Climate Change and Spatial Planning: Green Infrastructure Development 1. Introduction The recognition of climate strategies and approaches to tackle climate change’s impact have been rising over the decades. As a new the reality of high temperatures, heat waves, exacerbation of pockets of heat in urban areas, the alteration precipitation regime (higher occurrence of flood and drought events, decrease of natural resources (soil, air and water quantity and quality), agricultural production disruption (food security risk) and the loss and degradation of biodiversity landscape and (current and potential) recreational amenities (UN, 2008;Albers, M & Deppisch, S. 2012; IPCC, 2018). More specifically, spatial planning, green Infrastructure and ecosystem services (which are all closely linked and interconnected) have a proven track in enhancing adaptation and mitigation policies and safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems, but also in providing new conservative, sustainable use methods and socio-economic opportunities concerning human-nature relation (Benedict, M & McMahon, E. 2000; 2013Albers, M & Deppisch, S. 2012; European Commission) This paper seeks to examines the necessity of spatial planning to address climate change through the assessment on the relationship between both as an effective governance tool create, integrate and promote synergies within climate policies and strategies Furthermore, we delve into the critical role contribution and benefits of green infrastructure, within spatial planning, that halt biodiversity and environmental losses, promotes, recognizes and enables the execution of various ecosystems services needed for rural and urban communities’ sustainable development. Lastly, the analysis and comparison of two case study analyses concerning the execution of green infrastructure and spatial planning strategy from Belgium and Portugal will be performed to gain knowledge of the transformative prospects and properties green infrastructure spatial planning and ecosystem services implementation can transform into new opportunities. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Spatial Planning The main focus of spatial planning theory involves policy problems in regard to coordination and/or integration of spatial dimensions of sectors, through the lenses of territorial strategy, to address tensions, and potential contradictions, among the diverse involves stakeholders and their sectoral policy goals (UN, 2008; Wilson, E., & Piper, J. 2010). These scope and sectorial requirements and tasks significantly vary from country to country. However, they still manage to share similarities as dealing with territorial development are essential for a government’s activity and socio-economic development such as transport, agriculture, urban development, etc. (UN, 2008). Therefore, spatial planning seeks to facilitate the decision-making procedure and coordination around improving spatial functions e.g., improving infrastructure, water management, food production, hazard management (Campbell, H. 2006; Wilson, E., & Piper, J. 2010), converting it into an obvious governments instrument in responding to climate change. 2.3. Climate Strategy The experience of climate change has increasingly been felt across the globe, especially in southern-hemisphere and island nations1, as seen from changes in physical systems (e.g. oceanic heat transportation, rising sea levels, storm systems, ice and snow seasonal accumulation) and biological processes (e.g. early springs/summer and change in migration patterns) which are fundamental for the stability of life on Earth. Despite all these “global new tendencies” there has not been a proper agreement in defining climate change, nor it’s parameters (Wilson, E., & Piper, J. 2010) Nevertheless, over the last decades, all levels of governments (local, regional, and national) have been working and attempting to improve their mitigation and adaptation strategies to face the climate crisis. However, due to each output’s knowledge differences and their own policy approaches “developing coherent climate change policies is a complex puzzle of coordinating institutions, developing policy strategies and searching for feasible conceptual frameworks, from 1 The effects of climate change, although global, they are disproportionated the international to the local level, to mainstream climate policy into sectoral and cross-sectoral policies'' (Biersbroek, G.R., Swart, R. van der Knaap, W. 2009, p. 231). Thus, increasing recognition on the linkage and need of both strategies to have a solid chance to steer us into a 1.5 º pathway has been consolidating (Biersbroek, G.R., Swart, R. van der Knaap, W. 2009; Albers, M & Deppisch, S. 2012). Often, climate strategies included and/or taken into consideration how land, infrastructure, natural resources, and other spatial affairs are utilize. regulated, plan, and manage to first understand an area or sector’s given activities, their available instruments (e.g. services and infrastructure) to convey and direct rural and urban development, the requirement to preserve their natural ecosystems and resources, and to (ultimately) establish potential incentives for investments in key areas of actions (UN, 2008). Correspondingly, these matters are the