7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
1/41
1
Proposals for Improvement of
Cities B iodiversity Index(Tentative)
Session 7
Valuation and Monitoring of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Cities
URBIO2010
20thMay 2010, Nagoya, Japan
Masashi Kato
City of Nagoya
Aichi-Nagoya COP10 CBD Promotion Committee
Diversity of cities 2Diverse cities, diverse challenges 3
CBI as tools for assessment & communication 4
Points of proposals 5
0. Indicators onCharacteristics of the City 7
A. Indicators onBiodiversity in the City 11
B. Indicators onEcosystem Services in the City 21
C. Indicators onPressure on Ecosystems within the City 25
D. Indicators onDependence on Ecosystems outside the City 29
E. Indicators on Local Action 33
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
2/41
2
City area
Population density
thousand/
2
3
2
30
200 2000500 5000
High density(City = Urban)
Urban area +vast Rural area
Cairo
Paris
Osaka
MumbaiMetro Manila
Tokyo
NYSao Paulo
Bangkok, LDN
Shanghai
Moskva
Beijing
Chongqin
Aichi pref.
Nagoya
X Japan
Asia
Oceania
Europe
Africa
N. America
L. America
Diversity of cities
City area & population density
0.1
1
10
100
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Average temperature & annual rainfall
Nagoya
BeijingCaracas
Brussels
Edmonton
Montreal
Kolkata
Dacar
Cairo
RomeLDN
Moskva
Seoul
Sapporo
NYMiami
Sao Paulo
La Paz
Madrid
Karachi
Manila
Bangkok
LA
Hanoi
Istanbur
Tokyo
Abidjan
Vladivostok
Sydney
Buenos Aires
Jakarta
Hyderabad
DubayyLima
Cape TownBerlin
Ulaan Baatar
Nairobi
ShizuokaNaha
Mexico
3000
2000
1000
10
20 30
0
0
Paris
Tehran
Shanghai
Manaus
Singapore
Mumbai
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
3/41
3
Diverse cities, diverse challenges
Potential of
urban ecosystems
State/Impact
Biodiversity Ecosystem services
Characteristics of the city
Historical/Social Climatic/Geographical
Driver/Pressure
Pressure on
Ecosystems within the city
Land-use/Habitat change
Pollution/Nutrient load
Over-exploitation
Invasive species
Climate change
Dependence on
ecosystems outside the city
Ecological footprint
Problem-solving capability
of the city
Response
City planning & management
Participation & partnership
Sustainability of the urban environment
Citizens well-being
supported by ecosystem services
Sustainability of the global environment
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
4/41
4
CBI as tools for assessment & communication
Action
Partnership
Planning
Participation
Self assessment
1. Potential of urban ecosystems in the city
Basic conditions (climate, topography, geological features, water
systems, etc.)
A wide range of high to low quality biotopes
2. Servicesof urban ecosystems in the city
Urban ecosystems as environmental infrastructure
(water cycling, nutrient cycling, soil formation & retention,
water purification, pest regulation, climate regulation,natural hazard protection, cultural services, etc.)
3. Pressureon ecosystems within the city
Dependenceon ecosystems outside the city
4. Problem-solving capability of the city
Mandates on biodiversity related services
Influence on production, distribution and consumption
Citizens consensus
Information-sharing Information-sharing
(Results) (States)
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
5/41
5
Points of proposals
1. Provisional Common Indicators
Establish common indicators for basic elements. For the time being, leave them as provisional, due to the diverse conditions of
the cities.
2. Common Indicators, Different Weights
Use scores as a yardstick for cities to understand their conditions.
Each city determines the weighting of elements necessary for its overall
assessment.
The total scores among cities will not be compared because independent
weighting of elements makes this meaningless.
3.Additional Indicators for Development by Each City
Each city shall add or develop indicators according to their respective
conditions so as to complement the common indicators.
