VALUE Added
Work Package 3, Action 9.1
Strategy for Smart Green Growth Participation in Green Infrastructure Planning
September 2015
Christine Rymsa-Fitschen, Karsten Rusche and Jost Wilker
with Ricarda Piel and Mirjam Horstmann
1 Background
In times of declining financial scopes for municipalities and progressive spatial transformation, green
infrastructure moves into focus as an effective way to address environmental, social and economic
problems and to enhance the quality of life (Faehnle et al. 2014, Kabisch 2015). It can cope with and
respond to societal challenges such as urban transformation, demographic change and environmental problems, and it is able to deal with social, environmental and economic issues through the provision of ecosystem services. In several EU strategies, such as the green infrastructure strategy and the
biodiversity strategy, green infrastructure is highlighted as a major contribution to smart and sustainable growth and to the enhancement of ecosystems and their services (European Commission
2011, European Commission 2013). Furthermore it becomes more and more obvious, that efficient
planning of green infrastructure requires proof and participation of stakeholders. Participation ensures the consideration of the stakeholders’ various interests and improves the policy outcomes. The
governance of green infrastructure should be a participatory multi-stakeholder approach since the
government can no longer address the environmental and social problems alone. EU Policy Papers
also stress the need for stakeholder participation in green infrastructure planning for successful implementation (European Commission 2012).
As partners in the VALUE+ project we accompanied the planning and implementation of green infrastructure projects through North-West Europe. Involved stakeholders of six green infrastructure investments in Belgium, the UK, Germany and the Netherlands have been surveyed and interviewed
within the framework of the EU Interreg IVB project VALUE+ to identify their views on participation
methods and tools. All case studies were part of a local or regional green infrastructure strategy,
even though their character varied from the conversion of a former military area to a regional route
of industrial and cultural landscape heritage. The question how stakeholders perceive participation in
green infrastructure planning processes was a key element in our investigation.
The purpose of this strategy paper is to outline the findings of this recent research on stakeholder
participation in strategic green infrastructure planning and to give recommendations on how to improve those participatory procedures.
2 How to improve participation in GI - Main Policy Recommendations
Based on our research results we call for consideration of the following recommendations for a successful participation in green infrastructure planning (Wilker & Rymsa-Fitschen 2015). The subse-
quent bullet points are derived from our lessons learnt in six different case studies in Northwest Europe and information out of relevant literature.
1. Combination of different, tailored approaches to stakeholder engagement to involve all
relevant stakeholder groups
We found out that stakeholders from all case studies rated very highly the need for a combination of different participation methods to ensure broad participation. The choice of the
specific approach should be coordinated with the project’s aim and framing conditions. To
keep the combination effective and target-oriented there is also the possibility of a multichannel concept that links all participation actions.
2. Continuity of participation to ensure the process remains on track
We experienced that gaps in the participation process reduced stakeholders’ engagement.
Keeping people informed about the process and the results is fundamental to keep them motivated. Results of participation processes should therefore be improved by feedback and integration of repeatedly discussion with stakeholders. This also saves time and funds since the
individuals may otherwise quit their participation and the process may have to be restarted.
Project managers as well as engaged stakeholders identified continuity of participation as
very important.
3. Openness about new tools: implementation of e-participation tools such as social media,
GIS, 3D visualisations etc.
New tools such as e-participation or geographic information systems offer a huge potential
for public participation (Brown 2012, Mackrodt & Helbrecht 2013). The internet provides a
new communication and design platform for participation. To our experience green infrastructure stakeholders are interested in being involved by new tools as they may allow improved engagement of certain stakeholder groups (students, young people, business people). At the same time it is important to combine those approaches with classical face-to-face
participation to have an inclusive combination. Otherwise certain stakeholder groups with a
less technological approach can be excluded from the planning process.
4. Implementation of performative participation as a chance to activate the public and especially hard-to-reach groups through a physically active participation approach
We experienced that projects including performative elements assigned good ratings. ‘Performative’ participation describes the on-site activation of stakeholders and is possible on all
involvement levels (Turnhout et al. 2010; Mackrodt & Helbrecht 2013; Wilker & RymsaFitschen 2015). In opposition to classical participation approaches, performative methods focus more on joint actions than on communication. Fear of encounters with others and reservations towards politicians and planners may be overcome due to the low inhibition thresh-
old. For green infrastructure this approach is particularly suitable because of the availability
of sufficient space and to face the current challenges in planning, such as limited resources.
