment to accomplish the goals 3. Identifying the room for the development to enhance the building resilience through supporting in developing new resilience strategies for built environment 4. The model contributes to the operationalization of building resilience in three ways. The model developed within the Smart Mature Resilience context (European project funded by H2020 program) comprised of number of maturity stages each consist of • Objectives • Policies to be implemented to accomplish the intended objectives of the stage and to move forward advanced stage • Stakeholders involved.

6.6.6 Urban Resilience Index A theoretical framework of urban socio-ecological resilience developed based on sustainability from the socioeconomic perspective using composite indicators. This framework considers innovation, learning capacity, flexibility, and persistence of the system. The index applied to 50 Spanish cities and results revealed significant gaps between resilience and urban development. Further it recommends reduction of resource consumption, diversification, and revival of local economy, increasing public spaces for interactions as potential measures to enhance urban resilience. The findings of URI can be set as a benchmark to evaluate the change in the future resilience level [2]. Methodology followed is shown in Fig. 6.9.

6.6 International Urban Resilience Frameworks/Models

273

Fig. 6.9 Urban resilience index framework methodology

6.6.7 Integrated Framework for Urban Resilience In the framework as illustrated in Fig. 6.10 urban networks are developed as Hybrid social-physical networks to quantify the urban resilience/efficiency while ensuring sustainability from human and social centric perspectives. It considers the social, physical, and engineering components of the urban area [51].

6.6.8 UDRI Framework: Urban Design Resilience Index UDRI framework is a multiscale and multidimensional framework that advocates resilient urban forms with extended adaptive capacity and resilience to environmental changes chiefly addressing climate uncertainty. Resilient urban forms could optimize resource use and efficiency while enhancing the benefits of systemic thinking and long-term adaptation strategies. Climate change adaptation is an integral component of sustainable development which directs to the socioeconomic development of urban systems. It is not just a potential measure to curb risks and shocks but an enabler of urban resilience. This framework promotes ecological and evolutionary resilience that advocates long-term adaptation strategies in accomplishing urban resilience. Resilience in relation to climate change adaptation is an emerging concept, where resilience bridges the gap between urban planning and climate change adaptation concepts and reducing the uncertainty in predicting climate change scenarios.

274

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

Fig. 6.10 Integrated framework for urban resilience

UDRI framework and its theoretical components such as concepts, indicators, and variables have several implications on the development of urban planning and processes, urban form designing, policies, and guidelines that can be accommodated in the development of adaptive cities/environment in the future over time. It uses the adaptive cycle model where new possible opportunities are explored to boost resilience. Framework consists of four major interrelated dimensions such as functional, ecological, physical, and spatial. It has interrelated urban design concepts with different indicators incorporated are harmony with nature, latency, polyvalent spaces and diversity, indeterminacy, heterogeneity, modularity, and connectivity, operationalized through urban morphological designs [52].

6.6.9 A Framework for Adaptive Co-management and Design for Operationalizing Urban Resilience Socio-ecological resilience mechanism emerged and gained prominence in short term in urban designing, planning, practices, and policy context in response to rapid urban change, problems confronted in urban development, and global socioecological systems uncertainty. Adaptive co-management and design framework

6.6 International Urban Resilience Frameworks/Models

275

for the operationalization of urban resilience insist the need for trans-disciplinary perspective including adaptive co-management, horizontal and vertical diverse stakeholder collaboration, dynamic learning, adapting, and adjusting process as well as innovative approach in active problem-solving exercising imagination and creativity elements [4]. The key elements of adaptive co-management are civic engagement, polycentric governance, resource management with special consideration on social learning, feedbacks, leadership, collaborations, and social networks and bridging functions. This flexible approach leads to sustainable transition to urban resilience. Figure 6.11 shows the conceptual framework. The framework is built on five experiments related to the categories and key elements on adaptive co-management and co-design. There are three domain categories such as operating with the system, understanding the system, and efficient resources management with several aspects. Different categories have shared aspects while giving much emphasis on civic engagement.

Fig. 6.11 Framework for adaptive co-management and design for operationalizing urban resilience

276

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

6.6.10 PEOPLES Resilience Framework PEOPLES resilience framework is developed for measuring the community resilience at different spatial and temporal scales. The acronym PEOPLES stands for seven dimensions, and each has a set of performance indicator/metrics integrating time and space. Finally, all layers are compiled together. The seven dimensions are as follows [53]. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Population and demographics Environment Organized government service Physical infrastructures Lifestyle and community competence Economic development Social-cultural capital The spatial scale considered is neighborhood, local/town, local/city, regional/ country, multicountry.

6.6.11 Knowledge Product Evaluation (KnoPE) KnoPE influences of the decision-making process in urban resilience. The framework was designed based on an urban climate adaptation tool. KnoPE contains several elements which helps in the dissemination of new knowledge regarding climate change, environmental realities, new concepts in urban resilience, risk assessments, norms, evaluations, resilience assessment by means of vulnerability, adaptive capacity, and bounce back capacity, outcomes of decision-making using knowledge product, value addition [54].

6.6.12 Complex Adaptive System Framework (CAS) Urban systems are complex open system interacting with environment. Dynamic urban systems are adaptive systems in which constituent elements interact with each other in nonlinear pattern. These systems are controlled by decentralized system [46].

6.6.13 Local Government Self-Assessment Tool (LGSAT) Urban resilience assessed using UNISDR local government self-assessment tool in Koh Kong in Cambodia, this tool assesses and reflect the capacity of city for DRR and

6.6 International Urban Resilience Frameworks/Models

277

vulnerability to be addressed. A survey was conducted to assess the public perception. Urban resilience index calculated for Koh Kong, mean score given to each essential [55].

6.6.14 Adaptive Cycle Model Adaptive cycle model was used to advocate resilience transformation in complex and interactive human environment systems which are essential for urban resilience management. The interpretation was performed using four models of catastrophe theory such as fold, cusp (two indicators), swallowtail (three indicators), and butterfly models (four indicators/dimension). Major drivers of transformation are identified as economy, production, energy, land use, treatment, and pollution. The entire model is a cusp catastrophe model as there in only two subsystem human and environment. But each subsystem has three groups and number of indicators. Thus, the model varies depending on the number of indicators. This theory follows hierarchical order thus models built from indicator level to subsystems. During catastrophic transformation adaptive capacity is an essential feature for a self-organizing system. Adaptive capacity helps to assess how a system responds to internal and external dynamics/changes. And adaptive cycle model better interprets the dynamics of human and natural systems. The release phase of the cycle is corresponding to the shift in catastrophic regime in transition process. Case study conducted in Lianyungang, a Chinese coastal city used integrated approach of adaptive cycle and catastrophe theory to holistically explore the resilience transformations in human–environment subsystems/rapid urban transformation/sudden dynamic changes caused by gradually transforming factors. Catastrophic theory explains the adaptability and transformation of the coupled systems involving time, through tracing the shifts in different equilibrium states in human and environmental systems [56].

6.6.15 Dynamic Models (DM) Dynamic models are groundbreaking tools in identifying and understanding the multidimensional problems related to urban arena. Urban dynamic models and simulations methods are applicable in effectively studying dynamic and complex systems where normal experiments can’t be performed. Thus, the systems can be better managed and appropriate policy, action developments will be favored. Further they assist data collection, analysis, problem structuring, and cross-stakeholder. DM is widely used in decision making and territorial and urban planning involvement. Mathematical modeling is a dynamic tool used to study the behavior of complex

278

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

systems over a period using ordinary differential equations. Other DM are Lotka– Volterra models, system dynamic models, dynamic models to assess urban resilience [8, 57].

6.6.16 Community Flood Resilience Categorization Framework Developed using unsupervised machine learning technique. The framework has three stages of development [58]. Figure 6.12 has sequenced the major steps involved in the resilience-based flood categorization framework. 1. Data processing and visualization 2. Machine learning model selection, e.g., model-based learning, hierarchical clustering, K-means clustering, artificial neutral-net clustering, SOM-ANN 3. Analysis of features of developed clusters, define the features of categories and finally develop guidelines.

Fig. 6.12 Flood resilience categorization framework methodology

Machine learning model's results interpretation

Machine learning model

Selection of un-supervised machine learning tool

Data visualization

Data preprocessing

Data set compilation

There is a growing interest in flood risk assessment over decades due to increased frequency and trend of devastating flood events. Previously flood categorization has been done considering only the characteristics of flood hazards. This framework considers the resilience of the community that is exposed to hazard. Some of the risk features considered in the framework are hydrologic features of flood hazard such as duration, depth, inundation, magnitude, frequency, season of the event, injuries, fatalities, direct losses like structural and physical damages, property damage, crop loss and indirect losses like unemployment. Flood vulnerability measured in terms of nature of exposing system such as resilience of the community, robustness, resourcefulness, redundancy, recovery period, and ability to adapt. This is a data-driven model that could produce accurate and realistic results for resilience categorization. The categorization framework helps in predicting the future scenarios thus aid in developing policy and preparedness and response plans to deal with future risk events, pave way for the development of effective disaster management strategies and shifting from reactive disaster response mechanism to proactive risk mitigation measures.

6.6 International Urban Resilience Frameworks/Models

279

6.6.17 Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) It is a ten-year action plan 2005–2015 for building the resilience of nations and communities for disasters. This framework anticipated creating a safer world free from natural hazards. This is the major outcome second united nation world conference on disaster risk reduction held in Kobe, Hyogo, in Japan in 2005. 168 governments including Asia, Africa, and Pacific regions have adopted this framework. The goal of the Hyogo framework is to substantially reduce the disaster losses toward 2015. It is the first global strategy to explain, describe, and detail the work required from all different sectors and actors to work on disaster risk reduction. HFA addresses • • • •

Challenges posed by disasters Objectives, expected outcomes, and strategic goals Priorities for action Implementation and follow up.

Hence the adoption of this framework many nations have adopted this framework in local and national level to develop disaster reduction action plans. Thus, it is essential to understand the principles and action plans of the framework for urgent and global need for multidisciplinary approach toward accomplishing disaster resilience. Priorities for action [59]. 1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation. (Develop policies, legislative and institutional frameworks for DRR, and community participation) 2. Identify, assess, and monitor disaster risks and enhancing early warning. (Risk assessment and maps, people centered information systems, space-based earth observation, climate change modeling and forecasting) 3. Use knowledge, innovation, and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at all levels. (Disaster can be substantially reduced if people are well informed and motivated toward a culture of disaster prevention and resilience-public awareness) 4. Reduce the underlying risk factors. (Disaster risks related to changing social, economic, environmental condition, and land use, and the impacts of hazards associated with geological events, weather, water, climate variability, and climate change) 5. Strengthen the disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels. (At times of disaster, impacts, and losses can be substantially reduced if authorities, individuals, and communities in hazard prone areas are well prepared and ready to act and are equipped with the knowledge and capacities for effective disaster management. It requires emergency funds and voluntarism and participation.)

280

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

6.6.18 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction The Sendai Declaration and Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction were endorsed by UN member states during the Third United Nations International Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan, from March 14–18, 2015. Recognizing the escalating adverse effects of disasters and their complexity in nature across the world, a proclamation was issued to strengthen disaster risk reduction responses. Sendai Framework strives for the considerable reduction of catastrophe risk and losses in lives, livelihoods, and health in the economic, social, physical, cultural, and environmental assets or individuals, enterprises, communities, and nations [60]. The framework was created with the purpose of [61].

Prevent new and reduce existing disaster risk through the implementation of integrated and inclusive economic, structural, legal, social, health, cultural, educational, environmental, technological, political, and institutional measures that prevent and reduce hazard exposure and vulnerability to disaster, increase preparedness for response and recovery, and thus strengthen resilience.

This framework outlines clear action plans to safeguard nations against disaster risk and the associated development downfall. Together with the Paris Agreement and the New Urban Agenda, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Finance for Development helps considerably to the achievement of sustainable development goals [62]. This is a 15-year framework, 2015–2030; voluntary non-binding agreement recognizing that the state has the major role in disaster risk reduction, with shared responsibilities with local governments, the corporate sector, and stakeholders. It is the successor instrument of Hyogo framework, which had been the most inclusive the international accord to date on disaster risk reduction. UNISDR has been responsible with implementing, monitoring, and reviewing the Sendai Framework [63]. As seen in Fig. 6.13, the Sendai Framework defines four distinct action priorities. Sendai Framework provides opportunities to countries to 1. Adopt concise, focused, forward looking, and action-oriented framework for disaster risk reduction 2. Complete the assessment and review of the Hyogo framework implementation 3. Consider the experiences from regional and national strategies, plans, agreements, and institutional mechanisms for DRR for the implementation of Hyogo framework 4. Identify the modalities of cooperation based on commitments to implement DRR 5. Determine the modalities for the periodic review of DRR framework.

6.6 International Urban Resilience Frameworks/Models

281

Fig. 6.13 Priorities of action of Sendai Framework

To support the assessment of global progress in achieving the outcome, and goals of Sendai Framework, seven global targets have been agreed as follows. 1. Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower average per 100,000 global mortalities between 2020 and 2030 compared to 2005–2015. 2. Substantially reduce the number of affected people by 2030, aiming to lower the average global figure per 100,000 in the decade 2020–2030, compared to the period 2005–2015. 3. Reduce the direct disaster economic loss in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030. 4. Substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services, among them health and educational facilities, including through developing their resilience by 2030. 5. Substantially increase the number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies by 2020. 6. Substantially enhance international cooperation to developing countries through adequate and sustainable support to complement their national actions for implementation of the framework by 2030. 7. Substantially increase the availability of and access to multihazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments to the people by 2030. Challenges for Sendai Framework are 1. 2. 3. 4.

No earmarked funding for implementation Inadequate trained manpower Orientation at all levels required for strategic decision making Required provisions in in building codes for vulnerable areas

282

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

Primary responsibility of the states to prevent and reduce disaster risk, including through cooperation

Shared responsibility between central government and national authorities, sectors, and stakeholders as appropriate to national circumstances

protection of persons and their assets while promoting and protecting all human rights including the right to development

Engagement from all of society

full engagement of all state institutions of an executive and legislative nature at national and local levels

Empowerment of local authorities and communities through resouces, incentives, and decision making responsibilities as appropriate

decision making to be inclusive and risk informed while using multi-hazrd approach

coherence of DRR and SD policies, plans, practices and mechanisms across different sectors

accounting of local and specific characteristics of disaster risks when determining measures to reduce risk

addressing underlying risk factors cost effectively through investment versus relying primarily on postdisaster response and recovery

'Build back better' for preventing the creation of , and reducing existing disaster risk

The quality of global partnerships and international cooperation to be effective, meaningful, and strong

support from developed countries and partners to developing countries to be tailored according to needs and priorities as identified by them

Fig. 6.14 Guiding principles of Sendai Framework

5. State specific guidelines for use of flexi fund 6. Mitigation fund not implemented. Guiding principles of Sendai Framework is illustrated in Fig. 6.14. To promote adaptive resilience, system decentralization and participatory disaster governance are being implemented. Raster data models have the potential to be models for measuring urban–rural resilience. Monitoring the urban resilience is also vital for communicating the findings acquired; the outcomes of urban resilience are shown using maps. Cartographic representations/maps are utilized to show resilience at the national scale in numerous distinct areal units such as rural and urban areas [64].

6.6.19 Community Resilience Neighborhood resilience for adaptive management is crucial for the creation of climate resilient built and natural environment that are persistent to short- and longterm climate vulnerabilities, acute shocks. Understanding how environmental factors, climatic threats, community interactions, and governance may better represent neighborhood resilience for adaptive management. The underlying objective of community climate resilience is recovery, or the ability of a community to return to some level of stability following a disaster. Following a disaster occurs, it is critical to implement a comprehensive recovery strategy in order to properly rehabilitate the community. The effective implementation of the recovery plan is dependent on the integration of social, economic, ecological, health and wellbeing, and mitigating factors [65]. Ten essentials for effective community resilience initiatives in the context of climate change and a 1.5-degree world emphasis the need of holistic approach and systematic thinking in building community resilience to deal with multiple challenges in dynamic global context. This requires adaptations, flexibility in human living as well as substantial transformations to ecofriendly and socially equitable living [16].

6.6 International Urban Resilience Frameworks/Models

283

• Enhance adaptability and flexibility for managing change and work with diverse resources and capacities • Take account of shock and stresses, direct and indirect impacts and anticipated and unanticipated change by enhancing specified and generalized resilience • Work horizontally across sectors to avoid counter intuitive outcomes and to find novel solutions that simultaneously address multiple concerns • Work vertically across social scales to ensure engagement in carbon reduction and to address issues of power, control, and ensure support • Reduce carbon emissions through transformative and proactive change • Build narratives of climate change to enhance climate literacy and inspire hope and action • Engage directly with futures to release creativity, imagination, and change • Focus on climate disadvantage and reducing inequities to overcome injustices of climate change and climate action • Focus on processes and pathways through encouraging participation, learning, and empowering forms of change • Focus on transformative rather than adjustment or reforms kind of change. 6.6.19.1

REDI Framework

The Resilience to Emergencies and Disasters Index (REDI) framework is used to appraise neighborhood resilience/community level resilience capacity in terms of natural, physical, and social systems, economic strength, and REDI score ranges from 1 to 100, with 100 representing the highest relative resilience capacity. The REDI scores are calculated using a number of indicator variables. Highly resilient cities are well planned in terms of resilience and emergency management; they are resourceful and equipped to sustain disruption; and they respond and recover rapidly from hazard risks [66]. Figure 6.15 illustrated the REDI methodology. For example, New York city neighborhood resilience study applied REDI framework for Hurricane Sandy’s devastation. Advantages of using the framework were 1. Results used in prioritizing the least resilient region for funding and investment for capacity building 2. Monitored the progress of neighborhood resilience capacity over time 3. Measured return on investment. 6.6.19.2

US EPA: CRSI Climate Resilience Screening Index

The index assesses adaptation and tracks countries’ progress toward achieving climate resilience. They assist communities in prioritizing initiatives to increase resilience in the face of climate change. This conceptual framework incorporates previously neglected components of vulnerability and recoverability. This index comprises five subindices, 11 domains, and 28 indicators as illustrated in Fig. 6.16 [65].

284

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

Creating comprehenisve geospatial resilience data repository

Identification and selection of relevant indicator variables

Formulation of REDI scores

Cleaning the merged dataset (ouliers/ misinformaton)

Calculating individual REDI scores

Visualizing the results

Model validation

Fig. 6.15 REDI methodology

Fig. 6.16 CRSI structure with index, subindices, domains, and indicators

References

285

References 1. York, C. R. H., & Jacob, J. S. (2020). Harnessing Green Infrastructure for Resilient, Natural Solutions. In Optimizing Community Infrastructure. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012-816240-8.00008-2 2. Suárez, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Benayas, J., & Tilbury, D. (2016). Towards an urban resilience index: A case study in 50 Spanish cities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(8). https:// doi.org/10.3390/su8080774 3. Woodruff, S., Bowman, A. O. M., Hannibal, B., Sansom, G., & Portney, K. (2021). Urban resilience: Analyzing the policies of U.S. cities. Cities, 115(September 2020), 103239. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103239 4. Crowe, P. R., Foley, K., & Collier, M. J. (2016). Operationalizing urban resilience through a framework for adaptive co-management and design: Five experiments in urban planning practice and policy. Environmental Science and Policy, 62(2015), 112–119. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.envsci.2016.04.007 5. Stanger, N., & Beauchamp, J. V. (2015). Panarchy, Transformation, and Place: Exploring Social Change and Resiliency Through an Ecological Lens. The Trumpeter, 31(1), 14–38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285232379_Panarchy_transformation_and_ place_exploring_social_change_and_resiliency_through_an_ecological_lens 6. Feng, X., Xiu, C., Bai, L., Zhong, Y., & Wei, Y. (2020). Comprehensive evaluation of urban resilience based on the perspective of landscape pattern: A case study of Shenyang city. Cities, 104(February 2019), 102722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102722 7. Bixler, R. P., Lieberknecht, K., Atshan, S., Zutz, C. P., Richter, S. M., & Belaire, J. A. (2020). Reframing urban governance for resilience implementation: The role of network closure and other insights from a network approach. Cities, 103(July 2019), 102726. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cities.2020.102726 8. Assumma, V., Bottero, M., Datola, G., De Angelis, E., & Monaco, R. (2020). Dynamic models for exploring the resilience in territorial scenarios. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010003 9. Sim, T., Wang, D., & Han, Z. (2018). Assessing the disaster resilience of megacities: The case of Hong Kong. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041137 10. Chelleri, L., Olazabal, M., Kunath, A., Minucci, G., Waters, J. J., & Yumalogava, L. (2012). Multidisciplinary perspectives on urban resilience. Workshop Report 1st edition. In Basque Centre for Climate Change. http://resilience2014.sciencesconf.org/file/78005 11. Dianat, H., Wilkinson, S., Williams, P., & Maxwell, K. (2012). From Indicators to Action : The Case of Auckland Ten Essentials of Sendai Framework. 1–40. https://www.preventionweb.net/ files/65737_heimandianatfromindicatorstoactiont.pdf 12. Dale, S. (2015). Innovative Scorecard for Evaluating Resiliency in our Cities. Planet@Risk, 3(1), 154–157. Davos: Global Risk Forum GRF Davos https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.839.1491&rep=rep1&type=pdf 13. Koc, E., Cetiner, B., Rose, A., Soibelman, L., Taciroglu, E., & Wei, D. (2020). CRAFT: Comprehensive Resilience Assessment Framework for Transportation Systems in Urban Areas. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 46(July), 101159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei. 2020.101159 14. Panda, Abhilash and Amaratunga, & Dilanthi. (2016). Making Cities resilient to disasters: “new” ten essentials. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Building Resilience, 109–129. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/30298/%0AThe 15. Wang, L., Xue, X., Zhang, Y., & Luo, X. (2018). Exploring the emerging evolution trends of urban resilience research by scientometric analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102181 16. Fazey, I., Carmen, E., Chapin, F. S., Ross, H., Rao-Williams, J., Lyon, C., Connon, I. L. C., Searle, B. A., & Knox, K. (2018). Community resilience for a 1.5 °C world. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.006

286

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

17. Eltinay, N. (2019). City-to-city exchange: redefining “resilience” in the Arab region. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 10(4), 222–238. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/IJDRBE-05-2019-0028 18. Costa, C. G. F. (2021). Disaster management and climate adaptation roadmap for coastal cities based on undrr’s ten essentials. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management, 21(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.5894/RGCI-N372 19. Amaratunga, D., Sridarran, P., & Haigh, R. (2019). Making Cities Resilient Report 2019 : A snapshot of how local governments progress in reducing disaster risks in alignment with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction Contribution from the Action on “Making Cities Sustainable and Resilient: Impl. https://www.undrr.org/publication/making-cities-resili ent-report-2019-snapshot-how-local-governments-progress-reducing 20. Vargas-Hernández, J. G., & Zdunek-Wielgołaska, J. (2020). Urban green infrastructure as a tool for controlling the resilience of urban sprawl. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00623-2 21. Schiappacasse, P., & Müller, B. (2015). Planning green infrastructure as a source of urban and regional resilience - towards institutional challenges. Urbani Izziv, 26(August 2016), S13–S24. https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-supplement-001 22. Liu, Z., Xiu, C., & Ye, C. (2020). Improving Urban Resilience through Green Infrastructure: An Integrated Approach for Connectivity Conservation in the Central City of Shenyang, China. Complexity, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1653493 23. Albrechts, L., Barbanente, A. & Monno, V. (2020) ‘Practicing transformative planning: the territory-landscape plan as a catalyst for change’, City, Territory and Architecture, 7(1), pp. 1– 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-019-0111-2 24. Ghofrani, Z., Sposito, V., & Faggian, R. (2017) ‘A Comprehensive Review of Blue-Green Infrastructure Concepts’, International Journal of Environment and Sustainability, 6(1). https:// doi.org/10.24102/ijes.v6i1.728 25. Dora, C., Haines, A., Balbus, J., Fletcher, E., Adair-Rohani, H., Alabaster, G., Hossain, R., de Onis, M., Branca, F., & Neira, M. (2015) ‘Indicators linking health and sustainability in the post-2015 development agenda’, The Lancet, 385(9965), pp. 380–391. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0140-6736(14)60605-X 26. Emilsson, T., & Sang, A.O. (2017) Impacts of Climate Change on Urban Areas and NatureBased Solutions for Adaptation, Book-Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_2 27. Fletcher, T. D., Shuster, W., Hunt W.F., & Viklander, M. (2015) ‘sUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more – The evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage’, Urban Water Journal, 12(7), pp. 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2014.916314 28. Shao, Z., Bakker, M., Spit, T., Jansen, L.J, & Qun, W. (2020) ‘Containing urban expansion in China: the case of Nanjing’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(2), pp. 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1576511 29. Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Staddon, C., Vito, L. D., Gerlak, A. K., Ward, S., Schoeman, Y., Hart, A., & Booth, G. (2020) Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63:4, 710–732, https://doi. org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1605890 30. Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Gerlak, A. K., Mayer, B., Evans, T. P., & Lansey, K. E. (2020) ‘Urban resilience and green infrastructure systems: towards a multidimensional evaluation’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44, pp. 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020. 05.001 31. Cook, J., & Quartermaine, J. (2010). Northwest Regional Landscape Character Framework, Integration of Historic Landscape Chapter- Heritage Report. https://www.semanticscholar. org/paper/North-West-Regional-Landscape-Character-Framework%2C-Cook-Quartermaine/ 996b7fc08954cf5a825fa3dd90e1be800a6b07b5 32. Lemes de Oliveira, F. (2019) Towards a Spatial Planning Framework for the Re-naturing of Cities. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01866-5_6

References

287

33. Liquete, C., Kleeschulte, S., Dige, G., Maes, J., Grizzetti, B., Olah,B., &Zulian, G. (2015) ‘Mapping green infrastructure based on ecosystem services and ecological networks: A PanEuropean case study’, Environmental Science and Policy, 54, pp. 268–280. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.envsci.2015.07.009 34. Lafortezza, R., Davies, C., Sanesi, G., & Konijnendijk, C. C. (2013). ‘Green Infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions.’ iForest 6: 102–108. https://doi. org/10.3832/ifor0723-006 IForest, 6(3), pp. 102–108. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0723-006 35. Pakzad, P., & Osmond, P. (2015). A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Green Infrastructure Sustainability Performance in Australia. The State of Australian Cities Conference. https://soa cconference.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Pakzard.pdf 36. Rivera, M., & Lagos, A. (2013). Establishing a Sustainable Development Goal on Cities. December, 12. https://doi.org/10.2312/iass.2013.005 37. Naumann, S., Davis, M., Kaphengst, T., Pieterse, M., & Rayment, M. (2011). Design, implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure projects. Final report the European Commission, DG Environment, Contract no. 070307/2010/577182/ETU/F.1, Ecologic institute and GHK Consulting. p. 142. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiv ersity/pdf/GI_DICE_FinalReport.pdf 38. Baró, F., Haase, D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015) ‘Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: A quantitative assessment in five European cities’, Ecological Indicators, 55, pp. 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015. 03.013 39. Davies, C. & Lafortezza, R. (2019) ‘Transitional path to the adoption of nature-based solutions’, Land Use Policy, 80(June), pp. 406–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.020 40. Leitner, H., Sheppard, E., Webber, S., & Colven, E. (2018). Globalizing urban resilience. Urban Geography, 39(8), 1276–1284. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2018.1446870 41. Davidson, K., Coenen, L., & Gleeson, B. (2019). A Decade of C40: Research Insights and Agendas for City Networks. Global Policy, 10(4), 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899. 12740 42. Lee, T., & van de Meene, S. (2012). Who teaches and who learns? Policy learning through the C40 cities climate network. Policy Sciences, 45(3), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077012-9159-5 43. Burke-white, W. W. (2021). Cities and Provinces in a World of States : Subnational Governments in the International Legal System. Yale Journal of International Law, 47(No: 21–33). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3924343 44. Lanfranchi, G., Kooka, K., Richard, O., & Shield, M. (2019). Delivering National Climate Action Through Decarbonized Cities. In Policy brief on Climate change and Environment. G20-Insights, 1–23. https://www.g20-insights.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/t20-japan-tf312-national-climate-action-decarbonized-cities-1.pdf 45. Cimellaro, G. P. (2016). Chapter 1: Urban Resilience for Emergency Response and Recovery. In Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering (pp. 39–155). https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110800487.39 46. Ilmola, L. (2016). Approaches to Measurement of Urban Resilience. In Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39812-9_11 47. Adhikari, B., Chandra, A., Chapagain, S., & Thapa, A. (2021). Measuring the Disaster Resilience of Municipalities in Nepal : A Case Study of Rampur Municipality, Palpa. Proceedings of 9th IOE Graduate Conference, 9, 122–128. ISSN: 2350-8914 48. Narieswari, L., Sitorus, S. R. P., Hardjomidjojo, H., & Putri, E. I. K. (2021). Assessment of disaster resilience in Semarang City. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 771(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/771/1/012026 49. Kim, D., & Lim, U. (2016). Urban resilience in climate change adaptation: A conceptual framework. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040405 50. Hernantes, J., Maraña, P., Gimenez, R., Sarriegi, J. M., & Labaka, L. (2019). Towards resilient cities: A maturity model for operationalizing resilience. Cities, 84(July), 96–103. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.07.010

288

6 Urban Resilience and Frameworks

51. Bozza, A., Asprone, D., & Manfredi, G. (2015). Developing an integrated framework to quantify resilience of urban systems against disasters. Natural Hazards, 78(3), 1729–1748. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11069-015-1798-3 52. Dhar, T. K., & Khirfan, L. (2017). A multi-scale and multi-dimensional framework for enhancing the resilience of urban form to climate change. Urban Climate, 19, 72–91. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2016.12.004 53. Cimellaro, G. P. (2016). PEOPLES resilience framework. Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, 41, 109–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30656-8_6 54. Ernst, K. M., & Preston, B. L. (2020). Applying the Knowledge Product Evaluation (KnoPE) Framework to two urban resilience cases in the United States. Environmental Science and Policy, 107(February), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.018 55. Yin, S. (2017). Assessing City Resilience: Using the UNISDR Local Government SelfAssessment Tool in Koh Kong, Cambodia. This Research Is Granted by the Urban Climate Change Resilience in Southeast Asia (UCRSEA) Project, Which Is Funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), June. https://www.tei.or.th/thaicityclimate/public/research-12.pdf 56. Li, Y., Kappas, M., & Li, Y. (2018). Exploring the coastal urban resilience and transformation of coupled human-environment systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 1505–1511. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.227 57. Feofilovs, M., Romagnoli, F., Gotangco, C. K., Josol, J. C., Jardeleza, J. M. P., Litam, J. E., Campos, J. I., & Abenojar, K. (2020). Assessing resilience against floods with a system dynamics approach: a comparative study of two models. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 11(5), 615–629. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-022020-0013 58. Abdel-Mooty, M. N., Yosri, A., El-Dakhakhni, W., & Coulibaly, P. (2021). Community Flood Resilience Categorization Framework. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 61(November 2020), 102349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102349 59. Australian Government National Recovery and Resilience Agency. (2021). United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction: Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 2030. Retrieved 11 09, 2021, from Australian Disaster Resilience Knowledge Hub: https://kno wledge.aidr.org.au/resources/sendai-framework/ 60. United Nations General Assembly. (2015) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 3 June 2015, Pub. L. No. A/CONF.206/6 and Corr. 1, chap. I, resolution 2. 15-08955, 08955 1 (2015). https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassem bly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_69_283.pdf 61. UNECE. (2021). Areas of Work: Sendai Framework. Retrieved 11 09, 2021, from UNECE: Sustainable Development Goals: https://unece.org/sendai-framework 62. UNDRR. (2021). Implementing the Sendai Framework: What is the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction? Retrieved 11 2021, 09, from UNDRR: United Nation Office for Disaster Risk Reduction: https://www.undrr.org/implementing-sendai-framework/whatsendai-framework 63. United Nations. (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. In 2015. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2157sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf 64. Pang, P., Guo, Z., & Wang, Y. C. (2021). Assessing urban-rural climate resilience of metropolitan Yangon, Myanmar. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 42(3), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjtg.12383 65. Summers, J. K., Smith, L. M., Harwell, L. C., & Buck, K. D. (2017). Conceptualizing holistic community resilience to climate events: Foundation for a climate resilience screening index. GeoHealth, 1(4), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GH000047 66. Kontokosta, C. E., & Malik, A. (2018). The Resilience to Emergencies and Disasters Index: Applying big data to benchmark and validate neighborhood resilience capacity. Sustainable Cities and Society, 36(October 2017), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.10.025

Chapter 7

Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

Contents 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

Green Infrastructure Multifunctionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assessing and Mapping GI Multifunctionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classification of GI Multifunctionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban Planning for GI Multifunctionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spatial Planning for GI Multifunctionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.1 GI Planning Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.2 Approaches Addressing Governance Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.3 Tradeoffs, Synergies, and Spatial Conflicts in GI Planning for Multifunctionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 Quantification of Multifunctionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.1 Connectivity Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.2 Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.3 Green Infrastructure Spatial Planning (GISP) Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.4 Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis (ESDA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.5 Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis (MSPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.6 Zonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Role of Green Infrastructure in Protecting the Ecosystem Functions and Services . . . . . 7.7.1 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7.2 Urban Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7.3 Green Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 Multifunctional Benefits of Green Infrastructure in Community Development . . . . . . . 7.9 Role of GI in Supporting the Development of Green Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9.1 Strategic and Instrumental Components in Achieving Resilience . . . . . . . . . . 7.9.2 Green Economy and Entrepreneurship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9.3 Benefits of Green Entrepreneurship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10 The Role of GI in Promoting Societal Health and Wellbeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10.1 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10.2 Physical Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10.3 Social Cohesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10.4 Stress Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10.5 Urban Resilience and Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10.6 Health Concerns in Disaster Risk Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

290 290 291 291 296 299 300

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Kumareswaran and G. Y. Jayasinghe, Green Infrastructure and Urban Climate Resilience, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37081-6_7

289

300 300 301 303 305 307 308 310 311 313 313 315 317 320 321 323 324 324 325 326 326 326 327 328 329

290

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

7.1 Green Infrastructure Multifunctionality The key principle and well-established concept of green infrastructure is multifunctionality (GI). It refers to GI’s capacity to fulfill multiple activities such as social, economic, and ecological while offering numerous advantages to the associated geographical region. The ecosystem services provided by GI are expertly managed, executed, and largely accepted by the public, owing to various shareholder collaboration, landscape stewardship, a participatory approach, and social inclusion [1]. The spatial integration of social, economic, environmental, cultural, physical, and aesthetic purposes is facilitated by multifunctionality, resulting in a strong demand for GI in cities. Furthermore, it aids in the implementation of varied urban policies and meets the needs of partners [2]. The GI interdisciplinary approach supports environmental preservation, biodiversity conservation, resilience to climate change, habitat cohesion, and has been highlighted as a viable integrated management technique for natural resources like as water, land, and biotic. These services are complicated, overlapping, and interdependent [3]. The network of GI multifunctionality may be improved by (a) assessing and mapping GI multifunctionality, (b) classifying multifunctionality, and (c) adaptive design and planning [4].