goals that spatial planification theory and practice seek to fulfil and have been becoming increasingly critical for climate governances as a critical regulatory and a development function that enable linkage between economic, social, and environment areas and deliver their collective benefits (UN, 2008; Albers, M & Deppisch, S. (2012) denotes that various studies have shown that spatial planning has contributed (and will continues to do so at an increasing rate) in confronting certain aspects of climate change and delivering urban and regional resilience2 as “spatial planning influences the spatial configuration, type and degree of development of buildings and land use, as well as landscapes and green spaces, [as] it has an important role to play in adapting to [it’s] impacts” (Albers, M & Deppisch, S. 2012, p.1599). Therefore, spatial planning’s “ability to plan, in a democratically accountable way, the activities of economic and service sectors that have spatial or land- use consequences in their wider social and environmental context (… ) [which are] wider than merely coordinating the spatial development of different economic and social sectors” (Wilson, E., & Piper, J. 2010, p.10) are essential to enable a transparent and achievable net change, particularly, in those in transition , due to rapid growth in the development of industrial and residential areas (UN, 2008). 2 Despite the demonstrable benefits of spatial planning practices, it’s confronted by climate change spatial and temporal traits, the growing environmental and socio-economic challenges, and high uncertainty degrees. Thus, the appeal to urban or regional resilience as a solution as it “(…) recognizes both the given uncertainty of climate change and the complexity of cities and regions” (Albers, M & Deppisch, S. 2012, p.1599). However, to unlock the full potential of spatial planning, governments must first revise, reframe and pay attention, through the scientific and social lenses regarding climate change’s attributes, on the creating and promoting relationship, integration and equilibrium between policies and strategies (new and existing), the environment (e.g. lands and natural resources) and the diverse natural processes where they must be base around democratic, subsidiary, participation, integration, proportional and precautionary principle (UN, 2008) to properly design, implement and evaluate strategies. As seen below in the next chapter with our case study. 3. The Case for Green Infrastructure The use of infrastructure has been an indispensable factor for the socio-economic growth of communities, regions and nations throughout history (IPCC, 2018). Especially those closely related to natural ecosystem which services, from nature to people, and provide the foundation for most of the provisions, not only food supply, air, water, and other natural resources, nutrient, pollination and fertilization cycles, but even cultural and societal elements (e.g., cultural inspiration, recreation). These services are multifaceted and vary from urban and rural scale; thus, the diverse typology of infrastructure present to allocate and satisfy societal needs e.g., storm streams; water, air, and soil quality; recreational space (Lennon, M. 2015). However, over the decades most of these infrastructures have aged or come to be obsolete, surpass their capacity or simply fail to keep up with the growing socio-economic and increasing environmental needs require to maintain with the demand and the desires in reducing and restoring degraded areas (Benedict, M & McMahon, E. 2000; European Commission, 2013). As a solution to the multi-layered ecosystem services and requirements that a government pursues, green infrastructure has risen as an approach to bolster these services and promote climate mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development strategies (Lennon, M. 2015). They combine, or even merge, natural and semi-natural extents and networks (e,g, land or water spaces) to promote and improve the delivery of ecosystem services, environmental conditions and citizen’s health and life quality while promoting parts of green economy in the face climate change’s impacts such as soil erosion, sedimentation, water scarcity, and ecological deterioration (Benedict, M & McMahon, E. 2000; European Commission, 2013). Ultimately, green infrastructure has enhancing effects and benefit in public and environmental health, the provision of food, raw materials, drinking water, reduction of natural disasters and improvement of natural disaster response and containment abilities, improvement of landscape quality, and the development of recreation and tourism in urban and rural areas (European Commission, 2013; Samora-Arvela, A., Ferrão, J., Ferreira, J., Panagopoulos, T., Vaz, E. 2017). ALL these benefits are heavily interconnected with climate adaptation and mitigation policies and strategies, as their introduce are into urban and rural areas have proven to enhances carbon sequestration and reduction of urban heat islands3; risk reduction of wildfire and flood hazards from water quantity, quality and drainage regulations; linkage between social and natural habitats; new alternatives recreation opportunities,;and the stimulation of adaptive nature-base educational capacities and knowledge (Samora-Arvela, A., Ferrão, J., Ferreira, J., Panagopoulos, T., Vaz, E. 2017). According Samora-Arvela, A., Ferrão, J., Ferreira, J., Panagopoulos, T., Vaz, E. (2017), green infrastructure is an instrument for spatial planning and ecological structure for the Portuguese territorial management to enhance ecosystem services to the population while influencing and promoting biodiversity conservative efforts. However, municipality efforts have showcased disparity among them, requiring in-depth analysis of their needs (social, economic, and environmental) and categorization of concepts and key instruments and infrastructure necessary to close the gaps (BISE, n/a; Samora-Arvela, A., Ferrão, J., Ferreira, J., Panagopoulos, T., Vaz, E. (2017). 