4. Continuous Fine-tuning through Sharing of ExperienceTowards COP10
Prepare Provisional Common Indicators based on the trial results of the
Singapore Index tested in multiple cities
At the City Biodiversity Summit to be held as an associated event to the COP10,
appeal to the cities of the world for the use of Provisional Common Indicators
and the development of Additional Indicators that reflect the actual conditions
of each city.
Towards COP11
Exchange experiences (in the use of common indicators and the development
of additional indicators) among various cities based on the appeal made above.
Fine-tune the Common Indicators based on the experiences exchanged.
Provide information that will assist cities in developing their Additional
Indicators
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
6/41
6
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
7/41
7
0. Indicators on Characteristics
of the City
The cities in the world are diverse. They have diverse natural environments
and different social conditions.
Urban ecosystems are impacted considerably by human activities. They are
also affected to a great extent by climate, topography, geological condition, water
system, etc. Simply deliberating upon whether the numbers of species are many orfew is meaningless. It is important to discern what a sound ecosystem means to that
area.
Urbanization condition, population growth rate, and the like are policy
variables for a city. In reality, however, they have become the given conditions and
constraints to many cities.
The characteristics of the natural and social conditions of cities are moreeasily elucidated by comparing them among cities. Development of Indicators on
the Characteristics of the City is proposed in order for cities to be able to assess
their own biodiversity.
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
8/41
8
Singapore IndexProvisional Common Indicators
Revisions
0. Characterist ics of the city
Climate/geographical conditions
[0-1] Average temperature
[0-2] Annual rainfall
[0-3] Undulation (vertical interval)
Urbanization
[0-4] City area
[0-5] Proportion of urban area
[0-6] Population density of urban area
[0-7] Population increase (latest 10 years)
0 100 300 1000 >1000
100 65 35 10 0%
20 10 5 000person
/km2
+20% +5% 0% decrease
6 12 20 >20
A
0 500 1000 1800 >1800mm
0 200 500 1000 >1000km2
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
9/41
9
Addi tional Indicators for Development by Each City
Reference:Overall conditions of metropolitan areas in Japan
Difference
in altitude
within city
City area
DID Green cover
% DensityEntire
city
Urban
area
Shizuoka
HamamatsuSendai
Sapporo
Fukuoka
Hiroshima
m
3,189
2,2961,500
1,486
1,053
1,050
km2
1,389
1,511788
1,100
341
905
%
7
616
20
44
15
Person/ ha
61
5670
79
90
74
%
78
76
59
75
%
25
21
25
23
Kyoto
Kobe
Kita-kyushu
962
931
900
828
553
488
17
27
32
99
95
57
78
65
24
29
Sakai
Nagoya
Yokohama
Kawasaki
Chiba
260
200
159
148
105
150
326
435
144
272
70
84
80
92
43
76
79
100
100
70
25
29
49
21
20
17
Tokyo (23 wards)
Osaka
Saitama
57
40
23
622
222
217
100
100
53
137
118
93
30
6
29
6
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
10/41
10
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
11/41
11
A. Indicators on Biodiversity
in the City
Human activities have a strong influence on the urban ecosystems. However,
city residents have many more neighbors than they realize that are making habitats
and breeding in the cities, that is, wildlife.
Among the wildlife that lives in cities, some can adapt to the artificial
environments and some cannot. Those that cannot adapt are on the brink of local
extinction. It is not only that the numbers of species that inhabit and breed and theirpopulations are in decline, but the original balance of the ecosystems has collapsed.
However, urban ecosystems are not only declining. Improvements are also
found: the improved river quality has restored fish species and along with that, birds
have returned.
What efforts are effective in restoring sound balance to the ecosystems in
accordance with the condition of each city? Indicators on Biodiversity in the City
are the starting point of the search for an answer.
There is a wide array of habitats in the city. Which part of these habitats
should have priority for conservation and which part should have priority for
restoration? The answers vary depending on the condition of the city. Some cities
may need not only indicators that evaluate the city in general but also indicators that
evaluate the city in smaller units.
