Content uploaded by Sabina Reichert
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sabina Reichert on Jul 20, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Sabina Reichert
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sabina Reichert on Jul 20, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Urban Innovative Actions, Les Arcuriales, 45D rue de Tournai, F59000 Lille, France
www.uia-initiative.eu
Standards and Key
Performance Indicators
Report
SPIRE Deliverable 4.3.2
Project: UIA04-138 SPIRE Baia Mare
Deliverable no: D.4.3.2. Standards and Key Performance Indicators Report
Authors: Sabina Leopa (URBASOFIA)
Reviewers: Dorin Miclăuș (MUA Baia Bare), Sorin Pop (Indeco Soft), Pietro Verga
(URBASOFIA)
Submission date: 15.07.2020
Dissemination level: Public
Revision History
Revision
Date
Author
Organization
Description
01
17.07.2020
Sabina Leopa
URBASOFIA
Integration of comments from
consortium. Final deliverable
02
Table of Acronyms
Acronym
Description
ASRO
Romanian National Standardization Body
BIM
Building Information Modelling
CEN
European Committee for Standardization
CENELEC
European Committee for Electro technical Standardization
CLC
Corine Land Cover
COPERNICUS
European Programme for the establishment of a European capacity for
Earth Observation, previously known as GMES (Global Monitoring for
Environment and Security)
DIN
German Institute for Standardization
EEA
European Environment Agency
EIT
European Institute of Innovation and Technology
ESO
European Standardization Organizations
EU
European Union
EUKN
European Urban Knowledge Network
FUA
Functional Urban Area
GEO
Government Emergency Ordinance
3
GI
Green Infrastructure
GUP
General Urban Plan
HM
Heavy Metals
ICT
Information and Communication Technology
ISO
International Organisation for Standardisation
ITI
Integrated Territorial Investments
LAU
Local Administrative Unit
LUZ
Larger Urban Zone
MA
Metropolitan Area
MS
Member State
MUA
Main Urban Authority
NBS
Nature-Based Solutions
NUTS
Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics
PM
Particulate matter
PPP
Public-Private Partnership
R&D
Research and Development
R&I
Research and Innovation
ROP
Regional Operational Programme
SEA
Strategic Environmental Assessment
SEAP
Sustainable Energy Action Plan
SDG
Sustainable Development Goal
SDO
Standardisation Development Organisations
SGV
Soil Guideline Value
SLU
Sustainable Land Use
SUL NBS
Urban Agenda for the EU Urban Partnerships on the Sustainable Use of
Land and Nature-based Solutions
SUMP
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan
UIA
Urban Innovative Actions
TV
Target Value
This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise.
Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through
appropriate citation, quotation or both.
5
Executive abstract
The UIA SPIRE project experiments an innovative approach to nature-based solutions (NBS) and
sustainable land use in Baia Mare, in order to address the environmental, health, economic and social
problems generated by historical Heavy Metal (HM) pollution in the city and its surrounding
Metropolitan Area. It does so by developing and testing bio-based, participatory and digital tools to
support the development of new productive value chains out of HM-polluted brownfields.
Because of the complexity of such an experimental approach, it is essential to identify existing policies,
thematic protocols and standards, and to construct a unitary evaluation framework which can allow
the results of the project to be properly collected and assessed, against both a local baseline as well as
the potential to scale up at European level.
The SPIRE standards and Key Performance Indicators (KPI) report provides this framework for the
impact assessment of the project. In order to achieve its objective, the report first highlights the policy
architecture in which SPIRE is being implemented, identifying the potential project contributions to
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the European Commission’s Areas of EU Action
domains for environment, climate change, industry, energy, social and employment, public health,
research and innovation. Framing the policy context allowed the extraction of targets relevant to
SPIRE from several strategies, action plans, directives and regulations in force at EU level, as well as
the laws and regulations at national level in Romania which carry over and implement existing
directives. These targets, most significantly on the topic of climate change and energy, will represent
orientation points for the future development of the Baia Mare 2050 Masterplan and the assessment
of replication potential.
Further, this report provides an overview of the existing and upcoming standards within the SPIRE
policy domains, based on a survey of publications from the main Standards Development
Organisations (SDOs). Although there is a robust body of standards for environmental quality,
construction and energy, geospatial data and ICT instruments, the specific topics of sustainable land
use / urban planning and nature-based solutions are either only tangentially addressed, or still
incipient in their development. However, significant steps are being made towards the development
of a global NBS standard (IUCN), which can provide the credibility and endorsement necessary to
overcome perception barriers and inertia.
In lieu of standards, the report surveys the existing indicator frameworks developed with the purpose
of performance measurement of urban systems, singling out two two key domains for this
assessment: Smart and Sustainable urban development assessment, and Nature-Based Solutions
assessment. A selection of KPI frameworks from ITU-T, UNECE, ISO, CityKEYS / ETSI, MAES, EKLIPSE and
Nature4Cities is explored. After a comparative analysis, the KPI Framework for SPIRE is substantiated
through the selection of eight EKLIPSE challenges for NBS evaluations, to which the UIA SPIRE actions
contribute directly. In total, this report identifies 28 expected short- and medium-term impacts of
SPIRE addressing the challenges, cross-referenced with the SDGs and key policy domains.
The final definition of a set of key performance indicators is consistent with the initial list developed
within the SPIRE project and with the EKLIPSE framework, however integrating indicators from several
other key surveyed standards and widely-used frameworks, due to the trans-sectorial character of
SPIRE. In total, 61 relevant indicators from the SDG 11, EKLIPSE framework and CityKEYS have been
included as-is or adapted, each referenced, and containing the unit of measurement, data sources and
method of collection.
The distribution of indicators per challenges and topics is consistent with the hierarchy between the
main project focus and the secondary or longer-term objectives, such as improvement of air quality
and public health, for which a measurable impact is improbable during the three-year piloting of the
project, and could in turn be expected for the longer-term Baia Mare 2050 metropolitan scale-up.
The main contribution of this proposed KPI framework in the project will be to support the definition
of the result indicators for SPIRE, project monitoring and project assessment. Perhaps equally
important, it will also assist development of the Baia Mare Metropolitan bio-based strategy and
Masterplan for 2050, specifically the definition of its methodological approach, monitoring and
assessment instruments and targets. Lastly, beyond the SPIRE consortium, this report can also assist
other cities or interested stakeholders in broadening their knowledge about EU policies, standards and
key performance indicators supporting the assessment of innovative sustainable land use and nature-
based solutions projects.
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 9
1.1. Introduction to the project ........................................................................................... 9
1.1.1. Context and rationale ................................................................................................................... 9
1.1.2. Goals and objectives of benchmarking. Relation to other activities .......................................... 10
1.2. Methodological approach .......................................................................................... 11
1.3. Report structure and intended audience .................................................................... 17
2. Performance assessment...................................................................................................... 19
2.1. Rationale ................................................................................................................... 19
2.2. Definition of working concepts ................................................................................... 20
2.2.1. Impact assessment, monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................... 20
2.2.2. Indicators, performance indicators and KPIs .............................................................................. 21
2.2.3. Characteristics of performance measurement frameworks in urban development and NBS
implementation ............................................................................................................................................ 23
3. The global, European and national framework ...................................................................... 26
3.1. SPIRE and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals ................................................... 26
3.2. Reference European and national framework policies for the economy, science and
quality of life .............................................................................................................................. 30
3.2.1. Environment and climate change policy ..................................................................................... 31
3.2.2. Industrial and energy policy ........................................................................................................ 37
3.2.3. Social policy and employment .................................................................................................... 41
3.2.4. Public health and wellbeing ........................................................................................................ 42
3.2.5. Research and innovation ............................................................................................................ 42
4. A standardised approach to nbs and phytoremediation ........................................................ 44
4.1. Standards in innovation projects ................................................................................ 44
4.2. Mapping standardisation topics against SPIRE policy domains .................................... 46
5. DEFINITION OF A WORKING KPI FRAMEWORK FOR SPIRE ..................................................... 49
5.1. Review of existing KPI frameworks in the context of innovative urban actions assessment
49
5.2. Mapping the SPIRE impact assessment framework ..................................................... 54
5.3. SPIRE Key Performance Indicators .............................................................................. 60
6. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 71
References .................................................................................................................................. 72
9
1. Introduction
1.1. Introduction to the project
1.1.1. Context and rationale
Baia Mare’s industrial past in the mining and metallurgical sector left circa 627 hectares of land
polluted by heavy metals (up to 5 times the acceptable value) within the metropolitan area, which are
now disconnected from the urban framework and a danger to the inhabitants and the environment.
SPIRE’s challenge is to test an integrated, innovative strategy capable of:
- Recovering contaminated land and starting a long-term phytoremediation and land
revalorisation process;
- Co-creating new bio-based development models and novel solutions to pressing urban issues,
like housing insulation or carbon emissions reduction;
- Finding alternatives to fossil fuel to foster sustainable energy transition;
- Supporting participation and a behavioural shift, leveraging on novel digital solutions to
reward environmentally friendly actions.
SPIRE – Smart Post-Industrial Regenerative Ecosystem Baia Mare is an Urban Innovative Actions
project financed under the Sustainable Land Use and Nature Based Solutions priority in the third UIA
call, and it is being implemented between September 2019 and August 2022, with a one-year closure
and knowledge transfer period after the end of the implementation period.
The project’s objective is to start a long-term redevelopment process through the participatory co-
design of new adaptive and productive landscapes, integrated into a circular ecosystem of cascading
material and energy value chains.
To achieve this, SPIRE activates a critical mass of stakeholders and opens a Hub in the city centre for
co-design and mentoring activities. A GIS Dynamic Atlas and a Remediation Toolkit support co-design
and implementation processes for renaturing and phytoremediation of a total of 7.15 ha pilot sites.
An innovative iLEU local digital token system is under implementation, rewarding civic environmental
behaviour, involvement, and eco-entrepreneurship.
Furthermore, the project develops a bio-based circular ecosystem in Baia Mare, using the biomass
yields of the phytoremediation actions in two cascading value chains: 1) to produce renewable energy
for a public building, and 2) in carbon-neutral experimental materials with construction / industrial
applications, co-developed with young entrepreneurs who will be mentored in the SPIRE Hub. iLEU
will incentivize further adoption of NBS at local level. Finally, Life Cycle Assessment will evaluate the
SPIRE value chains, and a co-designed Metropolitan 2050 strategy will upscale the approach and open
up the possibilities of urban regeneration, economies of scale, sustainable socio-economic and
environmental transitions.
The project will be implemented between September 2019 and August 2023 (including closure and
knowledge transfer), and is structured process-wise into three stages:
The 1st stage (WP4, WP5, and Activity 7.1) is dedicated to activation, development and construction
of the support infrastructure of SPIRE:
- Activating local stakeholders (A4.1) and creating the SPIRE Hub (A4.2), where all participatory
and mentoring initiatives will take place.
- Developing a GIS-based Dynamic Atlas (A5.1) for long-term monitoring and planning and the
iLEU (A5.2): a local token-based value system aimed at rewarding sustainable behaviour and
eco-entrepreneurship.
- Surveying the latest applied research on in-situ phytoremediation and its integration in bio-
based economies; on standards and KPIs (A4.3); and performing a multi-dimensional baseline
analysis for BM (A7.1).
The 2nd stage (WP6) will be the core of SPIRE’s strategy and will encompass all the activities
instrumental to the development of a bio-based circular ecosystem in Baia Mare.
The final stage will implement a Life Cycle Assessment to evaluate the SPIRE value chains and will
further co-develop the Masterplan 2050 for BM’s Metropolitan Area: the long-term land re-use and
bio-economy development strategy (Figure 1).
Figure 1 - The SPIRE implementation stages and workflow. Source: Leopa (2020)
1.1.2. Goals and objectives of benchmarking. Relation to other activities
This report is part of the Stage 1 – set-up of SPIRE implementation framework, developing a baseline
for the implementation and positioning SPIRE within the EU and global context of bioremediation and
ecosystem-services-based initiatives. Because of the complexity of the project, which proposes a multi-
component revolutionary approach to nature-based solutions and sustainable land use, a key
challenge is to identify and construct an evaluation framework which allows the results of the project
to be properly collected and assessed against both a local baseline as well as the potential
opportunities to scale up at European level.
Activity 4.3 – Benchmarking has the purpose of addressing these challenges; it identifies the main
barriers and entry points for SPIRE and it objectively assesses the state of play at local level, both from
a qualitative and quantitative point of view, as well as in relation to the state of art landscape at
European level. Benchmarking will aid further evidence-based policy development in Stage 3 (Baia
Mare Metropolitan Masterplan 2050), and is particularly effective as a method for relative evaluation
11
of results in measuring complex phenomena, for which no unequivocal measure of success can be
found (Rok, 2014).
In SPIRE, benchmarking is achieved via three main scientific components
1. Developing a state of art / innovation landscape report (D.4.3.1)
2. Assessing standards and designing a Key Performance Indicator framework (D.4.3.2, the
present report)
3. Developing a desk analysis, research repository and conducting a local awareness appraisal
(D.4.3.3).
The results of benchmarking are further laying the ground for the assessment, sustainability and
widespread impact activities (WP 7 – see Figure 2). A baseline will be established, and the research
work carried out be used to set up the assessment framework of SPIRE, and will inform the
Remediation Toolkit (a strategic choice catalogue for nature-based remediation options and
secondary applications suitable for wide EU-level use), and CASMA (conceptual adaptive site
management application, designed as an interactive scoring system).
Lastly, the Key Performance Indicators will assist development of the Baia Mare Metropolitan bio-
based strategy and Masterplan for 2050, which will be operationalized within the framework
developed in the present report.
Figure 2 - Benchmarking in SPIRE Baia Mare. Relation to WP 7. Source: Leopa (2020)
Beyond the project, the contents of the report, including the selected indicators, may furthermore be
used to support other cities assess viable solutions for their Heavy Metal-polluted brownfield
challenges.
1.2. Methodological approach
The purpose of D.4.3.2 is to provide a framework of KPIs based on existing EU and global standards to
assess the starting conditions of the local ecosystem and its environmental qualities, and to monitor
and assess the results and impact of SPIRE piloting actions. The report will draw on work carried out at
European level, such as the MAES’ framework for ecosystem conditions and indicators for pressures
and conditions of urban ecosystems. Such indicators, together with the NBS assessment framework
developed by EKLIPSE under EU-DG R&I, will be used to guide performance measurement and
monitoring. EU Agenda / EC, UNECE and OECD indicators for bio-based economies will provide a
framework for the Strategy and Masterplan 2050.
The D.4.3.2 – Standards and Key Performance Indicators Report aims to provide a unitary set of key
performance indicators, organized in assessment domains (challenges) and expected impacts,
connected to the key policy domains of SPIRE. To achieve this, the report surveys existing KPI sets and
other indicator sets pertaining to soil, environmental, urban and peri-urban vegetation quality, health
and wellbeing, bio-based economy and value chains. It generates a set of multi-scalar and multi-
thematic indicators, which can be used for evaluating the results of complex phytoremediation to new
bioeconomy projects such as SPIRE.
In this report we will describe and discuss how to establish an efficient indicator system to support the
implementation of the several dimensions and actions in SPIRE Baia Mare. The methodological
approach is centred on responding to the following research questions:
Table 1 - Standards and KPI research matrix
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
METHOD
DATA SOURCES
1. Which policy domains,
assessment domains and
descriptors are relevant for
the performance assessment
of SPIRE?
Desk analysis; survey of
existing policy concepts and
domains; survey of
methodological approaches to
NBS and SLU evaluation;
European R&I research
reports from flagship
initiatives generated in the
last 5-7 years; European key
policies in the last 10 years;
2. What is the global, European
and national framework
pertaining to the identified
SPIRE policy domains?
Qualitative survey on the
existing policy and regulatory
frameworks regional and local
level, screening for the degree
of support (implicit, explicit)
for key SPIRE / NBS and SLU
concepts;
Strategic, programmatic,
regulatory and normative
documents
3. Which existing standards can
support interoperability in
nature-based solutions and
sustainable land use
performance evaluation,
specifically for HM-polluted
soils?