7.2 Assessing and Mapping GI Multifunctionality The use of GI evaluation and mapping, also known as ecosystem service mapping (ESS mapping), to help in GI spatial analysis. It distinguishes between the supply, demand, and flow of ecosystem services and evaluates the tradeoffs and synergies of GI benefits. The goal of ESS mapping is to identify land with a higher potential to offer ESS, land cover suitable with ESS provisions, and the impact of land change owing to ESS potential. Landcover maps are commonly used as a proxy for ecosystems and to create a link between land cover and ecosystem service potential. Land cover maps, while basic and based on easily accessible data, are insufficient for determining ESS potential. Yet, due to the complexity of ESS interactions, the result of ESS mapping is rarely used in spatial planning. Therefore, with greater terrain complexity, ESS mapping becomes more challenging [5]. An ecosystem service assessment matrix (ESAM) was created employing 32 ecological services against distinct land use patterns in a case study done in Barcelona, Spain (4 ecosystem services with 32 subcategories vs. 10 urban land cover types). ESAM entails quantifying ES supply, as well as mapping and visualization. Coordination of Information on the Environment (CORINE) land cover (CLC) data was utilized as a reference in the study. The CORINE initiative was launched in the EU, and the database includes 44 different types of land cover across Europe. The CLC dataset employs a 25-ha minimum mapping unit and a 100-m minimum width. Vector

7.4 Urban Planning for GI Multifunctionality

291

Fig. 7.1 Methodology adopted for land cover approach in building ESAM, where 0-no relevant capacity to supply ecosystem services and 5-highest relevancy to supply ecosystem services

data and ES matrices were imported into ArcGIS to display the geographical distribution of ES in the research region. Four geographic distribution maps created for ES were merged to create a final ES assessment map that depicts the spatial distribution features of the site and serves as a reference for UGI design. Figure 7.1 depicts a six-step technique for assessing ecosystem services in a land cover approach. A research in Cheltenham, a typical urban town in Gloucestershire, England, using the MAES framework–Operational framework for Mapping and Evaluation of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES), which is highlighted in the EU biodiversity plan to 2020. This framework is applicable at the local, regional, and national levels. Figure 7.2 depicts the methods used [6].

7.3 Classification of GI Multifunctionality GI promotes multifunctionality across several platforms, however it is most commonly discussed on a social, ecological, economic, psychological, and technical basis including endowment, regulation, and supplementation of ecosystem services, as shown in Table 7.1 [7, 8].

7.4 Urban Planning for GI Multifunctionality There is compelling evidence that traditional urban planning fails to meet the adaptation issues and problems that cities confront today [22]. To manage the greengray-blue hybrid systems, NbS-like GI systems are required to augment and aid the functioning of conventional gray infrastructure to withstand the effects of urbanization, globalization, and climate change [23]. GI is defined as “the inventive fusion of natural and man-made (blue, green, and gray) structures aiming to achieve specific resilience goals (e.g., public health, flood management, etc.) with broad public acceptance and regard to the notion of appropriate technology” [24]. Globally, GI is increasingly being incorporated as a critical component of resilience planning. Because of the fundamental role that UGI plays in Human-Nature Connectivity Theory (HNCT), it has been demonstrated that the bigger the percentage of pro-environmental acts, the lower the amount of climate-change-causing behaviors. Using HNCT in urban

292

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

Fig. 7.2 Technology layout of MAES framework

7.4 Urban Planning for GI Multifunctionality

293

Table 7.1 Green infrastructure multifunctionality Environmental

Social

Economic

Psychological

Carbon sequestration

Reduce social vulnerability

Reduce health cost

Increase access to Storm water green space management

Technical

Mitigation of urban heat island (UHI) effect

Increase social values/capital

Reduce disaster damage cost

Enhance spiritual and intellectual interactions

Gray and black water management

Improve air quality

Increase social interactions

Cost saving (Building life cycle)

Enhance quality of life

Integrated solid waste management

Ground water replenishment

Citizens’ empowerment especially women, children, and vulnerable population

Reduce energy demand/building energy consumption

Relieving from depression and anxiety

Enhance water quality

Wildlife habitat

Improve perception of neighborhood quality

Involves in value addition to goods and services

Better connectivity to nature

Enhance urban resilience

Enhance landscape connectivity

Opportunity for education and training

Reduce reliance on external resources

Improve public health

Disaster risk management

Pollutant filtration

Sense of community

Provide space for urban food production

Increase life expectancy

Sustainable urban development

Mitigate and adapt climate change

Improve educational level

Provide amenities Better mental and Sustainable to residents psychological agriculture health development

Improve urban biodiversity

Enhance Decrease water occupant comfort demand

Experience nature Sustainable and eco-tourism natural resource management

Odor control

Research and development

Increase land and property value

Provide recreational space such as gardening, biking, cycling, fishing, play area, fresh water source

Improve aesthetics

Enhance territorial cohesion

Reduce need for active system heating and cooling

Improve cognitive Rural functions development

(continued)

294

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

Table 7.1 (continued) Environmental

Social

Economic

Prevent soil erosion

Animal welfare

Increase economic, social, ecological, and aesthetic value of the building

Urban spatial planning

Facilitate soil forming, development and nutrient cycling

Cultural heritage and cultural interaction

Generation of income by selling wild biodiversity resources (medicine, crop, food, fuel wood) from GI

Open space planning/vacant lots of management

Conserve the potential for arable land

Learning and experimental education

Provide building materials, fencing poles

Reduce surface runoff and facilitate infiltration

Provide fodder, fiber, hedge, fish farming

Buffer natural disasters and disturbances

Investment and employment

Reduce GHG emission

Competitiveness and economic growth

Improve acoustic performance, and reduce sound transmission

Green economy development

Prevent water pollution

Agriculture-based business

Wind speed modification

Product diversification

Improve habitat, species, and genetic diversity Support native species Maintain natural ecological processes Source [1, 3, 4, 7–21]

Psychological

Technical

7.4 Urban Planning for GI Multifunctionality

295

development and community planning techniques can provide a number of choices for improving city safety and living standards. The possibilities are [25]: • Using nature as a design inspiration and material mix for houses, public spaces, offices, and other construction components. • Creating possibilities for re-uniting with nature via the establishment and enhancement of the public UGI. • Incorporating plants and natural components into daily life, workstations, and institutional structures such as prisons and hospitals. • Recovering abandoned and barren land for recreation and leisure as well as to increase biodiversity and various other ecological functions. • Restoring degraded land and environmental assets such as riverine zones and lakes to let urban inhabitants engage with nature. • Promoting more accessibility for the general public and far more opportunities for various outdoor experiences through nature trails, public UGI, green walls, rooftop gardens, and other initiatives. In many places across the world, GI is included into planning for resilience. They are vegetated areas in cities that are planned to serve as decentralized storm water management systems and other ecological services like disaster management, biodiversity preservation by providing habitat for species, relieving environmental pressure from urbanization and land use change, enhancing quality of life by offering recreational spaces for urban residents (such as parks, sports fields, golf courses, and school fields), and supporting social networks [24]. Renaturing of cities entails GI multifunctionality that primarily depends on stakeholder engagement, supporting policy frameworks, and strategic planning [26] in order to maximize the supply of ecosystem services. There are two main methods for include green infrastructure in urban development [27]. • Creating framework of interconnected ecological corridors and spaces • Greening of industrial and business zones—installation of appropriate GI components to create economically beneficial psychologically desirable pleasant workplace. Since the city development focuses on high density housing, intensified land use, altered land use patterns, and brownfield development, there are synergies and tradeoffs between the development of compact cities and urban green space. These processes also have the potential to reduce the amount of green space. As such, it is crucial to strategically apply green space that is multifunctional and provides superior ecosystem services to make up for harm done and for efficient space management. Because to the constrained area, space management and green network management are crucial and difficult processes in the development of compact cities. GI multifunctionality, which simultaneously gives several advantages, aids in achieving this.

296

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

To ensure multifunctionality in strategic planning, multifunctionality planning must be in line with city planning, GI performance, and numerous uses of green areas. The study of Hansena et al. [14] put forward following recommendations in promoting GI multifunctionality in dense urban cities through gathering insights from the case studies in countries UK, German, and Denmark [14]. Multifunctionality is considered in, • Systematic spatial assessment of blue–green space functions (social, economic, and ecological functions) • City wide strategic planning of urban green space considering available standards, guidelines, and legal frameworks—it is a planning principle in land use for transforming conventional land use planning into sustainable land use planning. This gives priority to sustainability practices to yield optimal benefits such as natural resource conservation, agriculture, water conservation, aesthetic development while developing/modifying land. As a principle it tries to resolve the competing conflicts among the multifunctionality while harnessing the benefits through synergizing them through solid actions, plan, and policy. • Design and management—green functionality act as both planning principle and spatial management in site scale, it balances diverse functions and uses addressing spatial segregation. The synergies, tradeoffs, and capacity must be analyzed prior to installation. • Cross sectoral partnerships—develop multistakeholder cooperation including government department, private entities.

7.5 Spatial Planning for GI Multifunctionality GI, a supporting tool in urban spatial planning, is regarded as a crucial urban infrastructure and has transformed the way in which landscape and ecosystems are planned for, developed, and managed, as well as reversing trends in habitat and landscape fragmentation. It differs from traditional techniques in that it considers planning for constructed infrastructure, growth control, and conservation value. In Europe, where cities face severe demands on land, GI has become a well-known strategy due to its quantity and distribution of natural features in the landscape, integration, and interplay of numerous services and benefits [28]. As the natural environment has the innate ability to provide a range of ecosystem services, GI works to accomplish sustainable development goals by combining nature-based solutions. Incorporating sustainability, resilience, and environmental values into spatial planning has become a cohesive approach to decision-making [19]. Environmental and social needs must be taken into account during urban spatial design. As many social groups coexist, this method is oriented on the needs of the people and necessitates participatory planning processes, decision-making based on public references, and community involvement for its implementation [16]. By fostering a comprehensive awareness of intricately intertwined socioecological systems and their dynamics, green infrastructure and ecosystem services

7.5 Spatial Planning for GI Multifunctionality

297

play a crucial role in advancing sustainable land use and environmental planning. It is a vast, enigmatic idea. Application-oriented frameworks are capable of operationalizing GI multifunctionality. Due to its versatility compared to gray infrastructures, GI has been given priority in European Union environmental policy debates as a planning strategy at many geographical and temporal dimensions. GI planning is not a brand-new strategy; rather, it is a synthesis of several creative strategies built on the tenets of cooperative strategic and adaptive planning and multidimensional benefits [29]. Urban development must take into account sustainability and (socio-ecological) resistance due to evolving changes and intensifying pressures in urban planning and land use changes. GI expansion is used as a strategy to improve the sustainability and resistance of urban communities while maximizing the benefits to the community, urban transformation, and development strategy. Since multifunctionality is a justification to broaden the GI reach/expansion, GI would be an excellent solution to outdated infrastructures, abandoned lands, poverty, and economic issues [23]. Urban planners and designers benefit from thorough analyses of multifunctionality for flexible GI planning. Multifunctionality and GI quality are becoming cogent planning principles. For sustainable landscape management, GI planning, design, and management, multifunctionality is a developing area of study among practitioners and academia. In China, the ecological civilization framework is included into the constitution to support the country’s environmental policy and legal framework. Radical green development initiatives for achieving environmental protection objectives in China. To improve the quality of green space, GI initiatives were conducted in Beijing, including the green belt program in 2000, Country park circle projects in 2007, and Plain afforestation project in 2012 [4]. One of the top cities for GI adoption and promotion is New York City. Their GI strategy prioritizes water quality while also aiming to give other sustainability advantages. When GI is planned or executed, it is frequently done so with a single, narrow focus; in the case of the USA, this is mostly related to storm water/water management, which significantly reduces the value of GI in comparison to other approaches. GI performs a variety of tasks, and there are a number of synergistic advantages and tradeoffs that need to be carefully considered [17]. GI is a highly regarded method for improving the functional, geographical, and temporal connectedness in local, national, and regional spatial planning. GI planning is nested at a variety of geographical dimensions, from the local neighborhood to the global, and is often more significant the larger the size. Gastrointestinal components have synergistic interactions and effects at several levels. Plan nesting, when used at the local level, is a strategic tactic. Figure 7.3 depicts the green infrastructure framework (GIF) suggested by Davies and Lafortezza in [28]. GI is primarily composed of five components that interact with one another to give a variety of tasks and advantages. Also, it demonstrates the nesting of several geographic scales with concern for time. When constructing green infrastructures for cities, it is crucial to have an equitable distribution of space that considers tradeoffs and synergies in order to negotiate and prioritize the necessary green components without concentrating on just one. By

298

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

Fig. 7.3 Green infrastructure framework exhibiting planning nesting

using strategic methods for site selection, uniform allotment, and addressing multifunctionality, the intended results may be optimized. According to the requirements, a set of criteria is used to choose the site, and the appropriate weight is given to each criterion to identify the severe hotspot areas and give them high priority. Then, maps are made for each feature of interest, and they are superimposed to plan the final layout map taking all features into consideration. According to GI planning, resource conservation is ensured while natural resource usage is maximized by regulatory/planning policy, strategies, and procedures. To manage GI using a particular set of principles is a complex procedure since there are many different sets of rules that vary depending on the setting, local planning cultures, and national building traditions. It is a flexible, dynamic, and inconsistent structure [30]. Prioritizing the landscape and planning for land use are crucial components of spatial planning for installing GI. The majority of the time, priority is given in the conservation agenda to natural reserves, hotspot regions, and endemic, endangered, threatened, and fragile species. Species distribution, landscape, biodiversity richness, ecosystem connection, and functioning are given attention in spatial planning [31].

7.5 Spatial Planning for GI Multifunctionality

299

Following the principles of spatial planning, according to Schiappacasse and Müller [32], will increase urban resilience. 1. Maintain a balanced and robust system by enriching and sustaining diversity in biota, resources, social, and economic factors. 2. Connectivity is crucial for the functioning of infrastructure and can be categorized into spatial, structural, and functional. Spatial connectivity involves the interaction of biotic and abiotic factors between inhabitants and their surroundings. Structural connectivity refers to the physical relationship between residents and landscape features while functional connectivity pertains to the movement and processes of inhabitants and ecosystems. 3. Manage control variables: Control variables such as land zoning, legal systems, standards, and guidelines are essential to manage uncertainties, and incentive, penalty or compensation tactics can be implemented based on requirements. 4. Urban complex system thinking: Adopt a complex system thinking for urban planning by recognizing uncertainties, better emergency preparedness, and identifying development means across different spatial and temporal scales. 5. Capacity building: Capacity building is critical to constantly update knowledge and technology in dynamic frameworks like GI and UR. Revising managing strategies, adaptive and responsive measures, and preparedness is necessary to address changes in internal and external environments, such as political, technical, socio-economical, and institutional challenges. 6. Participation and partnership: Stakeholder participation and partnership are necessary to create a strong network of knowledge in different fields, enabling collaborative decision-making in a centralized manner. 7. Multilevel governance: Multilevel governance involves stakeholders and elites in various hierarchical levels of organizational structure with interconnected norms and strategic planning, where overlapping functionalities can occur.

7.5.1 GI Planning Principles The key principles for the successful UGI planning and implementation are [1]. • Integration—Integrating urban green into urban physical structures and functional relations, green-gray infrastructure integration • Multifunctionality—Provision of diverse social, ecological, economic, technical, cultural, regulatory, biotic, and abiotic functions • Connectivity—Functional and physical linkages of green spaces at different spatial and temporal scales • Multiscale planning approach—Applicable in multiple spatial scales ranging from site, local, community (urban/rural), national, regional, and international scale • Multiobject approach—GI planning encompasses all the green and blue spaces either private or public spaces and natural or semi-natural spaces • Strategic, cooperative, and socially inclusive planning process.

300

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

7.5.2 Approaches Addressing Governance Process • Strategic approach—It is a flexible and dynamic approach that changes over time to provide long-term benefits • Social inclusion—GI planning involves community participation and management • Transdisciplinary—integrate knowledge from diverse disciplines and multiple stakeholder collaboration.

7.5.3 Tradeoffs, Synergies, and Spatial Conflicts in GI Planning for Multifunctionality Global cities encourage GI to improve urban resilience and the supply of ecological services. Though GI aims to offer sustainability benefits in terms of social, economic, and environment through exhibiting multifunctionality, it is less understood, less informed, and lacks a systematic and inclusive approach, lacks an integrated model, and benefits of GI are highly localized, which has significant implications on social and environmental justice of locality. And seen from a standpoint with a specific purpose, such as storm water management. A consistent, all-encompassing, and comprehensive approach to GI planning and integration is necessary to produce the greatest advantage. It is necessary to utilize a common spatial planning model (replicable, inclusive, multicriteria model) that makes use of GIS, RS, and GPS methodologies. Spatial planning approach to deal with tradeoffs and synergies of delivering ES of GI, identify priority areas of implementation [2, 23]. 1. Not all the benefits can be simultaneously provided, have to be compromised in choosing the potential, highly demanding, and required functional to a spatial site 2. GI multifunctionality requires a systematic integrated assessment process for planning 3. Requires valuation methodology 4. Sound research basis for decision making.

7.6 Quantification of Multifunctionality In spatial planning, multifunctionality must be quantified. Indicators for ecological resilience, connectivity, and biodiversity are typically employed to evaluate GI success. Below are a few metrics used to assess GI effectiveness [33]. Species related—species richness (number of species in given area), occurrence or turnover of rare species, presence of keystone species (sensitive species), species movement across new connectivity features.

7.6 Quantification of Multifunctionality

301

Habitat related—actual amount of protected/restored area of land/water, physical attributes of area (e.g., hydrology, soil condition, nutrient status), functional habitat area (e.g., habitat patch size). Other indicators—Indices related to deviation from the undisturbed or natural situation, such as the Natural Capital index which assesses the difference between natural conditions and the actual situation in terms of species composition and abundance.

7.6.1 Connectivity Measurement Planning and implementing multifunctional GI requires connection modeling (connectivity assessments). In order to protect the connectedness of green spaces and corridors, planning ideas like ecological networks, geographic information systems, and conservation subdivisions are used. To make the corridor designs as efficient as possible, connectivity analyses are made. This is a data-driven strategy to comprehend the migration of species and organisms across environments. Ecological inference and output interpretation are currently constrained by conceptual (e.g., movement ecology features) and technical (e.g., evaluation of resistance values and model outputs) flaws [34]. Measures of connectivity are applied to the spatial design of conservation projects like GI. The methods listed below can be used to gauge functional connection. • Network (graph-based) indicators The capacity of an organism to migrate between nodes is represented by the connections between the landscape’s nodes, which are often habitat patches. Because it is species-specific, it works well for picking locations for conservation and habitat reserves. • Equivalent Connected Area (ECA) The size of a single patch that would have the same likelihood of connectedness as the actual habitat pattern in the landscape is what is meant by this definition. It combined land cover data from Coordinate Information on the Environment (CORINE) and the high resolution JRC forest type map from 2006 in the FOREST to describe changes in functional connectedness in European forests from 1990– 2000–2006. CLC database—Each hectare of natural/semi-natural lands is assigned a fragmentation pattern depending on its landscape mosaic context, i.e., how it is intermingled with other natural, agricultural, and artificial lands. The indicator also provides the trends of the average patch size of ‘unfragmented’ natural/ semi-natural lands and fragmentation patterns can be mapped. The index is determined for forest species with an average dispersal distance of roughly 1 km at the landscape scale. We can get the conclusion that ECA is effective in educating society and policymakers. Again, it depends on the species, therefore identifying “flagship species” that are sensitive to habitat changes may

302

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

be important. Imply that the most vulnerable species to changes in forest connectedness would be reptiles, amphibians, small rodents, passerine birds, and plants with wind-dispersed seeds. • Effective mesh size expresses the probability that any two points chosen randomly in a region are connected, i.e., they are not separated by barriers, such as transport routes or built-up areas or natural features. The more barriers fragmenting the landscape, the lower the probability that two points are connected, and the lower the effective mesh size (meff ) which is measured in km2 . This flexible and successful indicator was used to assess the landscape fragmentation and sustainable development in Switzerland and Europe. Rolf et al. [35] assessed connectivity for Munich, Nuremberg, and Augsburg, three German cities in Bavaria. Figure 7.4 illustrates the study’s three main stages. In order to determine regional variation of the farmland, the study first investigated distribution patterns, spatial features, and environmental conditions of the farmland by taking into account climatic factors, geomorphology variables, geology variables, and soil variables. The stage 1 output was utilized to create a model of habitat appropriateness. Mapping possible geographical distribution in cases where a habitat suitability model indicated spatial potentials (used to map the spatial distribution of low intensity farmland special emphasis on grassland system). The investigation of connection was completed, and potentials will be utilized to compare connectedness [35]. 1. Landscape indicators—to measure structural connectivity 2. Access to recreation—to measure social connectivity.

Fig. 7.4 Research methodology for connectivity assessment

7.6 Quantification of Multifunctionality

303

7.6.2 Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) UGI spatial planning frequently uses multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), a helpful technique in GI prioritizing and decision making. It entails weighing disparate characteristics to analyze many options and select the optimum performance (both material and intangible ecosystem services). To pinpoint the ecosystem service (ESS) shortage region and create the best design for efficient service delivery, MCDA includes socio-ecological assessment criteria. The analysis’s conclusion is clear and well-supported by science [36]. With the involvement of several stakeholders, the MCDA web-based tool has further increased the effectiveness of the planning process and geographical targeting. Relevant stakeholders had access to this web-based solution that used cloud computing technologies to engage in spatial planning for deploying NbS. This technique addresses disparities in access to environmental advantages, overcomes the limitation of deliberative group valuation, and opens doors for a variety of social demands and preferences at the city size. Act as an informed valuation method as a result [37]. Steps involved in MCDA model are, 1. Problem definition 2. Definition of alternatives (consisting, for example, of alternative land use options) 3. Selection of ecosystem service as evaluation criteria-and corresponding indicators to assess them (shown in Table 7.2) 4. Scoring of criteria with regard to each alternative—stakeholders have several entry points (1–7) for assigning score weights 5. Weighting of criteria (although the weighting is not necessarily made explicit) 6. Prioritization of alternatives through the application of an aggregation model The MCDA application for retrofitting green roof in Oslo, Norway was helpful in determining the best roof type and the most promising installation site. The study showed a stronger link with a shortfall in ecological services. Google Earth Engine (GEE) and JavaScript API were utilized for ES mapping and the implementation of MSPA. Ecosystem deficit is scaled using population density as a factor. According to Table 7.2 Ecosystem service deficit categories and indicator used in the study Ecosystem service deficit categories

Indicators

Property green view

Percentage of green space

Street noise mitigation

Modeled street noise levels

Temperature regulation

LST

Storm water management

Modeled storm water runoff

Habitat for pollinators

Pollinator habitat suitability (within 250 m)

Street green view

Spatially interpolated green view index

Green space amenities

Percentage of public green space (within 250 m)

Population density

Residential population density (250 m grid)

304

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

the study, locations with a high human density and a lack of ecological services should receive priority when implementing GI (Highest demand means highest aggregate population deficit exposure). A map of the weighted total ESS deficit is the MCDA output. Another study conducted for Municipality of Barcelona, Spain identified ‘green roof’ as the most suitable design out of five design alternatives extensive, intensive, semi-intensive, naturalized, allotment considering social, economic, and institutional barriers; applying spatial ecosystem service-based decision analysis Major steps involved in the analysis as follows [36]. Step1: Choosing the most relevant ecosystem services to the particular context (Table 7.3). However, holistic assessment considers all GI benefits but due to data unavailability selected benefits considered. Table 7.3 Ecosystem services and indicators applied in determining the ecosystem service deficit Ecosystem services considered

Demand indicators used to determine the deficit of ESS

Thermal regulation

Urban heat island intensity

Model/remote sensing surface temperature/air temperature measurement

Heat vulnerability

Heat vulnerability maps based on population density, building energy performance, vegetation, and low educational attainment Categorized the region into different vulnerability categories (very low-very high)

Runoff control

Runoff coefficient

Pollinator habitat

Floral availability and nesting suitability

Food production

Garden GIS assessment of store density network distance to community gardens Population density Neighborhood grocery store count

Recreational opportunities Social cohesion

7.6 Quantification of Multifunctionality

305

Step 2: Model development Developed using BBN modeling software. Spatial MCDA constitute to complementary Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) models. BBN are the graphical models support in decision making using extensive qualitative and quantitative data. There are two types of models ES demand and ES supply model. • ES demand model-identify the ecosystem service deficit area to prioritize the area for implementation to deliver greater benefit • ES supply model-analyze the potential ecosystem service provision of GI component’s different design alternatives to find the best fit. Step 3: Output of the demand and supply model Shows weighted, aggregated ES demand. Higher demand in densely populated neighborhoods. Demand increased with built environment density. When analyzing for individual ecosystem services, demands for different ESS at different regions identified/most demanded ESS. ESS provision correlated with demand hotspots. Natural roof was selected as the optimal design for the majority of Barccelona accounting for 87.5% of rooftop area. Intensive roofs identified effective for Gracia. Intensive roofs were picked for the bulk of the remainder and were deemed most effective in the neighborhood of Gràcia, where they were the chosen design for nearly half of the rooftops. Semi-intensive roofs accounted for only 0.05% of the rooftop area, despite a comparable city wide mean provision to intensive roofs. Neither extensive nor allotment roofs were selected.

7.6.3 Green Infrastructure Spatial Planning (GISP) Model The Green Infrastructure Spatial Planning (GISP) model was introduced by Meerow and Newell in [23] as an adaptable and collaborative GIS-based approach to spatial planning for green infrastructure (GI). The GISP model allows for strategic placement of GI to maximize ecosystem benefits and assess spatial tradeoffs. In Detroit, Michigan, GISP was applied using six benefit criteria: storm water management, social vulnerability, green space, air quality, urban heat island reduction, and landscape connectivity. Table 7.4 shows the selected criteria, indicators, and ecosystem services applied. Multiple stakeholders were involved in identifying high priority areas for the installation of GI, weighing priorities based on desired benefits. Different weighting methods were employed, including equal weighting, stakeholder ranking weighting, and stakeholder pair-wise comparison weighting. The GISP model has two major components: GIS-based multicriteria evaluation and stakeholder-driven weighting [23]. GISP model to evaluate the ecosystem services was applied across the coastal mega cities New York, Los Angeles, and Manila for a cross city comparison. Spatial multicriteria evaluation is applied to determine how the strategic area for GI installment varies along with the type of GI benefit prioritized. GIS layers prepared for

306

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

Table 7.4 Priority areas, criteria, and indicators used in the study Priority areas

Criterion

Spatial attributes/indicator

Storm water management

Storm water hazard

Average runoff coefficients based on rational Method and CSO outfall location data Percent impervious (PI) surface

Social vulnerability

Social vulnerability index (SoVI)

Combination of indicators shown to correlate with social vulnerability to natural hazards

Green space

Lack of access to parks

Estimate of tract population without access to parks Park access indicator

Air quality

Severity of air pollution

Particulate matter (PM2.5) Emissions Total cancer risk/transport related emissions (close to major roadways)

Urban heat island amelioration

Land surface temperature (LST)

Average land surface temperature

Landscape connectivity

Physical connectedness of wildlife habitat (forestcover) within spatial unit

Patch cohesion index (fragstats)

all these 6 planning priorities are mapped and tradeoffs assessed. Moreover, criteria weighted through surveys, meetings with local experts, decision makers for infrastructure planning and stakeholder consultations. And results combined to deiced on high priority area for GI development. To optimize the use of the model; a web-based interactive application is developed as a supportive tool for decision making where stakeholders can change the weights (customized weightings) to different criteria benefits and visualize hotspots real time (priorities may change/survey results may not be representative [38]. Higher scores mean more important criteria; weightage for criteria may vary across the cities (site specific)/stakeholder perspectives, socioeconomic status, city goals and targets. Methodology adopted in the study includes following major steps. • Develop GISP model for three cities • Mapping individual model criteria • Evaluation of synergy and tradeoff patterns—quantitatively assessed by running Pearson bivariate correlation between criteria in each city, where positive correlation value reflects synergy and vice versa in tradeoffs • Stakeholder weighing • Web-based tool. As they demonstrated a continuous positive link, the research recommended placing GI in high priority locations for air quality, storm water, and UHI at the same time. When incorporating social vulnerability and a lack of access to parks, while

7.6 Quantification of Multifunctionality

307

highlighting tradeoffs. Challenges to expanding the scope of comparison include the need for adequate data, standardized data bases, accurate data, and the ability to validate.

7.6.4 Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis (ESDA) The ESDA is a model derived from geometric and mathematical reasoning (simplification of complex reality). The spatial distribution and association are better understood with the use of exploratory analysis helps in the management of urban environmental quality; factors taken into account include the rate of permeability per lot, arborization plans to roads, and the rate of green space per person. For the municipality of Belo Horizonte, Moura and Fonseca [39] carried out a research to evaluate the connection between vegetation cover, income distribution, and population density (Fig. 7.5). Urban mapping was done using IR and NDVI classification, Volumetric index used for 3D representation LiDAR capture (Light detection and ranging) (volume of vegetation plot) [39].

