Green Infrastructure - Tech 02 2014

EEA Technical report No 2/2014
Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe
ISSN 1725-2237
X
EEA Technical report No 2/2014

Cover design: EEA
Cover photo © EEA
Layout: EEA/Henriette Nilsson
Legal notice
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission
or other institutions of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or
company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information
contained in this report.
Copyright notice
© European Environment Agency, 2014
Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated.
Information about the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa
server (www.europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014
ISBN 978-92-9213-421-1
ISSN 1725-2237
doi:10.2800/11170
REG.NO. DK- 000244
European Environment Agency

Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00
Fax: +45 33 36 71 99
Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries
Contents
Contents
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................... 6
Glossary...................................................................................................................... 7
Executive summary..................................................................................................... 8
1 Introduction and objectives.................................................................................. 14
2 Towards a conceptual framework......................................................................... 17
3 Methodology for the identification of green infrastructure elements.................... 21
3.1 Ecosystems and selected services...................................................................... 21
3.2 Core habitat services........................................................................................ 29
3.3 Processing of data for ecosystem and core habitat services �� 30
4 Results and discussion......................................................................................... 38
4.1 Ecosystem services ......................................................................................... 38
4.2 Core habitat services........................................................................................ 39
4.3 Green infrastructure networks .......................................................................... 42
4.4 Findings for decision-making support ................................................................. 45
5 Limitations, gaps and recommendations................................................................ 47
References................................................................................................................ 49
Annex 1 CLC–Resistance translation......................................................................... 52
Annex 2 Example of application................................................................................ 53
Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe 5

Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
This report has been prepared by the European • Frank Wugt Larsen (EEA)
Environment Agency (EEA) (Gorm Dige) and the
European Topic Centre for Spatial Information • Lubos Halada (ETC on Biological Diversity)
and Analysis (ETC/SIA) (Camino Liquete, Stefan
Kleeschulte, and Gebhard Banko). • Marco Fritz (DG Environment)
The EEA would also like to acknowledge and • Anne Teller (DG Environment)
thank the following persons for having provided
comments and inputs to the draft report: • Joachim Maes (Joint Research Centre)
• Branislav Olah (former EEA) • Patrick Murphy (DG Environment)
• Markus Erhard (EEA) • Lewis Dijkstra (DG Regional and Urban Policy)
• Andrus Meiner (EEA) • Mathieu Fichter (DG Regional and Urban Policy)
• Ronan Uhel (EEA) • Philippe Monfort (DG Regional and Urban

Policy).
6 Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe

Glossary
Glossary
CICES Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services

CIF Common Implementation Framework
CLC Corine Land Cover
COPD Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
CORILIS Corine Lissage
CWD Cost-weighted distance
EEA European Environment Agency
EFIMED Mediterranean Regional Office of the European Forest Institute
ETM+ Landsat-t Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus
EFISCEN European Forest Information Scenario
ESDAC European Soil Data Centre
FCS Favourable conservation status
FSFCC Forest Stock Final Carbon Content
GI Green infrastructure
GIO GMES/Copernicus initial operations
GLS Global Land Survey
GREEN Geospatial Regression Equation for European Nutrient
HNV High Nature Value
IEEP Institute for European Environmental Policy
JRC Joint Research Centre
LUCAS Land use/cover area frame survey
MAES Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services
MAPPE Multimedia Assessment of Pollutant Pathways in the Environment of Europe
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NOX Nitrogen oxides
NUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics
SEBI Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators
SEEA System of Environmental-Economic Accounts
TEP Theoretical ecosystem potential
TM Thematic Mapper
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VOCs Volatile organic compounds
WG RPF Working Group on Restoration Prioritisation Framework

Executive summary
Executive summary
In the European Commission communication Green This is not to say that grey infrastructure
Infrastructure – Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital is dispensable. Viewed functionally, grey
(EC, 2013), green infrastructure (GI) is described as infrastructure facilitates the production of goods
a tool for providing ecological, economic and social and services, and the distribution of finished
benefits through natural solutions, helping us to products to markets. Grey infrastructure also
understand the advantages nature offers human facilitates the provision of basic social benefits
society and to mobilise investments that sustain such as accessibility to services, and enables the
and enhance these benefits. This explicitly relates to transportation of raw materials by road etc. We need
the exclusive use of expensive 'grey' infrastructure the traditional infrastructure, but in many cases
which typically only fulfils single functions it can be reinforced with solutions provided by
such as drainage or transport, whereas nature nature. The key attraction of natural solutions is its
often provides multiple solutions that are also multi-functionality, i.e. its ability to provide several
cheaper, more robust, let alone more sustainable functions and benefits on the same spatial area
economically and socially. (Figure ES. 1); this is recognised by the EU's research
Figure ES.1 GI provides multiple functions
Source: Ecotec & NENW, 2008.

Executive summary
and innovation programme for 2014–2020 (Horizon The objective of this report is to propose a feasible
2020), which calls for nature-based solutions. and replicable methodology for use by different
entities and at varying scales, when identifying
These functions can be environmental GI elements. The proposed methodology will help
(e.g. conserving biodiversity or adapting to climate those policymakers and practitioners define a
change), social (e.g. providing water drainage or landscape GI network to identify areas where key
green space), and economic (e.g. supplying jobs habitats can be reconnected and the overall ecological
and raising property prices). As such, GI has the quality of the area improved. It may also help identify
potential to offer win-win solutions by tackling healthy ecosystems in order to ensure a continuous
several problems and unlocking the greatest supply of valuable services to society, like clean air
number of benefits within a financially viable and water. The design of GI networks following this
framework (EC, 2012). GI can therefore be a methodology may be tailored to the objectives and
highly valuable policy tool to promote sustainable priorities of the practitioners. Numerous policies,
development and smart growth by meeting particularly those related to the environment and
multiple objectives and addressing various territorial cohesion, may benefit from the definition
demands and pressures (EEA, 2011). and implementation of GI networks.
Box ES.1 Main findings and recommendations in the EEA report on Green Infrastructure and
Territorial Cohesion (No 18/2011)
Key principles of green infrastructure should be promoted

Green infrastructure is a strategically planned and delivered network of high quality green spaces and other
environmental features. Land should be designed and managed as a multifunctional resource capable of
delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits, including maintaining and improving
ecological functions. It helps with place-making — recognising the character and distinctiveness of
different locations and ensuring that policies and programmes (spatial planning and other sectors) respond
accordingly. It also aids the achievement of 'smart' conservation — addressing the impacts of urban sprawl
and fragmentation, building connectivity in ecological networks and promoting green spaces in the urban
environment (including through adaptation and retrofitting).
Integration of green infrastructure into policy sectors should be encouraged

The concept of green infrastructure should be promoted to support both environmental policy goals and
certain non-environmental policy goals, and seek opportunities to mainstream green infrastructure into
other policies to realise the potential synergies. Existing legislation should be used to promote green
infrastructure (e.g. the White Paper on Adaptation to Climate Change; Habitats and Birds Directives;
Water Framework Directive; Floods Directive; Marine Framework Directive; and the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directives). The role of spatial planning
should be emphasised in facilitating and delivering green infrastructure, along with a whole range of other
mechanisms such as the use of European and national legislation, guidance/management plans, direct and
indirect funding, national and regional green infrastructural strategies, building control, strengthening the
use of assessment, and communication and capacity building.
Monitoring systems for green infrastructure should be promoted and developed further
Approaches to identifying and mapping green infrastructure at the landscape and urban scales are both
relatively simple and effective. It is recommended that these are developed and promoted further. Work on
integrating the two scales of mapping is considered, including developing the approach to the analysis of
green infrastructure at the urban level by investigating potential methods of linking the Urban Atlas codes
to the benefits of green infrastructure. It is helpful to consider these benefits of green infrastructure in
terms of ecosystem services as part of this development of the methodology. Green infrastructure relevant
data sets should further be analysed and explored to reveal whether the data is suited and organised
in such a way that it can be used for mapping green infrastructure. Definition of criteria to evaluate the
suitability/usefulness of the data should be undertaken with respect to the individual objectives and benefits
they support, the scale and the components they address. Using the opposite starting point should also
be considered i.e. which information (data sets) are currently missing to address green infrastructure
(gap analysis).

Executive summary
The EEA has engaged in GI research in order to countries and local agencies to set priority areas for
support policymaking agents and the public. For GI and to identify potential areas for conservation
example, in 2011, the EEA published the report and restoration. This report also highlights the most
Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion to inform important limitations, gaps and recommendations on
policymakers and contribute to the development this issue.
of the European Commission communication
Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe's GI is evaluated in this report as an ecological and
Natural Capital (EC, 2013). The report underlined spatial concept for promoting ecosystem health and
the importance of developing tools to detect and resilience, contributing to biodiversity conservation,
measure green infrastructure, such as environmental and benefiting humans by promoting the delivery of
assets and landscape quality. These tools are ecosystem services. The multifunctionality of GI thus
required for national and regional planning to set constitutes the backbone of this analysis; the relevant
priorities and targets more effectively. The 2012 ecosystem services covered include climate change
European Commission report The multifunctionality mitigation, provision of key habitats to biota, and
of green infrastructure, also refers to knowledge gaps habitat connectivity.
concerning GI, in particular information gaps and
challenges linked to the measurement of GI. The proposed methodology has two entry points:
On the basis of these reflections, the methodology • one based on the assessment and mapping of
introduced in this study can shed some light on the areas with a good capacity to deliver regulating
links and connections related to the concept of GI and and maintenance ecosystem services (in this
support its further development. Moreover, by 2015, case, eight ecosystem services: filtration of air
the European Commission will review the extent and pollutants by vegetation, erosion protection,
quality of the technical and spatial data available for water flow regulation, coastal protection,
decision-makers in relation to GI development, to pollination, maintenance of soil structure and
which this study may contribute. quality, water purification, carbon storage and
sequestration), and
Land use and spatial planning in the EU is the
exclusive competence of Member States, due to the • another based on the identification of key habitats
subsidiarity principle. The goal of this study is not to biota and the analysis of connectivity among
to define the 15 % restoration target settled in the them (in this case, large forest-bound mammals).
European Union 2020 Biodiversity Strategy (see
Box ES.2). Instead, this study aims to illustrate a The data needs, processing steps, results and
spatially explicit methodology that can be tested by interpretation, summarised in Figure ES.2, are
detailed in this document.
Figure ES.2 Work flow of the methodology proposed in this report

Executive summary
Box ES.2 Illustrative example of the 4-level approach on ecosystem restoration
The approach divides the continuum of ecosystem conditions from poor to excellent into four distinct levels.
For each level there are sets of ecosystem descriptors and associated threshold values that are regarded
as typical for that level. The 4 levels and the associated descriptors are tailored to each ecosystem type.
For certain ecosystem types, in particular the 'transformed ecosystems' under level 4, it is recognised
that the objective is not necessarily to restore a location to its original, natural conditions. In most cases,
implementation of restoration measures in these transformed ecosystems will not result in a non-degraded
situation, but degradation will be reduced to acceptable levels.
Levels Types of areas
Level 1 Satisfactory abiotic conditions. 'Wilderness' areas and N2000

Key species, properties and habitats and species in
processes of ecosystem patches favourable conservation status
and their functions, at site level (FCS), rivers and lakes in good
and at landscape level, are in ecological status (GES), marine
good to excellent condition. ecosystems in GES, …
Level 2 Satisfactory abiotic conditions. N2000 habitats and species not

D R Some disrupted ecological in FCS, …
E E processes and functions, either
at site level or at landscape
G S
level or at both levels. Reduced
R T or declining diversity and key
A O species compared to L1 but
retains stable populations of
D R
some native species.
A A
T T Level 3 Highly modified abiotic Non-protected rural areas, not
conditions. Many disrupted including intensive agriculture
I I
ecological processes and
O O functions, either at site level or at
N N landscape level or at both levels.
Dominated by artificial habitats
but retains some native species
and stable populations.
Level 4 Highly modified abiotic 'Heavily modified ecosystems'

conditions. Severely reduced (e.g. Intensive agriculture,
ecological processes and build urban areas, roads,
functions, both at site level and airports, brownfield areas,
at landscape level. Dominated heavily modified water bodies);
by artificial habitats with few heavily degraded 'natural' and
and/or declining populations of 'semi‑natural' ecosystems
native species; traces of original
ecosystem hardly visible.
Source: ARCADIS, 2013.