Survey of global standards
from SDOs, EC and
international organisations
(eg. IUCN) pertaining
geospatial data, metadata and
services for the identified
policy and assessment
domains;
Literature review, SDO
publications review
4. What is the current state of
art of KPI research and
practice, and which
established sets and domains
can be mapped to SPIRE?
Qualitative research; database
search, screening of literature
based on policy keywords
Papers and reports from R&I
projects and European
working groups; scientific
literature; Urban planning
reports;
13
5. How can a multi-scalar and
multi-thematic KPI
framework be constituted
based on the KPIs with a
higher degree of universality,
derived from existing
established European and
global research into the
SPIRE policy domains?
Development of a project
indicator classification scheme
and streamlining the list of
KPIs based on 1) criteria
evaluation and 2) scales of
SPIRE implementation (site,
neighbourhood,
city/metropolitan area)
Comparative assessment
and processing of
information from the above
sources
The Standards and KPI deliverable methodology relies on the following methodological steps:
Figure 3 - Methodological steps of D.4.3.2. Source: Leopa (2020)
As a starting point, this report constructs the policy framework of the project, at global, European and
national level. The framework is underpinned by the comprehensive systems approach of the
Sustainable Development Goals, which are surveyed in order to highlight the internationally accepted
standard of targets, indicators and metrics for the progress evaluation towards sustainability. The
project selects 9 main SDGs to which SPIRE primarily contributes (SDG 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 15)
and two secondary ones (SDG 16 and 17), with SDG 11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities being
central to the project assessment framework. The recent Handbook for SDG Voluntary Local Review
guidance, putting forward 71 indicators for the local attainment of SDG 11 is utilised for the selection
of a set of relevant benchmarking targets at urban level.
Because of the complex nature of sustainable land use and Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), it is
sometimes a challenge to delineate the often overlapping and complex policy areas which govern their
implementation. However, policy making within the multi-level governance framework of the EU is
tributary to the European Commission’s Areas of EU Action, which have been used as reference to
define the five policy dimensions of the project: Environment and Climate change, Industry and
Energy, Social policy and employment, Public health, Research and Innovation (see Figure 8). For each
key policy domain, a review of European strategies, policies and secondary law was conducted in
order to understand the legal and policy context in which SPIRE operates and to highlight the policy
targets which can represent a reference point for the definition of the SPIRE assessment framework
and KPIs. Queries have been performed for the following sub-domains:
• Sustainable use of land
• Soil protection
• Clean air
• Clean water
• Efficient and sustainable energy use
• Waste management, brownfield recovery and the circular economy
• The industrial policy and bio-based building materials
Within these relevant policy areas, the research conducted in this report has explored the Strategies,
Action Plans, Directives and Regulations in force at European level, as well as the body of laws and
regulations at national level which carry over and implement existing directives. The national level
survey has been focused on identifying target values which Romania has committed to in terms of
mitigating climate change, remediating brownfields, using RES and recycling municipal waste (with
energy recovery). These targets represent orientation points for the future development of the Baia
Mare 2050 Masterplan, and they consequently inform the selection of Key Performance Indicators for
the assessment of the SPIRE Pilot as well as future actions.
In a second step, the landscape of existing standards of interest to SPIRE has been surveyed. In order
to determine standardisation topics, the five policy domains have been used, which have further been
refined with the following thematic queries:
• Environmental management
• Environmental site assessment
• Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (E-LCA)
• Brownfields
• Soil quality
15
• Nature-based solutions
• Land management
• Urban Planning
• Geospatial data
• BIM
• Thermal insulation for buildings
• Blockchain
• IoT, sensors and Earth Observation (EO)
• Biomass energy
• Energy management in PA
• Public procurement
• Social responsibility
Thematic standards can be relevant for individual project actions. In order to develop an integrated
assessment framework for SPIRE and attribute it a relevant, but compact system of KPIs, thematic
standards have been complemented by integrated Smart and Sustainable Cities and Communities
standards developed by ISO, ETSI and ITU-T in cooperation with UNECE.
The third step in the development of a KPI framework has been developed based on the review of such
existing European and global frameworks, in the context of innovative urban actions assessment. Two
assessment scopes have been pursued in this regard:
1. The Smart and Sustainable urban development assessment: ITU-T and UNECE / U4SCC, ISO
37120:2018 indicators for city services and quality of life; CityKEYS indicators for SC projects
and Smart Cities;
2. Nature-Based Solutions assessment: MAES Framework; EKLIPSE Impact Evaluation
Framework; Nature4Cities system of performance indicators for the assessment of urban
challenges and NBS
A comparative assessment of these partially overlapping frameworks has been performed, with the
aim of identifying the most fitting architecture for the classification of KPIs for SPIRE project
assessment. Finally, the ten EKLIPSE Challenges for NBS evaluation have been selected based on their
robustness and wide use in current research and innovation initiatives, including Nature4Cities and
over 20 NBS projects being implemented under the Horizon 2020 programme.
Eight out of the ten total Challenges have been selected, against which the UIA SPIRE actions have
been mapped. Research conducted in the development of existing KPI frameworks has been used to
further chart expected impacts of UIA SPIRE action sets contributing to each individual Challenge. The
impacts have been cross-referenced with the identified SDGs and policy domains researched in
Chapter 3. This has led to the development of a framework of 28 expected short- and medium-term
impacts of SPIRE.
Consistent with the Theory of Change model, a set of key performance indicators has been developed
for each expected impact. The key performance indicators have been integrated within this framework
from several sources, due to the trans-sectorial character of SPIRE: beyond the KPI identified by the
project during design phase, relevant indicators from the SDG 11, EKLIPSE framework and CityKEYS
have been included as-is or adapted, each referenced, and including the unit of measurement, data
sources and method of collection.
For each identified KPI, the following categorisation was further used:
1. Scale: the scale at which the indicator is relevant for impact assessment, either pilot scale or
neighborhood, city or metropolitan area.
2. Relevance: the point in project implementation and time at which the KPI is relevant – either
during piloting (SPIRE implementation), or during the long-term implementation of Baia Mare
2050 strategy, or both.
This approach has led to the definition of 61 KPIs, subscribing to eight NBS implementation challenges,
and 28 expected impacts. The scope of the indicators is manifold: first, they will be utilised to assess
the short-term impact of the project, within the final phase of implementation. Secondly, they will be
included in the Baia Mare Metropolitan Masterplan 2050, as a means for progress tracking. Third and
last, they will be disseminated to other UIA NBS projects and beyond, in order to provide a reference
framework for assessing urban innovative projects implementing nature based solutions and
innovative digital solutions to develop local value chains from brownfield regeneration processes.
17
1.3. Report structure and intended audience
This report is structured into five parts. The introduction offers an overview of the context and
rationale of the project, as well as the objectives of the present report and methodology used to
develop Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for the assessment of Urban Innovative Action SPIRE Baia
Mare.
The second chapter introduces the central concepts of performance assessment for an urban
innovation project. It explores existing scientific literature to define impact assessment, monitoring,
evaluation and the concept of key performance indicators. Further, it presents the different
characteristics of performance measurement frameworks used in urban development and NBS
assessment.
The third chapter is dedicated to an understanding of the global, European and national frameworks
directing, supporting and conditioning the implementation of SPIRE. The Sustainable Development
Goals, European strategic and legal frameworks and the national Romanian regulations are surveyed
in order to underpin the creation of a coherent policy framework for the assessment.
The fourth chapter performs a review of existing standards addressing the components of the project,
mapping standardisation projects against SPIRE policy domains and comparing the most widely used
standards in benchmarking urban performance (Smart and Sustainable Cities) and Nature-Based
Solutions performance.
The definition of a working KPI framework for SPIRE is developed based on the research in previous
chapters, indicators included in existing standards and work conducted in relevant projects and
research (MAES, EKLIPSE, CityKEYS). The survey of these existing frameworks is introduced in Chapter
5 and is followed by a mapping of the SPIRE impact framework, connecting UIA SPIRE actions with
expected impacts, policy domains and SDGs within the context of the EKLIPSE resilience Challenges.
Based on this structure, the long list of KPIs for SPIRE assessment is introduced, containing 61
indicators.
Lastly, the final chapter includes brief conclusions of the process of KPI development, highlights
possible gaps and barriers and introduces the next steps within the project.
Beyond supporting project implementation (see previous sub-chapter), the D.4.3.2 aims to provide
European cities, policy-makers and planners with knowledge and guidance to assess the potential for
replicating the SPIRE approach to phytoremediation and sustainable nature-based socio-economic
regeneration. In this sense, apart from the SPIRE partnership, we address the following intended
audience:
- City, metropolitan and regional public authorities aiming at developing brownfield
regeneration strategies, operational plans or urban plans, within a wider urban, economic,
social and environmental development policy;
- Policy makers and urban planners involved in urban regeneration, renaturing, climate change
adaptation and heavy metal pollution mitigation policies;
- Businesses, industries, polluted land owners and nature-based entrepreneurs aiming at
understanding the potential impact of SPIRE actions in generating economically-viable
business plans and new added-value products leveraging on short value chains;
- Academia and the research community, looking to use or benefit from the knowledge
provided in this report pertaining to KPIs and existing standards for the SPIRE policy domains,
and to increase the evidence base of the performance and fit of phytoremediation, social and
digital solutions to HM-pollution mitigation;
- Citizens of Baia Mare and NGOs who wish to understand the process of data collection and
performance assessment, and who might be interested in participating in the provision of data
for the active monitoring of SPIRE KPI achievement.
- The general public, beyond Baia Mare, interested in finding out more about the instruments
for monitoring, assessment and accountability of the NBS and SLU approach proposed by
SPIRE.
19
2. Performance assessment
2.1. Rationale
The work carried out in the SPIRE project has the ambition of enabling a structural environmental,
urban anthropic and economic change, transforming Heavy Metal pollution from a serious obstacle
and blockage to local development, to an incentive to experiment new approaches to sustainable
urban renewal. SPIRE thus supports a paradigm shift from the current state of play at local level
(D.4.3.3), which downplays the seriousness of HM pollution impact and perceives GI as a public good
provided by state authorities, to the novel concept of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), and Green
Infrastructure (GI) generally, as a common goods: co-developed, co-monitored, economically reused
and embedded in a value ecosystem at local level.
The expected impacts of such a shift are manifold: increased awareness of NBS in practice, increased
citizen ownership of GI, development of local and regional market opportunities, improvement of the
environment quality, social and economic outlook of the community. Over the last decades, GI, NBS
and Sustainable Land Use (SLU) have become focal points of European regional policies, among which:
• Sustainable Urban Development in the EU: a framework for action (COM (98) 605)
• The Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities (2007)
• The Declaration of Marseille (2008)
• The EU 2020 Strategy
• The Toledo Declaration (2010)
• The EU Biodiversity strategy to 2020 (COM(2011) 244)
• The Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (COM (2011) 571)
• The Charter of European Planning (ECTP-CEU, 2013)
• The Communication on Green Infrastructure (COM 2013/0249)
• 7th Environmental Action Programme (2014-2020)
• The Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020 (2015/C 195/05) towards a more sustainable
Europe
• The Pact of Amsterdam (2016)
• The New Urban Agenda (HABITAT III, 2016)
The “Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe” sets the goal to achieve zero net land take by 2050. An
important contribution to reaching this target is the regeneration of brownfields instead of greenfield
development.
In October 2018, the European Commission launched the Sustainable Use of Land and Nature-Based
Solutions Partnership Action Plan, as part of the Urban Agenda for the EU. The plan highlighted several
shortcomings and challenges at European level pertaining to a wider deployment of NBS, among which
the limited availability and quality of data on spatial development and urban governance (EC, 2018;
Leopa and Elisei, 2020), a bottleneck which can be addressed through proper monitoring and
assessment frameworks, supported by the definition of Key Performance Indicators.
2.2. Definition of working concepts
This report operates with several concepts related to the assessment of innovative nature-based
solutions and sustainable use of land pilots, defining a framework to support the UIA SPIRE project to
achieve its purpose. This section provides a theoretical foundation to support the common
understanding of these concepts, as well as the tools and instruments which will be further used in the
development of the KPI framework definition.
2.2.1. Impact assessment, monitoring and evaluation
The implementation of a Nature-Based Solutions and Sustainable Land Use project such as SPIRE,
valorizing phytoremediation biomass in cascading value chains supported by digital instruments, is a
complex process. Co-development of solutions to remediate heavy metal pollution involves both
ecological and socio-economic ecosystems, the involvement and behavior of which is not entirely
predictable. As a matter of consequence, the UIA SPIRE project assessment is based on hypotheses,
leveraging on a Theory of Change approach which will be tested and adapted based on evidence.
A Theory of Change approach is by design addressing community-based change initiatives, and has
been popularized by Weiss (1995) to evaluate early Community-based change initiatives (Anderson,
2004). The method aids in creating a strategic output, and it is useful for having a better understanding
of project impacts, both intended as well as most likely. The Theory of Change can be visualized as a
string model, allowing a better understanding of the project planning (Inputs and Activities) versus
project results (Outputs, Outcomes and Impact). The process starts by identifying the long-term goals
or desired change, working backwards to identify intermediate and short-term outcomes and outputs,
and identifying a causal path from activities to outcomes.
Figure 4 - Theory of change linear representation. Source: Smallridge (2017)
The theory of change has recently become a common method for process planning and change
management in NBS initiatives as well (IUCN, 2019; Garcia Perez et al., 2018), given their complex and
multi-component nature and the need to visualize interlinkages.
The theory of chance is furthermore useful in supporting evidence-based policy making, specifically
the part concerned with impact evaluation. As defined by the OECD, impact evaluation is an
assessment of how the intervention being evaluated affects outcomes, whether these effects are
intended or unintended. The proper analysis of impact requires a counterfactual of what those
outcomes would have been in the absence of the intervention
1
.
1
OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/dcdndep/37671602.pdf
21
The impact evaluation framework in SPIRE has the purpose of delivering evidence to support an
understanding of the impact (or causal effect) of SPIRE action on the outcomes of interest (e.g. soil
quality, startup ecosystem, energy sustainability)
A well-designed impact evaluation aims at answering whether an intervention was successful or not,
and it is essential in order to analyse whether the designed project methodology of SPIRE has the
potential for scale-up and replication / transfer.
For SPIRE, the impact evaluation should systematically record and analyse the environmental,
economic and social changes attributable to the project implementation. In order to be able to achieve
this systematic recording, the impact evaluation needs to be based on relevant indicators selected to
assess the performance and effectiveness of SPIRE actions in addressing challenges and fulfilling
objectives.
In the same way the theory of change process is working back from the desired goals, in order to
properly perform an impact assessment, several intermediary steps are necessary
It is therefore essential to define in advance what effects an intervention is likely to have, so that
appropriate data at the appropriate scale (e.g. spatial and temporal) may be collected. A Baseline Study
(see SPIRE D.7.1.1) is essential in order to determine the expected level of impact and to enable project
monitoring. Monitoring and evaluation activities (M&E) are furthermore essential in order to
complement impact evaluation.
Whereas assessment represents the process for determining and addressing “distance travelled” in
the project, monitoring represents the ongoing, systematic process of collection and analysis of data.
Monitoring tracks project action performance against expected results and baseline measurements,
as well as the general implementation process of SPIRE.
Evaluation represents the process for determining whether the project has met its expected
objectives, or the extent to which changes in outcomes can be attributable to implementing UIA SPIRE.
The European Commission’s Better Regulation guidelines define evaluation as an evidence-based
judgement of the extent to which an intervention has been:
- effective and efficient;
- relevant given the needs and its objectives;
- coherent both internally and with other EU policy interventions;
- achieved EU added-value
2
.
In the project, monitoring can be achieved in a number of ways, from using EO data in the iGIS Atlas
(A4.1) to engaging local stakeholders in iLEU-incentivised co-monitoring (A6.5).