While common indicators can serve as a start, it is hoped that every city will
develop their own original indicators that can reflect the conditions of their own city.
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
12/41
12
Singapore IndexProvisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)
1. Native Biodiversity in the City A. Biodiversi ty in the City
(2) Number of natural ecosystems found in the
city
Richness and diversity of
ecosystems/habitats
[A-1] Ecosystems/habitats found within the city
Revise (2): must be devised by each city
using the following as reference
A B C D
a) Broadleaf evergreen forest
Broadleaf deciduous forest
Needleleaf evergreen forest
Needleleaf diciduous forest
Mixed forest
Shrub
Savanna
b) Herbaceous
Lawn
c) Wetland
Tideland
Mangrove
d) River
Pond / Reservoir
Ocean
Inner bay with abundant nature
Artificial inner bay
e) CroplandPaddy field
f) Bare area (sand)
Bare area (gravel, rock)
g) Others
A: Exist in large patches
B: Fragmented medium-sized patches
C: Dispersed and isolated in urban area
D: Exist only in partcan have multiple answers
0 1 4 7 10& more
B C
S
Nagoya
B Brussels
C Curitiba
S Singapore
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
13/41
13
Additional Ind icators for Development by Each City
* Biodiversity in a city is dependent not just on the area of natural and semi-natural land but also on the
topography, geological condition, water system, and the diversity of the citys ecosystems/habitats sustained
by such natural conditions..
A wide range of high to low quality biotopes1)
is the special attribute of a city.
They are an invaluable natural asset to the city and are the starting point for cultivating biodiversity2)
.
1Brussels presentation (ICLEI World Congress, Edmonton, Jun. 2009)
2) Montpelliers presentation (2ndCuritiba Meeting on city and biodiversity, Jan. 2010)
Therefore, it is hoped that self-assessment (reevaluation of natural assets) will focus on the distribution of the
ecosystems/habitats, irrespective of their sizes, and be carried out based on the actual conditions of the city.
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
14/41
14
Singapore IndexProvisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)
(1) % of natural/semi-natural areas
(10) % of protected areas
(3) Fragmentation measures
(mean patch size of natural/semi-natural
ecosystems)
[A-02] % of green and water surface besides
farmland a-d of the previous page, makes
no distinction between natural and artificial
revised
[-03] % of protected areas and parks among the
above (areas where conservation of the
current situation are officially securedareas
of conservation/regulation parks with
abundant naturerevised
[-04] Mean patch size of protected areas and
parks revised
[-05] % of farmland new addition
0 1-6 7 14 21% & more
B C S
0
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
15/41
15
Additional Ind icators for Development by Each City
* Anthropogenic green space, such as parks and gardens, accounts for a large percentage of vegetation in
cities.
It is important to not view such green space as having less ecological value than the natural and
semi-natural areas but rather to try to bring the anthropogenic green space to a sound and sustainable
condition as much as possible.
Some cities may need to look at smaller units, such as distinction between urban areas and non-urban areas,
to understand the actual situation.
* The definition of protected area is not the same for all cities.
The protection/regulation levels vary, ranging from protected areas that are required to maintain the current
state to protected areas that allow certain usages.
The variety of such flexible protection/regulation approaches is expected to increase in the future.
Therefore, it is expected that cities devise their own indicators for areas officially secured for
environmental conservation based on each citys condition while using the left as reference.
* Because land use in a city is segmented into small units, it is not easy to calculate the average patch size for
the natural and semi-natural areas.
For this reason, only the average patch size of the protected areas/parks, etc. is considered here.
There are cities that make efforts to reconnect fragmented habitats using corridors.
It is expected that an indicator that can validate the outcomes of activities carried out by a city will be
developed, rather than the one that considers only the average patch size.
* Farmland is a precious habitat for a city and for the suburban areas of a city.
The increase or decrease in the area of farmland and the quality of the farmland ecosystem are an important
concern to a citys biodiversity.
