Green Infrastructure: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Environmental Sciences
Contributor:
Vidya Anderson

Green infrastructure provides various ecosystem services through interlinked networks of engineered and natural green space.

  • build back better
  • climate change
  • environmental policy

1. Introduction

Capitalizing on government spending and stimulus packages to redesign communities is not a new concept, however, the current scope and scale of (re)investment is unprecedented [1][2]. The recent global novel corona virus (COVID-19) pandemic has underscored the opportunities for a green recovery. While the impacts of COVID-19 on communities around the world have been influenced by the state of healthcare infrastructure and pandemic preparedness, government response, and governance frameworks, strategic investments in nature-based solutions can support economic recovery and increase the resilience of built environments to climate change. More recently, the concept of ‘building back better’ to incorporate climate resilience and sustainability as part of community restoration and redevelopment, have become common goals [1][2][3]. This concept was recognized in the United Nations’ Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, enacted in 2015 and adopted by member states as one of four framework priorities including disaster recovery, risk reduction, and sustainable development [4]. Such strategies and adjustments occur within the policy landscape through the use of different policy instruments that can facilitate or inhibit implementation.
Green infrastructure delivers a nature-based solution to build back better, support sustainable development, and address the impacts of climate change. Nature-based solutions have been defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits” [5]. Nature-based solutions provide an overarching framing of five categories of ecosystem-based approaches of which green infrastructure is one [5][6][7][8]. Green infrastructure provides various ecosystem services through interlinked networks of engineered and natural green space [8][9][10]. As a cross-sectoral approach, green infrastructure can address the impacts of climate change, with multiple environmental and health co-benefits for communities [9]. Green infrastructure can mitigate the impacts of climate change by increasing energy efficiency in the built environment, decreasing air temperature, and reducing urban heat island effect [11][12][13][14]. Studies have also shown that green infrastructure applications can mitigate atmospheric environmental pollutants and greenhouse gases [8][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Green infrastructure can also provide flood attenuation during extreme rainfall events, while improving water quality through sediment erosion control and reduced nutrient loading.
In addition to increasing health and environmental equity, green infrastructure supports implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) to build back better across communities [9]. The UN SDGs were established to eliminate poverty, safeguard the planet, and improve quality of life, globally. The 17 Goals have been adopted by every UN member state, including Canada [3]. Each UN SDG has associated targets (169) and indicators (230) with linkages and interdependencies between each of the goals [21]. Green infrastructure provides a mechanism to localize the UN SDGs in communities and build back better. Building back better to achieve the UN SDGs requires a strategic policy approach to ensure integration between the economic, environmental, and social aspects of sustainable development. While the utility of green infrastructure as a nature-based solution has been recognized by the international community and it has been acknowledged as a priority on both the Canadian federal and provincial climate change and sustainable development policy agendas, the specifics regarding implementation can be vague. The varied use of policy instruments that enable green infrastructure implementation is best understood through an analysis of regulatory impacts which are presented in this qualitative evidence synthesis.
Socioeconomic systems are unpinned by natural systems. Green infrastructure can increase real estate valuation, while reducing air pollution, electricity, and stormwater management costs [11][12][13][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Using green infrastructure as a nature-based solution to promote healthy built environments and maintain healthy ecosystems, can support resilience to the socioeconomic impacts of multiple externalities. Green infrastructure has demonstrated economic and health benefits [8][10][14][30][31]. These benefits need consideration within the broader context of climate change. The application of green infrastructure does provide a pathway for addressing climate change; however, each application is a complex intervention with specific characteristics that can be utilized effectively if strategically applied. These are illustrated in Figure 1.
Buildings 12 00061 g001 550
Figure 1. Green infrastructure form and function [8][9][10][14][30][31].

