Smart Governance Manuel on Integrated Urban Green Space Management by BURSTgroup

SMART GOVERNANCE MANUAL ON INTEGRATED URBAN GREEN SPACE MANAGEMENT WPT 1 Activity 1.6 Deliverable D.T1.6.2

Prepared by the UGB consortium March 2019

Contents 1

Context ............................................................................................................................................ 3 1.1

UGS and UGB .......................................................................................................................... 3

1.2

Objective of the manual.......................................................................................................... 5

1.3

Who can use this manual and how? ....................................................................................... 6

Trends and risks .............................................................................................................................. 7 2.1

General assessment of UGS in Europe.................................................................................... 7

2.2

The aspect of Functional Urban Areas .................................................................................... 9

2.3

Assessment of UGS situation of the project partners............................................................. 9

2.4

Specific challenges and risks ................................................................................................. 11

Methods and tools to overcome challenges................................................................................. 13 3.1

GIS Tools (G) .......................................................................................................................... 15

3.2

Methods and tools for community involvement .................................................................. 17

3.3

Tools for applying multi-stakeholder governance approaches ............................................ 20

How could this work in practice? .................................................................................................. 21 4.1

Illustrative cases .................................................................................................................... 21

4.2

Practical case studies ............................................................................................................ 22

4.2.1

Green space monitoring system in the Upper Salzach Valley (Austria)........................ 22

4.2.2

Green Cadastre Service in Zadar County (Croatia) ....................................................... 23

4.2.3

Stewardship programme in Budapest (Hungary) ......................................................... 24

4.2.4

Involving the community in Maribor (Slovenia) ........................................................... 26

4.2.5

Witkowice Green living lab in Krakow (Poland) ............................................................ 28

4.2.6

Cooperation platform in Budapest (Hungary) .............................................................. 30

1 Context 1.1 UGS and UGB Urban green space (UGS) provides many environmental, social and economic benefits to ci es and their popula ons. Urban green spaces make residen al and working environments more liveable, improves environmental performance (e.g. filtering pollutants and CO2 from air) and strengthens climate resilience. However, because of the ongoing urbanisa on and suburbanisa on processes, natural and seminatural green spaces of all types are increasingly under threat, which leads in turn to fragmenta on of ecosystem networks and biodiversity loss. Because the though ul development and management of green spaces enables us to confront many harmful environmental impacts and climate change-related risks, there is widespread demand for improved opera onal models for UGS governance. Partners of the Urban Green Belts (UGB) project’s came together with the main objec ve of improving planning, management and decision-making capaci es of the public sector related to urban green spaces, thus crea ng integrated sustainable UGS planning and management systems. The territorial framework for the ac vi es was set based on ‘Func onal urban areas’ (FUAs). Following a compara ve situa on analysis, partners jointly elaborated innova ve methods and tools aimed at sustainable UGS management. These methods and tools focused on the following considera ons: 1. ‘Green infrastructure’ (GI) as a smart tool for providing ecological, economic and social benefits through natural solu ons that are unfamiliar to most local decision makers. Therefore, a Geographical Informa on System-based (GIS-based) spa al planning decisionsupport tool was elaborated for assessing and evalua ng exis ng green spaces, and for facilita ng the applica on of the GI approach in strategic planning. 2. Community involvement in planning and implementa on processes are s ll quite rare in the region but are crucial for ensuring the social and economic sustainability of UGS management. Smart techniques for awareness raising and for ac va ng civil society organisa ons (CSOs) and ci zens through community building were elaborated. 3. Mul -stakeholder governance is an inevitable but underexploited tool for effec vely managing UGS. Smart solu ons for promo ng coopera on between different governance levels and sectors, and internally across various departments of authori es, were developed. A training curriculum for municipali es on the applica on of integrated UGS planning and management in the context of mul -stakeholder governance was also developed. These solu ons, methods and tools were integrated into three UGB Smart Models that were tested through pilot ac ons during the project:   

Model 1: GIS-based solu ons Model 2: Community involvement Model 3: Mul -stakeholder governance

Figure 1 below shows how these elements are related.

Figure 1: Connec ons between the framework, UGB Smart Models, and pilot ac ons The models were developed in Thema c Working Groups (TWGs) formulated by the knowledge providers and the local/regional authori es. As a ďŹ rst step, three dra models were developed, which then were tested through eight pilot ac ons that were giving feedback for ďŹ nalizing the models. FUAlevel stakeholder pla orm mee ngs and UGB transna onal mee ngs supported the development of the model throughout the whole process. Furthermore, Transna onal Synergy Workshops with similar projects and ini a ves were organized in order to help to iden fy and include relevant knowledge and experience outside the consor um.

1.2 Objective of the manual The objec ve of this Smart Governance Manual is to compile the results of the project and to share the knowledge and experience gained through the project in the ﬁeld of smart UGS management. The manual serves as a prac cal handbook, collec ng the main challenges and risks and the tools and methods that could help ﬁnding possible solu ons to problems that municipali es and regional authori es are facing when planning, developing or simply maintaining urban green spaces (Figure 2).

Urban Green Space MANAGEMENT

DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING

IDENTIFY CHALLENGES AND RISKS

MAINTENANCE

DEFINYING THE VISION AND AIMS

SELECT A PROPER COMBINATION OF TOOLS GIS tools

Tools for involving the community

Tools for working with stakeholders other than citizens

SOLUTION

Figure 2: A ﬂowchart of smart UGS management

1.3 Who can use this manual and how? This manual is targe ng policy-makers / decision makers, planners and experts, aiming primarily at local and regional public authori es â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the key players in urban green space governance. In chapter 2 the manual collects general trends and specific challenges and risks from Europe and from municipalities participating in the UGB project. Answering to these, the document presents several tools and instruments in chapter 3 that can be used by the authorities to overcome problems. In chapter 4 we present cases that try to elucidate how these solutions can work in practice.

