Biodiversity value in spatial policy and planning leveraging multi-level and transformative change

Projektinformationen

BioValue

ID Finanzhilfevereinbarung: 101060790

DOI

10.3030/101060790

Projekt abgeschlossen

EK-Unterschriftsdatum 3 Juni 2022

Startdatum 1 Juli 2022

Enddatum 30 September 2025

Finanziert unter

• Food, Bioeconomy Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment

Gesamtkosten

€ 2 630 982,50

EU-Beitrag

€ 2 630 982,50

Koordiniert durch

IST-ID ASSOCIACAO DO INSTITUTO SUPERIOR TECNICO PARA A INVESTIGACAO E O DESENVOLVIMENTO
Portugal

Periodic Reporting for period 2 - BioValue (Biodiversity value in spatial policy and planning leveraging multi-level and transformative change)

Berichtszeitraum: 2024-01-01 bis 2025-09-30

Zusammenfassung vom Kontext und den Gesamtzielen des Projekts

Transformative change for biodiversity, aligned with the IPBES (2020) assessment and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, requires a whole-of-society approach and the co-responsible engagement of multiple actors. Given the central role of land-use and land-cover change in driving biodiversity loss, the BioValue project focused on spatial planning and policy as a key arena for transformative action, understood as the territorial expression of multi-level policies. BioValue was grounded in the premise that reversing biodiversity loss requires a transformation of prevailing paradigms, goals, and values shaping spatial development, supported by coordinated sectoral policy action.
To address this challenge, BioValue developed an integrated framework to safeguard and enhance biodiversity through the individual and combined use of three instrumental perspectives: spatial planning and management instruments (SP&MIs), environmental assessment instruments (EAIs), and economic and financial instruments (E&FIs). This framework was empirically explored through three Arenas for Transformation—urban (Trento), municipal/peri-urban (Mafra), and rural land-use transformation (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern)—designed as multiscale, multilevel, and multi-stakeholder settings to test systemic leverage points in spatial policy and planning. Across all arenas, BioValue demonstrated that transformative biodiversity outcomes emerge from coherent policy mixes embedded in participatory and institutionally grounded processes, rather than from single instruments applied in isolation.

Arbeit, die ab Beginn des Projekts bis zum Ende des durch den Bericht erfassten Berichtszeitraums geleistet wurde, und die wichtigsten bis dahin erzielten Ergebnisse

The project’s technical and scientific work was organised into four complementary work packages that jointly developed and tested frameworks, empirical evidence, and methods to assess how spatial planning can enable transformative biodiversity outcomes.
WP1 analysed SP&MIs through a systematic assessment of 58 best-practice cases using multi-criteria coding and lexical analysis, producing a taxonomy of biodiversity-oriented planning practices. A functional catalogue of SP&MIs was developed and assessed against key biological principles—habitat area, quality, and connectivity—and against implementation barriers using a capacity-gap framework tested in planning contexts. WP1 showed that SP&MIs often secure space for nature, while transformative effects depend on policy mixes, monitoring requirements, and supportive governance arrangements.
WP2 strengthened Environmental Assessment instruments (EIA and SEA) by developing a benchmark for biodiversity integration and applying it to the comparative analysis of around 200 EIA and SEA reports across four European countries. Systems-thinking methods, including causal loop diagrams, were introduced to map links between activities, impacts, ecological processes, and mitigation measures. Additional analyses addressed mitigation hierarchies, tiering, and cumulative impacts, advancing EA from reactive mitigation toward more strategic biodiversity planning.
WP3 examined E&FIs relevant to spatial planning by analysing the EU Renewed Sustainable Finance Strategy and assessing design and implementation gaps in biodiversity-related E&FIs. The Ecosystem Services Opportunities framework was adapted to spatial planning, linking biodiversity objectives, planning stages, and instrument selection. WP3 demonstrated that E&FIs support biodiversity transformation only when well designed, monitored, and integrated into planning processes.
WP4 integrated and tested findings through the Arenas for Transformation, analysing how SP&MIs, EAIs, and E&FIs interact in real planning contexts. By refining theories of change and synthesising cross-WP evidence, WP4 demonstrated that transformative biodiversity outcomes arise from coherent combinations of instruments aligned with planning cycles and institutional contexts.

Fortschritte, die über den aktuellen Stand der Technik hinausgehen und voraussichtliche potenzielle Auswirkungen (einschließlich der bis dato erzielten sozioökonomischen Auswirkungen und weiter gefassten gesellschaftlichen Auswirkungen des Projekts)

WP1 advances the state of the art by developing a conditional framework for transformative spatial planning, demonstrating that standard planning instruments only achieve transformative biodiversity outcomes when combined into policy mixes, coupled with binding monitoring, and supported by inclusive governance arrangements. This moves beyond static “toolbox” approaches toward structural pathways for planning system redesign.
WP2 contributes methodological and empirical advances through the application of causal loop diagrams in EA, improved understanding of tiering and cumulative impacts, and the operationalisation of biological principles within spatial planning and EA practice.
WP3 addresses a key research gap by operationalising the use of E&FIs in spatial planning, providing stepwise guidance for selecting, designing, and implementing instruments within planning processes and demonstrating their transformative potential when aligned with other policy instruments.
WP4 advances the state of the art by empirically demonstrating that transformative biodiversity outcomes arise from coherent policy mixes embedded in planning cycles and socially legitimate processes, supported by operational datasets, assessment guidance, and integrative tools.