2. Theoretical Framework for Environmental Regulatory Impact Analysis

This qualitative evidence synthesis presents an environmental regulatory impact analysis (E-RIA) as a systematic framework to critically assess the positive and negative effects of proposed and existing regulations and non-regulatory alternatives. The practice of regulatory impact analysis (RIA) is used across member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and encompasses a range of methods. The OECD was established in 1960 when 18 European countries, in addition to Canada and the United States, came together to promote economic development through good governance. RIA is an important element of an evidence-based approach to policy making and program implementation. OECD analysis indicates that performing RIA can strengthen the capacity of governments to ensure that regulations are effective, efficient, and responsive to the complexity of a changing world [32]. RIA is a method designed to support policy coherence by improving the use of evidence in policy making.
The practice of RIA is widely used across all OECD jurisdictions, but application varies widely between nations and levels of government. Examples of completed RIAs are rarely if ever published by governments due to the confidential nature of the circumstances in which RIAs tend to be undertaken. One rare, published example of an RIA was undertaken by the Irish Department of Health for the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill [33]. Interestingly, while publication of completed RIAs is rare, there are many examples of RIA guidance and best practices published by various governments including Canada, Australia, Scotland, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Sweden, among others [34]. The regulatory development process undertaken by governments writ large is semi-transparent at best although the practice of RIA is an important step toward building greater transparency and accountability. The most common form of RIA is used as part of the development process for new government policies and regulations and is considered to be ex-ante analysis [35]. Ex-ante RIAs are undertaken in advance of drafting new legislation to troubleshoot regulatory outcomes. The ex-post form of RIA occurs after legislation has been in enacted to gauge its efficacy. This form of RIA is rarely undertaken but holds significant value as it enables an evaluation of the real-time impacts of policy and regulation after they are in force [36]. This review paper presents an ex-post form of environmental regulatory impact analysis conducted outside of government. To support this environmental regulatory impact analysis, the following methodological pathway was undertaken as shown in Figure 2.
Buildings 12 00061 g002 550
Figure 2. E-RIA methodological pathway.
The first step in the ex-post E-RIA pathway was to conduct a systematic review of all existing policy instruments within the study area or jurisdiction. The second step was to categorize each policy instrument along a continuum of coercion that illustrates different levels of government control over specific activities. The third step in the methodological pathway was to identify the individual UN SDGs supported by each policy instrument and the associated targets and indicators.

3. The Policy Continuum of Coercion

The application of green infrastructure in Ontario, Canada is directed by a unique set of instruments within the public policy landscape. To better navigate this landscape, it is necessary to unpack its governance framework. Public policy is set by those who have the legal authority to establish and enforce standards of normative behaviour. Policy is influenced by various actors, issues, interests, and circumstances. Put simply, policy is a decision and subsequent suite of actions, developed and implemented to address a need, problem, or issue.
The concept of public policy is usually linked with the rule of law and the passage of legislation, but it is not limited to these vehicles. Policy objectives are achieved using different policy instruments. The choice of instrument is determined by the desired level of coercion or control in achieving an objective. Figure 4 illustrates the continuum of coercion across the various instruments available in the policy making process. Policy instruments can be used to instill behaviour change, influence socioeconomic conditions, and provide public services. Factors in instrument choice include the political climate, in addition to fiscal and social constraints.
Buildings 12 00061 g004 550
Figure 4. The Policy Continuum of Coercion [30].
The policy continuum of coercion illustrates different levels of government control over specific activities. Moral suasion instruments are the least coercive, exhorting or admonishing the target group to pursue or cease a particular action. For example, many jurisdictions will ask residents to limit all non-essential water use such as car-washing during heatwaves, in order to conserve and maintain adequate water levels for emergencies such as firefighting. Other moral suasion examples include alcohol and tobacco cessation advertising campaigns illustrating the deleterious health effects of consumption. Expenditures are low-level instruments of coercion that seek to incentivize behaviour change through financial means. For example, many jurisdictions will offer a rebate for energy efficiency retrofits undertaken on a residence to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [37]. Eligible retrofits may include installation of new windows, energy efficient appliances, solar panels, or high efficiency furnaces. Other examples include grant programs in flood prone areas to reduce repetitive flood risk to building infrastructure [38]. Regulation is a more coercive instrument. For example, many jurisdictions prohibit dumping of chemicals, toxic waste, or garbage into rivers, lakes, or other marine environments, and will impose heavy fines and penalties for violations. Other examples include imposing vehicular speed limits and requiring the use of seatbelts when driving. Taxation is a very coercive instrument that seeks to discourage certain behaviours by imposing a financial burden on the targeted activity. For example, some jurisdictions have implemented a congestion charge to reduce vehicular traffic and air pollution in urban centres [39][40]. Other examples of heavily taxed commodities include alcohol and cigarettes. Public ownership is the most coercive of all policy instruments wherein the state will take on the ownership and administration of a particular activity in order to maintain complete control over it. Examples include the production and distribution of crude oil, and the generation, distribution and sale of electricity.