2 Trends and risks 2.1 General assessment of UGS in Europe Urban green space management is a cross-cu ng issue that is addressed by a range of policy fields. Most important policies can be associated with three broad areas, i.e. management of natural resources; sustainable urban development; and spa al development. There are several trends1 that influence or determine the roles, obliga ons and opportuni es of local authori es in the field of urban green space management. -

Applica on of complex approaches

There is an increasing number of examples across Europe where urban green space governance is an integrated element of a wider, complex urban development design. In such comprehensive approaches, green space management can be linked to other ﬁelds relevant for sustainability, i.e. renewable energy, new traﬃc solu ons and circular economy or can be addressed together with a wide range of other areas, such as business, social cohesion, housing, educa on, culture, health and environment. -

Green spaces as outdoor community centres

It is increasingly recognised that green spaces are fulfilling important social and/or cultural roles. Parks are more and more regarded as outdoor community centres, specific spaces by which quality of life can be effec vely improved. When properly designed and cared for, public green spaces bring communi es together, provide mee ng places and foster social es of a kind that have been disappearing in many urban areas. -

Derelict land converted into green space

Various examples of ini a ves aimed at mostly temporary greening of derelict land by municipali es or ci zen groups can be found across Europe. Interven ons at brownﬁelds can convert a problem into an opportunity enhancing urban sustainability and quality of life through the reuse of usually environmentally, economically, and socially degraded urban sites. In certain cases, the local community is ac vely involved by the local government in the redevelopment of abandoned spaces. -

Increasing uptake of approaches aiming at par cipatory governance

An emerging number of grassroots ini a ves (e.g. urban gardening) indicate the growing demand for community par cipa on in the management of urban green spaces and in the design and delivery of the related policies. The various instruments aiming at par cipatory governance such as par cipatory planning and par cipatory budge ng are rela vely modernday governance tools -

Re-naturing ci es

There is a growing recogni on and awareness that nature can help provide viable solu ons when natural ecosystems and the services they provide are used and deployed in a smart, engineered way. These nature-based solu ons can provide sustainable, cost-effec ve, mul purpose and flexible alterna ves for various objec ves. As opposed to working against nature, working with it can pave the way towards a greener and more resilient economy in which resources are used more efficiently. Nature-based solu ons for sustainable

More details in ‘Baseline study on the status quo of regional UGS governance and European good prac ces’ h ps://www.interreg-central.eu/Content.Node/UGB/Baseline-Study.pdf

urbanisa on rely predominantly on natural areas and features in and around ci es to perform essen al ecosystem services. -

Expansion of urban agriculture

Urban agriculture encompasses a range of ac vi es, including allotment gardening, urban orchards and urban vineyards. It is o en performed on derelict land, for example by using raised beds. Food produc on is o en priority objec ve of these diﬀerent types of greening ac vi es. The ac vity can have a temporary character, but it can also be part of centrally planned ‘green infrastructure’. -

Development of green roofs and ver cal gardens

A speciﬁc type of urban land use is greening roo ops and facades of buildings which is a crea ve way of combining development with increasing urban green space. Green roof is a roof of a building that is par ally or completely covered with vegeta on and a growing medium, planted over a waterprooﬁng membrane. Ver cal gardens are one of the latest trends. A number of European ci es are promo ng green roofs and green walls through suppor ve legisla on, subsidies and demonstra on sites. -

Use of digital solu ons to support UGS governance

In a growing number of ci es e-tools are used to improve the eﬀec veness of UGS governance through a contribu on to evidence-based decisions, or through the provision of detailed and robust data. E-tools are used regularly and intensively in the form of an interac ve map by a large number of ci es in order to gather informa on about diﬀerent types of urban spaces. GIS-tools can be used among others in the mapping of green spaces, as well as to involve ci zens in the mapping green spaces, or to evaluate the state of green space elements. Etools based governance also shows up to create accessibility to knowledge and raise awareness amongst ci zens. E-tools can also be used to provide less costly forms of par cipatory techniques. -

Ac vism, protest groups

The emergence of par cipatory forms of governance has not led to the disappearance of ac vism. Removing public spaces seems to be a factor in recent poli cal unrest, and these spaces can foster protest communi es and encourage democra c involvement. Policy framework2, at EU and na onal level as well, follows the trends, in some cases even set them. Currently the general policy framework for the EU environment policy, the 7th Environmental Ac on Programme (EAP) among others aims to protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital; and to make the ci es of the EU more sustainable. The ac on programme promotes incorpora ng green infrastructure into plans and programmes related to energy and transport infrastructure. The most fundamental EU level policy document in terms of relevance for urban green space governance is the EU-wide strategy on Green Infrastructure, oﬃcially tled, Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital and adopted in 2013. The overall goal of this strategy is to ensure that the protec on, restora on, crea on and enhancement of green infrastructure become an integral part of spa al planning and territorial development whenever it oﬀers a be er alterna ve (or is complementary) to standard grey choices. In 2011 the European Commission has adopted the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy with an overall objec ve to halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020. In the context of urban green space governance, the strategy s pulates 2

An analysis of the policy framework can be found in ‘Baseline study on the status quo of regional UGS governance and European good prac ces’ h ps://www.interreg-central.eu/Content.Node/UGB/BaselineStudy.pdf

that ‘by 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15% of degraded ‘ecosystems’. The strategy sets a number of relevant aspects from the perspec ve of urban green space governance. The European Spa al Development Perspec ve (ESDP) aims at protec ng and developing urban green spaces and natural areas in ci es. The document also emphasises the great importance of prudent management of urban ecosystems. The Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020 iden ﬁes territorial priori es that have direct relevance for urban green space governance, such as encouraging integrated development in ci es; improving territorial connec vity for individuals, communi es and enterprises; and managing and connec ng ecological, landscape and cultural values of regions.

2.2 The aspect of Functional Urban Areas A Func onal Urban Area (FUA) is a func onal economic unit characterised by densely inhabited “urban cores” and “hinterlands”, and whose labour market is highly integrated with the cores. The defini on, origina ng from labour market and commu ng considera ons, provides a spa al delimita on beyond administra ve borders that is relevant for a mul tude of thema c fields, such as transport (e.g. commu ng, transport flows) economic development (e.g. labour market, strategic posi oning), environment (e.g. air quality, water quality, soil sealing, urban sprawl), social well-being (e.g. health care, social housing).3 Urban green space management is a definitely a field where FUA approaches has relevance. Although during the implementa on of the UGB pilot projects it became clear that connec on to the FUA depends mainly on the characteris c of the administra ve structures and the type of the pilot. As an overall experience of the pilot implementations we can declare that FUA level approaches are very valid in multi-level governance related actions. Actions related to cooperation with other than governance related stakeholders mostly have only indirect effect on the FUA level mainly by replicating successful initiatives. Still it should be highlighted that for finding smart UGS management solutions, public authorities should seek for FUA level approaches when it is possible.