Executive summary
This procedure has been tested using European could be improved with some protection
Union territory as a case study. The resulting or restoration ('R'). The upgrade of these GI
European GI networks are based on the best elements to the GI network 'C' would increase its
information currently available at European level; ecological and social resilience.
any improvements on the input data will further
refine the results. The results indicate that 27 % of EU-27 might be part
of the GI network 'C', with the largest contribution
The identified and mapped GI elements are coming from the areas with the highest capacity
integrated into two GI networks, as aggregated and to provide ecosystem services. There is a large
represented in Map ES.1. They represent an example coincidence (spatial overlap) between the key
of identification and mapping of GI networks in service areas and the key habitats for mammals.
Europe using the methodology which is described in The GI network 'C' can be ascribed to level 1 of
this report. the 4-level concept for restoration (see Box ES.2).
Conversely, 17 % of EU territory might correspond
• GI conservation network ('C') comprises to the GI network 'R', mainly defined by the limited
areas providing key ecological functions, service areas. This GI network could correspond
both for wildlife and for human well-being. to level 2 of the 4-level concept for restoration. The
Conservation must be given priority in order to rest of European territory (56 %) did not qualify to
maintain essential connectivity of natural and form part of any GI network (with the assumptions
semi‑natural habitats. and thresholds fixed in this example), and can be
considered as levels 3 and 4 of the 4-level concept for
• GI restoration network ('R') still provides restoration.
important ecological functions, but its capacity
Map ES.1 Mapping of the potential European GI networks

Executive summary
The delimitation of the GI elements shown in above. The results from this study are based on
the figures of this report is a trial testing of the current data availability and methodological work
proposed methodology and should be adapted to undertaken by the EEA. They capture, for the first
the objectives and criteria of each practical land time at EU level, two of the main elements for GI:
management case. The types of physical features that the delivery of multiple ecosystem services, and the
contribute to GI are diverse, specific to each location provision of habitat services to biota and habitat
or place and very scale-dependent. connectivity. This should invite further and more
refined exercises and discussions on mapping
It should be noted at this point that European possibilities for the GI concept, including the subject
Commission policy does not propose using one or of whether the priorities for the two mapping strands
two GI networks in particular, like those mentioned outlined in this study adequately identify GI.

Introduction and objectives
1 Introduction and objectives
The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (1) has an For Action 5, which is to map and improve
ambition to strengthen the knowledge base to knowledge of ecosystems and their services in the
underpin policy with up-to-date scientific data and EU, Member States and the European Commission
information, including mapping and assessing the recently developed and published an analytical
state of ecosystems and their services in Europe. framework for the mapping and assessment of
Within this strategy, Target 2 aims at maintaining ecosystems and their services (MAES) report (2).
and restoring ecosystems and their services by 2020 Action 6 sets priorities to restore GI (6a) and
by establishing a Green Infrastructure (GI) and promote its use (6b). For Action 6a, Member States
restoring at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems (see will assist the European Commission in developing
Figure 1.1 and Box ES.2). Several actions support the a strategic framework to set priorities for ecosystem
realisation of Target 2. In particular, Action 5 aims restoration at subnational, national and EU levels.
to improve the state of knowledge on ecosystems For Action 6b, the European Commission has
and their services. More specifically 'Member States, committed to develop a GI strategy that promotes
with the assistance of the Commission, will map and the deployment of GI in the EU, both in urban and
assess the state of ecosystems and their services in rural areas.
their national territory by 2014, assess the economic
value of such services, and promote the integration This GI proposal mainly feeds Action 6b of the
of these values into accounting and reporting EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. However, future
systems at EU and national level by 2020' (EC, 2011). improvements of this approach are expected from
Many of these ecosystem services are being used the integration of Action 5 maps and assessments
as if their supply is unlimited and they are often and other on-going ecosystem assessments within
considered free commodities; an understanding and the EEA. Moreover, the proposed methodology and
recognition of their true value is lacking. results can help highlight priorities for restoration
(Action 6a), testing the impact of biodiversity
As stated in the communication Roadmap to a programmes (Action 7a) and planning a 'no net
Resource Efficient Europe (EC, 2011a), failure to loss' strategy (Action 7b) (Figure 1.1). Hence, in
protect our natural capital and properly value our the coming years the results of this report may be
ecosystem services must be addressed as part of considerably improved by the integration of newly
the drive towards smart, sustainable and inclusive available information.
growth — the EU's priority for Europe 2020. In this
context, GI is clearly identified as an important step Similarly, this study in particular and Target 2 in
towards protecting our natural capital. general could be improved in quality and resolution
in the near future with the results and conclusions
The Common Implementation Framework (CIF) coming from Targets 3, 4 and 5 (3) (e.g. state of
of the Biodiversity Strategy 2020 includes six particular forests, fish species distribution and
mutually supportive and interdependent targets interaction, relation of agricultural practices and
(see Figure 1.1). Addressing the main drivers of biodiversity, spread and impact of invasive alien
biodiversity loss, these targets will reduce the main species). At the same time, Target 2 results can help
pressures on natural habitats and ecosystem services to achieve Targets 1 and 6 (e.g. comparing data‑poor
in the EU by anchoring biodiversity objectives in key and richer areas and approaches, integrating
sectoral policies. connectivity between protected areas and ecosystem
(1) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/brochures/2020%20Biod%20brochure%20final%20lowres.pdf.
(2) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper2013.pdf.
(3) Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to biodiversity (Target 3), ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources
(Target 4), and combat Invasive Alien Species (Target 5).

Figure 1.1 CIF of the Biodiversity Strategy 2020
Note: WFD: the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC); MSFD: Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive
2008/56/EC); GES: Good Environmental Status.
services). Target 2 in general and GI in particular The use of GI can help effectively implement policies
will benefit from the inputs and information whose desired objectives call for nature‑based
produced under Targets 3-5. Thus, this report should solutions. In the Commission's proposals for the
be considered as a preliminary approach to define Cohesion Fund, the Common Agricultural Policy,
and map GI. Horizon 2020, LIFE, the European Maritime
and Fisheries Fund, and the European Regional
The European Commission Communication Development Fund (4), GI is specifically identified as
confirms that policy is already acknowledging one of the investment priorities (5). GI is recognised
GI. This communication proposes the a working as contributing to Regional Policy and sustainable
definition of GI as 'a strategically planned network growth in Europe. Systematically including GI
of natural and semi-natural areas with other considerations in the planning and decision-making
environmental features designed and managed process will help reduce the loss of ecosystem
to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services'. services associated with future land take, and
It incorporates green spaces (or blue if aquatic can help improve and restore soil and ecosystem
ecosystems are concerned) and other physical functions.
features in terrestrial (including coastal) and marine
areas. On land, GI is present in rural and urban The objective of the current report is to propose,
settings. develop and test a theoretical framework for the

identification and mapping of GI elements at spatial planning by identifying multifunctional

landscape level, taking into consideration their zones and by incorporating habitat restoration
multifunctional character and the potential of measures and other connectivity elements into
ecosystem services' supply. various land use plans and policies. Moreover,
the study puts the GI analysis in the context of
In particular, the study focuses on GI support for Biodiversity Strategy implementation (what can
the provision of habitat to biota, the connectivity be done today, and what will future developments
of habitats and their protection, and the delivery be), in terms of available data and connections with
of ecosystem services. It also promotes integrated other targets and actions.
(4) COM(2011) 612 final/2, COM(2011) 614 final.

(5) http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/guide_multi_benefit_nature.pdf.

Towards a conceptual framework
2 Towards a conceptual framework
The ecosystem concept describes the The spectrum of services varies with scale and
interrelationships between living organisms and ecosystem type — not all GI elements need to
the non-living environment. The Convention of deliver all services, but normally healthy ecosystems
Biological Diversity (CBD) defines an ecosystem provide many of them. In other words, GI elements
as a 'dynamic complex of plant, animal and perform a number of broad functions such as
micro‑organism communities and their non-living protecting ecosystem state and biodiversity,
environment interacting as a functional unit'. improving ecosystem functioning and promoting
The ecosystem approach aims at an integrated ecosystem services, promoting societal health and
management of land, water and living resources that wellbeing, and supporting the development of a
promotes conservation and sustainable use in an green economy and sustainable land and water
equitable way (6). management (EC, 2012).
In the fields of nature conservation and biodiversity, The roles of GI elements do not always fall into
the common meaning of the term 'habitat' is a distinct categories during practical implementation.
group of animals and plants in association with They are highly interdependent. For example,
their environment. Habitat services highlight the societal wellbeing in coastal and river areas depends
importance of ecosystems to provide habitat for on flood retention by wetlands or natural drainage
migratory species and to maintain the procreation systems, which in turn depend directly on the
and viability of gene-pools. Habitats considered by provision of ecosystem services, such as soil and
experts to require particular attention at a European water retention. These in turn are highly reliant on
scale are covered by the EU Habitats Directive. biodiversity to uphold the health of the ecosystems
There are currently 231 habitat types listed on to provide ecosystem services (EC, 2012). Another
Annex I of the Habitats Directive (7). example is the case of Natura 2000 sites which are
key natural areas but, with the increasing emphasis
Ecosystem services are the contributions that on ecosystem protection, they tend also to include
ecosystems make to human well-being (see Box 2.1). elements of ecological corridors and buffer zones.
These services are outputs of ecosystems (whether
natural or semi-natural) that most directly affect the Identification of GI elements can thus be approached
well-being of people. A fundamental characteristic at different scales (termed rural and urban in the EC
is that they retain a connection to the underlying communication on GI), depending on the study's
ecosystem functions, processes and structures that objective.
generate them (8).
• Landscape-level analysis (at a proposed
One of the major attractions of GI is its ability to resolution of 1 km) is to identify rural GI
perform multiple functions on the same piece of elements or ecosystem services' functions
land and/or water. The benefits are expressed in (capacity). The connectivity among different GI
functions and services provided by ecosystems, elements has to be analysed on a case-per-case
which are the basis for GI. They include basis, since it might not be necessary for all rural
provisioning services such as fresh water and landscapes.
wood; regulating and maintenance services such as
pollination and climate control; and cultural services • Local-scale analysis (at a recommended
such as recreation and cultural benefits. resolution < 100 m) is to identify urban GI, parks
and green patches, among others. Connectivity
(6) http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/ecosystems-and-habitats.
(7) http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/ecosystems-and-habitats.
(8) http://cices.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/CICES-V43_Revised-Final_Report_29012013.pdf.

Box 2.1 Ecosystem services
The hierarchical structure of The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) (9)
has been designed so that the categories at each level are non-overlapping and without redundancy. The
following definitional structure has been recommended.
1. Provisioning services: All nutritional, material and energetic outputs from living systems. In other
words, they are products obtained from ecosystems such as food, fresh water, wood, fibre, genetic
resources, medicines, etc.
2. Regulating and maintenance services: Covers all the ways in which living organisms can mediate or
moderate the ambient environment that affects human performance. It therefore covers the degradation
of wastes and toxic substances by exploiting living processes; by reconnecting waste streams to living
processes it is in this sense the opposite of provision. Regulation and maintenance also covers the
mediation of flows in solids, liquids and gases that affect people's performance, as well as the ways living
organisms can regulate the physico-chemical and biological environment of people.
3. Cultural services: Covers all the non-material — and normally non-consumptive — outputs of
ecosystems that affect physical and mental states of people. It includes the benefits people obtain from
ecosystems, such as spiritual enrichment, intellectual development, recreation and aesthetic values.
can be essential in these networks. There are • The multifunctional character of GI is addressed
also some differences in the approach: urban by considering ecosystem services delivery
GI includes green areas that provide multiple (including climate change mitigation), provision
ecosystem services, while rural or landscape of habitat to biota, and habitat connectivity.
GI tries to prioritise within these. It should be
recognised that urban areas often benefit from • The assessment considers ecosystem services (in
peri-urban GI services such as the provision particular regulation and maintenance services)
of drinking water and fresh air. In rural areas, as well as key habitats as starting points for GI
GI features may also be beneficial to the urban mapping.
population, as services produced in rural areas,
such as flood retention, can be consumed in • The framework proposes a general solution that
urban spaces. works with today's knowledge and data, but
is open for improvement as soon as more and
The development of a conceptual framework for the better input data become available.
definition and mapping of GI elements should be
considered as a first step to produce a methodology • The resulting GI network is based on the best
that can be used as a test case for assessing a information currently available at European
number of ecosystem services, habitats and their level; any improvements on the input data side
connectivity. The advantage with this methodology will help refine the resulting network of GI
is that it can be replicated when data availability elements. Other approaches might also be used,
improves and hence aids the identification of GI depending on the goals of the mapping exercise.
elements at lower scales. For the current task, the This methodology to identify GI elements can be
methodology is based on a number of prerequisites used by different entities and at different scales;
and assumptions, which are set out below. it can be tailored to the objectives and priorities
of the practitioners.
• The work is focused on the landscape level of GI.
The selection of regulating and maintenance
• The proposed spatial resolution is 1 x 1 km. ecosystem services for this first Europe-wide GI
(9) http://cices.eu.

