Utilise planning tools for green and blue-green infrastructure
Existing planning tools, such as blue-green factor and guidelines for green structure can be adapted and supplemented to integrate NBS into zoning planning.
Specific Advice
By adapting existing planning tools for green and blue-green infrastructure (BGI) and supplement with new tools if needed, municipalities can help integrate NBS into zoning plans. This can then lead to more NBS being implemented at a local level. In some cases, existing planning tools and approaches can be utilised or adapted to NBS, while in other cases there is need for additional or new tools and approaches.
When shifting the focus from green and blue-green infrastructure to NBS, it is important to ensure that all aspects of NBS are considered, namely that it needs to address minimum one societal challenge (effectively and adaptively), provide ecosystem services, resilience and benefit biodiversity and human well-being.
Good to Know
Allocating enough space for NBS can be challenging but it is often easier to secure enough space if the topic is discussed early in the planning process.
Advocating for the multifunctionality of NBS and its contribution to more liveable cities, can be crucial to convince developers to prioritise them.
It is essential to ensure that the implemented solutions have sufficient quality and functionality to address the societal challenge(s) in question while also supporting biodiversity.
Concerns have been raised that NBS as described in zoning plans are not implemented during construction. When developing these plans, it is important to clearly define priorities and requirements for NBS. Municipalities should carefully decide what to adopt as provisions versus guidelines.
Context
New planning concepts can be challenging to introduce, as the competence and experiences that have developed over time in the professional, cultural and political context is adapted to current or previous planning concepts. For this reason, it may take time to integrate new concepts like NBS. However, existing planning tools can be used and adapted to encourage NBS through spatial planning.
Some BGIs can be considered NBS while others are not because they are not sufficiently based on natural processes while simultaneously supporting biodiversity. Throughout the Nordics, municipalities are using a range of planning tools. Some are already targeting greenspaces, while others are more general for spatial planning. In some cases, there may also be tools specifically designed to address certain societal challenges.
When deciding to integrate NBS in local planning policy (link to that advice), there are a number of planning tools which can be adapted and adopted to encourage NBS through spatial planning. This still requires consideration of all aspects of NBS. For example, the focus may shift from solely establishing solutions and managing green spaces to also include protecting, conserving or restoring (natural or modified) ecosystems for the purpose of addressing certain societal challenges. The range of societal challenges to be addressed may also be expanded (compared to before) to include climate change, disaster risk reduction, economic development, food security, human health, social justice and water management. And importantly, the solutions need to address these challenges effectively and adaptively, while also providing benefits for human well-being and biodiversity, ecosystem services and resilience. All these aspects need to be considered and addressed to ensure that the solutions qualify as NBS.
Examples and Cases
Nordic examples of planning tools for green and blue-green infrastructure to support NBS:
#NORWAY – Blue-green factor or green norms
Cities in several Nordic countries have implemented factors or norms for how much green space a new development should have. For example, many Norwegian municipalities have implemented blue-green factor (“blågrønn factor”) to encourage using BGI for stormwater management. While some municipalities developed their own version, others are using the version from Standards Norway. Danish municipalities have a similar system with green norms (“grøn norm”).
These norms assign scores for different BGIs such as permeable pavement, meadows, gardens, trees, green roofs and walls etc. Some BGIs have low scores while others have a higher score. The scores are multiplied with the area (m2) covered by each type of BGI. These numbers are then summarised into a total score per m2 for the new development.
Municipalities that have implemented these systems can set requirements or guidelines for how high score new developments should have, by adopting provisions and guidelines in their municipal master plan and zoning plans. While this planning tool can favour some BGIs over others, it is in essence a quantitative tool. It incentivises allocating more space for BGIs and are used by some municipalities to encourage more NBS being implemented. According to Furuseth et al. (2024), some are concerned that this tool alone cannot ensure good and well-functioning solutions being implemented. Therefore, they advise to supplement this tool with documentation requirements regulated in provisions to ensure the quality.