2.3 Assessment of UGS situation of the project partners Within the UGB project 7 local assessments were prepared. The public administrative territorial units, which were the starting point of the local assessments, slightly differ in size and administrative level. 12th District of Budapest (Hegyvidék) and Prague 6 are self-governing districts within the larger municipalities of Budapest and Prague respectively and their larger conurbation. Padua, Maribor, Zadar and Krakow are municipalities, representing the main urban core in their functional areas. In contrast, the local assessment of Upper Salzach Valley was undertaken on the level of FUA. In all seven partner areas there are a great diversity of green infrastructure – among and within partner areas. In each area, there is at least one urban green space type that stands out in terms of higher level of responsibility (national or regional) and significance. The area with the largest number of significant green space elements is Hegyvidék with its protected areas of nature. Zadar is the only partner area which stands out with its sea coast; in Padua, very significant urban green spaces are 3

h p://www.interreg-central.eu/Content.Node/apply/Glossary_content.html

riverbanks, and surface waters. Upper Salzach Valley is characterized by its agricultural areas and areas under local protection; in Maribor the river Drava and protected areas are of particular importance. Prague 6 stands out with its Sarka Valley Nature Park, the largest park in Prague and also probably the most preserved one. One of the most significant green elements in Krakow are the Botanic Garden of the Jagiellonian University, the Zoological Garden and numerous and vast landscape and national parks in the Malopolska region. The assessments showed that on the city/municipal level the most significant types of green areas are parks, protected areas, green playgrounds and tree alleys followed by street green and green verge, neighbourhood green and public institutional green space. Botanical/zoological gardens, wetlands, and bio swales are among the least significant types. Agricultural areas are of particular significance in Padua, and to a lesser extent also in Upper Salzach Valley. In line with the findings of the local assessments private gardens can be considered very significant in Hegyvidék and fairly significant in Maribor and Upper Salzach Valley. There are numerous examples of community gardening schemes in the partners’ public administrative territorial units and functional urban areas, which can serve as a good starting point to further develop participatory approaches, community involvement and UGS governance. The largest number of community gardens is in Padua (16). There are six community gardens in the city of Salzburg and five sites in Prague 6. In a group of cities (Maribor, Zadar, Krakow) community gardens are scarce, though related activities and also plans do exist. Though in Hegyvidék there is a relatively low number of community gardens (2), but on the other hand Budapest is one of the leading cities in this field in Europe. While green roofs and walls are becoming an important element of green infrastructure in a growing number of European cities and towns, their development across UGB partners’ areas are in initial stage despite their great potential. There are only some isolated examples of such initiatives, limited to certain institutions, buildings and walls in Krakow and Padua (and one planned in Zadar), and these are rather spontaneously planed, not related to any formal strategies or action plans. In Upper Salzach Valley green roofs are funded within the scope of a housing subsidy. The assessments indicated that e-tools are in use in most project partners’ public administrative territorial units by municipal authorities and their respective offices or departments. In 6 of 7 territorial units, there is georeferenced data available as polygons, lines or points on different types of urban green areas regarding their function: as protected areas, trees, parks, forests etc. In most cases, the use of GIS is an essential part of the daily work of the employees: it can provide support in decision-making about the urban development and management, in preparing development and regulation plans, analysis, monitoring, etc. The administrators use GIS for their daily work, for instance, for inspecting the building regulation, tree-cadastre, maps of public utilities. Most partners expect to upgrade GIS databases in near future. The analysis showed that participatory approaches applied differ in intensity, success and techniques, but in general participatory planning practices are quite developed. We can distinguish between the involvement of citizens on wider, municipal/city/regional level (mostly for creating strategic documents) and the involvement of citizens on smaller, neighbourhood level, where citizens can express their views and opinions on different projects, especially about revitalizing and designing urban green spaces. On both levels, opinions of citizens are taken into consideration in most of the partners’ areas. A wide range of participatory tools has been used in partners’ areas: among the most common are workshops and public meetings, followed by surveys and internet platforms. Among less frequent methods used (but also successful), social media, laboratories, exhibitions, and cleaning 10

actions can be highlighted. There are examples of participatory budgeting schemes implemented on the local level in Maribor, Prague 6 and Krakow. A trend of integrated development already became evident in some partners’ territorial units, where in UGS management, a very wide range of stakeholders of different profiles and from different fields is being involved. In Hegyvidék the Green Office of the Municipality was explicitly established with an aspiration for an intensive cooperation with different bodies and stakeholders, on the local and the regional and national level. A high level of internal and external cooperation between different bodies on both – horizontal and vertical level, has been established in Upper Salzach Valley, District of Prague 6, and Padua. Project partners have highlighted a number of difficulties, obstacles and challenges regarding areas associated with UGS planning, development and maintenance. Governance and management related difficulties strongly stood out. These were followed by issues related to green space degradation, while public participation and communication, maintenance and lack of spatial data were problematic only in certain territorial units.

2.4 Specific challenges and risks -

In the field of GIS applications: o

existence of data  Some developed solutions may be not applicable in every region simply because of a lack of appropriate data. This applies particularly to integrative studies that are based on several indicators. In this case, it is recommended to firstly focus on data collection methods or community involvement approaches that enable the gathering of data in the form of interviews or assessment apps. reliability of data  In connection with data, it is recommended to perform a quality check by a structured collection of meta-data. Not every nature of data is usable for certain analyses. Users can observe the sources of the data in need, formats, potential costs, update cycles, reference units etc. This is an important documentation step for reproducing or transferring analyses and results. proper indicators  In the conceptual phase, it is important to take time for defining significant indicators for the specific purposes. The approximation and the cracking of the complex real-world phenomena is not so easy and should always envisage certain analytic objectives. citizens involvement  By conducting integrative studies at larger scales, it often happens that the opinions of citizens seem to get out of the spotlight. Therefore, it is necessary to include their expectations into the indicator building process by using survey techniques or smart participatory approaches.  It is very important to communicate even complex analytic steps and results in an understandable way and present research activities at public events.

In the field of community involvement:  

  

      -

Lack of motivation of the community to act on their own initiative to connect to the planning, development and maintenance of UGS How to raise-awareness among residents that UGS have many social, cultural and environmental benefits, inevitably important for their way of living and wellbeing. Identification of community: in some cases, it is difficult to pinpoint the interested community Mobilisation of community: if it is not a “hot topic” the community can only be formed with considerable investment of imagination, time and effort Sustainability of community and engagement: if it’s an ad hoc problem, the community will naturally disintegrate once a project is finished; however, if the project is longer-term, it is essential to keep the community alive, keep interest in tedious details, etc. Translation and adaptation of EU-level policies and initiatives on a micro-level (e.g. municipality, district) Stakeholder engagement, motivation and timing How to engage underrepresented groups, like teenagers, women, migrants? How to build and fortify local identity, trust and responsibility in the community? (Non-)applicability of a very general model/manual to specific municipalities, regions, countries – need for adaptation and localization No financial support for long-term activities in UGS.

In the field of multi-stakeholder governance o

cooperation with governmental and non-governmental bodies:  absence of combined efforts at local level;  how to successfully design and implement local initiatives that integrate relevant views, knowledge and expertise;  in the absence of a targeted strategy, decisions on urban green space development and maintenance are taken in an ad-hoc, non-harmonised manner, this can lead to an inefficient use of resources, conflicting interests, and inadequate development and management of urban green spaces;  even if there is a strategy in place, the lack of a detailed action plan can bring about situations in which the steps necessary for implementation are not determined and responsibilities and sources are not properly allocated;  insufficient cooperation between different levels of government leads to unsynchronised objectives and goals regarding UGS development and conflicting decisions on available resources; local authorities often lack sufficient resources for developing urban green space, or even for properly maintaining existing green space in larger areas and neighbourhoods within their municipal territory; it is true especially in the case of certain neglected urban green spaces or in the case of small sections of green space, such as kerbside trees, hedges, street greens and green verges, neighbourhood greens, roundabouts and abandoned areas; 12

public administrations are facing problems during the realization of publicly beneficial projects with the potential to generate economic added value, e.g legal difficulties restricting entities under public law to flexibly manage revenues.