mapping exercise is linked to one of the aims of obtained from earlier results (see Section 3.1) usually
GI in the EC communication, specifically that of requires prior mapping of ecosystem types, their
'protecting and enhancing nature and natural quality and/or their functions. The second stream of
processes'. This goal is covered in the areas that analysis is habitat suitability mapping or mapping
deliver regulating and maintenance services, while of key habitats for certain functional groups of
most of the provisioning and cultural services are interest (in this case, large mammals). The study
driven by human inputs and needs, and do not differentiates between key/core habitats usually used
necessarily enhance natural processes (see trade-off as reproducing, wintering or foraging habitats, and
analysis and conclusions in Nelson et al., 2009; and temporal habitats used for migration or as secondary
Maes et al., 2012). By concentrating on regulating habitats.
and maintenance services, an improvement in the
GI network will enhance the state of the ecosystems Having identified the spatial coverage of the
and natural processes. key ecosystem and ecosystem services, the next
step in the assessment is the spatial analysis
The overall concept of GI mapping is based and the analysis of connectivity among habitats.
on the steps summarised in Figure 2.1. The This involves the identification of gaps and the
assessment has two entry points that illustrate the establishment of specific thresholds and criteria,
multi‑functionality of GI: habitat provision and for example habitat suitability modelling which
its connectivity, and ecosystem services) through can includes the potential demand for a given
two interconnected streams of analysis. The first service, the socio-economic factors, or consideration
stream of analysis is the assessment and mapping for endangered species. The resulting landscape
of regulating and maintenance ecosystem services. elements are then aggregated for a proposal of
Here areas are differentiated by maximum and a GI network that identifies potential areas for
moderate capacity to deliver ecosystem services, conservation and/or restoration based on the
which again are related to the condition of the delivery of good ecosystem services, key habitats
ecosystems. The ecosystem services mapping and their connectivity.
Figure 2.1 Overall methodological concept of the proposed analysis

The study's anticipated outputs (green-shaded boxes key service areas, limited service areas and key
in Figure 2.1) are as follows. habitat areas would be mostly 'core areas — outside
protected areas'. They may also overlap with 'core
• Key service areas — ecosystems (GI elements) areas/protected areas' and with other categories
that have the highest potential to provide in the table proposed by the EC. The connectivity
regulating and maintenance ecosystem among our key habitat areas could be considered
services (10). These GI elements should be 'natural connectivity features'.
addressed for conservation and protection
purposes. This report intentionally differentiates between areas
that deliver ecosystem services and key habitats for
• Limited service areas — GI elements that have biota, in order to achieve the following.
moderate potential to provide regulating and
maintenance ecosystem services. These GI • To be able to address the issue of GI
elements could be improved or restored. multifunctionality.
• Key habitat areas — GI elements that provide • To differentiate between GI elements where
key habitats to different species or functional connectivity is judged relevant (e.g. breeding
groups for shelter, food or reproduction. areas for specific species) and those where
These GI elements should be addressed for connectivity might not be necessary
conservation and protection purposes. (e.g. ecosystems providing pollination with
ecosystems providing mass flow mediation, to
• Connectivity between those key habitat areas. mention just a couple of unrelated ecosystem
The results from this connectivity analysis can services). Hence, the connectivity analysis here
be used for network development, and will is exclusively related to habitats, and much
potentially highlight areas for improvement or less so to the areas that deliver other ecosystem
restoration. services, since the latter must be analysed case
by case.
These outputs and the terms used to define them
are directly linked to the analysis developed in this • To accommodate the traditional conservation
report, and do not aim to define new categories of initiatives based on protected areas, as well
GI elements. If these outputs are linked with the as the recent requirements focused on natural
GI multiscale elements defined by the EC (11), the capital.
(10) The areas with the maximum capacity to deliver regulating and maintenance ecosystem services enhance beneficial natural
processes, and may also boost the delivery of other provisioning and cultural services. On the contrary, the areas with high
potential to deliver provisioning and cultural services are highly influenced by human interests and energy/capital inputs, and
cannot be included directly as part of the GI. In the conceptual framework, those areas will form part of another GI level that could
be called green use.
(11) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/Table%203%20Gi.pdf.

Methodology for the identification of green infrastructure elements
3 Methodology for the identification of

green infrastructure elements
The overall objective of this study is to identify landscapes and ecosystems to a GI network as
potential GI elements through identifying areas healthy ecosystems delivering multiple services, it is
that provide multiple and high-quality ecosystem important to consider the quality of their ecosystem
services, and areas that provide key habitats to biota services. This quality is related to the capacity
at landscape level. For the assessment of ecosystem or potential of ecosystems to deliver ecosystem
services and their condition, the best available data services, as indicated in the 'cascade model' being
describing services' capacity at European scale are followed in the implementation of Target 2: Action 5
used (see Table 3.1). The distribution of key habitats of the Biodiversity Strategy (Maes et al., 2013), and
at landscape level is approximated by the potential in other scientific literature.
living space of large forest-bound mammals, but
other groups and species should be incorporated The cascade model links biodiversity and
in future. The output of the different input layers ecosystems to human well-being through the
(ecosystem services, key habitats, and habitat flow of ecosystem services (de Groot et al., 2010;
connectivity) are finally combined and interpreted Haines‑Young and Potschin, 2010). This model is
to form a network of potential GI elements. especially useful for framing indicators of ecosystem
services with multiple perspectives, objectives and
scales.
3.1 Ecosystems and selected services
In the cascade model (see Figure 3.1) the ecological
GI is understood to be the result of a network components are organised into ecosystem structures
of natural and semi-natural areas designed and and they interact through ecosystem processes
managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem (Step no 1). The biophysical structure and processes
services. In order to assess the contribution of of an ecosystem determine its functions (Step No. 2),
Figure 3.1 Ecosystem services cascade model
Note: Modified from de Groot et al., 2010, and from Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010.

Table 3.1 Selection of regulating and maintenance services from the Common International
Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) classification (v4.3) to define GI
elements and available proxies for their quantification
CICES V4.3 Green infrastructure approach
Section Division Group Selected services and short definition Available proxy for
service capacity
Regulation and Mediation of Mediation by Filtration of pollutants by vegetation Deposition velocity of

maintenance waste, toxics and ecosystems (also known as air quality regulation): air pollutants on leaves,
of ecosystem other nuisances capacity of ecosystems to capture in particular dry NOX
services and remove air pollutants in the lower deposition velocity (Maes
atmosphere. et al., 2011)
Mediation of flows Mass flows Erosion protection: potential of ecosystems Erosion control map
to retain soil and to prevent erosion and (Maes et al., 2011)
landslides.
Liquid flows Water flow regulation: influence Aggregated soil
ecosystems have on the timing and infiltration (Maes et al.,
magnitude of water run-off and aquifer 2011)
recharge, particularly in terms of water
storage potential.
Coastal protection: natural defence of the Coastal protection
coastal zone against inundation and erosion capacity (Liquete et al.,
from waves, storms or sea-level rise. 2013)
Maintenance of Lifecycle Pollination: potential of animal vectors Pollination potential
physical, chemical maintenance, (bees being the dominant taxon) to transport (Maes et al., 2011) and
and biological habitat and gene pollen between flower parts. selected ecotones
conditions pool protection
Soil formation and Maintenance of soil structure and Soil structure indicator
composition quality: the role ecosystems play in (Kleeschulte et al., 2012)
sustaining the soil's biological activity,
physical structure, composition, diversity and
productivity.
Water conditions Water purification: the role of biota in In-stream nitrogen
biochemical and physicochemical processes retention efficiency (Maes
involved in the removal of wastes and et al., 2011)
pollutants from the aquatic environment.
Atmospheric Carbon storage and sequestration: the Carbon stocks from the
composition and influence ecosystems have on global climate carbon accounts (Simon
climate regulation by regulating greenhouse and climate active et al., 2012)
gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the
atmosphere.
Note: By adopting the CICES general structure, our integrated MAES classification can be directly linked with the framework of
the UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounts (SEEA) and with several standard product and activity classifications,
namely the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, the Central Products Classification, and
the Classification of Individual Consumption by Purpose.
which are a subset of the ecological interactions As a starting point for the establishment of a
defined in this context as 'the capacity of natural network of potential GI elements, the present study
processes and components to provide goods and addresses multiple regulating and maintenance
services that satisfy human needs, directly or ecosystem services where spatially explicit
indirectly' (de Groot at al., 2002). Functions that data exist, and which can be differentiated with
ultimately contribute to human well-being create respect to the quality (capacity) of the service they
the actual flow of ecosystem services (Step No. 3), provide. Normally there are no primary data for
normally a rate or magnitude per time. This flow measuring regulating and cultural services, so their
may be translated into specific societal benefits (Step quantification and mapping must rely on different
No. 4); different methodologies then allow allocation proxies (Maes et al., 2013). Hence, this study
of monetary or alternative values to those benefits focuses on the available proxies or indicators that
(Step No. 5). Following this scheme, the potential quantify the natural capacity to provide regulating
of an ecosystem to deliver high-quality services is and maintenance services, as summarised in
measured by its function or capacity (Step No. 2). Table 3.1.

3.1.1 Description of input data Erosion protection
Air quality regulation Accelerated soil erosion by water as a result of

changed patterns in land use is a widespread
Pollutants can be removed from the atmosphere problem in Europe. By removing the most fertile
through deposition or by conversion to other forms. topsoil, erosion reduces soil productivity and,
Pollutants are deposited on the Earth's surface where soils are shallow, may lead to an irreversible
via dry deposition (mainly gaseous sulphur and loss of natural farmland. The capacity of natural
nitrogen compounds) and wet deposition (namely ecosystems to control soil erosion is based on the
aerosols and soluble gases). Direct deposition to ability of vegetation (i.e. the root systems) to bind
vegetation (dry deposition) is an important pathway soil particles and to reduce wind/water speed, thus
for cleansing the atmosphere, and is mainly affected preventing the fertile topsoil from being blown or
by the height of the vegetation and the leaf area washed away by water or wind.
index.
The Soil Erosion Risk Assessment (MESALES)
Data from Maes et al. (2011) are used on deposition model from the European Soil Data Centre (ESDAC)
velocity as an indicator of the capacity of ecosystems uses data on land use, slope, soil properties and
to capture and remove air pollutants, as proposed climate to predict seasonal and annual averaged
in previous studies (Escobedo and Nowak, 2009; soil erosion. The map of annual soil erosion risk
Karl et al., 2010). Maps representing the dry was intersected with a map that retains the Corine
deposition velocity of nitrogen oxides across Land Cover (CLC) classes with natural vegetation.
Europe are based on parameterisation as used in the The resulting map was used to spatially identify
Multimedia Assessment of Pollutant Pathways in the ecosystems that are situated in areas of different
Environment of Europe (MAPPE) model (Pistocchi, erosion risk, giving more weight to ecosystems in
2008). areas with high erosion risk (five classes, ranging
from very low to very high). This indicator is
Potential relevance of this ecosystem service for assumed to represent the capacity of ecosystems to
policy: Air quality is a significant factor affecting provide erosion control services.
human well-being. Low air quality is one of the
factors triggering diseases like asthma and chronic Potential relevance of this ecosystem service for
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These policy: Soil erosion due to water and wind causes
diseases are observed at increasing rates in Europe a qualitative degradation of agricultural areas. It
and present important health and economic costs for may generate losses in productivity, water and
national economies.
Box 3.1 Benefits of GI: air quality regulation
GI such as vegetation can reduce ground-level

ozone by lowering air temperatures, reducing power
plant emissions associated with air conditioning
and removing air pollutants, among other benefits.
Particulate matter refers to the tiny bits of dust,
chemicals, and metals suspended in the air. Because
particulate matter is so small, it can enter into the
lungs and cause serious health effects. Forests,
parks and other green infrastructure features can
reduce particulate pollution by absorbing and filtering
particulate matter (12).
Photo: © Pawel Kazmierczyk
(12) http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_why.cfm.