3.1.1. Region of Alentejo, Portugal The establishment of the EU strategy on Green Infrastructure has been deemed critical for to halt the loss of biodiversity that enables ecosystems the various services rural and urban communities need (BISE, n/a ; Samora-Arvela, A., Ferrão, J., Ferreira, J., Panagopoulos, T., Vaz, E. 2017; Santos Vaz, I. 2018,) 3 Implementation of green infrastructure such as green spaces, green roofs and gree walls are interconnected with the reduction of heat islands which reduces consumer’s energy expenditure from heating and cooling system (SamoraArvela, A., Ferrão, J., Ferreira, J., Panagopoulos, T., Vaz, E.2017). Santos Vaz, I. (2018,) provides us with an in-depth scope of the potential establishment of green infrastructure and ecological service of the region of Alentejo4 through the reclassification of landcover maps, based on pre-existing regional masterplan, to grasp at what capacity they have in providing ecosystem services to the population. However, these were centered around regional areas of interest that revolve around soil protection, carbon sequestration, and agricultural production (namely crop, fiber and fodder production). The study highlights the lack of ambition and cooperation from regional municipalities as the sought-after ecological system are mostly center in traditional economic structure, as they exempt surface and groundwater surfaces, materials and energy measurements, cultural importance on ecosystem services (physical and intellectual interaction), and the regional territorial circumstance5. Moreover, some habitats have been excluded from the research as they exclusively provide one type of ecosystem services (e.g. cork oak forests) despite providing high levels socio-economic and biodiversity conservation value. Thus, there is a need for “(…) new methodological approach to map green infrastructure that actively contributes to the preservation and management of the areas that it protects (…)” to effectively develop territorial management tool (Santos Vaz, I. 2018). 3.1.2 Region of Limburng, Belgium A former coal-mining region, the Hoge Kempen National Park (HKNP) is the first national park and a role model for nature conservation in both Belgium and the EU. The project came to fruition after the closure of coal operations during the 1980s, when green infrastructure and restoration initiatives took off in response to the decaying local and regional economy and the pursuit of ecological restoration and development of natural values of the region in the form of eco-tourism and eco-education. The initiative’s success was possible due to the close relationship between the multiple municipalities that inhabited the region, close local and national political cooperation, 4 The PT MAE study for the region of Alentejo, perfome by Nature and Forest Conservation Institute , is the only existing study that that evavluate green infrastructure and ecosystem service (Santos Vaz, I. 2018). 5 According to Santos Vaz, I. (2018). more than 50% of territory, which is not ideal since most of the land is privately owned. and the integration and the cooperation of civil societies6 that sought to utilize the available biodiversity and nature as an asset for sustainable regional economic development. Leading to the creation of a cycling network, the establishment of its national park status in 20066 to improve regional ecological integrity and ecological systems and landscape quality, and the implementation of smart zoning within the park to maximize biodiversity. With a total investment of 120 million euros, 90 million were raised from investments, estimated annual revenue of 24.5 million euros in tourism ((Schops, I. 2011; European Commission, 2013). Moreover, Shaker, M.d & Hermans, E. et.la. (2021) study reports on the plausible improvement, and management of green infrastructure and ecosystem services, through the establishment of a smartphone application, for hiker’s mobility and interaction with HKNP´s and their administrators due to increasing demand for eco-tourism in protected areas which require high level of mobility attention. Allowing for an enhancement of experience for both parties via entry of point of interest within HPKNP, comparison of route parameters (average speed, time and distance), provision of detailed information on point of interest, nature, ecosystems and wildlife (fauna and flora) through user-to-user (e.g. upload of photos and commentaries) and app-to-user interaction. All this ultimately provides data to develop tourists and visitors heat maps to ease analysis and quality improvement for HKPNP’s (hiking trail quality, cleanliness) and ecosystem services management and maintenance for future propose and policies to improve green infrastructure, ecosystem services and hiking experience (Shaker, M.d & Hermans, E. et.la. 2021). 