Abstract: Being confronted with increasing and expanding urbanisation and the loss of natural green spaces, our living environment is threatened more and more by the effects of global climate change. Green infrastructure is often thought of as the solution to increase climate resilience and reinforce the quality of the lived environment simultaneously. While the benefits, or ecosystem services, that are generated through green infrastructure have been studied intensively, forces that influence green infrastructure decision-making have been far less subjected to thorough research. In this study a discrete choice experiment was conducted with local decision makers in Flemish municipalities to reveal crucial factors in the decision process applied to green infrastructure projects. Flanders is one of the most densely built regions in Europe, stressing the urgency to understand local spatial decision factors to guarantee green space. 568 decision makers active in the local administration of 235 Flemish municipalities participated in the experiment, set in a hypothetical neighbourhood park. Every choice alternative exists of five attributes: investment cost, maintenance cost, deferred investment, recreational value, and climate impact. We find that barriers hampering Flemish munipalities' GI implementation, differ over size of the municipality: smallers municipalities are more affected by knowledge gaps, while larger municipalities are experiencing prioritization issues. Results from hierarchical Bayes choice models indicate that municipal decisions on green infrastructure are highly – almost solely -cost-driven, rarely consider the full range of benefits, and centre around short-term and immediate arguments. Moreover, interaction models reveal that a municipalities' financial result is a key determinant of its willingness to invest in public greening and consider long term benefits, suggesting that GI is a luxury good. The results expose some of the heuristics in GI decision making and can be used to inform higher authorities on ways to overcome barriers towards informed decision-making and to facilitate GI investment.

Abstract: As a response to increasing urbanization and changing weather and climatic patterns, urban green infrastructure (UGI) emerged as a concept to increase resilience within the urban boundaries. Given that implementing these (semi-) natural solutions in practice requires a clear overview of the costs and benefits, valuation becomes ever important. A range of decision-support tools for green infrastructure and ecosystem services exist, developed for various purposes. This paper reviews the potential of 10 shortlisted and existing valuation tools to support investment decisions of urban green infrastructure. In the assessment, the functionality is regarded specifically from the urban planning and decision-making viewpoint. The toolkits were evaluated on 12 different criteria. After analyzing the toolkits on these criteria, the findings are evaluated on the (mis)match with specific requirements in the urban planning and management context. Secondly, recommendations and guidelines are formulated to support the design of simple valuation tools, tailored to support the development of green infrastructure in urban areas. Approaching the valuation toolkits biophysically and (socio-)economically provides an integral overview of the challenges and opportunities of the capacities of each framework. It was found that most tools are not designed for the peculiarities of the urban context. Several elements contribute to the hampering uptake of GI valuation tools. Firstly, the limited effort in the economic case for green infrastructure remains a burden to use toolkits to compare grey and green alternatives. Secondly, tools are currently seldom designed for the peculiarities of cities: urban ecosystem (dis)services, multi-scalability, life-span assessments of co-benefits and the importance of social benefits. Thirdly, toolkits should be the result of co-development between the scientific community and local authorities in order to create toolkits that are tailor made to the specific needs in the urban planning process. It can be concluded that current tools, are not readily applicable to support decision making as such. However, if applied cautiously, they can have an indicative role to pinpoint further targeted and in-depth analyses.