4. Moral Suasion

Moral suasion is the least coercive instrument used as part of green infrastructure public policy with the greatest variation and interpretation. In Ontario, there are thirteen instruments of moral suasion which include the Ontario Climate Change Action Plan, Ontario’s Climate Change Strategy, A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, Great Lakes Strategy, the Green Belt Plan, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Low Impact Development (LID) Stormwater Management Guidance Manual, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement, municipal official plans, the Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, and the Wetland Conservation Strategy.
The Ontario Climate Change Action Plan, Ontario’s Climate Change Strategy, and A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan are low level instruments of coercion. Each document is descriptive and aspirational and loosely sets out different iterations of the provincial government’s climate change policy. Green infrastructure is referenced as a solution to restore ecosystems, reduce atmospheric carbon, and protect and expand carbon sinks [41]. The importance of green infrastructure is also highlighted in lowering greenhouse gas emissions, reducing pollution, and helping to make community infrastructure more resilient [42]. Each of these instruments specifically supports UN SDG 13—Climate Action to take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts; UN SDG 11—Sustainable Cities and Communities to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable; and UN SDG 15—Life on Land to protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.
The Great Lakes Strategy and the Wetland Conservation Strategy are the least coercive of the thirteen moral suasion instruments. These two strategies provide a vision, goals, and priorities to help restore, protect, and conserve the Great Lakes and Ontario’s wetlands [43][44]. These documents are descriptive and aspirational. Green infrastructure is mentioned 15 times in the Great Lakes Strategy as a source control measure to reduce stormwater volumes, mitigate nutrients, create habitat, and enhance biodiversity [42]. Within the Wetland Conservation Strategy, green infrastructure is mentioned seven times as a means to improve air and water quality, manage stormwater, reduce flood impacts, decrease energy use, and increase carbon storage in vegetation. These instruments specifically support UN SDG 15—Life on Land to protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.
Moving through the suite of thirteen moral suasion instruments, the Low Impact Development (LID) Stormwater Management Guidance Manual and the Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual, provide best management practices for managing stormwater in Ontario. Used in conjunction, these manuals enable and promote design alternatives using green infrastructure applications instead of or in addition to conventional grey infrastructure to manage stormwater at the source, in addition to reducing runoff and nutrient loading. This instrument specifically supports UN SDG 11—Sustainable Cities and Communities to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
The remaining instruments of moral suasion work together to provide policy direction on all land use planning and development matters in Ontario, Canada. These instruments support the application of green infrastructure as a sustainable development tool. The Provincial Policy Statement sets out Ontario’s priorities within the land use planning system and works in conjunction with the Greenbelt Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and all municipal official plans [45]. Green infrastructure is mentioned five times in the Provincial Policy Statement as a form of infrastructure which complements conventional grey infrastructure [45]. The Provincial Policy Statement supports UN SDG 11—Sustainable Cities and Communities to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. It also supports UN SDG 13—Climate Action to take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.
The Greenbelt Plan works together with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan to identify areas within the agricultural land base, in addition to ecological and hydrological features, areas and functions occurring in the landscape to be permanently protected from urbanization and development [46]. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is a long-term plan that works in conjunction with the Greenbelt Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and the Niagara Escarpment Plan to provide a framework for urbanization and growth management across the region [47]. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe collectively mention green infrastructure 24 times as a means of increasing climate resilience, reducing risk to life and property, decreasing the incidence of repair or replacement resulting from extreme weather events, and capturing and treating runoff from impervious surfaces. These instruments support UN SDG 11—Sustainable Cities and Communities to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. They also support UN SDG 13—Climate Action to take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts and UN SDG 2—Zero Hunger to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.
In Ontario, Canada, a municipal official plan sets out a municipality’s general land use planning policy. It provides a vision, goals, priorities, and guidance for how land in a community should be used. Municipalities can choose to prioritize the use and application of green infrastructure within a community through their official plans. A scan of 93 municipal official plans across Ontario shows that approximately 23 official plans specifically mention green infrastructure in the context of climate resilience and stormwater management. These instruments support UN SDG 11—Sustainable Cities and Communities to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, in addition to supporting UN SDG 13—Climate Action to take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.