Fig. 7.5 Exploratory spatial data analysis for the municipality of Belo Horizonte

308

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

7.6.5 Morphological Spatial Pattern Analysis (MSPA) A mathematical morphological approach called the MSPA model has the unique ability to map the corridors as structural linkages between core patches. It may be used for urban GI connectivity, spatial pattern analysis of heterogeneous urban environments, and segmentation analysis. MSPA is largely used in forest regions to discover linkages between forests, their composition and design, and to prioritize areas for restoration and protection. In Leipzig, Germany, Wang et al. [40] examined the spatial pattern of UGI (with various residential unit (semi-)detached houses, linear multistorey, housing estates, and perimeter blocks), explored the spatial equity of GI distribution (using GI adapted Gini coefficient), and then understood the spatial equity urban GI from the morphological perspective [40]. GI spatial patterns are categorized according to how they relate to the GI core’s surroundings. According to Table 7.5, there are seven MSPA structural classes (landscape types): core, islet, perforation, edge, bridge, loop, and branch, each of which represents a distinct degree of structural connection [40, 41]. The significant portion of core regions suggests the critical significance of these core patches in maintaining connection. Hubs and linkages, which make up the majority of the GI network, are crucial for preserving the ecosystem services provided by cities. Links are the roads that connect hubs, which are places with natural vegetation, open space, or locations with a high ecological significance. The majority of UGI network research studies used the index of connectivity (IIC) and probability of connection to assess connectivity between GI elements (PC). Nevertheless, because existing structural corridors are not taken into account, spatial morphological data cannot be retrieved from these indices. In order to better understand the spatial distribution and GI network priority for ensuring Table 7.5 Classification of morphological spatial patterns of GI MSPA classes/ concepts

Definitions/ecological meaning

Core

GI surrounded on all sides (8-connectivity) by GI and greater than 3 m distance (specified edge width) from built-up areas

Bridge

GI that connects two or more disjunctive areas of GI cores

Loop

GI that connects an area of GI core to itself

Branch

GI that extends from one area of core, but doesn’t connect to another area of core

Perforation

Transition zone between GI and built-up areas for the interior regions of GI and has the shape of a doughnut in which as group of GI types are shaped by perforations (inner edges)

Edge

Transition zone between GI and built-up areas

Islet

Unconnected class without core

Source [40, 42, 43]

7.6 Quantification of Multifunctionality

309

sustainability in China, a case study was conducted in the Pukou district of Nanjing (a rapidly urbanizing city in China). It used the MSPA (focus on structural analysis) and landscape connectivity index (take into account structural connectivity) in combination to identify UGI hubs and links. Moreover, the study used a topologically based spatial syntax model to assess the spatial priority of UGI networks and a least cost route model (LCP) to design prospective UGI networks and outline the potential UGI [41]. Map resolution has an impact on MSPA. MSPA focuses on the geometry and connection elements to make it simple to identify the patches, corridors, core, and bridge. As a result, it will be able to build linkages between core patches at various scales and for every form of digital picture in any application sector. Methodology includes (Fig. 7.6).

Fig. 7.6 Road map of MSPA study Pukou district in Nanjing in China

310

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

1. Extracting the UGI elements and determining the core area and bridge area in terms of MSPA (core and bridges are important to maintain the connectivity of GI network) 2. Identifying the UGI hubs and links by landscape connectivity (probability of connectivity-PC index) 3. Adopting the least cost path model to construct the potential UGI network 4. Evaluating the priority of network through the spatial syntax model. A case study in China analyzed the spatio-temporal evolution characteristics of UGI in Beijing from 1990 to 2019, predicted its future change trend in 2030, and put forward the optimization scheme for the ecological network of UGI. The framework of spatio-temporal evolution characteristics and prediction analysis of Urban green infrastructure (UGI) was constructed by integrating morphological spatial pattern analysis (MSPA) and CA-Markov in the study [42]. Anees et al. [43] applied MSPA to analyze the landscape characteristics and morphological attributes of UGI in three Himalayan cities and highlighted the important role played by their structural features. In each city, being mountainous urban landscapes, a combination of (1) land use planning measures (mostly in the urban center), (2) human-caused landscape heterogeneity of UGI patches resulting from unplanned urbanization (mostly in the urban fringe), and (3) topographic characteristics are observed to influence the UGI attributes. Although these three factors are shared across the cities, specific differences in the urbanization level and topography have resulted in varied UGI characteristics and thus highlight the need for strategic intervention in each city [43].

7.6.6 Zonation Zonation is a spatial planning technique which prioritizes the landscape with ecological values for protection [31]. Moreover, it identifies the areas that are crucial in retaining habitat quality and connectivity for multiple species, and habitats with the long-term aim of improving species survival. Zonation produces a hierarchical prioritization of the landscape based on features that describe species, connectivity, land use needs, landscape condition, etc. which can then be mapped geographically so stakeholders can see the most important areas for conservation. Such a tool could inform the planning and possibly the monitoring of GI [33]. Six-step methodology established by Green Infrastructure Center of United States of America for GI planning and creation of GI zone as follows [44]. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Community goals setting Local data review Ecological mapping and asset regeneration Asset’s liability evaluation Opportunities of the risk and goal setting Implementation of opportunities.

7.7 Role of Green Infrastructure in Protecting the Ecosystem Functions …

311

In addition to these factors ecological, social, aesthetic, and spatial features are also addressed in GI zoning, i.e., integration and green corridors development.

7.7 Role of Green Infrastructure in Protecting the Ecosystem Functions and Services Urban green infrastructure is crucial for mimicking natural systems while preserving cultural heritage and functions, protecting historical elements and landmark landscape features, and adopting a socially inclusive development process that considers the needs, preferences, behaviors, aesthetic sense, and recreational activities of residents. To provide chances for urban residents to engage with nature and mitigate the effects of climate change, urban landowners currently depend on UGI elements, typically like Green Point-of-Scale (POS) [45]. In certain places, policy changes have contributed to the conception of green belts becoming widely defined to incorporate the idea of GI offering corridors of ecological recreation and restoration aiming at reducing the effects of climate change in the future [46]. Trees have been recognized to minimize runoff extremely well due to their biomass (both above and below ground). As a result, several municipalities encourage GI through planting trees or bylaws that encourage development of urban forests [47]. Researchers have found that GI improves the health and wellbeing of urban residents and provides better ways to source food, decrease wind speeds, ground water recharge, storm water runoff, mitigating flood, modulate air temperature, enhance biodiversity, improve water quality, and use energy more efficiently, among other benefits to ecosystem services. These systems have been successful with active retention structures, enhanced performance of the plant while competent in absorbing additional water sources for plants to evaporate and harvest water for several other usages outside the vegetation, such as toilet flushing [48]. Landscape sustainability is the capacity of a landscape to deliver long-term sustainable site specific ecosystem services in order to protect and enhance human, social, environmental health, and wellbeing. Ecosystem services in continuously changing land scape integrate human activity into landscape ecology. Landscape pattern includes patches (parks, gardens), corridors, and matrix, combined to create a mosaic pattern. Optimization of landscape pattern of highly managed urban system is essential, it is highly interconnected with human activity, and cultural functions [16]. The human and landscape connectivity can be enhanced through (a) incorporating public preferences in landscape development, (b) educate and create awareness among the people on sustainability, (c) building sustainability through interacting with nature, (d) realizing human as a component of ecosystem and improving their health and wellness, and (e) strengthen the personal human connection with nature. GI is essential in terms of climate change adaptation and mitigation since it can reduce energy consumption, provide ambient cooling benefits, lessen flash floods,

312

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

replenish groundwater resources, enable the soil to absorb acidity, mitigate urban heat island effect, involve in disaster risk management, and enhance ecosystem resilience. Because of their inherent higher resilience green infrastructure solutions often exhibit greater resistance to water stress than human-engineered structures. United States has developed GI into a platform for smart conservation and protection whereas the efforts to combat climate change have effectively been added to the roles of urban control and recreation in German [32]. As a result of global climate change there has been rise in the occurrence of severe weather events, shifts in flora and fauna, heat stress, unseasonal and higher intensity storms. Mean temperature rise of 1 °C is reported in 13 European cities since 1970s due to increased gray infrastructures. GI can provide an ideal solution to these critical challenges. Urban trees serve as a defense system against harsh weather conditions including wind, rain, and hail. Moreover, components of Green POS, urban vegetation, and other permeable UGI areas soak up rain and reduce wind speed, provide evaporative cooling that lowers ambient temperature by reducing reflected and absorbed heat. It is practically proved that integrating urban green would significantly reduce the temperature particularly 0.94 °C reduced in parks in daytime by cooling effect. Besides, 10% increase in green space would lower the surface temperature by 2.2–2.5 °C depending on emission scenarios [3]. The urban tree cover helps to collect rain and slow down the intensity of rainfall, which lessens the damage. Remaining and restored native vegetation may be conserved and protected by high-quality green POS and planted systems of biofiltration [17, 49–51]. GI improves the permeability of physical structures would retain more moisture (improve storage capacity) thus lowering the surface runoff and subsequent flood risk at a cost of 15–64% less than gray infrastructure [52]. Research findings demonstrate that green cover can reduce runoff by 4.9% while tree cover reduces runoff by 5.7% in urban areas [3]. Moreover, shading of four trees can save 25% of the energy needed for cooling a building. In doing so, they offset about 3–5 times more carbon than a tree in a forest. Although low-density housing, private gardens and yards are questionable in context of efficient space use, they serve as ecological matric (biophysical platform) providing multifunctional platform for supporting vegetation, gardening, seed bed for socio-cultural, ecological, and economic functions, and facilitates natural cycle [53]. Blue carbon ecosystems such as wetlands, marshes, seagrass meadows, and tidal mudflat are nature base solutions in building coastal resilience. They contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation through atmospheric carbon capture and storage (function as carbon sink). Moreover, coastal green infrastructures involve in disaster risk reduction by protecting from storm surges, high tides, and tsunami, erosion control through ocean wave and current attenuation, recreation, as well as food supply. When establishing living shorelines, they are originally intended to perform specific function and whenever possible they deliver other optional functions and inherent co-benefits. Most of the time gray infrastructure seems to be highly suitable and effective than green in building coastal resilience. However, GI are economically efficient due to less maintenance cost, multifunctionality, and over

7.7 Role of Green Infrastructure in Protecting the Ecosystem Functions …

313

time when vegetation established it can become self-resilient. Since GI is highly uncertain and unstable compared with gray; green-gray hybrid infrastructure would be a feasible option [54].

7.7.1 Vegetation Vegetation assimilate and sequester carbon dioxide which is a major greenhouse gas. The increased amount of vegetation in a city is more important in climate change regulation since they offset about 40% of the CO2 generated. Plants assimilate CO2 for photosynthesis, and store carbon as biomass. The cities like Liuzhou Forest City of China, Bosco Verticale-Milan of Italy, Boston, California, Chicago, New York as well as projects of smart urban forests of Holland, Switzerland, Brazil, France, and Albania use smart procedures to mitigate the effects of severe weather events. Vegetation mitigates pollutant strength through capturing and demobilizing pollutants as evidenced in Landschaft park, Germany where researchers applied methods like phytoremediation and phytoextraction on contaminated brownfield sites to restore the land to parkland [55]. Water regulation occurs by intercepts and facilitates the infiltration and detention through fall and runoff, increasing recharge, and decreasing water borne pollutant load through volume reduction. Another intended ecosystem service of the urban vegetation is the absorption of nitrates from storm water [56]. In soil or other potting media microbial activity facilitating nutrient cycling such as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous. Vegetation binds the soil particles tightly without being washed away thus controlling the erosion by protecting and maintaining soil stability from heavy wind and rainfall [10]. Vegetation canopies improve the ambient air quality through influencing the dispersion of pollutants and foster deposition of air pollutants. Vegetation reduces ambient air temperature and regulate microclimate condition by means of reflecting solar radiation, providing shades, and facilitating evapotranspiration. CFD analysis performed in Shaoshan City proved that with the increase of the vegetation coverage the wind speed near the ground will decrease. Moreover, when the vegetation coverage rate changes from 0 to 99%, the average surface temperature decreases by 1.74 °C for every 10% increase in vegetation coverage rate [57].

7.7.2 Urban Agriculture Urban agriculture would assist the sustainable development goal 11 of “making cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable”. The urbanites can be self-sufficient through growing their own healthy organic greens. Fresh, healthy, and perishable leafy vegetables can be cultivated in rooftops in cities with limited space. The plants like lettuce, tomato, cabbage, chilly, watermelon, and eggplant can be grown in

314

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

vertical set ups or green walls of suitable typology using hydroponics, synthetic substrates, protected environment, or controlled environment in greenhouses. Green roofs and urban forestry can be identified as biodiversity hotspot in urban context. Rooftop greenhouses involve in effective crop cultivation by means of storm water retention, nutrient management producing high quality and high yields. It can be considered as a sustainable system in lifecycle cost perspective [58]. In the engineered systems the properties like water proofing, plant material, synthetic substrate, and drainage designs can be enhanced thus water and nutrient management can be precise thus improving quality and yield of roof top farming [59]. Urban/roof top agriculture practices can be promoted to private as well as public buildings such as schools, banks, local government bodies, hospitals, and other institutions. A bottom-up approach is recommended to this kind of garden-based green projects as the local community inclusion would be a key factor to sustain the projects in long run. In order to convince the building owners, government can adhere to financial and incentive policies such as tax benefits. The profit can be proliferated, and the business can be stabilized through adopting marketing strategies such as organics, exotic, and inheritance species. The biodiversity can be enriched by diversifying the plant varieties chosen wisely. Further this endeavor can be used to provide environmental education, mental relaxation, waste management, and making the entire neighborhood lively. This will help to develop business partnerships with locality, public, and private institutions, hotels, etc. Urban agriculture has become a viable strategy to support the livelihood of hard pressed population in order to alleviate urban poverty [60] as evidenced in Gaza strip; where vertical gardens and aquaponic introduced by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of United Nations funded by Belgium as a potential food emergency production program despite several constraints such as movement restriction, food shortage, increased food prices, resource scarcity, water stress and salinity, limited arable land. Vertical roof top gardens and aquaponic system ensures the constant fresh food supply chain system as a secondary channel to stabilize urban food security, and substantial income generation to households. This integrated closed loop system is eco-friendly and innovative approach where waste generated is reused, simple technology requiring little space, less resource intensive, higher water efficiency, and high intensity production [61]. Urban and peri-urban agriculture is applied as resilient agriculture system to improve nutrition levels and bottom lines of marginal community in Caracas, Venezuela [62]. Agricultural land in urban and peri-urban context can be a potential UGI and contributes to significant proportion of GI. But the recognition and emphasis are not given to farmlands unlike urban agriculture. May be due to adverse ill effects of modern intensive agricultural farming. But Farmlands—food manufacturing, biodiversity conservation, enhancing ecosystem services, deliver positive impacts through eco-friendly integrated farming approach (differentiated land use, land sharing, heterogeneity, diversity) [1]. Moreover, urban gardening provides a range of benefits, such as community empowerment, social advantages, improved public health, subsistence food provision, and a substantial contribution to urban heat island (UHI) reduction and runoff

7.7 Role of Green Infrastructure in Protecting the Ecosystem Functions …

315

mitigation. Unfortunately, the multifunctionality of green infrastructure (GI) in farmlands is often hindered by environmental standards and agri-environmental policies, necessitating a triple helix process, knowledge co-production, innovation, and R&D integration to develop highly productive farmland as a potential Urban green infrastructure (UGI). Soil quality, topography, function, hydrology, recreation, local food production, leisure, customer harvesting, and innovative business models are other additional benefits and functions that justify a high-quality living environment, open spaces for citizens, cycling, walking, horse riding, traditional landscape features, field practices, wildlife habitat connectivity, environmental education, water management, and biodiversity conservation. Garden plots in urban communities improve storm water management systems and provide food for city dwellers, enabling waste and water recycling at the lowest scale, informing the core system how much less will need to be handled downstream. Additionally, green roofs enhance moisture retention and detention during storms and cool down urban areas for an extended period by retaining rainwater during drought spells through soil condition improvement, capillary irrigation, retention, and water table detection and controls [63]. Urban vegetation and advanced green roofs are capable of harvesting, retaining, and recycling rainwater within their immediate vicinity. These technologies entail the use of an open, robust geocellular structure situated beneath the soil, which facilitates quantifiable water retention. Natural capillary irrigation is employed to effectively recharge soil moisture during arid spells, with an adjustable capacity to hold up to 140 mm of water. In times of heavy rainfall, such systems are designed to minimize pressure on sewage networks and reduce the need for municipal water for irrigation purposes. In Amsterdam’s IJburg Island, a central area featuring 32 oak trees was established using a Permavoid system consisting of geocellular matter. This innovative approach enables trees to access groundwater that was previously beyond reach, maintaining optimal growth and temperature control without consuming valuable potable water or discharging surplus rainwater. The idea is to ensure continuous growth and maximum cooling in highly congested urban spaces while minimizing water loss and waste.

7.7.3 Green Roofs There are typically three varieties of green roofs: intensive green roofs, semi-intensive green roofs, and extensive green roofs. Vegetation needs vary depending on the types of green roofs. Table 7.6 show the type of vegetation used and required depth of growing medium for different types of green roofs [64]. Sedum plants are preferred for green roofs due to following features; fast establishment and efficient reproduction, short in height and mat forming, shallow and spreading roots, and succulent nature crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) (stoma open and intake CO2 during nighttime thus avoiding water loss by transpiration during daytime) helps to survive during harsh climate. Succulents and herbaceous plants are extremely effective on green roofs, according to North American green

316

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

Table 7.6 Green roof types and corresponding vegetation and growing medium depth Types of green roofs

Type of vegetation

Growing medium depth (cm)

Extensive

Moss-Sedum Sedum-moss-herbaceous plants Sedum-herbaceous-grass plants Grass-herbaceous plants

2–20

Semi-intensive

Grass-herbaceous plants Wild shrubs–coppices Coppices and shrubs Coppices

12–100 cm

Intensive

Lawn Low-lying shrubs and coppices Medium height shrubs and coppices Tall shrubs and coppices Large bushes and small trees Medium-sized trees Huge trees

15–200 Deeper growing medium

roof vegetation studies [65]. Succulent’s species like Eurphorbia, Sempervivum, and Delposperma can be adopted as a suitable option for vegetation on a large green roof because they have similarities with Sedum. More than five varieties of tuberous plants might make an excellent choice for extensive green roofs according to German researchers [66]. Due to its ability to thrive in such harsh conditions, the succulent ground cover Sedum spp. has become particularly popular for use in green roofs. The researcher advised that native plant species should generally be chosen for green roofs due to local climate conditions [67]. Sedum acre, Sedum album, and Talinum calycinum are acceptable for both shady and sunny positions on green roofs, according to Rowe and Getter [68] experiment, whereas Sedum kamtschaticum, S. spurium, and Allium cernuum are great choices for locations that get shade [68]. Green roofs serve as a sink for nitrogen, lead, and zinc. Gregoire and Clausen [69] discovered that more than 90% of the copper and zinc concentrations from green roof runoff were in the dissolved state [69]. More than 65% of the zinc from precipitation was retained by the green roofs. The green corridors created by green roofs in urban and suburban areas serve as a steppingstones for local wildlife to reach surrounding environments. In order to support urban biodiversity, they can link the dispersed ecosystems together. Green roof contained at least 30 different types of creatures. There are disagreements over whether native or non-native plants should be added to green roofs. Native plants can provide as both shelter and food for local wildlife, but according to researches, non-native plants can also serve the same purpose for local wildlife. Yet, it is unclear whether non-native species will become invasive or not; as a result, using native plants should still be the top focus [64]. 59% of green roofs (successful designs) used native plants. Native plants-adapted to local condition, restore ecosystem, no need of fertilizers/pesticide once established. The temperatures of the subsurface (the traditional rooftop level) and the green roof surface were also compared by Gaffin et al. [70]. It is shown that the subsurface

7.8 Multifunctional Benefits of Green Infrastructure in Community …

317

temperature was significantly lower than the surface temperature of the green roof because the green layer absorbed heat. This demonstrates how thermal loads can be decreased by green roofs. Green roofs in Chicago improved the quality of the air by absorbing ozone, as shown by Yang et al. [71]. Moreover, plants absorbed 27%, 14%, and 7%, respectively, of NO2 , PM10 , and SO2 , respectively. The average uptake is at its highest in May and at its lowest in February. It is commonly known that the albedo effect and surface temperature are negatively correlated: the higher the albedo, the lower the surface temperature [70]. According to studies conducted in the US, vegetated rooftops reduced peak temperatures from 0.5 to 3.5 K, and they also increased albedo from 0.05 up to 0.61 [72]. Using green roofs can help buildings maintain a suitable indoor temperature while using less energy for air conditioning. Also, the use of thick green roofs may lower the energy consumption in the summer by more than 75% [73]. The findings indicated that 15% of flat roofs in Basel, Switzerland were greened after the establishment of guidelines for new and renovated flat roofs. Moreover, in Japan 20% of the rooftop surface of public buildings larger than 500 m2 and private structures greater than 1000 m2 must be greened [66].

7.8 Multifunctional Benefits of Green Infrastructure in Community Development Urban green infrastructure contributes to community development through enhancing city’s resilience behavior and sustainable resource management. Even small areas in a community like a school, government office, or residential unit integrated with GI can act as an indicator to address the limitation in urban green space and ameliorate the space deficits scenarios through exhibiting multifunctionality which through enhancing urban green space connectivity, structural connectivity, maintain the green space [74]. Research findings of Kim and Song [75] demonstrated that based on the outcomes of 447 case studies conducted globally about 3.4 GI strategies were applied yielding 2.2 co-benefits in average [75]. Further the study identified bioretention areas, permeable pavements, grass swales, rain gardens, curb cuts, and storm water harvesting as the mostly used GI options providing the benefits of leveraging economic capacity, providing chances for educational activities, enhance built environment, control runoff, and improve environmental soundness. The impact of GI multifunctionality on community development can be divided into three main categories, namely economic, ecological, and socio-cultural benefits that are experienced by society. From an economic viewpoint, integrating GI into buildings and communal spaces can enhance the economic capacity of local communities by allowing for sustainable urban and rooftop agriculture, creating new employment opportunities such as green jobs, reducing energy costs through minimized cooling expenses, and lowering healthcare costs. Moreover, a high-quality

318

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

work environment that is clean, environmentally sound, and enthusiastic can produce an exceptional workforce with high levels of productivity. Community economic revitalization has positive ramifications for a society’s socioeconomic, physical, environmental, and infrastructure aspects, with increased land value, property value, and aesthetic value. Green collar (GC) jobs make up between 3 and 5% of total urban employment, with associated jobs including landscaping, maintaining plant nurseries, gardens, and the removal of deceased plants. The majority of GC jobs are low-skilled labor, either in private or public sectors, and hired informally, as they involve the maintenance and conservation of green spaces such as parks, green belts, green walls, roofs, and gardens in schools, hospitals, banks, business organizations, government offices, and high-income households. Therefore, it provides diversified job opportunities to the locality. The manufacturing and sale of garden products like vessels, pots, lawns, pavement materials, tool producers, machineries, hardware shops, and fertilizer companies see a boost in business as well [76]. When we consider the socio-cultural aspects, incorporating GI into an ordinary landscape adds a pleasing visualization to the site which is not only aesthetic, but also can act as an interface to stay connected with nature hence, boosting the psychological, spiritual, mental, and physical health and wellbeing of residents. Moreover, it helps in strengthening social inclusion and cohesion to regenerate community through increasing the communal sense. Creating public blue–green spaces such as parks, green walkway, riding and cycling routes, grass lands, water shore region, space for recreation with open access encourage residents for social gathering and spend their leisure time together. It facilitates chance for jogging, exercising, playing, group chats, sporting, and involve in recreational activities where even elders can relax and talk. This will bring a drastic change in the mental and physical wellbeing of residents thus ensuring the enhanced the quality of life in social harmony. In addition, community become empowered through developing a sustainable environment utilizing and managing resources by themselves which would be an iterative adaptive learning process and capacity development. Another remarkable value-added service of GI is supporting in educational activities through knowledge sharing and co-creation. It helps in teaching and learning process of nature-oriented subjects where students can interact with nature, learn natural ecological process, conduct practical, prepare field books for plants, insects, can hold function in a green space to enhance the visibility to wide audience, create awareness on environmental issues. Moreover, the proper management paves way for successful green project implementation, add prestige, and may act as a dissemination unit to attract investors [74]. UGI enhances the quality of the built environment through improving the housing quality and the surrounding which has equitable access to open green spaces. According to Teresa [77], resident occupancy in front yard is having strong positive correlation with green infrastructure rich front yards. Further it influences on landscape designing and connectivity among neighborhood yards structures. In site scale, front yards expected to contribute to significant portion of green patches. Collective streetscapes and parkway management in urban scale can be promoted through community agreements and subsidy provisions for water management [77].

7.8 Multifunctional Benefits of Green Infrastructure in Community …

319

From an environmentally conscious viewpoint, green infrastructure (GI) plays a critical role in managing runoffs, promoting eco-friendliness, and supporting climate change adaptation and mitigation. GI is a sturdy tool in combating the negative impacts of climate change, and by replacing gray structures with green ones, we can substantially reduce the urban heat island (UHI) effect, creating a favorable climate. Urban greening is a promising solution to climate change, which enhances human wellness. Urban green spaces effectively regulate microclimate conditions by balancing thermal regulation through evaporation, evapotranspiration, and shading, thus reducing heatwave, heat stress, and heat island effects. Individuals residing near open green spaces such as urban forests, parks, street trees, residential yards, green public squares, and agricultural areas, experience an elevated level of health and wellbeing. This is attributed to the purified air, wholesome connections with nature, improved livability, a sense of being one with nature, ecological significance, aesthetic value, and recreational opportunities [2]. Over decades and even today most of the nation’s prioritizing storm water management when it comes to GI, as it better manages the storm water runoff in city thus reduce downstream runoff, control floods, avoid and protect from storm surges, and avoid sewer overflows and facilitates ground water recharges, enhance water quality and reuse. Moreover, GI multifunctionality ensure an ecologically friendly, economically viable and socially inclusive living and working environment through providing fresh and high-quality water, air through filtering air pollutants and treating water, conserving water. Amid of these, there is a growing concern that GI’s multifunctionality can potentially lead to green gentrification in low income/minority neighborhood ultimately displacing the residents and resulting in unequal distribution of environmental amenities [17]. Implementing GI requires proactive planning and policies addressing legacies of racism with the objective of mitigating community concerns, this must be able to alleviate long standing disparities in access and using urban amenities such as socioeconomic factors, race, and ensuring social and environmental justice [78]. Envisioning GI planning while perpetuating societal inequities involves 1. Prioritizing GI integration in communities that need/want/support GI installation 2. Match the socioeconomic and environmental justice following a standard methodology/criteria 3. Favorable policies and regulations. The development in the history of GI is witnessed in countries like England due to its multifunctionality to enhance and protect social, ecological, and landscape value of the environment. Moreover, it enhances the adaptive capacity of the environment through climate change mitigation, adaptation efforts and long-lasting sustainability initiatives. It is a viable option to create sustainable and multifunctional landscape considering land used patterns and associated ecological processes, GI is integrated into planning policy and legal framework of UK government in local government, national, and regional level, where as a network-based approach for greenspace management to accomplish multiple functions is found in USA and Europe follows holistic and cross disciplinary approach [49].

320

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

7.9 Role of GI in Supporting the Development of Green Economy SDG agenda calls for the global collaboration to achieve sustainable development goals covering actors such as government, NGO, INGO, public bodies, civil societies, and private entities ranging from multinational conglomerates to local companies. From the standpoint of sustainability, companies serve a key role in accomplishing urban resilience. The aggressive global climate changes and its adverse effects on the environment persuade everyone to think about urban resilience. Therefore, currently many corporates are voluntarily adapting to the sustainable Corporate Social Responsibilities (CSR) via various initiatives such as green infrastructure. National government also enforced legal implications on sustainable practices of businesses and citizens as well. Linkage between the urban resilience and business are brought well in research by critically reviewing their CSR practices and policies reflected through the sustainability reports. Companies adhere to SDG and Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) guidelines which are government prerequisites to nurture the urban resilience through accomplishing corporate social and environmental responsibility. Contribution of the organizations to foster resilience is visible through their sustainability practices as it is considered as an SDG [79]. “Going Green” has become a core element of the operational and brand strategy for each business nowadays. The tech companies such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft are moved to alternative energy sources to power the data centers. At the same time, logistics companies FedEx and Southwest Airlines have made deals to receive alternative fuels for their airlines. Currently, the businesses are showing their environmental commitment through their green infrastructure approaches such as green roofs and living walls. For example, General Electric Ventures had made a living wall in their lobby, Rutgers University Institute of Food, Nutrition and Health had made a full wall as a living wall and New York public school had made a green rooftop garden [80]. These small movements toward green infrastructure have led to major impacts on the environment. According to the 2019 sustainability report of General Electric (GE), it is stated that they had reduced the greenhouse gas emissions by 21% from 2011 through the green infrastructure implementations including better control of gases in manufacturing and energy efficient projects [81]. Flood alleviation and storm water management systems are critical for each business and residence nowadays. It helps to reduce the cleanup and maintenance costs after floods and lower hard capital infrastructure cost. The properties with this kind of green infrastructure will have an increased value and reduce the insurance premiums for business and homes. Investing in green infrastructure will lead the businesses to reduce the healthrelated costs such as asthma, obesity, coronary heart diseases of the employees. If the working environment is unfavorable, the employees will take sick leaves, their productivity will reduce due to illness and medical insurance will be claimed by the

7.9 Role of GI in Supporting the Development of Green Economy

321

employees. Hence it would be costlier for the businesses [82]. In the real estates, infrastructure and tourism businesses, the properties with the green infrastructure will have an increased value and lead to high rental income for the businesses. In addition to these, there are many benefits like water quality and aquatic habitat improvement, water conservation benefits from ground water recharge and reducing carbon dioxide emissions from energy savings [83]. Hence, investing in green infrastructure leads to financial benefits for the businesses in the short term and long term as well.