As an example, Stavanger (Norway) implemented several provisions and guidelines for blue-green factor in the land-use element of the municipal master plan, including minimum values for different areas and a standard for documenting BGF measures. The blue-green factor shall be assessed in all zoning plans and in building cases if the zoning plan did not assess the blue-green factor (typically for older zoning plans). The municipality also has other provisions stating that “NBS that form the basis for the blue-green factor and local stormwater management shall not be removed or altered without compensatory measures”, that “all stormwater measures shall be documented digitally (including location)” in the municipality’s system and emphasising that “good function, operation and maintenance shall be ensured”. These exemplify the kind of provisions municipalities can adopt to warrant the quality of the solutions.
More information about the blue-green factor or green norms can be found here:
The City of Stavanger’s municipal master plan: https://www.stavanger.kommune.no/stavanger2040/
The City of Stavanger links to guidance documents and Excel spreadsheet for blue-green factor: https://www.stavanger.kommune.no/samfunnsutvikling/planer/reguleringsplaner/private-planforslag/lenkesamling-reguleringsplan/
Blue-green factor from Standards Norway: https://standard.no/fagomrader/parker-og-grontanlegg/blagronn-faktor/
The City of Oslo’s norm for vegetation and water management: https://www.oslo.kommune.no/plan-bygg-og-eiendom/planer-normer-og-veiledere/kommunale-normer/#toc-5
#NORWAY – Initial site analysis
Norwegian name: Innledende stedsanalyser
The site analysis is a tool for recording qualities and important considerations in an area. This analysis is often encouraged by municipalities in conjunction with zoning plan proposals to ensure that one takes a broader view in the initial phase. The analysis forms the basis for dialogue between the proponent (developer) and the municipality in the planning process.
Urban planners from Stavanger have experienced that this tool enabled them to talk about NBS early in the planning process, and consequently made it easier to allocate space for NBS (Furuseth et al. 2024). The City of Stavanger have adopted provisions in the municipal master plan requiring initial site analysis to be “prepared before the start-up meeting in accordance with Stavanger municipality’s guide for site analyses” (§1.3). It is the proponent (developer) that develop the site analysis with guidance and dialogue with the municipality, which is handed in when submitting the initiative for creating a new zoning plan for the area. Then, the municipality can assess the site analysis including the recommendations before the start-up meeting and then go through the various elements of the recommendations and relevant challenges at the start-up meeting.
Initial site analysis is an example of tools that are used already in many municipalities. However, by focusing more on NBS as part of this process, municipalities can facilitate the discussion hence enable more NBS being integrated into zoning plans.
More information about initial site analysis can be found here:
The City of Stavanger’s guidance document for initial site analysis (‘stedsanalyser’): https://www.stavanger.kommune.no/samfunnsutvikling/planer/reguleringsplaner/private-planforslag/#stedsanalyse
#SWEDEN – 3-30-300 guidelines for urban forestry
The 3-30-300 guideline have been adopted in some Swedish cities to provide equitable access to trees and more green spaces in neighbourhoods for the well-being of humans. In essence, the rule states that everyone should be able to see three trees from their residence, have 30 % tree canopy in their neighbourhood, and live within 300 meters of a high-quality green space. The guidelines have been suggested based on research on health benefits of trees and greener neighbourhoods (Konijnendijk, 2023).
These guidelines have been adopted by cities like Malmö in their municipal master plan (‘översiktsplan’) and Gøteborg in their green plan (‘Grönplan’).
Whether the targets have been met can be assessed using GIS data for land cover and green spaces or trees. For example, a study from 2024 found that the City of Aarhus met the 30 % tree canopy and 300 meters to park targets, but not the goal of three visible trees from every dwelling (Owen et al. 2024). Aarhus municipality has not implemented the 3-30-300 guideline specifically, however they have a goal to plant 10.000 urban trees before 2025 (Aarhus kommune, 2020).