Box 3.2 Benefits of GI: erosion protection
The rate at which soil erosion occurs depends

critically on the land's vegetative cover. GI
like forests, plants and other flora stabilise
the soil, prevent erosion, enhance the land's
capacity to store water, and moderate air and
soil temperatures. Bare soil offers no protection
against wind and rain and is at a high risk of soil
erosion, sedimentation in streams and rivers,
clogging of waterways and land degradation. This
eventually undermine the productive resource
base of the soil.
Photo: © EEA
nutrition capacity, with important consequences the MAPPE model (Pistocchi et al., 2008 and 2010).
for agricultural and food costs. Knowledge on areas MAPPE comprises models that simulate pollutant
susceptible to erosion allows for anticipation of this pathways in air, soil sediments and surface and
risk and reduction of erosion potential, thanks to sea water, at European continental scale. Monthly
preventive land use and land management. infiltration of precipitated water in soils is calculated
by distributing the net precipitation over run-off and
Water flow regulation infiltration.
The annually aggregated soil infiltration (measured Potential relevance of this ecosystem service for
in mm) is an indicator for the capacity of terrestrial policy: The soil capacity for water retention is a
ecosystems to temporarily store surface water prerequisite for the continuous storage of water in
(Maes et al., 2011). The data used are derived from natural areas or in areas used for agriculture and
Box 3.3 Benefits of GI: water flow regulation
GI such as rain gardens, swales, green roofs and

walls capture water flow runoff from impervious
cover before it reaches overburdened sewer
systems. Manchester University did an experiment
measuring the effects of trees and grass on
surface water runoff. Trees reduced runoff by
60 % across the whole plot, despite covering
only 35 % of it (water infiltrated the hole).
Grass reduced runoff by 98 %. This indicates the
importance of greenery as a tool for preventing
storm water runoff (13).
Photo: © Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), Malmö
(13) http://www.emonfur.eu/public/pub_files/Efuf/presentazioni/venerdi/Ennos_-_Milan_Talk.pdf.

forestry. Areas with sufficient soil moisture are land surfaces or the maintenance of protection
less susceptible to droughts, and may contribute to works have high investment costs. The natural
a continuous harvest without needing additional resilience of coastal habitats against erosion and
irrigation. Water retention capacity is an important inundation is therefore an important economic
factor for reducing flood risk. Knowledge on water factor that should be identified and monitored to
retention capacity is mandatory for the assessment maintain and improve coastal protection capacity.
of flood retention capacities in river catchments.
Pollination
Coastal protection
The indicator showing the capacity of natural
The indicator of coastal protection capacity ecosystems to provide pollination services was
is defined as the natural potential of coastal originally defined in Maes et al. (2011).
ecosystems to protect the coast against inundation
or erosion. The geomorphological and ecological They mapped pollinator visitation rate as a function
characteristics likely to mitigate extreme physical of distance to natural areas using the three inputs
processes are coastal geomorphology, slope and described below.
the presence of protective habitats (e.g. dunes and
reefs) — both in the submarine and in the emerged • A European map of land use, which includes the
coastal zone. The coastal zone under consideration spatial distribution of crops.
covers the area potentially affected by extreme
hydrodynamic conditions, which is delimited • Crop dependency ratios, indicating the
in general by a 50-metre–depth isobath and a dependency of crops on pollination (0–100 %)
50-metre–height contour line (Liquete et al., 2013). (Klein et al., 2007; Gallai et al., 2009).
Potential relevance of this ecosystem service for • The distance from each crop land use pixel to
policy: The erosion of coastal zones due to sea the nearest potentially pollinator-rich ecosystem.
currents, tides, pounding of waves and sea level rise The visitation probability (the probability that a
leads to large losses of land masses in Europe and crop gets visited by a pollinator) was modelled
poses risks for coastal infrastructures and assets. using the Ricketts et al. (2008) regression
Compensation measures like the creation of new model. For each crop land use pixel, the crop
Box 3.4 Benefits of GI: coastal protection
GI such as wetlands, marsh areas, mangroves,

peatlands, seagrasses and other natural features
serve to protect coastlines against storm surges
and flooding. In many locations, these ecosystems
suffer from increasing pressure from expanding
human populations and from a lack of long-term
management. Integrating GI (e.g. wetlands) into
coastal protection management could benefit
urban populations in particular. These potential
benefits include protection from storm surges
and flooding, as well as other provisioning and
regulating ecosystem services that natural
infrastructure can provide (14).
Photo: © EEA
(14) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/IR3.pdf.

Box 3.5 Benefits of GI: pollination
GI provides substantial opportunities for the

conservation of pollinating insects within urban
and rural landscapes. Greening cities (e.g. green
roofs) and provision of wildflower meadows, mixed
grasslands and hedgerows can provide suitable
habitats for insect pollinators that rely on nectar
and pollen from local crops and plants. Pollinators
play an important role in maintaining plant
diversity (15). Insects are pollinators of 80 % of
all plant species in Europe, including most fruits,
many vegetables and some biofuel crops.
Photo: © Monica Rzeszot
dependency and visitation probability were on insect pollination (Zulian et al., 2013). The
multiplied, and this value was subsequently accounting and mapping of actual pollination
assigned to the nearest ecosystems assumed activities in Europe can spotlight areas with reduced
to sustain pollination. The sum of these pollination services. These services could be
contributions was finally considered as the improved through changes in land use management
pollination potential or the capacity of the and restoration of suitable habitats for pollinating
natural ecosystem to provide pollination insects.
services.
An ecotone is a transition area between two Maintenance of soil structure and quality
adjacent but different patches of landscape, such
as forest and grassland. Ecotones have been The dataset produced by the EEA and ETC/SIA
mapped in Europe by the EEA, but the results were (Kleeschulte et al., 2012) compares two soil threats
still undergoing quality assurance at the time of (soil compaction and soil erosion) with good soil
writing (16). For this study ecotones were selected management practices or preservation measures
between arable land, permanent crops, irrigated (top-soil organic carbon), following the ideas of
agriculture and pastures or mosaic farmland on the Jones et al. (2012). These three parameters describe
one side, and standing forests on the other side. the negative effects (compaction and erosion) or
These ecotones promote the presence, nesting and positive effects (organic carbon) on soil structure.
activity of pollinators. For the description of the theoretical ecosystem
potential (TEP), these parameters were classified
Potential relevance of this ecosystem service for and ranked based on expert judgment. The TEP
policy: Many wild and agricultural crops depend was then overlaid with information on High Nature
on pollinating insects, in particular fruits and Value (HNV) farmland data as an indicator for
vegetables suitable for human consumption. sustainable soil management practices. The final
However, declines of pollinator species are reported results highlight ecosystems providing best services
in Britain, the Netherlands and Central Europe. for soil structure (i.e. areas with low risk for soil
The absence of insect pollination would result in erosion and compaction, in combination with good
a reduction of between 25 % and 32 % of the total organic matter content and sustainable management
production of crops which are partially dependent practices).
(15) http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/synthesis/synthesis/chapter3.xhtml.
(16) For more information, contact [email protected] or view the visualisations at http://www.eyeonearth.org/
Templates/StoryBook2/?appid=38a6e7686d354e05b9e016c8ddd536e4&webmap=a6f1bc85613f44dab4f427d558102abc.

Box 3.6 Benefits of GI: soil structure and quality
GI such as woody perennials and nitrogen‑fixing

vegetation close to or intercropped with
agricultural crops maintains or improves the
fertility of arable land. Vegetation increases the
soil's ability to absorb and retain water, produce
nutrients for plants, maintain high levels of
organic matter, and moderate its temperatures.
Soil carbon is a key indicator of soil quality in all
ecosystems (17).
Photo: © EEA
Potential relevance of this ecosystem service for policy: 2011). The results have been produced using the
Fertile and healthy soils are a prerequisite for the Geospatial Regression Equation for European
sustainable and long-term production of food Nutrient losses (GREEN) model, a statistical model
and feed. In addition, undisturbed soils may developed to estimate nitrogen and phosphorus
store and sequestrate large quantities of carbon. fluxes to surface water in large river basins
Soils are crucial for the conservation of biological (Grizzetti et al., 2007). The GREEN model has been
diversity, for water management and for landscape successfully applied in Europe (Grizzetti et al.,
management. 2008). Fractional nutrient removal is determined by
the strength of biological processes relative to river
hydrological conditions (residence time, discharge,
Water purification width and volume).
The capacity of freshwater ecosystems to remove Potential relevance of this ecosystem service for
nitrogen can be expressed using in-stream retention policy: The availability of water in sufficient amount
efficiency (%), which assesses what portion of the and quality is one of the most critical aspects for the
nitrogen entering rivers is retained (Maes et al., health of human populations, animals and plants.
Box 3.7 Benefits of GI: water purification
GI such as forest conservation and restoration

averts the need for new water filtration plants
to maintain clean water flows to city residents.
Rainwater harvesting and infiltration-based
practices increase the efficiency of our water
supply system. Water collected in rainwater
harvesting systems can be used for outdoor
irrigation and some indoor uses, and can
significantly reduce municipal water use. Water
infiltrated into the soil can recharge groundwater,
an important source of water in Europe.
Photo: © EEA
(17) http://thegirg.org/future-research.

The natural supply of drinking water and water for are based on the statistical disaggregation/
domestic and industrial usage from groundwater downscaling of European forest data from different
and surface water is dependent on the filtering sources (European Forest Information Scenario
potential of microorganisms, plants and sediments. (EFISCEN) model, national forest information and
These elements retain and absorb toxic and harmful the Mediterranean Regional Office of the European
substances. This natural process reduces the costs of Forest Institute (EFIMED)). The results are converted
technical water treatment for human usage. into carbon content using carbon conversion factors
derived from literature. The variable used here is
the Forest Stock Final Carbon Content (FSFCC). The
Carbon storage and sequestration carbon content in other vegetation is calculated from
land cover classes using Corine Lissage (CORILIS)
Within the framework of the 'fast track methodology and conversion factors derived from
implementation of ecosystem capital accounts', the literature. The combination of FSFCC and
ecosystem accounts describe the European carbon in other vegetation is used as an indicator
environment's biophysical reality by measuring of potential carbon storage and sequestration by
ecosystem capital in physical units. Data on stocks ecosystems.
and flows of this capital are used to estimate the
quantity of ecosystem resources that are accessible Potential relevance of this ecosystem service for
without degradation, the actual intensity of its use policy: A stable and predictable climate is essential
and the detected spatial changes over time. for salubrious living conditions for humans and
for our use of natural resources. The continuous
Biomass or carbon stocks from the Carbon sequestration of carbon dioxide by plants, soils
Accounting model (Simon et al., 2011 and 2012) (18) and sediments is a key factor contributing to
are assumed as a proxy of the capacity of ecosystems stable climatic conditions. Knowledge of the
to contribute to climate change mitigation. The carbon content in vegetation and the respective
study uses currently available information on sequestration rates underpin measures for
above-ground carbon stocks in forests and in future climate-adapted and optimised land use
other vegetation (i.e. shrubs, wetlands and other management.
CLC-relevant classes). Forest carbon estimations
Box 3.8 Benefits of GI: carbon storage and sequestration
Terrestrial ecosystems store almost three times

as much carbon as is in the atmosphere. GI
such as tropical and boreal forests represent
the largest stores. The maintenance of existing
carbon reservoirs is among the highest priorities
in striving for climate change mitigation (19).
Different ecosystem types store different
amounts of carbon depending on their species
compositions, soil types, climate and other
features. Restoration of GI such as degraded
peatlands could help to reduce carbon emissions.
Photo: © EEA
(18) New updates and developments available in the EEA Fast Track Implementation of Ecosystem Capital Accounts.
(19) http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/natural-fix/page/3724.aspx.