3 Methods and tools to overcome challenges During the project implementation several methods and tools were identified by the project consortium in the field of GIS applications, community involvement and multi-stakeholder governance. Figure 3, 4 and 5 are summarizing these and present them in a flowchart approach, trying to show how these methods and tools can be used in solving the challenges appearing during smart urban green space management. Each Flowchart is followed by a List of tools including a more detailed description of the smart methods and tools.4

Further details can be found in the Smart models developed by the project: h ps://www.interregcentral.eu/Content.Node/UGB.html

DATA - Individual data collection - Administrative data evaluation - Remote Sensing

INDICATORS

- Maintenance

- Statistical Charts

- Ecology

VISUALISATION

- Calculation Model

- Attractiveness

- Paper Maps

- Accessibility

- Interactive Web-GIS

- Profitability

- Weighted Overlay - Distance Analyses - Statistics - Image Classification

ANALYSIS

Figure 3: Applica on of GIS tools in smart Urban Green Space management

3.1 GIS Tools (G) DATA G1 - Individual data collection: In-field data collection with the help of GPS-based applications, surveys, sensors etc. G-2 Administrative data evaluation: Consider the potentials of open data portals or administrative data sources (cadastres, official statistics etc.) G-3 Remote sensing e.g. creating/collecting photos, multi-spectral/thermal images, radar, laserscanning INDICATORS G-4 Indicators to quantify the efforts for maintenance e.g. area size, type/number of species (trees, meadow etc.), specific efforts for conservation G-5 Indicators to detect the ecological value e.g. tree cover density, share of protected areas/biotopes, biodiversity G-6 Indicators to assess the attractiveness e.g. users' satisfaction, infrastructural elements, path density G-7 Indicators to measure the accessibility e.g. bus stops in walking distance, quality/safety of access routes G-8 Indicators to evaluate the profitability e.g. soil quality, productive land/forest G-9 Indicators to estimate the touristic potential e.g. visitors' frequency, parking space, elements of cultural/natural heritage ANALYSIS G-10 Overlaying data: (weighted) calculation of multiple input data on harmonized scales to perform integrative analyses (e.g. recreation index) G-11 Distance analyses: calculate distances between objects (optionally based on a road network) to find the shortest path or generate service areas G-12 Statistical evaluation: summarize data/results on e.g. community or district level to characterize and compare these units G-13 Image classification: analysis and interpretation of remotely sensed data to identify specific characteristics/structures of green space (e.g. vegetation heigth, types of land cover) or detect their changes in time. G-14 GEOVISUALISATION: Production of paper maps or webmaps to communicate results

Figure 4: Possibili es for involving the community into smart Urban Green Space management

3.2 Methods and tools for community involvement SITUATION ASSESSMENT AND IDEA GENERATION C-1 SWOT analysis is an entry point into an unknown territory allows for an analysis, if properly adjusted to specific requirements, of different challenges faced by communities and their green areas. It is a method to determine the basic characteristics of a specific situation. Use it to assess the strengths (S), weaknesses (W), opportunities (O), and threats (T) of a solution to a problem (on local, FUA, national or even international levels). C-2 Questionnaire (structured or semi-structured) allows you to probe opinions and feelings of a wider sample of people. Questions have to be carefully selected, clear and to the point. Considering the specificities of the situation, use: Self-administered questionnaire, Online survey, Semi-structured, structured questionnaire. C-3 Interview is a (semi-)formal meeting between two or more people (the interviewer and the interviewee(s)) where the interviewer aims to collect information, attitudes, wishes, ideas. Adapt it to the specificities of the situation: Informal, conversational interview, Standardised, open-ended interview, Closed, fixed-response interview, Focus-group interview. C-4 World café is one of a new generation of participatory methods that attempt to achieve collective change by bringing all members or stakeholders of the system together in one place: it is a highly structured process of movement to create flexible and coevolving networks of conversations. C-5 Problem tree is a method that can be used to identify causes (the roots) and effects (the branches) with potential solutions attached as fruit to the tree. C-6 Lotus Blossom is a creativity exercise that can be used to generate ideas based on a predetermined central theme. A number of conceptual themes grows out from the main theme and each of them can be used as a central theme to generate more themes. C-7 Moodboard is a collage of images, words and/or samples of materials that can be used when the community needs to be more directly involved in planning. It helps the community form an emotional image and overall ‘feel’ of the intended design. C-8 Ethnographic workshop is an educational, social and cultural event, when participants – together with a mentor (who can be an expert or member of community with special skills) – research, perform, present, or upgrade ethnographic/vernacular tangible or intangible elements, identified as urban cultural heritage. C-9 Future workshop is a method that aims to help the community design their desired future, i.e. the interventions in the local green spaces, avoiding constraints imposed by experts or organisations. It is focused on collecting and elaborating ideas outside of the design team. C-10 Format, theme, setting variation: When (co-)organising a community meeting, it is critical to design the setting in a way to promote non-intimidating, comfortable environment. This can be achieved using format, theme, and setting variation. For example, use Chair rotation to involve different people in various structured positions or engage them in problem presentation/lecture. C-11 Problem-solving working group with a chair from underrepresented group: engaging a chair from an underrepresented group is a good opportunity to facilitate wider social cohesion, as well as to improve the social and cultural sensibility of the involved stakeholders/participants. C-12 Disarm the eternal opponent by tasking them with a presentation of a problem, asking for a detailed, researched and argued explanation of their view, or request that anybody who wants to talk has to present a solution and their contribution to its realisation.

C-13 Classroom in the forest/park is about reinterpreting a park (or any other urban green infrastructure) as a classroom and the place of meeting and developing ideas. C-14 Parliament in the park (direct democracy) offers an opportunity to encourage and empower people to occupy the public space and offer at the same time a solution to concrete problems in a concrete public green space. JOINT MANAGEMENT C-15 Participatory budgeting is a form of direct democracy, where people decide together on the use of public funds, enabling involvement of the citizens in allocating the municipality budget. C-16 Stewardship is often perceived as the ownership of a place, it is also used to refer to something that cannot be owned or is even decidedly communal. C-17 Community consultative assembly (CCA) is a semi-formal body comprised of community representatives, who either have the necessary skills and competences to enter dialogue with other stakeholders, especially decision makers, planners, experts of other officials, or are motivated enough to ensure continued engagement. RAISE AWARENESS AND MOTIVATION C-18 Social events and competitions are useful when you need to attract wider population (or specifically targeted community) to meet in a public space (for example, lectures, picnics, markets, sports events). Organise a competition (e.g. photography, painting, modelling, essay/literature) and invite participants to make and submit their work related to development or maintenance of green spaces. C-19 Creating intergenerational ties: Developing connections between the young and the old can provide an opportunity for them to learn new skills and to get common solution of how properly develop green spaces. C-20 Communication tools: An important part of work preparation, selecting and adapting tools and methods, is also a Communication Plan. Depending on your specific situation, it will be necessary to decide on what content you want to communicate to whom. The Stakeholder Map will help detect and reveal the relations between stakeholders, ambitions, motives and agendas. It will help the design a sound Communication Plan. Adapt your problem and content to: TV and radio, local newspaper, press conference, social media (Facebook, twitter, Instagram).