7.9.1 Strategic and Instrumental Components in Achieving Resilience The organizations adopt strategic and instrumental components to foster resilience. Table 7.7 shows the constituent elements of each component. Companies contribute to these components through several steps. Companies make sure to protect, restore, and enrich the existing biodiversity; by ensuring company processes are in accordance with sustainability criteria, monitoring the activities, assessing possible risk, and vulnerabilities to address them. Companies take step to improve urban connectivity through maintaining and establishing physical structures and information connectivity. A reliable communication is vital for business, service, and unfavorable circumstances such as hazards. A modularization phenomenon has a wide scope of applications. This technique can be used in product design, organization functioning, and urban development. In modularization the individual components combined to perform functions are less proportionate to collapse the entire system when one component fails. In urban development several GI components such as energy, transport integrated need to be interconnected in modular technology so that they are less vulnerable to extreme events due to decentralized functioning than the conventional cities with centralized mechanisms. Adaptive capacity is a basic requirement to survive in distress condition such as climate change, and active problem solving. Companies boost their adaptive capacity through developing adaptive policies, plans, building infrastructures, innovative technologies, and product designs. Table 7.7 The constituent elements in accomplishing organization resilience

Strategic components

Instrumental components

Biodiversity

Vulnerability

Urban connectivity

Prevention

Multifunctionality

Governance

Modularization

Uncertainty orientation

Adaptive design

322

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

Socially responsible companies always take effort to minimize the negative impacts on the community. A proper risk management plan considering social, ecological, economic, and informative vulnerabilities. Companies always stay in alert position to prevent and address future risk events primarily through two means such as structural prevention to enhance technologies, improve internal systems, and informative prevention creating awareness and educating consumers, public, staff and stakeholders on the disaster management, preparedness, emergency action, smart city, and circular economy. Organizational governance manages the company in a bounce back situation to perform its operations in the same way even after a disaster event. It resumes all its economic, social, and institutional activities. This requires comprehensive governance mission, vision, structure to reflect SDG and management support for implementing plans and strategies. Every business runs in uncertainty and calculated risk, thus there is a need of well-planned uncertainty management covering social, financial, environmental, corporate policy, institutional policy, and other related frameworks to face the unexpected contingencies and hazard events. When practicing the uncertainty approach the company must be clear about all possible risk, vulnerabilities, and associated factors from in stabilized internal environment, company infrastructure, as well as external environment. Most of the time it is easy to address the internal uncertainty issues whereby, difficult to control external environment like climate change though they are predictable. This situation could be handled by wise investment in long-term resilience and sustainability, effective banking, and insurance schemes. Hayleys fabrics in Sri Lanka provide their fabric waste to women in the community to make it as wicks for oil lambs and household rugs, which helps to empower women by creating alternative income sources [84]. This leads to reduce the wastage to the environment as well as improve the community status. In addition to the above steps, in 2016, Hayleys Groups Global Beverages sector planted 300 bamboo and kumbuk plants along their state water stream. It had helped to enrich the biodiversity of the estate. Also, Groups’ transportation sector annually distributes plants among schools and pre-schools in the Giribawa region. This tree planting campaign leads to a sustainable green ecosystem in the urban areas to achieve urban resilience. CIC holdings in Sri Lanka have undertaken many sustainable CSR strategies such as recycling input material in production process, usage of renewable energy sources, using waste material paddy husk as energy source, and recycling solid waste in own production as well as third parties. “CIC Manussakama” is the sustainable initiative launched in 2008 with the objective of empowering the rural agricultural communities. “Manussakema” and “CIC Soora Goviya” projects had recognized and rewarded many young agricultural entrepreneurs in Sri Lanka [85]. From 2016, 100% of the leather sourced by IKEA is from sustainable leather raw materials. This sustainable supply chain initiative had contributed 7% increase of renewable energy source consumption by its one tier suppliers, 13.7% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and 27.4% reduction of water consumption during 2016. By 2030, IKEA had planned to integrate circular economy practices in designing and manufacturing of its products to prolong the life of the products. IKEA is already on

7.9 Role of GI in Supporting the Development of Green Economy

323

the track of providing circular and climate positive products from 2015 by sourcing cotton, fish, and seafood from sustainable sources. IKEA also works with the goal of sourcing 100% wood and paper from more sustainable sources. IKEA has already invested heavily in renewable energy and contributes toward a low carbon economy and limiting temperature increase to 1.5 °C. By 2030, it aims to depend solely on virgin fossil material and fuels to lead a circular business. They not only ensure their sustainability practices, but they only outsource to the suppliers who are also complied with CSR practices [86]. Currently all over the world there are many green infrastructure projects and CSR practices have been carried out by businesses to comply with regulations as well as for the sustainability of the environment in the future. These initiatives lead to urban resilience by preparing the urban system to defend against the adverse effects resulting from climate changes and various shocks and stresses. These practices should be encouraged and continuously carried out by everyone to live in the greener planet in the future.

7.9.2 Green Economy and Entrepreneurship Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that “Business as usual is dead. Green growth is the answer to both our climate and economic problems”. Green economy is an approach to accomplish a sustainable resilient economy that provides improved quality of living within the ecology. It intends to enhance human health and wellbeing while conserving social equity and environment. For a nation green enterprise, innovative business ideas, talent and hard work are its wealth in the perspective of flourishing green economy. Though it is a big step to transform from carrier to entrepreneur, as an entrepreneur is not just a leader, he/she is more over an innovative independent individual who works hard, smart, and professional to build his/her empire; but it is not a big step to change an entrepreneur to green entrepreneur. This transformation is an urgent requirement in this decade of climate change. The green/eco-entrepreneurs play a key role as drivers of climate change in open market economies creating pathway to proactively green. Green entrepreneurship is not business as usual; it opens up new opportunities for sustainable job/business creation and environmental innovation. This rectifies the adverse impacts of linear economy through practicing circular economy and resource efficiency. It tries to balance the three pillars of sustainability. • Environmental—Employ green building practices and curb carbon footprint • Social—Engage with community and exemplify corporate responsibility • Economic—Promote business excellence and maintain highest ethical standards.

324

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

7.9.3 Benefits of Green Entrepreneurship 1. Best quality products inclusive of environmental and social cost 2. Capable to attract high-quality employees 3. Improved business partnership with multiple local and international stakeholders 4. Corporate operations become easier due better relationship with regulators and legislators 5. Green investment attracts investors, and consumers 6. Enhanced brand value, entity image 7. Reflects intangible corporate social responsibility 8. Accelerate exports and reduce imports 9. Improved networking with NGOs, INGOs, government, private entities, thus smooth business operations and addressing issues 10. Social connectivity and delightfulness ensure long-term business 11. Tax relief benefits and incentives 12. Government credit assurance 13. Carbon credits.

7.10 The Role of GI in Promoting Societal Health and Wellbeing Urban settings show a higher percentage of global health issues compared to rural areas due to the rapid increase in population within cities, resulting from mass migration and the multiple advantages and comforts that urban life affords. City dwellers benefit from easier access to employment opportunities, healthcare, banking services, transportation, and communication facilities, as well as commercial services. However, their apparent high standard of living is causing a decline in their psychological wellbeing, leading to a compromise of their mental health for physical comfort. They suffer from depression and anxiety as they spend 65–90% of their time indoors, which are often unhealthy spaces. This issue stems from a growing disconnect from nature as people become increasingly addicted to networking and consuming media. As a result, the Western world bears a high economic cost for their overall health. Figures from 2016 show that the European and UK economies spend 187.4 billion Euros and 94 billion dollars, respectively, on the cost of mental health [87]. Human health can be classified into various types, as outlined in Table 7.8 [18]. Ecosystem services rendered by nature are crucial for human health and wellbeing. They have the potential to enhance the quality of life of urbanites [88]. Though incorporating green sustainable principles into cities is complex and diverse it is a panacea for social and psychological challenges. Health and wellbeing of urban green

7.10 The Role of GI in Promoting Societal Health and Wellbeing

325

Table 7.8 Types of health and their components Type of health

Components

Physical

Healthy food, healthy environment, physical activities

Mental

Stress reduction, attention, and cognitive capacity

Spiritual

Sense of belonging, connected to universe through meditation

Emotional

Positive emotions, feeling through five senses

Ecosystem

Soil quality and structure, energy, and material cycling

Community cohesion

Identity and integrity

spaces are discussed in terms of; GI improves the mental health and social capital; however, they are hardly measured and less clear since it is difficult to quantify them [17]. • • • •

Air quality Physical wellbeing Mental welfare Social cohesion.

7.10.1 Air Quality Air quality is of high concern for the health and wellbeing of human and environment. There are two sorts of air quality: namely ambient air quality and indoor air quality. Trees are considered as the lungs of environment involve in air exchange and ecosystem stabilization. Air quality can be enhanced through incorporating green into indoor and outdoor living and interacting spaces. Most of the time it has a positive impact in urban air quality and temperature regulation. Establishing an urban wetland, urban forest on street ways, parking lots, city centers, residential, commercial, and other public engaging places would assist in increasing green canopies. Indoor air quality can be boosted through interior living walls, green facades, and green roofs. Generally, plants have the ability to purify the atmosphere by assimilating carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen during photosynthesis process, cool down the atmosphere by evapotranspiration mechanism, further gaseous pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, ozone can be absorbed through urban vegetation and indoor green development. Appropriate plant integration with sensors and cloud technologies would be a cost effective and sustainable mean to clean the air in massive scale. Selecting appropriate plant species is very much important to avoid negative consequences on human health including triggered allergies, lung inflammation, and other respiratory disorder conditions like asthma. This may be due to biogenic trace gases or plant microbiomes such as methane and hydrocarbons such as isoprene and monoterpenes. Plant microbiomes are the microbial population that live with plants both in the soil

326

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

and on leaf surfaces. This microbiome participates in the removal of airborne pollutants, but the contribution of different microbial species to removing pollutants is currently unknown.

7.10.2 Physical Activity With the urbanization and run-in hectic life, time for the physical activity is highly limited. The people lead an inactive way of living which substantially increased the health cost. Green infrastructure development should include urban parks, beach sites, river corridors, wood lands, grass lands, green spaces allied with natural water bodies, and other public involving spaces to facilitate physical activity. Possible physical activities in green spaces are walking, running, hiking, and cycling. Doing physical tasks in nature-based surrounding integrate people with nature which boost psychological wellbeing. Outdoor recreational activity over Oslo municipality in Norway increased by 291% during COVID-19 2020 lockdown dates (13 March onward) relative to the 3-yr baseline average. Furthermore, the total increases in lockdown activity were greater for cycling relative to pedestrian activity categories. Recreational activity by aggregated Google mobility data showing a 19% increase in visits to parks and green spaces [89].

7.10.3 Social Cohesion Social cohesion is “the shared norms and values, the existence of positive and friendly relationships and feelings of being accepted and belonging”. It is the unity and consistency in the social relationships which improves the interaction with the neighborhood, friends, and relatives resulting in better health and wellbeing. It is always an active option to have healthy relationship with the people of same interest or different fields. Exchange of information among people from different social background, tradition, culture, values, and ideologies is introducing new phenomena of life to the people involving in conversation.

7.10.4 Stress Reduction Connecting with nature is a powerful tool for healing and reducing stress levels. Engaging in outdoor activities that involve natural elements can promote positivity while eliminating negative thoughts and decreasing the risk factors of depression. Visualizing greenery can alleviate mental fatigue caused by monotonous routines and prolonged work sessions. Studies have proven that incorporating green spaces

7.10 The Role of GI in Promoting Societal Health and Wellbeing

327

into urban areas with high population densities can reduce stress and enhance mental and physiological wellness. Integrating spaces with natural features such as grassland, trees, and nature reserves in urban areas with moderate to high population density where vehicular traffic, industrial, and commercial activities would otherwise dominate. A physical or recreational activity in an urban green space is much more substantial health benefits compared to similar activity in an ordinary pathway or open space; for an example, greenery walkways provide instant stress relief in addition to several health benefits in long term, and social benefits of exercising with friends. According to the research finding simply walking is shown to curb the risk to cardiovascular diseases by 30%, while reduction overall mortality by 20% [89]. Improved population health is an outcome of changes in the social system which in turns enhances the social system capacity to maintain regular functioning even during harsh events. The impacts on the community will be adverse when there are inadequate and insecure health care services, and the risk is severe to vulnerable group of people. When the health care management is poor and resource availability is limited, there is higher possibility for delayed recovery of disaster victims, outbreak of epidemic, and infectious diseases during and afterwards hazards such as spread of water borne, air borne, and food borne diseases aftermath floods [90]. To build up a resilient healthy community, it is essential to perform constant monitoring of risk, and their impact assessment at regular period intervals for the representative urban population including all socioeconomic groups. Health impacts alleviated by GI components [25]. Table 7.9 shows how GI mitigate the adverse health impacts.

7.10.5 Urban Resilience and Health Major strength of a resilient city lies on the hands of human capital. The ultimate goal of building resiliency is creating healthy and content civilians leading a quality living. They are the source of knowledge and talents to pave way for the socioeconomic development of the state. Urban climate resilience has significant impact on health and wellbeing of public. Several strategies utilized in city scale to avoid and reduce adverse health and safety effects. Such adaptive techniques include [99]. i. Improved weather forecasting accuracy and real-time online monitoring systems ii. Enhance access to improved health care facilities to susceptible population iii. Implementing vector control program iv. Upgraded vaccination programmed v. Ensure access to water and food to urbanites vi. Advanced emergency management vii. Updated building codes and regulations viii. Improved communication and coordination

328

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

Table 7.9 Influence of green infrastructure on mitigating health impacts Impacts

Role of GI in mitigation

References

Heat stress and related diseases

UGI provide evaporative cooling that lowers ambient temperature by reducing reflected and absorbed heat

[91–93]

Anxiety related disorders

Exposure and involvement with high-quality natural environments lessen anxiety

[45, 50, 94–96]

Increased levels of stress

Interaction and exposure to high-quality natural spaces have been found to lower stress levels and related illnesses. Moreover, good POS offer chances for recreation and socializing, both of which are believed to lower stress

[45, 50, 94, 95, 97]

Increased diabetes disease

High-quality POS offer chances for regular recreation and workout, all of which are proven to help prevent diabetes

[97]

High level depression

Exposure to and interactions with [50, 94, 96, 98] high-quality natural areas lessen depression Good open public spaces offer chances for recreation and socializing, both of which are proven to lessen depression

Poor cardiovascular health

It is well-established that formal and informal exercise and recreation activities provided by high-quality GI can enhance cardiovascular health

[94–96, 98]

ix. Upgraded risk management x. Resilient transport and city infrastructure xi. Incorporating extreme events and anticipated future climate scenarios into building design xii. Comprehensive disaster management plan including emergency evacuation, response, and recovery.

7.10.6 Health Concerns in Disaster Risk Reduction Previously, traditional methods of mitigating risk during disaster response and recovery often overlook health considerations, failing to integrate them into the broader disaster management process. However, the Sendai Framework has brought health care to the forefront of disaster risk reduction strategies, as its four global targets prioritize enhancing urban health systems. At local and national levels, an

References

329

effective health care system can reduce disaster risks and vulnerabilities by minimizing loss of life. To effectively address the multiple dimensions of risk events, a proactive, human rights-based approach to incorporating health perspectives into Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is necessary. It is imperative that all individuals, including the most vulnerable populations such as low- and middle-income groups, receive equitable attention regardless of societal economic segmentation. An integrated approach that considers environmental, social, economic, political, and technical factors, while prioritizing human and environmental health must be incorporated into urban disaster management planning to prevent exacerbating the poverty associated with poor households.

References 1. Rolf, W., Pauleit, S., & Wiggering, H. (2019). A stakeholder approach, door opener for farmland and multifunctionality in urban green infrastructure. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 40, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.012 2. Madureira, H., & Andresen, T. (2014). Planning for multifunctional urban green infrastructures: Promises and challenges. Urban Design International, 19(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1057/ udi.2013.11 3. Sussams, L. W., Sheate, W. R., & Eales, R. P. (2015). Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation policy intervention: Muddying the waters or clearing a path to a more secure future? Journal of Environmental Management, 147, 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen vman.2014.09.003 4. Wang, Y., Chang, Q., & Fan, P. (2021). A framework to integrate multifunctionality analyses into green infrastructure planning. Landscape Ecology, 36(7), 1951–1969. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10980-020-01058-w 5. García, A. M., Santé, I., Loureiro, X., & Miranda, D. (2020). Spatial planning of green infrastructure for mitigation and adaptation to climate change at a regional scale. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(24), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410525 6. Liu, O. Y., & Russo, A. (2021). Assessing the contribution of urban green spaces in green infrastructure strategy planning for urban ecosystem conditions and services. Sustainable Cities and Society, 68(January), 102772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102772 7. Van Oijstaeijen, W., Van Passel, S., & Cools, J. (2020). Urban green infrastructure: A review on valuation toolkits from an urban planning perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 267(December 2019), 110603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110603 8. York, C. R. H., & Jacob, J. S. (2020). Harnessing Green Infrastructure for Resilient, Natural Solutions. In Optimizing Community Infrastructure. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012-816240-8.00008-2 9. Adger, W. N., Safra de Campos, R., Siddiqui, T., & Szaboova, L. (2020). Commentary: Inequality, precarity and sustainable ecosystems as elements of urban resilience. Urban Studies, 57(7), 1588–1595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020904594 10. Alizadehtazi, B., Gurian, P. L., & Montalto, F. A. (2020). Observed Variability in Soil Moisture in Engineered Urban Green Infrastructure Systems and Linkages to Ecosystem Services. Journal of Hydrology, 125381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125381 11. Rusche, K., Reimer, M., & Stichmann, R. (2019). Mapping and assessing green infrastructure connectivity in European city regions. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(6). https://doi.org/10. 3390/SU11061819 12. Chatzimentor, A., Apostolopoulou, E., & Mazaris, A. D. (2020). A review of green infrastructure research in Europe: Challenges and opportunities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 198(March 2019), 103775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103775

330

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

13. Du Toit, M. J., Cilliers, S. S., Dallimer, M., Goddard, M., Guenat, S., & Cornelius, S. F. (2018). Urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services in sub-Saharan Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180(June), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.06.001 14. Hansen, R., Olafsson, A. S., van der Jagt, A. P. N., Rall, E., & Pauleit, S. (2019). Planning multifunctional green infrastructure for compact cities: What is the state of practice? Ecological Indicators, 96(August), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.042 15. Huff, B. E. S., Johnson, M. L., Roman, L. A., Sonti, N. F., Pregitzer, C. C., Campbell, L. K., & Mcmillen, H. (2020). A Literature Review of Resilience in Urban Forestry. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 46(3), 185–196. https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2020/nrs_2020_huff_001. pdf 16. Lovell, S. T., & Taylor, J. R. (2013). Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States. Landscape Ecology, 28(8), 1447–1463. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9912-y 17. Meerow, S. (2020). The politics of multifunctional green infrastructure planning in New York City. Cities, 100(November 2019), 102621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102621 18. Pakzad, P., & Osmond, P. (2015). A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Green Infrastructure Sustainability Performance in Australia. The State of Australian Cities Conference. https://soa cconference.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Pakzard.pdf 19. Pozoukidou, G. (2020). Designing a green infrastructure network for metropolitan areas: a spatial planning approach. Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration, 5(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-020-00178-8 20. Van Gameren, A. J. L. (2020). Green roofs and climate resilience in The Hague: Spatial, financial & stakeholder analyses [University of Leiden and Delft University of Technology]. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:55e92e3c-0b43-4064-8cbb-2ea1d1e1e068 21. Venter, Z. S., Shackleton, C. M., Van Staden, F., Selomane, O., & Masterson, V. A. (2020). Green Apartheid: Urban green infrastructure remains unequally distributed across income and race geographies in South Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning, 203(0349), 103889. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103889 22. Lemes de Oliveira, F. (2019). Towards a Spatial Planning Framework for the Re-naturing of Cities. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01866-5_6 23. Meerow, S., & Newell, J. P. (2017). Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: Growing resilience in Detroit. Landscape and Urban Planning, 159, 62–75. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.005 24. Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Gerlak, A. K., Mayer, B., Evans, T. P., & Lansey, K. E. (2020). Urban resilience and green infrastructure systems: towards a multidimensional evaluation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 44, 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020. 05.001 25. Parker, J., & Simpson, G. D. (2020). ‘A theoretical framework for bolstering human-nature connections and urban resilience via green infrastructure’, Land, 9(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ LAND9080252 26. Connop, S., Vandergert, P., Eisenberg, B., Collier, M. J., Nash, C., Clough, J., & Newport, D. (2016). Renaturing cities using a regionally-focused biodiversity-led multifunctional benefits approach to urban green infrastructure. Environmental Science and Policy, 62(2015), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.013 27. Bozovic, R., Maksimovic, C., Mijik, A., Smith, K. M., Suter, I., & van Reeuwijk, M. (2017). Blue Green Solutions: A systems approach to sustainable, resilient and cost effective urban development. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30628.07046 28. Davies, C., & Lafortezza, R. (2017). Urban green infrastructure in Europe: Is greenspace planning and policy compliant? Land Use Policy, 69(March), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landusepol.2017.08.018 29. Hansen, R., & Pauleit, S. (2014). From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for Urban Areas. Ambio, 43(4), 516–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0510-2

References

331

30. Ranjha, S. (2016). Green infrastructure: planning for sustainable and resilient urban environment. ResearchGate. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/95599_Ran jha_Greeninfrastructure_planningforsustainableandresilienturbanenvironment.pdf 31. Honeck, E., Moilanen, A., Guinaudeau, B., Wyler, N., Schlaepfer, M. A., Martin, P., Sanguet, A., Urbina, L., Von Arx, B., Massy, J., Fischer, C., & Lehmann, A. (2020). Implementing green infrastructure for the spatial planning of peri-urban areas in Geneva, Switzerland. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041387 32. Schiappacasse, P., & Müller, B. (2015). Planning green infrastructure as a source of urban and regional resilience - towards institutional challenges. Urbani Izziv, 26(August 2016), S13–S24. https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-supplement-001 33. European Commission. (2012). Science for Environment Policy: Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure (Issue March). https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/ Green_Infrastructure.pdf 34. Bolliger, J., & Silbernagel, J. (2020). Contribution of connectivity assessments to green infrastructure (GI). ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijgi9040212 35. Rolf, W., Peters, D., Lenz, R., & Pauleit, S. (2018). Farmland – an Elephant in the Room of Urban Green Infrastructure? Lessons learned from connectivity analysis in three German cities. Ecological Indicators, 94(October 2016), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind. 2017.06.055 36. Langemeyer, J., Wedgwood, D., McPhearson, T., Baró, F., Madsen, A. L., & Barton, D. N. (2020). Creating urban green infrastructure where it is needed – A spatial ecosystem servicebased decision analysis of green roofs in Barcelona. Science of the Total Environment, 707, 135487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135487 37. Venter, Z. S., Barton, D. N., Martinez-Izquierdo, L., Langemeyer, J., Baró, F., & McPhearson, T. (2021). Interactive spatial planning of urban green infrastructure – Retrofitting green roofs where ecosystem services are most needed in Oslo. Ecosystem Services, 50(May). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101314 38. Meerow, S. (2019). A green infrastructure spatial planning model for evaluating ecosystem service tradeoffs and synergies across three coastal megacities. Environmental Research Letters, 14(12). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab502c 39. Moura, A. C. M., & Fonseca, B. M. (2020). ESDA (Exploratory spatial data analysis) of vegetation cover in urban areas-recognition of vulnerabilities for the management of resources in urban green infrastructure. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(5), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12051933 40. Wang, J., Xu, C., Pauleit, S., Kindler, A., & Banzhaf, E. (2019). Spatial patterns of urban green infrastructure for equity: A novel exploration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 238. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117858 41. Wei, J., Qian, J., Tao, Y., Hu, F., & Ou, W. (2018). Evaluating spatial priority of urban green infrastructure for urban sustainability in areas of rapid urbanization: A case study of Pukou in China. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020327 42. Ma, Y., Zheng, X., Liu, M., Liu, D., Ai, G., & Chen, X. (2022). Spatio-temporal evolution characteristics analysis and optimization prediction of urban green infrastructure: a case study of Beijing, China. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14613-z 43. Anees, M. M., Banzhaf, E., Wang, J., & Joshi, P. K. (2023). Quality Index Approach for Analysis of Urban Green Infrastructure in Himalayan Cities. Land, 12(2), 279. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/land12020279 44. Hernández-Rojas, C., & Sanabria-Marín, R. (2020). Characterization of Green Infrastructure at the Local Level with Geographical Information System, Tunja (Colombia). Revista Facultad de Ingenieria, 29(54). https://doi.org/10.19053/01211129.v29.n54.2020.10294 45. Parker, J., & Simpson, G. D. (2018). Public green infrastructure contributes to city livability: A systematic quantitative review, Land, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/land7040161 46. Amati, M., & Taylor, L. (2010). ‘From green belts to green infrastructure’, Planning Practice and Research, 25(2), pp. 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697451003740122

332

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

47. Kolosna, C., & Spurlock, D. (2019). ‘Uniting geospatial assessment of neighborhood urban tree canopy with plan and ordinance evaluation for environmental justice’, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 40(July 2018), pp. 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.11.010 48. Arden, S., & Ma, X. (2018). ‘Constructed wetlands for greywater recycle and reuse: A review’, Science of the Total Environment, 630, pp. 587–599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018. 02.218 49. Roe, M., & Mell, I. (2013). Negotiating value and priorities: Evaluating the demands of green infrastructure development. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(5), 650– 673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.693454 50. Cameron, R.W.F., Blanusa, T., Taylor, J.E., Salisbury, A., Halstead, A.J., Henricot, B., & Thompson, K. (2012). The domestic garden-Its contribution to urban green infrastructure. Urban For. Urban Green. 11, 129–137. 51. Mathey, J., Rößler, S., Banse, J., Lehmann, I., & Bräuer, A. (2015). Brownfields as an element of green infrastructure for implementing ecosystem services into urban areas. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 141, 1–13. 52. Davis, M.K., Kaphengst, T., Pieterse, M., & Rayment, M. (2011). Design, implementation and cost elements of Green Infrastructure projects. Final report the European Commission, DG Environment, Contract no. 070307/2010/577182/ETU/F.1, Ecologic institute and GHK Consulting. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/pdf/GI_DICE_FinalReport. pdf 53. Tahvonen, O., & Airaksinen, M. (2018). Low-density housing in sustainable urban planning – Scaling down to private gardens by using the green infrastructure concept. Land Use Policy, 75(June 2017), 478–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.017 54. Kuwae, T., & Crooks, S. (2021). Linking climate change mitigation and adaptation through coastal green–gray infrastructure: a perspective. Coastal Engineering Journal, 63(3), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/21664250.2021.1935581 55. Felson, A. J., & Pickett, S. T. A. (2005). Designed experiments: New approaches to studying urban ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3(10), 549–556. https://doi.org/ 10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0549:DENATS]2.0.CO;2 56. Pataki, D. E., Carreiro, M. M., Cherrier, J., Grulke, N. E., Jennings, V., Pincetl, S., Pouyat, R. V., Whitlow, T. H., & Zipperer, W. C. (2011). Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: Ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1890/090220 57. Agyemang, W., Adanu, E., Akansiseh, S., & Kolawole Ojo, T. (2019). Towards Building Resilient Cities: Opportunities, Challenges and Innovation. In H. L. C. Ishmael Mensah (Ed.), Proceedings of the China-Africa Urban Development Forum 2019 (p. 175). https://www.res earchgate.net/publication/343065653_FINALCAUDF_2020_July_2020 58. Harada, Y., & Whitlow, T. H. (2020). Urban Rooftop Agriculture: Challenges to Science and Practice. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4(June), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs. 2020.00076 59. Asian Development Bank. (2016). Nature-based solutions for building resilience in towns and cities: Case studies from the Greater Mekong subregion. ADB. https://www.cbd.int/financial/ doc/adb-naturebasedsolutions2016.pdf 60. Dang, M., & Sampaio, M. (2020). The potential for rooftop agriculture in the city of Rio de Janeiro: Growing capacity, Food security and Green infrastructure. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 410(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/410/1/012016 61. FAO. (2012). Urban Agriculture in the Gaza Strip Through Vertical Gardens and Aquaponics. In Fact Sheet on Aquaponics Final (Vol. 972, Issue 0). http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templa tes/FCIT/PDF/Fact_sheet_on_aquaponics_Final.pdf 62. UNFCCC. (2015). Building Climate Resilience in Urban Areas. Unite Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/application/pdf/calendar_ final.pdf 63. Cirkel, D. G. et al. (2018). ‘Evaporation from (Blue-)Green Roofs: Assessing the benefits of a storage and capillary irrigation system based on measurements and modeling’, Water (Switzerland), 10(9), pp. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091253

References

333

64. Li, W. C., & Yeung, K. K. A. (2014). A comprehensive study of green roof performance from environmental perspective. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 3(1), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.05.001 65. Dvorak, B., & Volder, A. (2010). Green roof vegetation for North American ecoregions: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 96(4), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2010.04.009 66. Chow, M. F., Bakar, M. F. A., & Wong, J. K. (2018). An overview of plant species and substrate materials or green roof system in tropical climate urban environment. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2030(November). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5066645 67. Villarreal, E. L., & Bengtsson, L. (2005). Response of a Sedum green-roof to individual rain events. Ecological Engineering, 25(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2004.11.008 68. Rowe, D. B., & Getter, K. L. (2006). The role of extensive green roofs in sustainable development. HortScience, 41(5), 1276–1285. 69. Gregoire, B. G., & Clausen, J. C. (2011). Effect of a modular extensive green roof on stormwater runoff and water quality. Ecological Engineering, 37(6), 963–969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eco leng.2011.02.004 70. Gaffin, S., Parshall, L., O’Keeffe, G., Braman, D., Beattie, D., & Berghage, R. (2006). Energy balance modeling applied to a comparison of white and green roof cooling efficiency. Green roofs in the New York Metropolitan region research report. https://www.researchgate.net/pro file/Franco-Montalto/publication/251644778_Hydrologic_Functions_of_Green_Roofs_in_ New_York_City/links/00463538c5f8d32bd2000000/Hydrologic-Functions-of-Green-Roofsin-New-York-City.pdf#page=17 71. Yang, J., Yu, Q., & Gong, P. (2008). Quantifying air pollution removal by green roofs in Chicago. Atmospheric Environment, 42(31), 7266–7273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv. 2008.07.003 72. Santamouris, M. (2014). Cooling the cities - A review of reflective and green roof mitigation technologies to fight heat island and improve comfort in urban environments. Solar Energy, 103, 682–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2012.07.003 73. Snep, R. P. H., Voeten, J.G.W.F, Mol, G., & Van Hattum,T. (2020). ‘Nature Based Solutions for Urban Resilience: A Distinction Between No-Tech, Low-Tech and High-Tech Solutions’, Frontiers in Environmental Science, 18(December), pp. 1–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs. 2020.599060 74. Ioj˘a, C. I., Gr˘adinaru, S. R., Onose, D. A., Vân˘au, G. O., & Tudor, A. C. (2014). The potential of school green areas to improve urban green connectivity and multifunctionality. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 13(4), 704–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.07.002 75. Kim, D., & Song, S. K. (2019). The multifunctional benefits of green infrastructure in community development: An analytical review based on 447 cases. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(14), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143917 76. King, A., & Shackleton, C. M. (2020). Maintenance of public and private urban green infrastructure provides significant employment in Eastern Cape towns, South Africa. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 54(February), 126740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126740 77. Teresa, A. R. (2020). Front yards as green infrastructure: Fragmented yard ecosystems across single-family neighborhoods in Los Angeles [University of California]. https://escholarship. org/uc/item/83n8m5f7 78. Hoover, F. A., Meerow, S., Grabowski, Z. J., & McPhearson, T. (2021). Environmental justice implications of siting criteria in urban green infrastructure planning. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 23(5), 665–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.1945916 79. Acuti, D., Bellucci, M., & Manetti, G. (2020). Company disclosures concerning the resilience of cities from the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) perspective. Cities, 99(July 2019), 102608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102608 80. Urbanstrong. (2021). Businesses turning to green infrastructure to craft a green brand. Retrieved 02 28, 2021, from https://www.urbanstrong.com/green-infrastructure-green-brand/ 81. General Electric. (2021). Sustainability Report Building a World That Works for Tomorrow. In GE 2021 Sustainability Report. https://www.ge.com/sites/default/files/ge2020_sustainability_ report.pdf

334

7 Multifunctionality of Green Resilient Region

82. Forestresearch.gov.uk. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/ 2519/nweeconomicbenefitsofgiinvestigating.pdf 83. Epa.gov. (2021). Retrieved 03 21, 2021, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201510/documents/lid-gi-programs_report_8-6-13_combined.pdf 84. Hayleys.com. (2021). Sustainability Practices at Hayleys | Best Companies in Sri Lanka | The World of Hayleys. Retrieved from https://www.hayleys.com/sustainability/sustainability-pra ctices/ 85. CIC.lk. (2021). Retrieved 02 24, 2021, from https://www.cic.lk/sustainability/ 86. IKEA. (2020). People & Planet Positive 2020. IKEA Group Sustainability Strategy, 19. http:// www.ikea.com/ms/en_GB/pdf/reports-downloads/peopleandplanetpositive.pdf 87. Nicola, D., & Julian, D. (Eds.). (2020). Naturally Challenged: Contested Perceptions and Practices in Urban Green Spaces (Cities and). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-030-44480-8 88. Urbes project. (2014). Factsheet 6: Green Infrastructure, a wealth for cities. 43. https:// www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/urbes_factsheet_06_web.pdf%0A, http://pub lications.deltares.nl/EP3607.pdf 89. Zander, S. V., David, N. B., Vegard, G., Helene, F., & Megan, N. (2020). Urban nature in a time of crisis: recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo, Norway. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb396%0AManuscript 90. Martinez, L., Leon, E., Youssef, S. Al, Karaan, A. K., Martinez, L., Leon, E., Youssef, S. Al, & Karaan, A. K. (2020). Strengthening the health lens in urban resilience frameworks. Cities & Health, 00(00), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1731918 91. Knowlton, K.; Rotkin-Ellman, M.; King, G.; Margolis, H.G.; Smith, D.; Solomon, G.; Trent, R.; English, P. The 2006 California Heat Wave: Impacts on Hospitalizations and Emergency Department Visits. Environ. Health Perspect. 2006, 117, 61–67. 92. Heaviside, C.; Tsangari, H.; Paschalidou, A.; Vardoulakis, S.; Kassomenos, P.; Georgiou, K.E.; Yamasaki, E.N. Heat-Related Mortality in Cyprus for Current and Future Climate Scenarios. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 569, 627–633. 93. Sun, S.; Cao, W.; Mason, T.G.; Ran, J.; Qiu, H.; Li, J.; Yang, Y.; Lin, H.; Tian, L. Increased Susceptibility to Heat for Respiratory Hospitalizations in Hong Kong. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 666, 197–204. 94. Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Ka´zmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 81, 167–178. 95. Suppakittpaisarn, P.; Jiang, X.; Sullivan, W.C. Green infrastructure, green stormwater infrastructure, and human health: A review. Curr. Landsc. Ecol. Rep. 2017, 2, 96–110. 96. Mekala, G.D.; Jones, R.N.; MacDonald, D.H. Valuing the benefits of creek rehabilitation: Building a business case for public investments in urban green infrastructure. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 55, 1354–1365. 97. Fang, M. Trends in the Prevalence of Diabetes among U.S. Adults: 1999–2016. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2018, 55, 497–505. 98. Heckert, M.; Rosan, C.D. Creating GIS-based planning tools to promote equity through green Infrastructure. Front. Built Environ. 2018, 4, 1–5. 99. Salimi, M., & Al-Ghamdi, S. G. (2020). Climate change impacts on critical urban infrastructure and urban resiliency strategies for the Middle East. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101948

Chapter 8

Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

Contents 8.1 8.2

GI Policy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GI Policy Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.1 Policy Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2.2 Policy Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 GI Policy Adoption in Global Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.2 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.3 Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.4 China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.5 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.6 UK, Parris, Japan, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.7 Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.8 USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.9 Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.10 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.11 Ethiopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 GI Policy Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Urban Resilience Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.1 Science-Policy-Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5.2 Policy Space, Nature of Power, and Citizen Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 Urban Climate Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.1 Policy Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 Health Related Urban Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

335 339 341 343 344 344 345 346 347 350 350 350 351 351 351 352 353 355 357 359 361 362 365 366

8.1 GI Policy Development The integration of green, gray, and blue infrastructures is known as GI and is acknowledged as an innovative approach to increase the socioeconomic and ecological benefits for people. GI utilizes different strategies such as heat island effect © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Kumareswaran and G. Y. Jayasinghe, Green Infrastructure and Urban Climate Resilience, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37081-6_8

335

336

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

reduction, water management, ecosystem service management, and an integrated approach. Typically, a project involving infrastructure undergoes five phases during its conception and implementation [1]. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Infrastructure planning Enabling policy framework Project prioritization and screening Transaction support Implementation and supervision with the aid of financial and analytical tools.

