62
E. Mussinelli et al.
3 Solutions and Indicators
Nowadays, all European policies are characterised by targets (as in those focused on
climate and energy) and by impact assessment tools and methods used to estimate
the possible economic, social and environmental impacts of decisions and laws. This
approach works quite well on the macro-scale and can lead and control the effects of
policies on a territorial and urban scale, but it is not suitable to support the decisional
process related to local and specific single interventions.
At any rate, on this same scale, “the role of analytical-assessment processes is
central for verifying the achievement of goals aimed at ecological improvement and
greater resilience through nature-based solutions” (Mussinelli et al. 2018:120). This
is essential in the transformation of urban settlements and public spaces in which
contemporary needs found in the NBS and GBI are one of the most requested and
applied solutions. Even if NBS are not the only tool and cannot alone solve climate
change-related issues,
5 because of their multifunctionality they have a strategic role
in European policies. In fact, in 2013, the EU adopted the Communication on GI
6
and, amongst the eight actions listed in the strategy on adaptation to climate change,
stressed the importance of a “full mobilisation of ecosystem-based approaches to
adaptation”. Moreover, the report entitled Towards an EU Research and Innovation
policy agenda for Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities published by the
European Commission specifies that “enhancing sustainable urbanisation through
nature-based solutions can stimulate economic growth as well as improving the environment, making cities more attractive, and enhancing human well-being” (Directorate General for Research and Innovation 2015:4). In particular, NBS and GBI are
considered cost-effective alternatives to traditional grey infrastructure, capable of
producing direct and indirect economic and financial advantages and, in the meantime, bringing about environmental benefits, well-being for people and an improvement in social cohesion. The use of these solutions in public space has the potential
to activate or reactivate a wide panel of ecosystem services that represent a major
element of cities’ resilience.
The analysis of almost 50 case studies around the world stresses that in the majority of cases, decisions have been taken with a poor level of quantitative assessment
or even with no attention at all given to the environmental impacts deriving from
design alternatives, often focusing only on a single specific benefit related to the use
5 The European Commission stresses that “forests and agricultural lands currently cover more
than three-quarters of the EU’s territory and naturally hold large stocks of carbon, preventing
its escape into the atmosphere. EU forests, for example, absorb the equivalent of nearly 10% of
total EU greenhouse gas emissions each year. Land use and forestry – which include our use of
soils, trees, plants, biomass and timber – can thus contribute to a robust climate policy” (https://
ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/forests_en). However, considering this value, it is also evident that a
widespread action of forestation and urban forestation will never be enough to compensate the
European emission of CO 2 related to human activities and to invert the trends in climate change.
6 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions “Green Infrastructure (GI)—
Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital”—COM/2013/0249 final.
E. Mussinelli et al.
3 Solutions and Indicators
Nowadays, all European policies are characterised by targets (as in those focused on
climate and energy) and by impact assessment tools and methods used to estimate
the possible economic, social and environmental impacts of decisions and laws. This
approach works quite well on the macro-scale and can lead and control the effects of
policies on a territorial and urban scale, but it is not suitable to support the decisional
process related to local and specific single interventions.
At any rate, on this same scale, “the role of analytical-assessment processes is
central for verifying the achievement of goals aimed at ecological improvement and
greater resilience through nature-based solutions” (Mussinelli et al. 2018:120). This
is essential in the transformation of urban settlements and public spaces in which
contemporary needs found in the NBS and GBI are one of the most requested and
applied solutions. Even if NBS are not the only tool and cannot alone solve climate
change-related issues,
5 because of their multifunctionality they have a strategic role
in European policies. In fact, in 2013, the EU adopted the Communication on GI
6
and, amongst the eight actions listed in the strategy on adaptation to climate change,
stressed the importance of a “full mobilisation of ecosystem-based approaches to
adaptation”. Moreover, the report entitled Towards an EU Research and Innovation
policy agenda for Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities published by the
European Commission specifies that “enhancing sustainable urbanisation through
nature-based solutions can stimulate economic growth as well as improving the environment, making cities more attractive, and enhancing human well-being” (Directorate General for Research and Innovation 2015:4). In particular, NBS and GBI are
considered cost-effective alternatives to traditional grey infrastructure, capable of
producing direct and indirect economic and financial advantages and, in the meantime, bringing about environmental benefits, well-being for people and an improvement in social cohesion. The use of these solutions in public space has the potential
to activate or reactivate a wide panel of ecosystem services that represent a major
element of cities’ resilience.
The analysis of almost 50 case studies around the world stresses that in the majority of cases, decisions have been taken with a poor level of quantitative assessment
or even with no attention at all given to the environmental impacts deriving from
design alternatives, often focusing only on a single specific benefit related to the use
5 The European Commission stresses that “forests and agricultural lands currently cover more
than three-quarters of the EU’s territory and naturally hold large stocks of carbon, preventing
its escape into the atmosphere. EU forests, for example, absorb the equivalent of nearly 10% of
total EU greenhouse gas emissions each year. Land use and forestry – which include our use of
soils, trees, plants, biomass and timber – can thus contribute to a robust climate policy” (https://
ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/forests_en). However, considering this value, it is also evident that a
widespread action of forestation and urban forestation will never be enough to compensate the
European emission of CO 2 related to human activities and to invert the trends in climate change.
6 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions “Green Infrastructure (GI)—
Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital”—COM/2013/0249 final.