5. Expenditures

Across the continuum of coercion in the province of Ontario, expenditures are used to enable the application of green infrastructure at the local level as evidenced by the Eco-Roof Incentive program administered by the City of Toronto and a range of grants administered by the province of Ontario and the Federal Government of Canada. This includes the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund which is co-funded by the federal and provincial government and administered by the province; and the federal Green Infrastructure Phase II suite of programs [48]. Nomenclature used within these programs varies from specific green infrastructure applications such as green and white roofs in the Eco-Roof Incentive program, to less obvious terms such as stormwater management in the Clean Water and Wastewater program, and technologies to reduce water use and impacts on aquatic ecosystems in the Clean Growth program (part of the federal Green Infrastructure Phase II suite of programs). Federally, the Canadian Government has supports green infrastructure using a wide range of terms (e.g., natural infrastructure, climate resilient infrastructure, and stormwater management technology) as a priority under its CAD 180B infrastructure plan—Investing in Canada [48]. Green infrastructure has been highlighted as a means to preserve the health of the environment and to promote sustainable and healthy community development [48]. Additionally, the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program has allocated CAD 27B in federal infrastructure funding to green infrastructure for provinces and territories to facilitate the reduction of GHG emissions; enable greater resilience and adaptation to climate change impacts and climate-induced disaster mitigation; and to ensure the provision of clean air and safe drinking water [48]. The federal government has also established a CAD 4B Natural Climate Solutions Fund that supports planting two billion trees; restoring and enhancing wetlands, peatlands, and grasslands to store and capture carbon; and implementing farming practices to tackle climate change [49]. The federal government has invested a further CAD 225M in a National Disaster Mitigation Program for provinces and territories to build safer and more resilient communities through mitigation investments including green infrastructure that could reduce, or even negate, the effects of flood events [50]. These expenditure instruments support UN SDG 11—Sustainable Cities and Communities to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. They also support UN SDG 13—Climate Action to take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/buildings12010061