The development of green infrastructure is often influenced and aided by policies at each stage of its implementation. Before embarking on a project, it is important to identify the policies that promote green infrastructure at all levels of government. By implementing green infrastructure policies globally, nationally, regionally, and locally, we can tackle the multifaceted aspects of green infrastructure, socioeconomic vulnerabilities, and climate change responses in a comprehensive green framework. Across different nations, green infrastructure policies tend to fall under various strategies, providing valuable insights into the local environment for development. These priorities may vary significantly from one country to another as follows [2]. • North America—water quality and management, and biodiversity • England—landscape planning based on social and ecological factors • Dutch, German, and Belgian—bridges technocratic planning with the holistic thinking. Over time, the GI scope has undergone gradual evolution, as depicted in Fig. 8.1, with three distinct steps. Initially, in the late 1990s, the focus was limited, and evaluations of GI were concentrated, with only a few theories. However, by 2008, there was a significant increase in research interest, resulting in broader applications, and improved service delivery. GI has since been integrated into policy discourses, expanding to broader frontiers [3]. Three stages are involved in reflective policy creation that tackles policy divergence and can be applied to different spatial contexts across geographical borders [2]. 1. Establishing a rationality for GI investment 2. Implementing and monitoring the GI performance 3. Assessing the functionality (long run) and consistency and conformance with policy mandates.

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

• Place based assessments

• Focus on principles, values, and utility of GI

• GI policy making

Fig. 8.1 Phases of green infrastructure development

8.1 GI Policy Development

337

Table 8.1 outlines various national level GI policies accessible in world countries. Table 8.2 illustrates how distinct GI principles are incorporated into different countries’ policy frameworks ‘✓’ represents the extensive to moderate use of the principle, while ’✕’ is weak use, and ’–’ means null in the Table [3]. According to Gerlak et al. [7], resource-scarce regions and countries frequently report the adoption and execution of GI policies. Entrepreneurs are crucial in inventing optimal alternatives and remedies during crises due to the context-specific nature of GI. However, transferring research findings from one study to another can be limiting. In evaluating GI policy trajectory, various partners impact urban development in the US policy design and implementation. Policy entrepreneurs are essential in driving policy shifts, primarily due to their motivation to engage in new prospects, innovative thinking, systematic dealing, risktaking ability, and investment capability. The process requires cooperation between governance and agencies and is driven by both politico-entrepreneurs and changeimagining policy entrepreneurs. Influence over GI policy change can occur through delegation, affiliation, recognition, and incentives. Public actors must be more inclusive, accountable, and participative than agents when implementing GI policies. Additionally, GI should be implemented in multiple hierarchical scales and linked, ensuring it is comprehensive without being too narrow. Lastly, policy layering is necessary to stay contemporary with emerging technology and make necessary adjustments [7]. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the modification of urban strategies to deal with the pandemic tactically. Cities all throughout the world sought notable temporary and permanent remedies [8]. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Expansion of side walkways Create new walk spaces Additional temporary/interim bike lanes (Bogota-76 km) Increasing the access to public green spaces, parks, and gardens Temporary closure of streets to provide space for cyclist, and foot-traveler (Vienna, Oakland, Boston) Introduced new cycle lanes (Mexico-67 km) Encourage public transportation Increase Park opening hours/keep opened Social distancing lawn, garden—New York, Poland Former airport turned to park in Berlin First country to convert tactical urbanism into official government policy— New Zealand (E.g., Innovating Streets for People Pilot Fund program, Green COVID-19 recovery program).

338

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

Table 8.1 National level green infrastructure policies Country

References Policy

USA

[4]

Philadelphia’s Green Storm water Infrastructure Planning Guidelines Environmental Protection Agency’s various guides

UK

[4]

GI policy plan in 2017 (central Scotland) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), PPS1 (revoked), PPS7 (revoked), PPG17 (revoked) Regional: The Local Plan (GLA), Cambridge shire Green Infrastructure Strategy, 2nd Edition Local: Liverpool Green Infrastructure Strategy (Mersey Forest)

Germany [2]

National policies—National Strategy for Sustainable Development, National Strategy on Biological Diversity, Concept Green Infrastructure, ‘Green Book Green in the City—Livable Future’ (White Book will follow) Regional policies—Emscher Landschaftspark, Master Plan Green (Cologne/Bonn), Local policies—Stadtlandschaft Berlin—Natürlich. Urban. Productive., Freiburg Green City, European Green Capital Essen (2017); More Nature in the City (Hannover)

Ethiopia

[5]

Constitution declared environmental protection (article 43, 44, and 92) 1997 environmental policy Urban development policy 2008 Urban land development and management policy 2005

Sweden

[6]

Swedish environmental policy A Swedish strategy for biodiversity and ecosystem services (2013) The Swedish Environmental Code (1999) (Miljöbalken) The Swedish Planning and Building Act (2010) (Plan-och bygglagen) The Swedish EQOs framework

Portugal

[6]

National Ecological Reserve (REN) Act National Strategy for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (2001) Lisbon Strategy for 2010–2024 Biodiversity in the City of Lisbon, A strategy for 2020

Slovakia [6]

National Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

Latvia

[6]

National Development Plan 2014–2020 Sustainable Development Strategy of Latvia until 2030 Latvian ecological network (1998)

Greece

[6]

National Biodiversity Strategy (2014) National Operational Program “Environment—Sustainable Development 2007–2013”

Austria

[6]

Austrian Biodiversity Strategy 2020+

Belgium [6]

National Biodiversity Strategy 2006–2016 (2006) National Biodiversity Strategy (2013–2020)

France

[6]

National Biodiversity Strategy 2011–2020 Biodiversity Law (2016) National Strategy for Ecological Transition—Toward Sustainable Development (2015–2020)

Italy

[6]

National Law on the Development of Green Urban Areas (2013)

8.2 GI Policy Planning

339

Table 8.2 Green infrastructure principles framed out across the world countries GI principle

UK

USA

Europe

Asia

Others

Sustainability

✓

–

✓

–

−

Multifunctionality

✓

✓

✓

–

✓

Accessibility

✓

✓

✓

–

✕

Connectivity

✓

✓

✓

–

✓

Social benefits

–

–

−

–

–

Ecological benefits

–

–

✓

–

–

Economic benefits

–

✕

–

–

✕

Ecosystem services

–

–

–

–

✕

Scaled

–

–

–

–

✕

Integrated policy

–

–

–

–

✕

Holistic planning approach

–

✕

−

✕

–

Water management

–

✓

−

✕

–

Engineered solutions

✕

–

–

–

–

Climate change

–

–

–

–

–

Coordinated approach to investment

–

–

–

✕

✕

Identified funding streams

✕

✕

✕

–

✕

Promotes long-term benefits

–

–

–

✕

✕

Urban

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Rural

✕

✓

–

✕

✕

Applied/discussed government policy

✕

✕

✕

–

–

Applied/discussed regional/local policy

–

–

–

✕

–

Government led

✕

✕

✕

–

–

Regionally/locally led

–

–

✓

✕

✕

Applied/discussed in advocacy policy

✓

✓

✓

✕

–

Advocacy led

✓

✓

✓

✕

✕

8.2 GI Policy Planning The planning approach known as GI enables a collaborative effort toward preserving the environment, promoting economic development, and achieving social justice. However, incorporating GI into planning can lead to potential consequences. In the formulation of planning policies, the interpretation of geographic information plays a significant role. Economic expansion and nature conservation must go hand in hand, and therefore, environmental policy must be incorporated [9]. If we want to address significant resilience concerns, embedding GI into planning is crucial. The concept of green infrastructure should also be included in environmental policies and planning. This transformation requires a simultaneous shift in social and technological systems, and this can happen through policies, politics, and knowledge.

340

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

The goal of spreading knowledge about Geographic Information (GI) and integrating it into municipal development is achieved by translating GI principles into policies. The development of these policies must take into account spatial, temporal, political, and geographical factors, as well as the need for stakeholder inclusion from all levels of the hierarchy, both internally and externally. Collaborative efforts involving local to national stakeholders are crucial for project success, and the input of policy makers, engineers, environmentalists, urban planners, developers, researchers, practitioners, public and private organizations, designers, city planners, sponsors, and executives is important for creating effective policies. Bringing together stakeholders from different fields of interest is necessary to transform traditional urban planning into modern planning. Good communication between decision-makers and stakeholders is vital for effectively implementing policies [10]. Since many GI biophysical systems are inextricably linked to social processes, GI policy and planning objectives can be adequately developed and implemented through community involvement and leadership in decision-making [11]. Additionally, political engagement, a driving force, plays a vital role in the incorporation of green and sustainable development into national policies and urban planning standards as well as in the equitable distribution of benefits from implementation to the populace [12]. Developing and connecting a multifunctional green space network in an urban context requires strategic planning based on principles that integrate with national policies and themes, such as human health and wellbeing, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and climate change adaptation. This integration should be reflected in practices, plans, and actions using a multiscale integrated approach that prioritizes connectivity and multifunctionality. UGI acceptance should guide the implementation of strategic green space planning, as evidenced by case studies from European cities. However, long-term vision beyond existing policy planning documents, community participation (inclusion and cohesion), adherence to transdisciplinary procedures (e.g., inter-departmental) and partnerships, and green economy considerations are areas where current planning falls short [4]. The GI concept has evolved as a strategic approach to policy planning at several settings ranging from local to multinational. However, there are gaps in policy development and major implementation issues due to confusion with green space, diverse perceptions and interpretation, and confusing definitions, all of which decrease the usefulness of GI in strategic spatial planning. The effectiveness of GI policies and initiatives must be evaluated. In countries such as the United Kingdom and Holland, development plans have legal/statutory status. Specifically, where legislation mandates planning application decisions to be made in conformity with the development plan, unless significant circumstances indicate otherwise. According to Scottish planning policy, the purpose of planning is “Planning should adopt a proactive approach to enable high-quality development and efficient land use in order to provide long-term benefits to the public while safeguarding and improving natural and cultural resources”. For improved policy response, the study indicated that GI policy planning and implementation must be integrated and comprehensive, involving other policy sectors

8.2 GI Policy Planning

341

Fig. 8.2 The place of planning within Scottish government

such as energy, transportation, housing, and economic development. Policy planning must be moved outside of the traditional environment and onto a common platform where different actors and stakeholders can interact [13]. GI policy is mentioned under placemaking, and sustainability in Scottish policy is depicted in the Fig. 8.2.

8.2.1 Policy Integration Policy integration is a dynamic, complex, continuous, and contested political process in which different components work together to connect or reframe separate policies by overcoming impediments. Policy integration has 5 main dimensions namely, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Policy frame Policy domains Policy goals Policy instruments Policy context.

Integration of policies is necessary to create climate proof cities with various blue–green infrastructures that offer numerous advantages beyond climate adaptation. Due to rising negative effects and frequent disaster incidences of flood, drought,

342

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

and pollution, cities in Europe must contend with climate change, urbanization, aging infrastructures, and outdated gray constructions. By including diverse actors and domains, policy integration would produce credible, effective solutions that would be visible at all levels, from the top down to the bottom up. Urban water management is one example that will be addressed by both the municipal water and non-water agendas. Because water management affects more than just drainage; it also affects things like land use, community resilience, public health, risk management, development, and nature conservation. The five dimensions of policy integration as listed in Table 8.3 are better explained by two case studies undertaken in Netherlands and UK cities to show how BGI can increase climate resilience by incorporating multiple stakeholders in a value-based decision-making process [14]. Table 8.3 Policy dimensions of BGI projects in Dordrecht and Bradford Policy domains

Vogelbuurt, Dordrecht NL

Bradford beck, Bradford UK

Policy frame A team for creating blue–green city was created Integration for effective climate adaptation Neighborhood organizations intended to create livable attractive community

Regeneration for urban improvement

Policy domain

Climate adaptation and urban water management Housing Wellbeing

Housing, health and wellbeing, Highways, drainage, and water management Conservation and biodiversity

Policy goal

Delivering BGI to make the city more climate sensitive To replace the outdated sewage system To create a livable neighborhood and promote social cohesion Increasing accessibility to locality

From the perspectives of Housing and Highways Department—To improve connectivity and support economic activity and growth, with secondary objectives to improve quality of life through safety, sustainable transport and reducing air pollution Health and wellbeing practitioners—ensuring health through providing access to good quality BG space Community—an opportunity to promote regional development

Policy instruments

Organizational—establishing ‘blue–green department’ 3 stakeholder workshops Market-based instruments—European subsidy

Regulatory—Shipley and Canal Road Area Action Plan acted as a guideline for development Communicative Organizational-stakeholder meetings Market based

Policy context

Rigid institutional context

Open, adaptive, and collaborative environment

8.2 GI Policy Planning

343

8.2.2 Policy Instruments There are numerous types of complex policy tools. Evert Vedung proposed the “Sticks-Carrots-Sermons” typology in 1998, which quickly got momentum in the field of environmental policy. It offered a thorough framework for categorizing tools of public policy. More specifically, they are sermons-based information, economic rewards, and regulatory sticks [15]. Comparing the traits of carrots, sticks, and sermons is shown in Table 8.4. Incentives come in two flavors: direct and indirect. Financial subsidies, legislation and regulations, tax breaks, financing, permits, green/ sustainable certifications, and other incentive programs are frequently employed in western countries to encourage GI investments. The majority of these were direct incentives, and the policies promoted green roofs and walls [16]. Table 8.4 Policy instruments according to Vedung’s classification Features

Sticks

Carrots

Sermons

Type of instrument

Regulatory instruments

Financial instruments

Soft instruments

Include control mechanisms and planning tools

Incentive/ Motivates the change disincentive function of behavior

Examples

License, permit, sanction, standard

Increase/decrease in price/quantity allowance

Adapt eco-friendly behavior, involve research, knowledge exchange, consulting

Government intervention

Higher (thus strictly bound to laws, guidelines, and legal requirements)

Moderate Not legally binding

Low Focus on knowledge transfer among actors

Civic participation

Limited social inclusion/ horizontal citizen participation. Not involved in decision making. Receive information by means of standards

Moderate participation (financial incentives and disincentives rather than just participation)

Moderate to higher participation. Influence in co-decision making

Civic engagement

Behavioral change with increasing degree of legally binding requirements

Encourage behavioral change in the form of compliance

Encourage behavior change

Public policy

Laws and regulations, directives, impact assessment

Tax, tax reliefs, Strategies, plans, incentives (subsidies, standards, voluntary grants), licensing agreements

Institutional policy

Constitution, charters, governance policies

Sanctions, prize and awards, code of practice, professional policies

Public benefit policies, guidelines (bet practices), briefing kits

344

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

8.3 GI Policy Adoption in Global Context 8.3.1 UK Exploration, expansion, and consolidation are the GI development phases, and England progressed gradually through each of them. The growth was essentially based on subnational evolution. In order to provide the best results, traditional policy formulation is a national, hierarchical decision-making process. However, the absence of apparent solutions over time and the complexity of the problems have transformed how policy is developed [17]. Strong advocacy helped to address the time restrictions for integrating geographic information systems into spatial planning in England, which had undergone significant structural policy changes [2]. The development of GI policies involved many stakeholders working together toward a common objective and responsibility. Sustainability, climate change, ecosystems, water management, and health are among the policy issues. In the United Kingdom, an urban renaissance began in 2000 with the goal of creating better locations to live, work, and play. The agenda created a draft for socially and economically equitable comprehensive urban planning that is socially coherent and founded on sustainability principles. Intelligible future development is generated by GI [18]. From 2005 to 2010, the Northwest region of the United Kingdom showed rising interest in the development of GI (Table 8.5). Multiple stakeholders’ agencies pushing for GI benefits, performing site-specific investigations, and adding to the evidence repository substantially influenced policy creation, development, and application. Natural England, the Countryside Agency, the Forestry Commission, the Town and Country Planning Association, and England’s Community Forest Partnerships all advocated for a dialogue about multifunctionality, interconnectedness, integrated policy, and GI accessibility [3]. Table 8.5 Phases of GI policy development Phase

Period

Conceptualization and priorities

Developing and conceptualizing

2005–2008

Concept development, implications, promoting to partners, included into regional spatial strategies and economic strategies

Consolidating

2008–2010

Developing the economic dimensions of GI, included into regional economic priorities, ‘evidence base’ development

Implementing and extending

2009–2010

Broaden the horizon of green infrastructure such as climate change (policy inclusion-adaptation and mitigation) Delivery of GI projects Developing local frameworks Stabilized the concept

8.3 GI Policy Adoption in Global Context

345

Barriers encountered in GI policy adoption in UK are identified as follows [19, 20]. • • • • •

Institutional schizophrenia Lack of knowledge Institutional inertia Reluctance to support new approach No formal governing body for GI implementation.

8.3.2 Germany Germany is a leader in adopting the GI method (planning and implementation) for urban development, placing special emphasis on the preservation of biodiversity and nature. It features an organized, thorough, integrated GI planning system made up of the best design and formal and informal planning tools. Focus on the quality and value of landscape resources at the national level. Additionally, local, and regional implementation showed greater geographical dispersion [2]. GI regulations are created in accordance with EU regulations. When compared to UK, Germany has limited development. Lessons learnt from Germany are, • • • •

Multiple cross sectoral participation and social inclusion in planning process Expanding planning scales from local to national hierarchically Realizing GI investment as a long-term interest/benefit GI quantity and quality should be harmonized.

GI planning requires several regulatory instruments for successful implementation such as. • • • •

Comprehensive planning Sectoral planning Landscape planning and Environmental impact assessment.

In Germany, GI planning and landscape planning are closely intertwined, expanding the scope of landscape planning, a crucial element that takes into account all spatial issues for ecological conservation. The system has four levels, which correspond to the federal, regional, urban, and local scales, respectively. These levels are landscape policy planning, regional landscape planning, landscape planning, and green space structure planning. The Table 8.6 lists informal tools, rules, and concepts utilized in German. The distribution of resources for GI is legally supported, and there are strong policies available for guidance. It contains a variety of GI spatial planning tools and a feedback process.

346

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

Table 8.6 German policies and plans on GI in federal level Policy

Year

Intention

National biodiversity strategy

2007

Implemented in terms of habitat restoration, peatland Ecological remediation and ecological compensation

Federal biodiversity program

2011

Strategies to enhance urban green space and ecosystem

Federal defragmentation program

2012

GI network grounded on National Road Network

Nature conservation initiative 2020

2015

Enhance biodiversity and human health and wellbeing through developing renewable energy base

Federal green infrastructure concept—policy paper

2017

Natural protection and enhance ecosystem services

Green book—Green in the city—A livable future (policy paper)

2015

Best practices for GI, multifunctionality

White book—Green in the city—A livable future (policy paper)

2018

10 specific recommendations for urban GI

Source Hu et al. [21]

8.3.3 Europe As GI is closely related to regional socioeconomic development, biodiversity conservation, climate change adaptation, disaster risk management, protection of natural resources like soil, water, land, habitat, and agriculture, and thermal regulation, the European Green Infrastructure Strategy proposed integrating GI among various policy sectors. The idea is deeply ingrained in territorial planning and policy. The evolution of the GI policy was substantially impacted by national, regional, and municipal policies. Integrating GI strategies into national policy is crucial because to the expanding population and escalating urban crisis in order to provide high standards of living, resource-efficient economies, and climate resilient compact cities to combat climate change. In order to develop the anticipated dramatic change, the New Urban Agenda combines government, urban planning, and nature, supporting environmental sustainability. Europe-wide GI policies are widely used, demonstrating the good trend toward transformation [4]. The concept of multifunctionality is at the heart of EU GI strategy strongly linked to ecosystem services and ecological connectivity, EU environmental strategy, EU biodiversity strategy which aims to serves multitude of ecosystems in different administrative scales rural, urban divides. Moreover, it is integrated into EU policy development inclusive of regional development, climate change, agriculture, forestry, urban development, land use, and spatial planning [22]. EU GI policies support biodiversity conservation. Conceptualizing GI as an ecosystem service provider has brought substantial transformation and created emphasis in policy development. Conceptualization of GI as a connected network of blue and green spaces portrays the link with ecological connectivity concept.

8.3 GI Policy Adoption in Global Context

347

There are a number of policy goals in the well-established green infrastructure sectors in the UK, the USA, and Europe. For example, they want to replace gray infrastructure with green infrastructure whenever possible. The European Union’s main green infrastructure programs or goals include. • Demonstrating the flexibility and cost-effectiveness of green infrastructure to planning/investment strategies. • Promoting multifunctionality as a key delivery objective. • Working through interconnected, and yet independent networks to promote green infrastructure as offering a versatility to scalar landscape investment. • Providing a consistency and coherence in green infrastructure policy based on reliable evidence/data; and • Positioning green infrastructure as an evolving, yet expert-led, knowledge base that promotes innovation in landscape planning techniques, strategic investment and responding to socioeconomic changes. Table 8.7 shows the GI principles addressed in discussion/frame out the topics. Agricultural policies are often important for GI development. Despite the fact that there are several EU programs supporting the implementation of GI, they hardly ever promote agricultural in urban settings. Urban and peri-urban agricultural land used for extensive or intense farming is referred to as UPUF. Urban peri urban farmlands (UPUF) have a substantial impact on achieving urban policy goals like improving health and quality of life, fostering the urban economy, social cohesion, and climate change adaption. Based on the examination of existing policies, legal documents, and the possibilities for integrating UPUF into future policies, UPUF are not sufficiently handled as UGI components [23]. Urban greening faces two significant obstacles, including the need to switch from traditional design policies to creative spatial policies and from generalizations to local assessments [24]. Few funding green investments are. • Clean development mechanisms for funding projects mitigating GHG emissions through energy efficiency • Climate investment fund for projects dealing with fuel economy, alternative fuel switching, eco-friendly public commuting • Global environmental facility for global environmental issues • Clean energy financing for projects with the perspective of creating low carbon economy.

8.3.4 China Although there are no rules regarding GI planning in China, GI practices are evident at the local level in localities (green engineering). As illustrated in Fig. 8.3, it uses a top-down “5 + 1” (composed of 5 statutory and 1 non-statutory plans) model as a framework for GI planning, which is inclusive and diverse. It involves a number of GI projects for disaster reduction, resilience building, and urban sprawl control. In

348

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

Table 8.7 EU policies related to GI Biodiversity and nature policies

Year

Purpose

Habitats directive

1992

Conservation wildlife habitats

Birds directive

2009

Conservation of birds (wild)

Life program

2013

Program designed for environment and climate action

Biodiversity strategy

2011

Biodiversity plan to 2020

Thematic strategy for soil protection

2006

Soil conservation

Environment action program to 2020

2013

Living well, within the limits of our planet’

Regional policy/cohesion fund 2013 Climate policies Renewable energy directive

2009

Promoting the use of renewable energy

Climate change adaptation strategy

2013

Climate change adaptation

2000

Developed a framework for community action in water policy

River and water policies Water framework directive Floods directive

2007

Flood risk assessment and management

European water scarcity and drought poly

2007

Dealing with water scarcity and drought challenges in EU

Future water blueprint

2012

Protection of water resources

Nitrates directive

1998

Related to protecting waterbodies from nitrate pollution caused by agriculture

Marine strategy framework directive

2008

Community action in marine environmental policy

Marine spatial planning strategy

2014

Developing framework for marine spatial planning

Integrated coastal zone management

2002

For implementing integrated coastal zone management

Maritime and fisheries policy Forest policy Forest strategy

For forests and forests-based industries/sector

Policies in rural and urban areas Rural and urban area policy Common agricultural policy and rural development regulation

2013

Support rural development by European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD) Management and monitoring of agricultural policy Framework for direct payment for farmers under support scheme (continued)

8.3 GI Policy Adoption in Global Context

349

Table 8.7 (continued) Biodiversity and nature policies

Year

Purpose

Spatial planning policies European spatial development 1999 perspective

Sustainable development of the EU territory

ESPON 2020 cooperation program

2016

European spatial planning observation network program

Territorial agenda of the EU 2020

2011

For an inclusive, smart, and sustainable Europe

Impact assessment, damage prevention, and remediation policies Strategic environmental assessment directive

2014

Environmental liability directive

2004

With respect to prevention and remedy of environmental damage

Source Rolf et al. [23]

terms of national planning policy, GI is not yet given priority. The national spatial planning strategy must incorporate GI policy based on “multiple planning integration and ecological priority”. Lessons from China include increasing civic engagement and raising public awareness (through urban gardening movements like the National Garden City, the National Forest City, and the National Ecological Garden City supported by subsidies and favorable political conditions), economic revival and industrial development through GI investment such as ecological civilization construction, renewable energy projects (wind plat, PV, and biomass), diversified and inclusive development model [21].

Fig. 8.3 Green infrastructure spatial planning system in China

350

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

8.3.5 India Since GI is still a relatively new strategy in India, it lacks a thorough legal framework and legislative regulations. Biodiversity and ecosystem services were the focus of ecological and environmental preservation initiatives. Only vertical top-down planning systems are used in GI spatial planning systems. Other difficulties include the absence of a systematic GI policy, an uncoordinated, inconsistent GI development, exorbitant costs, a competitive bidding process, and quantity that is not in accordance with quality [21].

8.3.6 UK, Parris, Japan, Canada Green belt is regarded as an approach in urban design. They are green space policies that are commonly used in world countries, such as grasslands and linear parks. They became popular after the war, particularly in the United Kingdom throughout the 1940s and 1950s. Varied countries had different reasons for implementing green belt programs. It is a top down and bottom-up regional planning method headed by the state and experts [25]. • UK—Revolt against uncontrolled urban growth, boundary at the fringe, natural resource protection • Japan and Korea—Strategic and military purpose • In Jerusalem by British—Political reasons • Canada (found in Toronto and Ottawa)—green space designated for agriculture, tourism, and ecosystem services • Parris—A green belt policy was enacted to manage urban sprawl through adopting an integrated mitigation and adaptation strategies to curb climate change impacts. Limiting private vehicle use and encouraging public commuting, limited housing size can be stated as few such measures [26].

8.3.7 Ireland In terms of GI, the EU was a primary driver of environmental policy in Ireland. GI planning was formalized as a planning strategy in Ireland between November 2008 and 2011, despite a lack of originality and novelty in policy formulation at the outset due to the voice of environmentalists and interested parties for conservation. Irish GI policy frameworks aided in the resolution of long-standing policy challenges and possible conflicts like as ecological degradation and land fragmentation [27]. Green Networks and Green Chains are two network-based policy approaches used at the local government level to deal with environmental crisis situations in the early days, however significant restrictions appeared in national scale implementation.

8.3 GI Policy Adoption in Global Context

351

8.3.8 USA The United States employs centralized or single actor governance methods in which public agencies play a significant role in GI planning [28]. A million Tree planting programs in the greatest cities in the United States, including as Los Angeles and New York, to generate social and environmental advantages were an effort to transform modern cities into sustainable cities with the goal of improving environmental quality. Cities such as Seattle, Chicago, and San Francisco are actively involved in promoting tree planting because urban forests improve environmental quality, standard of living, public health, and reduce the ecological impact [29]. Non-uniform policies among municipalities, money, governance, institutional factors, a lack of information, incentives, expertise, outdated legislation, and public attitudes are all barriers to widespread implementation of GI in the United States [19].

8.3.9 Asia In Asia, GI policies have been implemented to a limited extent [30]. Globally, the emphasis on GI integration is being placed not only on governmental bodies, but also on public and private businesses. Responsibility is greatly decentralized in places such as Singapore (Southeast Asia). It is a more liberal market-based instrument in which responsibility is distributed among several players. Along with government entities, private enterprises, landowners, contractors, architects, engineers, and the local community must incorporate and practice green as a way of life [28].

8.3.10 Canada Although GI has been brought into policy discourse, it is unclear how much of it has been integrated into Canadian policy environment. Approximately 30% of municipal plans use the terms living GI, non-living GI, greening of gray infrastructure, and low impact development, however not all do. It focuses on urban forests, storm water management, and land use [30]. Previous studies showed that there are several policy challenges to creating and implementing GI [19]. • • • • •

GI policy is complex mix across several policy traditional policies Existing gray infrastructure policies and institutions favoring gray Government hierarchy levels Organizational bureaucracy in cities Financial, political, cultural, institutional, administration, and organizational barriers • Lack of knowledge, training, and expertise.