Reference: Green space and water surface of Nagoyapercentage to the citys overall area
Urban
area
Rural
area
Whole
city
Forest/Grove (park)
Herbaceous/Lawn (park)
2%
2%
Forest/Grove 11% 10% 11% Roadside trees 0.5%
Herbaceous/Lawn 5% 21% 6% Forest/Grove (private) 4%
Cropland 3% 22% 4% Herbaceous/Lawn (private) 3%
Water bodies 2% 17% 3% Grove (building estate) 5%
Total 21% 69% 25% Herbaceous/Lawn (building estate) 1%
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
16/41
16
Singapore IndexProvisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)
4 Native biodiversity in built-up area
bird species
(5) Number of native species (plants)
(6) Number of native species (birds)
(7) Number of native species (butterflies)
(8) Number of native species (any taxonomic
group other than the above)
(9) Number of native species (any taxonomic
group other than the above)
Richness and diversity of species
[A-06] Total number of species
combine (4)-(9), and revise
Fill in the table below.
Select the necessary taxonomical groups in
accordance with the condition of the city.
1000 500 250 100 50 25 10 0
Vascular plants A B C D E
Birds A B C D E
Birds (in built-up areas) A B C D E
Mammals A B C D E
Reptiles/Amphibians A B C D E
Fish A B C D E
Butterflies A B C D E
0 1-3 4-5 6-7 8 & more
B C S
0 1-99 100 500 1000 & more
B C S
0 1- 50 100 150 151 & more
B C S
0 1- 50 100 150 151 & more
B C S
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
17/41
17
Additional Ind icators for Development by Each City
* It may be beneficial for some cities to use smaller units to enable a better understanding of the situation and
to identify the increase or decrease in the populations at hot spots, rather than measuring the city as a whole.
This is because the total number of species in the city does not change within a short time.
It is more meaningful to think of the total number of species in the city as an indicator that reflects the
climate, geographical conditions, and other characteristics of the city rather than as an indicator of
environmental changes.
* Should the focus be on the number of native species or the number of total species?
It is recommended that all the species (not distinguishing the good and the bad) be first identified, including
the introduced species, escaped species, and then the conditions of the native species, alien species, invasive
alien species, threatened species, and so on be analyzed.
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
18/41
18
Singapore IndexProvisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)
(11) Proportion of invasive alien species(no. of invasive species / no. of native species)
Danger facing species
[A-07] Proportion of invasive alien speciesSelect the necessary taxonomical groups in
accordance with the actual condit ion.
0 3 10 20 30%-
Vascular plants A B C D E
Mammals A B C D E
Birds A B C D E
Reptiles A B C D E
Amphibians A B C D EFish A B C D E
A B C D E
[A-08] Proportion of threatened species
(threatened species / native species)
New category
0 3 10 25 50%-
Vascular plants A B C D E
Mammals A B C D E
Birds A B C D E
Reptiles A B C D E
Amphibians A B C D E
Fish A B C D E
A B C D E
>31 30-21 20-11 10-1 0%
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
19/41
19
Additional Ind icators for Development by Each City
[A-11] Increase or decrease of threatened species
Based on the citys condition, compile when revising the Red List.
The following is Nagoyas example
decrease 1 5 20 species and more
Vascular plants A B C D E
Mammals A B C D E
Insects A B C D E
Shellfish A B C D E
*The survey of shellfish was expanded to include the subtidal zone.
This increased the number of threatened species substantially.
Reference Percentage of endangered species in countries of the world
Number of countries by % of endangered species
composition ratio
3% or less 3% or more 10% or more 25% or more 50% or more
Vascular plants 91% 8% 1%
Mammals 3% 58% 37% 2%
Birds 53% 44% 3%
Reptiles 55% 40% 5%
Amphibians 41% 14% 25% 10% 7%
Fish 18% 42% 36% 1% 4%
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
20/41
20
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
21/41
21
B. Indicators on Ecosystem Services
in the City
Cities of the twentieth century pursued freedom from nature. However, new
problems have emerged to plague the cities. A decrease in the cities greenery has
given rise to the heat island phenomenon and flooding problems specific to cities.