Figure 5: Applica on of mul -stakeholder governance approaches in smart Urban Green Space management

3.3 Tools for applying multi-stakeholder governance approaches MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE M-1 Local strategic partnership: Local strategic partnerships (LSPs) bring together members of the community, volunteers, representatives from the public and private sectors, and local authorities to address local problems, allocate funding, and discuss strategies and initiatives. In most cases, the initiators of such partnerships are governmental bodies and authorities with key roles in driving the process. The key to the success of such partnerships, however, is vertical and horizontal cooperation between the various governmental bodies. M-2 Local action teams: LATs, created to define effective community-led projects, aim to adopt a proactive multi-agency approach. In practice, LATs are small teams of local experts from different organisations. M-3 Urban green space strategy and local action plans: The purpose of an urban green space strategy is to confront a given situation (e.g. problems, conflicts, potentials and needs) and to put forth a vision for the future based on collective goals. M-4 Territorial pact: A territorial pact is a multi-level agreement between local, regional, and national government organisations, according to which they commit to coordinating and synchronising their policy agendas to focus their actions and financial resources. INSTITUTIONALISED WAYS OF COOPERATION M-5 Business improvement district: A BID is an independent, business-owned and business-led company that seeks to improve a designated location for commercial activity. Within this location, businesses are required to pay an additional tax or levy to fund projects within the district's boundaries. M-6 Green barters: In such schemes, a kind of bartering procedure is developed between municipalities and businesses in which businesses are granted permission to profit in certain ways from services delivered in relation to urban green space development; in return, these businesses invest in the enhancement of maintenance of specific urban green space. Green barters can vary from a short-term business deal to longer-lasting and more complex partnerships. M-7 Green space adoption: Businesses sign contracts with the municipality for a certain period, according to which they agree to develop and maintain smaller sections of green spaces and areas in return for on-site acknowledgement of their business-sponsored activities (e.g. a plaque or sign or other visible means of promotion). M-8 Grant program: Funding provided by the municipality that obligates the grant awardees to meet certain objectives and to adhere to some specific funding requirements. Grants can support community groups, civil society organisations, individuals and businesses for taking on responsibility for green space maintenance (or, in specific cases, development). M-9 Social enterprise: A social enterprise is an operator in the social economy whose main objective is to have a social impact rather than make a profit for their owners or shareholders. It operates by providing goods and services for the market in an entrepreneurial and innovative fashion and uses its profits primarily to achieve social objectives. It is managed in an open and responsible manner and, in particular, involve employees, consumers and stakeholders affected by its commercial activities.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; 20

4 How could this work in practice? 4.1 Illustrative cases When municipalities are facing challenges related to urban green space planning, development and maintenance generally only a combination of proper tools can ensure appropriate solution to the problem (letters and numbers in brackets refer to the tools listed under Chapter 3). -

If a municipality would like to create a tree database in its area it should apply proper GIS tools, engage relevant stakeholder and nowadays involve citizens into data collection and validation. Beside it is important to cooperate with other governmental bodies, to synchronize systems and to take advantage of synergies. A general challenge is the planning of new urban green spaces. It is important to involve the community and use smart tools for the planning process. Beside that, cooperation with other authorities is a must, but a wider cooperation, both horizontally and vertically, can ensure a much better result. Using some of tools described in chapter 3 such process could include:    

indicator analyses to see what is needed in the city (G-5, G-8, G-9) analyzes of the recreational value of green spaces (G-6, G-7) setting up a Local Action team for the planning and implementation (M-2) involvement of the citizens through the Consultation assembly (C-17).

Regarding the maintenance of urban green spaces, the main challenge appears in the cases of neglected urban green spaces or in the case of small sections of green space, such as kerbside trees, hedges, street greens and green verges, neighborhood greens, roundabouts and abandoned areas. Most appropriate solutions in these cases can be the involvement of the community (C-15, C-16, C-17) or methods for handing over responsibilities (M-5 – M-9) . GIS tools can support these activities (G-4). In case of applica on of integra ve spa al development approaches it is essen al to create charts and maps (G-14) on the status of green space supply with hot and cold spots of speciﬁc services. For this one should make use of administra ve (also non-green) data (G-2) and indicators from basic ones to complex ones (G-4 – G-9). This will require many reliable data sets, therefore it is essen al to get in contact with decision makers, set up local ac on teams (M-2), develop an urban green space strategy and local ac on plans (M-3). For smart UGS governance it is important to look for synergies between par cipatory approaches and digital solu ons. Community-driven (ini al) data collec on approaches (G-1), apps for expressions of feelings and expecta ons when using a green space; use of body sensors for sen ments; make use of social media data for big data analy cs are all possibili es that should be taken into account for UGS management nowadays. A great opportunity (and a common trend) to use green spaces as outdoor community centres. For this proper community involvement is inevitable. Ques onnaires (C-2), interviews (C-3) could be used from the beginning to iden fy expecta ons and wishes of residents. For a proper needsanalysis, a rac veness indicators can be applied (G-6). To use the green space social and cultural events (C-18), classrooms in the park (C-13), ethnographic workshop (C-8), parliament in the park (C-14) could be organized. If there is a possibility non-governmental legal bodies could be involved in the development and maintenance through a business improvement district (M-5) or a green barter (M-6). Another typical challenge for local authori es is to use derelict land and convert it into green space. A useful ﬁrst step in this case is the use of maintenance (G-4) and ecology indicators (G21

5) for evalua ng if efforts pay off in a long-term perspec ve. It is useful to involve the community already at this stage, make a SWOT analysis (C-1) and get in contact with the residents to check willingness and mo va on for ac ng. In this case direct democracy (C-14) could be expedient, combined with social events (C-18) and with offering and promo ng stewardship programmes (C-16) with the possibility of expansion of urban agriculture as well. Reflec ng to the trend of re-naturing ci es through the development of green roofs and ver cal gardens it is vital to involve the community through interviews (C-3), workshops and events (C18, C4-C-12) and by proper communica on (C-20). For this area it is of utmost importance to coordinate governance issues, therefore it is useful to set up a local ac on team (M-2). For ensuring maintenance stewardship programmes (C-16), adop on schemes (M-7) or grant programmes (M-8) could be offered.