3.2 Core habitat services 3.2.1 Description of input data
The second criterion for the identification of a GI Forest density

network, besides the provision of ecosystem services,
is the provision of key habitats and their connectivity. Information on forest density was obtained from
As habitat areas and their connectivity are species the global Landsat Vegetation Continuous Fields
related, the right species or functional groups with tree cover layer provided by the Global Land Cover
relevance at landscape level needed to be identified. Facility (20). This layer estimate the percentage
Large forest-based mammals were selected as focal (0–100%) of horizontal ground covered by woody
species, as they normally have high demands in terms vegetation greater than 5 m in height, aggregated
of habitat area, and are able to cover large migration to 1-kilometre grid cells. The data represent two
distances. Still, they require suitable links (migration nominal epochs, 2000 and 2005, compiled from the
corridors) for the connection of individual habitat National Aeronautics and Space Administration
patches. In order to maintain the animal population (NASA)–U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Global
and its genetic diversity, they need core areas that can Land Survey (GLS) collection of Landsat data.
provide living space, food, shelter and reproductive The product is derived from all seven bands of
grounds, as well as corridors between different core Landsat-5 Thematic Mapper (TM) and/or Landsat-t
areas to enable an exchange of individuals and the Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+),
spread of populations. depending on the GLS image selection (Sexton
et al., 2013).
Typical requirements in habitat sizes (Birngruber
et al., 2012) of individual animals of respectively In future, this information set may be replaced by
small groups range from 100 km2 to 1 000 km2. As data provided by the GMES/Copernicus initial
the size of the group of animals is more decisive operations (GIO).
than the individual, a sustainable population
of lynx, for instance, would need a minimum
population of 20 adult animals, thus assuming a Landscape resistance
minimum area of the territory of 2 000 km2.
For the assessment of landscape resistance, the CLC
The habitat model used in Section 3.3 is based classes were reclassified into habitat permeability
on studies on wild animal corridors in Austria for mammals following the approach used in
(Birngruber et al., 2012), Germany (Hänel and Reck, Birngruber et al. (2012). Habitat permeability for
2011), and the Czech Republic (Anděl et al., 2010). mammalian wildlife describes the extent to which
The modelling of potential habitat areas for large landscape forms permit (or restrict) the movement
forest-based mammals mainly follows the habitat of large mammals in different directions. Values
model for the focal species lynx, with a slightly less for CLC classes not present in Austria (the original
strict minimum size of habitat (following Hänel and case study) were filled in using expert judgment.
Reck (2011)), as follows. All the CLC forest classes are considered to
have maximum permeability values, since they
• Habitat core areas are represented by forest are defined as forest trees higher than 5 m with
densities of 50 % or more, and a minimum size a canopy closure of at least 30 % (21), the same
of 500 km2 contiguous area. threshold proposed by Birngruber et al. (2012) for
suitable migration zones.
• Forests with a density of between 30 % and 50 %
are not suited as core habitat areas; rather, they The landscape resistance values for modelling
serve mainly as potential migration routes, as purposes are estimated as the inverse of the habitat
the animals prefer sheltered corridors. permeability. Resistances are scaled, i.e. values
of 1 represent ideal habitat, and increase to 100 for
• CLC classes were classified according to their barriers (Beier et al., 2011) (see Table A1.1 in
permeability for large mammals. Annex 1).
(20) http://landcover.org.
(21) ETC-SIA (2006). CORINE land cover nomenclature illustrated guide. Available at http://sia.eionet.europa.eu/EAGLE/
EAGLE_6thMeeting_g2_Malaga/04d_Nomenclature_CLC.pdf.

Species occurrence In the case of pollination, the coverage of ecotones

promoting the activity of pollinators is estimated
Under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, (as specified in Section 3.1), and hence is overlaid
reporting from EU Member States to the European with the pollination potential from Maes et al.
Commission for the first time includes assessments (2011) after the normalisation of both input layers.
on the conservation status of the habitat types and The resulting pollination capacity map takes the
species of Community interest for the period from maximum value (maximum potential capacity) from
2001 to 2006. This information was compiled by the any of the two layers on a pixel-by-pixel basis.
ETC/BD in 2009 (22).
For carbon storage and sequestration, the carbon
One of the monitoring parameters reported by content (stock in tonnes of carbon) extracted from
Member States was the distribution (presence) the FSFCC and the carbon in other vegetation (the
of some species specified in Annex II of the total amount coming from 14 layers of different
Habitats Directive. Eight species of large mammals vegetation types) is summed up, taken from the
are selected within the orders Carnivora and carbon accounting exercise for the year 2006.
Artiodactyla (Alopex lagopus, Canis lupus, Cervus
elaphus corsicanus, Gulo gulo, Lynx lynx, Lynx Once the spatial distribution of the capacity to
pardinus, Rangifer tarandus fennicus and Ursus arctos), deliver each of the eight regulating and maintenance
and their available distribution maps are extracted. ecosystem services in eight maps is obtained, the
These species do not cover the entire range of large original biophysical units were reclassified into five
mammals present in Europe, and are not equally ranks, ranging from minimum (1) to maximum (5)
distributed across Member States (some are even (Map 3.1). The specific classification used (i.e. the
endemic species). However, the Habitats Directive is thresholds between those ranks) depends on the
the only available continental (mapping) reporting distribution of each data set al.ng Europe, ranging
of its kind to be used as 'ground truth' in this report. from natural breaks, to quantiles (23) or standard
For example, in the Habitats Directive the European deviations. The selection of different thresholds
bison (Bison bonasus) is not listed, despite matching provides different illustrations using the same data,
the selected functional group. To overcome these meaning that the user needs to consider what is
limitations, the habitats results (core habitats for needed before producing a map of GI. Using the
large mammals and their connectivity) are indicated right threshold for the right objective is probably the
both with and without overlaps, in line with the most important step in the analysis of data for GI.
Habitats Directive reporting data.
To illustrate this effect, the previous report of this
task (Kleeschulte et al., 2012) compared different
3.3 Processing of data for ecosystem maps for each selected data set, using different class
and core habitat services distributions and ranges (specifically quantiles,
deviation from the average and linear stretch).
3.3.1 Ecosystem services Classifying the same data into five different classes
provided a different spatial configuration of the
The processing of ecosystem service information results. In this case, the capacity to deliver air quality
involves the extraction and homogenisation of regulation was classified into five ranks using a
each of the datasets described in Section 3.1. natural breaks distribution; maintenance of soil
The geoprocessing involved (when necessary) structure using a reclassification from the original
aggregation at 1-kilometre cell size, alignment, ecosystem potential; and the rest of ecosystem
projection to Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area services using an equal area distribution.
projection (EPSG 3035), correct identification and
reclassification of null values (zero capacity) and In order to get an integrated result, the most simple
no data (lack of coverage) that were not recognised and straightforward combination of the eight ranked
in the original data sets, among others. Thus, ecosystem services' layers is based on the addition
10 layers covering 8 ecosystem services are obtained, of the ranked capacity with grid cell statistics. The
with pollination and carbon sequestration having higher the final result, the larger the combined
2 sources of information. capacity of the pixel to deliver regulating and
(22) Related websites: see http://bd.eionet.europa.eu/article17.

(23) Equal number of members per class.

Map 3.1 Input maps of the biophysical capacity to deliver eight regulating and maintenance
ecosystem services re-classified into five ranks ranging from minimum ecosystems'
capacity (value 1) to maximum ecosystems' capacity (value 5)
Note: 0 values indicate no data.

Map 3.1 Input maps of the biophysical capacity to deliver eight regulating and maintenance
ecosystem services re-classified into five ranks ranging from minimum ecosystems'
capacity (value 1) to maximum ecosystems' capacity (value 5) (cont.)
Note: 0 values indicate no data.

maintenance services (Map 3.2). There is a need to In order to guarantee the multidimensionality of the
take into account the data availability (or data gaps) approach, those areas with more than two data gaps
on the inputs (Map 3.3). Thus, the final integration (i.e. containing information of five or less ecosystem
is the total addition of ecosystem services' capacity, services, shown in red in Map 3.2) are excluded from
divided by the number of input data sets in each the results.
pixel (these are the final results shown in Map 4.1).
Map 3.2 Example of calculating accumulated capacity to provide regulating and

maintenance ecosystem services
Note: Minimum values (red areas) can be generated either by a deteriorated natural potential to deliver ecosystem services, or by
the absence of multiple input data sets to measure it (e.g. Iceland). These values have to be normalised by the actual data
availability.

Map 3.3 Number of valid input data related to ecosystem services' mapping in the entire
study area
Note: This calculation is used to derive the final indicator on capacity to deliver regulating and maintenance ecosystem services.
3.3.2 Core habitat services of the Habitats Directive (see Section 3.2). Only
these actual core areas will be used for the final GI
To find out the core habitat services the potential network mapping since they are the only ones with
core areas are mapped for large forest-based some kind of ground truth or validation for species
mammals in Europe as forest patches with canopy distribution.
densities over 50 % and continuous coverage
over 500 km2 based on the Landsat Vegetation The quality of the potential core habitats for
Continuous Fields tree cover layer (Map 3.4). Then, mammalian wildlife is evaluated in terms of
to map the actual core areas, those potential habitats narrowness, dispersion and presence of bottlenecks,
are overlapped with the areas where at least one of with an indicator based on the ratio of polygon
the eight selected species of large mammals have perimeter/polygon area (Map 3.5). This gives an
been reported by Member States following Article 17 idea of the exposed border area versus remote

Map 3.4 Tree cover (canopy) density for Europe, extracted from the Landsat Vegetation
Continuous Fields
Note: See Section 3.2.
or protected zones. Future restoration activities habitats, and measures found in the literature
can focus on smoothing and widening the core (Beier et al., 2011; Birngruber et al., 2012), the CLC
habitats to improve their quality and suitability for data set (see Annex 1) are reclassified to derive a
supporting wildlife. This approach can clearly be habitat permeability layer for mammalian life and
improved by taking into account more groups of a continuous landscape resistance layer (Map 3.6).
animals at better resolution. The landscape resistance input used for the
connectivity analysis represents the degree to which
Second, the CLC 2006 data and part of the CLC the landscape facilitates or impedes movement
2000 data (covering Greece) in a 1-kilometre among different patches, as a combined product of
grid are combined. Based on the land cover data structural and functional connectivity (i.e. the effect
(44 classes), the Streamlining European Biodiversity of physical structures and the actual species use of
Indicators (SEBI) correlation of those classes to the landscape).

Map 3.5 Distribution of potential core habitats for large forest-based mammals in Europe,
classified by their quality (ratio perimeter/area)
Note: According to the parameters found in the literature, these areas can host functional populations of large mammals like lynx
or red deer. Still, the patches with a high ratio of perimeter versus area (reddish colours) represent relatively vulnerable
habitats for those populations. The potential core habitats have been crossed with the actual distribution of large mammals
reported under the Habitats Directive to select only the actual core habitats (those presently hosting large mammals) for the
connectivity analysis.
On the basis of the identification of the core areas between core areas. Each cell in a resistance map
and landscape resistance for large forest-based is attributed a value reflecting the energetic cost,
mammals in Europe, a connectivity analysis is difficulty, or mortality risk of moving across that
carried out. For this purpose, a Linkage Mapper cell. The cost distance tools apply distance in cost
v1.0.3 tool (McRae and Kavanagh, 2011, last updated units rather than geographic units.
in July 2013) is used. This tool is designed to support
regional wildlife habitat connectivity analyses; it After several runs, and following guidance from
uses several Python scripts that automate mapping the Linkage Mapper support documentation, the
of wildlife habitat corridors. Linkage Mapper following environment variables and parameters are
uses core habitat areas and maps of resistance to selected to run the connectivity analysis between the
movement to identify and map least-cost linkages key habitats for large mammals in Europe.

Map 3.6 Landscape resistance for mammalian life derived from land cover, habitats and
literature data
Note: Maximum resistance values represent barriers or places where the landscape impedes the movement of large mammals, as a
combined effect of physical structures and the mammal species' use of the landscape.
• Two different sets of core areas in different runs: • Corridors that intersect intermediate core areas
potential and actual core areas. between a pair and those whose Euclidean
distance is over 300 km are dropped; this is
• The landscape resistance layer derived from the maximum migration distance suggested in
CLC. Hänel and Reck (2011).
• The remoteness among core areas is measured • Not only the least-cost paths are illustrated;
both in Euclidean (24) and cost-weighted so are the corridors proposed by the Linkage
distance. Mapper tool, limited to a cost-weighted distance
(width) of 10 km.
(24) Euclidean distance is linear distance (actual distance), which differs from the 'cost distance' of the Linkage Mapper model.

Results and discussion
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Ecosystem services 'Key service areas' will form part of the GI network
'C' (for Conservation), because their protection
The integration of results from the analysis of or conservation will guarantee the delivery of
ecosystem services is shown in Map 4.1. Green regulating ecosystem services. 'Limited service
indicates zones with the maximum combined areas' might be included in the GI network 'R'
capacity to provide regulating and maintenance (for Restoration), since they perform important
ecosystem services ('key service areas'), while ecological functions (as demonstrated by their
orange highlights zones with moderate capacity moderate ecosystem services' delivery) that could be
to provide those services ('limited service areas'). boosted by protection or restoration actions.
Map 4.1 Distribution of GI elements, based on the capacity to deliver ecosystem services
Note: 'Key service areas' hold the maximum capacity to deliver regulating ecosystem services and, therefore, they should be
protected and conserved to maintain natural capital. They could be ascribed to level 1 of the four-level concept on ecosystem
restoration. In the 'limited service areas' ecosystem functioning is providing ecosystem services at a moderate rate that
could be boosted by restoring or enhancing those natural habitats. They could be qualified as level 2 of the four-level concept
on ecosystem restoration. The 'low service areas' are zones with relatively low capacity to deliver the selected ecosystem
services, either owing to their functional roles or due to the intensity of human use. These areas include the most degraded
ecosystems, embracing Levels 3 and 4 of the four-level concept on ecosystem restoration. The thresholds that define our
three categories can be modified and adapted for regional assessments (e.g. an Irish assessment could enlarge the 'key
service areas' category, while a Swedish assessment could define a more restricted one).