Artificial bank protection has reduced the self-purification capacity of rivers. Climate
change has continued to intensify natural disasters so much as to dwarf the
infrastructure built to conquer nature.
As the daily life of city residents becomes increasingly detached from nature,
there are fewer opportunities to pass the wisdom of how to interact with nature (the
wisdom of how to utilize the power of nature and how to avoid natural disasters) to
our children. For the adults as well, the common space in the neighborhood for
relaxation and the space that is the spiritual and cultural center of the community are
decreasing.
Against this backdrop, cities all over the world have begun to reevaluate the
role of a great infrastructure called ecosystem and to pursue urban development
that can effectively utilize its functions. This pursuit also helps to contain the
financial burden of building artificial infrastructure.
The Indicators on Ecosystem Services in the City are a means for city
residents to gain a new recognition and to deepen understanding of natures blessings.
Which ecosystem service shall have priority varies from city to city. It is desirable
that each city develop indicators that can match its actual conditions.
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
22/41
22
Singapore IndexProvisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)
2. Ecosystem Services in the City B. Ecosystem Services in the City
(12) Fresh water services
(cost of cleaning the water in the city)
(13) Carbon storage (total number of trees)
Revision needed
The amount of greenery in the city shall be used
not as an indicator for carbon storage but as an
indicator for other services, such as
countermeasure for the heat island phenomenon.
Recreation & educational services
(14) No. of visits to parks & nature reserves
/person/year
(15) Area of parks & protected area/person
(16) No. of educational visits to parks or nature
reserves/child under 16 years/year
Regulating/Supporting services
[B-01] Fresh water services revised
Ratio of raw water/water purification cost
in the waterworks budget
* Water service is classified into three phases:(1) gathering of raw water and transporting it to
the water purification facility,
(2) water purification, and
(3) transporting water from water purification
facility to the users.
Among them, the total costs for (1) and (2) become the
indicator that assesses the Ability to secure clean
water in the community.
When buying water from another area, the purchase
cost equals to (1) + (2).
Cultural services
[B-02]Area of parks & protected area/person
Revised the scoring category
>10 10-8 7-5 4-2 1% or less
C
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
23/41
23
Additional Ind icators for Development by Each City
Self-assess major ecosystem services in accordance with prior ities and concerns of each city
Examples:
[B-11] Reducing the effects of the heat island phenomenon
Evapotranspiration: 1 for forest area and 0 for built-up/paved space.
Weighted average after multiplying a coefficient determined by conditions with the area
of land coverage.
Increase or decrease in ten years
[B-12] Reducing flooding and adjusting the amount of river flow
[B-13] Park usage
* Conduct self-assessment using quantifiable method in accordance with the condition of each city.
[B-14] Number of local parks, plazas, public gardens in the urban area
(number of open areas per 1 2of urban area).
* Conduct self-assessment on the ease of daily access to local nature.
[B-15]
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
E
+10 +3 -3 -10%
/km2
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
24/41
24
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
25/41
25
C. Indicators on Pressure
on Ecosystems within the City
Land-use changes, pollutant emissions, and other city activities put direct
pressure on the living and breeding environments of living things.
However, it is possible to improve these environments by making appropriate
city designs and controlling emissions. For cities hard-pressed by population growth,
it is necessary to distinguish between areas that need to maintain or increase capacity
for accommodating the population and areas that need to limit changes to land use.
What is the tipping point of the citys ecosystem? What will be effective in
bringing out the potentials of urban ecosystems and securing the sustainability of
ecosystem services? Indicators on Pressure on Ecosystems within the City are a
means for finding an answer to these questions.
The severity of the burdens and the key areas for improvement differ
depending on the city. It is desirable to creatively develop original indicators inaccordance with the condition of each city.