3.2. Comparison The different methodologies on green infrastructures for sustainable development, preservation and enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services between Belgium and Portugal are clear 6 Initially, policymakers empathize project on conventional economic activies. “However, NGO “Regionaal Landschap Kempen en Maasland” (RLKM) was convinced that the available nature and biodiversity was an important asset for the region, and that it could provide an important opportunity for sustainable regional economic development. Eventually, policy makers decided to give the NGO-proposed plan the benefit of the doubt, and seed money was provided by the Government. However, the NGO was challenged to prove that conserving nature would improve the situation of the local communities (Schops, I. 2011, para 1 ). Portuguese case study has shown a lack of vision, ambition and purpose regarding green infrastructure ´s territorial management approach due to the inexistence of guidelines to properly articulate different municipal legal regimens nor how to organize them as each municipality apply them as they seem fit, creates and promote non-continues, non-technical and non-coherent green infrastructure. Such narrow focus on their selected ecosystem services that only seek to improve traditional economic activities, not realizing the potential socio-economic benefits of broader approach of green infrastructures and ecosystem services that benefit a greener and more sustainable lifestyle to the population as seen in the HKNP case study. Overall, future development of green infrastructure in the region of Alentejo can only reach its full potential by re-evaluating, analyzing and including new ecosystem services that can improve the decaying socio-economic and environmental situation of the region 7 (; Samora-Arvela, A., Ferrão, J., Ferreira, J., Panagopoulos, T., Vaz, E. 2017; Santos Vaz, I. 2018; Santos Vaz, I. 2018): Table 1. Comparison of Green Infrastructure implementation in Portugal and Belgium Green Infrastructure (GI) and Ecosystem Services (ES) Robustness of GI and ES planning approach Belgium + Portugal +/(planned around limited regional ES) + Public Initiative (doesn’t lead to enhance ecosystem resilience as it was not purposely planned Alignment of GI with Mitigation and Adaptation Policies + +/(lack of municipality coordination and majority privately owned land limit initiatives) 7 Broadness of GI and ES + - Long-term Regional Vision of GI and ES + +/- Multi-stakeholder Cooperation + - Source: based on Samora-Arvela, A., Ferrão, J., Ferreira, J., Panagopoulos, T., Vaz, E. (2017), "Green Infrastructure, Climate Change and Spatial Planning: Learning Lessons Across Borders" pp.185. 4. Methodology For the development of this essay, a qualitative approach was conducted as it offers straightforward, flexible, in-depth explorations on the selected subjects. The use of secondary data was the main and sole source of information in the development of the paper due to the aforementioned ease-to-use. flexibility and temporary and spatial advantages that it provided. Moreover, acquisition of, mostly contemporary, data was from internet searches that encompass institutional census, governmental studies (European Commission, Biodiversity Information System for Europe) , and academic studies (e.g. master’s thesis, peer-review scientific articles). To guarantee data quality, collected data was narrowed through the selection of key topics via keywords (e.g. impact of spatial planning, climate change, green infrastructure, ecological services) to later be carefully analyzed to properly fit the proposed research questions. All this allows for the acknowledgement of core concepts and differences regarding the relation of climate change, spatial planning, and the potential of green infrastructure for the improvement and expansion of ecosystem services. Lastly it is important to highlight the existence of other national park in the Portuguese territory (e.g. Arrabida, Sintra-Cascais, Serra da Estrela) however due to the limited studies regarding green infrastructure and ecosystem service development potential at a regional level (as seen in selected case studies) certainly limits the research scope. However, It does raise an important socioeconomic and environmental conservative from the Portuguese side on the lack of ambition to expand their ecological service vision in area that are heavily afflicted by environmental and climate problems (Santos Vaz, I. 2018). 