4.2 Practical case studies Below some case studies are presented that are based on the pilot actions implemented by the UGB project partner local authorities.

4.2.1 Green space monitoring system in the Upper Salzach Valley (Austria) The local authority UGB Project partner RSA iSPACE as a research organization provides the Salzburg State administration with GIS models and documentations for innovative UGS management. The authority can make use of them for creating contents for regional strategic planning documents. It has the power and the network to interconnect local stakeholders and establish public events. The challenge The study area is the upper river Salzach valley, which comprises the city of Salzburg and ten rather rural communities in the south. A major challenge in this area is the lack of a common green space monitoring system that can be used for planning and management purposes. However, such a system is an essential element for the detection and maintenance of valuable green spaces and supporting authorities in establishing a sufficient supply of high quality green for all residents in near distance. Another problem is the settlement pressure resulting from an increasing population, which leads to conflicts regarding land use prioritisation and the need to preserve and maintain particularly important green spaces. The solution During the UGB project pilot activities, suggestions for the development of a flexible green space monitoring system that helps to assess the values of urban, suburban, and rural green have been made with the help of a GIS-based methodology and green space quality indicators (e.g. recreational infrastructure, presence of water, and share of protected areas). The outputs deliver green space indices showing the recreational and landscape quality of every green space in the study area. As a supplementation of these purely quantitative methods, methods of community involvement can be applied. One example is the collection of qualitative data through surveys, mood-boards etc. among green space visitors that help to find out people’s perceptions and expectations to refine the indicator set used for green space assessment. Preferably, this may be executed during “green” events. In a further step, the results of the assessment were used as input for supply analyses to identify green space accessibility for residents in a short walking distance of 400m. The results of this supply study show undersupply with high quality recreational green spaces in some rural regions, which makes 22

them an important foundation for the improvement of green space quality and supply in these areas. This leads to the necessity of upgrading green spaces with more infrastructural or natural elements. When it comes to the remodelling of green spaces, direct democracy approaches like classrooms or workshops in the park are recommended to collect wishes and feedback during public events. Awareness raising methods point out the values of green and foster private engagement like stewardships. Furthermore, the green space indices have been used to develop a matrix for the definition of priority zones for different green space functions like recreation, economy, and habitat. This matrix also allows an implementation of scenarios, in which the green space types can be weighted specifically and then be combined with supply studies or settlement development forecasts. Multi-stakeholder involvement such as round tables and local action plans might moderate eventually occurring land use conflicts. The lessons learned The GIS methodology and the green space indicators are easily transferrable to other regions depending on analytical goals and available data. Establishing a reliable and well-structured database is a prerequisite for data-intense analyses. It is also important to elaborate precisely on significant indicators of different complexity levels according to a predefined local vision. Before the UGB project pilot actions, a comprehensive indicator set has been developed, which can serve as a model kit for different purposes like the analysis of the recreational value, tourism potentials or ecology.

4.2.2 Green Cadastre Service in Zadar County (Croatia) The local authority Zadar County is the decision-making authority responsible for the Zadar FUA area. In the centre is the City of Zadar with the total number of citizens of over 75.000. The responsibilities of the county include the county assets management, spatial and economic development planning, establishment and management of the local public services. The challenge Admittedly, Zadar area has below average management of the urban green spaces. Although, the city is a central tourist location and has several urban spaces that need direct management to serve their purpose, it is still lacking in the segment of urban planning and general tracking and management of UGS. The solution Within the UGB project this challenge was addressed by creating a Green Cadastre Service. The Green Cadastre Service was supposed to contain a GIS system and a map of at least two green area locations within the Zadar County area (5 were mapped in the end). A suitable indicator system was set up. The goal with the implementation of the Green cadastre was to get a platform for the intelligent management of urban green areas. In order to organize more efficient managing of urban green areas, there had to be a clear and systematic overview of the green area status which has been achieved by establishing this cadastre. Zadra Nova has organized stakeholder meetings where representatives from the city and county authorities/councils attended

The lessons learned It was hard to find an efficient way for engaging the local authorities. Although the stakeholder meetings were successful, delivering of the proper data for indicator calculations did not work effectively. Finally, several data should have been collected from other sources. Further information can be obtained at zadra@zadra.hr ; Phone: +385 23 492 800

4.2.3 Stewardship programme in Budapest (Hungary) The local authority The 12th district of Budapest located on the Buda side of the River Danube is the greenest district of the capital city of Hungary. Budapest’s biggest forests are situated in the district considered as the “lung of Budapest” having green areas being part of the Buda Landscape Protection Area, green corridors and urban green areas having high protection level. The district has several public urban green areas as parks and urban forests. However, the most important green area of the district is the Normafa forest park locating on the ridge of the Széchenyi and János hill including skihouse, running path, playground etc. being the most popular place for active sports and leisure activities regularly visited by residents and tourists of the whole city of Budapest. Besides forest and parks, the district has significant amount of informal public green spaces as unmanaged green squares, single trees or scrubs between buildings, street greenery, green tram tracks, road medians, partly backyards and front yards which also need attention and care. The challenge Green spaces offer an improved quality of life as they not only provide leisure or sports facilities but make the air cleaner, reduce urban noise and even improve the urban climate. Yet if the authorities being responsible for the green areas do not have the capacity to maintain them well, green areas can easily generate conflicts between inhabitants and the responsible authorities. Traditional authority approaches are often not enough or efficient to tackle such conflicts thus a new approach is needed in which green spaces could be managed smartly through cooperation of inhabitants and various authorities. The Municipality of Budapest’s 12th district has realized the necessity of such new approach and has taken steps towards it by implementing a pilot action in the UGB project called Stewardship Program. The solution The goal of the Stewardship Program is to involve residents into the maintenance of informal public green spaces of the district. The stewardship area’s preparation, planting and maintenance is implemented with the following conditions: First, residents apply by providing information/data about the area selected by them, information about the address and/or land registry number of the selected area; 3-4 pictures about the area, which can show the condition, size and location of the area; number of residents intend to take care of the area; contact details of the applicant; further information about the area. Only areas locating inside the border of the 12th district, owned by the Municipality, public green spaces can be involved into the Program. Under the continuous professional support and supervision of the Green Office, the stewards take care of their area which they responsible for, while the Green Office of the Municipality provides the preparation of the areas, create planting concept, give plants for planting and a package of tools for maintenance. The Green Office is the one who coordinates the cooperation between the stewards and the Municipality. The Municipality and the stewards sign a 24