2.2.2. Indicators, performance indicators and KPIs
An indicator is a parameter associated with a phenomenon, which can provide information on the
characteristics of the event in its global form (OECD, 2003). A statistical indicator is the representation
2
EC, Better Regulation Guidelines, 2015. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-
regulation-why-and-how/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en
of statistical data for a specified time, place or any other relevant characteristic, corrected for at least
one dimension (usually size) so as to allow for meaningful comparisons (EUROSTAT definition).
At territorial level, indicators represent the numerical expression of some territorial, economic or
social categories defined according to time, space and organizational structure. Indicators can be
quantitative or qualitative:
1. Quantitative indicators illustrate a number, index or ratio / percentage, being widely used in
planning because they provide a clear measure of the analysed situation and are numerically
comparable. Quantitative indicators are preferred to qualitative ones because they are not
biased, requiring only mechanical collection methods that (theoretically) deliver the same
results, no matter who they measure.
2. Qualitative indicators do not present numerical measures as such, but describe the status of
a qualitatively analysed issue. Qualitative indicators can be translated into pseudo-
quantitative indicators through scoring systems such as the Likert scale - a widely used
psychometric scale that uses scalar response questionnaires (eg 1-5, where 1 = strongly
disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Although qualitative indicators are not used as often as the
quantitative ones in territorial research, for Build-in-Wood, they can better capture
information on the quality of facilities, strength of the wood value chain and level of policy
support for multi-storey wood buildings in a given territory.
The purpose of indicators is to transmit information about the state, or the state evolution (variation)
of a phenomenon which cannot be measured directly. Thus, they allow us to perceive differences -
territorial disparities, improvements or developments related to a desired change or in a certain
context. In policy and project assessment, indicators are used in the monitoring process, including the
assessment of the effectiveness of existing policies and individual actions or projects contributing to
the achievement of policies.
The Quality Assurance Framework of the European Statistical System
3
(ESS QAF) lists five criteria for
quality indicators:
1. Relevance in meeting the needs of the project. What they measure should be relevant to the
goal. Furthermore, they should also be unambiguous in showing which direction is 'desirable'
2. Accuracy and reliability in their portrayal of reality;
3. Timeliness and punctuality, being applied at a time that is relevant for the project;
4. Coherence and comparability, being consistent internally over time, and comparable across
territorial units;
5. Accessibility and clarity, being presented in a clear and understandable form.
Other attributes of high-quality indicators are summarized in the popular SMART (Specific,
Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound) and RACER (Relevance, Acceptance, Credibility,
Easiness and Robustness) acronyms.
Indicators can be further differentiated on based on the steps of the simplified Theory of Change model
(see Figure 4) into input, process, output, outcome and impact indicators (Huovila, Bosch and
3
ESS Quality Assurance Framework, 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/64157/4392716/ESS-QAF-V1-2final.pdf/bbf5970c-
1adf-46c8-afc3-58ce177a0646
23
Airaksinen, 2019). The indicators oriented towards measuring outputs, outcomes and impact can be
classified as result and performance indicators, an approach derived from business economics.
While result indicators are seldom used in urban development, performance indicators and KPIs are
often utilized to develop city performance assessments (Bosch et al., 2017).
A performance indicator represents a quantitative or qualitative measurement, or any other criterion,
by which the performance, efficiency and achievement of a policy or a project can be assessed, often
by comparison with an agreed standard or target (Collins English Dictionary). A Key Performance
Indicator is thus an indicator which focuses on the most critical aspects for the future success of the
initiative (Parmenter, 2015).
Figure 5 - Key Performance Indicators
2.2.3. Characteristics of performance measurement frameworks in urban
development and NBS implementation
KPIs result from the selection process of performance indicators, which should be conducted based on
the objectives of performance assessment and the characteristics of the policy, project or action
assessed.
The problem is that a single KPI (e.g. new start-ups generated) provides information of little
consequence unless it is associated with a system of KPIs, able to provide systematic information for
the purpose of the assessment. A system of such indicators consists of several indicators correlated
from a logical and functional point of view, able to describe and provide information on several
phenomena associated with each other, or which need to be interpreted in a coordinated way
(Comino, Ferretti, 2016). This is particularly important in SPIRE, where project piloting can have a
potential effect on an ample set of urban parameters ranging from the quality of the environment to
the development or substantial growth of a local green job sector. The challenge is to identify the key
evaluation dimensions subscribing to the SPIRE policy domains which can be potentially positively
affected by the implementation of the innovative phytoremediation and biomass reuse for social,
economic and urban regeneration in Baia Mare.
A set of criteria for the development of an indicator framework has been enunciated by the ITU-T, ETSI,
ISO and UN in the development of the Smart and Sustainable Cities and Communities KPI Framework
(2015), and can be adapted to the SPIRE Project KPI framework:
• Comprehensiveness: The set of indicators should cover all the aspects pertinent to the SPIRE
policy domains
• Comparability: The indicators should be defined in a way that data can be compared
scientifically between the phases of implementation and can allow benchmarking against
other cities, which means the indicators must be comparable over time and space.
• Availability: The indicators should be quantitative and the historic and current data should be
either available or easy to collect.
• Independence: The indicators in the same dimension should be independent or almost-
orthogonal i.e., overlap should be avoided as much as possible.
• Simplicity: The concept of each indicator should be simple and easy to understand for the Baia
Mare stakeholders. The calculation of the associated data should also be kept intuitive and
simple.
• Timeliness: This refers to the ability to produce indicators with respect to the project progress
and the emergence of different current changes in urban development processes (including
effects of unforeseen events, such as global pandemics).
A Key Performance Indicator framework furthermore has two essential characteristics, which allow it
to reach the assessment goal at urban and pilot-area level:
1. Multi-scalarity
2. Multi- thematic character
Regarding the assessment scales, any such action at urban level has a spatial scale and is consequently
concerned with a finite, bounded region. The spatial scale is sensitive to both characteristics of the
zoning system used to collect the data, as well as the scale at which data is reported (Fotheringham
and Wong, 1991). Identifying this boundary and determining the proper unit of assessment for each
KPI is dependent on the scope of the assessment, the issue of data availability, complexity, and time.
Some KPI are representative of pilot area scale processes, whereas others can provide an impact at
broader urban, and even metropolitan or regional scales.
Multi-scalar classifications for impact assessment usually propose three scales, most often found in
the practice of urban planning: object scale, district scale and city scale (Barbano et al., 2015;
NATURE4CITIES, 2017). More differentiated scale classification for NBS and SLU projects such as
SPIRE Baia Mare can include:
1. Intervention footprint scale (for example, impacts which manifest strongest and most
relevantly at the level of a pilot site, or within the boundaries of an urban intervention);
2. Neighbourhood scale (area in proximity of an intervention, which receives the immediate
benefits of an NBS intervention);
25
3. City scale (impact and benefits which manifest within the administrative boundary of a city,
and which can be linked for example to interventions such as governance policies and facilities
which benefit the citizens of a certain city – such as the iLEU pilot);
4. Metropolitan / FUA scale (more diffuse impacts at the functional urban level, pertaining for
example to benefits for the green job sector)
5. Regional scale (wider-scale impacts, for example the positive impact of phytoremediation of
contaminated waters on the entire river basin area).
However, delineation of impact assessment scales is not always obvious. An ample body of research
has underlined the boundary problem of urban analyses: namely, while geographical study areas are
bounded, spatial processes are not. The consequences of this misalignment may lead to inaccurate
results, or improper understanding of causes and effects (Ripley, 1979, Fotheringham and Rogerson,
1993). The so-called edge effects can be reduced or eliminated by enlarging the analysis area (e.g. pilot
sites of SPIRE) and creating a buffer zone in which data is also examined in terms of their effect on the
area of interest.
Setting up buffer zones is especially relevant for the analysis of GI and NBS impact. As an illustrative
example, research by Huang, Chui and He (2018) on the cooling effect of green space with a coverage
ratio of more than 60% in Harbin, China, delineated 500-meter buffer zones as study areas. The
boundary was based on research indicating that within the 500-meter proximity zone, GI provides a
significant contribution to cooling the surrounding environment (Wang, Zhan and Guo, 2016).
The multi-thematic character derives from the need to benchmark performance in a comprehensive
and integrated manner regarding impact on all key urban topics. There are several urban assessment
frameworks proposing a different categorisation of key urban topics, such as CityKeys, ITU-T SCC and
EKLIPSE, which are analysed further in Chapter 5.1. However, the topics broadly subscribe to the
following four key dimensions:
• Environmental dimension;
• Economic dimension;
• Social dimension;
• Governance dimension.
The assessment topics should articulate the urban dimensions with the project policy domains and
challenges addressed resulting in a framework of identified topics / domains and challenges, the UIA
Baia Mare actions which address them, expected impacts, and lastly, key performance indicators to
monitor the impacts.
3. The global, European and national
framework
3.1. SPIRE and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by world leaders in September 2015 at a
special UN Summit, sets 17 Sustainable Development goals (SDGs) and 169 targets for achieving
sustainable development by 2030 world-wide, ensuring that no one is left behind.
The 2030 Agenda itself consists of 4 sections: (i) A political Declaration (ii) a set of 17 sustainable
Development Goals and 169 targets (based on the report of the OWG, with some small modifications)
(iii) Means of Implementation (iv) a framework for follow up and review of the Agenda (EC,
Environment webpage
4
). The agenda integrates economic, social and environmental dimensions of
sustainable development, recognizing however the close interlinkages between these dimensions,
leveraging on the concept of a global partnership to support target achievement.
Figure 6 - the 17 SDGs, organized around the environmental sustainability target.
Source: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs. (2017, January 25). Retrieved 08.07.2020
4
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/sustainable-development/SDGs/index_en.htm
27
To facilitate the implementation of the global indicator framework, all indicators are classified by the
IAEG-SDGs into three tiers based on their level of methodological development and the availability of
data at the global level (as of April 2020):
- Tier 1: Indicator is conceptually clear, has an internationally established methodology and
standards are available, and data are regularly produced by countries for at least 50 per cent
of countries and of the population in every region where the indicator is relevant. As of April
2020, there are 115 Tier 1 indicators, of relevance for SPIRE.
- Tier 2: Indicator is conceptually clear, has an internationally established methodology and
standards are available, but data are not regularly produced by countries.
- Tier 3: No internationally established methodology or standards are yet available for the
indicator, but methodology/standards are being (or will be) developed or tested.
The SPIRE project contributes to the following 9 SDGs directly:
Figure 7 - Primary contribution to SDGs of the SPIRE project.
While the SDGs have been designed topic-specific rather than place-specific, they nevertheless include
a dedicated Sustainable Development Goal for cities: SDG 11, which is in turn directly linked to targets
and indicators in at least 11 other SDGs (Ståhle, 2018). Both explicitly and implicitly mentioned in the
SDGs, cities are a key stakeholder in the 2030 Agenda implementation, and it is estimated that
approx. 65% of the SDG agenda may risk not being fully achieved without the direct involvement of
urban and local actors (Adelphi & Urban Catalyst, 2015).
However, there are several challenges to involving local partners in SDG monitoring. The JRC (Siragusa
et al., 2020), and ADB (Oosterhof, 2018) list the need for statistical capacity building and mechanisms
that strengthen disaggregated data collection efforts at local level as one of the main such issues.
Because of the importance of local action towards the 2030 Agenda, but also the challenge of gathering
local data and monitoring progress towards the SDGs, the EC has set up an SDG Voluntary Local Review
guidance specifically addressed to cities. For all 17 goals, the Handbook (2020) highlights examples of
harmonised and locally collected indicators, with the purpose of assisting local administrations to
benchmark themselves with other cities and monitor their own specific needs and challenges.
Voluntary self-assessment is currently supported by several European and international organisations,
such as the UN and UN-Habitat, the World Bank (see Farvacque-Vitkovic & Kopanyi, 2019), the OECD
and other research groups, with each proposing a set of benchmarking indicators (Table 2), considered
by the EC Handbook for the VLR (Siragusa et al., 2020).
Table 2 - Overview of the existing frameworks for the SDG monitoring at city / metropolitan level.
After Siragusa, Vizcaino, Proietti and Lavalle, 2020
NAME
COVERAGE
SOURCES
NO. INDICATORS
REFERENCES
Global indicator
framework for the
SDGs (UN)
Country level – 193
UN Member States
NSOs
232 indicators for 17
Goals
United Nations
EU SDG Indicator Set
2019
EU27 + UK, Norway,
Switzerland, Iceland,
Serbia and Turkey
NSOs
100 indicators
for 17 goals
EUROSTAT
CITY PROSPERITY
INITIATIVE (CPI)
400 cities across the
world
Administrative data
UN-HABITAT
OECD
600+ FUAs of 33
OECD countries and
Colombia
OECD Regional and
Large Metropolitan
Areas DBs
100+ indicators
https://www.oecd-
local-sdgs.org
SDSN SDG INDEX
(composite index)
45 European Cities
capital cities and
large metropolitan
areas
Eurostat, ERA, JRC,
Eurobarometer,
OECD, European
Social Survey
56 indicators for 15
Goals [Nuts 2 and
Nuts 3 data are
most often used]
Lafortune and
Zoeteman 2019
The Handbook puts forward a number of 71 indicators (45 official ones and 26 experimental
indicators). For Goal 3, it specifically introduces „Contaminated Sites” as a consideration (Box 3), albeit
there are no indicators associated to the assessment of site contamination in urban areas. Of direct
and secondary relevance to the UIA SPIRE project are the following 22 indicators, extracted from the
VLR Handbook, Annex 1:
Table 3 - Selection of Voluntary Local Review Handbook indicators for SDG progress benchmarking at local level, of relevance
for the SPIRE KPI framework.
Source: Siragusa et al., 2020
SDG
INDICATOR
SOURCE
3
Infant mortality
Eurostat, City Statistics
database
6
Recycled water used for open spaces
City official statistics
29
SDG
INDICATOR
SOURCE
7
New buildings
Joint Research Centre
7
Energy Consumption per capita
City statistics
8
Unemployment rate
Eurostat, City Statistics
database
8
GDP per capita
Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) / City statistics
9
Journeys to work by public transport
Eurostat, City Statistics databas
9
Enterprises in Industry, construction and services
EUROSTAT, General and
Regional Statistics
9
Start-ups over 1,000 inhabitants
StartupEuropemap.eu
11
Bicycle traffic
City administration
11
Access to public transport
DG Regio
11
Population without green urban areas in their
neighbourhood
DG Regio
12
Local recycling rates
City / Regional / National databases
12
Urban waste per capita
City / Regional / National databases
13
GHG emmissions
Global Covenant of Mayors
13
Heat vulnerability
Experimental - Econten City of Vienna
15
Urban greenness
Joint Research Centre
15
Land Abandonment
Joint Research Centre
15
Tree Cover Density
EEA - Copernicus
16
Level of trust toward other
people in the city
DG REGIO and EUROSTAT, Eurobarometer
16
Satisfaction with the administrative services of the city
DG REGIO and EUROSTAT, Eurobarometer
16
Transparency of the public administration
City / Regional / National evaluations
Several indicators can contribute directly to the assessment of project performance (e.g. Urban
greenness, or Land abandonment), while others have a weaker connection with SPIRE. This is the
example of the infant mortality rate indicator, which can nevertheless highlight a relatively poor health
status, with deviations from national averages attributable to the high level of pollution (see Verga,
Mihăiescu, Pleșa and Onesciuc, 2020).
While the above selection is limited and scope compared to the breadth of SPIRE goals, it is relevant
to consider VLR SDG indicator research in the constitution of the key performance indicator framework
of the project. Embedding the SDGs within the KPI framework for monitoring the impact of SLU and
NBS projects such as SPIRE Baia Mare can significantly aid the advancement of both the 2030 Agenda
progress, as well as the impact monitoring of the project itself.
3.2. Reference European and national framework policies for the
economy, science and quality of life
Complementing the single market, the European Union has developed a set of policies with significant
influence on the lives of citizens and businesses operating in the Member States (MS). Their
development and application, as well as any other decisions of the Commission, are grounded in the
European primary law (Treaties) and secondary law (Regulations, Directives, Decisions,
Recommendations and Opinions).