References

  1. Clinton, W.J. Lessons Learned from Tsunami Recovery: Key Propositions for Building Back Better; Office of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
  2. Czajkowski, J. Moving from risk assessment to risk reduction: An economic perspective on decision making in natural disasters. Bridge 2015, 45, 52–59.
  3. United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Report of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology Relating to Disaster Risk Reduction; United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
  4. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030; United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction: Sendai, Japan, 2015.
  5. Cohen-Shacham, E.; Andrade, A.; Dalton, J.; Dudley, N.; Jones, M.; Kumar, C.; Maginnis, S.; Maynard, S.; Nelson, C.R.; Renauda, F.G.; et al. Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling Nature-based Solutions. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 98, 20–29.
  6. Cohen-Shacham, E.; Walters, G.; Janzen, C.; Maginnis, S. Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2016; 97p.
  7. Seddon, N.; Chausson, A.; Berry, P.; Girardin, C.A.J.; Smith, A.; Turner, B. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2020, 375.
  8. Anderson, V.; Gough, W.A. Evaluating the potential of nature-based solutions to reduce ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon dioxide through a multi-type green infrastructure study in Ontario, Canada. City Environ. Interact. 2020, 6, 100043.
  9. Anderson, V.; Gough, W.A. Harnessing the Four Horsemen of Climate Change: A Framework for Deep Resilience, Decarbonization, and Planetary Health in Ontario, Canada. Sustainability 2021, 13, 379.
  10. Anderson, V.; Gough, W.A. Form, Function, and Nomenclature: Deconstructing Green Infrastructure and its Role in a Changing Climate. In Climate Change and Extreme Events; Ali, F., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021.
  11. Demuzere, M.; Orru, K.; Heidrich, O.; Olazabal, E.; Geneletti, D.; Orru, H.; Bhave, A.G.; Mittal, N.; Feliú, E.; Faehnle, M. Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 146, 107–115.
  12. Berardi, U. The outdoor microclimate benefits and energy saving resulting from green roofs retrofits. Energy Build. 2016, 121, 217–229.
  13. Jandaghian, Z.; Berardi, U. Analysis of the cooling effects of higher albedo surfaces during heat waves coupling the Weather Research and Forecasting model with building energy models. Energy Build. 2019, 207, 109627.
  14. Anderson, V.; Gough, W.A. Nature-based cooling potential: A multi-type green infrastructure evaluation in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2021.
  15. Berardi, U.; AmirHosein, G.H.; Ali, G. State-of-the-art analysis of the environmental benefits of green roofs. Appl. Energy 2014, 115, 411–428.
  16. Alexandri, E.; Jones, P. Temperature decreases in an urban canyon due to green walls and green roofs in diverse climates. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 480–493.
  17. Li, J.; Wai, O.W.H.; Li, Y.S.; Zhan, J.; Ho, Y.A.; Li, J.; Lam, E. Effect of green roofs on ambient CO2 concentration. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 2644–2651.
  18. Marchi, M.; Pulselli, R.M.; Marchettini, N.; Pulselli, F.M. Carbon dioxide sequestration model of a vertical greenery system. Ecol. Model. 2014, 306, 46–56.
  19. Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 147–155.
  20. Hall, J.M.; Handley, J.F.; Ennos, A.R. The potential of tree planting to climate-proof high density residential areas in Manchester, UK. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104, 410–417.
  21. Government of Canada. Towards Canada’s 2030 Agenda National Strategy; Government of Canada: Gatineau, QC, Canada, 2019; Available online: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/esdc-edsc/documents/programs/agenda-2030/7781_EmploymentSocialDevelopment_2030-ENv5.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  22. Nowak, D.; Crane, D.; Stevens, J.C. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 4, 115–123.
  23. Nowak, D.J.; Hirabayashi, S.; Doyle, M.; McGovern, M.; Pasher, J. Air pollution removal by urban forests in Canada and its effect on air quality and human health. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 40–48.
  24. Coutts, C.; Hahn, M. Green Infrastructure, Ecosystem Services, and Human Health. Int J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9768–9798.
  25. The Centre for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). The Value of Green Infrastructure for Urban Climate Adaptation. 2011. Available online: http://ccap.org/assets/The-Value-of-Green-Infrastructure-for-Urban-Climate-Adaptation_CCAP-Feb-2011.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  26. Cascone, S.; Catania, F.; Gagliano, A.; Sciuto, G. A comprehensive study in green roof performance for retrofitting existing buildings. Build. Environ. 2018, 136, 227–239.
  27. Xu, C.; Tang, T.; Jia, H.; Xu, M.; Xu, T.; Liu, Z.; Long, Y.; Zhang, R. Benefits of coupled green and grey infrastructure systems: Evidence based on analytic hierarchy process and life cycle costing. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 151, 104478.
  28. Green Infrastructure Ontario (GIO) Coalition. An Economic Impact Assessment of the Green Infrastructure Sector in Ontario. Available online: https://greeninfrastructureontario.org/app/uploads/2020/07/Economic-Impact-Assessment-of-GI-Sector-in-Ontario_UPDATED_july20-20.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  29. TD Economics. Urban forests: The value of trees in the City of Toronto. Available online: https://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/UrbanForests.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  30. Anderson, V. Deep Adaptation: A Framework for Climate Resilience, Decarbonization and Planetary Health in Ontario. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, November 2018.
  31. Anderson, V.; Gough, W.A.; Agic, B. Nature-based Equity: An Assessment of the Public Health Impacts of Green Infrastructure in Ontario Canada. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5763.
  32. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Framework for Regulatory Policy Evaluation; OECD: Hague, The Netherlands, 2014; Available online: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/governance/oecd-framework-for-regulatory-policy-evaluation_9789264214453-en#page7 (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  33. Department of Health. Regulatory impact analysis (RIA): Public Health (Alcohol) Bill; Department of Health: Dublin, Ireland, 2016; Available online: https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/34033/ (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  34. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Regulatory Impact Analysis; OECD: Lima, Peru, 2017; Available online: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/ria.htm (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  35. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Building and Institutional Framework for Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA): Guidance for Policy Makers; OECD: Paris, France, 2008; Available online: https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/40984990.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  36. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Regulatory Impact Analysis: A Tool for Policy Coherence; OECD: Paris, France, 2009; Available online: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/regulatory-impact-analysis_9789264067110-en#page1 (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  37. Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN). Canada Greener Homes Grant. Available online: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-efficiency/homes/canada-greener-homes-grant/23441 (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  38. FEMA. Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Grant. Available online: https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/floods (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  39. C40 Cities. Case Study: Milan’s Area C Reduces Traffic Pollution and Transforms the City Center. 2015. Available online: https://www.c40.org/case_studies/milan-s-area-c-reduces-traffic-pollution-and-transforms-the-city-center (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  40. Transport for London (TFL). Congestion Charge. Available online: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  41. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. Ontario’s Climate Change Strategy. 2015. Available online: https://docs.ontario.ca/documents/4928/climate-change-strategy-en.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  42. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, Parks. A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan. Available online: https://prod-environmental-registry.s3.amazonaws.com/2018-11/EnvironmentPlan.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  43. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. Great Lakes Protection Strategy. 2016. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontarios-great-lakes-strategy (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  44. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Wetland Conservation Strategy. 2017. Available online: https://files.ontario.ca/mnr_17-075_wetlandstrategy_final_en-accessible.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  45. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Provincial Policy Statement. 2021. Available online: https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy-statement-2020-accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  46. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Greenbelt Plan. 2017. Available online: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page13783.aspx (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  47. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. 2017. Available online: https://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9 (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  48. Government of Canada. Investing in Canada Plan Funding Stream: Green Infrastructure. Available online: https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/gi-iv-eng.html (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  49. Government of Canada. Nature Smart Climate Solutions Fund. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-funding/programs/nature-smart-climate-solutions-fund.html (accessed on 1 May 2021).
  50. Government of Canada. National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP). Available online: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/mrgnc-mngmnt/dsstr-prvntn-mtgtn/ndmp/index-en.aspx (accessed on 1 May 2021).
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback