- Preliminary results -

(1)

Operationalizing Ecosystem Services in Urban

Planning:

an exploration of implementation and

challenges in Berlin and New York

Technische Universität München

Emily Lorance Rall, Rieke Hansen

Chair for Strategic Landscape Planning and Management, Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany

- Preliminary results -

(2)

Introduction:

Research context

(3)

Introduction:

Problem Background

Technische Universität München Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chicago_Downtown_Aerial_View.jpg

(4)

Introduction:

Research aim & questions

Aim

: How can ES be better operationalized in planning?

1) Is there a

gap in the discourse

of ES between strategic plans

and stakeholders in green infrastructure and biodiversity

planning and management?

(5)

Methods:

Study approach

ES Aspect

Interviews

Policy Analysis

Awareness

-Term

-Initiatives

-Tools

-Term present?

Understanding

-Definition

-Similar terms used?

-ES mentioned

-Benefits from nature

-Similar terms used?

-ES mentioned

Importance

-Advantage

-Stages of planning

-Challenges addressed

-Impacts on GI governance

-Goals and indicators

2) Implementation needs and challenges

• Methodological

• Institutional

• Political

• Educational/Communication

1) Gaps in discourse

Gaps?

(6)

Methods:

Case study cities

[NASA, http://visibleearth.nasa.gov]

(7)

Methods:

Policy analysis

Selection of plans

1

Berlin New York City

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING BER_1 Landesentwicklungs-programm der Hauptstadtregion Berlin-Brandenburg/ LePro* 2007 (State Development Program for the Berlin-Brandenburg Region)

BER_2

Landesentwicklungs-plan

Berlin-Brandenburg/LEP* 2009 (State Development Plan Berlin-Brandenburg)

NYC_1

A Region at Risk: The Third Regional Plan For The New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area* 1996 NYC_2 PlaNYC2011

GREEN SPACE/LANDSCAPE/BIODIVERSITY PLANNING

BER_3 Strategie Stadt-landschaft Berlin 2012 (Berlin’s Urban Landscape Strategy)

BER_4

Landschaftsprogramm / Artenschutzprogramm

1994/ 2004(Landscape Program/ Species Protection Program)

BER_5

Berliner Strategie zur Biologischen Vielfalt

2012 (Berlin’s Biodiversity Strategy)

NYC_3

New York State Open Space Conservation*

2009

NYC_4

Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan 2011

NYC_5 New York City Wetlands Strategy 2012

ENVIRONMENTAL/GREY INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

BER_6

Stadtentwicklungsplan Klima 2011 (Urban Development Plan Climate)

BER_7

Wasserversorgungs-konzept für Berlin und für das von den BWB versorgte Umland 2008 (Water supply plan for Berlin and surrounding)

NCY_6 NYCGreen Infrastructure Plan 2011 NYC_7 Sustainable Storm-water Management Plan 2008

(8)

Methods:

Policy analysis

Assessment

Blank = ES not mentioned

P = Problem

A = Acknowledged

I = Indirect

E = Elaborated

Content analysis

Adapted from: Hansen R., Frantzeskaki N.,

McPhearson T., Rall E.L. Kaczorowska A., Kain J.-H., Kabisch N., Artmann M., Pauleit S. (In Review): Are we ready for urban ecosystem services yet? Conditions for application of the urban ecosystem service framework in Berlin, New York, Rotterdam, Salzburg, Seattle and Stockholm.

(9)

Stakeholders:



city planning



regional planning



environmental conservation



parks and recreation



water quality



public health



ecological research



parks-focused nonprofits

Methods:

Stakeholder interviews

NYC n= 17

Berlin n= 8

Conducted

May-August 2013

(10)

Profile matrix

Relational matrix

Methods:

Stakeholder interview analysis

Stakeholder ES Awareness ES Understanding ES Importance Methodological Challenges Political Challenges… 1 2

Institutional Political Funding Instruments Monitoring

Institutional n/a

Political n/a

Funding n/a

Instruments n/a

(11)

Results:

Policy analysis

ES Aspect

Policy Analysis

NYC Berlin

Awareness

-Term present?

4

2 Understanding

-Benefits from nature

-Similar terms used?

-ES mentioned

7

5

2

2 Importance

-Goals and indicators

ES Awareness and Understanding

(12)

Results:

Policy analysis

0 5 10 15 20 25 ES mentioned Goals/indicators

NYC

Berlin

n= 21

(13)

Results:

Policy analysis

ES Importance - Goals and indicators

0 2 4 6 NYC Berlin

(14)

Results:

Policy analysis

(15)

Initial results:

Stakeholder interviews in NYC



ES Awareness



ES Understanding

• Definition

• Other terms

• ES mentioned



ES Importance

• Advantage

• Stages of planning

(16)

Initial results:

ES Governance in NYC

Positive stimuli/conditions



Mayoral-led initiatives

“PlaNYC laid out, put sustainability at the forefront, and that kind of guided the, as much as

anything, the ethos of how we plan.”

“they've kind of taken that model of working cross-agency for a shared goal…and that's been

critical, it's been important because it has helped to combine resources, leverage funds, generate new ideas and new knowledge, absolutely, bring in more voices. It's been

transformative.”



Interagency and stakeholder cooperation



New generation of administrators



Discourse as infrastructure, co-benefits

“People realize that this is the future of the city. That does not exclude traditional gray

infrastructure, it just means that a large component of the infrastructure of the city is going to become green or that people are realizing existing green is no less of an important utility in

the city than fire hydrants and stoplights and sewage systems.”

(17)

Initial results:

ES Governance in NYC

Needs and challenges:



Political uncertainty



Funding vs. monitoring and maintenance

“It's easier in NYC to get money for capital improvements, therefore to build these sites and it's much less easy to get, raise money to manage these sites over the long term, which is ultimately cheaper than having to redo capital projects every 10 years or so, but politically it's more difficult to get that type of money. So those are the major

challenges that we face and we're constantly working on strategies to address them.”



Better models

–

More sophisticated

–

Able to incorporate social information

“environmental modeling for sort of the social network as we call it. What do

communities feel about green spaces, how do they see the green spaces as being most important in their community and how do they see the role of green spaces in the

(18)



Differences in cities for ES awareness &

understanding



Scope of ES covered in policies fairly broad



High-level policies act as important drivers for

operationalizing ES

Study outlook



Finish interview coding



Interview analysis (profile & relational matrices)



Gap analysis of ES awareness, understanding and

importance (stakeholders vs. policies)

Conclusions and outlook

Contact:

[email protected]

(19)

Rall E.L., Hansen R., Pauleit S. (2012): The Current Landscape of Green Infrastructure

Planning and Ecosystem Services: the cases of Berlin and New York. Proceedings of

the Symposium Designing Nature as Infrastructure, Technische Universität München,

Nov. 28-29, 2012, pp. 160-180, Technische Universität München, München. Hansen R., Rall E.L., Pauleit S. (In Print): A transatlantic lens on Green Infrastructure

Planning and Ecosystem Services: Assessing Implementation in Berlin and Seattle. In

T. Hauck, D. Czechowski, & G. Hausladen (Eds.), Revising Green Infrastructure:

Concepts Between Nature and Design. London: Taylor & Francis.

Hansen R., Frantzeskaki N., McPhearson T., Rall E.L. Kaczorowska A., Kain J.-H., Kabisch N., Artmann M., Pauleit S. (In Review): Are we ready for urban ecosystem services yet? Conditions for application of the urban ecosystem service framework in Berlin, New York, Rotterdam, Salzburg, Seattle and Stockholm.