5. Conclusion Spatial planning and climate change are increasingly becoming interlinked issues within the different government’s practices and approaches in tackling climate change. Research recognizes the critical role and relation between spatial planning and climate change, and how it will continue to increase in popularity and practices in the design and implementation of climate adaptation and mitigation strategies to reach climate resilience, a sustainable society, and even a green economy. However, to create such a vision, it is suggested that governments must see beyond their (often) “close-minded” traditional socio-economic models and to acknowledge the complexity and diversity of the problem (e.g. social, environmental, cultural) at hand. It is important to point out that spatial planning alone will never suffice in tackling climate change, but would greatly contribute in linkage between policies and promote sustainable practices. These points are put in evidence throughout the regional case studies and comparison on green infrastructure between Portugal and Belgium. The HKNP case study (Belgium) demonstrated the benefits of a broader, ambitious and non-traditional approach, alongside the participation and cooperation among stakeholders and civic society, to the issue that are require to fully implement and promote sustainable solutions. Their focus on the important role that ecosystem services provide to the public has ultimately paid-off, as it has demonstrably generated both socioeconomic (employment, tourism) and environmental (protection of biodiversity) benefits while developing climate resilience and promoting the importance of their natural resources through environmental and sustainable knowledge and education. On the other hand, the Portuguese case study (Alentejo) has showcased negative results, despite being an important regional step forward to develop environmental and climate solutions and resilience. This is due to their overall lack of ambition and variety on their “key” ecosystem services, the lack of cooperation between municipalities, private landowners cooperation, the existence of conflicting legislation and the lack of civic society participation which translated into a concept that, ultimately, benefits, and even promotes, activities that contribute to climate change and environmental deterioration. Therefore, non traditional, broader, ambitious and inclusive approaches on spatial planning practices (e.g. green infrastructures) can provide governments with not only better elements to design, develop and implement climate and environmental solutions, but also allow them to unlock and recognize “unknown” socio-economic opportunities that arise from the protection, maintenance and promotion of biodiversity, natural resources, landscape and their importance as ecosystem services for the public. 6. Bibliography Albers, M & Deppisch, S. (2012), "Resilience in the Light of Climate Change: Useful Approach or Empty Phrase for Spatial Planning? European Planning Studies Vol 21, Issue 10. pp. 1598-1610 https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.722961. Campbell, H. (2006) “Is the Issue of Climate Change too Big for Spatial Planning?”, Planning Theory & Practice Volume 2, Issue 2, pp. 201-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350600681875 Biersbroek, G.R., Swart, R. van der Knaap, W. (2009), "The mitigation–adaptation dichotomy and the role of spatial planning". Habitat International Vol. 33, Issue 3. pp. 230-237. Benedict, M & McMahon, E. (2000), "Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century" Renewable Resouces Journcas vol. nº3 20 (3),Bethesda United States. ISSN : 07386532. BISE (n/a), Portugal: Green Infrastruturel https://biodiversity.europa.eu/countries/portugal/greeninfrastructure. Access on 13/07/2022 15:08. European Commission, 2013, Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital COM(2013) 149. IPCC, (2018): Summary for Urban Policymakers. In: Global warming of 1.5°C Means for Cities. Key scientific findings and policy observations of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C [Bazaz, A. Bertoldi, P. Buckeridge, M. Cartwright, A. De Conick, H. Engelbrecht, F. Jacob, D. Hourcade, JC. Klaus, I. Kleijne, K. Lwasa, S. Markgraf, S. Newman, P. Revi, A. Rogelj, J. Schultz. S. Shindell, D. Chandni S. Solecki, W. Steg, L. & Waisman, H.(eds.)]. In Press. Lennon, M. (2015) Green infrastructure and planning policy: a critical assessment, Local Environment, 20:8, 957-980, DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2014.880411. Samora-Arvela, A., Ferrão, J., Ferreira, J., Panagopoulos, T., Vaz, E. (2017), "Green Infrastructure, Climate Change and Spatial Planning: Learning Lessons Across Borders”, Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, V(3), 176-188. Schops, I. (2011), “TEEBcase: Developing the first national park in Belgium together with stakeholders”. Available at: www.TEEBweb. Shaker, M.d & Hermans, E. et.la. (2021). Facilitating hikers’ mobility in protected areas through smartphone app: a case of the Hoge Kempen National Park, Belgium. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. 25. 10.1007/s00779-020-01367-6. Santos Vaz, I. (2018), "Linking Green infrastructure and land cover mapping in spatialplanning: an exploratory approach" (Master’s thesis), Instituto Tecnico de Lisboa, Lisbon Portugal. Retrieved from UN (2008), “SPATIAL PLANNING Key Instrument for Development and Effective Governance with Special Reference to Countries in Transition”, ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE ECE/HBP/146 Geneva, Swiftzerland. Wilson, E., & Piper, J. (2010). Spatial Planning and Climate Change (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203846537.