352

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

8.3.11 Ethiopia Effective policies, strategies, standards, guidelines, plans, and legal tools are the main tools supporting and facilitating the administration and growth of urban green infrastructure. Ethiopia’s supportive documents in relation to urban green infrastructure are. 1. Climate Change Resilient Urban Green Development Strategy (2005—intended to create a conducive living and working environment adopting green into housing) 2. Climate Resilient Green Economy Strategy (2011—to preclude the negative consequences of growth and development) 3. Urban Greenery and Beautification Strategy (2015—create green spaces, enhance env. Sustainability, reduce pollution, degradation, and disasters). Despite the fact that various legislative papers and policy instruments have been developed, as shown in Table 8.8, implementation is very inadequate and unsatisfactory [5]. Table 8.8 Plans and policies in Ethiopia in relation to green infrastructures Plans and policies

Year

Environmental protection policy

1995

Urban development and management policy

2003

Urban plan proclamation

2005

Construction and industry development policy

2005

Environmental pollution control

2000

Adaptive green and accessible urban sector policy

2005

The urban plan proclamation

2008

Urban development plan proclamation

2008

The conservation strategy of Ethiopia

1980

City green infrastructure strategy

2015

Sanitation and green development strategy

2015

Urban solid waste management and beautification strategy

2015

Local climate change resilient urban green infrastructure strategy

2014

Regional and local urban planning implementation strategy

2016

Urban growth and transformation plan II

2016

National urban green infrastructure standards

2015

8.4 GI Policy Barriers

353

8.4 GI Policy Barriers Johns [19] asserts that implementation issues are present in jurisdictions that fully endorse GI. For an example sustainable storm water management facing critical challenges in shifting from gray to green infrastructures due to lack of political priority, financial barriers, lack of coordination between government bodies and departments and fragmented responsibilities, conflicting/dominating technical engineering knowledge, legal barriers, no proper leadership, performance uncertainty, lack of institutional capacity inertia, public, and private entities reluctant to change/ attitude/adapt new approaches, technological barriers, lack of expertise, regulatory impediments, problems in design and maintenance, lack of communication among different disciplines, lack of holistic stakeholder participation in planning/design process. The investment in GI technologies as a crucial component of the policy mix is evolving gradually and continuously. For GI policies to be implemented successfully, there must be a paradigm change from gray to green infrastructures [19]. It is critical to recognize and establish methods for overcoming hurdles brought on by existing policy or strategic aims. The adoption of an economic framework can assist in creating stronger business cases that are consistent with council policies and goals by recognizing a larger range of advantages and long-term social, economic, and environmental returns to society [12]. Inadequate government policies, urban development policies, financial resource/ funding policies, and cognitive resource policies can all pose a serious danger to the widespread growth of GI. It was discovered that the incentive kinds used vary greatly based on the economies of the various nations. For instance, financing is directly devoted to GI initiatives and subsidies are given in developed nations like North America and Europe, whereas in South American and Asian countries, the economies are not yet stable enough to prioritize GI over health, education, and the eradication of poverty. As a result, they have favorable laws and have minimized property taxes [16]. Ambiguous outcomes as a consequence of practitioners’ inadequate understanding of GI, the need for changes to the existing governance structure, the incompatibility between GI multifunctionality and governance structure, the inability to accurately quantify the optimal net benefit of GI components, and the institutional structure of environmental governance. In the UK, there is no formal governing body for strategic implementation of GI, so the applications can’t be handled properly because they are influenced by this [20]. In addition to geographic, demographical, temporal, and spatial variations, case studies on urban storm water management conducted in the UK (England, Ireland), USA (England, Ireland), and Australia (Perth, Melbourne, Brisbane) revealed that social and institutional structure, such as policy and governance, is a common barrier hindering GI application. This necessitates a shift in the governing structure, policy configurations, and public perception. Cost and performance uncertainties, a lack of engineering standards and guidelines, segmented responsibilities, a lack of institutional capacity, a lack of a legislative mandate, funding limitations, and resistance to change are among the identified uncertainties in the USA and Australia,

354

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

whereas socio-institutional, perceptual, and resource-related issues were present in the UK policy barriers (federal, state, and city policies), governance barriers, resource constraints, an unsupportive institutional and social structure, and a lack of cognitive ability are the main factors holding back the acceptance and implementation of GI across the US [31]. The causes of failures in Ethiopia are identified as (1) policy instruments developed in national level not properly exercised in local and regional level, (2) failed to implement existing policies appropriately, (3) deficiency in GI planning, (4) lack of political support and commitment, (5) experts’ scarcity/skilled labor force, (6) lack of civic participation and engagement, (7) failed in creating awareness among public, government officials, and relevant actors misinterpreting or not clearly understanding the policy or legal frameworks, (8) poor institutional arrangement, (9) lack of service delivery to public/poor management in public green spaces, (10) lack of monitoring and performance evaluation [5]. Even while urban greening is incorporated into city planning laws, there are still discrepancies in the distribution of such ecosystem benefits to the community. As a result, there should be alignment between spatial planning and land use management, and the legal authoritative government body should ensure that environmental justice is addressed in the implementation of green infrastructure and the provision of quality services to maintain neighborhood unity and harmony beyond all variations. Venter et al. [32] conducted a research study that explicitly demonstrated the presence of special/geographic/racial inequities and income-based discrimination in the GI distribution in urban South Africa. Most of the time, sustainable, high-quality green facilities are assimilated and accessed by the high-income group of people, while the poor/low-income households are disservice in both public and private areas/spaces. Furthermore, green spaces, tree cover, and public places such as parks and green belts are found near neighborhoods populated by upper-class people as opposed to lowincome areas where counterparts live [32]. It has been observed that poor households are less likely to have access to private green space due to their lower economic status; however, they should be given the opportunity to connect with nature by providing convenient access to green public spaces, which is notable in literary works from the United Kingdom; however, this condition is lacking in South Africa [33]. National policies that promote environmental conservation and sustainable urban development are important for environmental protection. Environmental and land conservation measures in China have worsened the conflict between ecological protection and national economic success. This is due to the fact that protecting one component will limit the expansion of the other. Because resource-rich countries with the ability to invest in large manufacturing companies, mining, and processing sectors are the primary source of pollution, rigorous environmental rules will tend to limit their development in order to regulate pollution levels. Maintaining a dynamic balance between the state of the economy and the environment is crucial. By utilizing green and clean technology, the industries can conduct research and explore for better resource management strategies as well as efficient and clean manufacturing methods.

8.5 Urban Resilience Policies

355

The control of the expansion of the built environment in a sustainable way is aided by optimized spatial arrangement in conjunction with the priority outline for the installation of GI. In order to conserve the environment and strengthen the integrity of an ecosystem by enhancing service functions and structures, ecological corridors typically connect grasslands, green spaces, green belts, and rivers. While linking and preserving traditional rural landscapes and continuously providing ecosystem services, the ecological corridor created to increase urban resilience divides the city’s spatial structure. Socioeconomic perspectives, policy guidelines, availability, accessibility of residents to green space, area coverage, capita coverage, and requirement are other vital measures to be considered in even delivery while developing the green components. The main restrictions found in Poland include a lack of favorable municipal laws, regulatory obstacles, and financial constraints [34]. Geological contextualization influences the transferability of evaluation methods and frameworks that academics designed to support the creation of universal (convergent) GI policies, which results in divergent implementation [2].

8.5 Urban Resilience Policies The concept of resilience encompasses a wide range of issues, including everything from disaster response to underlying societal injustices. Dealing with climate change-related uncertainty is where resilience strategy is most often used. This approach has a normative relationship to governance approaches including adaptive co-management, adaptive governance, adaptive policymaking, precautionary approach, and regulatory/policy experiments. The ability of the law to adapt, distributive fairness, widespread participation, and cross-scale interactions are the four main legal elements that preserve climate resilience [35]. The three interrelated aspects of climate resilience having implications on climate adaptation law/adaptiveness of law are socio-ecological system and adaptive cycle, the flexibility of development models (in response to socioeconomic, and natural changes) that combine resistance, adaptation and transformation, and cross-scale interactions (panarchy). There are many potentials and restrictions for resilience as a policy narrative in urban planning. Cities are transforming into climate proof cities where climate change adaptation, mitigation, resilience, environmental sustainability, and resilience policies are gaining more and more prominence in policy narratives and urban agendas in the context of rapid urbanization, escalating population growth, unsustainable development, and the climate change crisis. The distribution of resources by governments, planners, practitioners, and policy makers emerged as a critical aspect in urbanization that had negative effects on the community. Communities were helped to address social, economic, and environmental concerns via the implementation of nature-based solution policies and effective science-policy-practice interlinks [36]. Carbon credits, a community resilience fund, a contingent credit facility, a green

356

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

tax, municipal green bonds, and insurance are financial tools for urban ecology and resilience [37]. A tool to improve climate resilience and sustainability is urban green policies. Biomimicry, or the imitation of natural processes, can lead to green processes. Both top-down and bottom-up strategies can be used for urban redevelopment. Both lines could cross and have an impact on various stages of urban growth. Bottom-up strategies are used for social inclusion with community empowerment in planning, implementing, decision-making, and management, while top-down strategies are used for policy creation, certification, funding, monitoring, and standardization [38]. The evolution of the concept of resilience and the formation of its many epistemological lineages are shown in Fig. 8.4. The majority of urban policies appear to naturally relate to resilience. Resilience is a strategy that promotes adaptation and flexibility, two fundamental elements of the urban planning process, during the planning and implementation phases. This will open the door for the development of policies that have the essential elements of adaptation. Urban resilience also emphasizes the importance of system thinking and system characteristics including flexibility, redundancy, component interactions, and modularity in urban planning. In comparison to a single centralized system, complex decentralized systems are less susceptible. With the integration of many policy agendas, numerous stakeholders from various disciplines, organizations, the local community, and policy makers, resilience results in an integrated approach to policy development that breaks the stereotype [39]. Resilience is not just a solution to socio-ecological system resilience, it regulates the aspects of marginality, vulnerability, inequality, and power into climate resilient development policies. It is a complementary pathway to better understand/ that provide insights on how societies adapt, mitigate, and develop under climate change and disasters [40]. Despite a lengthy history, the political economy and social justice were not sufficiently acknowledged in the concept of resilience. In the context of urbanization, there is no suitable framework to portray such a political economic process. According to statistics from throughout the world, a sizable section of the urban population is

Fig. 8.4 Evolution of resilience concept

8.5 Urban Resilience Policies

357

struggling and becoming a disadvantaged group as a result of poverty, inequality, malnutrition, and unemployment, ultimately leading to the creation of urban slums. However, Béné et al. [41] found that the degree to which these social components were addressed in urban resilience was unsatisfactory [41].

8.5.1 Science-Policy-Practice Science-policy-practice dialogue plays a crucial role in breaking silos thinking and operationalizing urban climate resilience and fostering sustainable development. These three aspects must be co-designed, co-generated, co-implemented to share knowledge and experience to empower cities while addressing multiple concurrent crises, social, technical, financial, institutional, and administrative barriers. The execution of this interface is a crucial problem due to the numerous stakeholders working on various spatial and temporal scales, in various sectors, and with different objectives. Therefore, an iterative, envisioned, constructive discourse including researchers, policy makers, and practitioners is essential. This discourse must be linked at the scientific, normative, and operational levels. By acknowledging the obstacles to establishing urban resilience, speaking with one another to work through them, and cooperating to put long-term solutions in place, such discussion opens up new avenues for urban resilience. The knowledge, experience gathered, and best practices identified can be exchanged across the cities to enhance their capacity. The iterative approach of science-policy-practice requires governance approach (transparent, accountable) with vertical (top down and bottom up—social inclusion, local action in achieving national policy objectives, and national course of action for local action and horizontal integration (support and collaboration among national government, ministries, departments, local government authorities, and institutes) [42]. Figure 8.5 illustrates the multilevel governance structure for building urban resilience where • Research—identify research gaps, performing need analysis in existing policy frameworks and practices, building scientific knowledge base, technical support, tool, and technology development. • Policy—outline resilience agenda in line with policies, develop national, and international policies. • Practice—operationalizing, overcome challenges in implementation, experimenting, and choosing the best and appropriate practices. Concepts of urban climate resilience are incorporated into urban planning to safeguard cities by addressing current and anticipated vulnerabilities and dangers. Urban resilience has become an essential component of national and international policy discussions, particularly for the mitigation of climate change, disaster management, disaster recovery, etc.

358

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

Fig. 8.5 Multilevel governance structure of urban resilience

World countries have policies and plans for adaptation, mitigation, disaster management, and resilience. A mitigation or adaptation plan is currently in place in around 66% of European Union cities, according to earlier studies. In particular, mitigation measures are in place in 97% of Polish cities, 81% of German cities, 80% of Irish cities, 78% of Finnish cities, and 77% of Swedish cities. Table 8.9 shows the adaptation plans implemented in different world cities. Climate adaptation laws and policies in Vietnam-climate-resilient Vietnamese Mekong Delta (VMD) 2017 How law advocate/propagandize climate resilience? • Through declaring climate resilience in laws, principles, regulations, policies, mechanisms, and instruments • Prioritizing climate change mitigation and adaptation, disaster recovery • Building adaptive capacity of individuals, local community, and institutions Table 8.9 Urban resilience restructured spatial planning City

Adaptation

Turin

Climate resilience plan (2020)

Milan

Land use plan (2019)

Bologna

Adaptation plan (2015)

Rome

Urban resilience strategy (2018)

100RC/C40 100RC/C40 C40

Venice Italy

Network

National adaptation strategy (NAS)/National adaptation plan (NAP)

Source Du et al. [35]

8.5 Urban Resilience Policies

• • • • •

359

Providing incentives to adaptation actions Devise accountability/liability mechanisms for climate change impacts Establish compensation mechanisms Developing adaptive law and reflexive law Iterative review and develop vertical bottom-up feedback mechanism.

Resilience at the community and institutional levels is influenced by internal and external forces. Resilience is impacted by internal institutional processes and actors, actors below institutional levels like consumers and households, and higher rank impacts like national level policies, international markets, and political processes. The process of empowering and reforming communities is known as community resilience. The panarchy model offers a consolidated method for comprehending the dynamics, relationships, and processes that exist between socio-ecological systems at all scales. It makes integrated policy framework and interventions evident as an outcome [43]. The concept of resilience will be incorporated into the development of urban policies. Policymaking and resilience thinking interact. Building urban climate resilience is heavily influenced by politics and power, and understanding the policy space and nature of power, as well as their dynamics, is critical in determining the participation of actors in the process. There is also competing interest between processes, crowding of policy actors, policy entrepreneurs who put forward new innovative ideas, critical issues to initiate institutional change, and different spaces for building resilience to climate change. The ‘actor-oriented approach’ is a widely used approach for understanding policy processes, different actors (professionals, experts, the general public), networks, and their roles, interactions, and contributions to policy development [44].

8.5.2 Policy Space, Nature of Power, and Citizen Participation There are three types of spaces namely, 1. Closed spaces—highly narrowed participation of stakeholders, only a group powerful people/actors involve in decision making 2. Invited spaces—wider participation of actors is sought; but restrained by consulting only with invited actors and institutions 3. Claimed spaces—claimed/demanded by less powerful actors from/against more powerful. Visible, invisible, and hidden power are few types of power exercised in these spaces. The way the power operated provides an understanding about how different actors involve in policy processes. 1. Visible power—where only one party has distinct power/apparent influence over the other in decision making 2. Hidden power—powerful policy actors emerge influential through agenda setting

360

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

3. Invisible power—influence is exerted but resembles Gramscian notions of cultural hegemony (e.g., privileged/elite, or influential individuals (belongs to higher caste/educational level) actively involving, i.e., become dominant in community meetings with the project team, discussing and answering questions where ordinary civilians become listeners. Citizen participation—‘Ladder of citizen participation’ is a popular concept broadly applied. It divides the citizen participation as 1. Non-participation—excluded diversity of voices 2. Tokenism—intended to promote efficiency and sustainability of any undertaking/ resilience initiatives 3. Citizen power—participation envisioned empowerment and transformation. System thinking (which leads to a transformative approach with multiple actors from diverse constitutions in building resilience) and civic engagement in policy spaces are critical for policy decision making and resilience building. Though social cohesion and inclusion are essential for the resilience building process. Traditional methods of public participation, such as community meetings, may not be applicable to today’s urban context, which is extremely diversified and dynamic. People who rely on their daily wages for a living may lose their jobs. In Asian urban context policy mainstreaming, and principles of climate resilience are not necessarily fitting into the urban governance. What is required afore/ beforehand is mainstreaming urban climate resilience into policymaking and planning is transformation of fundamental/inherent political nature of urban governance. The policy planning and governance require sound public cohesion, policy instruments/models/frameworks for change (That are effective in demanding/bringing a change/addressing the challenges of governance in responding to climate change), institutional capacity, adaptive and flexible iterative learning process/social learning process, interaction among state-market-citizen, public dialogues in policy formulation and enactment, hazard-risk-vulnerability assessment. Climate change and urbanization are two pressing issues in Asian context. A clumsy model which is more related with resilience theory rather than a linear approach influence policy change and supports in tackling challenges in development projects [45]. In the United States of America, there are few studies on resilience policies implemented in cities, resulting in significant gaps in understanding and difficulties in practical implementation. As a policy agenda, resilience is still in its early stages. Though the concept of resilience has become indispensable in urban planning and governance, it is ambiguous, with several competing definitions. Based on definitions, type of resilience, and institutional context diverse set of policies translated from resilience concepts particularly engineering resilience, socio-ecological resilience, and 100 RC project are notable. In line with Woodruff et al. [46] research findings US adopted higher number of resilience policies out of 109 local policies and programs analyzed: New York (97), San Francisco (96), Austin (87), Seattle, Washington (82) Los Angeles (81)

8.6 Urban Climate Policies

361

polices are being implemented. Policy areas were categorized as land use, transportation, pollution reduction, prevention/remediation policies, climate change adaptation and mitigation, natural resource conservation, hazard mitigation, emergency service, public health and nutrition, organization, outreach and engagement, housing, economy. Least commonly adopted policies were hardening critical infrastructure (lack of information, and evidence for implementation). Moreover, social equity and justice are hardly addressed and not integrated into city policies. It is not regarded as a critical component of city resilience because marginalized populations, low-income households, and vulnerable people are not prioritized, and no policies or programs are designed specifically for them. Cities are not widely adapting climate change policies to mitigate negative consequences [46]. Adoption of blue–green infrastructures into urban planning policy promotes urban resilience. Depending on their suitability, the strategies are implemented on a city, neighborhood, and national scale. Success stories include Singapore, Colombia, Shenzhen, and China. Sustainability efforts transformed a nation with a high unemployment rate and unskilled labor into a self-sustaining nation. Economic growth, sustainable development, and quality of life principles in a holistic approach. Integrated urban planning that promotes the use of digital tools, health and safety environments, access to safe, affordable, and high-quality services, reliable and clean energy access, social capital creation, urban diversity and cultural diversity, genuine community participation, incentive alignment, adequate policy frameworks, innovative financing, flexible zoning, zero pollution, low carbon, multiuse urban fabric. The key to balancing sustainable development and rapid urbanization is effective management. To improve the standard of living of urban residents, national and territorial policies, regulations, and legislation must be adhered to. The developing countries with a high proportion of low to middle income people planned densification processes, integrated infrastructure development, low carbon economy, urban resilience strategies, comprehensive management system, quality education and employment, innovative business, national self-sufficiency; green economic investments are beneficial in shifting from low to middle to upper economies. In Cambodia, efforts to build urban resilience can be seen through the Green City Strategic Plan 2016–2025, which aims to transform Phnom Penh into a clean, green, and sustainable city that provides its residents with a safe and modern lifestyle [47].

8.6 Urban Climate Policies Widely employed strategies in tackling climate change disputes are [48]. 1. Climate change policy integration—integrating the climate objectives into different sectors at all stages of policymaking 2. Climate policy mainstreaming—prioritizing the climate policies such as adaptation/mitigation/resilience policies on development agendas

362

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

3. Climate co-benefit—co-benefits enjoyed by amalgamating adaptation, mitigation, and environmental policies 4. Urban climate policies. When we are focusing on the urban climate policies, climate policies are generally categorized into mitigation and adaptation with different aims. 1. Mitigation—cutdown present and future greenhouse gas emission (e.g., reduce fossil fuel use, switch to renewables, public commuting, green buildings, building retrofit and adaptive use, SMART transport, SMART communication, integrated solid waste management, and urban forestry) 2. Adaptation—adapting through structural, social, and built environment adjustments to minimize the negative consequences of climate change (e.g., integrated disaster management, water management, flood risk reduction, sustainable urban planning designs, health risk management, and heat stress related morbidity. Around the world, 50% of the measures taken to address climate change focus on mitigation, 30% concentrate on adaptation, while the rest aim to achieve both goals. Sectors like energy, construction, transportation, and waste management typically prioritize mitigation, while blue–green infrastructure favors adaptation techniques. The Sustainable Development Goals, Paris Agreement, and Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction all advocate for a holistic approach that combines both approaches. However, implementing them in isolation may backfire since improving one objective could hinder the other. Therefore, implementing both objectives cohesively is crucial [49]. When considering tradeoffs on a sectoral basis, blue–green frameworks comprised of green walls, roofs, and facades, urban green spaces, parks, urban agriculture, urban forestry, storm water harvesting, urban policy and governance, low carbon investment, environmental pricing, and regulation are all measures with adaptation rather than mitigation objectives. Climate change mitigation measures are generally welcomed most of the time because they have a global focus that is long term and sustainable for climate stabilization. It is primarily used in energy-intensive sectors that contribute significantly to GHG emissions. Techniques are proactive abatement goals that are frequently updated. Countries that produce more pollution and go over the allowed limits must adhere to the rules and use the proper mitigation techniques. Whereas reactive adaptation measures of this type are frequently used across the nations in a variety of fields and locally implemented at the national or regional level in the short and medium term. However, these are uncertain as a result of hazy climate change projections.

8.6.1 Policy Measures Comprehensive urban climate policies include sectoral mitigation and adaptation strategies in addition to the mitigation process. A well-developed urban climate

8.6 Urban Climate Policies

363

change governance structure that serves as a channel to add value to expert knowledge by integrating it into planning is necessary for the design, planning, and implementation of comprehensive policy at the city scale. It is doable with the active networking and collaboration of various actors, including the mayor, social entities, advocacy experts, research institutes, government institutes, civil groups, politicians, locality, environmental NGOs, and private entities for advisory inputs/interest and concerns for inclusive decision-making processes. Making policies is a challenging task that the local government cannot complete on its own; it calls for the addition of local knowledge through social inclusion, expert knowledge, technical expertise, a background in scientific research, consultation from the research community, NGO support for raising awareness, evaluating information, facilitating participation, and implementing policies, as well as political leadership for long-term sustainable implementation. Green infrastructure (GI) has been recognized as a viable policy response to address climate change adaptation. Its significant feature of “multifunctionality” renders it an attractive and satisfactory option for political agendas, particularly in times of urgent environmental concerns. However, it is imperative to examine and ensure that each GI’s multifunctionality aligns with governance standards. GI offers a potential and strategic intervention as it is grounded in scientific support and promotes long-term climate resilience. Therefore, the benefits of GI would outweigh the incurred costs [20]. Urban climate change policy is crucial for the organization and execution of mitigation actions in cities, as well as for maintaining vigilance for adaptation, particularly for disaster management, urban planning, and public health, and for mitigating effects in related industries like transportation, energy production and supply, building, communication, public health, city planning, water management, and waste management. The local government must take the following steps for comprehensive urban climate change policies to be implemented successfully at the city level. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

GHG inventory system GHG reduction goal and objectives Systematic master plan for GHG reduction Integrated action plans (adaptation and mitigation) Policy plans Implementation and periodical monitoring of performance Measuring progress Feedback mechanisms, control mechanisms, and corrective actions Dissemination to public Update plans and policies, and reduction targets.

The capacity of municipal or local governance, the degree to which climate policies address local critical issues, and local political support are the factors influencing the implementation of climate policies in urban contexts of developing regions [50]. These factors are depicted in Fig. 8.6. Despite a generally positive trend in cities where local governments adopt climate policies and action plans, there are significant local differences. There is a gap

364

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

Fig. 8.6 Factors influencing urban climate policy implementation [50]

in policy discussions based on the local political environment and climate change initiatives. Local governments must have the capability to implement climate policies through adequate financial, institutional capacity, technical resources, information management, and legal competency to bring change through climate initiatives. Nowadays with the decentralization of power certain legal powers were given to regional and municipal governments however, they are not provided with corresponding fund under relevant budgeting thus they are not able to implement policies. The initiatives or mandatory steps in advancing in basic amenities such as energy, water, health, transport, communication, waste management, construction, planning will lead to local/national climate change policy formulation. For example, local government of Rizhao, a Chinese city made it mandatory to install solar water heater for every new building, after 15 years almost all dwellers shifted to solar water heaters. Therefore, local bodies must adopt mandatory changes in different fields. A crucial part of implementing climate change initiatives and advancing the climate change agenda is played by political entrepreneurs who are appointed or elected government officials (experts). However, in order to put policies into effect, political entrepreneurs need institutional strength and political support. Cities have a significant impact on environmental policy that focuses on green infrastructure, the protection of open space, growth management, adaptation to climate change, and mitigation. The following reasons make it difficult to integrate GI concepts into legal frameworks, though [51].

8.7 Health Related Urban Policies

365

1. Laws and policies ignore the regulation and provision of ecosystem services of living capital. It is difficult to provide a market value because the quantification process is not standardized, and there are no direct valuation methods. There is significant ownership fragmentation. The installation of GI by one person cannot prevent the bad act of another, but the benefit is not limited to the owner. People gain at the expense of a single owner. On the one hand, there are costs, while on the other, there are benefits. 2. People unaware about the biophysical services of green components. 3. Institutional barriers in incorporating ecosystem services to law and policy.

8.7 Health Related Urban Policies Identifying the areas where GI can assist other policy agendas is also crucial. In terms of health policy, urban agendas need to incorporate health concerns; a healthy urban environment includes good quality, comfortable housing, convenient access to basic amenities, and health. Improved air quality, urban cooling, a reduction in the effects of extreme weather events, and increased personal safety are all advantages of GI for public health [12]. Improving a community’s health status has several implications in city policy development and disaster management because hazard events have negative consequences on human health and people are more likely to develop cancer, obesity, respiratory, cardiovascular, psychological, and other chronic disorders as a result of climate change and contaminated man-made environments with heavy smokes and air pollutants. The major steps taken by WHO in promoting a healthy urban environment are. • • • •

Policies to address communicable diseases both infectious and non-infectious Health indicators to assess values of public involvement Health impacts on fostering urban sustainable development Immediate response to risk and hazards.

Urban air quality, significantly lessening the negative effects of air pollution, and enhancing human health and wellbeing. In order to improve air quality by lowering ground level and ambient pollutant concentrations, which are influenced by pollutant emission, dispersion, deposition, and atmospheric chemistry, comprehensive planning and policy intervention are necessary to yield the greatest benefits. This is determined by the spatial arrangement of urban canopy. The “Reduce-Extend-Protect” concept is indeed very applicable to air pollution reduction. Because prevention is always better than cure, reducing emissions is the top priority in pollution reduction. It is effective in reducing human exposure to pollutants. Extending the distance between the pollutant source (vehicles, industries) and receptors (pedestrians) through the use of barriers, hedges, and other GI configurations is the second-best option because it facilitates dilution and dispersion, lowering pollutant concentration. The next best mitigation measure is to protect against pollutants by using physical barriers such

366

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

as trees, hedges, and other GI configurations (reduce air flow, cause turbulence, and increase dilution). Aside from complying with emission regulations, installing GI is emerging as a feasible solution to reduce ambient emissions because pollutants deposit more effectively on vegetation/green urban canopies such as green roofs, walls, facades, parks, turfs, hedges, and street trees than on impervious surfaces [52].

References 1. Casado, C. C., & Silva Zuniga, M. C. (2018). Upstream Planning For Sustainable Infrastructure Projects: Inter-American Development Bank (IDP) White Paper for the Urban 20 (U20) (Vol. 20). https://www.urban20.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/U20_WP_Upstream_sustainable_ infrastructure.pdf 2. Mell, I., Allin, S., Reimer, M., & Wilker, J. (2017). Strategic green infrastructure planning in Germany and the UK: a transnational evaluation of the evolution of urban greening policy and practice. International Planning Studies, 22(4), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475. 2017.1291334 3. Mell, I. C. (2015). Green infrastruture planning: policy and objectives. In D. Sinnett, N. Smith, & S. Burgess (Eds.), Handbook on Green Infrastructure: Planning, Design and Implementation (p. 19). Edward Elgar. https://www.academia.edu/19575254/Green_infrastructure_planning_ policy_and_objectives 4. Davies, C., & Lafortezza, R. (2017). Urban green infrastructure in Europe: Is greenspace planning and policy compliant? Land Use Policy, 69(March), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landusepol.2017.08.018 5. Molla, M. B., Ikporukpo, C. O., & Olatubara, C. O. (2019). Evaluating Policy and Legal Frameworks of Urban Green Infrastructure Development in Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 21(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1142/S14643332 19500169 6. Biodiversity. (2022). Countries: Green Infrastructure: Policy setting. Retrieved 08 06, 2022, from Biodiversity information system for Europe: It is a partnership between the European Commission and the European Environment Agency.: https://biodiversity.europa.eu/countries 7. Gerlak, A. K., Elder, A., Pavao-Zuckerman, M., Zuniga-Teran, A., & Sanderford, A. R. (2021). Agency and governance in green infrastructure policy adoption and change. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 23(5), 599–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.191 0018 8. Herman, K., & Drozda, Ł. (2021). Green infrastructure in the time of social distancing: Urban policy and the tactical pandemic urbanism. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(4), 1–24. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su13041632 9. Lennon, M. (2015a). Green infrastructure and planning policy: a critical assessment. Local Environment, 20(8), 957–980. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.880411 10. Derickson, K., Klein, M., & Keeler, B. L. (2021). Reflections on crafting a policy toolkit for equitable green infrastructure. Npj Urban Sustainability, 1(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42 949-021-00014-0 11. Matsler, A. M., Grabowski, Z. J., & Elder, A. D. (2021). The multifaceted geographies of green infrastructure policy and planning: socio-environmental dreams, nightmares, and amnesia. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 23(5), 559–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/152 3908X.2021.1976565 12. Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Staddon, C., de Vito, L., Gerlak, A. K., Ward, S., Schoeman, Y., Hart, A., & Booth, G. (2020). Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment

References

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

367

professions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(4), 710–732. https://doi. org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1605890 Hislop, M., Scott, A. J., & Corbett, A. (2019). What Does Good Green Infrastructure Planning Policy Look Like? Developing and Testing a Policy Assessment Tool Within Central Scotland UK. Planning Theory and Practice, 20(5), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2019. 1678667 Willems, J. J., Kenyon, A. V., Sharp, L., & Molenveld, A. (2021). How actors are (dis)integrating policy agendas for multi-functional blue and green infrastructure projects on the ground. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 23(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/152 3908X.2020.1798750 Lieberherr, E., & Green, O. O. (2018). Green infrastructure through Citizen Stormwater Management: Policy instruments, participation and engagement. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062099 Liberalesso, T., Oliveira Cruz, C., Matos Silva, C., & Manso, M. (2020). Green infrastructure and public policies: An international review of green roofs and green walls incentives. Land Use Policy, 96(April), 104693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104693 Horwood, K. (2020). The Development of Green Infrastructure Policy in the North West Region of the UK 2005–2010. Planning Practice and Research, 35(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02697459.2019.1704538 Mell, I. C. (2009). Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability, 162(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10. 1680/ensu.2009.162.1.23 Johns, C. M. (2019). Understanding barriers to green infrastructure policy and stormwater management in the City of Toronto: a shift from grey to green or policy layering and conversion? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(8), 1377–1401. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09640568.2018.1496072 Sussams, L. W., Sheate, W. R., & Eales, R. P. (2015). Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation policy intervention: Muddying the waters or clearing a path to a more secure future? Journal of Environmental Management, 147, 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen vman.2014.09.003 Hu, T., Chang, J., & Syrbe, R. U. (2021). Green Infrastructure Planning in Germany and China A comparative approach to green space policy and planning structure. Research in Urbanism Series, 6, 99–126. https://doi.org/10.7480/rius.6.96 Chatzimentor, A., Apostolopoulou, E., & Mazaris, A. D. (2020). A review of green infrastructure research in Europe: Challenges and opportunities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 198(March 2019), 103775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103775 Rolf, W., Diehl, K., Zasada, I., & Wiggering, H. (2020). Integrating farmland in urban green infrastructure planning. An evidence synthesis for informed policymaking. Land Use Policy, 99(June), 104823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104823 Madureira, H., & Andresen, T. (2014). Planning for multifunctional urban green infrastructures: Promises and challenges. Urban Design International, 19(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1057/ udi.2013.11 Amati, M., Taylor, L., Amati, M., & Taylor, L. (2010). From Green Belts to Green Infrastructure From Green Belts to Green Infrastructure. Planning Practice & Research, 25(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697451003740122 Van Oijstaeijen, W., Van Passel, S., & Cools, J. (2020). Urban green infrastructure: A review on valuation toolkits from an urban planning perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 267(December 2019), 110603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110603 Lennon, M. (2015b). Explaining the currency of novel policy concepts: learning from green infrastructure planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(5), 1039– 1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15605939 Ranjha, S. (2016). Green infrastructure: planning for sustainable and resilient urban environment. ResearchGate. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/95599_Ran jha_Greeninfrastructure_planningforsustainableandresilienturbanenvironment.pdf