Green infrastructure offers opportunities for stakeholders to design and act in a do-ityourself manner.
5. A high degree of involvement that allows stakeholders to feel responsible for the project
and increases acceptance
In line with the previous call, individuals not only want to be involved early, furthermore they
often prefer to participate to a high extend. Stakeholders would like to have the option of codecision in the project and even further show a desire toward empowerment. But instead of
making use of the full potential of participation methods most participation approaches still
stop on consulting or collaborating. Those gaps in participation processes reduce stakeholder
engagement. With participation methods that allow a high degree of involvement those discrepancies between the desired and achieved levels of stakeholder participation should be
closed.
6. Early involvement of stakeholders and clear rules of participation including information
and publicity regarding the employed participation methods
To our experience stakeholders wanted to have the possibility of being involved at an early
stage of the planning process. Stakeholders feel more appreciated when their opinions and
ideas are requested at the beginning of the planning process, when the potential influence
and the options are still wide. Informing the stakeholders about the participation process
and methods must not be neglected with regard to the stakeholders’ willingness to participate.
3 Summary
Public participation makes an important contribution to green infrastructure planning and implementation. It is essential for more efficient interaction and better accepted projects. A holistic planning
approach on green infrastructure should involve a strategy to combine the knowledge of planners as
well as the local stakeholders (Faehnle et al. 2014). Although the benefits of participation are well
known, there is still a major potential for improvements of participation in green infrastructure projects. Future participation in green infrastructure planning should therefore consider our calls for
improved participation.
New tools (e.g. 3D Visualisations) and approaches (e.g. performative planning) should be applied and
different participation methods are recommended to be combined. We suggest implementing highly
interactive participation methods at very early stages of the planning process that allow a high level
of involvement. The participation process is to be kept continuously ongoing.
Furthermore the maintenance in green infrastructure sites is becoming increasingly important since
long-term management represents considerable potential to save financial resources while improving the ownership and acceptance of a project.
References
Brown, G. (2012): Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) for Regional and Environmental Planning: Reflections on a Decade of Empirical Research, URISA Journal, 25(2), pp. 7-18.
European Commission (2011): Our life insurance, our capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020.
Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the economic
and social committee and the committee of the regions 244
European Commission (2012): The Multifunctionality of Green Infrastructure. Science for Environment Policy. In-Depth Report March 2012
European Commission (2013): Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the economic and
social committee and the committee of the regions. 249
Faehnle, M.; Bäcklund, P.; Tyrväinen, L.; Niemelä, J. & Yli-Pelkonen, V. (2014): How can Residents’
Experiences inform Planning of Urban Green Infrastructure? Case Finland, Landscape and Urban Planning, 130, pp. 171–183.
Kabisch, N. (2015): Ecosystem Service Implementation and Governance Challenges in Urban Green
Space Planning—The case of Berlin, Germany, Land Use Policy, 42, pp. 557–567.
Luyet, V.; Schlaepfer, R.; Parlange, M. B. & Buttler, A. (2012): A Framework to implement Stakeholder
Participation in Environmental Projects, Journal of Environmental Management, 111, pp. 213–
219.
Mackrodt, U. & Helbrecht, I. (2013): Performative Bürgerbeteiligung als neue Form kooperativer
Freiraumplanung, disP - The Planning Review, 49(4), pp. 14–24.
Rymsa-Fitschen, C.; Rusche K. & Wilker, J. (2014): The Need for Participation in Green Infrastructure
Planning - Evidence from North-West Europe, in: Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Eds): Resilience - The New Research Frontier: Proceedings of the 20th International Sustainable Development Research Conference Trondheim 18-20 June 2014. Trondheim, pp. 664–
672.
Wilker, J. & Rymsa-Fitschen, C. (2015): Akteursbeteiligung bei der Planung und Umsetzung Grüner
Infrastruktur, RaumPlanung 180(4), p. 27-33
Turnhout, E.; Van Bommel, S. & Aarts, N. (2010): How Participation Creates Citizens: Participatory
Governance as Performative Practice, Ecology and Society, 15(4). Available at:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art26/# (accessed 25 March 2015).
World Bank (1996): The World Bank Participation Sourcebook. Washington.