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
26/41
26
Singapore IndexProvisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)
C. Pressure on ecosystems
Within the City
Land-use change/Habitat change
[C-01] % of built-up and paved areas in the city
(% besides green space, wetland,
farmland, water surface, and barren
land)
[C-02] Rate of increase or decrease in forests
ten-year period
[C-03] Rate of increase or decrease in farmland
ten-year period
Pollutant emission
[C-04] River water quality BOD
[C-05]Air quality SO2
[C-06]Air quality NOX
+ 0 -5% -10% -20%
0 25 50 75 90 100%
+ 0 -5% -10% -20%
0 2 5 10 20 /
0 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.3 ppm
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.1 ppm
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
27/41
27
Addi tional Indicators for Development by Each City
Consider adding indicators in accordance with the citys situation
Reference: Reference:
% of green space and water surface in Nagoya Changes in Nagoyas green space and water surface
(2005) 95-05
Whole
city
Urban
area
Rural
area
Whole
city
Urban
area
Rural
area
Forest/grove
Herbaceous/lawn
Cropland
Water bodies
11%
6%
4%
3%
11%
5%
3%
2%
10%
21%
22%
17%
Forest/grove
Herbaceous/lawn
Cropland
Water bodies
- 5%
- 9%
- 26%
+ 1%
- 5%
- 12%
- 35%
- 2%
+ 0%
+ 1%
- 8%
+ 5%
Total 25% 21% 69% Total -10% -12% - 3%
Reference:Status of water and air pollutions in Nagoya
2008 1998 Percentage
changeBest Worst
Water quality RiversBOD
DO
3.3
7.8
1.2
14
10.0
2.1
5.4
6.9
- 31%
+13%
PondsBOD
COD
DO
4.0
8.0
10.0
1.0
5.2
13
9.0
12
8.7
Nagoya PortCOD
DO
3.2
6.9
2.6
7.8
4.4
5.6
3.9
6.7
- 18%
+ 3%
Air quality Air SO2
NOX
0.003
0.034
0.002
0.021
0.004
0.088
0.005
0.057
- 60%
- 40%
Average value of multiple sites. Units: mg/for water quality and ppm for air quality
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
28/41
28
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
29/41
29
D. Indicators on Dependence
on Ecosystems outside the City
A city depends on the ecosystem services of other cities and other countries
for its food and other necessities. However, the sustainability of the worlds
ecosystem services that the cities depend on is called into serious doubt, as pointed
out by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the Global Biodiversity Outlook.
To ensure the sustainability of the city, it is not sufficient to just conserve andrestore the ecosystems within the city. This is because city population has surpassed
half of the worlds population and will increase to over 60% by 2030.
The cities impact on production, distribution, and consumption, and their
problem-solving capability supported by collaboration with the government, citizens,
and businesses are a tremendous force to be reckoned with. It is necessary to utilize
these attributes to help secure sustainability of the worlds ecosystem services.
Indicators on Dependence on Ecosystems outside the Cityare the starting
point of such activities. However, such an assessment method is still in development.
It is desirable to have many cities using their creativity in facilitating this
development.
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
30/41
30
Singapore IndexProvisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)
D. Dependence on Ecosystems
outside the City
Reference: Ecological footprint of countries in the world
(% of countries by the scale of footprint, 2005
Ecological footprint
[D-01] Carbon footprint
World average: 1.41
[D-02] Bio footprint World average: 1.23
[D-03] Water footprint of consumption
World average: 1,243
Dependence on sources outside the city
[D-04] Dependence on water from outside
sources
Carbon footprint 53% 20% 11% 13% 3%
Bio footprint 11% 54% 26% 5% 4%
Forest 16% 31% 19% 24% 9%
Cropland,Grazing land &Fishing ground
13% 43% 26% 13% 5%
Water footprint ofconsumption
25% 14% 29% 21% 10%
Living Planet Report 2008 (by WWF)
0 0.7 1.5 2.5 4 gha/person
C B S
0 0.7 1.5 2.5 4 gha/person
S C B
0 1000 1200 1500 20003/person
/yr.