The key areas of relevance to the SPIRE Project, in which the EU shares competence with the MS, or
provides supporting competences, are primarily: the environment, health, energy, industry, research
and social policies (EC, Areas of EU Action
5
).
Figure 8 - The trans-sectorial approach of UIA SPIRE in the context of the European policy framework
The multi-dimensional nature of sustainable land use and Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) is reflected in
the complex relations and legislation governing these priorities, which have an interdisciplinary
character. Existing European and Member State legislation on the topics of land use and its economic
implication, NBS and secondary uses of productive landscapes is implicitly interdependent: there is no
strict legislative delimitation in any of the areas, and the legal provisions specific to a field cannot be
regulated only by a single category of legal norms.
However, an overview of the European strategies, policies and body of secondary law for each of the
sectors presented in Figure 8 offers an orientation for the structuring of the assessment framework of
5
https://ec.europa.eu/info/about-european-commission/what-european-commission-does/law/areas-eu-action_en
31
the SPIRE project. This is further complemented by the main national legislation and framework
documents transposing the European Directives.
Findings of this brief European and national review highlight a robust framework to support, but also
regulate environmental protection, climate change, circular economy, digital transition, sustainable
energy production and use. SPIRE areas of interest pertaining to social, employment, health and
innovation policy are guided by strategies and action plans that inform and support national legislation,
rather than requiring transposition of directives.
3.2.1. Environment and climate change policy
The EU formulates and implements climate policies and strategies,
ensuring the successful implementation of the Paris Agreement and
implementing the EU’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). Climate
action represents an explicit objective of the EU environmental
policy, which is based on Articles 3, 11 and 191-193 of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union (EC, EUR-Lex).
Currently in force, the 7th Environmental Action Programme guides
the European environment policy until 2020 inclusively, as per the
Decision No 1386/2013/EU on a General Union Environment Action
Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’. Its
long-term vision for 2050 identifies 3 priority action areas for the EU,
strongly interlinked with the economic, energy and public health policy areas:
1. Natural capital
2. Resource-efficient economy
3. Healthy environment for healthy people
The EU policy framework for climate and energy 2020-2030 is furthermore based on the 2020 targets
as well as:
- A 40 % reduction below the 1990 level in EU greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, to be achieved
through domestic measures alone.
- Increasing the share of energy from renewable sources consumed in the EU to at least 27 %
- Further improved energy efficiency, essential to competitiveness, security of energy supply,
and sustainability.
- Key indicators to monitor progress on all aspects of competitiveness, security and sustainable
energy.
The major areas of the European Environmental Policy, of relevance to the SPIRE project, are primarily
the domains of soil protection, air pollution, water protection and management, waste management,
civil protection and biodiversity. Specifically for the cross-cutting issue of Heavy Metal (HM) pollutants,
as direct pollutants emitted into the air, water and soil, there is a robust body of EU secondary law
defining risk levels and providing target values for concentrations.
3.2.1.1. Sustainable use of land
Over the last decades, sustainable land use and land recycling have become focal points of European
regional policies, among which we remind of:
• Sustainable Urban Development in the EU: a framework for action (COM (98) 605)
• The Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities (2007)
• The Declaration of Marseille (2008)
• The EU 2020 Strategy
• The Toledo Declaration (2010)
• The EU Biodiversity strategy to 2020 (COM(2011) 244)
• The Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (COM (2011) 571)
• The Charter of European Planning (ECTP-CEU, 2013)
• The Communication on Green Infrastructure (COM 2013/0249)
• 7th Environmental Action Programme (2014-2020)
• The Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020 (2015/C 195/05) towards a more
sustainable Europe
• The Pact of Amsterdam (2016)
• Lastly, the New Urban Agenda (HABITAT III, 2016)
The “Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe” sets the goal to achieve zero net land take by 2050.
An important contribution to reaching this target is the regeneration of brownfields instead of
greenfield development.
In October 2018, the European Commission launched the Sustainable Use of Land and Nature-Based
Solutions Partnership Action Plan, as part of the Urban Agenda for the EU. The plan highlighted several
shortcomings and challenges at European level pertaining to the sustainable use of land, such as the
lack of an overarching EU Land Use policy, limited availability and quality of data on spatial
development and urban governance, lack of efficient planning tools for re-use of land, lack of efficient
regulatory or financial instruments to integrate the multi-functional and circular management of land
use in urban governance, and others – aspects which SPIRE is actively contributing to through multiple
policy, regulatory, digital, governance and planning instruments.
A list of proposed actions is further elaborated in the Action Plan, among which:
1. Action No. 2 – Funding and financing guide for brownfield redevelopment, leveraging on the
CABERNET conceptual model (A-B-C sites)
2. Action No. 9 – agreeing on common targets and indicators for nature-based solutions, urban
green infrastructure, biodiversity and ecosystem services in cities.
The rationale behind the last action proposed is that, to date, several sets of targets and performance
indicators for city sustainability have been developed in the European Union (eg. EKLIPSE, Think
Nature, EnRoute, UnaLab, etc), often differing across scales and not easily adaptable into the planning,
governance and management systems of the average city. This KPI framework is currently under
development by the JRC, DG RTD, ICLEI and several other partners, and interim proposal will be taken
into account when developing the SPIRE KPI set.
The SEVESO III Directive 2012/18/EU targets at the reduction of risks due to hazardous materials
emphasising risk mitigation by land use planning. Planning authorities have to ensure, that risks
especially for residential areas and sensitive natural areas are taken into account in the planning
33
process when zoning land for enterprises with potential risks. The Directive can thus be considered to
contribute to UN SDG 11 as well as article 98 of the New Urban Agenda
3.2.1.2. Soil protection. Heavy Metals and soil pollution
In 2006, the European commission proposed through its „Thematic strategy for soil protection”
Communication (COM(2006)231), the development of a Directive on soil protection, with the objective
of establishing a common strategy for sustainable soil use. The priority is further recognized in the 7th
Environmental Action Programme, yet there is currently still no specific EU legislation on soil
protection. A proposal for a Soil Framework Directive was withdrawn by the Commission in 2014, due
to a failure to reach majority Council support.
In COM(2006)231, the EC identified the main threats to soil quality within the European Union: erosion,
organic matter decline, contamination, salinisation, compaction, soil biodiversity loss, sealing,
landslides and flooding.
The existence of heavy metals in the soil, as pollution, is the effect of carrying out activities or using
products that have the effect of releasing, emitting such pollutants, directly or indirectly. Soil
protection does not benefit from the same specific regulations as water, air or biodiversity protection.
The achievement of soil protection is conducted at European level indirectly, via related regulations,
such as regulating activities or products that have pollution effects. In this sense, the main secondary
law item is the Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment, known as the EIA Directive.
The EIA directive defines the Environmental Impact Assessment process which ensures that projects
likely to have significant effects on the environment are made subject to an assessment, prior to their
authorisation. Amending legislation (Directive 2014/52/EU) was adopted in 2014 in order to reduce
administrative burdens, and to improve the level of environmental protection.
Furthermore, a series of normative acts have been elaborated that regulate soil pollution with heavy
metals specifically, albeit focused more consistently on plant protection products and activities related
to plant protection:
- Implementing Regulation (EU) no. 540/2011 of Regulation (EC) no. 1107/2009 on the placing
of plant protection products on the market, as amended and rectified by Commission
- Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/232 of 13 February 2015 as regards the conditions for the
authorization of the active substance copper regulates both the concentrations of copper in
the active substances and the maximum legal term of marketing of these products.
- Regulation (EC) no. 1107/2009 on the placing on the market of plant protection products which
is presented in the chapter on pesticides.
Specific provisions for the concentration of heavy metals in the soil to which sludge (secondary
element of the wastewater treatment activity) is applied are regulated by the Directive 278/1986 on
the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when using sewage sludge in
agriculture. Annex IA provides the limit values for concentration of HM in soil, as mg/kg of dry matter
in a representative sample, as defined in Annex II C, of soil with a pH of 6 to 7:
Table 4 - Directive 278/1986 limit values of HM concentration in soil to which sludge is applied . Source: EurLex
HEAVY METALS (HM) – PARAMETERS
LIMITS VALUES (MG/KG DRY
MATTER)
Cadmium (Cd)
1 to 3
Copper (Cu)
50 to 140
Nickel (Ni)
30 to 75
Lead (Pb)
50 to 300
Zinc (Zn)
150 to 300
Mercury (Hg)
1 to 1.5
Chromium (Cr)
/
These are the only such parameters available as indicators of the concentration of HM in soil in the
European legislation.
3.2.1.3. Clean air. Heavy Metals and air pollution
A significantly more robust legislation body of the European Union has been developed in order to
ensure a cleaner air. In this sense, Cleaner Air for Europe (CAFÉ) Directive 2008/50/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe
establishes air quality objectives, including ambitious, cost-effective targets for improving human
health and environmental quality up to 2020. It also specifies ways of assessing these and of taking any
corrective action if the standards are not met. It provides for the public to be kept informed, including
when local air pollution reaches potentially unhealthy levels and special measures are needed (EC,
EUR-Lex). As a next step towards improving air quality, the European Commission adopted in 2013 a
Clean Air Policy Package (EC, Press Release, 18.12.2013), including a Clean Air Programme for Europe
setting objectives for 2020 and 2030, and accompanying legislative measures. Furthermore, in 2018,
The Commission adopted the Communication COM / 2018/330 A Europe that protects: Clean air for
all that provides national, regional and local actors practical help to improve air quality in Europe (DG
Environment, 2019).
From a legislative point of view, policy on HM air pollutants provides a general framework for the
control of the main industrial activities that are a source of emissions for heavy metal pollutants.
Priority is given to the principle of prevention, through interventions at the source.
In order to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution from industrial activities, Directive 2010/75/EU on
industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) lays down, inter alia, limit values for
emissions of heavy metals into the atmosphere, as a result of certain activities.
The directive includes air emission limit values for waste incineration plants and air emission limit
values for waste co-incineration. For the rest of the industrial activities with high pollution potential,
prevention and control are regulated through Best Available Techniques (BAT). The requirements of
interest for SPIRE are presented in the form of air emission limit values for waste incineration plants
(mg / Nm3) over a sampling period of a minimum of 30 minutes and a maximum of 8 hours. These
average values also apply to emissions of heavy metals and their compounds in the gaseous or vapor
state:
35
Table 5 - Directive 2010/75/EU limits of HM and HM-compound concentrations in air. Source : EurLex
HEAVY METALS (HM) AND THEIR COMPOUNDS
LIMITS (MG/NM3)
Cadmium and its compounds, expressed as cadmium (Cd)
0.05 (total)
Mercury and its compounds, expressed in mercury (Hg)
0.05
Arsenic and its compounds, expressed as arsenic (As)
0.5 (total)
Lead and its compounds, expressed as lead (Pb)
0.5 (total)
Chromium and its compounds, expressed as chromium (Cr)
0.5 (total)
Cobalt and its compounds, expressed as cobalt (Co)
0.5 (total)
Copper and its compounds, expressed as copper (Cu)
0.5 (total)
Manganese and its compounds expressed in manganese (Mn)
0.5 (total)
Nickel and its compounds, expressed as nickel (Ni)
0.5 (total)
Lastly, Regulation 2004/107 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004
on arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air provides
key indicators and assessment methodologies within the annexes:
- Annex I - target values for arsenic, cadmium, nickel and benzo (a) pyrene as an average
calculated for a calendar year in the total content of the PM10 fraction,
- Annex II - determination of the necessary conditions for the assessment of the concentrations
of arsenic, cadmium, nickel and benzo[a]pyrene in the ambient air of an area or agglomeration,
- Annex III - location and minimum number of sampling points for measurement of ambient air
concentrations and deposition rate,
- Annex IV - data quality objectives and requirements for air quality models,
- Annex V - reference methods for the assessment of ambient air concentrations and deposition
rates.
3.2.1.4. Clean water
The immission of HM pollutants into water is subject to the provisions of Directive 60/ 2000, Directive
105 /2008 and Directive 118/2006. Directive 2000/60/EC for establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy constitutes the general regulatory framework for the protection of
surface and groundwater, providing the general rules and principles applicable. Annexes VIII, IX and X
provide a framework for heavy metal pollutants. Under the Directive, heavy metals are part of the
Indicative List of the main water pollutants, which can be found in ANNEX VIII and are specifically
identified in Annex X List of priority substances in the field of water policy (Salcă Rotaru and Drăghici,
2018).
Directive 2008/105/EC lays down environmental quality standards (EQS) for priority substances and
certain other pollutants as provided for in Article 16 of Directive 2000/60/EC, and provides
environmental quality standards for priority substances and a number of other pollutants (Annex 1)
which regulate the maximum permissible concentration, annual average, and the units of
measurement.
3.2.1.1. Environmental protection at national level
In Romania, the following body of legislation governs environmental protection and HM pollution
mitigation:
• Government Emergency Ordinance no. 195/2005 on environmental protection approved by
Law no. 265/2006, with subsequent amendments and completions;
• Law no. 84/2006 for the approval of the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 152/2005 on
integrated pollution prevention and control;
• Water Law no. 107/1996 with the subsequent completions and modifications;
• Government Decision no. 1408/2007 on the modalities of investigation and evaluation of soil
and subsoil pollution;
• Government Decision no. 1403/2007 on the restoration of areas where soil, subsoil and
terrestrial ecosystems have been affected;
• Government Decision no. 53/2009 for the approval of the National Plan for the protection of
groundwater against pollution and damage, with subsequent amendments and completions;
• Ministerial Order nr. 184/1997 for the approval of the Procedure for carrying out the
environmental assessments;
• Ministerial Order no. 756/1997 for the approval of the Regulation on the assessment of
environmental pollution.
The fundamental act for environmental protection in Romania, GEO no. 195/2005 approved by Law
no. 265/2006 (published in the Official Gazette no. 586 / 6.06.2006) has a chapter dedicated to soil
and subsoil protection. It stipulates the obligation of landowners and users to bring the land to a state
so that it can be reused in the future. In addition, this act adopts the "polluter pays" principle,
stipulating that any entity that commits an act of pollution must bear the damages.
Government Decisions (GD 1408 / 19.11.2007 on how to investigate and assess soil and subsoil
pollution and GD 1403 / 19.11.2007 on the restoration of areas where soil, subsoil and terrestrial
ecosystems have been affected) distinguish between a potentially contaminated site and a
contaminated site. The updating process must focus on adapting the methodology and criteria
underlying this differentiation because the strategy considers that this distinction should not only be
based on the assessment of analytical results, but also on the assessment of human and environmental
risk. In addition, with regard to the management of contaminated sites, the selection of appropriate
corrective actions / remedies will be made on the basis of a detailed investigation and risk assessment.
The reference values for soil quality representing the criteria for differentiating a potentially
contaminated site from a contaminated one and establishing the need for remediation are provided
in Order no. 756/1997 for the approval of the Regulation on the assessment of environmental
pollution.
Order no. 756 of November 3, 1997 for the approval of the Regulation on the assessment of
environmental pollution
1. Alert threshold - concentrations of pollutants in air, water, soil or in emissions / discharges, which
have the role of warning the competent authorities of a potential impact on the environment and
which triggers additional monitoring and / or reduces the concentrations of pollutants in emissions
/ evacuations.
37
2. Intervention threshold - concentrations of pollutants in air, water, soil or in emissions / discharges,
at which the competent authorities will order the execution of risk assessment studies and
reduction of pollutant concentrations in emissions / discharges.
