Environmental compensation strategies and practices : cases of urban public parks in Lithuania and Sweden
LTReikšminiai žodžiai: Aplinkos pusiausvyros išlaikymas; Getenburgas; Miesto planavimas; Miesto viešieji parkai; Šiauliai; Švedija (Sweden); Žalos aplinkai kompensavimas; Žalos mažinimas; Environmental compensation; Gothenburg; Lithuania; Mitigation hierarchy; Sweden; Urban planning; Urban public parks; Šiauliai.
ENThis paper discusses environmental compensation practices in the development of urban public parks comparing the cases from Sweden and Lithuania. The practices of environmental compensation are discussed in relation to the principles of sustainable development and regulations related to environmental impact assessment. The European Union environmental liability policies set an imperative of no-net loss of biodiversity. However, it is not pursued often in urban planning processes, especially in Baltic countries. Environmental compensation is considered as one of the prioritized strategies within a biodiversity loss mitigation hierarchy that also includes strategies of avoidance, minimisation, restoration and off-set. This paper presents the analysis of environmental compensation in two case studies or urban public parks in Sweden and Lithuania. Data was collected in 2016, using expert interviews, on-site observation and document analysis. Comparative case analysis looks at environmental compensation measures, objects / assets that were compensated, and the processes how compensatory measures were discussed. In addition, the participation of stakeholders, such as NGOis and local communities, in discussing about compensation measures is investigated.The research results indicate that environmental compensation measures are undertaken in both Swedish and Lithuanian cases, but in Swedish case, the process of environmental compensation is regulated in more detail. In both cases, most compensation measures were implemented on-site (close to impact area). Main objects of compensation in both cases were related to flora and fauna, and recreational opportunities. The difference in compared cases is in the type of compensation. Swedish project mainly uses in-kind compensation, while in Lithuania the out-of-kind compensation is used more often. The practices of urban planning and environmental impact off-set, as characteristic to the Lithuanian case, do not ensure the no-net loss of biodiversity. The recommendation would be to adopt compensation guidelines at municipal level in Lithuania, based on mitigation hierarchy principles and a good practice example of Gothenburg city. [From the publication]