More information about the 3-30-300 guidelines can be found here:
3-30-300 guidelines in Malmö: https://malmo.se/Aktuellt/Artiklar-Malmo-stad/2023-05-26-Annu-fler-trad-at-folket.html
Översiktsplan för Malmö 2023: https://malmo.se/Stadsutveckling/Sa-utvecklar-vi-staden/Stadsplanering-och-bostader/Oversiktsplanering/Oversiktsplan-for-Malmo-2023.html
Grönplan in Gøteborg: https://goteborg.se/wps/portal/start/goteborg-vaxer/sa-planeras-staden/oversiktsplanering/preciseringar-av-oversiktsplanen/gronplan-for-en-nara-sammanhallen-och-robust-stad
Konijnendijk, C. C. (2023). Evidence-based guidelines for greener, healthier, more resilient neighbourhoods: Introducing the 3–30–300 rule. Journal of forestry research, 34(3), 821-830. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11676-022-01523-z
#ICELAND – BLÁGRÆN VATNSLAUSN (BLUE-GREEN WATER SOLUTIONS)
Reykjavík’s
Blágræn vatnslausn
(Blue-Green Water Solution) policy emphasizes the implementation of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) for surface water management in urban areas. This initiative integrates blue-green infrastructure, such as raingardens, to manage stormwater while enhancing the ecological and aesthetic value of neighborhoods.More information about the blue-green water solutions can be found here:
Guidelines on blue-green stormwater solutions in Reykjavik: Blágrænar ofanvatnslausnir. Lausnir við innleiðingu ofanvatnslausna í grónu hverfi.pdf (reykjavik.is)
Learn more
Similar tools as the blue-green factor mentioned in the example below (for Norway) are also used in other countries like Denmark, Finland and Sweden.
Learn more about the green factor (Grøn Norm 2.0) in Denmark: https://www.haveoglandskab.dk/viden/groen-norm-2-0/
Green factor (’grönytefaktor’) in Malmö (Sweden): https://malmo.se/Stadsutveckling/Sa-utvecklar-vi-staden/Natur-och-biologisk-mangfald/Ekosystemtjanster-och-gronytefaktor.html
Blue-green factor in Turku (Finland): https://www.turku.fi/siniviherkerroin
Green factor in Helsinki (Finland): https://paatokset.hel.fi/fi/asia/hel-2023-014300/cc321778-cde0-4ee5-8b70-cc37b441b021
Green factor in Tampere (Finland): https://data.tampere.fi/data/fi/dataset/tampereen-viherkerroin
Green efficiency method in Vaasa (Finland): https://www.vaasa.fi/tietoa-vaasasta-ja-seudusta/kehittyva-vaasa/kaupunkisuunnittelu/kaavoituksen-kehittamishankkeet/vihertehokkuus/
Green efficiency and green roofs in Vantaa (Finland): https://kaupunkitilaohje.vantaa.fi/fi/viheralueet-ja-kasvillisuus/vihertehokkuus-ja-kasvikatot
Sustainable Drainage Systems in Reykjavík (Iceland): https://reykjavik.is/en/green-deal/suds
The 3-30-300 approach are adopted in the City strategy for Grenland (Norway) 2024-2035: https://bypakka.no/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Bystrategi-Grenland-2024-2035_mai-2024.pdf
An academic paper studied whether Aarhus municipality meet any of the components in the 3-30-300 approach. Read more: Owen, D., Fitch, A., Fletcher, D., Knopp, J., Levin, G., Farley, K., ... & Jones, L. (2024). Opportunities and constraints of implementing the 3-30-300 rule for urban greening. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 128393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128393
Aarhus commune (2020) ET GRØNNERE AARHUS Aarhus Kommunes politik for naturen og det grønne. https://aarhus.dk/media/ifvlmne1/et-groennere-aarhus.pdf
International Obligations
All international obligations that the use of NBS work towards, for example the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework when it comes to biodiversity, wetland loss and degradation, restoration, etc. Another example is the EU Adaptation Strategy when it comes to climate change adaptation, where NBS is one of three cross-cutting priorities to integrate into policy.