bilateral cooperation agreement which should be prolonged in each year. In the agreement they fix the tasks, responsibilities and the way of follow-upping the work done on the areas. It is possible to join to the Program any time the Green Office of the Municipality continuously accept the applications. The areas are planted in every year in Spring and Autumn. At the time of the application, depending on the size, place, soil type, number of stewards, it will be determined that when the resident can join to the Program which will be fixed in the agreement. So far 26 areas were included into the Stewardship program, while it is expected that there are more small green areas which could be involved, but there is no information about these areas based on which they could be evaluated for inclusion in the Program. As a solution, out of the scope of the UGB project but in parallel with it, a GIS methodology was developed based on the identification of important attributes that urban residents and municipalities assign to these informal green spaces to evaluate them for inclusion to the Stewardship Program. By interviews with the leaders of the Program and the stewards, these attributes were identified. To measure the selected attributes, spatial indicators were generated and visualized on thematic maps applying different GIS tools available in ArcMap10 (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Mul -criteria analysis of the areas of 12th district of Budapest Following it, the indicators were tested, whether they can represent the related attribute, by digitalizing the informal green areas being already part of the Stewardship Program and overlaying this map on each indicator map layer checking the correlation between them. After testing and finalizing the indicators, all produced indicator raster layers were multiplied by a pre-defined weight, according to their importance and relevance, and summarized/overlaid producing a map which includes the most appropriate areas of the district to be included into the program. This complex analysis is called multi-criteria analyses. 25

The lessons learned The main conclusion was that stewards need more â&#x20AC;&#x153;freedomâ&#x20AC;? and ownership in the cooperation. For instance, it turned out from the deep-interviews made with stewards that the Municipality should let stewards to choose their own area, not providing an area selected by the Municipality. They also emphasized the importance of having own contact with the professional gardener of the Municipality. So far, the contact with the gardener was made through the Green Office which was not efficient and generated unnecessary work for the Municipality. Therefore, less control from the municipality would be beneficial for both parties. While, they would welcome more thematic workshops/trainings to increase their knowledge on gardening. The Stewardship program itself as well as the GIS methodology is adaptable for other Municipalities. The GIS methodology can be especially useful for those Municipalities who would like to start similar program but has no information about the possible stewardship areas. By this GIS analyses, the most appropriate areas can be easily detected which can be later visited and included into the program if they are indeed appropriate. The GIS method can be used also another way: if a steward selects an informal green space and propose it to the municipality as a stewardship area, the Municipality can check the area on the maps whether it can be included into the program or not. For instance, if the area is not owned by the municipality or a protected area, the Municipality will suggest to the steward to try to select another area. It can also happen that a resident would like to be a steward but has no any area in his mind. In this case the Municipality can check on the map that which are the closest zones to the address of the resident which has high potential to include informal green spaces. In this case also the network analyses GIS method can be applied where the centre of the service area would be the address of the resident who is looking for an informal green space to take care of it. Further information can be obtained at zoldpont@hegyvidek.hu, katalin.bunyevacz@gmail.com

4.2.4 Involving the community in Maribor (Slovenia) The local authority The Maribor FUA area has a total population of 240.555. The Urban Core of the FUA is the Municipality of Maribor with a total area of 147,466.572 m2 (urban part is 39,738.704 m2) and with a population of 110.543 (2016). Maribor is the second most inhabited Slovenian municipality, it is the administrative, business, educational and cultural centre of the Podravje region. National planning documents define it as a centre of international importance. Maribor has available GIS data of adequate quality, covering green areas defined by planning documents. Maribor Development Agency (MRA) is the regional development agency that carries out general development tasks in Maribor region. The challenge There are several abandoned sites within the municipality of Maribor that need revitalization. However, they are low on the priority list for investments, as there are no immediate inhabitants within the area, as these were former industrial or otherwise degraded areas. One such typical area was identified and used as the pilot case for UGB project. The main challenge was to identify and mobilise the community that could be involved in the planning, due to the lack of residence in the pilot area or its immediate vicinity. For this purpose, the pilot area was subdivided into 3 areas with different target group of stakeholders (3 circles). These groups were consulted but had various interests and various level of motivation for being involved into the revitalization activities. These groups range from public and private owners within the area, users of the services of the public owners â&#x20AC;&#x201C; office building and cultural hub (companies who rent offices, cultural associations that base 26

their activities within the cultural hub) and of services of tenants (such as people attending choir singing, dance practices, literary groups, etc.), illegal users of degraded area (people who use abandoned area for free, however, unsecured parking). The solution The process included the following four approaches of the Community Involvement Model: -

Detecting and defining the community at thematic social events dealing with green issues (Festival dobrega poÄ?utja). Forming a Community Consultative Assembly (CCA) and handing out tasks to its members. Bring them in â&#x20AC;&#x201C; by developing an action plan based around the 3 circles of identified users. Building responsibility to ensure the sustainability of the rehabilitated small-scale area.

The consultative participation was achieved in 4 phases: -

identification of stakeholders to participate in consultations; mobilisation of identified stakeholders to actively participate in consultations; management of the process to achieve joint recommendations and guidelines for regeneration; preparation and confirmation of visualizations to achieve sustainability of the agreed upon achievements.

The self-mobilized participation was also achieved in 4 phases: -

identification of interested public; mobilisation of interested public to participate in providing inputs for the regeneration of UGS; management of the participation to achieve joint recommendations and guidelines for regeneration; confirmation of visualizations to achieve sustainability of the agreed upon achievements.

The stakeholders were identified through desk research and mobilised for participation through: emailing, telephone calls, and face2face meetings. The identification and mobilization of interested public was done through field-work, by visiting the area and directly talking to people, involving them in online and on-the-spot survey. On-the-spot survey provided most inputs. Awareness raising was achieved through participation at social and cultural events, by setting up an online platform and organizing public presentations and exhibitions of the visualizations for regeneration of the UGS. Based upon the feedback received from both participating groups the visualizations were prepared and presented to the stakeholders. Visualizations were extremely successful for generating interest and gaining feedback, which was used for preparation of documentation (conceptual design according to Construction act, and the Project identification fiche for preparation and treatment of investment documents in the field of public finance) for revitalization of the pilot area. Additionally, the arborist report for maintenance of the organ green area of the pilot area and the municipality already started its implementation. The lessons learned Within the process, it was rather easy to define the different groups of stakeholders for the particular case, where the residents are not present. Animating the stakeholders (or interested target groups in general), was more challenging. They are involved only if the personal engagement of the managers 27

of the participation process is encouraging them to participate, otherwise they will not react to indirect communication to participate in the processes. Furthermore, if there is no visible progress or tangible results, most stakeholders will not stay involved, unless they have a direct personal interest in the issues. Majority of decision makers will see a value of such activities only in cases, where this resolves issues within their scope of responsibilities, otherwise they would be perceived as a burden that does not produce concrete results. Therefore, activities raising the visibility of the issue are needed. This was best achieved by the use of visualizations that were presented at a location with a large circulation of miscellaneous public. Such an approach is easily transferred to other similar areas Further information can be obtained at info@mra.si; phone: +38623331300