TRACES
NORMAL
VALUES
ALERT THRESHOLDS
(TYPES OF USAGE)
INTERVENTION THRESHOLDS
(TYPES OF USAGE)
Sensitive
Less
sensitive
Sensitive
Less
sensitive
I. METALS
Antimonium (Sb)
5
12,5
20
20
40
Silver (Ag)
2
10
20
20
40
Arsenic (As)
5
15
25
25
50
Barium (Ba)
200
400
1.000
625
2.000
Berilium (Be)
1
2
7,5
5
15
Soluble Boron (B)
1
2
5
3
10
Cadmium (Cd)
1
3
5
5
10
Chromium (Cr):
30
30
100
300
300
600
Hexavalent Cr:
1
4
10
10
20
Copper (Cu)
20
100
250
200
500
Manganese (Mn)
900
1.500
2.000
2.500
4.000
Mercury (Hg)
0,1
1
4
2
10
Molibden (Mo)
2
5
15
10
40
Nickel (Ni)
20
75
200
150
500
Lead (Pb)
20
50
250
100
1.000
Selenium (Se)
1
3
10
5
20
Stanium (Sn)
20
35
100
50
300
Talium (Tl)
0,1
0,5
2
2
5
Vanadium (V)
50
100
200
200
400
Zinc (Zn)
100
300
700
600
1.500
Of relevance for air pollution is the Order no. 592/2002 for the approval of the Norm on the setting of
limit values, threshold values and criteria and methods for the evaluation of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
dioxide and nitrogen oxides, suspended dust (PM10 and PM2.5), lead, benzene, carbon monoxide and
ozone in the ambient air.
3.2.2. Industrial and energy policy
3.2.2.1. Efficient and sustainable energy use
In 2019, the EU updated its energy policy framework to facilitate the
transition away from fossil fuels towards cleaner energy and to
deliver on the EU’s Paris Agreement (2015) commitments for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This new energy rulebook – the
Clean energy for all Europeans package – recast the key European
energy directives:
• The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EU
2018/844)
• The Renewable Energy Directive (EU 2018/2001)
• The amending Directive on Energy Efficiency (EU 2018/2002)
The Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC establishes a common framework for the use of energy
from renewable sources within the European Union. It sets mandatory national targets for the overall
share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of energy and for the share of
energy from renewable sources in transport. The new EU 2018/2001 establishes a binding renewable
energy target for the EU for 2030 of at least 32%, with a clause for a possible upwards revision by 2023.
For Romania, the target for share of energy from RES in gross final consumption of energy, for 2020, is
24%. The country proposed a new target of 27.9% for 2030, lower than the EC-set 32% overall binding
climate and energy 2030 target for the European Union. A modified National Integrated Climate
Change-Energy Plan
6
raising the target to 30.5% is under development.
The directive also establishes sustainability criteria for biofuels and bioliquids. A former 2016 revised
Renewable Energy Directive (COM/2016/0767 final/2 - 2016/0382 (COD)) introduced updated
sustainability criteria for biofuels used in transport and bioliquids, and solid and gaseous biomass fuels
used for heat and power. Annexes V and VI include updated greenhouse gas emission accounting rules
and default values, among which woodchips from short rotation coppice – eucalyptus, poplar
(fertilised / not fertilised, stemwood).
The Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU establishes a common framework of measures for the
promotion of energy efficiency within the Union in order to ensure the achievement of the Union’s
2020 target on energy efficiency. The Directive foresees encouragement by the MS of municipalities
and other public bodies to adopt integrated and sustainable energy efficiency plans (SEAPs), and to
involve citizens in their development and implementation. Such plans can yield considerable energy
savings, especially if they are implemented by energy management systems that allow the public
bodies to better manage their energy consumption. Updated measures and targets have been
introduced with EU 2018/2002, establishing an energy efficiency target for 2030 of at least 32.5%,
6
Ministry of Energy (2019) - National Integrated Climate Change-Energy Plan, available at http://energie.gov.ro/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/NECP_EN_COM.pdf (accessed 10.07.2020)
39
collectively across the EU. Member states need to transpose the directive into national law by 25 June
2020, with Romania currently into infringement procedure
7
.
In Romania, the Energy Efficiency directive is transposed into national Law no. 121/2014, establishing
a legislative framework for the development and application of the national energy efficiency policy in
order to achieve the national target for increasing energy efficiency. For 2030, the national targets are
enclosed in the Romanian Energy Strategy 2016-2030, with an outlook to 2050
8
. Of particular
relevance to SPIRE is the annual target of thermal rehabilitation of at least 3% of the overall number
of public buildings, schools, hospitals, administrative buildings etc.
Lastly, The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD – new 2018/844/EU) combines provisions
on minimum energy performance requirements with certifications, providing both a constraint and an
incentive for buildings energy performance improvement. There is evidence of around 48.9 Mtoe
additional final energy savings in 2014 compared to the 2007 baseline of the EPBD, and these savings
have mainly happened within the scope of the Directive.
3.2.2.2. Waste management, brownfield recovery and the circular economy
The management and disposal of waste is a major challenge for European cities, and of special interest
to SPIRE – not only in light of the safe management, reuse and recycle of contaminated biomass, but
also as one of the pillars of a healthy community supported by the iLEU system.
The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) sets out the principles for waste management within
the European Union and introduces the concepts of the “polluter pays principle” and the “waste
hierarchy”.
The waste hierarchy sets an order of priorities for waste management with the preferred option of
waste prevention, followed by re-use, recycling, other forms of recovery such as energy from waste,
and improved final disposal followed by monitoring. The general sustainability principle is that waste
should be managed so that it does not endanger human health, or pose risks to the environment, the
air, water, soil, plants or animals, provoke negative impacts due to noise and odour, or otherwise
adversely affect places of special interest.
Most European cities have introduced, in the last two decades, differentiated collection systems and
mechanisms for reuse, recycle and safely dispose of waste, with several EU countries already recycling
over 50% of packaging waste (EC, 2019). The Waste Framework Directive introduced new targets for
Member States to recycle 50% of their household waste and 70% of construction and demolition
waste by 2020.
The earlier Landfill Directive (LD) 1999/31/EC underlines the spatial perspective explicitly, as it
requires sites for landfills to be chosen only after considering distance to residential, recreational or
other urban areas, among other criteria.
7
General Secretariat of the Romanian Government, https://sgg.gov.ro/new/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Anexa-2.pdf (accessed
10.07.2020)
8
Ministry of Energy (2019) - Romanian Energy Strategy 2016-2030, with an outlook to 2050, available at http://energie.gov.ro/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/Romanian-Energy-Strategy-2016-2030-executive-summary3.pdf (accessed 10.07.2020)
At national level, the Waste Framework Directive has been transposed into Romanian legislation by
the Law no. 211/2011 on the waste regime and the GD no. 856/2002 on the record of waste
management and for the approval of the list covering waste, including hazardous waste. The
programmatic documents in the field of waste management which are currently in force are:
• National Waste Management Strategy (SNGD);
• The National Waste Management Plan (PNGD);
• Regional Waste Management Plans (PRGD);
• County Waste Management Plans (PJGD).
SNGD and PNGD are the basic instruments that ensure the implementation in Romania of the
European Union policy in the field of waste management. The following targets are of particular
relevance to SPIRE and can contribute to the backbone of a scale-up strategy:
• Preparation for reuse and recycling of municipal waste - at least 50% by the end of 2020
(relative to recyclable waste)
• Preparation for reuse and recycling of municipal waste - at least 50% by the end of 2025
(relative to municipal waste)
• Reducing the amount of municipal biodegradable waste stored - to 35% of the amount of
municipal biodegradable waste generated in 1995, until the end of 2020
• Increasing the degree of energy recovery - to at least 15%, by the end of 2025
As part of the waste management legislation and policy package, in August 2014, Romania has adopted
a National Strategy and Action Plan for the Management of Contaminated Sites in Romania. The
strategy identified 1183 potentially contaminated sites and 210 contaminated sites at national level,
yet lacked the proper operationalisation instruments to allow for its success. The strategy aimed to
address the problem of urgent-action contaminated sites (not specifically identified) by 2020, and to
complete remediation actions on 1393 contaminated / potentially contaminated sites by 2050. The
mid-term target has not been achieved, and while the estimated costs for risk assessment and
remediation of the 1,183 potentially contaminated sites and 210 contaminated sites amount to a
total of 8,409 billion euros, there is a clear and urgent need for alternatives.
3.2.2.3. The industrial policy and bio-based building materials
The European industrial policy supports inter alia the transformation of EU energy-intensive industries
to enable a climate-neutral, circular economy by 2050, empowers citizens by providing skills for
industry and promotes advanced technologies.
Among the legislation of interest, the Construction Products Regulation (CPR - Regulation (EU) No
305/2011 — harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products) lays down
harmonised rules for the marketing of construction products in the EU. The Regulation provides a
common technical language to assess the performance of construction products, including thermal
insulation products, of potential interest in implementing SPIRE.
The European Commission includes sustainability and circular economy principles in its secondary law,
strategies and action plans, throughout the lifecycle of materials: from product design, to the
41
production process, consumption and secondary uses. The Ecodesign Directive (Directive
2009/125/EC) provides consistent EU-wide rules for improving the environmental performance of
products, such as household appliances, information and communication technologies or engineering.
The Commission also provides specific support for cascading uses of biomass, with a recent Study on
the optimised cascading use of wood (Vis, Mantau and Allen, 2016).
3.2.3. Social policy and employment
The European Union is developing policies and legislative proposals
to meet societal challenges and macro-trends such as globalisation,
changing demographics and the 4th industrial revolution.
The European Employment Strategy (EES) leverages on joint MS
objectives and targets for employment policies, and constitutes a
part of the Europe 2020 growth strategy. The yearly Joint
Employment Report includes social scoreboard headline indicators
to benchmark the progress of MS
9
, including Romania (EC, 2019)
The New Skills Agenda, adopted in June 2016 aims to ensure that
Europeans develop appropriate training and skills. It aims to bridge
the skills gap by equipping people with the necessary skills and upskilling the existing workforce.
Between 2015 and 2025 opportunities will grow for highly-skilled people (+21%), while stagnating for
medium-skill levels and declining for the low skilled (-17%). Depending on the country and occupation,
25-45% of jobs will be subject to automation. This is why upskilling and reskilling are indispensable (EC,
2020).
Lastly, EU policy on youth is underpinned by Resolution 2018/C 456/01 on a framework for European
cooperation in the youth field: The European Union Youth Strategy 2019-2027. The European Youth
Goals (11) include provisions to support mental health and wellbeing, quality employment and quality
learning.
At national level, the main legislation governing employment is the Law 76/2002, revised in 2016,
which supports measures for increasing employment chances, for incentivizing employers to create
new jobs and for the participation in the labour market of youth at risk of social marginalisation. To
support NEETs, The Government further adopted GEO 60/2016, which aims to improve the support
offered to employees, the unemployed, those looking for a job and to expats to participate in the
labour market (Vasilescu, 2019).
Green jobs have only recently entered the Romanian agenda, with the National Strategy for Green
Jobs 2018-2025 and Action Plan, focusing on high competitiveness sectors identified in the 2014-2020
National Competitiveness Strategy and in the 2014-2020 National Research, Development and
Innovation Strategy. The Action Plan foresees financial support for sustainable value chains and
9
Annex 1 and 2 of the Joint Employment Report 2019, EC, https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=101
innovative ecosystems, and contains a number of result indicators of relevance to the KPI framework
of SPIRE.
3.2.4. Public health and wellbeing
Under the Court of Justice of the European Union ruling, the EU can
pursue public health objectives through the integration of the
internal market. This has enabled the EU to develop a robust health
policy, with the purpose of fostering good health, protecting citizens
from health threats and supporting dynamic health systems (Third
Health Programme, 2014-2020).
In March 2014, the Third Health Programme (Regulation (EU) No
282/2014) entered into force, and it will be succeeded by the
EU4Health 2021-2027, which is focusing specifically on urgent health
priorities such as the Coronavirus Pandemic, the fight against cancer,
reducing the number of antimicrobial-resistant infections and improving vaccination rates.
EU Health policy is transversal. The Health in All Policies (HIAP) approach, codified in the EU Treaty and
the Charter on Fundamental Rights, responds to the cross-sectoral nature of public health issues and
aims at integrating health aspects in all relevant policies (European Parliament, 2020). Such synergies
allow health issues to be tackled in the wider context, and to be embedded for example in the Farm
to Fork strategy (COM/2020/381 final) or the the Zero Pollution Action Plan (COM(2019) 640
final on the European Green Deal.
Health and Wellbeing is further a central objective of all environmental policy and European secondary
law. Beyond environmental components, the social side of wellbeing is addressed specifically for
youth, in the EU Youth Strategy, and with a focus on nutrition, through the Strategy on nutrition,
overweight and obesity-related health issues.
3.2.5. Research and innovation
43
The European research and innovation ambitions are supported by
the Treaty of Lisbon, which strengthens action in this field of research
with the aim of creating a European Research Area (ERA).
Communication (COM(2012) 497 final) of the EU’s strategic
approach to international cooperation in research and innovation
provides the aims of the main delivery mechanism of R&I support for
2014-2020, namely the Horizon 2020 programme. With a budget of
nearly EUR 80 billion, it was designed to implement the Innovation
Union, Europe's strategy for innovation and one of the Europe 2020
flagship initiatives. Horizon 2020 aims to establish the EU as a leading
knowledge-based economy, producing world-class science and
innovation to ensure Europe's global competitiveness.
Its successor, the Horizon Europe programme for 2021-2027 is under development, with an estimated
budget of ca. 100 billion Euros.
4. A standardised approach to nbs and
phytoremediation
4.1. Standards in innovation projects
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defines a standard as a document, established
by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules,
guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum
degree of order in a given context
10
.
The role of standardisation in research and innovation projects and urban innovative actions is still
incipiently researched in literature (Technopolis, 2013; Lindner, Sarriegi & Hernantes, 2018). Yet in
recent years, the focus of innovation policies has shifted from being supported by proprietary
knowledge to open-source, open access knowledge, freely diffused and embedded into urban
innovation processes (OFE, 2017).
Standards cover both product indicators, but also – more relevantly for SPIRE – process indicators
(Cohen et al., 2000). Traditionally addressing technological and service aspects (Wakke et al. 2015),
standards have in recent years expanded to tackle complex societal issues, such as environmental
management, smart cities or corporate social responsibility (Blind, 2016). Furthermore, standards are
an element of the national regulatory framework (EC, 2016).
According to CEN/CENELEC, the use of standards can support compatibility and interoperability of
products and technologies, fast-track innovative solutions to market, create impact and disseminate
knowledge, exploit research results alongside scientific publications and patents, build trust and
confidence in innovative products, and are furthermore often universally recognized (CEN/CENELEC,
2015). There are several standardisation opportunities along the research and innovation stage:
10
ISO, https://www.iso.org/sites/ConsumersStandards/1_standards.html
45
Figure 9 - Standardisation opportunities in the development process of an innovative action.
Source: adaptation after CEN/CENELEC, 2015
Standards can be developed at international (e.g. ISO), regional (e.g. CEN – the European Committee
for Standardization) or national level (for example, ASRO in Romania or DIN in Germany). They can
furthermore be developed by consortia of businesses to address a specific marketplace need, or by
government departments to support regulations, or most often, by explicit coordination in consensus-
driven organisations (Wiegmann et al. 2017).
The most relevant and representative Standards Development Organisations (SDOs) are ISO, IEC, ITU-
T, ETSI/3GPP, CEN, CENELEC, IEEE, W3C,OMA, OASIS, IETF, ECMA and ANSI, which together account
for more than 98% of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosures included the Searle Center
Database (Baron et al., 2019), while many other SDOs worldwide closely follow the common IPR policy
of ISO, IEC and ITU-T.
At European level, under Regulation 1025/2012, SDOs deal with standardization under internal market
rules, which are build upon international trade law (OFE, 2017). There are three recognized SDOs in
the EU:
• CEN (the European Committee for Standardization)
• CENELEC (the European Committee for Electro-technical Standardization)
• ETSI (the European Telecommunications Standards Institute)
European standards (EN) are adopted by either of the three organisations listed above. Technical
specifications (TS) represent normative documents which are developed in anticipation of future
harmonization and subsequent agreement on a European standard. A Workshop Agreement (e.g. CEN
– CWA) is a document publishing the agreement towards a standardisation approach, and represents
a much faster (10-12 months) and more flexible publication than a standard, which is usually delivered
in 3-5 years.
