How are cities overcoming barriers to green infrastructure?

For any municipality looking to add GI into their urban layout, it’s essential to identify what the specific challenges and barriers are. In order to make this decision-making process easier, GHD conducted a benchmarking exercise with municipalities across Canada, uncovering key insights and challenges to guide the decision-making process and later GI asset management.

The vast majority of asset management ownership and governance for conventional infrastructure assets follows a single ownership model, where all assets of a particular type or class are the sole responsibility of one division or branch. Municipal asset management systems are typically configured for this single-owner setup, with data management, GIS, reporting, financing and risk frameworks all designed accordingly. However, GI assets are unique in that they comprise a combination of component assets owned and maintained by different divisions and branches. That’s why ownership, responsibility and accountability must be clearly defined.

While the advantages of GI are increasingly acknowledged, municipalities aiming to initiate or broaden their programs continue to face significant challenges including resource constraints, lack of data clarity, strategic and operational hurdles, measurement and evaluation shortcomings, stakeholder coordination, inconsistent planning and cultural paradigm shifts. A robust GI asset management program can help overcome these challenges.

Municipalities in the State of Green Infrastructure study have advanced initiatives by recognising the complexity and unique challenges of managing GI assets compared to traditional ones. Importantly, they have established frameworks that recognise GI assets may take longer to deliver their full benefits, but their co-benefits grow over time and offer multiple advantages simultaneously. They have also taken measures to make sure GI assets are considered equally in decision-making processes, preventing them from being overlooked in favour of traditional assets.

The different cities demonstrated capabilities in GI adoption and their experiences serve as a learning resource for other municipalities and organisations. Geographically, they are spread across North America and represent a variety of climatic and geographical conditions, with different operating models, funding mechanisms and regulatory contexts. The following key recommendations, based on this report’s findings, favour actionable guidance on overcoming common barriers and unlocking GI’s full potential:

For any municipality considering a future with GI, it is important to have a clear view of the challenges ahead, both for implementing green infrastructure and to manage these hybrid-engineered assets.

The ISO55000 Asset Management Strategic Framework provides nine categories for GI:

These categories are measured in the number of years a municipality invests in each stage.

As per the findings in the report, longer durations allowed for more refined design, construction and maintenance practices, as well as better adaptation to local conditions and challenges. This extended experience also facilitated the development of best practices and more resilient infrastructure.

GI assets often include a combination of engineered and living components. The natural components, such as plant or soil systems, have unique maintenance requirements to function optimally, which differ from those of traditional water-related infrastructure.

The natural, living components of GI assets take time to establish, grow and provide their full benefits, rather than yielding maximum benefit right away. In contrast to traditional assets, which depreciate over time, GI assets appreciate in value over time.