4.2.5 Witkowice Green living lab in Krakow (Poland) The local authority The Municipality of Krakow governs the second largest city in Poland with a total number of inhabitants of circa 760.000. As the local authority of the city, it is responsible for matters of public interest. Activities carried out by the municipality consist of: municipal assets management, spatial and economic development planning, establishment and management of the local public services. The Krakow Municipality Greenspace Authority is responsible for UGS management and development. Within the UGB project it implemented pilot activities in cooperation with Malopolska Region. Krakow is distinguished by special natural values, near 15% of the city area is protected from intense development, ca. half of the city is covered by master plans. The total area of parks and other public green spaces, squares, cemetery greenery, allotment gardens, etc. is just over 4% of the city's area, although only less than 5% of the city's area is forests. The average estimated distance to the green areas in Krakow is 418 m. The challenge One of the main challenges related to UGS management, in this special case the renewal of Witkowice forest, is to engage inhabitants into consultation process. Most of the inhabitants living by have their own gardens so they didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t treat the Witkowice forest area as a public, common green space and therefore were not very interested in being involved into consultations activities. Before the UGB project pilot action the area had been also noticed many acts of vandalism mainly due to the wild and a little bit abandoned character of this place. Also involving the local authorities from the municipality of Zielonki (the closest and the most important stakeholder) was a great challenge. The solution Knowing the challenges the authorities tried to involve inhabitants into the process in an attractive, interesting and engaging way. A Picnic was organized in the area where the Witkowice Green Living Lab was presented in an active form. Citizens had an opportunity to mark on high resolution posters what they want to have in the forest. Before the picnic a survey was distributed in the school. This ensured the involvment of pupils in the school but also their parents into the consultation process. To make it all more attractive, there was also an art competition entitled "My Witkowice Forest". During the picnic three winners and one special prize were announced.

Picture 1: Consulta on on the spot To make people more familiar with the area an educational walk (professional tour guided by nature and education specialist) was organised. During this people had the opportunity ‘to touch nature’, smell the forest; learn about trees, fungus, birds, animals, ect. Running events, workshops were also organized. Also implementing the elements of the small infrastructure and the bridge helped to raise the interest of the inhabitants of this area. Now it’s getting more and more popular among the Krakow’s citizens. As a remarkable outcome a new playground in the area of Witkowice forest should be highlighted as it will be realized as a result of inhabitants votes through a participatory budgeting process. The cost of realization of this investment is about 42 000 €. Within the Krakow Municipality the value of the Witkowice forest was also appreciated and in the master plans for next 5 years it was decided that the area of the forest will be increased from 15 to 120 ha which among others may be the credit of activities led by the presented activities. The lessons learned The most satisfying elements were the events that, in spite of difficulties, enabled the authorities to reach and popularize the area among many people, often living far from the Witkowice forest. Also the implementation of small infrastructure elements contributed to the success. The largest and most complicated task turned out to be the design and construction of a footbridge over the Bibiczanka River in accordance with the applicable water and construction law. Almost all the other activities (equipment of the educational path, development of the multimedia application) depended on the implementation of the footbridge provided for further part of the park, available on the other side - near the border of the neighbouring Zielonki Municipality. For this reason, the possibility of their simultaneous implementation was significantly limited. Renewal of green spaces with implementing small infrastructure and educational path turned out to be a successful approach. Engaging local inhabitants in the process of deciding and designing helped a lot and these kinds of interactions encourage them to feel more responsibility for that place in the future. Further information can be obtained at sekretariat@zzm.krakow.pl ; phone: +48 12 20 10 240

4.2.6 Cooperation platform in Budapest (Hungary) The local authority The Municipality of the 12th district of Budapest is considered the greenest district of the capital including large public and private urban green spaces. The Municipality consider their urban green spaces a special asset providing significant effort for planning, developing and maintaining them. In order to ensure the effective management of these green spaces the Municipality decided to create a separate department whose main task is to organize the maintenance and upgrade the green spaces of the district. This department is called Green Office which is the first initiative in Hungary to tackle and coordinate residential green issues in general apart from authority-related tasks. The challenge In other Municipalities of Budapest such department as the Green Office has not been created yet where the work of the office is exclusionary dedicated to urban green issues. It is typical that only a few people inside an Investment or Natural Protection department deals with urban green spaces, who often feel alone with their challenges and face difficulties to find support for their initiatives if urban green spaces are not in the actual mainstream policy of the Municipality. Thus, the Green Office received a special attention from the other capital Municipalities and when the leader of the Green Office invited these people for an informal meeting exchanging experiences about urban green issues, they more than welcomed it. The solution This informal meeting with urban green municipality officers turned to be so successful that the Green Office started to regularly organize such meetings called as KöZöld platform. ‘Közöld’ means ‘inform!’ in Hungarian, but ‘zöld’ separately means ‘green’. Four KöZöld meetings have been organised so far with great success between November 2017 to September 2018. In most of the cases, 50% of Budapest’s districts participated. All districts of Budapest are invited to each of the meetings, and it is not required to sign any joint declaration. It is an open platform only facilitated, but not controlled or owned by the Green Office. Each meeting has a dedicated theme to be discussed, so far the following topics were covered: environmental protection in general, tree cadastre, climate strategy, different legislations, maintenance of trees, SECAP, awareness-raising of residents, applications, residential programs like the compost or bench-cutting program and waste management. One of the most direct benefits of Közöld that it provides platform for exchange of knowledge and learning among local authorities, thus creating a cooperation among different local authorities at the same governance level. For instance, the good practice of the Green Office’s bench-tree programme was adapted in other districts as well. As a further significant benefit, the municipality of Budapest capital has started to create a new strategy dedicated to the management of UGSs. On top of these, in the frame of KöZöld, other municipalities were managed to be convinced that it is time to deal with green issues besides the authority-related compulsory tasks. The lessons learned The Municipality of 12th district is very satisfied with the outcomes of the KöZöld platform as it has concrete policy impact. After realising local needs coming from other district level municipalities, the establishment of the KöZöld platform seems a very innovative step, able to generate serious impact on the level of Budapest regarding the dissemination of the “Urban Green Spaces as advocate of proenvironmental thinking” concept. Furthermore, the KöZöld initiative potentially paves the way for new policies not only at the municipality, but at other district level municipalities as well. Further information can be obtained at zoldpont@hegyvidek.hu; phone: +36 1 224 5900/ 5907 30

References Ambrose-Oji, B. et al., 2015, GREEN SURGE, Deliverable 6.1, The governance of urban green spaces in selected EU-cities- Policies, practices, actors, topics. Buijs, A. et al., 2016, GREEN SURGE, Deliverable 6.2, Innovative governance of urban green spaces â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Learning from 18 innovative examples across Europe. Buizer, M., Arts, B., Kok, K. (2011). Governance, Scale and the Environment: The Importance of Recognizing Knowledge Claims in Transdisciplinary Arenas. Ecology and Society 16(1), art 21. EC, 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'. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Climate Action, Environment, Resource Efficiency and Raw Materials.