Under the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative, standards have been recognized as playing an important
role for innovation, by codifying information on the state of the art of a particular technology, (they)
enable dissemination of knowledge, interoperability between new products and services and provide
a platform for further innovation (COM(2010)546). This integrated approach between R&I and
standardisation is promoted by CEN and CENELEC, who support the consideration of standards from
the beginning of an innovation initiative.
4.2. Mapping standardisation topics against SPIRE policy domains
For SPIRE, it is relevant to assess whether any standards exist which are relevant to the project policy
domain, and which codify the state of the art, promoting any recognized methodologies, processes or
terminology. Standards represent a good starting point for informing the development of the KPI
framework, and avoid duplication or overlap with current or past standardisation initiatives.
It is to note that standards are organized in catalogues structured after the International Classification
for Standards (ICS), a three-level hierarchical basis for standing-order systems for international,
regional and national standards. The list of ICS fields is extensive, and for the purpose of this
deliverable, only the essential key domains of interest for SPIRE have been used as queries in
international, regional (CEN, CENELEC) and national (ASRO) databases. These key domains are further
grouped under five topics: environment and sustainability, cities, planning and urban infrastructure,
digital environment, industry and energy, and lastly governance (Table 6).
Table 6 - Overview of main standards relevant for UIA SPIRE
TOPIC
KEY DOMAINS / QUERIES
STANDARDS / DESCRIPTION
ENVIRONMENT AND
SUSTAINABILITY
Environmental management
ISO 14000 family (includes E-LCA standard ISO 14040,
ISO/DIS 14091 on adaptation to climate change,
Environmental site assessment
ASTM E1903 - 19
Environmental Life Cycle
Assessment (E-LCA)
EMAS (the environmental management system used by the
European Parliament in accordance with ISO 14001:400
standards and Reg (EC) 1221/2009)
Brownfields
See ISO 14000; CEN/WS 74 glossary for Holistic
Management of Brownfields Regeneration (GoT-HOMBRE)
Soil quality
CEN/TC 345 Characterisation of soils (disbanded); ISO/TC
190 Soil quality, most notably ISO 15903:2002 Soil quality
— Format for recording soil and site information; ASRO/CT
285 – Soil (Romanian standard)
Nature-based solutions
IUCN Global Standard for NBS (under development)
Land management
ISO 14055-1:2017- guidelines for establishing good
practices in land management to prevent or minimize land
degradation and desertification
PLANNING AND
URBAN
INFRASTRUCTURE
Urban Planning
UN-HABITAT & ISO/TC 292 standard for urban resilience;
ISO 37120:2018(en) Sustainable cities and communities —
Indicators for city services and quality of life
47
CEN/TR 14383-2:2007(MAIN) Prevention of crime - Urban
planning and building design - Part 2: Urban planning
Geospatial data
INSPIRE Directive (relies on OGC and ISO/TC 211);
Standards by ISO/TC 211 Geographic Information /
Geomatics (ISO 19100 Series for: common conceptual
model, geospatial data, metadata)
BIM
Standards developed by ISO technical committee ISO/TC
59, Buildings and civil engineering works (ISO 19650 -
developed on BS 1192)
Thermal insulation for buildings
Package of standards adopted by ISO/TC 163/SC 1
DIGITAL
ENVIRONMENT
Blockchain
SO/IEC JTC 1 SC 42, IEC SEG 10 on Artificial Intelligence and
ISO/TC 307 on Blockchain and Distributed Ledger
technologies (under development)
IoT, sensors and Earth
Observation (EO)
Standards by ISO/TC 211 Geographic Information /
Geomatics (ISO 19100 Series for: services; observations
and measurements); OGC Sensor Model Language
(SensorML); OGC Sensor Observation Service (SOS); OGC
Sensor Planning Service (SPS); OGC SensorThings API (STA))
INDUSTRY AND
ENERGY
Biomass energy
EN 14961 - 1 Solid biofuels. Fuel specifications and classes.
Standards issued by SO/TC 238, Solid biofuels.
Solid biomass according to CEN/TS 14961:2005 - Co-Firing
Co-firing of solid biomass in coal-fired power stations is
permitted
Energy management in PA
ISO 50001 - energy management system model
GOVERNANCE
Public procurement
ISO 20400:2017 - Sustainable procurement; CEN/CENELEC
JIS Action 11 – Pilot Project – Increased use of standards in
Public Procurement to better implement the public
procurement Directives.
Social responsibility
ISO 26000 standard on social responsibility (first voluntary
one)
TRANSVERSAL –
SMART AND
SUSTAINABLE CITIES
AND COMMUNITIES
ISO/TC 268 Sustainable Cities and Communities:
ISO 37120:2018 Sustainable cities and communities — Indicators for city services and quality
of life
ETSI TS 103 463 key performance indicators for sustainable digital multiservice cities.
ITU-T and UNECE: Smart sustainable cities standards (status of recommendations):
• ITU-T Y.4900/L.1600 overview of key performance indicators in smart sustainable
cities
• ITU-T Y.4901/L.1601 key performance indicators related to the use of information
and communication technology in smart sustainable cities
• ITU-T Y.4902/L.1602 key performance indicators related to the sustainability
impacts of information and communication technology in smart sustainable cities
• ITU-T Y.4903/L.1603 key performance indicators for smart sustainable cities to
assess the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals
Several observations can be derived from the table above. Although there is a robust body of
standards for environmental quality, construction and energy domains, geospatial data and ICT
instruments (barring blockchain technology, for which a standard is still understandably under
development), the specific topics of sustainable land use / urban planning and nature-based solutions
are either only tangentially addressed, or still incipient in their development. The most developed
integrated standards pertain to the topic of “Smart and Sustainable Cities”, for which several standards
by ISO, ETSI and ITU-T in cooperation with UNECE have been developed, with the latter aligned with
the Sustainable Development Goal 11.
A standardised approach to land use and urban planning has been attempted repeatedly in the past
(see for example OGC Urban Planning Domain Working Group, 2013) but has invariably proved
unfeasible due to the heterogeneity of planning legislations, regulations, norms, culture and history.
Standards which address urban planning, design and management as instruments for delivering social
outcomes, such as CEN/TR14383 on Crime Prevention by Urban Planning and Design, have been under
development for over 10 years due to the difficulty of finding consensus between planners, architects,
police, security organisations and civil servants within the Technical Committee and Working Groups
(COST TU1203 WG2, 2014).
In lieu of standards, land use and urban planning are governed by national, regional and local
normative documentations, and supported by international organisation guidelines (such as FAO
Guidelines for Land-use planning, 1993).
Regarding NBS, there is currently a considerable effort being invested into developing principles or
guidelines for global ecosystem-management initiatives, such as, for instance, the revision of practice
standards of the Society for Ecological Restoration (McDonald et al., 2016). Standards for NBS are not
yet available, although such a documentation is under preparation by the IUCN: A Global Standard for
Nature-based Solutions (in final stages at the time of this report’s delivery – 07.2020). The scope of
this standard will be to create a common understanding and consensus on Nature-based Solutions and
to facilitate their uptake by an open and transparent process allowing for a standardized quantification
of their effectiveness in reducing hazard or exposure. Furthermore, an important issue for developing
and using such standards is that they will enable comparison with conventional engineering
interventions. Both hazard reduction metrics as well as benchmarking against conventional
interventions are of particular interest to SPIRE; beyond demonstration of efficacy and cost-
effectiveness in absolute terms, the phytoremediation approach proposed by the project needs to be
furthermore validated against traditional remediation methods. While scientific evidence offers a
strong support to the method, a global standard can in turn provide the credibility and endorsement
necessary to overcome perception barriers and inertia.
49
5. DEFINITION OF A WORKING KPI
FRAMEWORK FOR SPIRE
5.1. Review of existing KPI frameworks in the context of innovative urban
actions assessment
For the purpose of urban monitoring, either at project level or at city level, there are currently
hundreds of indicator systems available, typically developed for specific use and requiring expert
knowledge to be properly understood (Moonen & Clark, 2013; Huovila et al., 2019).
In recent years, there have been several indicator frameworks developed with the purpose of
performance measurement of urban systems at European and global level, either led by international
organisations such as ITU-T and UN-HABITAT, or within the frame of research and innovation
programmes such as FP7 and Horizon 2020, and other European initiatives (Covenant of Mayors, the
Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities or the Green Digital Charter – see Neumann et al., 2015).
The main challenge and lesson learned from scientific literature and European projects points to the
difficulty of standardising indicators dedicated to assessing, monitoring and comparing sustainable
development at multiple territorial levels. In the absence of national or European official guidelines,
or a standard in force for NBS and SLU (see previous chapter), a flexible indicator approach can prove
the most beneficial (Moreno Pires, Fidélis, and Ramos, 2014).
Against the Sustainable Development Goals and particularly SDG 11, queries on SPIRE policy topics
reveal two specific urban assessment domains in which there is already a robust research on KPIs:
1. Smart and Sustainable urban development assessment
2. Nature-Based solutions assessment
ITU-T (2016) defines a Smart and Sustainable City (SSC) as an innovative city that uses information
and communication technologies (ICTs) and other means to improve quality of life, efficiency of
urban operation and services, and competitiveness, while ensuring that it meets the needs of present
and future generations with respect to economic, social, environmental as well as cultural aspects.
The topic of Smart and Sustainable Cities (SSC) represents the current adaptation and “compromise”
between the concept of smart cities, inherently competitiveness-oriented, and the question of
sustainability. It is an evolution from the smart-oriented development, criticized in research and
practice for its departure from environmental and social sustainability (Colding and Barthel, 2017). It
is also currently the only urban development topic for which standards have been successfully
developed (see Chapter 4.2), and the only one which achieves a sufficiently broad level of integration
of all dimensions and city sectors affected by the implementation of SPIRE. Furthermore, as a specific
topic for which mature research could be identified, Nature-based solutions represent the central
topic of SPIRE and are strongly articulated with the goal of SSC.
Several well-developed and robust KPI frameworks have been developed in the recent past, which
integrate both the key domains of smart and sustainable cities and communities as well as nature-
based solutions and sustainable use of land:
51
Table 7 - Overview table of selected KPI frameworks for SSC and NBS assessment.
Source: Maes et al. (2016), Raymond et al., (2017), Bosch et al., (2017), G4C / Nature4Cities (2016)
NAME
DESCRIPTION
DOMAINS / CATEGORIES
INDICATORS
ITU-T and UNECE
Indicators for Smart and
Sustainable Cities - ITU-T
Y.4902 and Y.4093
Recommendation ITU-T Y.4902/L.1602 gives a general
guidance to cities and provide the definitions of key
performance indicators (KPIs) related to the sustainability
impact of information and communication technology (ICT) in
the context of smart sustainable cities (SSCs).
Recommendation ITU-T Y.4903/L.1603 gives general
guidance to cities and provides Key Performance Indicators
(KPIs) for Smart Sustainable Cities (SSCs) to help cities achieve
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It has been jointly
developed with UNECE and other UN agencies.
Environmental sustainability,
productivity, quality of life, equity and
social inclusion, physical infrastructure
(Y.4092)
Economy, Environment, Society and
Culture (Y.4093)
30 (Y.4092)
52 (Y.4093)
ISO 37120:2018
sustainable development
of communities –
indicators for city services
and quality of life
ISO 37120:2018 defines and establishes methodologies for a
set of indicators to steer and measure the performance of city
services and quality of life. It follows the principles set out in
ISO 37101 and can be used in conjunction with ISO 37101 and
other strategic frameworks.
Economy, education, energy,
environment and climate change, finance,
governance, health, housing, population
and social conditions, recreation, safety,
solid waste, sport and culture,
telecommunication, transportation,
urban/local agriculture and food security,
urban planning, wastewater, water
104
CITYKEYS Indicators for
SC projects and Smart
Cities
ETSI TS 103 463 key
performance indicators
for sustainable digital
multiservice cities
Funded by the European Union HORIZON 2020 programme,
CITYkeys developed and validated, with the aid of cities, key
performance indicators and data collection procedures for
the common and transparent monitoring as well as the
comparability of smart city solutions across European cities.
People, Planet, Prosperity, Governance
and Propagation
(ETSI TS published for quantifiable
indicators - People, Planet, Prosperity,
Governance)
76
NAME
DESCRIPTION
DOMAINS / CATEGORIES
INDICATORS
ETSI published the set as a Technical Specification, under the
title “Key Performance Indicators for Sustainable Digital
Multiservice Cities” (2017)
MAES Framework
Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services –
MAES developed a coherent analytical framework as well as
common typologies of ecosystems for mapping and a
typology of ecosystem services for accounting (2013)
Pressure and condition indicators.
Pressures on ecosystems; environmental
quality; structural and functional
ecosystem indicators; soil indicators;
species diversity and abundance
indicators; conservation status of habitats
and species.
Differentiation for policy relevance and
data availability
104 total main
policy-relevant
indicators (fifth
report)
EKLIPSE Impact
Evaluation Framework
supporting planning and
evaluation of NBS
projects
The Report (2017) was prepared by the EKLIPSE Expert
Working Group on Nature-based Solutions to Promote
Climate Resilience in Urban Areas, based on expert
consultation, literature reviews and previous work in MAES
(2013). The EWG developed a framework that enables the
assessment of impacts related to specific NBS actions within
and across 10 challenge areas.
The assessment framework assists evaluation of multiple
benefits, disservices, trade-offs and synergies of Nature-
Based Solutions (NBS) for H2020-funded NBS demonstration
projects.
NBS CHALLENGE AREAS:
Climate mitigation and adaptation; Water
management; Coastal resilience; Green
space management; Air / ambient quality;
Urban regeneration; Participatory
planning and governance;
Social justice and social cohesion; Public
health and well-being; Potential for new
economic opportunities and green jobs.
A small number
of
representative
examples of
indicators are
presented for
each of the 10
Challenges
Nature4Cities system of
performance indicators
for the assessment of
urban challenges and NBS
Nature4Cities develops a system of integrated multiscale and
multi-thematic urban performance indicators (UPI) for the
assessment of urban challenges (UC) and NBS. KPIs have been
selected using the RACER evaluation methodology. The Urban
Challenges framework is based on the EKLIPSE framework.
Framework for assessment: Climate,
Environment, Resource, Social, Economy.
Domains: Climate Issues, Water
Management, Air Quality, Green Space
Management and Biodiversity, Urban
Regeneration, Resource Efficiency, Public
50 selected KPIs
53
NAME
DESCRIPTION
DOMAINS / CATEGORIES
INDICATORS
Health and Well-being, Environmental
Justice and Social Cohesion, Urban
Planning and Governance, People Security
and Green Economy
54
The Smart and Sustainable city indicator frameworks have recently been comparatively analysed in
scientific literature, by Huovila, using a taxonomy to evaluate 413 indicators against five conceptual
urban focuses (types of urban sustainability and smartness), ten sectoral application domains (energy,
transport, ICT, economy, etc.) and five indicator types consistent with the theory of change steps. The
results of the comparative analyses highlighted a good balance between the smart characteristic (or
ICT focus) and sustainability focus of ITU 4903 and ETSI / CityKeys indicator frameworks. ITU 4092,
together with the UN SDG 11+ have been considered by Huovila et al. to be strongly focused on
reporting real impacts, in the sustainability spectrum.
With respect to nature-based solutions monitoring and assessment, the vision of the DG RTD is to
establish the European Union as a leader in NBS innovation for sustainable and resilient societies (EC,
2019), part of that goal being implemented via a portfolio of over 20 NBS projects financed by the
Horizon 2020 (among which Nature4Cities, CleverCities, ProGIreg and Naturvation) whose aim is to
demonstrate the multiple benefits of NBS. For coherence, and in order to reach consensus on common
indicators, these projects have established a protocol for key indicator selection (Kolokotsa and Lilli,
2018) and build on the EKLIPSE Framework as a starting point (Raymond et al., 2017).
