18
realization of new green areas, represent the most common typology of action
(53%). Around 44% of the actions rely on design-based implementation tools (e.g.
projects included in the plan), through which the public administration can control
action implementation with a quite high level of detail. Regulatory tools, particularly the definition of standards and other specific requirements in building codes,
and other tools, such as the suggestion of good practices, are also among the most
common, both with 25% of the sample. Incentive-based tools (e.g. density bonuses)
and land acquisition programs are the least adopted tools, and accounts for only 4%
and 3% respectively. In terms of target areas, specific sites are the most common
and represent the target of 50% of the actions. These include, for example, the restoration of specific ecosystems, the identification of conservation areas, and the
realization of new urban parks. Around 29% of the actions target specific areas in
the municipal territory, such as regulations to be applied in industrial areas or safeguards to protect agricultural patches. Finally, 21% of the actions are widespread.
These include requirements for all new building interventions and rules to respect in
case of demolitions and reconstruction.
Actions on specific sites are usually implemented through design-based tools,
while actions on specific areas are generally implemented through regulatory tools
or other “soft” tools such as the suggestion of good practices. Soft tools also clearly
prevail in the case of widespread measures. Concerning typologies, conservation
actions are more often implemented through regulatory tools, while for both
enhancement and restoration activities the preferred tools are design-based. For
example, new conservation areas are often defined through a boundary in the maps
and a set of rules, while restoration measures are often proposed through a more
detailed design.
When looking at individual ES, conservation actions are the preferred typology
for improving food supply (conservation of agricultural patches) and water flow
regulation and runoff mitigation (conservation of existing unsealed surfaces).
Recreation is mostly promoted through enhancement interventions on existing
green and blue areas. Water flow regulation and runoff mitigation also differs in
term of target areas and, consequently, implementation tools, mostly prescriptions
related to the share of unsealed surfaces to maintain in new developments. Two
other ES do not have design-based as the preferred tools: food supply, for which
40% of the actions consist in principles for territorial management, and waste treatment, which is commonly addressed through the promotion of good practices.
2.4 Conclusions
Our review of 22 urban plans focused on the use of the ES concept as a tool to support decision-making (Mckenzie et al. 2014), as opposed to the explicit uptake of
the term “ecosystem services”. Similarly to what has been observed for the concept
of sustainable development (Persson 2013), our hypothesis was that an effective
integration should build on what is already there, and follow a mechanism of
2 Reviewing Ecosystem Services in Urban Plans
realization of new green areas, represent the most common typology of action
(53%). Around 44% of the actions rely on design-based implementation tools (e.g.
projects included in the plan), through which the public administration can control
action implementation with a quite high level of detail. Regulatory tools, particularly the definition of standards and other specific requirements in building codes,
and other tools, such as the suggestion of good practices, are also among the most
common, both with 25% of the sample. Incentive-based tools (e.g. density bonuses)
and land acquisition programs are the least adopted tools, and accounts for only 4%
and 3% respectively. In terms of target areas, specific sites are the most common
and represent the target of 50% of the actions. These include, for example, the restoration of specific ecosystems, the identification of conservation areas, and the
realization of new urban parks. Around 29% of the actions target specific areas in
the municipal territory, such as regulations to be applied in industrial areas or safeguards to protect agricultural patches. Finally, 21% of the actions are widespread.
These include requirements for all new building interventions and rules to respect in
case of demolitions and reconstruction.
Actions on specific sites are usually implemented through design-based tools,
while actions on specific areas are generally implemented through regulatory tools
or other “soft” tools such as the suggestion of good practices. Soft tools also clearly
prevail in the case of widespread measures. Concerning typologies, conservation
actions are more often implemented through regulatory tools, while for both
enhancement and restoration activities the preferred tools are design-based. For
example, new conservation areas are often defined through a boundary in the maps
and a set of rules, while restoration measures are often proposed through a more
detailed design.
When looking at individual ES, conservation actions are the preferred typology
for improving food supply (conservation of agricultural patches) and water flow
regulation and runoff mitigation (conservation of existing unsealed surfaces).
Recreation is mostly promoted through enhancement interventions on existing
green and blue areas. Water flow regulation and runoff mitigation also differs in
term of target areas and, consequently, implementation tools, mostly prescriptions
related to the share of unsealed surfaces to maintain in new developments. Two
other ES do not have design-based as the preferred tools: food supply, for which
40% of the actions consist in principles for territorial management, and waste treatment, which is commonly addressed through the promotion of good practices.
2.4 Conclusions
Our review of 22 urban plans focused on the use of the ES concept as a tool to support decision-making (Mckenzie et al. 2014), as opposed to the explicit uptake of
the term “ecosystem services”. Similarly to what has been observed for the concept
of sustainable development (Persson 2013), our hypothesis was that an effective
integration should build on what is already there, and follow a mechanism of
2 Reviewing Ecosystem Services in Urban Plans