368

8 Policies Related to Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

29. Pincetl, S. (2013). Urban ecology and nature’s services infrastructure: Policy implications of the million trees initiative of the city of Los Angeles. In Urbanization and Sustainability: Linking Urban Ecology, Environmental Justice and Global Environmental Change (pp. 61–74). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5666-3_5 30. Conway, T. M., Khan, A., & Esak, N. (2020). An analysis of green infrastructure in municipal policy: Divergent meaning and terminology in the Greater Toronto Area. Land Use Policy, 99(June), 104864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104864 31. Dhakal, K. P., & Chevalier, L. R. (2017). Managing urban stormwater for urban sustainability: Barriers and policy solutions for green infrastructure application. Journal of Environmental Management, 203, 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.065 32. Venter, Z. S., Shackleton, C. M., Van Staden, F., Selomane, O., & Masterson, V. A. (2020). Green Apartheid: Urban green infrastructure remains unequally distributed across income and race geographies in South Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning, 203(0349), 103889. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103889 33. Wu, X., Zhang, J., Geng, X., Wang, T., Wang, K., & Liu, S. (2020). Increasing green infrastructure-based ecological resilience in urban systems: A perspective from locating ecological and disturbance sources in a resource-based city. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61(January), 102354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102354 34. Sitzenfrei, R., Kleidorfer, M., Bach, P. M., & Bacchin, T. K. (2020). Green infrastructures for urban water system: Balance between cities and nature. Water (Switzerland), 12(5), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051456 35. Du, H., Dang, K. K., Nguyen, H. Q., & van Rijswick, H. F. M. W. (2022). A framework for reviewing laws and policies for climate resilience: the case of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 0(0), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/096 40568.2022.2026308 36. Shade, C., & Kremer, P. (2019). Article predicting land use changes in philadelphia following green infrastructure policies. Land, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/land8020028 37. United Nations. (2017). United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, Habitat III Policy Papers: Policy Paper 8 Urban Ecology and Resilience. https://hab itat3.org/wp-content/uploads/HabitatIIIPolicyPaper8.pdf 38. Pichler-Milanoviˇc, N., & Foški, M. (2015). Green infrastructure and urban revitalisation in central Europe: Meeting environmental and spatial challenges in the inner city of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Urbani Izziv, 26(October 2016), S50–S64. https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-en2015-26-supplement-004 39. Henstra, D. (2012). Toward the climate-resilient city: Extreme weather and urban climate adaptation policies in two Canadian provinces. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 14(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2012.665215 40. Boyd, E., Osbahr, H., Ericksen, P. J., Tompkins, E. L., Lemos, M. C., & Miller, F. (2008). Resilience and “Climatizing” development: Examples and policy implications. Development, 51(3), 390–396. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2008.32 41. Béné, C., Mehta, L., McGranahan, G., Cannon, T., Gupte, J., & Tanner, T. (2017). Resilience as a policy narrative: potentials and limits in the context of urban planning. In Climate and Development (Vol. 10, Issue 2, pp. 116–133). Taylor and Francis Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17565529.2017.1301868 42. Caldarice, O., Tollin, N., & Pizzorni, M. (2021). The relevance of science-policy-practice dialogue. Exploring the urban climate resilience governance in Italy. City, Territory and Architecture, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-021-00137-y 43. Berkes, F., & Ross, H. (2016). Panarchy and community resilience: Sustainability science and policy implications. Environmental Science and Policy, 61, 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.envsci.2016.04.004 44. Bahadur, A. V., & Tanner, T. (2014). Policy climates and climate policies: Analysing the politics of building urban climate change resilience. Urban Climate, 7, 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.uclim.2013.08.004

References

369

45. Friend, R., Jarvie, J., Reed, S. O., Sutarto, R., Thinphanga, P., & Toan, V. C. (2014). Mainstreaming urban climate resilience into policy and planning; reflections from Asia. Urban Climate, 7, 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2013.08.001 46. Woodruff, S., Bowman, A. O. M., Hannibal, B., Sansom, G., & Portney, K. (2021). Urban resilience: Analyzing the policies of U.S. cities. Cities, 115(September 2020), 103239. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103239 47. Nop, S., & Thornton, A. (2019). Urban resilience building in modern development: A case of Phnom Penh city, Cambodia. Ecology and Society, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10860240223 48. Lee, T., & Painter, M. (2015). Comprehensive local climate policy: The role of urban governance. Urban Climate, 14, 566–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.09.003 49. Sharifi, A. (2020). Trade-offs and conflicts between urban climate change mitigation and adaptation measures: A literature review. In Journal of Cleaner Production (Vol. 276). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122813 50. Ryan, D. (2015). From commitment to action: a literature review on climate policy implementation at city level. Climatic Change, 131(4), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-0151402-6 51. Ruhl, J. B. (2020). Beyond Green Infrastructure - Integrating the Ecosystem Services Framework into Urban Planning Law and Policy. 4(1), 218–231. https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/ jculp/vol4/iss1/17 52. Hewitt, C. N., Ashworth, K., & MacKenzie, A. R. (2020). Using green infrastructure to improve urban air quality (GI4AQ). Ambio, 49(1), 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01164-3

Chapter 9

Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures

Contents 9.1

Challenges Encountered in the Wide Adoption of Green Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.1 Design Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.2 Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.3 Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.4 Socioeconomic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.5 Financeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.6 Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.7 Administrative and Political . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1.8 Technical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Potential GI Disservices in Incorporating GI into Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Global Challenges and Opportunities in Building Urban Climate Resilience . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Future Perspectives to Build a Climate Resilient Green City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.1 Conceptualizing the Concept of Urban Green Infrastructure and Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.2 Innovative Funding Tools and Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.3 Strategic Planning and Standardized Policy Agendas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.4 Transparent and Flexible Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.5 GI Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.6 Setting GI Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.7 Smart Growth and Smart Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.8 Adopting the Mitigation Hierarchy of Green Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.9 Community Engagement and Collective Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.10 Intersection of GI and Community Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.11 Smart Green Infrastructure: Automation of UGI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

372 372 373 373 374 376 378 378 379 380 380 380

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 K. Kumareswaran and G. Y. Jayasinghe, Green Infrastructure and Urban Climate Resilience, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37081-6_9

371

380 389 389 390 391 392 392 393 394 395 395 397

372

9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures

9.1 Challenges Encountered in the Wide Adoption of Green Infrastructure Green infrastructure concepts, policies, and discourses are gaining popularity throughout the world. As indicated by the Green Deal, green infrastructure, renewable energy, and sustainability continue to be European Union priority topics in the majority of EU-funded projects. Green infrastructure with great political support has been recognized as a versatile solution that is applicable to a wide range of ecosystems and geographies. Furthermore, it may be used to address a wide range of social, economic, technological, and environmental challenges. However, there are practical obstacles to GI normalization [1]. Following are general categories that may be used to classify major obstacles to the widespread adoption of green infrastructure [2–4]. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Design standards Regulatory pathways—policy and governance Socioeconomic conditions Financial viability Administrative and political Technical.

9.1.1 Design Standards One of the major obstacles to implementing green infrastructure is the design standard’s failure to meet the required performance standards. The cause for design standards inadequacies is uncertainty in planning, use of appropriate design, execution, and maintenance in accordance with guidelines and standards. GI is a relatively new concept that doesn’t have a solitary planning strategy. It is a collaborative planning effort that integrates strategy, adaptive behavior, sustainability (social, economic, and ecological values), public involvement (social inclusion), and multifunctionality and necessitates a genuine and collaborative participation. Achieving the envisioned aims and objectives requires the genuine and continuous assistance of various actors from the economic, social, environmental, and political backgrounds. Although the fact that GI implementation serves a wide range of purposes, not all objectives are always accomplished. It typically fails to properly integrate diverse components due to the complete approach and many emphasizes being insufficient from an individual management perspective. Knowledge transfer is becoming increasingly problematic due to the absence of an empirical framework for the implementation of GI as a whole. Although conceptual definitions exist, there is no accepted method to immediately incorporate them into architectural and urban design. The determination of the most crucial GI components is of highest relevance, as is identifying the population that requires the project to employ environmental improvement priority index to address their difficulties. It is said that obsolete technology and financial limitations make decentralizing GI challenges. It is necessary

9.1 Challenges Encountered in the Wide Adoption of Green Infrastructure

373

to combine regulatory frameworks with a standardized design approach for greengray infrastructure. The certification procedure is used in countries like the UK and India to ensure that practices are compliant with standards and to assist keep urban resilience up to date. Quality audits, capacity building, and other measures would help to increase output levels in addition to this.

9.1.2 Policies Due to the absence of an appropriate regulatory framework, GI implementation will certainly encounter uncertainties in the future. To maintain the resilience over the long term, a reliable judicial mechanism is necessary. Regulatory pathways are probabilistic in nature and lead to GI outcomes. Through an integrated top-down and bottom-up strategy that incorporates the formation of policies, frameworks, and activities leading to the widespread adoption of GI, the current practical constraints and weaknesses may be solved. Decentralization is the emerging tendency in policymaking when independence and responsibility are given to the lower levels of government, such as regional and municipal. In order to make the implementation more successful, there is frequently a lack of coordination across these many levels in identifying the same or complimentary priorities. Furthermore, there is not enough collaboration across various departments and sectors. There is frequently misunderstanding about which level of governance oversees what when it comes to the integration and political affiliation across various policy levels, particularly when it comes to planning, which is essential for the implementation of green infrastructure. Similar to EU policies, there are not many international policy frameworks that may be used to coordinate between different policy levels. Due to low awareness, uncooperative politicians, resistance from traditional policymakers, and low- to middle-income countries dealing with urgent socioeconomic issues like poverty, inflation, unemployment, food insecurity, and others, GI is not always a priority area in national policy agendas of the country [5].

9.1.3 Governance Effective governance is defined as “requiring the coordinated activities of three categories of actors: state agencies, private for-profit enterprises, and private for nonprofits; each performs a specific function, and each is crucial” [6]. This is especially true when it comes to addressing climate change. In order to increase resident capacity, effective governance must ensure social inclusion in the co-design and co-development of green spaces, including low-income dwellings. Moreover, while establishing collaborations and win–win scenarios between the general public,

374

9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures

government, and non-governmental organizations, provides home help in terms of technical, financial, and physical support [7]. However, green investment and management are the responsibility of the public sector, which prevents GI advancement, leads to a lack of coordination between various actors, including private enterprises and NGOs, and affects the continuation of large-scale GI projects, financing, and investment potential for R&D [8]. Lack of long term aims and vision, lack of cooperation among stakeholders, a lack of rules, management flaws, and ownership conflicts have all been identified as the primary drivers of ineffective governance [9]. In SSA, there have been allegations of corruption, equality issues, and weak institutional capacity [10]. Private property rights are another significant barrier to GI. Since most urban areas are under the control of private landowners, there is uncertainty regarding the improvement and modification of green spaces, the protection of private property, the potential for public funds to be invested in privately owned land, and regulatory restrictions. The silo effect prevents coordination and communication between policy development, implementation, construction, operation, and maintenance, which hinders holistic management, while creating suitable policies to set up is the main institutional challenge. Governance’s objective and location fluctuate. According to Orgon, the parks and recreation department planted park trees while the transportation agency planted street trees [6]. The concept and use of ecosystem services are well recognized in the Swedish context as a solution to address upcoming environmental concerns; however, municipalities do not currently include ecosystem service planning into municipal decision making. Current governance issues in the use of ecosystem services in municipal planning and management include a lack of legally binding standards, standardized tools, and a short-term planning horizon in spatial criteria for ecosystem service integration in planning and development, as well as a lack of co-development and co-management in urban green space governance. To put new knowledge into practice, this requires enhanced implementation understanding, effective communication, constant funding, and investment in research and development. When using ecosystem services, municipalities must also overcome governance-related challenges, such as the need for integrated urban planning and management, crosssectoral participation, shattering old silos, holistic planning in municipal planning and management of urban green space, cross-sectoral organizational and administration, and innovative local governance in place of traditional structure [11].

9.1.4 Socioeconomic Conditions There is a scarcity of ecosystem and GI services owing to the rising demand for land, water, food, and energy as a result of population increase and changing lifestyles. Environmental services are disproportionately delivered where low-income households are constrained and more likely to benefit wealthy communities since GI is

9.1 Challenges Encountered in the Wide Adoption of Green Infrastructure

375

not integrated into urban development in a way that is inclusive of all groups. A key element in the success of GI projects is ensuring fairness in the distribution and access to green facilities, which is one of the ten principles of creating city resilience. Biased access fundamentally refers to social divisions where authorities must ensure that they are used appropriately and impartially by members of all social divisions. Priority should be provided in GI development allocation to those who are more in need based on their needs. When providing services, the low-income community should be given equal priority without any disparities. Systemic prejudices such as racism and classism in resource distribution, wealth and social stratification, power discrimination, immigration law, law enforcement, employment rights, gentrification, political representation, and residential segregation can promote evolutionary and ecological processes. Due to vast inequalities in economic distribution, rapid urban sprawl, loss of vegetation cover, and deforestation, urban diversity, notably flora and fauna, exhibited a substantial link with community wealth, which is known as the luxury effect in the USA. Some studies have found a favorable relationship between household wealth and urban ecology. Greener communities are correlated with higher socioeconomic status [6]. The energy use and indoor and ambient air pollution of low-income homes are significantly impacted by the luxury effect. Due to the lack of dense plant canopies and green covers, cooling demand will increase and use more energy. Due to their lack of green space and propensity to use impermeable surfaces, poor urban households are more likely to suffer from heat-related illnesses. Unfavorable health effects would result from exposure to more hazardous pollutants and greater particulate matter concentrations, which would increase air pollution. Thus, it is essential to consider the housing equity and property. Similar consequences have been reported in Canada, Brazil, and South Africa as well [12]. There will be 2.5 billion urban people globally in the next 40 years, with Asia and Africa witnessing a 90% growth. The equitable access to and distribution of highquality urban nature is a human right. Yet, because to substantial socioeconomic segmentation in SA nations, huge disparities exist in both public and private space. Government must be held accountable for advancing social justice and ensuring fairness in an explicitly spatial approach [13]. Since political objectives are stressing the socioeconomic challenges of poverty and unemployment, ecological development is given low priority and is viewed as a luxury in countries like South Africa [10, 14]. GI does not hold a prominent position in national policy agendas as the country continues to struggle with serious issues like poverty, hunger, water stress, higher levels of unemployment, low literacy rate, poor quality frameworks, lack of investment in urban infrastructures, weak urban policies, overexploitation of natural resources, poor management, social exclusion, political instability, corruption, and a lack of institutional capabilities. Notwithstanding the fact that urbanization precedes economic progress, this is not the case in Africa, where the continent is still falling behind in terms of national development. Africa continues to face urban poverty despite having the biggest urban population due to extensive migration from rural to urban regions, which results in unplanned urban developments with poor infrastructure [15].

376

9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures

The difficulties of modernizing cities in developing countries in the context of economic development and resilience building are identified as being low-income households and the effects of climate change in a case study in Phnom Penh City, Cambodia. Urban upgrading typically improves peoples’ quality of life, but it may also have unfavorable effects that can be avoided by using strategies like livelihood improvement programs, institutional and individual capacity building, and multistakeholder participation, including local community participation in disaster risk reduction in planning, implementing, and monitoring to improve the adaptive capacity and mitigate climate-related hazards. These procedures must be carried out by placing the susceptible population at the center of policy development and decision making. According to the results, 59% of participants had taken out loans to cover household obligations. However, the majority of them (81%) struggled with anxiety and stress due to their failure to repay. Higher economic inflation had a negative impact on impoverished households because they had to spend a lot of money on even small businesses, healthcare, and other expenses [16]. Widespread racial and socioeconomic inequalities can be seen in California, particularly among low-income Californians of African and Asian descent. Despite not being able to benefit from GI, they are more vulnerable than white Californians to the negative effects of climate change, such as frequent flooding, heat waves, and exposure to strong traffic pollution [17]. Furthermore, a large body of research from the EU demonstrates that the GI establishment places more focus on urban context while ignoring social elements. influencing environmental and socio-spatial justice [1].

9.1.5 Financeability Financeability is defined as the business’s ability to meet its financing requirements and to raise new capital efficiently from wide range of investors on competitive terms. It requires companies to have and maintain an investment grade credit rating. Financeability deals with financial demands and mechanisms. The most important financial difficulties, fund usage restrictions, and fee acceptance are all encountered during GI implementation. In order for policy, administrative, and technical capabilities to result in action on the ground, financing is one of the most important factors [5]. Financial obstacles include the defunding of local governments, a lack of federal funds, difficulties in collecting taxes, and decreased tax collections as a result of declining population. Since GI projects heavily depend on the grants and tax income/fee levied for operation/maintenance. In addition, there are many constraints on how the money can be used, such as legislative prohibitions on using public money for private assets and local government officials’ reluctance to support projects that fall outside of their purview [18]. When integrating GI into urban development, the four financial considerations listed below must be taken into account.

9.1 Challenges Encountered in the Wide Adoption of Green Infrastructure

377

• How cheap it is to invest in green framework than gray to serve similar function in lifecycle perspective • Available and appropriate economic instruments • Quantification of economic benefit • Willingness to pay. A financially sound strategy to assist GI is value engineering. Generally speaking, GI investments require more capital than conventional frameworks do, and it can be challenging to determine whether there are enough resources (both human and physical) and capacity to adopt and maintain the GI. Compared to gray infrastructure and traditional structures, GI is relatively less expensive solutions in the long run due of their high durability. In order to justify the expenditure, a cost–benefit analysis of the building’s whole lifecycle is required. The public and investors are both exposed to risk when making GI investments. For the creation and preservation of green infrastructures, public investors heavily rely on private financial interest [19]. However, the issue is that several parties spend the majority of the time operating. Additionally, because they are still unsure of how to quantify the benefits, many are hesitant to accept environmental responsibility. Conflicts result from misunderstandings and a lack of knowledge about the GI, which leads to discrepancies between theory and practice that are more frequent. Therefore, it is important to create opportunities for public acceptance and knowledge in order to clear up residents’ misperceptions and misunderstandings and make financial options more accessible. Before integrating GI into existing frameworks, cost–benefit analysis and valuation are required to assess the project’s long- and short-term viability in the context of urban planning and management, including multifunctionality, multiscalability, ecosystem services, lifecycle cost and benefit, and life span assessment [20]. There is misalliance between the financial outlay of the GI and the combined economic, social, and ecological value. The research conducted by Liberalesso et al. [2] in 19 countries experimenting in 113 cities belonging to four continents; it is proven that the quantified benefit of GI implementation had failed to compensate the financial commitment for GI for construction and maintenance, which is a drawback factor in investment [2]. Limited economic vision in GI investment, lack of detailed, and in-depth analysis not readily applicable are identified as significant in barriers in implementation in Parris [21]. While in the UK, the creation of sustainable finance methods for green infrastructure has been hampered by decreases in centralized funding and continuous constraints on revenue collection (such as increases in council taxes) [22]. The UK’s 2013/14 budget for climate change adaptation was 41% less than the previous year, demonstrating the widespread prevalence of financial restrictions for GI implementation, which drives the demand for cost-effective and multifunctional solutions and adaption measures [23]. In spite of the fact that the innovative green infrastructure substitutes for antiquated gray frameworks operate effectively in pilot scales, financial limitations sometimes prohibit them from scaling up and becoming reproducible. Large-scale pilot projects

378

9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures

should be conducted, and it is important to reduce capacity-related barriers such as those linked to maintenance, negative perceptions, and policies and practices [20].

9.1.6 Innovation It incorporates applicable long-term and/or short-term disruptive and/or transformative technologies. Innovation can be simple or complicated, and it occasionally draws inspiration from the natural environment. Despite growing domestic and international commitment to combating climate change, creative approaches to the use of alternative energies, and clean technology, necessary organizational and legal structures are not keeping up with the demand. Challenges faced are public utilities reluctant to invest in new innovative technologies, long gestation period for change, infrastructure led rather production led, limited capacity of governments for investment, fiscal and monetary policies [19]. Early adopters leap and implement innovative solutions [24].

9.1.7 Administrative and Political Major administrative and political challenges include scale of management, horizontal and vertical fragmentation, intention of leveraging multiple benefits and public perception. Lack of robust political support and commitment is noted at all levels of governance from local to international even in EU. The policy objectives keep changing with the new political appointment after elections [5]. Green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services are not well understood/prioritized by politicians, relevant powerful actors. They must be more involved and discussing, wide focus rather than focus on specific issues, aware of benefits [20]. There are uncertainties in enhancing the quality of greenspace amidst of ensuring multifunctionality and standard of living while addressing the urban challenges of densification, urban fringing, sprawl, institutional barriers [25]. Public interest is an essential factor for the institutions levying fee such as drainage fee, water treatment fee, park fee [7]; it is a difficult undertaking to design and implement a fee/billing system that is reasonable, justifiable, affordable, and acceptable by the public. People reluctant to pay fee since they didn’t realize the need and significance of the GI implementation, multitude of benefits enjoyed by using the facility, and what would happen if there were no such system? Impact of lands/properties/ activities. Institutions fail to show the disconnect between what people pay and actual cost of the facility. Taking storm water management system as an example, few system shortcomings, such as overflow after storm events, poor connection of long-distance laterals, root intrusion, sewer overflow, and backups create a negative perception among the public that they are not receiving for what they are paying for [18].

9.1 Challenges Encountered in the Wide Adoption of Green Infrastructure

379

Traditionalism prevents the widespread use of cutting-edge ideas like GI. Due to their traditional mindset, mayors, engineers, and the general public lack the appetite for acceptance and adopting new notions. Understanding the GI, their significance, and people’s engagement requires patience and consistent work. Maintenance and funding for maintenance are further major issues. For instance, in Western Washington and Oregon curbside bioswales, rich city dwellers in Portland may pay for and handle the watering and pruning of new street trees for the first one to three years, after which the tree becomes the responsibility of the neighboring landowner. Additionally, different jurisdictions have different responsibilities for inspection and monitoring [6].

9.1.8 Technical The most widely recognized obstacles to GI implementation include outdated infrastructure, regulations, and standards, in addition to a lack of technological know-how. Prerequisites for, instance, pollution management, air quality, or water quality vary over time, and as technology advances, so will smart devices and mechanical infrastructure components. Lack of available manpower as well as skilled and trained GI designers, installers, and maintenance personnel is a frequently reported issue. Due to a shortage of internal technical specialists, small towns, suburban regions, and community-based organizations frequently struggle to locate and retain technically trained workers [6]. Lack of staff with clearly defined responsibilities and insufficient coordination with UES planners and onsite managers as well as lack of technical support for small-scale, creative, innovative green infrastructure projects are also practical issues in GI implementation [11]. From a technical standpoint, scale and maintenance are important. There is a controversy about whether to accept small- or large-scale initiatives. Locals prefer small-scale projects since they are more cost-effective, easier to implement, decentralized, and enable quick problem solving. Small-scale GI projects are difficult to manage, maintain, and monitor, particularly when spread over multiple cities. The community development and infrastructure development sectors encourage largescale projects since they help a variety of communities, but it can be challenging to find suitable locations and there is a lack of a thorough management strategy [18]. The lack of current data on the technical performance of green infrastructures is another major problem that is rarely addressed (e.g., flood control, storm water management).

380

9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures

9.2 Potential GI Disservices in Incorporating GI into Buildings Although GI concepts offer many advantages, they are not always beneficial and can occasionally have negative effects as well. According to the studies of Alizadehtazi et al. [26], Schiappacasse and Müller [27] and Sharifi [28] ecosystem disservices might occasionally be observed or experienced [26–28]. Incorporating various GI components into structures poses several fundamental difficulties or disadvantages, which Table 9.1 details along with possible solutions.

9.3 Global Challenges and Opportunities in Building Urban Climate Resilience Possible shocks and disruptions that could have an impact on urban resiliency must be predicted in order to plan suitable responsive activities while creating urban climate resilience or implementing GI. Natural, institutional, perceptual, political, and technical factors can all play a role in the disruptions. Failure in one system can occasionally cause the collapse of the entire system [27]. Socially and environmentally sound reasons should support resilient cities. Although environmental justice deals with equal access to environmental benefits and protection from environmental dangers wherever humans are involved, social justice is the equitable distribution of power, resources, and opportunities. Inequity results when favors are extended to sociocultural and economic groups. These two phenomena are related by the struggle for civil rights and urban conservation. The numerous challenges that come up while building climate resilience in urban contexts are summarized in Table 9.2. Table 9.3 shows potential solutions to overcome the challenges in GI implementation with relevant action plans.

9.4 Future Perspectives to Build a Climate Resilient Green City 9.4.1 Conceptualizing the Concept of Urban Green Infrastructure and Governance Conceptualizing GI is an urgent necessity because the idea is still nebulous and there are gaps in our mutual comprehension. Several disciplinary interpretations provide different meanings in terms of social, economic, technical, and political components. In an example research, Matthews et al. [38] made an attempt to differentiate the idea as a sort of capital and risk buffer (Table 9.4). Depending on a number of factors, the

9.4 Future Perspectives to Build a Climate Resilient Green City

381

Table 9.1 Fundamental challenges in incorporating GI into buildings (green buildings) GI component

Disservice

Green roof and Attract pests, vegetation vermin, and rodents Cause water borne diseases Reduce water and air quality Insects and animals as disease carriers Increased building load Social nuisance Block views Damage infrastructure by root growth and microbial activity Pollen allergy and asthma Bioaccumulation of contaminants in soil media Increase sediment load to water bodies

Causes

How to overcome

References

Depletion of water resources due to irrigation Nutrient runoff from fertilization Heavy use of chemicals and fertilizers Roof weight increase with the installation of green roof Poor maintenance Wildlife such as mosquito, rats, and wasps Pollen producing Increase ozone levels by releasing biogenic volatile organic compounds Mobilizing sand, clay, and silt particles

Use of organic fertilizers and compost Reduce the use of chemical, pesticides, and inorganic fertilizers Switch to natural pesticide and weedicides

[7, 24, 29]

[7, 24]

Green open space with several plantings/ shrubs/grass

Animals fouling Invasive alien species threaten ecosystem service and become competitive to native species Outbreak of vector borne diseases Spread of contaminants through soil and plant material

Poor maintenance Due to mosquito spread which inhabits in green space and frameworks Carbon capturing effect on biodiversity

Scheduled proper maintenance Choose appropriate plant species

Trees

Birds fouling, block off light, leave falling Increased traffic Allergies Damage building walls, floor surfaces by tree roots

Annoyance Safety issue Health issues associated with allergies due to some plant species

Selection of appropriate tree species

(continued)

382

9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures

Table 9.1 (continued) GI component

Disservice

Causes

How to overcome

References

Street planting Increased air Limited air pollution and UHI ventilation/ effect movement Spread of invasive species Accumulation of pollutants Release of volatile components Disruptive to nearby pavements, buildings, and infrastructures Presence of insects, birds, pollen, branch fall Spread of contaminants through soil and plant material

Selection of [30] appropriate tree species-deciduous trees that lower energy consumption, allows solar radiation in winter into dwellings while shadowing in summer in summer Permeable pavements, root barriers, structural soils

Intensive green walls, roof, and urban forestry

GHG emissions Poor maintenance Increased auto mobile dependency Energy intensive development Risk of wildfires

Use of local clean renewable energy mechanisms for machinery, transport, and energy

Engineered green infrastructures

High cost of implementation and maintenance High population in risk prone areas Groundwater mounding

Hinder nature connectivity/eco spaces Water unable to infiltrate into aquifer and disintegrate due to low thickness

Swales/grass channels

Embankment erosion, effluent quality lowers

Erosion due to short cut flows and channelization, around check dams, wash off cause pollution

Use of stabilized [31] vegetated earth berms as check dams to reduce the flow, design modification (flat longitudinal channel slope, wide bottom, geotechnical matting to allow vegetation) to reduce erosion (continued)

9.4 Future Perspectives to Build a Climate Resilient Green City

383

Table 9.1 (continued) GI component

Disservice

Wetlands

Invasive plant species, mosquito spreading, spillway clogging, algal blooming

Causes

How to overcome

Effective vector [31] control, vegetative species management, regular inspection, and maintenance schedule

References

Storm water ponds

Clogging of low Accumulation of flow orifices, riser trash, debris, and structure opening, sediments rising water surface elevation, algal blooming, invasive species

Pond drain/offline [29, 31] Pond designs for dewatering, forebay design, proper pretreatment, regular pond monitoring, and inspection schedule

Infiltration trench and basin

Media clogging, water/media saturated, possible groundwater contamination, groundwater surge, possible groundwater contamination, algal blooming in infiltration basins

Sediment clogging, Include pretreatment [31] interflow, in the design (for high groundwater surge sediment laden run off), control ground water contamination through shifting to micro bio retention

Rain garden

Mosquito trap Safety hazard

Allergen-triggering pollen, mold growths. Heavy rainfall outbreak bacterial and viral diseases spread through food, water, and air

Community garden

Carrying diseased water, standing water proliferate mosquitos, overflowing rainwater barrels

[10]

[10]

idea may be further developed or explained in order to bring many perspectives and beliefs under one roof. According to governance theory, decision making should be decentralized across a variety of individuals, technologies, and networks. It promotes self-steering and horizontal decision making with or without the help of governmental organizations at various levels of hierarchy. Environmental governance involves cross-sectoral, local, regional, and international players in decision making in connection to the

384

9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures

Table 9.2 Challenges in building urban climate resilience Category

Challenges

References

Natural

• Natural hazard events such as flood, drought, volcano, storm, earthquake, and cyclones • Outbreak of epidemic and pandemic diseases • Extreme temperature/heat stress (UHI)

[27]

Technological

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

[27]

Perceptual

• People reluctant to take over social responsibility [1, 27] • Hesitant to accept changes or shift from conventional ways of engineering structures to incorporate green • Expecting rapid turnover • Silo mentality • Depth unknown and interpreted differently by researchers, practitioners, and multiple stakeholders

Financial

• Uncertainties in cost and performance • Difficulties in quantification and giving monetary values to GI services • Lack of stable funding—state/grant/international/private

Political

• Lacks the commitment of policymakers which is the key [27] to overcome the barriers in establishing and implementing environmental policies with the constant support of public • Political context fails to support the wild adoption of green practices/lack of political frameworks • Political instability

Institutional

• Lack of collective approach of different stakeholders especially between government and private entities • Lack government support • Lack of interdisciplinary policies, scale, and boundary of ecosystem services • Reluctant in green investment • Ineffective public policies and incentive mechanisms • Low standards • Limited investment in research and development • Lack of innovative institutional capacity building

Breakdown and system failure Best but inappropriate technology Obsolete/outdated technology Fire and explosion Accidents and injuries Oil and chemical spill Radiation effects Retrofit issues Improper management and deficit maintenance Inadequate experts and technology advancement Lack of technical instruments Capital intensive technologies Lack of engineering benchmarks

[24]

[2, 27]

(continued)

9.4 Future Perspectives to Build a Climate Resilient Green City

385

Table 9.2 (continued) Category

Challenges

References

Local disaster risk governance

• Lack of disaster management policies • Inactive enforcement and management of laws and guidelines • Lack of interaction and communication among stakeholders • Lack of integrated planning • Lack of coordination in action between public and private entities • Issues in handling from top to bottom level • Lack of disaster management plans in urban or village scale • No stern enforcement of laws and penalties

[32]

Resources

• Lack of data, and information • Inefficient management of resources • Limited funding bodies and non-inclusive disaster relief funds • Lack of resourced persons and teams • Lack of physical, financial, and skilled human resources • Budget constraints • Lack of incentive program