A critical analysis of MAES, EKLIPSE and CityKeys indicator frameworks has been performed by
Wendling et al. (2018). The authors benchmarked the performance of these three main frameworks,
primarily impact-oriented, against the attainment of the SDG 11 targets. The results pointed to a more
well-rounded coverage of CityKeys KPIs - albeit still lacking in some domains, especially in what
concerns the targets of heritage protection, adequate housing, wastewater treatment and protecting
the poor and vulnerable. The authors point out that, albeit not designed to measure NBS Performance,
the CityKeys indicator framework still addresses major societal challenges associated with urban
dynamics and the European Union’s energy and climate targets well, which makes it a good starting
point for designing the KPI Framework of SPIRE.
This review has been particularly relevant and useful to understand the architecture of the existing KPI
frameworks to monitor sustainable (and smart) local development and NBS. Nevertheless, for the
assessment of UIA SPIRE in Baia Mare, the project will select and adapt indicators corresponding to its
own needs, in the aims of generating a hybrid, yet traceable, comparable and easily replicable
framework for use in the project and beyond.
5.2. Mapping the SPIRE impact assessment framework
The EKLIPSE EWG on NBS evaluation discussed in the previous chapter indicates a sound framework
supporting the methodological approach to be used in NBS and SLU evaluation, based on the ten
challenges defined by the expert report on NBS, supported by DG Research and Innovation and
adopted by a portfolio of research and innovation actions, currently under development. Apart from
water management (EKLIPSE Challenge 2) and coastal resilience (Challenge 3), UIA SPIRE directly
addresses all of the eight remaining Challenges:
• Climate mitigation and adaptation;
• Green space management (including enhancing/conserving urban biodiversity);
55
• Air/ambient quality;
• Urban regeneration;
• Participatory planning and governance;
• Social justice and social cohesion;
• Public health and well-being;
• Potential for new economic opportunities and green jobs.
SPIRE contributes to each of these challenges with a set of project actions, which are centred on
implementation of participatory processes (A.6.1), phytoremediation and renaturing (A.6.2),
development of alternative energy sources from biomass (A.6.3), development of innovative
refurbishment construction materials (A.6.4), mentoring, capacity development (A.6.4), citizen-led
NBS and sustainable behaviour shift (A.6.5), development of long-term strategies (A.7.3) and lastly,
general awareness raising (WP 3).
Each challenge, if successfully tackled in SPIRE, can furthermore lead to the achievement of significant
impacts at the urban – metropolitan or local level, from e.g. brownfield conversion and cost-effective
promotion of compact urban development, to a decrease of the share of fossil fuel in energy use, or
an Increase in the sense of ownership of local natural places at local community level. Table 8 identifies
the relationship between the challenges, SPIRE actions, expected impacts and policy domains is
identified, for the purpose of defining a holistic and integrated assessment framework
Figure 10 - SPIRE assessment framework structure
56
Table 8 - UIA SPIRE proposed assessment dimensions
CHALLENGES
UIA SPIRE ACTIONS
EXPECTED IMPACTS
POLICY DIMENSION &
SDGS
1. CLIMATE
MITIGATION AND
ADAPTATION
(EKLIPSE EWG
Challenge nr. 1)
- Increase the area of green space and avoid loss of existing green
on a pilot area of 7.15 hectares (A.6.2)
- Maximise net sequestration of carbon through species selection
and management practices (choosing species that are adapted to
future conditions)
- Encourage the increase of green space and tree cover through
iLEU incentives and plantathlons / community involvement actions
(A.6.5)
- Encourage the use of alternative means of transport (walking,
cycling and using public transportation) via iLEU incentives (A5.2);
- Implement a pilot small small-scale biomass system and provide
renewable energy to the Nenitescu high-school, creating a
cascading value chain from the brownfield remediation process
(A.6.3)
- Develop an integrated metropolitan bio-based strategy and
masterplan to upscale brownfield phytoremediation and RES
development taking into account ca. 627 hectares of available land
resources (A.7.3)
1.1. Increasing carbon sequestration in vegetation
and soil (Davies et al., 2011; Pataki et al., 2006).
Environment and climate
change policy
SDG 11, 13
1.2. Decreasing the share of fossil fuel in energy use
Industrial and energy policy
SDG 7, 11, 12,13
1.3. Increasing the modal split of alternative, more
sustainable transport means
Environment and climate
change policy
SDG 11, 13
1.4. Reducing the temperature at meso or
microscales, decreasing the energy demand for
cooling in summer and reducing associated carbon
emissions (Akbari, 2002)
2. GREEN SPACE
MANAGEMENT AND
BIODIVERSITY
(EKLIPSE EWG
Challenge nr. 4)
- Implement innovative, interdisciplinary planning methods for
green space co‐design and co‐implementation, including
development of innovative social models for long‐term positive
management (A.6.1, A6.5, A7.3)
- Increase the biodiversity, functionality and ecosystem service
potential of the pilot sites - 7.15 ha through A6.2
- Increase the area of green space and avoid loss of existing green
on a pilot area of 7.15 hectares (A.6.2)
- Encourage the increase of green space and tree cover through
iLEU incentives and plantathlons / community involvement actions
(A.6.5)
- Make the pilot areas safe and open to citizens (A.6.2)
- Develop a clear accounts of existing, restored, modified and new
NBS and of green and blue spaces at city level (pilot) through an
intelligent GIS Atlas (A5.1)
2.1. Increased stakeholder awareness and
knowledge about NBS and ecosystem services, as
well as citizen participation in the management of
NBS (Filibeck et al., 2016; Hansen et al., 2015; Mell
et al., 2013)
Environment and climate
change policy
Social and employment
policy
SDG 11, 13, 15
2.2. Improved connectivity and functionality of
green and blue infrastructures (Brown et al., 2015;
Niemelä, 2014)
Environment and climate
change policy
SDG 11, 13, 15
2.3. Inventories hierarchizing and representing
green and blue spaces
- Improve the air quality in Baia Mare through renaturation of 7.15
hectares - pilot sites (A.6.2): pollutant deposition and
3.1. Reduction of air pollutants through increased
deposition (Baró et al., 2014; Bealey et al., 2007;
57
3. AIR / AMBIENT
QUALITY
(EKLIPSE EWG
Challenge nr. 5)
resuspension prevention of HM dusts
- Support the capacity of air phytoremediation through incentives
to citizens to plant their own NBS (A.6.5)
- Improve air quality, measured and perceived, through iLEU
incentives aimed at discouraging personal car use;
- Improve understanding of state of play and air quality
importance (indoor and outdoor) through awareness raising (WP
3), open data (A.5.1)
Grote et al. 2017; Tallis et al., 2011)
Reduction of air pollutants via change of citizen
behaviour with respect to environmental action
(mobility, energy use)
Environment and climate
change policy
SDG 11, 13
3.2. Public data on air quality
4. URBAN
REGENERATION
(EKLIPSE EWG
Challenge nr. 6)
-Start long-term phytoremediation on a pilot area of 7.15
hectares, reducing the bioavailability of HM and increasing the
safety of the urban environment;
- Make the pilot areas safe and open to citizens (A.6.2)
- Increase the area of green public space, its accessibility and value
for the neighbourhood and city (A.6.2)
- Encourage citizen-led urban regeneration actions in
neighbourhoods (A.6.5)
- Develop a sustainable, local alternative to building and insulation
materials for the purpose of multi-storey building and retrofitting
(A.6.4)
- Stimulate reuse, recycling and energy valorisation of waste
through various citizen programmes backed by iLEU (eg. recycling
of Christmas trees - A.6.5)
- Develop a long-term bio-based strategy for urban and
metropolitan regeneration leveraging on phytoremediation and
energy / building sector valorisation of biomass (A.7.3)
4.1. Brownfield conversion and cost-effective
promotion of compact urban development;
Conversion of brownfield to green areas in urban
regeneration projects (Mathey et al., 2015).
Environment and climate
change policy
SDG 11, 12, 15
4.2. Changing images of the urban environment,
attracting new residents, visitors, tourists and
investors
4.3. Greater ecological connectivity across urban
regeneration sites, and across scales.
4.4. More energy efficient building design and
long‐term use.
New models of sustainable building refurbishment
applicable at wider scale (BM2050)
Environment and climate
change policy
Industrial and energy policy
Research and Innovation
policy
SDG 7, 9, 11, 12
4.5. Reduction in the amount of building material
and solid waste going to land‐fill.
4.6. Reduced use of energy in the production of
building materials and the construction of new
buildings.
5. PARTICIPATORY
PLANNING AND
GOVERNANCE
(EKLIPSE EWG
Challenge nr. 7)
- Implement knowledge co-production processes for the
participatory development of final designs of the pilot areas
(A.6.1);
- Enable local inter-institutional partnerships and partnerships
with the private and NGO sectors for the delivery of project
results via the iLEU platform (A.5.2)
- Support community-based implementation of regreening /
restoring urban spaces in neighbourhood, through iLEU (A.6.5);
- Co-develop a long-term strategy for the metropolitan area
development (BM2050);
-Increase general perception on the quality of the urban
5.1. Improved perception, action and community
stewardship to regenerated areas via NBS and
phytoremediation
Social and employment
policy
Research and Innovation
policy
SDG 11, 16, 17
5.2. Supported legitimacy of different forms and
systems of knowledge in participatory planning
processes, empowering citizens/civil
society, practitioners and policy
stakeholder involvement in NBS projects.
5.3. Improved governance openness and capacity in
relation to urban challenges, brownfield
regeneration, NBS and SLU
environment (WP2)
- Support awareness and involvement in the project leveraging on
communication and digital tools (A.6.5)
6. SOCIAL JUSTICE
AND SOCIAL
COHESION
(EKLIPSE EWG
Challenge nr. 8)
- Implement innovative, interdisciplinary planning methods for
green space co‐design and co‐implementation, including
development of innovative social models for long‐term positive
management (A.6.1, A6.5, A7.3)
- Involve citizens from vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in the
implementation of SPIRE (6.1)
- Involve youth in
6.1. Increase in communities’ sense of ownership
of local natural places (Natural England, 2014).
Social and employment
policy
Research and Innovation
policy
SDG 10, 11, 16
6.2. A greater diversity and number of people
having the opportunity to experience and enjoy the
natural environment through investments in NBS in
multiple areas (Natural England, 2014).
6.3. Typically excluded groups having the capacity
to actively engage in NBS decision‐making
processes, thereby supporting social cohesion
among diverse socio‐economic groups
6.4. Increase education on societal challenges and
development of new skills
7. PUBLIC HEALTH
AND WELLBEING
(EKLIPSE EWG
Challenge nr. 9)
-Start long-term phytoremediation on a pilot area of 7.15
hectares, reducing the bioavailability of HM and increasing the
safety of the urban environment;
- Make the pilot areas safe and open to citizens (A.6.2)
- Raise awareness on the health implications of Heavy Metal
pollution and sustainable, economically-effective remediation
options (WP 3, A.6.1)
- Stimulate increase in walking and fitness (5.2.)
7.1. Diminished environmental risks to health and
improved wellbeing in the neighbourhood by
phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated
soils and reduction of bioavailability of HM
Environment and climate
change policy
Public health policy
SDG 3, 11
7.2. Improved knowledge and citizen action
towards wellness and health via encouragement
and rewarding of a healthy lifestyle
8. POTENTIAL FOR
NEW ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES
AND GREEN JOBS
(EKLIPSE EWG
Challenge nr. 10)
- Develop and implement a training programme dedicated to
support youth and entrepreneurs to start and manage a NBS-
based business (A.6.4)
- Support development of experimental construction materials
and launch an Incubator for Start-up Green Business(es),
supported by a makerspace for experimentation;
- Pilot, assess, disseminate and transfer knowledge from the
biomass-to-energy value stream pilot to support new bioenergy
initiatives (A.6.3)
- Pilot, assess, disseminate and transfer knowledge from the
biomass-to-novel building materials stream (idem, A.6.4)
- Incentivize green entrepreneurship (A.6.4, A.6.5)
- Develop a strategic and operational plan for economic
redevelopment of the Baia Mare metropolitan area for 2050
(A.7.3)
8.1. Increased knowledge of biomass value chains
and appropriate implementation of NBS and SLU
solutions within the local economy
Industry and energy policy
Social and employment
policy
Research and innovation
policy
SDG 4, 8, 9, 11, 13
8.2. Increased share of the bioeconomy sector in
the local economy and increased value added
within the sector
8.3. Integrated local ecosystem in the sectors of
sustainable production and management, green
energy and green construction
8.4. Increased competitive advantage of Baia Mare
at regional scale, supported by business-oriented
instruments encouraging local investments
59
60
5.3. SPIRE Key Performance Indicators
Based on the proposed assessment dimensions, the KPIs have been defined through integration of
relevant indicators from the following sources:
• UIA SPIR Baia Mare (assessment indicators presented in the project application form);
• Sustainable Development Goal 11: indicators for SDG11 targets and indicators included in the
VLR Handbook;
• EKLIPSE referenced indicators, further developed in NBS projects using the framework
(Nature4Cities, UnaLab, proGIreg, GrowGreen);
• CityKEYS project (city and project indicators).
A long list of 61 key performance indicators has been compiled, each providing the information
reported in Table 9:
Table 9 - Attributes of SPIRE KPI
ATTRIBUTE
DESCRIPTION
Number
Number of the KPI using a three-digit classification based on:
- The number of the Challenge (e.g. 1 CLIMATE MITIGATION AND
ADAPTATION);
- The number of the expected impact of implementing SPIRE actions
contributing to the EKLIPSE challenge (e.g. 1 1.2. Decreasing the share of
fossil fuel in energy use);
- The number of the indicator corresponding to each KPI included to
measure the impact (e.g. 1.2.1. CO2 emissions savings per annum
(energy pilot)
Name
The name of the indicator, either included from existing frameworks (e.g.
Changes in the pattern of structural and functional connectivity (Iojă et al., 2014))
or standards, or generated within the project (e.g. Soil Carbon Sequestration
(SCS))
Unit
Unit of measurement, either through quantitative assessment (e.g. CO2 ton/y –
CO2 emissions savings per annum) or qualitative assessment (Likert scale)
Scale
Scale of data collection for the calculation of the indicator:
- Unit scale (pilot phytoremediation sites / pilot refurbishment target)
- Neighborhood scale (for pilot phytoremediation plots)
- City scale
- Metropolitan scale
Relevance
Differentiation between immediate project assessment relevance and relevance
for the longer-term scaling of the SPIRE Baia Mare project:
- Pilot: KPI is relevant for the assessment of UIA Pilot action
implementation.
- BM2050: KPI is relevant for measuring more systemic changes and
impacts at urban / metropolitan level, in the phase of metropolitan
scaling, and can be used to monitor the BM2050 Masterplan; it will not
be used in assessment of the UIA initiative, but is nevertheless important
for the implementation of A.7.3 and can be of interest to other cities
interested in replicating the methodology.
- Pilot + BM2050: Indicator is relevant for both the UIA pilot stage as well
as subsequent scaling actions.
61
In the KPI table, the indicators relevant only for the BM2050 stage are highlighted
in grey.
Data and
method
Necessary data for the calculation of the KPI and method of data collection
Source
KPI source and references.
The KPI developed specifically through UIA SPIRE Baia Mare are highlighted in
green.
The coverage of the indicators is illustrated in Figure 11, which highlights a strong focus on climate
mitigation and adaptation impact assessment, as well as on urban regeneration aspects, which include
sustainable land use targets. A robust framework is provided also for the economic and green job
potential of the project, as well as its participatory and multi-level governance performance.
While still part of the expected impacts of the project, improvements in green space management and
biodiversity, as well as air and ambient quality, are expected to yield more long-term measurable
results, within an upscaling scenario. The public health and wellbeing challenge is perhaps one of the
most complex: it is very difficult to single out one initiative’s outcomes and impacts in terms of the
health of individuals, if not impossible on a short or medium term timeline. Furthermore, the public
health data is scarce, and normally collected at higher administrative levels due to the governance of
the health sector. For the purpose of SPIRE impact assessment, the project will look at self-assessments
of citizens primarily, in what concerns increased levels of both awareness as well as physical activity.