C B
C
0 25 50 75 90 100%
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
31/41
31
Additional Ind icators for Development by Each City
Conduct self-assessment in accordance with the citys condition.
For ecological footprint , substitu te country-level values (by Living Planet Report).
Examples:
[D-11] Forest footprint
*World average: 0.23
[D-12] Cropland, Grazing land,Fishing ground footprint *World average: 0.99
[D-13] Water footprint * The countrys water use (except for the production of exported goods)
Internal
*World average: 1,043
[D-14] Water footprint * Indirect water use for the consumption of imported goods
External
*World average: 199
[D-15] Stress on * Quantity of water intake/quantity of renewable freshwater resources
blue water resources
[D-16] Dependence on land outside of the city for carbon uptake
Proposal 1 Carbon footprint per person/Citys forest area per person
*In the case of Nagoya: 2,244 times
Proposal 2 Carbon footprint per person/Urban area per person
*In the case of Nagoya: 254 times
[D-17] Reference: Self-sufficient rate of Nagoyas natural resources
Within Nagoya 2006 Within Japan (2008)
Food Cal 1% 41%
Lumber 0% 24%
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 gha/person
S
C
B
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.5 gha/person
S C B
0 500 1000 1500 2000 m3/person/year
B C
0 100 200 500 1000 m3/person/year
C B
0 5 20 40 100 >100%
C B
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
32/41
32
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
33/41
33
E. Indicators on Local Action
In order to incorporate considerations for biodiversity into various policy
areas and the daily activities of different social sectors, many countries have put in
place a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.
In recent years, local governments have also started to formulate Local
Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. Many cities have been introducing a
biodiversity viewpoint into their green space management, river management, or
other plans even if they have not previously had any biodiversity strategy or action
plan.
In this section, indicators to evaluate such local action are proposed.
The indicators mentioned here are merely starting points to be used for
evaluating the process. They may fall short from the perspective of tackling citys
specific priorities and concerns. It will be necessary to evaluate not only activities
undertaken by government agencies but also self-initiatives carried out by citizens
and businesses in the future.It is desirable that each city takes the above into consideration and develops
indicators that are more practical and apt.
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
34/41
34
Singapore IndexProvisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)
3. Governance and Management of
BiodiversityE. Local Action
(17) Budget allocated to biodiversity projects
(18) Number of biodiversity projects &
programmes organized by the city annually
(19) Rules, Regulations & Policy
(Local Biodiversity Strategy & Action Plan)
0No LBSAP
B 1 LBSAP not aligned with NBSAP
2 LBSAP aligned with NBSAP
but does not include any CBD initiatives
3 LBSAP aligned with NBSAP
which include at least 2 CBD initiatives
CS 4 LBSAP aligned with NBSAP
which include more than 2 CBD initiatives
Integrating biodiversity into city planning
& management
[E-1] Budget allocated to biodiversity projects and
biodiversity related services revised
[E-2] Local Biodiversity Strategy & Action Plan
revised as the table below
AWith strategy (collaboration with NBSAP/CBD initiatives, other governmental sectors, citizens,
and businesses is spelled out in specific action plans)B With strategy (action plans are being formulated or the collaboration framework is still fragile)
C
Without strategy (considerations for biodiversity have been incorporated into the plans of
related fields, such as promotion of greenery, conservation of waterfront
environment, etc.)
D Without strategy (considerations for biodiversity in the plans of related fields are inadequate)
E Without strategy (plans of related fields have not been sufficiently formulated)
0 1% 2% 3% more than3%
B S C
0 1-10 11-20 21-30 more than30
B C S
5% 3% 2% 1% 0%
EDCBA
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
35/41
35
Additional Ind icators for Development by Each City
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
36/41
36
Singapore IndexProvisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)
Institutional Capacity
(20) No. of institutions [E-3] Institutions covering essential biodiversity-
related functions
revised as the table below
Institution/Function
Area
Geological
historyAnimal Plant
Aqua
lifeInsect Others
Showing of living things (zoos, etc.