There are no zones in Europe that qualify as 4.2 Core habitat services
maximum providers (rank = 5.0) for all the eight
ecosystem services analysed. The upper class The second part of the analysis involved habitat
category ('key service areas') has been set with connectivity modelling of large mammals at
values from 2.9 to 4.7, and the moderate class European scale. The key habitats (actual core
('limited service areas') with values from 2.5 to 2.9. areas) that provide living space, food, shelter and
The lower class category ('low service areas') has reproductive grounds for the European forest‑bound
a range between 1 and 2.5. Readers should bear in mammals' populations are identified as part of
mind that both the thresholds and the input data the GI network 'C' for the key ecological role they
used to define the areas mapped in Map 4.1 are just perform for wildlife. Moreover, the actual core
proposals that can be modified. The quality and areas scoring the least quality values (i.e. areas
resolution of the input data — mainly the lack of with a perimeter-to-area ratio of over 792 m/km2 in
full coverage, intercalibration and homogenisation Map 3.5) have been identified; a 5-kilometre buffer
at European scale — generate significant differences zone around them is included in the GI network 'R',
among countries. The thresholds selected to define with the aim of increasing their protecting potential
'key service areas' and 'limited service areas' for biota.
affect the extension and distribution of the final
GI networks. The limits in the study have been The final result of the connectivity analysis
selected based on technical and environmental between actual core areas is illustrated in Map 4.2.
factors — for the practical application of this The background map shows the cost-weighted
methodology, however, the selection should be distance (CWD) range in kilometres. CWD is a
also based on policy priorities and socio-economic pixel attribute resulting from the pixel's resistance
aspects. It is recommended that the methodology plus the resistance of a chain of pixels reaching
be applied at national or regional scale (the scale at to each terminus (core areas). It is therefore not
which decision-making or spatial planning will be only a single pixel's content, but also includes the
applied) with the highest resolution information landscape context. The least-cost path lines in the
available, in order to obtain comparable results and map represent the suggested paths for mammals'
coherent networks. migration, and they are colour-coded by their total
CWD. To define wildlife corridors, the study uses
The outlined classification in this study can be not only least-cost paths (conservation advice should
adapted to the framework recently proposed by not be based on single pixel lines), but also corridor
the Working Group on Restoration Prioritisation swaths (natural patches of a certain width) such
Framework (WG RPF). This group is exploring the as those illustrated in Map 4.3. Corridor swaths
best means of implementing Action 6a of Target 2 of are analysed to help determine whether habitats
the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. The proposed surrounding the least-cost paths are appropriate for
framework is described as a four-level concept on migration, and thus whether they are biologically
ecosystem restoration (ARCADIS, 2013), although relevant and likely to be used by biota. Detailed
it has not been completely defined yet in terms of information on designing and evaluating corridors is
descriptors and threshold values. available in CorridorDesign (2007–2013) (25).
Our 'key service areas' could correspond to level 1 Even if not discernible in the continental-scale
of the restoration concept, and the 'limited service map (Map 4.2), the main result of the connectivity
areas' to level 2; the 'low service areas' would modelling is the design and assessment of
include both Levels 3 and 4. However, it is proposed 88 linkages connecting the 67 actual core areas. Of
that the four-level concept for restoration be those linkages, 37 are shorter than 10 km (these are
tailor‑made for each ecosystem type; our approach the ones most feasibly protected and implemented),
assesses all ecosystem types together, focusing only while another 16 are longer than 100 km. The
on their capacity to deliver services. soundness of this model run is demonstrated in
(25) http://corridordesign.org/designing_corridors/corridor_modeling/cost_distance and http://corridordesign.org/designing_corridors/

corridor_modeling/evaluating_corridors.

Map 4.2 by the position of paths labelled A, B protection actions; hence, this area is included
and C, which flow across potential core habitats in the GI network 'R'. The connectivity among
for mammals (the same locations and labels are core habitats for large mammals will enhance the
available for comparison in Map 4.4). The area genetic flow across Europe, something particularly
covered by the wildlife corridors (e.g. the black important for helping species adapt to the
corridor swaths shown in Map 4.3) should be environmental transformations brought about by
considered for potential restoration or at least climate change.
Map 4.2 Main results from the connectivity modelling between actual large mammals' core
habitats
Note: The CWD map shows the difficulty (in terms of energy, mortality, etc.) for the large mammals to travel across each pixel.
'Costs' here mean natural effort, and are unrelated to economic costs. Only the lowest CWD areas qualify for potential wildlife
corridors; the best options are highlighted by the least-cost paths in the map. The lower the cost of each path, the more
feasible it is for it to be used by large mammals. The dashed square points to the location of Map 4.3. Corridors labelled with
A, B and C follow paths crossing potential core habitats for mammals (see Map 4.4), confirming the validity of the results.

Map 4.3 Detail of the results from the connectivity modelling shown in Map 4.2
Note: Here, not only the least-cost paths but also the proposed wildlife corridors (black shaded areas) are illustrated. The
protection or restoration of those corridors would enhance the mammal population (number of individuals, genetic pool, etc.)
and promote biodiversity. A similar effect is expected from the improvement of the core habitats' quality (see Map 3.5).
For comparison and exploratory purposes, the 136 core areas, 75 of which are shorter than 10 km in
study also runs the connectivity analysis among the Euclidean distance, and another 28 which are longer
potential core areas that could host large mammal than 100 km. Map 4.5 shows a zoom-level shot
populations. These areas may contain some covering the same area as Map 4.3.
mammal species that were not reported under the
Habitats Directive, or they may have been the home This kind of habitat connectivity modelling can
of large mammals in the past. As a result, they could be replicated for any other functional group or
eventually be promoted to perform ecological roles area of interest, as far as the core habitats for
similar to those played by actual core areas. the species and the resistance values for their
mobility can be defined and mapped. If the aim
However, these results are merely illustrative of this exercise is to detect potential zones for
and are not included in the final proposal of conservation or restoration, analysis at higher
GI networks. Map 4.4 is equivalent to Map 4.2, but resolution per management unit is recommended
the results connect all the potential core habitats and transboundary core areas and corridors should
across Europe. It includes 210 linkages connecting be also considered.

Map 4.4 Main results from the connectivity modelling between potential large mammals'
core habitats
Note: This map is trying to compare the actual situation with a potential one that could be defined as a scenario. The CWD map
shows the difficulty (in terms of energy, mortality, etc.) for the large mammals to travel across each pixel. 'Costs' here mean
natural effort and are not related with any economic term. Only the lowest CWD areas qualify for potential wildlife corridors;
the best options are highlighted by the least-cost paths in the map. The lower the cost of each corridor, the more feasible it is
to be used by large mammals. Labels A, B and C correspond to least-cost paths highlighted in Map 4.2.
4.3 Green infrastructure networks one of the inputs will have a maximum protection
value (network 'C') in the output. The integrated
All the identified GI elements were mapped results are summarised and illustrated in Table 4.1
and integrated into the GI networks 'C' (for and Map 4.6, and they represent an example of
Conservation) and 'R' (for Restoration). The identification and mapping of GI networks in
GI network 'C' comprises the 'key' service areas Europe elaborated following the methodology
and the core habitats for large forest-bound described in this report.
mammals, whilst the GI network 'R' includes the
limited service areas, the surroundings of the The results summarised in Table 4.1 indicate that
lowest‑quality core habitats and the proposed 27 % of EU-27 might form part of the GI network 'C',
wildlife corridors. The individual GI elements were with the largest contribution coming from areas with
selected and extracted from previous results, and the highest capacity to provide ecosystem services.
subsequently integrated. Whenever an overlap It is worth noting the large coincidence (spatial
occurs, the highest protection level prevails, i.e. an overlap) between the key service areas and the key
area classified as maximum capacity (value = 3) by habitats for mammals (value 3 x 3 in Table 4.1).

Map 4.5 Details of the results from the connectivity modelling shown in Map 4.4
Note: Note the higher amount of least-cost paths of all categories found, compared to Map 4.3.
Table 4.1 Geographical analysis of the GI elements identified in this study, integrated into
the final GI networks
Key habitats (large mammals)

1 2 3
Ecosystem
1 2 439 296 (56) 24 088 (1) 93 441 (2)

services
2 628 442 (15) 21 884 (1) 169 396 (4)

3 529 352 (12) 29 405 (1) 365 523 (8)
Note: Units represent area as km2 (%). The two inputs to the table are the results coming from the analysis of ecosystem services'
capacity and large mammals' habitats. Value 1 corresponds to the lowest input values and is not part of any GI network;
Value 2 forms the GI network 'R' (limited service areas, wildlife corridors and zones to improve the quality of core areas
for mammals); and value 3 forms the GI network 'C' (key service areas and mammals' core areas). These results show an
example of a European trial elaborated following the methodology described in this report.

Map 4.6 Mapping of the potential European GI networks derived from this methodological
report
Note: The GI network 'C' consists of areas to be conserved because they perform key ecological roles for both wildlife and human
well-being. It can be ascribed to level 1 of the four-level concept for restoration proposed by the WG RPF. The GI network
'R' performs important ecological functions, but its capacity could be improved with some protection or restoration It could
correspond to level 2 of the four-level concept for restoration. The non-GI area covers the rest of the territory not identified
as a GI network. The quantitative results are summarised in Annex 2.

The GI network 'C' can be ascribed to level 1 of the • contribution to current discussions on options
four-level concept for restoration proposed by the for territorial cohesion policy after 2014, and
WG RPF (ARCADIS, 2013). Conversely, 17 % of EU later discussions on measuring Member States'
territory might correspond to the GI network 'R', performance;
mainly defined by limited service areas. This GI
network could correspond to level 2 of the four-level • promotion of the EU-wide policy framework to
concept for restoration. The rest of the European deliver sustainable development fostered in EC
territory (56 %) did not qualify to form part of communications from 2001 and 2005.
any GI network (26) (under the assumptions and
thresholds fixed in this example), and is considered Several crucial principles describing GI (as has
to be at Levels 3 and 4 of the four-level concept for already been highlighted by the European
restoration. Commission (2012)) are covered in this
methodological report: for instance, GI aims
It is important to highlight that the delimitation include promoting ecosystem health and resilience,
of GI elements shown in the figures and maps of contributing to biodiversity conservation and
this report is for the purposes of a trial test of the enhancing ecosystem services (Naumann et al.,
proposed methodology; it needs to be adapted to 2011). Thus, while an environmental focus on GI
the objectives and criteria of each practical land is fundamental to securing its objectives (Wright,
management case. The types of physical features 2011), it is not sufficient. What defines GI is the
that contribute to GI are greatly scale dependent, inclusion of goals for protecting ecological functions
diverse and specific to each location or place (27). alongside goals for providing benefits to humans
(McDonald et al., 2005). By strengthening and
maintaining the good functioning of ecosystems,
4.4 Findings for decision-making GI can promote the multiple deliveries of
support ecosystem services. It has also been proved that
measures targeting biodiversity and the provision
In most European countries, regional or local of ecosystem services are higher in restored
authorities are responsible for spatial planning systems than in systems that had been degraded
decisions. Their role is crucial in defining and (Rey‑Benayas et al., 2009).
deploying GI. There are numerous policy examples
that can be supported by the definition and Figure 4.1 summarises the proposed steps to define
implementation of a European GI network (28): and map GI networks at landscape level. EU
Member States will individually determine how
• integration of GI into the forthcoming EU Forest to apply the 15 % restoration target settled in the
Strategy; Biodiversity Strategy. The goal of this study is not
to define that target nor any location, but rather
• development and implementation of all targets to illustrate a mapping methodology that can be
of the Biodiversity Strategy; tested by countries and local agencies when setting
priority areas for GI and identifying potential areas
• reporting under different directives, such as for conservation and restoration. A next step in the
the Habitats Directive or the Water Framework methodological development might be to model or
Directive; forecast the impact of different restoration actions in
the provision of ecosystem services.
• promotion of soil protection and climate change
mitigation; This study does have some limitations (these will
be described fully in Chapter 5). For instance, the
• promotion of GI as inter-territorial tool; methodology covers the landscape level of GI, and
needs to be adjusted to different spatial scales. Also,
• use of GI for integrated spatial planning; in order to support decision-making, it is highly
recommended that users consider stakeholder
• use of GI for ecosystem-based disaster risk involvement and feedback in the first steps of GI
reduction; design (McDonald et al., 2005; Hostetler et al., 2011).
(26) Excludes all urban GI networks.

(27) Commission staff working document SWD(2013) 155 final (Technical information on Green Infrastructure) accompanying the
document COM(2013) 249 final.
(28) Commission staff working document SWD(2013) 155 final (Technical information on Green Infrastructure) accompanying the
document COM(2013) 249 final.

Figure 4.1 Workflow of the methodology proposed in this report
Note: It has been illustrated with a European analysis in this report.
Moreover, in this environmental approach, no depending on stakeholder feedback concerning

attempt was made to include the socio-economic the definition of natural versus relatively degraded
aspects and population dynamics that must be ecosystems in a certain area, the 'thresholds &
considered for the design of GI, including the options' that will define the final key service areas
geographical analysis of the demand for ecosystem can be changed. Depending on the environmental
services (i.e. where the services are mainly produced, characteristics (e.g. maximum forest density) or
and where are they consumed). This might foster an socio‑economic context (e.g. historical farming
interest in undertaking place-based assessments of practices) of a certain area, the 'parameters & options'
ecosystem services and GI. Political priorities should that will locate the final wildlife corridors can be
also be added for consideration of real applications of modified. Depending on the political agenda and
the approach. interests (e.g. willingness to fulfil the international
requirements on biodiversity conservation), the
These added views or priorities can be integrated 'priorities & options' to enlarge or reduce the
into the methodology through the three 'options' final GI network can be altered. To sum up, each
in Figure 4.1 ('thresholds & options', 'parameters perspective and priority option applied will alter the
& options' and 'priorities & options). For example, final result and mapping of the GI networks.

Limitations, gaps and recommendations
5 Limitations, gaps and recommendations
One of the main data gaps identified in this in the analysis is the temporal assessment of
work is the availability of ecosystem services' GI networks. Ecosystems are not stable entities, but
information. Some of the available maps do not rather continuously developing dynamic systems
have full European coverage (especially EEA/EU‑39 that provide services depending on their ecosystem
coverage), mainly because at least one of the input health. Temporal changes in ecosystem condition
variables in their definition is not accessible at will affect the capacity of ecosystems to supply
continental scale (e.g. the Land use/cover area frame services and, thus, the delimitation of 'key service
statistical survey (LUCAS) data set only covered areas' and 'limited service areas'.
the EU-15, EU-25 and EU-27 in 2006, 2009 and 2012
respectively). This compromises the results of a Also, land cover and land use changes may severely
continental comparison, since the eight regulating affect the distribution of suitable habitats for
and maintenance services can be assessed in some biota and GI elements. These changes can be at
countries only. To avoid inconsistency in the results, least roughly monitored and quantified with the
all countries with information for less than six information presently available.
ecosystem services have been masked out in the
final results map. Large forest-based based mammals are probably
one of the best-known functional groups in terms
This situation is expected to improve with the of ethology and habitat needs. Information on other
ongoing mapping and assessing efforts undertaken key species or functional groups has to be compiled,
by the European Commission MAES exercise, under and their core areas and landscape resistance
Action 5 of the Biodiversity Strategy. Users are assessed and mapped. Such landscape‑scale
advised to substitute the continental-scale inputs approaches are not designed to support the
used in this report with more detailed national or specific management of individual sites. However,
regional data sets, to replicate the methodology, and individual sites can benefit from landscape
to identify GI elements at lower scales. approaches since they take into account the site's
relationship and functional connectivity with wider
A second issue found in the ecosystem services habitat networks (Kettunen et al., 2007). Increasing
proxies and Habitats Directive reporting is the connectivity among key habitats will increase their
lack of homogenisation or intercalibration among overall resilience.
Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics
(NUTS) regions. Some statistical analyses could be This report highlights the importance and impact
performed to smooth the divergences across borders of selecting both the right input (reference data
(e.g. grouping in clusters and aligning averages set) according to the objective of the study, and the
or standard deviations), but it was considered appropriate thresholds for displaying the range
preferable to avoid modification of the original data of values in each of the selected relevant data sets.
for this work. The goal was to test the proposed The thresholds used in this work to define different
methodology, rather than to present definite results. categories (e.g. key service areas) depend on the
As already highlighted by the Pan-European specific data distribution (one may use deviation
Ecological Network, variation in habitat data across from the average, natural breaks, or quantiles
Europe presents one of the biggest challenges to in the different input data sets), since the aim
developing a common approach for the agencies of this continental-scale analysis is to provide a
responsible for biodiversity conservation, which representative picture across Europe. However, the
number more than 100 across Europe (Jongman approach of classifying each variable or indicator
et al., 2011). can be modified and adapted regionally. Depending
on class ranges, the same geographic region (grid
Furthermore, one of the major gaps in the results cell) will be put into different classes, and the visual
of this study that should constitute the next step impression of the resulting GI network will differ.

Limitations, gaps and recommendations
Thus, one of the challenges when defining (e.g. Natura 2000 sites) and core areas (as defined
GI networks (apart from selecting the most in this report), or overlaying the areas delivering
relevant input data sets) is establishing the right maximum ecosystem services with the presently
thresholds and criteria, as these will clearly affect protected areas.
the final results. For example, with a more strict
classification of 'key service areas' and similar As mentioned previously, the multifunctional
thresholds for 'limited service areas', the final area character of GI is partially addressed by
for conservation will decrease while the area for considering, amongst other ecosystem services,
restoration increases. To apply this methodology climate regulation, specifically carbon storage and
for management plans, a balance should be sequestration. However, broadly speaking, there
established between the environmental definitions are other examples of services associated with
(provided here), the socio-economic context and adaptation to and mitigation for climate change:
the political willingness. regulation of storm-water run-off, water capture,
flood prevention, storm-surge protection, defence
In this report, GI is interpreted as a network to against sea-level rise, accommodation of natural
support and enhance nature, natural processes and hazards, reduced ambient temperatures and urban
natural capital (based on the EC communication on heat island effects. This multidimensional and
GI). The promotion of regulating and maintenance multiscale aspect of GI could be explored in another
services supports these endeavours. A further step in dedicated study.
the development of this work involves considering
how to integrate the demand for ecosystem Future research should work to establish a
services as well as the delivery of provisioning and comprehensive spatial analysis of synergies and
cultural services in a nature‑protection GI network. trade-offs between the selected ecosystem services
Factors that could be taken into account include (factor analysis, covariance and correlation matrices,
the sustainable flow of each service (e.g. the etc.), especially when provisioning and cultural
maximum level of delivery at which ecosystems services are also considered. This may lead to the
are not degraded), the geographical and temporal development of additional connectivity analyses
distribution of demand, and the energy and capital among 'key service areas' when relevant, both
inputs (Maes et al., 2013). conceptually and spatially. For example, analysing
linkages between 'key service areas' for recreation
The EC communication on GI describes rural and may be relevant for land planning and social
urban GI elements. These two network levels cannot well‑being; these areas may be closely linked to air
be approached using the same methodology, data quality regulation 'key service areas'. Therefore,
and time scale, because the identification of GI it could be relevant to assess their correlation and
elements (both by definition and by resolution) is study the potential benefits obtained from the
too diverse. In this report, the rural GI network has integration of both networks. It was not possible
been addressed. Significant efforts still have to be to develop this idea further in the framework of
invested in the development of urban GI networks the present study, as was highlighted in Chapter 2.
and, subsequently, in the analysis and comparison Research will also need to explore further the
of these two multiscale approaches. possible interactions, conflicts and trade-offs
between different functions (Horwood, 2011). It
This work's future prospects in the context should be noted that discussions are already taking
of the EU Biodiversity Strategy include place on these issues, including knowledge and
integrating connectivity between protected areas information-gathering (29).
(29) See, for instance http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/Green_Infrastructure.pdf.

References
References
Anděl, P., Mináriková, T. & Andreas, M. (eds.), EC, 2012, The Multifunctionality of Green
2010, Protection of Landscape Connectivity for Large Infrastructure. Science for Environment Policy,
Mammals. Evernia, Liberec, 134 pp. In‑depth Reports, March 2012 (https://docs.google.
com/viewer?docex=1&url=http://ec.europa.eu/
ARCADIS, 2013, Priorities for the restoration of environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/Green_
ecosystems and their services in the EU. Workshop Infrastructure.pdf) accessed 30 December 2013.
29–30 May 2013, Final report.
EC, 2013, Communication from the Commission
Beier, P., Spencer, W., Baldwin, R., McRae, B., 2011, to the European Parliament, the Council, the
'Toward Best Practices for Developing Regional European Economic and Social Committee and the
Connectivity Maps.' Conservation Biology, 25(5), Committee of the Regions 'Green Infrastructure
879–892. (GI) — Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital'
(COM(2013) 249 final of 6 May 2013) (http://
Birngruber, H., Böck, C., Matzinger, A., Pöstinger, eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
M., Söllradl, A., Wöss, M., 2012, Wildtierkorridore in do?uri=COM:2013:0249:FIN:EN:PDF) accessed
Oberösterreich. Oö Umweltanwaltschaft, Linz. 30 December 2013.
De Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Ecotec & NENW, 2008, The Economic benefits of Green
Willemen, L., 2010, 'Challenges in integrating Infrastructure.
the concept of ecosystem services and values in
landscape planning, management and decision Escobedo, F.J., Nowak D.J., 2009, 'Spatial
making.' Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272. heterogeneity and air pollution removal by an urban
forest.' Landscape and Urban Planning, 90(3), 102–110.
De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R.M.J.,
2002, 'A typology for the classification, description European Commission, 2013, Green Infrastructure
and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and (GI) — Enhancing Europe's Natural Capital.
services.' Ecological Economics, 41(3), 393–408. COM(2013) 249 final, Brussels, 6.5.2013.
EC, 2011, Communication from the Commission European Commission, 2012, 'The Multifunctionality
to the European Parliament, the Council, the of Green Infrastructure. Science for Environment
European Economic and Social Committee and Policy', In-depth Reports, March 2012.
the Committee of the Regions 'Our life insurance,
our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to European Environment Agency, 2011, Green
2020' (COM(2011) 244 final of 3 May 2011) (http:// Infrastructure and Territorial Cohesion. The concept
ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/ of green infrastructure and its integration into policies
comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_ using monitoring systems. EEA Technical report
v7%5B1%5D.pdf) accessed 30 December 2013. No 13/2011. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union, 2011.
EC, 2011a, Communication from the Commission
to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Environment Agency, 2012, 'Assessment
European Economic and Social Committee and the on Green Infrastructure — Analysis of data
Committee of the Regions 'Roadmap to a Resource sets potentially relevant for measuring green
Efficient Europe' (COM(2011) 571 final of 20 infrastructure' (internal draft report).
September 2011) (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
resource_efficiency/pdf/com2011_571.pdf) accessed Gallai, N., Salles, J.M., Settele, J., Vaissière, B.E., 2009,
30 December 2013. 'Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world

References
agriculture confronted with pollinator decline.' on the implementation of Article 3 of the Birds Directive
Ecological Economics, 68(3), 810–821. (79/409/EEC) and Article 10 of the Habitats Directive
(92/43/EEC), Institute for European Environmental
Grizzetti, B., Bouraoui, F., Aloe, A., 2007, Spatialised Policy (IEEP), Brussels, 114 pp. & Annexes.
European Nutrient Balance. EUR 22692 EN. 2007.
JRC36653. Kleeschulte, S., Bouwma, I., Hazeu, G., Banko, G.,
Nichersu, I., 2012, 'Ecosystem services and Green
Grizzetti, B., Bouraoui, F., De Marsily, G., 2008, Infrastructure — Regional policies implementation.'
'Assessing nitrogen pressures on European Draft Final Report of project 4#2.4_1 Green
surface water.' Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 22(4, Infrastructure, EEA.
doi:10.1029/2007GB003085.
Klein, A.M., Vaissière, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steffan-
Haines-Young, R.H., Potschin, M.P., 2010, 'The links Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C., 2007,
between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human 'Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes
well-being.' In: Raffaelli D. G., Frid C. L. J., editors. for world crops.' Proceedings of the Royal Society:
Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. Cambridge: BES Biological sciences, 274(1 608), 303–313.
Ecological Reviews Series, Cambridge University
Press. pp. 110–139. Liquete, C., Zulian, G., Delgado, I., Stips, A., Maes,
J., 2013, 'Assessment of coastal protection as an
Hänel, K., Reck, H., 2011, Bundesweite Prioritäten zur ecosystem service in Europe'. Ecological Indicators 30,
Wiedervernetzung von Ökosystemen: Die Überwindung 205–217.
straßenbedingter Barrieren. Ergebnisse des F+E-
Vorhabens 3507 82 090 des Bundesamtes für Maes, J., Paracchini, M.L., Zulian, G., 2011,
Naturschutz. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt A European assessment of the provision of ecosystem
108. Bonn Bad-Godesberg. services — Towards an atlas of ecosystem services.
Publications Office of the European Union, EUR
Horwood, K., 2011, 'Green infrastructure: 24750 EN, doi:10.2788/63557.
reconciling urban green space and regional
economic development: lessons learnt from Maes, J., Paracchini, M.L., Zulian, G., Dunbar, M.
experience in England's north-west region.' Local B., Alkemade, R., 2012, 'Synergies and trade-offs
Environment 16(10), 963–975. between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity,
and habitat conservation status in Europe'. Biological
Hostetler, M., Allen, W., Meurk, C., 2011, Conservation, 155, 1–12.
'Conserving urban biodiversity? Creating green
infrastructure is only the first step.' Landscape and Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Liquete, C., Braat, L.,
Urban Planning, 100(4), 369–371. et al., 2013, Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and
their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystem
Jones, A., Panagos, P., Barcelo, S., Bouraoui, F., assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity
Bosco, C. et al., 2012, The state of soil in Europe — strategy to 2020. Publications office of the European
A contribution of the JRC to the European Environment Union, Luxembourg.
Agency's Environment State and outlook Report SOER
2010. Publications Office of the European Union, McDonald, L.A., Allen, W.L., Benedict, M.A.,
EUR 25186 EN. O'Conner, K., 2005, 'Green Infrastructure Plan
Evaluation Frameworks.' Journal of Conservation
Jongman, R.H.G., Bouwma, I.R., Griffioen, A. et al., Planning 1(1), 6–25.
2011, 'The Pan European Ecological Network:
PEEN.' Landscape Ecology, 26, 311–326. McRae, B.H., Kavanagh, D.M., 2011, Linkage
Mapper Connectivity Analysis Software. The Nature
Karl, T., Harley, P., Emmons, L., Thornton, B., Conservancy, Seattle WA (http://www.circuitscape.
Guenther, A., Basu, C., Turnipseed, A., Jardine, K., org/linkagemapper) accessed 30 December 2013.
2010, 'Efficient atmospheric cleansing of oxidized
organic trace gases by vegetation.' Science, 330(6005), Naumann, S., McKenna, D., Kaphengst, T. et al.,
816–819. 2011, Design, implementation and cost elements of
Green Infrastructure projects. Final report. Brussels:
Kettunen, M., Terry, A., Tucker, G., Jones, A., 2007, European Commission.
Guidance on the maintenance of landscape features of
major importance for wild flora and fauna — Guidance

References
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Are there general patterns?' Ecology Letters, 11(5),
Tallis, H. et al., 2009, 'Modeling multiple ecosystem 499–515.
services, biodiversity conservation, commodity
production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales.' Sexton, J.O., Song, X.-P., Feng, M., Noojipady, P.,
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 4–11. Anand, A., Huang, C., Kim, D.-H., Collins, K.M.,
Channan, S., DiMiceli, C., Townshend, J.R.G., 2013,
Pistocchi, A., 2008, 'A GIS-Based Approach for 'Global, 30-m resolution continuous fields of tree
Modeling the Fate and Transport of Pollutants in cover: Landsat-based rescaling of MODIS Vegetation
Europe.' Environmental Science and Technology 42(10), Continuous Fields with lidar-based estimates of
3 640–3 647. error.' International Journal of Digital Earth (ahead of
print), 1–22.
Pistocchi A., Bouraoui F., Bittelli M., 2008,
'A Simplified Parameterization of the Monthly Simón, A., Marín, A., Schröder, C., Gregor, M., 2011,
Topsoil Water Budget.' Water Resources Research, 'Working paper on compatibility of the data and
44(12), W12440. integration in LEAC.' Version 1.0 Final report, EEA.
Pistocchi, A., Zulian, G., Vizcaino, P., Marinov, D., Simón Colina, A., Schröder, C., Abdul Malak, D.,
2010, Multimedia Assessment of Pollutant Pathways 2012, Compilation of carbon account datasets.
in the Environment, European Scale Model (MAPPE- Deliverable for Task 262-5#2.5_2 'Prototype carbon
EUROPE). EUR 24256 EN. Publications Office of the accounts', EEA.
European Union, Luxembourg, JRC56335.
Wright, H., 2011, 'Understanding green
Rey-Benayas, J.M., Newton, A.C., Diaz, A., Bullock, infrastructure: the development of a contested
J.M., 2009, 'Enhancement of Biodiversity and concept in England.' Local Environment, 16(10):
Ecosystem Services by Ecological Restoration: 1 003–1 019.
A Meta-Analysis.' Science, 325 (5 944), 1 121–1 124.
Zulian, G., Maes, J., Paracchini, M.L., 2013, 'Linking
Ricketts, T.H., Regetz, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Land Cover Data and Crop Yields for Mapping and
Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C., Bogdanski, A., et al., Assessment of Pollination Services in Europe.' Land
2008, 'Landscape effects on crop pollination services: 2 (3), 472–492.

Annex 1
Annex 1 CLC–Resistance translation
Table A1.1 Conversion table from CLC classes to habitat permeability and landscape resistance
for the transit of large forest-bound mammals
CLC code Level 3 Permea bi l i ty Res i s ta nce

111 Conti nuous urba n fa bri c 1 100
112 Di s conti nuous urba n fa bri c 1 100
121 Indus tri a l or commerci a l uni ts 1 100
122 Roa d a nd ra i l networks a nd a s s oci a ted l a nd 4 88
123 Port a rea s 1 100
124 Ai rports 1 100
131 Mi nera l extra cti on s i tes 9 67
132 Dump s i tes 1 100
133 Cons tructi on s i tes 1 100
141 Green urba n a rea s 4 88
142 Sport a nd l ei s ure fa ci l i ti es 4 88
211 Non-i rri ga ted a ra bl e l a nd 9 67
212 Perma nentl y i rri ga ted l a nd 9 67
213 Ri ce fi el ds 4 88
221 Vi neya rds 9 67
222 Frui t trees a nd berry pl a nta ti ons 9 67
223 Ol i ve groves 9 67
231 Pa s tures 9 67
241 Annua l crops a s s oci a ted wi th perma nent crops 9 67
242 Compl ex cul ti va ti on pa tterns 9 67
243 La nd pri nci pa l l y occupi ed by a gri cul ture, wi th 9 67
s i gni fi ca nt a rea s of na tura l vegeta ti on
244 Agro-fores try a rea s 4 88
311 Broa d-l ea ved fores t 25 1
312 Coni ferous fores t 25 1
313 Mi xed fores t 25 1
321 Na tura l gra s s l a nds 4 88
322 Moors a nd hea thl a nd 4 88
323 Scl erophyl l ous vegeta ti on 4 88
324 Tra ns i ti ona l woodl a nd-s hrub 4 88
331 Bea ches , dunes , s a nds 4 88
332 Ba re rocks 4 88
333 Spa rs el y vegeta ted a rea s 16 38
334 Burnt a rea s 4 88
335 Gl a ci ers a nd perpetua l s now 4 88
411 Inl a nd ma rs hes 4 88
412 Pea t bogs 4 88
421 Sa l t ma rs hes 4 88
422 Sa l i nes 1 100
423 Interti da l fl a ts 1 100
511 Wa ter cours es 4 88
512 Wa ter bodi es 4 88
521 Coa s ta l l a goons 1 100
522 Es tua ri es 1 100
523 Sea a nd ocea n 1 100
Source: Derived from Beier et al., 2011; and Birngruber et al., 2012.

Annex 2
Annex 2 Example of application
Distribution of the proposed GI networks in the Mediterranean characteristics (lack of dense forest,
EU-27 territory. Data show the percentage of each etc.) does not help for GI networks. However, the
national territory and correspond to the results first part of the analysis (the ecosystem services
illustrated in Map 4.6. The total coverage in each part) covers all ecosystems. This means that,
country can sum to less than 100 % when pixels of when compared with the European average,
data gaps are present. The discrepancies in coverage neither Cyprus nor Malta have areas that can be
across countries highlight that the thresholds and classified as optimum/maximum ecosystem service
criteria used to define the GI networks have to be providers. This is what the study is highlighting,
adapted to national or regional circumstances. indicating that the thresholds between maximum-
medium-poor should be adapted to national or
To understand the '0.0' values for Cyprus regional characteristics.
and Malta, the size of the islands and their
Table A2.1 Distribution of the proposed GI networks in the EU-27 territory
Country Country name Non GI (%) GI network 'R' (%) GI network 'C' (%)
(ISO code)
AT Austria 28.9 10.1 60.9
BE Belgium 70.7 11.1 18.1
BG Bulgaria 69.2 16.5 14.0
CY Cyprus 95.3 1.1 0.0
CZ Czech Republic 43.7 15.1 41.3
DE Germany 64.7 14.1 20.9
DK Denmark 81.9 6.4 6.8
EE Estonia 21.0 10.4 65.6
ES Spain 59.6 20.6 18.0
FI Finland 45.2 14.1 39.6
FR France 59.9 14.2 25.6
GR Greece 61.3 20.2 15.5
HU Hungary 81.1 11.0 7.7
IE Ireland 85.0 9.3 3.6
IT Italy 59.0 13.0 27.0
LT Lithuania 55.2 15.9 28.1
LU Luxembourg 50.6 22.0 27.4
LV Latvia 26.3 10.1 63.0
MT Malta 75.4 0.0 0.0
NL Netherlands 88.5 5.3 5.3
PL Poland 67.3 15.2 17.4
PT Portugal 42.7 29.5 23.8
RO Romania 65.3 9.5 25.0
SE Sweden 22.0 22.3 54.7
SI Slovenia 25.0 11.6 62.1
SK Slovakia 44.1 9.0 46.9
UK United Kingdom 75.8 14.6 7.4

2014 — 53 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-9213-421-1
ISSN 1725-2237
doi:10.2800/11170
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• at the European Union's representations or delegations. You can obtain their
contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to
+352 2929-42758.
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the

European Union and reports of cases before the Court of Justice of the
European Union):
• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
doi:10.2800/11170
TH-AK-14-002-EN-N

Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00
Fax: +45 33 36 71 99
Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries

Green Infrastructure - Tech 02 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green Infrastructure - Tech 02 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green Infrastructure - Tech 02 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EEA Technical report No 2/2014

Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe

Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014

REG.NO. DK- 000244

European Environment Agency

Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe 5

• Branislav Olah (former EEA) • Patrick Murphy (DG Environment)

• Ronan Uhel (EEA) • Philippe Monfort (DG Regional and Urban

6 Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe

CICES Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services

Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe 7

Figure ES.1 GI provides multiple functions

Source: Ecotec & NENW, 2008.

8 Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe

Key principles of green infrastructure should be promoted

Integration of green infrastructure into policy sectors should be encouraged

Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe 9

Figure ES.2 Work flow of the methodology proposed in this report

10 Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe

Box ES.2 Illustrative example of the 4-level approach on ecosystem restoration

Levels Types of areas

Level 1 Satisfactory abiotic conditions. 'Wilderness' areas and N2000

Level 2 Satisfactory abiotic conditions. N2000 habitats and species not

Level 4 Highly modified abiotic 'Heavily modified ecosystems'

Source: ARCADIS, 2013.

Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe 11

Map ES.1 Mapping of the potential European GI networks

12 Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe

Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe 13

1 Introduction and objectives

14 Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe

Figure 1.1 CIF of the Biodiversity Strategy 2020

Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe 15

identification and mapping of GI elements at spatial planning by identifying multifunctional

(4) COM(2011) 612 final/2, COM(2011) 614 final.

16 Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe

2 Towards a conceptual framework

Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe 17

Box 2.1 Ecosystem services

18 Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe

Figure 2.1 Overall methodological concept of the proposed analysis

Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe 19

20 Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe

3 Methodology for the identification of

Figure 3.1 Ecosystem services cascade model

Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe 21

CICES V4.3 Green infrastructure approach

Regulation and Mediation of Mediation by Filtration of pollutants by vegetation Deposition velocity of

22 Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe

3.1.1 Description of input data Erosion protection

Air quality regulation Accelerated soil erosion by water as a result of

Box 3.1 Benefits of GI: air quality regulation

GI such as vegetation can reduce ground-level

Photo: © Pawel Kazmierczyk

Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe 23

Box 3.2 Benefits of GI: erosion protection

The rate at which soil erosion occurs depends

Box 3.3 Benefits of GI: water flow regulation