[32]

Policy

• Climate resilience and blue green infrastructure not well integrated into building codes • Ambiguous roles and responsibilities of stakeholders • Lack of appropriate insurance schemes • Lacks well established policy frameworks, integrated plans, guidelines • Supportive bodies in disaster management • Unavailability of hazard mapping • Lack of standard evacuation plans for buildings • No advanced early warning systems and comprehensive responsive plan

[32]

Stakeholders

• • • •

[32]

• • • • • • • Social

Lack of collaborative action of multiple stakeholders Social exclusion Lack of public and private entities work in coordination Lagging in obtaining support from local and international NGOs Lack of support from media, and armed forces Lack of knowledge, training, and awareness on disaster management Not well-defined roles and responsibilities Lack of exposure to blue green infrastructures Lack capacity building Unplanned developments and settlements Lack of awareness among different stakeholders due to inefficient communication

• Exclusion of social aspects

[1]

386

9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures

Table 9.3 Solutions and corresponding action plans for GI challenges Solution

Action plan

References

Institutional sustainability and cost-effective infrastructure

Promote individual/institutional/public capacity building, government support, territorial and national planning

[33]

Social sustainability and inclusive infrastructure

Protect social integrity and cultural values, social cohesion, reduce urban displacement, affordable services, health, and wellbeing of urbanites

[33]

Environmentally sustainable Urban resilience, environmental protection, climate and climate resilient resilient infrastructure

[33]

Funding

Public funding for GI initiatives from the department of [34] environmental protection or any relevant and private investment. Private entities come forward to support innovative green projects enabling financing mechanisms, while creating favorable institutional policies and adhering to sustainable policies in investment. Provide funding to encourage civic and tools and other material required to develop and maintain the green spaces

Valuation and quantification of GI disservices, and externalities

Convincing and justifying the investment requires valuation of ecosystem services and disservices, CBA, involving public throughout the process (facilitates understanding, acceptance) Not accounting cultural services, not carried out in a multidimensional

Raising awareness

Creating awareness among local public, academic [1, 5, 35, 36] community, students, professionals, investors about the sustainable goals and tasks of GI, possibilities, benefits, technical implications, trade-offs, and synergies between green and gray, hotspots in GI installation Use of local/regional examples when communicating with local stakeholders since it is easier to relate

Stakeholder involvement

Promote GI implementation through public private partnerships and commitment Proper communication/argument is essential to carry the right purpose with right mind Conducting regular meetings to public of all sorts of divisions reflecting wider demographic boundaries Evidence based arguments attracts target groups and helps in decision making

[5]

Innovative solutions

Shouldn’t be more expensive/must be affordable and requiring certain level of innovation

[5]

[10, 24]

(continued)

9.4 Future Perspectives to Build a Climate Resilient Green City

387

Table 9.3 (continued) Solution

Action plan

Adaptive design and maintenance

Testing new innovative GI in small scale in urban, [6, 24] practiced as a safe to fail design. This testing is done to monitor the performance of the creative design to decide on future use Technical guidebooks provided consist of information for locating and installing the GI facility, but it lacks data on how to solve different issues faced by the users

References

Participatory planning process

Requisite to accomplish multifunctionality of green infrastructure Encouraging youth volunteers and school children to involve in GI management, watering, cleanups, harvesting, and planting

Clean energy mechanisms

National energy policies favoring the investment in clean renewable energy sources and energy mix ratio incorporating clean energies in higher proportion. Country should support and encourage public and entities for green investment through attractive profit portfolios and incentive program

Innovative transportation and communication

Efficient data transfer and transportation are the tools in highly populated urban areas for mobility efficiency to boost economic growth. An effective transport system interconnects the entire frameworks and resources of a city and make them accessible and available to all

[24]

Innovative capacity building Sound capacity building facilitating the integration of sustainable development into innovative business plans and technical strategies. Capacity building for individuals and institutions for knowledge transfer, disaster management. Institutional strength ensures the proper implementation of infrastructure projects Lead by example

Government needs to take the stand in integrating GI [2] into public buildings so that private and public will tend to shift to change from the conventional ways of building design without hesitation. By this direct incentive strategy investors will be easily motivated

Research and development activities

Collaborate with academic institutions such as universities, schools, college as well as research institutions to conduct informative research, environmental and climate parameters monitoring, GI performance monitoring, modeling, effective data collection on green infrastructure components

Adapting best management Set up an incentive system to facilitate public practices (BMP) from world acceptance, appeal low carbon technology and low countries impact development e.g., formulating watershed protection polices, set low development impact benchmarks for healthy watershed development and management

[35]

(continued)

388

9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures

Table 9.3 (continued) Solution

Action plan

References

Efficient resource allocation

Identifying the data gaps and data sources, creating databases/baseline data on local ecosystem/GI services Need of local knowledge, strategies, and standardized tools

[10, 11, 37]

Table 9.4 GI based on capital and risk-based concept Features

Capital concept

Risk-based concept

Problem framing and role

Wellbeing: promoting public health and productivity, aesthetics, discrete social, economic, and ecological benefits

Impeding threats—heat stress alleviation, hazard mitigation, cope with uncertainties, minimize adverse impacts and risks, resilience

Embedded policy discourse

Sustainability, sustainable development, and progressive growth

Resilience, risk society, and prudent development

Planning approach

Pragmatic, rationalist, and instrumental

Creative, incremental, and cooperative

management and control of natural resources and the environment. At the municipal or national level, the EU or its member states do not, however, have a standardized structure or policy model for environmental governance. Furthermore, the distinctions between the various levels are indistinct, shifting authority from one level to the next. As a result, local governments, regional authorities, and the federal government have issued policy guidelines for the installation and maintenance of green infrastructure. The transition from top-down environmental regulation to multilevel environmental governance is opening possibilities for the multilevel policy arena and developing innovative policy instruments [39]. Figure 9.1 depicts the four components of the governance system. Innovative urban green infrastructure planning and governance call for a coexisting governance framework where both government and non-government players (NGOs, businesspeople, activists, and members of the local community) participate in decision making. The cross-sectoral collaboration, mosaic/mix strategic policy tools, implementation, monitoring, and performance enhancing procedures are all essential to the success of integrated urban planning. It transitions from a sectorfocused strategy to an all-encompassing approach. The idea of mosaic governance conceptualizes a context-specific, adaptable approach to strategic planning that may be used by either top-down or bottom-up civic engagement and involvement efforts [40]. Urban planning authorities must take action to increase the availability of green spaces and maintain them properly. They must establish the development zones for green spaces, be in charge of overseeing their management, and impose harsh fines on anyone who encroaches on urban green spaces. developing comprehensive green

9.4 Future Perspectives to Build a Climate Resilient Green City

389

Fig. 9.1 Four dimensions of governance arrangement

space management plans, involvement strategies including numerous stakeholders in management, and plans, policies, and programs to enhance urban green spaces. City officials must promote private investors, institutions for gardens, green spaces, and incentive programs for going green, such as rent reductions [36].

9.4.2 Innovative Funding Tools and Techniques The GI projects are strengthened by the co-funding/co-financing method. The active deployment of GI installations may be facilitated via public–private partnerships. Additionally, to encourage GI investment, charitable groups must step forward for philanthropic donations. Other cutting-edge funding/financing strategies include social impact investing, crowdfunding, taxation instruments, green bonds, regulatory programs, and incentives [8]. In terms of green asset management, green consulting, green project financing, and climate change adaptation and mitigation, the UK (London) is in the forefront. As a result, they offer solid financing to green asset managers and fund managers through initiating initiatives into clean, creative technologies, such as green low-carbon technologies [41].

9.4.3 Strategic Planning and Standardized Policy Agendas Planning is always necessary for development initiatives that aim to simultaneously advance the local community’s social inclusion, economic empowerment, and environmental protection. Infrastructure projects requiring a high level of sophistication require long-term synchronization between sustainable development and urban expansion. This is reflected in the definitions of GI provided by the [42], which

390

9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures

state that they should be used “as a strategy to ensure that the protection, restoration, creation, and enhancement of GI become standard and integral parts of spatial planning and territorial development whenever they complement or offer a better alternative to standard gray choices.” The implementation of GI development requires the integration of socioecological system thinking, infrastructure transition to promote urban resilience, ecosystem service valuation, special urban management, and planning. It is necessary to plan cities systematically and integrate urban and natural processes continuously. This will make it possible to manage ecosystem services effectively by including green infrastructure into urban design that takes into consideration social and governance processes [14]. For improved enforcement and control of GI frameworks, regular and integrated planning calls for uniform methodologies. The integration of GI into sectoral, landscape, and land use policies is necessary. An organized approach to spatial planning at various regional, rural, and urban sizes to prioritize the conflicting needs is inevitable. This necessitates a thorough examination of the nation’s urban development policies, standards, and system of spatial planning (strategic-national, regional, regulatory-local). Territorial policy formulation and spatial planning should incorporate GI as a crucial element. In order to construct resilient environments, GI will be an integrated environmental planning strategy where environmental priorities and environmental preservation must be balanced [43]. Establishing and implementing strategic watershed management plans, policies, and action plans, for instance, is one strategy to address critical issues in healthy watershed management. Another is to strengthen national conservation and development plans and policies that place an emphasis on watershed management [35]. To solve the current issues of deforestation and biodiversity loss for sustainable urban management, urban ecosystem services must be prioritized. It necessitates fresh perspectives on ecological service design and implementation in urban planning and management. As Berlin and New York have demonstrated, interdepartmental and cross-scale cooperation is necessary to incorporate ecological services in urban design and green space governance. In 2020, Aagaard et al. [11] emphasizing urban transition calls towns to think holistically, as well as for supportive cross-sectoral policies and an efficient internal communication network that allows departments to address issues in a variety of areas of interest [11].

9.4.4 Transparent and Flexible Decision Making Since there are many parties involved in urban development, from the lowest levels of the hierarchy to the highest, it is important that they are all properly coordinated and given the chance to participate in decision making. To increase accountability and transparency, the platform should be decentralized. The decision-making process ought to be data-driven, inclusive, interactive, and flexible [44].

9.4 Future Perspectives to Build a Climate Resilient Green City

391

9.4.5 GI Valuation Major limitation for investment at present is the difficulties in accounting the services and disservices of GI to justify the investment [24]. Convincing the politicians, policymakers, top-management, and investors on the effectiveness of the GI approach can be done through demonstrating the actual economic value of green infrastructures (include definite economic figures). Investors and private stakeholders have only short-term outlook over long-term value. The cost perception on GI is most of the time inaccurate and incomplete which fails on the clear identification and valuation of the benefits, and the misunderstanding is due to high upfront cost. Investors focusing on short-term returns fail to take account on the payoff of GI in long term by means of preventative cost savings, and non-monetized improved quality of life, saving of maintenance cost of gray infrastructure which are not included in return-on-investment (ROI) calculation. ROI quantifications need to be redefined [8]. There is a critical need of multidimensional tools to evaluate the value, significance, and variability of green components for the wide adoption. Available measures for valuation are urban indicators inclusive of green space valuation, social survey, and ecosystem valuation studies. Urban indicators such as happiness index, health cost, crime statistics, and property and land value with or adjacent to green space explicit the correlation with the presence and absence of greenspace are effective indicators. A complete lifecycle assessment integrating social, economic, and human cost and benefits associate with GI practice is essential in long haul. Further, a list of additional benefits such as promoting pollination, soil restoration, psychological wellbeing, space allocation for nature without developing need to be incorporated on the contrary they pose threats like providing habitats for rats, rodents, vermin, ponding of mosquitoes, gentrification. This requires careful study on the significance and variability [6]. Innovative municipal budgeting and accounting procedures are necessary to persuade the public to invest in UGI. It’s crucial to take into account the potential cost of not investing in ecosystem services in terms of capital and operating costs. Ecological services’ quantity, quality, value, and condition of health will become obvious when they are included into city budgets. Municipal accounting systems are given a fresh viewpoint by a potential valuation method for ecological assets in municipal asset registries. In the traditional accounting system, the depreciation of fixed assets (gray) is computed over time, but there is no depreciation or appreciation applied to ecological assets. Maintain an inventory for green asset, including their monetary value, considering appreciation value such as ecological productivity, budgeting for ecosystem services, total economic valuation, categorization, this provides data on the latent revenue generation of ecological services [14].

392

9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures

9.4.6 Setting GI Benchmarks Setting a potential benchmark is a viable mechanism to address challenges in designing, planning, establishing, and sustaining the management of green infrastructures compared to certification, sustainability accreditations, and existing assessment or rating systems since they are not adequately dealing with multifunctionality and connectivity aspects of GI. Benchmarks need to be simple, focused, flexible, easily interpreted, and evidence based applicable for both small-scale and large-scale development projects either to new GI installments or retrofitting. Benchmarking must be policy relevant, area specific, local priorities, and dependent on the policy requirements of the local development plan, favoring new infrastructure developments, consistent to development process. Benchmark can be easily applied to regions which has higher demand for green infrastructure, housing, and sustainable urban development. It must show how it would benefit customers, offer developers and urban planners a viable option, and increase commercial interest among various stakeholders and users. Additionally, it raises the bar for green infrastructure, simplifies the formulation of municipal policies, has an impact on the financial system, and lessens the uncertainty around green infrastructure. Benchmark development must be an inclusive process that involves transdisciplinary stakeholders, public and commercial organizations, and local authorities while taking into account the needs of the present and the aspirations of the future for a broad range of applications. The benchmark’s scope includes GI multifunctional frameworks, water management, environmental quality, health and wellness, and environmental conservation [45].

9.4.7 Smart Growth and Smart Conservation Since housing demand is rising along with the population, smart growth is required to manage the country’s growing population and its needs (urban sprawl and haphazard development are examples of how land development in America outpacing population is expansion). Ecologically sound, financially stable, and supportive communities that improve quality of life are considered to be examples of smart expansion. The development should leave some untrodden areas, shouldn’t be developed, and conserved without human intervention to sustain ecological balance. GI must facilitate compact growth and streamline the development process. Smart conservation facilitates resource planning, proactive protection, systematic, holistic, and multifunctional, multijurisdictional, and diverse scale development [46].

9.4 Future Perspectives to Build a Climate Resilient Green City

393

9.4.8 Adopting the Mitigation Hierarchy of Green Infrastructure GI mitigation hierarchy includes a series of actions such as avoid, mitigate, restore, compensate, and offset as shown in Fig. 9.2 in appropriate sequence. This hierarchical order needs to be embedded in infrastructure projects throughout its lifecycle in planning, sector planning, engineering design, and construction, and operational practices. Green infrastructure must be mainstreamed into in decision making, national policymaking, sector planning, as well as in projects. Conventional project-based habitat/biodiversity protection activities need to be supported with national policies and planning in infrastructure sectors. Success of natural habitat conservation in infrastructure projects require clear mandates, and strong regulatory and legal frameworks for environmental assessment. However, in Latin America conservation is mostly addressed in project level and not in sectoral/policy level. Multilateral banks support to sustain conservation activities, integrate GI principles in infrastructure development, effectively communicate with multiple stakeholders to promote the concepts of ecology and biodiversity [47]. The best method of action, as shown in Fig. 9.3, is to minimize anticipated ecological effects, and the ultimate goal would be achieving net gains from GI practice.

Policy and Governance

Avoid Mitigate/ Minimize

Strategic sector and

Restore/ Rectify

Best management and engineering practices

Land use Planning Compensate Offset

Green Infrastructures

Fig. 9.2 GI mitigation hierarchy and multilevel framework

394

9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures

Fig. 9.3 Addressing ecological impacts of using GI mitigation hierarchy

9.4.9 Community Engagement and Collective Impact Local community participation is an essential component for sustainable living. Urban planning and design process must be inclusive of civics while municipalities ensure the social inclusion in development activities, and decision making. Demanding for public involvement and engagement in decision making, urban densification creates diverse user groups leads to intense use of green space [11]. Community involvement with GI and their watershed can theoretically also result in greater community volunteerism in green spaces, more focus on private landscaping and native plants, and more social cohesiveness and intracommunity support in general, as reported in Washington and Oregon programs [6]. Using social leaning, adaptive management, and innovation, community greening and green infrastructure management is a community-based technique to ingrain resilience, resulting in empowerment, social cohesion, and transformation [24]. Both top-down and bottom-up procedures and approaches are developed, and they specifically address community bottom-up innovations and activities [10]. Large-scale green construction projects like the sponge city program will have a number of management consequences, but the two most important factors are public approval and willingness to pay. The public’s support, public confidence, public acceptability, and public engagement should all be given higher emphasis by the relevant authorities. This can be accomplished by improving the engineering design quality and having the appropriate authorities oversee the SCP’s building and operation phases to verify that environmental protection criteria are met. In addition, information dissemination should be given priority in this process, and media outlets are regarded as a powerful intermediary. Government need take alternative steps to reduce the burden on the people like extra water tariff. People must be overweighed with perceived benefits that cost/disservices [48].

9.4 Future Perspectives to Build a Climate Resilient Green City

395

9.4.10 Intersection of GI and Community Health Aligning the growth and development of GI with health promotes GI adoption and vice versa. Interactions can be improved by promoting community gardens and orchards, as well as communal food provisioning and urban farming. Health organizations must collaborate with GI project teams, which have been identified as a means of promoting preventative care [6]. • Willamette Partnership and the Oregon Public Health Institute, “Green Infrastructure and Health Guide” produced by the Oregon Health and Outdoors Initiative • “Prescription trails” championed by New Mexico Health Care Authority Takes on Diabetes effort.

9.4.11 Smart Green Infrastructure: Automation of UGI Automation is a collection of multiscale digital and computational objects, processes, infrastructures, and assemblages that facilitate resource allocation, management, landscape maintenance, performance monitoring, and improvement. Wireless broadband, analytical software, real-time sensing and feedback, and the Internet of things (IoT) are used in social and technical networks to address urgent concerns such as climate change, urban sprawl, civic involvement, and resource efficiency [49]. Digital approach to UGI planning and management in sustainable urban transition optimizes the service delivery using automated machines, e.g., lawn mowers for lawn management, biodiversity assessment, and GI valuation using software, digitally tagged trees transmit information to smart device in urban forestry management, continuous monitoring, and adaptive control system for storm water management, use of drones, GIS, RS technology in urban agriculture, use of robots in seeding, weeding, harvesting, disease monitoring and deep machine learning in urban development. Automation aims to give real-time online smart solutions to social, environmental, and technological demands and issues. Automated resource management predicts productivity, health smart applications monitor plant health, treat, and avoid recognized diseases. Remote sensing-based traffic management reduces congestion and shorten commutes. Building information management, 3D models, and sensors in building aspects used in planning, design, construction, and real-time feedback for monitoring. Smart asset management (e.g., parks, wetlands, garden, bridges, ports, harbor, tunnels) make spaces appealing through smart water feature controls, smart and intelligent security lighting systems energy generating exercise equipment, and automated maintenance techniques. Moreover, provides interactive areas for children, elderly, and the disabled. Figure 9.4 depicts how these aspects interact in GI automation. UGI automation has three domains: social, technical, and ecological, and it is influenced and influenced by governance factors such as power, discourse, and players.

396

9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures

Fig. 9.4 Green infrastructure automation

The individuals involved, discourses, and impacts on urban governance are highly dynamic, depending on how UGI administration is automated, as well as the actors’ ability to influence/change the rules of the game, as indicated by the arrows across the cone between the material and governance dimensions. Smart infrastructure is defined as physical urban infrastructure that is embedded with digital technologies. Smart technologies use sensors, automatic controls, big data bases, and wireless communication to sense, adapt, and use data (real-time online data analysis) to provide sensible smart solutions. In smart green infrastructure concept, smart technological advances in urban design policies and adapting new or retrofitting existing infrastructure systems to mitigate extreme climate conditions enhance the quality of life though improving health and productivity. Ensure effective and efficient operational networks in the city. Smart technology adaption requires sorting out issues with privacy, governance, and security. The right combination of policies, strategies, and investments must be prioritized in order to maximize socioeconomic and ecological advantages. Smart technologies, which combine cuttingedge innovation and a people-centered approach, reveal several UGI/nature-based solution areas and guarantee the best user experience [41].

References

397

Global evidence as follows: • Automated indoor vertical farming in Kyoto, Japan, where robots employed for entire farming activities harvesting lettuce. It drastically cutdown labor cost while improving the nutrient value. It is a high-tech system using robots, hydroponics, machine learning, LED lighting, and advanced sensors. But nowadays, urban farmers intend to do this in medium to small scale. • Tree climbing robots for pruning under development in China. • Automated health monitoring in Duluth, Minnesota, USA. • Songdo in South Korea, Bosco Verticale in Milan, Italy, Liuzhou Forest City in China. • Smart urban forestation projects from Switzerland, Holland, Brazil, Albania, and France.

References 1. Chatzimentor, A., Apostolopoulou, E., & Mazaris, A. D. (2020). A review of green infrastructure research in Europe: Challenges and opportunities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 198(March 2019), 103775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103775 2. Liberalesso, T., Oliveira Cruz, C., Matos Silva, C., & Manso, M. (2020). Green infrastructure and public policies: An international review of green roofs and green walls incentives. Land Use Policy, 96(April), 104693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104693 3. Staddon, C., Ward, S., De Vito, L., Zuniga-Teran, A., Gerlak, A. K., Schoeman, Y., Hart, A., & Booth, G. (2018). Contributions of green infrastructure to enhancing urban resilience. Environment Systems and Decisions, 38(3), 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-0189702-9 4. Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Staddon, C., de Vito, L., Gerlak, A. K., Ward, S., Schoeman, Y., Hart, A., & Booth, G. (2020). Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(4), 710–732. https://doi. org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1605890 5. Civic, K., & Jones-Walters, L. M. (2015). Implementing Green Infrastructure and Ecological Networks in Europe: Lessons Learned and Future Perspectives. Journal of Green Engineering, 4, 307–324. https://doi.org/10.13052/jge1904-4720.444 6. Jayakaran, A. D., Mo, K. B., Padowski, J. C., Townsend, P. A., & Gaolach, B. (2020). Green infrastructure in western Washington and Oregon: Perspectives from a regional summit. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 50(November 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126654 7. Carmichael, C., Danks, C., & Vatovec, C. (2019). Green Infrastructure Solutions to Health Impacts of Climate Change: Perspectives of Affected Residents in Detroit, Michigan, USA. Sustainability, 11(5688). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205688 8. GlobeScan & TD Bank Group. (2019). Creating Sustainable and Resilient Cities and Communities A summary of expert perspectives from the 2019 (p. 37). https://globescan.com/wp-content/ uploads/2019/02/GlobeScan_TD_SDG_Leadership_Forum_Goal11_Report_Feb2019.pdf 9. Ibrahim, A., Bartsch, K., & Sharifi, E. (2020). Green infrastructure needs green governance: Lessons from Australia’s largest integrated stormwater management project, the River Torrens Linear Park. Journal of Cleaner Production, 121202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020. 121202 10. Lindley, S., Pauleit, S., Yeshitela, K., Cilliers, S., & Shackleton, C. (2018). Landscape and Urban Planning Rethinking urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services from the perspective

398

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures of sub-Saharan African cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, January, 0–1. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.016 Aagaard, F., Thomas, H., Åsa, B. R., & Sang, O. (2020). Challenges to implementing the urban ecosystem service concept in green infrastructure planning: a view from practitioners in Swedish municipalities. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 2(3), 283–296. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s42532-020-00054-3 Schell, C. J., Dyson, K., Fuentes, T. L., Des Roches, S., Harris, N. C., Miller, D. S., WoelfleErskine, C. A., & Lambert, M. R. (2020). The ecological and evolutionary consequences of systemic racism in urban environments. Science, 4497(August), eaay4497. https://doi.org/10. 1126/science.aay4497 Venter, Z. S., Shackleton, C. M., Van Staden, F., Selomane, O., & Masterson, V. A. (2020). Green Apartheid: Urban green infrastructure remains unequally distributed across income and race geographies in South Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning, 203(0349), 103889. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103889 Schäf, A., & Swilling, M. (2013). Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environment under pressure - The Johannesburg case. Ecological Economics, 86, 246–257. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecolecon.2012.05.008 Du Toit, M. J., Cilliers, S. S., Dallimer, M., Goddard, M., Guenat, S., & Cornelius, S. F. (2018). Urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services in sub-Saharan Africa. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180(June), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.06.001 Nop, S., & Thornton, A. (2019). Urban resilience building in modern development: A case of Phnom Penh city, Cambodia. Ecology and Society, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10860240223 Teresa, A. R. (2020). Front yards as green infrastructure: Fragmented yard ecosystems across single-family neighborhoods in Los Angeles [University of California]. https://escholarship. org/uc/item/83n8m5f7 Keeley, M., Koburger, A., Dolowitz, D. P., Medearis, D., Nickel, D., & Shuster, W. (2013). Perspectives on the Use of Green Infrastructure for Stormwater Management in Cleveland and Milwaukee. Environmental Management, 51, 1093–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-0130032-x Clark, G. L. (2019). The allocation of risk and uncertainty in green infrastructure investment with implications for climate change policy. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, 9(2), 116–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2018.1558043 Connop, S., Vandergert, P., Eisenberg, B., Collier, M. J., Nash, C., Clough, J., & Newport, D. (2016). Renaturing cities using a regionally-focused biodiversity-led multifunctional benefits approach to urban green infrastructure. Environmental Science and Policy, 62(2015), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.013 Van Oijstaeijen, W., Van Passel, S., & Cools, J. (2020). Urban green infrastructure: A review on valuation toolkits from an urban planning perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 267(December 2019), 110603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110603 Mell, I. (2017). Financing the future of green infrastructure planning: alternatives and opportunities in the UK and opportunities in the UK. Landscape Research, 6397(December), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1390079 Sussams, L. W., Sheate, W. R., & Eales, R. P. (2015). Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation policy intervention: Muddying the waters or clearing a path to a more secure future? Journal of Environmental Management, 147, 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen vman.2014.09.003 Lovell, S. T., & Taylor, J. R. (2013). Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States. Landscape Ecology, 28(8), 1447–1463. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9912-y Artmann, M., Kohler, M., Meinel, G., Gan, J., & Ioja, I. C. (2019). How smart growth and green infrastructure can mutually support each other — A conceptual framework for compact and green cities. Ecological Indicators, 96(June), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017. 07.001

References

399

26. Alizadehtazi, B., Gurian, P. L., & Montalto, F. A. (2020). Observed Variability in Soil Moisture in Engineered Urban Green Infrastructure Systems and Linkages to Ecosystem Services. Journal of Hydrology, 125381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125381 27. Schiappacasse, P., & Müller, B. (2015). Planning green infrastructure as a source of urban and regional resilience - towards institutional challenges. Urbani Izziv, 26(August 2016), S13–S24. https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-supplement-001 28. Sharifi, A. (2020). Trade-offs and conflicts between urban climate change mitigation and adaptation measures: A literature review. In Journal of Cleaner Production (Vol. 276). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122813 29. Matsler, A. M., Grabowski, Z. J., & Elder, A. D. (2021). The multifaceted geographies of green infrastructure policy and planning: socio-environmental dreams, nightmares, and amnesia. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 23(5), 559–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/152 3908X.2021.1976565 30. Revelli, R., & Porporato, A. (2018). Ecohydrological model for the quantification of ecosystem services provided by urban street trees. Urban Ecosystems, 21, 489–504. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11252-018-0741-2%0AEcohydrological 31. Li, H., Ph, D., & Asce, A. M. (2014). Green Infrastructure for Highway Stormwater Management: Field Investigation for Future Design, Maintenance, and Management Needs. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000248 32. Amaratunga, D., Sridarran, P., & Haigh, R. (2019). Making Cities Resilient Report 2019: A snapshot of how local governments progress in reducing disaster risks in alignment with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction Contribution from the Action on “Making Cities Sustainable and Resilient: Impl. https://www.undrr.org/publication/making-cities-resili ent-report-2019-snapshot-how-local-governments-progress-reducing 33. Sitzenfrei, R., Kleidorfer, M., Bach, P. M., & Bacchin, T. K. (2020). Green infrastructures for urban water system: Balance between cities and nature. Water (Switzerland), 12(5), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051456 34. Harada, Y., & Whitlow, T. H. (2020). Urban Rooftop Agriculture: Challenges to Science and Practice. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4(June), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs. 2020.00076 35. Liu, B., Wang, M., Chen, T., Tseng, P., Chiang, A., & Chiang, P. (2020). Establishment and Implementation of Green Infrastructure Practice for Healthy Watershed Management: Challenges and Perspectives The water management in various countries of the world provides a. Water-Energy Nexus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wen.2020.05.003 36. Oduro-Ofori, E., Braimah, I., Agyeman, & Osei, K. (2014). Promoting Green Infrastructure in Kumasi: Challenges and Strategies. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(26), 110. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234674262.pdf 37. Singh, A. K., Singh, H., & Singh, J. S. (2020). Green infrastructure of cities: an overview. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy, October. https://doi.org/10.16943/pti nsa/2020/154988 38. Matthews, T., Lo, A. Y., & Byrne, J. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138(March), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan. 2015.02.010 39. Gulsrud, N. M., Krajter, S., Faehnle, M., Maric, B., Paloniemi, R., Pearlmutter, D., & Simson, A. J. (2020). Challenges to Governing Urban Green Infrastructure in Europe – The Case of the European Green Capital Award. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50280-9 40. Pauleit, A. S., Ambrose-oji, B., Anton, B., Buijs, A., Haase, D., Hansen, R., Kowarik, I., Kronenberg, J., Mattijssen, T., Olafsson, A. S., Rall, E., & Jagt, A. P. N. Van Der. (2018). Advancing Urban Green Infrastructure in Europe: outcomes and reflections from the GREEN SURGE project. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.10.006 41. Yamuna Kaluarachchi. (2020). Potential advantages in combining smart and green infrastructure over silo approaches for future cities. Front. Eng. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524020-0136-y

400

9 Challenges and Future Perspectives in Adopting Green Infrastructures

42. European Commission. (2013). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Green Infrastructure (GI) –Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital {COM (2013) 249final}, Brussels. 43. Pozoukidou, G. (2020). Designing a green infrastructure network for metropolitan areas: a spatial planning approach. Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration, 5(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-020-00178-8 44. Casado, C. C., & Silva Zuniga, M. C. (2018). Upstream Planning For Sustainable Infrastructure Projects: Inter-American Development Bank (IDP) White Paper for the Urban 20 (U20) (Vol. 20). https://www.urban20.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/U20_WP_Upstream_sustainable_ infrastructure.pdf 45. Calvert, T., Sinnett, D., Smith, N., Jerome, G., Burgess, S., Calvert, T., Sinnett, D., Smith, N., Jerome, G., & Burgess, S. (2018). Setting the Standard for Green Infrastructure: The Need for, and Features of, a Benchmark in England Setting the Standard for Green Infrastructure: The Need for, Planning Practice & Research, 00(00), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459. 2018.1531580 46. Benedict, M. A., & Mcmahon, E. T. (2002). Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21 Century. Renewable Resources Journal, 20, 12–17. https://www.merseyforest.org.uk/files/doc uments/1365/2002+Green+Infrastructure+Smart+Conservation+for+the+21st+Century.pdf 47. Quintero, J. D. (2012). Challenges for Green Infrastructure Projects in Latin America Principles, Practices, and Challenges for Green Infrastructure Projects in Latin America (Issue Discussion paper No. IDB-DP-250). Inter-American Development Bank. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Principles%2C-Practices%2C-and-Challengesfor-Green-in-Quintero/f7a75b81b86ea52ae8b0126f2272a336b977c9a0 48. Wang, J., Liu, J., Wang, H., & Mei, C. (2020). Approaches to Multi-Objective Optimization and Assessment of Green Infrastructure and Their Multi-Functional Effectiveness: A Review. Water, 12(2714). https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102714 49. Marie, N., Raymond, C. M., Rutt, R. L., Stahl, A., Plieninger, T., Sandberg, M., Beery, T. H., & Jönsson, K. I. (2018). Landscape and Urban Planning ‘Rage against the machine’? The opportunities and risks concerning the automation of urban green infrastructure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180(August), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.012