Sample exhibition (museums, etc.)
Research and studies
Awareness and outreach
Others
A Has city-run institution B Has non-city-run institution in the neighborhood
A Same as above (with collaboration) B Same as above with collaboration
(21) No. of agency coordinate on biodiversity
matters
[E-4 Coordination with relevant agencies
revised as the table below
Related government fieldClose
collaboration
Partial
collaboration
No
collaboration
Not
targeted
Land use adjustment
Green space management
River management
Road management
Sewerage and effluent treatment
Water supply
Waste treatment measures
Anti-pollution measures
Climate change measures
Promotion of the agriculture, forestry,
and fishery industries
Promotion of commerce and industry
School education
Lifelong learning and educationPublic procurement
0 1 2 3 4
B C S
0 2 3 4 at least5
B C S
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
37/41
37
Addi tional Indicators for Development by Each City
* It is difficult for a city to have many types of specialized institutions and functions on its own.
Therefore, it is important for a city not only to have its own specialized institutions but also to collaborate
with specialized institutions run by the national government, other local authorities, and private
organizations.
It is hoped that the city conducts self-assessment of the state of such collaboration in accordance with its own
condition.
* The related fields in which collaboration should be strengthened differ depending on the city.
It is hoped that the city conducts self-assessment of the state of collaboration in the related fields in
accordance with its own condition.
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
38/41
38
Singapore IndexProvisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)
Participation & Partnership
(22) Existence of a consultation process
Participation & Partnership
[E-5] Existence of a consultation process
revised as the table below
Basic plan
formulation phase
Individual project
planning phase
Individual project
implementation phase
Formal consultation process
Informal consultation process
(23) Existence of partnerships [E-6] Status of partnership
revised as the table below
Formulation
of strategy,
etc.
Planning of
individual
project
Implementation
of individual
project
Awareness-
enhancing
activity
Academic institution/
research institution
Educational institution
NGO/NPO
Local resident organization
Business/trade organization
Others
A. Collaboration with many organizations B. Collaboration with multiple organizations
C. Collaboration exists.
None being being in the exists
considered planned process
B C S
0 1 2 3 at least 4
B C S
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
39/41
39
Additional Ind icators for Development by Each City
* It is hoped that the city conduct self-assessment on collaboration with various private sectors in accordance with
its condition.
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
40/41
40
Singapore IndexProvisional Common Indicators
(Revisions)
Education & Awareness raising
(24) Incorporation of biodiversity into the school
curriculum
Education & Awareness raising
[E-7] Incorporation of biodiversity into the school
curriculum
revised as the table below
Implement
ed at most
schools
Implemented at
about half of the
schools
Implemented at
some schools
Implemented during academic studies
Implemented as special studies
Implemented as extracurricular activities
(25) No. of outreach programmes/public
awareness events per year
[E-8] Participatory-type activities
revised as the table below
Planning/implementation body
GovernmentEducational
organization
NGO/
NPO
Resident
organizationBusiness Others
Cleaning and conservation
of green space, etc.
Survey, monitoring
Field experience,
observation
Study group, lecture
Festival-type awareness
enhancing event
Others
AActivity on a continuous basis A Many activities on a continuous basis
B Single event B Many single events
not being being in the included
covered considered planned process
B C S
0 1-20 21-50 51-100 >100
B C S
7/24/2019 1.Cities Biodiversity Index
41/41
Additional Ind icators for Development by Each City
* Not only biodiversity is diverse; school education and the methods used for enhancing the awareness of it
also vary depending on the city.
It is hoped that the city conduct self-assessment on the state of outreach and awareness-enhancement in
accordance with its own condition.
Top Related