Figure 11 - Dimensions of the SPIRE KPI framework and distribution of indicators per challenge / topic
62
Table 10 - Long list of SPIRE Key Performance Indicators
NO.
INDICATOR
UNIT
SCALE
RELEVANCE
DATA AND METHOD
INDICATOR
SOURCE
1. CLIMATE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION
1.1.1
Soil Carbon Sequestration (SCS)
Tonnes of stored per
unit area per unit time
(ton CO2/ha) (ton
CO2/year).
Unit scale - pilot
phytoremediation
sites
Pilot + BM2050
Soil carbon sequestration is a process in which
CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and stored
in the soil carbon pool. This process is primarily
mediated by plants through photosynthesis, with
carbon stored in the form of soil organic carbon
(SOC).
UIA SPIRE BAIA
MARE
(Application
Form)
1.1.2
Tonnes of Carbon removed or stored
per unit area
per unit time // Total amount of
carbon (tonnes) stored in vegetation.
Tonnes of stored per
unit area per unit time
(ton CO2/ha) (ton
CO2/year).
Unit scale - pilot
phytoremediation
sites
Pilot + BM2050
On-site monitoring, EO / iGIS Atlas data.
Measurements of gross and net carbon
sequestration of urban trees based on
calculation of the biomass of each measured tree
(i‐Tree Eco model)
EKLIPSE (Zheng et
al., 2013; Davies
et al., 2011)
1.1.3
Monetary value: value of carbon
sequestration by trees
Measurements
translated into avoided
social costs of CO2
emissions (USD t‐1
carbon).
Unit scale - pilot
phytoremediation
sites
Pilot + BM2050
On-site monitoring, iTree
EKLIPSE (Baró et
al., 2014).
1.1.4
Comparison with calculations of
carbon
consumption of equivalent non‐NBS
actions
Delta (ton CO2/ha)
Unit scale - pilot
phytoremediation
sites
Pilot + BM2050
Through LCA
EKLIPSE
1.2.1
CO2 emissions savings per annum
(energy pilot)
CO2 ton/y
City scale
Pilot
Derived from data on energy pilot (GEA)
UIA SPIRE BAIA
MARE
(Application
Form)
1.2.2
Increase in local renewable energy
production
% in kWh
City scale
Pilot + BM2050
Percentage increase in the share of local
renewable energy due to the project
implementation, against 2019 baseline
CityKeys
1.2.3
CO2 emissions savings per annum
attributable to RES use for building
energy demands
CO2 ton/y
City scale
BM2050
UIA SPIRE BAIA
MARE
63
NO.
INDICATOR
UNIT
SCALE
RELEVANCE
DATA AND METHOD
INDICATOR
SOURCE
1.2.4
Electrical and thermal energy (kWh)
produced from RES, wastewater
treatment, solid waste treatment and
other waste heat resources, as part of
the city’s energy mix
%
City scale
BM2050
EKLIPSE
1.3.1
Increase in public transport use
% total trips / modal
split
City /
metropolitan
scale
Pilot + BM2050
Urban analysis; iLEU application data
CityKEYS adapted
1.3.2
Increase in cycling as % of daily trips
% total trips / modal
split
City /
metropolitan
scale
Pilot + BM2050
Urban analysis; iLEU application data
UIA SPIRE BAIA
MARE
1.3.3
Increase in walking as % of daily trips
% total trips / modal
split
City /
metropolitan
scale
Pilot + BM2050
Urban analysis; iLEU application data
UIA SPIRE BAIA
MARE
1.4.1
Decrease in mean or peak daytime
local
temperatures attributable to GI
implementation
Delta (degrees C)
Neighbourhood
scale
BM2050
On-site sensors; citizen assessment
Measures of human comfort e.g. ENVIMET. PET
— Personal Equivalent Temperature, or PMV —
Predicted Mean Vote.
EKLIPSE
(Demuzere et al.,
2014).
2. GREEN SPACE MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERSITY
2.1.1
Recreational value (number of visitors,
number of recreational activities)
Number of
stakeholders as users
and participants, total
City scale
Pilot + BM2050
Project monitoring (participant recording, on-site
or via no. of registrations for iLEU rewards at
events)
Questionnaires applied to the population for the
recreational and cultural benefits of green spaces
- Mapping of user values attached to green/blue
areas (Raymond et al., 2016b; Vierikko and
Niemelä, 2016; Wang et al., 2015a);
EKLIPSE (Kabisch
and Haase, 2014)
2.2.1
Changes in the pattern of structural
and functional connectivity (Iojă et al.,
2014) /
Ecological connectivity (Pino and
Marull, 2012)
Perception (Likert
Scale)
Connectivity
improvement (%)
City scale /
Neighbourhood
scale
Pilot + BM2050
Modelling and digital mapping using remote
sensing / iGIS - Comparing the overall linkage
between NBS sites and the status of NBS
implementation (Botzat et al., 2016)
- Questionnaires applied to the population for
the recreational and cultural benefits of green
spaces (Kabisch and Haase, 2014);
EKLIPSE (Badiu et
al., 2016)
NO.
INDICATOR
UNIT
SCALE
RELEVANCE
DATA AND METHOD
INDICATOR
SOURCE
- Field surveys of plots, which are regularly
resurveyed
2.2.2
Distribution of public green space –
total surface or per capita (Badiu et al.,
2016; Gómez‐Baggethun and Barton,
2013; La Rosa et al., 2016).
sqm / capita
City scale /
Neighbourhood
scale
Pilot
(neighbourhood)
+ BM2050 (City /
Metropolitan)
Assessment with iGIS platform / EO
EKLIPSE
2.2.3
Species richness and composition in
respect to
indigenous vegetation and
local/national biodiversity targets
(Cohen et al., 2012; Krasny et al.,
2013).
Number
Unit scale - pilot
phytoremediation
sites
Pilot + BM2050
On site measurement, assessment against
baseline
EKLIPSE
2.2.4
Average share of the built-up area of
cities that is open space for public use
for all, by sex, age and persons with
disabilities.
Percentage (%
increase)
City scale
Pilot + BM2050
Assessment with iGIS platform / EO
SDG 11
2.3.1
Datasets in iGIS inventory
Number
City /
metropolitan
scale
Pilot
Datasets and layers ingested on the iGIS platform
Adaptation after
EKLIPSE
3. AIR / AMBIENT QUALITY
3.1.1
Annual amount of pollutants captured
by vegetationin the pilot sites
(Bottalico et al., 2016).
t pollutant per ha /year
Mapping air purification using spatially-explicit
data on ecosystem types and characteristics
(particularly Leaf Area Index LAI), and pollution
distribution.
Tiwary method / I-Tree Eco method
Adaptation after
EKLIPSE
3.1.2
Monetary values: value of air pollution
reduction (Manes et al., 2016);
monetary value (RON /
EUR) relating to air
pollution reduction,
energy use, and
property values.
City /
metropolitan
scale
BM2050
EKLIPSE
65
NO.
INDICATOR
UNIT
SCALE
RELEVANCE
DATA AND METHOD
INDICATOR
SOURCE
3.1.3
Air pollutant concentrations in
ambient air (measured or modelled)
(O3, NOX, VOCs, PM10 and PM2.5)
Mean levels of NO2,
PM10 and PM2.5 at
different locations.
Neighbourhood
scale /
microclimate
improvement
Pilot + BM2050
On-site monitoring and modelling via iGIS
EKLIPSE
3.2.1
Perception on air quality and
microclimate improvement
Likert scale
Neighbourhood
Pilot + BM2050
Assessment via questionnaire, against baseline
data
UIA SPIRE BAIA
MARE
3.2.2
Public data on air quality - datasets in
iGIS inventory
Number
City /
metropolitan
scale
Pilot
Datasets and layers ingested on the iGIS platform
UIA SPIRE BAIA
MARE
4. URBAN REGENERATION
4.1.1
Reclaimed polluted brownfields (RPB)
% of total brownfield
surface
City
Total surface of contaminated land treated by
SPIRE with phytoremediation techniques and
reconnected to the urban ecosystem. Progress
will be tracked through the iGIS system and
publicly shown through the Dynamic Atlas.
Share of brownfield area that has been
redeveloped in
the past period as percentage of total brownfield
area
UIA SPIRE BAIA
MARE
(Application
Form)
CITYKEYS
4.1.2
Ratio of land consumption rate to
population growth rate.
% increase per annum
City /
metropolitan
scale
BM2050
% increase per year of LCRPGR: Land
consumption Rate / Population Growth Rate
(UN-Habitat, Nicolau et al., 2018)
UN Sustainable
Development
Solutions
Network (SDSN) /
POSIDON /
Elmqvist et al
(2013)
4.1.4
Reclamation of contaminated land:
decontamination cost difference
against conventional methods (eur/
ton)
% difference // EUR
Unit scale - pilot
phytoremediation
sites
Pilot + BM2050
Calculations and projections on the basis of
common-practice hard remediation prices in the
region, and projected cost equivalent of
phytoremediation, derived from project
investment, baseline data, interim / final on-site
and laboratory assessments, for each pilot site.
Can be extrapolated
UIA BAIA MARE
NO.
INDICATOR
UNIT
SCALE
RELEVANCE
DATA AND METHOD
INDICATOR
SOURCE
4.1.5
Reclamation of contaminated land:
time to cleanup
months
Unit scale - pilot
phytoremediation
sites
Pilot + BM2050
Calculations and projections on the basis of
baseline data and interim / final on-site and
laboratory assessments, for each pilot site. Can
be extrapolated
UIA BAIA MARE
4.2.1
Increase in compactness and
attractiveness
% of people or
workplaces
Metropolitan area
BM2050
Percentage increase in the number of people or
workplaces situated in the project areas
CityKEYS derived
4.3.1
Increased access to green space
m2
Neighbourhood
BM2050
Increase in green space (m2) within 500m for
households in the pilot neighbourhoods. Derived
from iGIS
CityKEYS; ISO
37151; EKLIPSE
4.4.1
Reduction of thermal energy
consumption (single pilot building) as
result of refurbishment with
innovative bio-based materials
%
Unit scale - pilot
Casa Schreiber
Pilot
actual thermal energy consumption after
renovation / thermal energy
consumption before renovation; actual
measurements and LCA assessment
UIA BAIA MARE
4.4.2
Actual reduction of CO2 emissions
(single pilot building) as result of
refurbishment with innovative bio-
based materials
t/ year
Unit scale - pilot
Casa Schreiber
Pilot
Calculated according to actual thermal energy
savings and CO2 savings generated with the use
of biomass insulation material, compared to
conventional insulation (polystyrene in Romania )
UIA BAIA MARE
4.4.3
Incorporation of environmental
design: percentage of total building
stock
% of new finalized
constructions or
completed
refurbishments, per
annum
City /
Metropolitan area
BM2050
Share of new builds or retrofitted / energy
refurbished buildings incorporating
environmental design (long term goal)
EKLIPSE
4.5.1
Percentage of city's solid waste that is
recycled for energy production
% total urban solid
waste
City /
Metropolitan area
BM2050
Municipal data (availability to be determined -
long term goal)
CityKEYS derive
4.5.2
Share of recycled input materials /
renewable materials used in the
project
% in m3 or tonnes
Unit scale - pilot
Casa Schreiber
Pilot
Percentage of material used for the pilot project
of Casa Schreiber refurbishment (phase 2) which
is sourced locally from the phytoremediation
project or citizen initiatives
CityKEYS derived
4.6.1
Proportion of financial suppor that is
allocated to the construction and
retrofitting of sustainable, resilient and
resource-efficient buildings utilizing
local materials.
% total financial
support for
construction and
refurbishment
City /
Metropolitan area
BM2050
Municipal data (long term goal)
SDG 11
5. PARTICIPATORY PLANNING AND GOVERNANCE
67
NO.
INDICATOR
UNIT
SCALE
RELEVANCE
DATA AND METHOD
INDICATOR
SOURCE
5.1.1
Perception of citizens on quality of
urban nature and environmental
sustainability (PNS)
Delta % via Likert Scale
Neighbourhood
and city
Pilot
Questionnaires applied to population,
comparison with baseline questionnaire
UIA SPIRE BAIA
MARE
(Application
Form)
5.1.2
Number of community-based projects
greening and restoring urban green
space
number
City
Pilot
5.2.1
Openness of participatory processes
(Frantzeskaki and Kabisch, 2016; Luyet
et al., 2012; Uittenbroek et al., 2013)
n. of citizen meetings,
n. of involved persons,
percentage of women
City
Pilot
Additive aggregation via record keeping / iLEU
app recordings
EKLIPSE derived
5.2.2
Social learning concerning urban
ecosystems and their
functions/services (Colding and
Barthel, 2013).
Degree of interest in
NBS and SLU, % change
Self-assessed degree of
knowledge of NBS and
SLU, % change
City /
Metropolitan area
Pilot + BM2050
Questionnaires applied to population,
comparison with baseline questionnaire
EKLIPSE derived
5.2.3
Policy learning concerning adapting
policies and strategic plans by
integrating ecosystem services and
possibly their valuation (Crowe et al.,
2016; Uittenbroek et al., 2013;
Vandergert et al., 2015).
Degree to which
policies have changed
to incorporate NBS and
SLU
Metropolitan area
Pilot + BM2050
Degree to which local policies and plans have
changed to incorporate NBS and SLU. Focus
groups and interviews within the city hall and
city halls within the Metropolitan area
EKLIPSE
5.3.1
Increase in online government services
Number
City
Pilot + BM2050
The extent to which access to online services
provided by the city was improved by the project
CityKEYS
5.3.2
Long-term integrated strategies and
action plans specifically addressing
SDG 1 1
Number
City /
Metropolitan area
Pilot + BM2050
Quantification of plans (normative and strategic)
and strategies developed at BM Metropolitan
Level which include NBS and SLU principles as a
consequence of the project implementation
SDG 11
5.3.3
Open data (datasets available to the
public)
#/100.000
City /
Metropolitan area
Pilot + BM2050
# of open government datasets per 100.000
inhabitants
CityKEYS
5.3.4
Mechanisms for co-monitoring and co-
evaluation of long-term benefits of
NBS
Number (included in
the BM2050 strategy
and masterplan)
Metropolitan area
BM2050
UIA SPIRE BAIA
MARE
6. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL COHESION
NO.
INDICATOR
UNIT
SCALE
RELEVANCE
DATA AND METHOD
INDICATOR
SOURCE
6.1.1
Environmentally Sustainable Behaviour
(ESB)
Delta %
City
Pilot + BM2050
This indicator will record and report all the
rewards allocated to citizens for virtuous
sustainable behaviour and/or for eco-friendly
actions and/or social entrepreneurship,
according to the criteria that will be defined in
the iLEU Whitepaper.
UIA SPIRE BAIA
MARE
(Application
Form)
6.1.2
Perceived improvement of
neighbourhood social cohesion
Likert scale
City /
Neighbourhood
Pilot + BM2050
Questionnaires applied to population,
comparison with baseline interviews
UIA SPIRE BAIA
MARE
(Application
Form)
6.2.1
Total number of population within the
500-m walking distance radius of a
renaturalized phytoremediation site of
SPIRE and share of population
belonging to vulnerable groups
Number, % increase
City
Pilot
Calculation based on municipal neighbourhood
data (availability to be determined)
UIA SPIRE BAIA
MARE
(Application
Form)
6.3.1
Increased participation of vulnerable
groups
Number
Neighbourhood,
City, Metropolitan
Area
Pilot
Total number of participants from disadvantaged
/ vulnerable groups reached and involved over
the course of the project
Derived from
EKLIPSE and
CityKEYS
6.3.2
Increased participation of youth
Number
Neighbourhood,
City, Metropolitan
Area
Pilot
Total number of youth reached and involved
over the course of the project
UIA SPIRE BAIA
MARE
6.4.1
Improved access to educational
resources on sustainable environment,