## Water storage

Ponds can be useful for storing water in periods of flooding, preventing it from entering rivers and flooding downstream areas. Flood storage capacity is the extra volume of water, above normal water levels, that a pond can hold before it overflows. To be most effective in providing flood storage, ponds should be dry between storms and drain quickly to continue to provide short-term water storage. Pond capacity is normally designed using computer models.

## Specific indicators to be measured

* Pond volume

* Downstream peak flow reduction (compared to situations without ponds)

* Modelled catchment effect of ponds

* For larger pondscapes, pond storage is likely to be implemented as part of a wider catchment scheme. Impact on flooding will be modelled using catchment models (e.g. Soil and Water Assessment Tool created by the US EPA).

## Pollution interception

Ponds are often used as part of sustainable urban and rural drainage schemes to help intercept pollutants and prevent them entering other waterbodies. The commonest way of calculating their effect is by comparing the levels of relevant pollutants in pond inflows and outflows. Effectiveness of individual ponds shows substantial variation. More sophisticated assessments will evaluate whole-catchment effects of multiple interception ponds.

## Specific indicators to be measured

Almost any potential pollutant can be intercepted by pond systems, but the commonest specific indicators include:

* Nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen)

* Ammonia

* Organic matter and suspended sediments

* Pesticides and metals, such as copper in agricultural areas

* Heavy metals in urban areas.

Regular water samples will be needed with high frequency during storm events, in order to assess effectiveness.

## Carbon storage and climate change mitigation

Assessment of pond greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration requires careful field measurement using advanced methods. Measurement of gas emissions is normally undertaken by floating chambers capturing gases emitted from the water. Gases may also be measured in the water column. Carbon sequestration is normally estimated by sediment core sampling but can also use sediments traps on the pond bottom. Gas and sediment samples are analysed by gas chromatography or using infrared gas analysers. The overall process comprises:

* Site selection: Choose representative ponds based on size, depth, and surrounding land use.

* Baseline data collection: Measure physico-chemical parameters of the pond (e.g. temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen).

* Installation of equipment: Set up floating chambers or other measurement devices.

* Regular sampling: Conduct periodic sampling to capture temporal variations in gas emissions.

* Data analysis: Analyse the collected samples and process data to calculate gas fluxes.

* Reporting: Compile the results and interpret the findings.

## Value for education, amenity, health and wellbeing

To assess the value of ponds and pondscapes in providing Nature's Contributions to People relating to health, well-being, education and physical/psychological experiences, it is normally necessary to undertake before and after assessments of site usage, people's changing attitudes and financial value of engagements.

## Specific indicators

* Number of people visiting a site

* Duration and frequency of visit

* Changes in attitudes resulting from visiting or using a pond or pondscape

* Improved mental health of people accessing ponds and pondscapes.

Practical methods include various types of questionnaire, interviews, and focus groups with semi-quantitative assessment through Likert scale questions.

<figure><img src="image_211.png" /></figure>
## 4.3 MANAGING AND RESTORING PONDS AND PONDSCAPES

### The value of managing and restoring existing ponds

Existing ponds need to be managed or restored, either to maintain their value as a nature-based solution or to reintroduce functions into the landscape, where this is technically and practically feasible (see Section 4.1 for definitions of pond management, restoration and resurrection). Before management starts, ensure that there is a previous diagnosis or monitoring of the pond to be restored (following flowchart in Figure 15). Creating new ponds may be a better option than restoring existing ponds when specific criteria need to be met or when the restoration actions imply a risk of loss of a threatened species.

Restoring existing ponds by carefully considered woody vegetation and sediment removal has been shown to be effective in enhancing both aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity in farmed landscapes. Pond restoration, and the associated concept of resurrecting 'ghost' ponds, both work well because they harness the long-lived nature of wetland plant seedbanks, which, especially when water is clean (see Box 2), can lead to rapid pond recovery. Both these approaches are essential (in conjunction with pond creation – see below) for increasing the number of early succession ponds in the landscape and for helping to ensure a mix of successional stages that much research shows maximise freshwater biodiversity at the pondscape level.

**PONDERFUL** case-study data showed that ponds restored by removing accumulated sediments and woody vegetation had markedly reduced greenhouse gas emissions, at least in the short term. However, at present the climate impact of excavated sediments is not known. The project's pond management case study also showed that 'open' early succession ponds had generally lower greenhouse gas emissions than later succession ponds.

Managing and restoring ponds normally involves modifying the existing pond to improve its ability to deliver ecosystem services. Note that protection is also a management option, where 'doing nothing' is a management measure. In this case, management is more concerned with defining the pond or pondscape's status and managing the pondscape (e.g. by maintaining low-intensity landuse) than with specific types of physical action on individual ponds. In some cases, the management for such sites may be complete non-intervention, with no physical disturbance of ponds undertaken at all.

Typically, the amount of modification required with management or restoration ranges on a scale from low impact, frequent, management at one end of the spectrum, to high impact, infrequent, pond restoration at the other end of the spectrum (Fig. 22). Low disturbance management might include only cutting down a few branches of a tree at the edge of a pond to reduce shading in order to maintain its present condition, or maintaining very low stock density grazing. Management of this type often mimics natural forms of disturbance. In some cases no additional management inputs are needed at all (e.g. pools developing naturally in peatlands).

<figure><img src="image_212.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 22** - The pond management-restoration continuum. The same action (e.g. scrub management) can be considered as either management or restoration, depending on the level of disturbance and frequency of intervention.</figcaption></figure>

At the other end of the spectrum, complete restoration commonly involves a high level of disturbance, including dredging a pond to remove sediment and vegetation, removing extensive tree and shrub growth, including felling large trees and, potentially, modifying the shape of the pond to enhance its biodiversity value. In this case, management is often concerned with resetting the successional stage. To take into account the risks of loss (as a consequence of the management or restoration) of any existing natural value or services the pond provides, managers must consider the effects of disturbance in the planning of management or restoration work.

For historic ponds, archaeological advice should be sought as needed, depending on the proposed scale of intervention. The approach taken depends entirely on project objectives and resources. These should be defined according to

<figure><img src="image_213.png" /></figure>
the local conditions, the historic asset to be preserved and what improvement you want to make for wildlife and/or people.

Any intervention is likely to have both positive and negative impacts. That is why it is critical to understand both the pond and the surrounding environment (pondscape) before doing anything. The main aim of interventions is normally focused on protecting or enhancing any existing value: the pond may already be important for rare species, play a key role in natural flood management or might be an historic feature of the landscape. If in doubt, seek expert advice before proceeding, using the pondscape decision-making flowchart (Fig.15) as your guide.

Reasons for undertaking pond management and restoration may include:

* Maintaining or increasing diversity of habitats within the pondscape so that there are ponds at different successional stages.

* Avoiding unwanted changes in pond vegetation abundance and excessive sediment accumulation.

* Reducing the detrimental impact of human influence (for example, changing land use).

* Conserving or improving habitat for a particular (often protected or rare) species.

* Allowing local aquatic plant or animal populations to recover from dormant seedbanks or eggbanks.

* Improving water quality in individual ponds.

* Maintaining ponds that provide aesthetic or recreational benefits for people.

* Maintaining other existing pond functions that are supplying Nature's Contributions to People e.g. history and heritage and support for identities (see Section 3.4 and examples in Chapter 6).

<figure><img src="image_214.png" /></figure>

© Freshwater Habitats Trust

<figure><img src="image_215.png" /></figure>
Expert advice should always be sought before restoring or managing ponds, using the risk assessment shown in Fig. 16. Ponds which are particularly at risk from management include those that:

* Are in high distinctiveness or high nature-value habitats (e.g. woodland, species-rich grassland, heathland)

* Have abundant wetland plants

* Are in nature reserves, or sites designated for nature conservation

* Support rare or protected species (including non-aquatic plants or animals)

* Have significant heritage value (not only natural values, but cultural ones).

Damage to high conservation value ponds by inappropriate management intended to improve delivery of Nature's Contributions to People is an issue of importance in terms of biodiversity protection. Frequent gentle management is often the best way to preserve high value ponds at their peak and may mean that more invasive, laborious and costly restoration work is never required.

## Key principles of pond management and restoration

When planning pond management or restoration, it is essential to consider the wider pondscape, not just the individual pond, and the benefits the proposed management will bring to that pondscape. A good aim is to create a diverse pondscape, maximising the range of habitats and ecosystem services provided by the ponds in the area.

There can be major trade-offs in delivering different types of Nature's Contributions to People in ponds. Although the evidence is currently limited, it has been shown that making ponds for runoff interception and pollution control makes little difference to landscape level freshwater biodiversity, whereas creating clean water ponds, not connected to pollution sources, increases it quickly.[25] Exploiting the full potential of different opportunities in the landscape, rather than trying to make 'every pond do everything', is therefore essential. For this reason, considering the pondscape scale creates valuable opportunities.

Consider how you can optimise the Nature's Contributions to People 'Habitat Creation and Maintenance' and the delivery of other Nature's Contributions to People, by manipulating the following factors:

* **Surface area:** different species will make use of different sized ponds. For example, birds generally need larger ponds than invertebrates or algae. Also note that large ponds often have higher habitat heterogeneity and therefore higher biodiversity (although this is a general pattern with exceptions).

* **Depth:** ponds of any depth can support rich wildlife. In some areas, shallow ponds can be the richest in wildlife, although waterfowl and aquatic mammals often prefer deeper ponds, and deep ponds can be some of the biologically richest. Ponds which do not dry out are more likely to sequester carbon.

* **Water permanence:** although on average temporary ponds support fewer freshwater species than permanent ponds, they can still support large numbers of species, and are often critically important for rare and uncommon species. Options will be determined by the region where the pond occurs, the pondscape's hydrology and future climate (e.g. groundwater versus surface water and climate increasing rainfall run-off). Species that require more permanent water will not be able to use temporary ponds, so having different hydroperiods in a pondscape could be advisable.

* **Bank angle:** steep banks may be dangerous on sites with public access, but the presence of steep or near-vertical banks may encourage specific species to use ponds (e.g. *Arvicola terrestris*).

* **Shade:** design management regimes to vary the amount of shading of ponds. Open sunny ponds are often rich in freshwater wildlife, but shade is natural, often adds diversity, and brings many benefits. Grazed ponds, or ponds near woodland rides, will be sunnier than ponds in dense woodland.

* **Public access:** some ponds may be restored for people, but ponds intended primarily to maintain biodiversity often benefit from being completely protected from excessive disturbance.

Some of these factors are influenced by direct action (e.g. surface area and depth), but others can be influenced by changing the wider land use. Other factors that impact the pondscape diversity are land use (ponds in different habitats), geology (affecting water chemistry and plant communities), altitude and wind regime.

<figure><img src="image_216.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 5 - Example management actions.** Table setting out how ponds and pondscapes can be managed and the benefits this provides. Note that you should always consider the existing value of a pond before undertaking any action. In some cases, action might be damaging (e.g. removing emergent vegetation in a biodiverse pond, or increasing disturbance by people and dogs). Note that measures recommended at the pondscape scale may also be applied to the management of individual ponds.</caption><thead><tr><td>Pond-level action</td><td>Potential benefits</td><td>Potential disadvantages</td><td>Methods</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Managing emergent vegetation</td><td>Increasing the area of open water may help maintain habitat for specific species, reducing shading and raising water temperature, and help maintain and enhance biodiversity. Where different emergent plant species are mixed together, this can be a very rich habitat, so you might want to wait until there is well over 50% emergent cover before removing plants.</td><td>May eliminate valuable biota or habitats, increase water temperatures and light penetration. Note that emergent vegetation supports a range of terrestrial species.</td><td>Can be undertaken in three main ways:<ul><li>Livestock grazing: cattle, horses, sheep, goats can be used to graze ponds</li><li>Management by hand tools (can be done as conservation action with citizens)</li><li>Mechanical removal: vegetation dredge or cut with excavators.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Removing terrestrial vegetation</td><td>Reducing shading, improving accessibility. Note that there is a balance between managing and damaging sensitive ponds, particularly in semi-natural areas.[25]</td><td>May increase water temperature reducing beneficial shading; in nutrient enriched ponds can allow nutrient tolerant species (algae, duckweeds) to increase in abundance. May eliminate species of importance using woody vegetation (e.g. rare fungi).</td><td>Can be undertaken in two main ways:<ul><li>Management by hand tools (can be done as conservation action with citizens)</li><li>Mechanical removal: remove terrestrial vegetation with excavators or forest management machinery.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Removing silt and sediment</td><td>Increases water depth and permanence and may add new habitats. Desilting will reverse succession, prolonging the open water phase. Exposing the original pond base may encourage aquatic plant growth and temporarily reduce pollutant levels. It can help prevent complete colonisation of the pond basin by helophytes such as Phragmites. Retaining some of the upper pond sediment layer may help ensure the preservation of invertebrate eggs and seed/spore banks.</td><td>May damage existing biota, release greenhouse gases and destroy archaeological or palaeoecological remains.</td><td>Undertaken with mechanical excavators following drawdown; in some ponds with controlled water levels, the pond can be drained and sediments allowed to oxidise.</td></tr><tr><td>Repairing engineering features (inc. pond liners)</td><td>Ensures water permanence and improves aesthetic appearance of pond, restoring historic value.</td><td>No obvious disadvantages.</td><td>Normally undertaken by specialist contractors/engineers.</td></tr><tr><td>Repairing board walks, signage and dipping platforms</td><td>Improved access for people, increases educational value.</td><td>Can lead to increased access and disturbance (e.g. facilitating introduction of non-native species, disturbing breeding wetland birds).</td><td>Normally undertaken by specialist contractors/engineers.</td></tr><tr><td>Modifying the shape of the pond</td><td>Changing bank angle (by increasing broad shallow drawdown zones), better for wildlife, safer for livestock or people. If possible, remove artificial substrates.</td><td>No obvious disadvantages if ponds are properly surveyed before any work is undertaken.</td><td>Use mechanical excavator; may require trailers to remove spoil from site.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_217.png" /></figure>
<table><thead><tr><td>Pond-level action</td><td>Potential benefits</td><td>Potential disadvantages</td><td>Methods</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Deepening the pond</td><td>Deepening ponds in central area will increase water permanence and modestly increase water retention. CAUTION! Do not deepen temporary ponds unless they are in danger of drying up completely as a result of climate change.</td><td>May lead to unnecessary deepening of temporary ponds, which is highly undesirable because it may damage or replace existing biota associated to temporary ponds.</td><td>Use mechanical excavator; may require trailers to remove spoil from site. Where deepening is vital to prevent complete drying up, novel approaches to protecting seed, spore and egg banks may be needed. In these situations, remove, store and later replace pond base sediment before the pond is deepened, or grow/culture critical species in off-site facilities, and return to the pond later. Note that these approaches are all experimental. Alternately, create new, deeper, ponds very close to existing ponds which are drying up, and allow sensitive species to spread naturally.</td></tr><tr><td>Removing introduced non-native fish</td><td>Could reduce turbidity and increase value for other wildlife.</td><td>No obvious disadvantages, depending on the method used for fish removal.</td><td>Use specialist fisheries management contractors to net and remove fish.</td></tr><tr><td>Removing other invasive non-native species (plants, invertebrates)</td><td>Removing invasive plants may allow native plants to increase in abundance, and animals to increase in diversity. Note effects may often be subtle.[26]</td><td>May lead to elimination of habitats used by native or endangered species.[26]</td><td>May be controlled by:<ul><li>Physical removal</li><li>Herbicides</li><li>Pesticides</li><li>Biological control agents.</li></ul>Discuss with local state agencies to determine methods which will be allowed in your specific situation (e.g. pesticides permitted for use; methods applied successfully in a specific region). Methods for controlling non-native species are sign-posted by national and international bodies.[27,28]</td></tr><tr><td>Creating terrestrial habitats for amphibian species (accumulation of dead wood, stones)</td><td>Provides essential habitats for amphibians which may be absent in more intensively managed pondscapes.</td><td>No obvious disadvantages for freshwater ecosystems.</td><td>Follow standard guidance on creation of amphibian refugia produced by NGOs. Install with volunteers or private companies.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_218.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_219.png" /></figure>
<table><thead><tr><td>Pondscape-level action</td><td>Potential benefits</td><td>Potential disadvantages</td><td>Methods</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Stop spreading fertilisers, pesticides or other pollutants within the pond catchment; as a minimum create large buffer areas (at least 50 m) around pond to reduce fertiliser and other agrochemical inputs. If this is not possible, PONDERFUL evidence suggests buffer of 10-20 m will bring some water quality improvements</td><td>Should improve water quality, especially if associated with dredging and desilting of contaminated sediments, with improved aesthetic appearance of ponds (fewer algal blooms) and increased overall value for biodiversity. Note that narrow buffer strips are notoriously variable in effectiveness on running waters (where most data is available).</td><td>No obvious disadvantages for freshwater ecosystems.</td><td>Develop joint, collaborative, actions with land managers and farmers in your pond landscape. Discuss and negotiate options including:<ul><li>Identifying financing mechanisms</li><li>Reducing or eliminating application of fertilisers and biocides</li><li>Participating in agri-environment schemes to remove land from arable farming or create large buffer zones etc.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Redirect polluted water away from ponds</td><td>Improved water quality, aesthetics and value for wildlife; can be difficult to achieve.</td><td>No obvious disadvantages; may increase pollution of downstream habitats.</td><td>Normally undertaken by specialist contractors/engineers; includes managing land drainage.</td></tr><tr><td>Removing fencing around ponds, allowing livestock to graze ponds</td><td>Gentle (1-2 animals / ha) grazing facilitates management of terrestrial and aquatic vegetation and is usually good for freshwater biodiversity. Ponds can be used as drinking water supply for livestock.</td><td>Could lead to excessive trampling of waterbodies.</td><td>Plan co-ordinated local actions with land-owners and land managers, and consider the landscape scale and target species.</td></tr><tr><td>Reducing livestock densities or amount of time they have access to ponds</td><td>Low-density grazing simulates ancient natural grazing process on ponds; may reduce turbidity associated with very intensive trampling, improve aesthetic appearance of pond, increase value for wildlife as low intensity grazing usually very good for freshwater biodiversity. There is little information about the effects of different densities of stock on ponds, but densities of 1-2 cattle per hectare are often used as a rule of thumb (observe how the site progresses with this level of grazing pressure). However, using stocking density alone can also be misleading. The number of cows trampling around the pond is more critical. For a pond in a large field (more cattle) the stocking density should be lower, or the pond bigger, than for a pond in a small field (fewer cattle).</td><td>Could lead to insufficient disturbance of pond by livestock.</td><td>Develop joint, collaborative, actions with land managers and farmers in your pond landscape. Discuss and negotiate options including:<ul><li>Identifying financing mechanisms</li><li>Reducing or eliminating application of fertilisers and biocides</li><li>Participating in agri-environment schemes to remove land from arable farming or create large buffer zones etc.</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Enforcing responsible use of ponds by people (by education or fencing)</td><td>Will reduce risk of invasive species introduction and of vandalism, lower turbidity, improved aesthetic appearance of ponds, better value for wildlife and public appreciation.</td><td>Reduces awareness of the importance of ponds as Nature's Contributions to People.</td><td>Develop awareness raising campaigns with local partners. Develop funding programmes to finance the measures required.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_220.png" /></figure>
<table><thead><tr><td>Pondscape-level action</td><td>Potential benefits</td><td>Potential disadvantages</td><td>Methods</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Stop ploughing within pond catchment</td><td>Will reduce or eliminate pollution sources affecting pond associated with agricultural runoff.</td><td>No obvious ecological disadvantages, though could reduce landowner income.</td><td>Develop joint, collaborative, actions with land managers, farmers and water management/nature conservation agencies in your pond landscape. Discuss and negotiate options including:<ul><li>Planning and developing programme</li><li>Identifying financing mechanisms</li><li>Reducing or eliminating application of fertilisers and biocides.</li></ul>Participating in agri-environment schemes to remove land from arable farming or create large buffer zones etc.</td></tr><tr><td>Tree planting, removal of ditches or other changes to the wider landscape around ponds; restoring the terrestrial and aquatic habitats of wider landscape</td><td>Increases habitat diversity, refuge and food availability for pond fauna, value for wildlife, flood resilience, aesthetic appearance and recreation.</td><td>Could modify terrestrial ecosystems in undesirable ways (e.g. wooded landscapes allow more predators to survive, with unexpected consequences).</td><td>Develop pond landscape plan to identify the main actions to be undertaken at landscape scale. Plan could be for a small site (10 ha) or a whole water catchment (10,000 ha).</td></tr><tr><td>Enhance pond landscape scale connectivity for amphibians (e.g. tunnels under roads; ditches)</td><td>Supports persistence of amphibians in the landscape.</td><td>There are some potential disadvantages to increasing pond landscape-scale connectivity for amphibians. In a few special situations, increased connectivity could risk spreading diseases or bringing together species which compete (e.g. Bufo bufo and Epidalea calamita). There is recent evidence of potential for pollutant accumulation in road tunnels, which might increase exposure of amphibians to toxic chemicals.[29]</td><td>There are numerous practical guides available for the design of connectivity measures for amphibians.</td></tr><tr><td>Apply mosquito control measures, including treatment with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bti)</td><td>Reduces disturbance to people using the pond landscape.</td><td>May damage other aquatic and terrestrial biota.</td><td>Managers should note that, depending on study design and duration, Bti effects on non-target organisms and higher trophic levels have been demonstrated. Managers may need to consider alternative, more environment-friendly, but more costly, mosquito-control techniques.[30]</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Ghost ponds

By reviewing old maps, or talking to older residents, it is often possible to identify ponds which have been deliberately filled in. These are known as 'ghost ponds'. Restoring ghost ponds can be an excellent opportunity to recover local heritage and improve biodiversity on a site. In some cases, rare plants can be recovered from seeds and spores within the pond sediments – some may be over 100 years old!

<figure><img src="image_221.png" /></figure>
When excavating a ghost pond, it is important to pay close attention to the substrate layers. The aim should be to remove backfill and restore the pond to its original shape, size and depth. Dig slowly and do not dig deeper once you have reached the old pond sediments; these are usually dark, fine to the touch and contain lots of decomposed leaves and, in calcium rich landscapes, often shells of water snails.[31]

<figure><img src="image_222.png" /><figcaption>Ghost pond after restoration. © Carl Sayer</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_223.png" /><figcaption>Ghost pond before restoration. © Carl Sayer</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_224.png" /></figure>

For further information about ghost ponds, see Chapter 7: Further reading and practical resources.

## 4.4 CREATING PONDS AND PONDSCAPES

### The value of new ponds

Whilst managing and restoring ponds is essential, pond creation can be more effective when:

* Ponds are rare in a landscape.

* Existing ponds are polluted or badly affected by invasive species, and it is not possible to remove the pollution source or eradicate the invasive species.

* Natural new pond creation processes have otherwise been stopped by human activity.

* Existing ponds are poorly suited to your project aims (i.e. you want to create ponds for wellbeing or education, but existing ponds are hard to access).

* Existing ponds belong to the same type (i.e. only deep or only permanent), as a consequence of disappearance of several pond types due human activities (desired goal: favour habitat heterogeneity).

* The management aim is to diversify the pondscape environment, creating new pond types (shapes, sizes, hydrological functioning, etc.)

* You want to increase habitat availability for specific species.

* It is necessary to increase pond diversity to deliver specific Nature's Contributions to People.

Remember, new ponds can be designed to better suit the specific aims of your project, while many existing ponds will be constrained in some manner by their characteristics or locations. Creating new clean water, ponds is great for biodiversity. Increasing the density of ponds within a landscape not only increases the amount of high-quality wildlife habitat, but also improves connectivity by allowing less mobile species to move from pond to pond (like stepping stones). In the PONDERFUL Water Friendly Farming demonstration site (success story 6.1), clean water pond creation resulted in a 16% increase in the number of wetland plant species found in the demonstration pondscape, with 83% increase in uncommon species. This shows that adding new wildlife ponds to the landscape can reverse large-scale freshwater species declines.[25]

Evidence from this work shows that creating new clean water ponds has led to some of the most substantial, and quickest, increases in freshwater biodiversity yet seen for any water management technique. Pond creation also increases species' metapopulation sizes (even of the most common), reinforcing their resilience to impairment. New ponds are also important for people, providing services such as water storage, pollution control and mental health benefits (see Chapter 3).

<figure><img src="image_225.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_226.png" /></figure>

© Freshwater Habitats Trust

## Key features to create in new ponds

All the key features of a pond need to be considered when designing and creating new ponds. These include:

* **Surface area:** There is no ideal pond surface area. The whole range of pond sizes - from very small (2 m²) to very large (2 ha or more) - can benefit people and wildlife depending on the landscape, the Nature's Contributions to People objectives, and target species. Avoid making only very small ponds: there is clear evidence[32] that, particularly in urban areas, while small ponds bring much pleasure in gardens and provide habitats for widespread and robust species, they do not add to whole landscape freshwater biodiversity, often have a high proportion of alien species contributing to their spread, have poor water quality, and probably generate an excess of greenhouse gases because of this. Indeed, making high-quality very small ponds is one of the most difficult parts of pond design.

* **Depth:** Pond maximum depth often affects how long a pond will hold water during the year (although very shallow ponds in groundwater can be permanent - see the PONDERFUL demonstration site Pinkhill Meadow). For this reason, water permanence will also depend on the pond's water source and its catchment area. Annual drying is desirable for some species and some Nature's Contributions to People objectives. It is a feature of all temporary ponds, including the EU Habitats Directive priority habitat 'Mediterranean temporary ponds'.

* **Margins and bank angles:** The pond margins are a very important element to think about at the planning and designing stage. Generally, pond biodiversity, accessibility and security benefit significantly from wide shallow margins. Pond biodiversity can sometimes be increased by irregular shorelines and low islands (the latter are better if close to the water line and flooded in winter).

<figure><img src="image_227.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_228.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 23 - A narrow drawdown zone (steep narrow margins; top) and a wide drawdown zone (wide shallow; bottom). The drawdown zone is the richest part of the pond for wildlife.</figcaption></figure>

* **Shallows:** The shallows are the part of the pond which are about 10 cm or less in depth when water levels are at their maximum (in the northern hemisphere usually in the late winter or early spring). Shallow water is usually one of the most biodiverse parts of the pond, with many animal and plant species only ever found in shallow water. Amphibian reproduction (e.g. egg masses or, in some species, tadpole habitat) is quite dependent on shallow pond zones. Some ponds can be entirely made up of shallow areas (often these will also be temporary), while others have shallow areas and sections of deeper water.

* **Drawdown zone:** This is the area between the pond's maximum water level and minimum water levels (Fig. 23). Fluctuating water levels are natural and are crucial for some species, including a variety of endangered plant and animal species. The drawdown zone is the most diverse part of the pond in terms of the number of species found. It is also important for reptiles, birds and mammals as a feeding area, and for semi-aquatic invertebrates, such as ground beetles and true flies.

* **Inflows/Outflows:** Inflows, including ditches and streams, often bring polluted water into ponds; they can also be a source of invasive plants and fishes. This is disadvantageous for ponds intended to maximise biodiversity and should be avoided. For ponds designed for water treatment, pollution control or flood mitigation, correct calculation of the size of inflows and outflows will be essential for the main service provided by the pond.

* **Immediate surrounds:** A pond is not an island separated from its surroundings: the adjacent land usually supplies the pond with water, and is part of the habitat of many species using the pond for some of their lifecycle (e.g. dragonflies, Diptera, amphibians). This means that it is vital that the land around the pond is considered early on when designing new ponds. For example, the new pond may need to be located close to other wetlands or ponds which already support the endangered species that it is hoped the new pond(s) will attract. However, it is also important to consider whether it may be important not to increase pond connectivity; if isolated ponds support rare or threatened species, it is important to avoid the arrival of potential predators or competitors. Pond designs should take into account the surroundings which are part of the pond environment. For example, fencing may be required to protect new terrestrial scrub and woodland habitat in the pond's surroundings, in order to protect it from excessive disturbance by dogs in areas of open access and to maintain good cover for dragonflies and amphibians. If the pond does not have an entirely natural catchment, the pond surroundings may also be important in creating a buffer area between the pond and more intensive, pollution generating, parts of the pondscape.

<figure><img src="image_229.png" /></figure>
## Should new ponds be planted?

It is natural to think that new ponds need a helping hand to stop them from remaining 'empty habitats' in their first few months or years. However, there are many reasons why it is often better not to plant up new ponds, but to leave them to colonise naturally instead. The first reason is that new ponds are a very distinctive habitat, used by plants and animals that are not found in more mature ponds. Usually these are species that either (a) prefer bare sediments or (b) do not compete well with others. Artificially maturing sites by adding plants hastens the end of the 'new pond' stage and stops the ponds from providing an important refuge for these species.

A second reason for not planting ponds is that it is usually unnecessary. As Darwin first noted, many pond plants and animals are particularly well adapted to finding new sites. Bugs and beetles fly in within hours, especially in the warmer months. Most other insect families (e.g. mayflies, caddis flies, dragonflies) and some annual water plants become established within the first summer.

Evidence shows that this natural colonisation occurs so rapidly that, without any help, three- or four-year-old new ponds are often as rich as sites over 50 years old. Finally, plant and animal species that colonise under their own steam will usually be more appropriate to the waterbody than those we choose ourselves and, very importantly, letting plants and animals arrive naturally reduces one of the major risks of planting-up: the accidental transfer of invasive alien plants and animals.

If plants are required to obtain a particular Nature's Contributions to People (pollution trapping, visual amenity, enhancing population of a specific endangered species) obtain plants locally from a known source ('locally' means 10-20 km from the introduction site.

## KEY STEPS OF POND CREATION

Ponds can be created in any landscape or land use type. There are some key steps to follow when planning a pond-creation scheme in order to maximise the benefits.

<figure><img src="image_230.png" /></figure>

© Ted Balmer

<figure><img src="image_231.png" /></figure>
Box 3. Seven steps to designing a pond creation scheme

1. Decide what the main use is and identify how this will influence your choices. Creating multi-functional ponds is difficult, so it is best to have a single, or small number, of potential uses and a clear focus. Be careful to avoid contradictory goals (e.g. biodiversity and pollution treatment).

2. Identify a site. Consider the current land use (how is the site used and by whom?), assess geology, soil type and pedology, selecting areas with good natural habitat surrounding the pond creation area and making up most of the catchment. Ensure that there is a suitable regular/abundant water supply. Looking at existing ponds is an excellent way to understand the local hydrology. Ideally, choose locations where an artificial liner will not be required, and which can be accessed with construction machinery.

3. Make sure that the site is not already important (for wildlife, archaeology, recreation or agriculture). If existing wet habitats (springs, flushes, bogs) are present, do not replace these, but consider creating new ponds nearby to improve habitat diversity. Obtain any necessary permissions (protected site, protected species or land use change permissions). Seek expert advice if required.

4. Check that the site is not constrained by services (e.g. water, gas, electricity) or other infrastructure. There are major safety issues associated with excavating near electricity cables (underground and overhead). By understanding where infrastructure is located at an early stage, the scheme design can be changed to avoid impacts. Check for infrastructure associated with electricity, water, oil, gas, sewage and communications. Take account of services already planned, but not yet existing e.g. future railway tracks or roads.

5. Design the pond(s). Draw a sketch plan of the pond, considering size, depth and profiles, and give preference to wide shallow margins. Aim to increase the diversity of habitats present in the pondscape: five ponds of different sizes is better than one big pond. Also consider long-term management, allowing space for machinery to access the pond in case it needs adjusting or desilting. By thinking about management early in a pond creation scheme, it is possible to amend the design in order to minimise the need for later interventions. Refine the design as you learn more about site constraints and likely water levels.

6. Dig trial holes. Create trial holes for groundwater and surface water-fed ponds where you plan to create the new ponds. Stream-fed ponds may also need trial holes if you are creating them in natural substrates and need to ensure they will hold water. These need to be at least as deep as the proposed pond, but ideally deeper. Monitor for at least a year so that you understand water-level change.

7. Plan the whole project and finalise designs. Consider how your new ponds will work at the pondscape level. Can you further increase habitat diversity by staggering pond creation over several years? Think about the machinery required, health and safety, and ongoing monitoring. For smaller scale projects there may be opportunities to include 'volunteer' participation, not only to avoid, if possible, heavy machinery or to reduce cost, but to involve resident people in the site and stakeholders in the project.

More detailed information about pond creation is provide in the Freshwater Habitats Trust pond creation toolkit, which provides a wide range of suggestions about pond sizes, shapes, depths, the value of shade and the importance of grazing. Guides to the use of ponds to provide pollution and water control structures are available from a range of sources. These are included in chapter 7: Further reading and practical resources.

<figure><img src="image_232.png" /></figure>
Box 4. Assessing hydrology and substrate – a key element of pond creation

Investigating substrate and hydrology, including groundwater, is a key element of the pond-creation process. Geol-
ogy and soil maps can provide useful information, but their resolution is usually too low to provide the detailed site
information needed for pond creation. On floodplains, in particular, the substrate type can change from permeable to
impermeable over a very short distance.

Generally, the best way to assess substrate and hydrology is to dig a trial hole where the ponds are likely to be located. This can be done using an auger, a spade or a mechanical excavator, depending on the substrate and the proposed depth of the new ponds.

If a deep layer of blue clay - which indicates waterlogging - is found, then the ponds can be created straight away. If the clay is mottled, indicating that water levels fluctuate, it is normally necessary to monitor trial hole(s) for one or two years. Longer-term monitoring (over months or years) is also likely to be necessary if the substrate includes sand, gravel or pebbles, where groundwater will be the main source of water. This will help you understand (i) the permeability of the substrate and (ii) how groundwater levels fluctuate.

In some cases (for example, sites with regular public access) dipwells may be more suitable for assessing water levels than open trial holes because they are safer for people. Information on substrates and hydrology can then feed into the pond design to ensure that depths and profiles are appropriate for the objectives of the pond.

Where water does not accumulate naturally, plastic, concrete, or clay liners can be used, but these are expensive, have a comparatively short life-span (tens rather than hundreds or thousands of years), require carbon-hungry production processes and are liable to leak. Artificial liners do not support the full range of natural hydrological regimes, mainly depending on inflowing stream, ditches or roof water. Clay linings over naturally permeable substrates are especially difficult to maintain, and often crack.

<figure><img src="image_233.png" /><figcaption>Trial holes are used to assess a new pond's substrate and hydrology before construction begins. © Freshwater Habitats Trust</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_234.png" /></figure>
## Creating ponds for biodiversity

Animals and plants have evolved to live in ponds over many millions of years. Therefore, the best way to protect pond wildlife today is to create waterbodies that mimic the clean-water wild ponds common in the past, taking into account the singularities of the natural ponds of each region (see Box 1). Natural ponds come in all shapes, sizes and depths, but finding clean water can be difficult in heavily modified landscapes. Ponds with poor water quality will never support the full range of plant and animal species seen in unpolluted ponds and will have long-term management problems. If you are limited to a polluted site, you will therefore not be able to create a pond that can reach its full potential. However, almost all ponds can still be valuable for wildlife, supporting tough or widespread and resilient species. Where ponds are colonised from scratch, there is good evidence that within 5-10 years they can reach a condition similar to much longer-established ponds.

In addition to the points in Box 3, follow these simple steps to maximise gain for biodiversity:

1. Find a place with a clean-water source. Make sure the pond has natural surrounds.

* Avoid linking the pond to a stream or ditch, unless you know the water in those inflows is unpolluted.

* Do not add topsoil in or around the pond.

2. Create lots of shallow water (<10 cm deep) and leave the pond surface rough: lumps and bumps maximise habitat diversity. On larger ponds, there may be space for islands; make sure they are low (close to the water line), can be managed effectively and will not be quickly covered by terrestrial vegetation.

3. Locate ponds strategically: often the greatest biodiversity benefit is achieved where ponds can connect to or extend existing wetland habitats.

4. Leave the pond to colonise naturally. Do not stock it with plants, fish or other animals. In cities and urban areas, where there are often fewer natural colonisation sources, you can help the colonisation by bringing some native plants from nearby ponds, rivers and wetlands (make sure you do not break local regulations when doing this).

5. Make sure the pond will have few impacts (e.g. no frequent disturbance from dogs or duck feeding).

## Creating ponds for people

'Blue spaces' are known to be beneficial for human wellbeing, and a pond or pondscape can be an important community resource or cultural asset. Whether you are working in an urban or rural setting, there are many different types of ponds and pondscapes you can create to provide benefits including education, tourism and health (see Chapter 3 and success story 6.11, 'Rhône Genevois, CH'). Make sure to plan accessibility and safety issues and infrastructure (e.g. walkways, platforms, bridges). Consider using decorative materials, such as stones, and obtaining advice from expert designers.

It is important to understand that a pond that provides these ecosystem services is less likely to also play a significant role in boosting biodiversity. However, ponds created for people – even in densely populated urban areas – usually attract some wildlife.

## Box 5. Creating ponds to provide ecosystem services for people

Questions to ask before creating ponds to provide ecosystem services for people:

* How many people will use the pond and how will they access it?

* Have you considered health and safety when designing the pond? Is any additional infrastructure required?

* How will the pond be managed in the long term to maintain the function it is designed for (e.g. swimming, education or inspiration)?

* Do you also want to attract wildlife to the pond? If so, which type?

* Do you want the pond to be used for any leisure or educational activities?

* Do you have resources to keep the pond in good condition, safe and accessible to people in the long term?

<figure><img src="image_235.png" /></figure>
## 4.5 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS TO PREPARE FOR POND MANAGEMENT, RESTORATION AND CREATION

The specific practical preparations for pond management, restoration and creation will vary depending on your site, local legislation and project aims. During planning, ask yourself the following questions to make sure you are prepared:

### Box 6. Questions to ask yourself

* Do you have a good understanding of the existing value of the pondscape (for biodiversity, human wellbeing)? If not, seek expert advice.

* Is surface water, groundwater or (where suitable) stream or ditch inflows sufficiently available on site, or will you need to use an impermeable liner and provide other water sources to supply the pond with water?

* Is permission required before starting works? This may relate to land use, protected sites or species.

* Have you checked if any services are present (e.g. overhead cables or gas pipelines near the pond)? Or if future infrastructure is planned to be constructed near the pond?

* Has the site been modified? If lots of field drains are present, these will need removing or new ponds will not hold water.

* Do machine operators have suitable experience? If not, close supervision may be required.

* What machinery is required? Smaller excavators may be necessary if access routes are narrow. Small ponds (a few square metres) can be created with 'volunteers' to involve local people in the project, but this can involve hard work and ponds may fill in quickly.

* Where will you dispose of sediments/spoil and woody debris? Do not spread this where it will wash back into ponds.

* Are there other health and safety considerations? Consider potential impacts to contractors, staff and the public.

* Have you budgeted for monitoring the ponds, fixing issues and adjusting pond designs to improve performance?

<figure><img src="image_236.png" /></figure>

@Summerstock

© Charcos com Vida/JT

<figure><img src="image_237.png" /></figure>

## 4.6 POND DESIGNS FOR PONDS AND PONDSCAPES: USING CLIMA-PONDS

**PONDERFUL** has created standards for the design of climate mitigating ponds to provide standarised designs which can be rapidly and widely implemented to a set of common standards.

Designs have been created for three typical situations:

* Ponds purely intended for biodiversity and engagement (including wellbeing and health) and related Nature's Contributions to People. Containing unpolluted water, greenhouse gas production should also be minimised

* Ponds intended for the delivery of a variety of Nature's Contributions to People in rural landscape including minimising greenhouse gas production, storing water, treating polluted sediment and runoff and providing biodiversity benefits

* Ponds intended to provide Nature's Contributions to People in urban areas where water storage, pollutant retention, health and wellbeing and biodiversity are all intended benefits. The design is also intended to minimise greenhouse gas production.

<figure><img src="image_238.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_239.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 24 - CLIMA-pond Nature design. This design prioritises maintenance of biodiversity. © Amphi International ApS</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_240.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_241.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 25 - CLIMA-pond Rural design.** This design provides multiple rural landscape benefits including minimising greenhouse gas production, providing flood and pollutant interception services and supporting biodiversity. © Amphi International ApS</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_242.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_243.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 26 - CLIMA-pond Urban design.** This design is for urban locations primarily focusing on water storage, pollution interception, minimising greenhouse gas production and providing biodiversity benefits where possible. © Amphi International ApS
The PONDERFUL design standard for CLIMA-ponds is published separately by the PONDERFUL consortium.[33,34]</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_244.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_245.png" /></figure>

© Freshwater Habitats Trust
<figure><img src="image_246.png" /></figure>

© Diego Madrigal
# 5. Cost and practical constraints: financing and promoting pondscape schemes

## 5.1 PRACTICAL CHALLENGES AND COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING PONDS

Developers of ponds and pondscapes as nature-based solutions face a number of practical constraints that limit delivery. One key constraint is cost. In this chapter, we explore some of the issues people may face when paying for ponds, the type of costs to budget for and how this challenge can be overcome. We also discuss how policy can be both a constraint and enabler for implementing ponds and pondscapes as nature-based solutions.

### Pond costs

There are a range of different costs when managing, restoring or creating ponds and pondscapes. These include one-off upfront costs and ongoing costs.

**One-off costs** take the project from idea to construction. These are costs that are only faced at the beginning of a project either to restore an existing pond or create a new pond. One-off costs include all the costs associated with developing, planning, and implementing the project.

**Ongoing costs** are those associated with maintaining the pond or pondscape once it has been managed, restored or created. Examples include ongoing monitoring, smaller repair work of pondscape infrastructure, regular removal of invasive species, and addressing impacts of public use to protect biodiversity. Ongoing costs might increase or decrease over time, depending on how the pondscape develops (e.g. how many people visit, the success of pond creation, future external pressures on the ponds such as neighbouring agricultural intensification).

### Financing: covering the costs

A lack of sufficient financing is a key barrier for nature-based solution uptake in general, and is also a challenge for ponds. The **PONDERFUL** research project provided a valuable summary of this problem.[35,36]

Nature-based solutions are currently predominantly paid for using public funding, although private financing is a growth area. However, there are many different ways of financing pondscapes. The **PONDERFUL** Sustainable Finance Inventory (Table 6) identifies 24 different 'financing instruments' that pondscape developers can use to pay for ponds, including revenue-generating measures for government or private landowners, public subsidies and grants, private donations, borrowing, investing and contractual approaches.[35]

Sources of finance differ considerably and, as a result, have different obligations and requirements associated with them. These differences mean that each source of finance has different strengths and weaknesses, making them suitable for different types of project.
<table><caption>Table 6 - PONDERFUL Sources of Finance Inventory (McDonald et al. 2023)</caption><thead><tr><td>Main category</td><td>Category definitions</td><td>Instruments</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Income instruments</td><td>Instruments for raising revenue that can then be used to finance nature-based solutions. Some can be used by landowners (1.1, 1.4, and 1.5); others can only be levied by government-sanctioned associations (1.2 and 1.3) or governments (1.6).</td><td>1.1 User fees<br>1.2 Business improvement districts<br>1.3 Betterment levies<br>1.4 Development rights and leases<br>1.5 Sale of market goods<br>1.6 Other revenue raising measures</td></tr><tr><td>2. Contracting approach (cost reduction/ restructure)</td><td>Legal agreements that reduce or restructure the costs of financing nature-based solutions, either by providing assets or use of assets at below market rates (2.1) or by shifting financing of upfront costs in return for ongoing payments (2.2).</td><td>2.1 Community asset transfer<br>2.2 Public private partnership</td></tr><tr><td>3. Voluntary contributions/ donations</td><td>Voluntary payments made of own free-will, whether a direct beneficiary of the nature-based solutions (3.2) or simply to contribute (3.1, 3.3).</td><td>3.1 Philanthropic contributions<br>3.2 Voluntary beneficiary contributions<br>3.3 Crowdfunding</td></tr><tr><td>4.Tradable rights/ permits and payment for ecosystem services</td><td>Revenue is raised by selling the 'rights' to ecosystem services generated by the nature-based solutions. This payment can be relatively informal (4.1) or through structured markets for climate mitigation (4.2), for offsetting damage to biodiversity elsewhere (4.3), or for reducing water pollutants (4.4).</td><td>4.1 Payment for ecosystem services<br>4.2 Transfer-based instruments: Voluntary carbon markets<br>4.3 Transfer-based instruments: Biodiversity offsets and habitat banking<br>4.4 Transfer-based instruments: Water quality trading systems</td></tr><tr><td>5. Subsidies</td><td>Subsidies are a financial contribution from the government to a person, company or organisation to promote socially beneficial outcomes. They can be ongoing payments (or tax breaks) linked to outcomes or production (5.1, 5.2)</td><td>5.1 Environmental subsidies<br>5.2 Tax concessions</td></tr><tr><td>6. Grants</td><td>Direct contribution from government (local, national, or EU) to a recipient in return for undertaking a specific activity. Grants are generally one-off payments (though they may be paid in instalments), and often competitive (6.1).</td><td>6.1 Grants</td></tr><tr><td>7. Debt instruments</td><td>Transfer of capital in return for a promise to repay that capital over time, generally with interest. This can involve direct lending from a lender to a borrower (7.1) or be mediated through debt markets (7.2).</td><td>7.1 Loans and green loans<br>7.2 Bonds and green bonds</td></tr><tr><td>8. Ownership models (equity finance)</td><td>Financing raised by selling an ownership share of the nature-based solution, potentially with a claim to some of its profits. This can be motivated by a desire to have impact (8.1) or be purely commercial (8.2).</td><td>8.1 Impact investing<br>8.2 Commercial investing</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_247.png" /></figure>
## Practical advice for covering costs

To help select between different ways to pay for your pondscape project, the following steps can be helpful:

* **Understand your pondscape project:** What benefits will it generate and for who? What costs will be involved (e.g. excavator, workers, liner, walkways)? Having a clear understanding of the scale of financial costs helps identify funding options. A clear understanding of the benefits can help identify sources of revenue, or strengthen your ability to generate financing.

* **Review all financing options:** This includes public sources (such as regional or national government grants and environmental or land use subsidies), as well as private sources. Taking advantage of private sources of financing may be more challenging, especially as this perspective might be fundamentally different from the one taken by a pondscape site manager, natural scientist, engineer, or a landscape architect, but may enable more, or larger, pondscape projects.

* **Think big:** It can be challenging to finance individual ponds, but additional financing options may arise when a pondscape is proposed as part of a larger project, e.g. pondscapes as one component of a larger recreational area, or part of an infrastructure development.

* **Push for policy change:** Pondscapes predominantly generate public goods which are difficult to finance, such as biodiversity enhancement. Public funding and novel policy approaches, such as the creation of markets for biodiversity benefits or other environmental services, can generate revenue. The PONDERFUL UK Water Friendly Farming demonstration site (success stories 6.1 and 6.4) offers an example of the potential benefit of new policy: stakeholders praised district licensing policies‡ that fund the creation of ponds for a European protected species, the Great Crested Newt.

## Overcoming policy constraints

Policies can both help and hinder pondscape management and creation. There are common barriers posed by European, national and regional policies. The PONDERFUL demonstration sites provide examples of the ways such constraints can be overcome.

Policies related to pondscapes often prioritise economic value over biodiversity objectives, with detrimental land uses taking precedence. Meanwhile, ponds, despite their potential benefits, are often neglected compared with other habitats, and often fall outside of key EU water and biodiversity policies, or are not sufficiently considered in national implementation programmes. Challenges identified in PONDERFUL's assessment of EU policies also include[37]:

* Mistrust between policymakers and private landowners.

* Lack of farmer interest due to concerns about operational limitations.

* Obtaining financing for private land projects (funding is easier to obtain where there are clear public benefits).

* Finding long-term funding for pond management.

* Lack of resources for monitoring. Monitoring institutions often face resource constraints or lack interest, and there is a lack of baseline data, research or technical guidelines.

* Permitting processes for pond creation or restoration can be tedious in some countries.

* Lack of knowledge-sharing regarding pond benefits and nature-based solutions, which hinders policy adoption and implementation.

Examples provided by the PONDERFUL demonstration sites include:

* In La Pletera (Spain) and Schöneiche (Germany), policymakers reformed municipal policies to rewrite policy goals in a manner that balances economic growth with natural heritage protection.

* The designation of ponds and pondscapes as protected areas has led to better planning, e.g. at Pikhakendonk (Belgium) and Schöneiche (Germany), and has improved access to financing and institutional improvement, e.g. at La Pletera (Spain). National or local designations offer similar benefits to international ones, but often work more effectively in restricting harmful land uses. When protected areas do not yet exist, municipalities can use zoning plans as a 'stepping stone' towards later inclusion in protected areas or planning documents, as seen in Rhône Genevois (Switzerland), La Pletera (Spain), and Schöneiche (Germany).

<figure><img src="image_248.png" /></figure>

<footnote>‡ District licensing policies create a simplified procedure for offsetting impacts on Great Crested Newt ponds. Housing developers pay set amounts to pond developers, who strategically develop new pondscape habitats.</footnote>
* Zoning plans and protected areas can also help accelerate permitting processes for pond creation (e.g. Denmark, Germany, Uruguay). The designation of local micro-reserves can help define agreements with landowners, and in some cases be the subject of financing by private companies, which can, for example, give their name to the reserve.

* Financing for measures by private actors is rare, but does exist, and often involves ad-hoc stewardship agreements. Agreements between public institutions and landowners tend to focus on protected areas (e.g. Switzerland, United Kingdom), while agreements between landowners and civil society organisations extend to other areas (Belgium, Switzerland, United Kingdom).

* Successful pond monitoring is observed when civil society organisations take charge (e.g. Switzerland, Turkey), ponds are clustered into monitoring units (Albera, Spain) or long-term pond projects exist (Lystrup, Denmark).

* Permitting for pond creation and land use regulation are most effective when integrated into zoning regulations (e.g. Denmark, Germany), linked to protected areas (Uruguay) or connected to financing schemes (United Kingdom).

* Effective institutions usually arise from a sustained budget and develop over time, as seen in La Pletera (Spain), and Pinkhill Meadow (United Kingdom). These can be linked to protected areas or civil society organisations engaging in partnerships with local authorities.

* Local identification with the pondscape can be increased through a protected area status, environmental education and research outreach, as seen in Belgium, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey.

* Research plays a vital role in supporting policies by providing evidence, as seen in La Pletera (Spain), and by ascertaining pond benefits (e.g. Denmark, United Kingdom). Research has also increased public willingness to implement nature-based solutions (Spain, Uruguay).

For more information on these success stories, see Chapter 6.

<figure><img src="image_249.png" /></figure>

© Jason Stevens
## 5.2 PROMOTING POND AND PONDSCAPE NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS

Ponds and pondscapes generate benefits for many groups of people (see Chapter 3).

Pondscape creation or restoration can be made easier when stakeholders are aware of the benefits. The **PONDERFUL** project identified a range of ways of getting support for a pond or pondscape nature-based solution scheme including:

* **Involve communities:** When local people have a positive view of the pondscape's contributions and see the potential for it to improve their quality of life, this increases public support for management, restoration and creation.

* **Encourage technical support and knowledge exchange:** Pondscape managers benefit from focused technical support, collaboration and knowledge exchange to help the implementation of nature-based solution measures. So far, support and exchanges related to the implementation of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation and mitigation are focused on rivers and streams, wetlands, moorlands, forest and peatlands. It is important to raise the profile and public appreciation of pondscapes, which can provide the same benefits. This would ensure coherence in the management of all freshwater bodies.

* **Celebrate success:** Positive pondscape nature-based solution examples should be shared. These success stories demonstrate the potential of nature-based solution measures and can be a powerful incentive for other pondscape managers to adopt best practices. Demonstration projects can showcase the benefits of sustainable practices and help build trust in these approaches. To facilitate widespread learning, information should be shared in a way which is easily accessible.

* **Network:** Facilitating knowledge exchange across multiple levels and different stakeholder groups is important. At a regional level, this should include communities and local authorities, regional policymakers and civil society. They may also need to include legal and regulatory bodies, as these groups work together to shape management decisions. The idea is to create an environment that encourages learning and lay the foundations for linking visitors, inhabitants, civil society, managers and decision-makers at all levels.

* **Communicate and educate:** Educational campaigns are needed to raise awareness of the value of pondscapes, including the contributions they make to people and the species they support, as well as the threats they are facing. This can strengthen stakeholders' sense of belonging to, and connection with, ponds and pondscapes.

<figure><img src="image_250.png" /></figure>

© Takashi Yanagisawa
<figure><img src="image_251.png" /></figure>
# 6. Pondscapes as nature-based solutions: success stories from the PONDERFUL DEMO sites

## 6.1 Pondscapes for biodiversity

* Creating a hotspot of biodiversity, with a small pondscape: Pinkhill | Page 106

* Creating a hotspot of biodiversity, with a large pondscape: Bois de Jussy | Page 107

* Promoting amphibian communities: creating habitats and translocation of Great Crested Newt populations: Pikhakendonk | Page 108

* Active management of threatened amphibian species: Fyn Islands | Page 109

* Conservation of lake littoral ponds for promotion of bird communities: Lake Mogan | Page 110

* Pondscapes and clean-water ponds are vital for maintaining freshwater biodiversity: Water Friendly Farming (WFF) | Page 111

## 6.2 Pondscapes as nature-based solutions for flood risk reduction

* Implementing a pond in a public park for stormwater protection and biodiversity enhancement: Lystrup | Page 112

* A pondscape for mitigating floods: Gölbaşı Düzlüğü | Page 113

## 6.3 Pondscapes as purification systems

* Ponds for treating agricultural run-off: Bois de Jussy | Page 114

## 6.4 Pondscapes with an optimised carbon balance

* Clean water ponds are carbon friendly: Water Friendly Farming (WFF) | Page 115

## 6.5 Pondscapes as nature-based solutions for food production

* Extensive cattle production coexists with aquatic biodiversity: Uruguay | Page 116

## 6.6 Pondscapes as nature-based solutions for tourism and health

* Co-existence of natural habitats and tourism: La Pletera | Page 117

* Safe mosquito control in touristic zones: La Pletera | Page 118

## 6.7 Pondscapes as nature-based solutions for education

* Development of a nature education center about water and ponds in the middle of the municipality: Schöneiche | Page 119

* A People's Park Project: Gölbaşı Düzlüğü | Page 120

## 6.8 Pondscapes as nature-based solutions for supporting identities

* Temporary ponds, local identity and recreation: Albera | Page 121

## 6.9 Land use management in the pondscape as a nature-based solution for improving habitat quality

* Land use management in the pondscape for reducing agriculture impacts: Albera | Page 122

* Active biodiversity conservation management of pondscape with multiple stakeholders: Gette Vallei | Page 123

## 6.10 Putting a pondscape under protection

* The designation of a pondscape as nature reserve: Tommelen | Page 124

## 6.11 Multifunctionality at the pondscape scale

* Complementarity of pond types and functions in a pondscape: Rhône Genevois | Page 125

<figure><img src="image_252.png" /></figure>
## 6.1 PONDSCAPES FOR BIODIVERSITY

# CREATING A BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT WITH A SMALL PONDSCAPE ON FLOODPLAIN (UK)

### PONDSCAPE PINKHILL

<figure><img src="image_253.png" /></figure>

**IDENTITY CARD**

**Pondscape area:** 12 ha
57 ponds (2.7 ha of water surface)

**Dominant landcover:**

- pondscape: low intensity floodplain grassland

- surrounding environment: agriculture, water storage reservoir

**Bioclimatic zone:** Oceanic

<figure><img src="image_254.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_255.png" /></figure>

The Pinkhill pondscape is located on the ancient floodplain of the River Thames, which has a long wetland heritage. The first pond complex (created in 1990) is less than 3 ha in area, but is exceptionally rich and now supports around 20% of all Britain's freshwater plant and larger invertebrate species. The site's richness is due to a range of factors. There are ponds of different sizes, ranging from 5 m² to 0.3 ha. Some ponds dry every year and others are semi-permanent, which provides many different habitats. Most ponds have extensive areas of shallow water and wetland around their edges.

It was important to design the ponds so that their water quality was as clean as possible. To do this, none of the ponds have direct links to the polluted River Thames. In addition, most of the ponds are fed by groundwater which has low levels of polluting nutrients.

Management is undertaken to maintain the site's conservation value. This includes cattle grazing, managing scrub, cutting meadows, creating new ponds and managing/remodelling existing ponds. Management is led by Thames Water, with additional partnership projects undertaken with the NGO Freshwater Habitats Trust.

Pinkhill provides clear evidence that it is possible to create new pondscapes of exceptional biodiversity value, even when there are quite limited areas of land available.

<figure><img src="image_256.png" /><figcaption>Pinkhill Meadow is one of three floodplain meadows in this pondscape</figcaption></figure>

Pond complex, shortly after it was created in 1990

<figure><img src="image_257.png" /><figcaption>European water vole (Arvicola amphibius)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_258.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_259.png" /><figcaption>© FHT</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_260.png" /><figcaption>© FHT</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_261.png" /><figcaption>Lesser Water Plantain (Baldellia Ranunculoides)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_262.png" /><figcaption>© FHT</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_263.png" /><figcaption>© FHT</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_264.png" /><figcaption>Round-fruited Rush (Juncus compressus)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_265.png" /></figure>
# CREATING A BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT WITH A LARGE PONDSCAPE (SWITZERLAND)

## PONDSCAPE BOIS DE JUSSY

<figure><img src="image_266.png" /></figure>

### IDENTITY CARD

**Pondscape area:** 610 ha
69 ponds and 300 small pools
(3 ha of water surface area in total)

**Dominant landcover:**

- pondscape : woodland

- surrounding environment: agriculture

**Bioclimatic zone:** Continental (oceanic influence)

<figure><img src="image_267.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_268.png" /></figure>

This large pondscape is located in a woodland near the city of Geneva. A dozen of the large ponds were dug in the 1960s, with the aims of draining the forest and for storing water in case of fire. Today, the main management objective is biodiversity conservation. Several other ponds of various sizes have been dug in the clay substrate.

This pondscape is a local biodiversity hotspot, hosting 2/3 of the regional richness of aquatic plants, dragonflies and amphibians (including the conservation priority species European Pond Turtle (Emys orbicularis) and Yellow-bellied Toad (Bombina variegata)). Pond creation here has benefited both aquatic biodiversity (including plants, invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles) and terrestrial animals (e.g. large and small mammals, bats, birds).

Ongoing management of the pondscape has taken place for the last 20 years. Success here has been driven by:

* The support of external consultancies following a prescribed management plan that targets biodiversity (pond creation, pond restoration, removal of exotic species, tree management, management of terrestrial habitats, enhancement of pond connectivity).

* The creation of a dense network of ponds of different size (from 300 small 1 m² pools to large 5000 m² ponds), shape and design. Semi-natural woodland ensures good connectivity between ponds.

* The implementation of protection statutes.

* The reintroduction of threatened species.

The high level of active management required means that continuous funding is necessary. Management action has proved to be the key for the successful protection and enhancement of biodiversity at the site.

<figure><img src="image_269.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_270.png" /><figcaption>Bombina variegata © Eric Sansault</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_271.png" /><figcaption>Emys orbicularis © Maurizio amendolia</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_272.png" /></figure>
# PROMOTING AMPHIBIAN COMMUNITIES: CREATING HABITATS AND TRANSLOCATION OF GREAT CRESTED NEWT POPULATIONS (BELGIUM)

## PONDSCAPE PIKHAKENDONK

<figure><img src="image_273.png" /></figure>

### IDENTITY CARD

**Pondscape area:** 5 km²
62 ponds (10.2 ha of water surface)

**Amphibian species richness:** 7

**Dominant landcover:** extensive grazing and meadows

**Bioclimatic zone:** Atlantic

<figure><img src="image_274.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_275.png" /></figure>

The landscape in Pikhakendonk consists largely of meadows scattered in a dense network of old hawthorn hedges and some forest patches. The pondscape is a NATURA 2000 area and contains 62 small ponds. Several of these ponds have been recently created as part of a translocation project for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). A number of old ponds and ditches have been restored through dredging and margin reprofiling to enhance habitat suitability for aquatic communities.

The current amphibian community is particularly rich and abundant, with the presence of two species listed on the Habi- itats Directive (Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus), Common Frog (Rana temporaria)) and five other species (Com- mon Toad (Bufo bufo), Marsh Frog (Pelophylax ridibundus/kurtmuelleri), Alpine Newt (Ichthyosaura alpestris), Smooth Newt (Lissotriton vulgaris), and the non-native Levant Water Frog (Pelophylax bedriagae).

In 2016, an existing population of Great Crested Newt from a nearby location (15 km away) was translocated to the pondscape on request from the Flemish government in collaboration with the Agency for Nature and Forests (ANB) and the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO). The translocation was needed as the original habitat of this species was due to be damaged by large-scale river restoration in the River Dijle valley.

In addition to this translocation of adults, a scientific breeding programme was established by INBO. Juveniles (3,205 individuals) bred in captivity were released in several ponds (in 2017-2020). The population dynamics of the trans- located newt population is regularly monitored by INBO and Natuurpunt (an independent volunteer association). By 2023, the translocation was judged to be successful, as multiple ponds supported Great Crested Newts and the newly established population seemed to be breeding successfully. Translocation is a good example of nature-based solutions when habitats are highly isolated, preventing natural colonisation.

<figure><img src="image_276.png" /></figure>

© Louisa Pluskow

<figure><img src="image_277.png" /></figure>

© Louisa Pluskow

<figure><img src="image_278.png" /></figure>

Triturus cristatus © Pieter Jan Alles

<figure><img src="image_279.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_280.png" /></figure>
# ACTIVE MANAGEMENT OF THREATENED AMPHIBIAN SPECIES (DENMARK)

## PONDSCAPE FYN ISLANDS

<figure><img src="image_281.png" /></figure>

### IDENTITY CARD

**Pondscape area:** 15 km²
64 ponds (4 ha of water surface)

**Amphibian species richness:** 5

**Dominant landcover:**

- pondscape: pasture

- surrounding environment: pasture and arable land

**Bioclimatic zone:** Continental

<figure><img src="image_282.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_283.png" /></figure>

The Fyn Islands pondscape covers Ærø, Avernakø and Birkholm, three small islands (88 km², 6 km² and 1 km² respectively) out of approximately 55 islands of the South Fyn Archipelago. Most of the land on these islands is used for agriculture.

This archipelago is a 'hot spot' for the European Fire-bellied Toad (Bombina bombina), a highly threatened species in Europe. Today, this species can be found in numerous ponds on the three islands, thanks to over 35 years of pondscape management for the species. Only two populations on Avernakø and Hjortø are original, all others on the remaining islands having been restored with the help of a breeding programme. The habitats of the toads are partially protected by two Natura 2000 sites, established especially for the species.

Management of the pondscape for the European Fire-bellied Toad is aimed at improving and enlarging both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, as well as preserving genetic variability of the remaining populations. Thanks to several projects financed by local and international (EU LIFE Programme) funders, over 80 ponds have been created or restored since the 1990s. In addition, on Avernakø nearly 35 ha of arable land has been permanently transformed to meadows where fertilisers, pesticides and soil treatments are not used.

Creation and restoration of ponds in clusters supports habitat connectivity and increases the diversity of aquatic habitats. Also, municipalities and the Danish Nature Agency have helped farmers start cattle grazing by financing fencing of the meadows. Grazing with the right species and at the correct density is a key factor in maintaining the habitats in favourable conditions for amphibians.

As the local communities of the pondscape became familiar with the species, this success story has contributed to an increase in public environmental awareness and knowledge. Bombina bombina is also used for marketing of local tourist attractions (e.g. guided tours to see and listen to calling toads).

<figure><img src="image_284.png" /><figcaption>Bombina bombina © Marek Szczepanek</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_285.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_286.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_287.png" /></figure>
# CONSERVATION OF LAKE LITTORAL PONDS FOR PROMOTION OF BIRD COMMUNITIES (TURKEY)

## PONDSCAPE LAKE MOGAN (DIKKUYRUK)

<figure><img src="image_288.png" /></figure>

### IDENTITY CARD

**Pondscape area:** 1.8 km²
15-20 ponds (6.8 ha of water surface)

**Water bird species richness:** 83

**Dominant landcover:**

- pondscape: nature reserve

- surrounding environment: peri-urban and rural

**Bioclimatic zone:** Central-Anatolian cold arid steppe climate

<figure><img src="image_289.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_290.png" /></figure>

The Lake Mogan pondscape includes several littoral ponds that were formed by decreasing water levels after a major floodgate was built upstream in 2015. This pondscape is a key element in the conservation of the lake's bird community on a wider geographical scale. Indeed, Lake Mogan is identified as an 'Important Bird Area' (IBA) in Turkey, with around 249 bird species identified in the region (83 species of water birds). The lake, and especially the pondscape, provide habitat for breeding Squacco Heron (Ardeola ralloides), Red-crested Pochard (Netta rufina), Ferruginous Duck (Aythya nyroca; Near-threatened on the global IUCN red list) and White-headed Duck (Oxyura leucocephala; Globally Endangered on IUCN red list).

Besides the important bird community, the area is especially rich in other groups (amphibians, reptiles, mammals), although the invertebrate community requires further study. The area also hosts large populations of the endemic plant Centaurea tchihatcheffii (Critically Endangered on the IUCN red list), which is associated with wetlands that dry out in spring and summer. It is found throughout the steppes and pastures of southern Ankara towards the Konya Plain.

The pondscape is part of the Gölbaşı Special Environmental Protection Area (Gölbaşı SEPA), which was established in 1992 to curb the urbanisation of the peri-urban area of Ankara and to protect and conserve the area's high biodiversity value. Its recent management plan includes several measures that target the protection of biodiversity; the pondscape is declared a 'Sensitive A' zone (requiring absolute protection of reedbeds and ponds). The implemented measures include:

- Prohibition of the construction of closed areas, excavation and filling.

- Prohibition of fishing.

- Removal of existing tourism facilities.

- Monitoring and recording of breeding bird species.

- Closing bird breeding areas to human activities during the breeding period.

- Monitoring the plant Centaurea tchihatcheffii, and protection of key population of this species by fencing.

This success story illustrates the large benefit brought by a lake littoral pondscape that sustains and promotes regional freshwater biodiversity.

<figure><img src="image_291.png" /><figcaption>▲ Aythya nyroca © Moretta Tabaccata</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_292.png" /></figure>

© METU

<figure><img src="image_293.png" /><figcaption>Oxyura leucocephala © Aissa Djamel Filali</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_294.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_295.png" /></figure>
# PONDSCAPES AND CLEAN-WATER PONDS ARE VITAL FOR MAINTAINING FRESHWATER BIODIVERSITY (UNITED KINGDOM)

## PONDSCAPE WFF

<figure><img src="image_296.png" /></figure>

### IDENTITY CARD

**Pondscape area:** 30 km²
123 ponds (4.6 ha of water surface)

**Aquatic plant species richness:** 86

**Dominant landcover:**
pondscape: agriculture

**Surrounding environment:** agriculture

**Bioclimatic zone:** Oceanic

<figure><img src="image_297.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_298.png" /></figure>

The Water Friendly Farming (WFF) project is located in the English Midlands. It aims to investigate the effectiveness of different techniques that could support biodiversity and ecosystem functions in the landscape.

**PONDERFUL** research showed that ponds are vital for maintaining freshwater biodiversity in this agricultural region, when assessed using aquatic plants. Across the 30 km² area, surveys of all waterbodies (streams, flushes, ditches, ponds) showed that almost all (95%) of the region's wetland plants were found in ponds, compared to 33% in ditches and 40% in streams. If all ponds were lost, more than half of the wetland plant species (56%) would be lost from the area. These findings highlight how important it is to maintain networks of ponds if we are to retain freshwater biodiversity in the countryside.

Twenty new clean-water ponds were created in 2013 by the Water Friendly Farming project. These new ponds have proved to be exceptionally important for regional freshwater biodiversity. Ten years after their creation, the clean-water ponds supported seven regionally rare species, including five that are not present in any other waterbodies. Overall, these ponds increased the wetland plant richness in their catchment by 16%. Richness of regionally rare species increased by 83%.

The critical factors for creating clean-water ponds were:

* Ensuring that the land around the ponds was not polluted: the best ponds were surrounded by unimproved grazed grassland or woodland.

* Making sure that the ponds did not have a stream or drain inflow, since these usually bring pollutants and silt into ponds.

These results emphasise the great value of creating new clean-water ponds and the need to share practical guidance.

<figure><img src="image_299.png" /></figure>

© Freshwater Habitats Trust

<figure><img src="image_300.png" /></figure>

© Freshwater Habitats Trust

<figure><img src="image_301.png" /></figure>
## 6.2 PONDSCAPES AS NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS FOR FLOOD-RISK REDUCTION

# IMPLEMENTING A POND IN A PUBLIC PARK FOR STORMWATER PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT (DENMARK)

### PONDSCAPE LYSTRUP

<figure><img src="image_302.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_303.png" /></figure>

#### IDENTITY CARD

**Pondscape area:** 5 km²
18 ponds (2.1 ha of water surface)

**Cumulative volume of water:** 18,600 m³
But the pond buffer areas allow storage of a much larger volume during storm events

**Dominant landcover:** residential (55%) and grassland (40%)

**Bioclimatic zone:** Continental

<figure><img src="image_304.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_305.png" /></figure>

After several severe storms caused enormous damage, Aarhus Municipality decided that Lystrup should become a pilot project for the implementation of several nature-based solutions (rainwater retention basins, dykes and swales). A demonstration project was established by Aarhus University. This involved residents in both the design and the implementation phase, and combined climate adaptation and the creation of habitat for biodiversity. The aim was also to increase recreational use and the stakeholders' involvement in the maintenance of the area post-construction.

The demonstration project, covering about six hectares in a large urban park in the middle of Lystrup (Hovmarksparken), was a partnership including the local community, a school, the local council (the Aarhus City Council), a water utility company (Aarhus Vand), and scientists (Aarhus University).

A large retention pond, swales and dykes were constructed in what was previously a species-poor grassland. Additionally, a cattle-grazing NGO was established to manage the area, give guided wildlife tours and develop site-specific play activities in parallel to the construction work.

The transformation of the park also required change in its management through the integration of biodiversity objectives: re-scheduling the mowing regime and the introduction of cattle grazing.

The retention pond contributes to biodiversity, especially for amphibians: Smooth Newt (Lissotriton vulgaris) and Common Frog (Rana temporaria) are already breeding there, and the protected Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) is also expected to use these habitats in the future.

The effectiveness of these ponds as a nature-based solution has been demonstrated during several storms. The new pond and associated dykes and swales have reduced damage to property and infrastructure.

<figure><img src="image_306.png" /></figure>

© Aarhus University

<figure><img src="image_307.png" /></figure>

© Aarhus University

<figure><img src="image_308.png" /></figure>

© Aarhus University

<figure><img src="image_309.png" /></figure>
# A PONDSCAPE FOR MITIGATING FLOODS (TURKEY)

## PONDSCAPE GÖLBAŞI DÜZLÜĞÜ

<figure><img src="image_310.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_311.png" /></figure>

### IDENTITY CARD

**Pondscape area:** 0.4 km²
30 ponds (1.7 ha of water surface)

**Volume of water stocked during a flood event:** 1 million m³

**Dominant landcover:**

- pondscape: wetland

- surrounding environment: urban

**Bioclimatic zone:** Central-Anatolian cold arid steppe climate

<figure><img src="image_312.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_313.png" /></figure>

The Gölbaşı Düzlüğü pondscape used to be part of upstream Lake Eymir. It was created by building motorways and lowering water levels within Lakes Mogan and Eymir. This resulted in the formation of 30 ponds within a dense reed belt in the wetland area between both lakes. The water from upstream Lake Mogan goes through a concrete-lined channel, crosses the Gölbaşı Düzlüğü pondscape, and finally enters Lake Eymir. The pondscape has a very high water-storage capacity of approximately 1 million m³. This large volume makes the pondscape very effective at preventing downstream flooding. This feature makes it an excellent example of green infrastructure in an urban area.

The upstream Lake Mogan overflows periodically due to heavy rain, particularly in the spring, damaging the surroundings. For example, flooding in 2011 and 2012 caused severe damage to Gölbaşı district and its settlements. The 'Ankara Basin Flood Management Plan', published by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, demonstrated the impact of flooding events. Based on that, Gölbaşı Düzlüğü can accommodate severe flood water (occurring once every 500 years). A hydrological model of the Gölbaşı Düzlüğü pondscape was produced to investigate the flood prevention capacity of the area. This pondscape has the potential to retain excess water for a significant period of time, allowing for natural drainage and helping to protect Ankara.

Since the ponds are surrounded by dense reeds, they provide high-quality shelter and breeding areas for birds. Almost all species that breed in the ponds of Lake Mogan pondscape also breed here (see Lake Morgan DEMO site above). In recent years, efforts have also been made to restore and conserve the pondscape by utilising its potential through a People's Park project. The pondscape has high potential for improving the wellbeing of local people.

<figure><img src="image_314.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_315.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_316.png" /><figcaption>View of the pondscape and flooded areas around Lake Mogan © METU & O. Çağrı Bozkurt</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_317.png" /></figure>
## 6.3 PONDSCAPES AS PURIFICATION SYSTEMS

### PONDS FOR TREATING AGRICULTURAL RUN-OFF

#### PONDSCAPE BOIS DE JUSSY

<figure><img src="image_318.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_319.png" /></figure>

**IDENTITY CARD**

**Pondscape area:** 610 ha
69 ponds and 300 small pools
(3 ha of water surface area in total)

**Dominant landcover:**

- pondscape : woodland

- surrounding environment: agriculture

**Bioclimatic zone:** Continental (oceanic influence)

The NBS is located by the yellow circle.

<figure><img src="image_320.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_321.png" /></figure>

The Bois de Jussy is a pondscape rich in diversified waterbodies (60 ponds from 100 m² to 5000 m², and 300 small pools 1-2 to 50 years old) where the biodiversity has developed successfully, in particular amphibians, dragonflies and aquatic vegetation. A forest surrounding the ponds ensures an effective buffer area. Nevertheless, the catchment also includes agricultural fields, with resulting pollution from nutrients and pesticides entering the pondscape through small ditches.

To address this problem, and to purify the inflows, the site managers recently implemented three new ponds as NBS in the pondscape. As illustrated in the figure, the polluted water (yellow arrow) is intercepted by a first well-vegetated pond before flowing into a second and, later, a third pond. The purified water (blue arrow) then flows downstream towards the pondscape where it will feed other waterbodies. The monitoring of the water quality and also of the biodiversity proved the efficiency of this NBS. For example, three threatened amphibian species (Bombina variegata, Triturus cristatus and Rana dalmatina) breed there, along with a rich invertebrate community (including dragonflies).

This type of local scale NBS can also be implemented efficiently on a larger scale, also for water treatment in small villages. A success story is for example related in Ireland (Co Waterford), where a set of five large ponds treat the effluents of 500 residents of the village of Dunhill, while being at the same time a hotspot of biodiversity.[15]

<figure><img src="image_322.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_323.png" /></figure>

▲ The polluted water (yellow arrow) is intercepted by a first well-vegetated pond, before flowing into a second and later a third pond. The purified water (blue arrow) then flows downstream towards the pondscape where it will feed other waterbodies.

<figure><img src="image_324.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_325.png" /><figcaption>Cordulia aenea (Odonata) © Julie Fahy</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_326.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_327.png" /></figure>
## 6.4 PONDSCAPES WITH AN OPTIMISED CARBON BALANCE

### PONDSCAPES AS NBS WITH AN OPTIMISED CARBON BALANCE. CLEAN WATER PONDS ARE CARBON FRIENDLY: WATER FRIENDLY FARMING (WFF).

#### PONDSCAPE Water Friendly Farming

<figure><img src="image_328.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_329.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_330.png" /></figure>

**IDENTITY CARD**

**Pondscape area:** 30 km²
250 ponds (4.6 ha of water surface)

**Dominant landcover:**
pondscape: agriculture
surrounding environment: agriculture

**Bioclimatic zone:** Oceanic

**Water quality**

- Total nitrogen mean value: 2.3 mgN/L

- Total phosphorus mean value: 0.12 mgP/L

- Chlorophyll a mean value: 15 µg/L

<figure><img src="image_331.png" /></figure>

1 km

Lat. 52.616455°

Lon. -0.905035°

<figure><img src="image_332.png" /></figure>

Whatever the societal challenge addressed, minimising carbon footprint should be an objective when using any ponds or pondscape as NBS. This objective can even be the central target for some pondscapes. PONDERFUL research involving measurements made in 400 ponds across Europe, Turkey and Uruguay found that the key factor allowing an optimised carbon balance (balance between sequestration and emissions) is the water quality of the ponds. Indeed, a pond with good water quality, particularly near-natural nutrient levels and well-oxygenated water, will emit a low amount of methane (CH4), a greenhouse gas acknowledged to have a strong warming impact. This gas is usually produced in large quantities in ponds of low water quality, for example in highly hypertrophic ponds that are largely anoxic.

The UK DEMO-site Water Friendly Farming (WFF) is a success story in the creation of clean water ponds. This case study demonstrates that even in areas dominated by agriculture it is possible to have high quality ponds. The water quality measurements made during the PONDERFUL project showed relatively low values of nutrients (Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen) and also low values of Chlorophyll a (an indicator of primary production). Such ponds are expected to be particularly climate-friendly, with low methane emissions.

As set out in this handbook, the critical factors for creating clean water ponds are: (i) ensuring that the land around the ponds is not polluted: the best ponds are surrounded by unimproved grazed grassland or woodland (ii) making sure that the ponds do not have a stream or drain inflow, since these usually bring pollutants and silt into ponds.

<figure><img src="image_333.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_334.png" /></figure>

Greenhouse gases have been intensively sampled in 250 ponds in the PONDERFUL project. Such floating chambers catch the bubbles of methane emitted in the anoxic sediments of the pond. © HES-SO

One of the newly created clean water ponds. The drainage area is free from polluted water and the runoff has a low content in nutrients.

© Freshwater Habitats Trust

<figure><img src="image_335.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_336.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_337.png" /></figure>
## 6.5 PONDSCAPES FOR FOOD PRODUCTION

# LOW INTENSITY CATTLE PRODUCTION CO-EXISTS WITH AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY (URUGUAY)

### PONDSCAPE URUGUAY

<figure><img src="image_338.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_339.png" /></figure>

**IDENTITY CARD**

**Pondscape area:** 175,000 km²

**Number and density of ponds:**

170,000 tajamares (ponds)

**Densest region:** Canelones, 4 ponds/ha

**Dominant landcover in the pondscapes:** cattle grazing (on natural grassland or pastures) and agriculture

**Bioclimatic zone:** temperate grasslands, humid subtropical climate.

<figure><img src="image_340.png" /></figure>

The different departments where pondscapes were studied: in red by the **PONDERFUL** team at CURE, in black, by a team at CENUR Litoral Norte.

In Uruguay, rural ponds (tajamares) are mainly constructed for watering cattle and for small-scale irrigation. Their numbers have been increasing dramatically since the early 2000s and this is associated with the intensification of agriculture (crops and livestock). Depending on the agricultural production, tajamares are located in basins of varying land use intensity (e.g. intensive cattle production on seeded pastures versus extensive cattle production on natural grasslands).

Evidence from **PONDERFUL**, in addition to other studies, showed that ponds and pondscapes located in areas with low land use intensity have better water quality, lower risk of cyanobacterial blooms, higher aquatic biodiversity, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. At the local and landscape levels, ponds created in areas of low intensity land use can reduce the negative effects of agricultural intensification on water quality and biodiversity. Pond management is also important as the presence of diverse riparian vegetation reduces erosion and nutrient inputs, and, at the same time, provides habitat for native fauna and flora. Fencing the ponds to prevent direct access by livestock also contributes to better water quality and higher biodiversity; it is particularly beneficial for aquatic plants and amphibians.

This success story evidences how cattle production, when carried out at low intensity, enables coexistence with aquatic biodiversity. Applying environmental guidelines to the management of rural ponds also promotes positive effects and increases the benefits for people, nature and livestock.

<figure><img src="image_341.png" /><figcaption>▲ Nymphoides humboldtiana © UDELAR</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_342.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_343.png" /></figure>
## 6.6 PONDSCAPES AS NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS FOR TOURISM AND HEALTH

### CO-EXISTENCE OF NATURAL HABITATS AND TOURISM (SPAIN)

#### PONDSCAPE LA PLETERA

<figure><img src="image_344.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_345.png" /></figure>

**IDENTITY CARD**

**Pondscape area:** 0.6 km²
20 ponds (33 ha of water surface)

**Number of people visiting the
pondscape (number/year):** 126,000

**Dominant landcover:**

- pondscape: coastal salt marshes

- surrounding environment: tourist
residential estate, agriculture

**Bioclimatic zone:** Mediterranean

<figure><img src="image_346.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_347.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_348.png" /></figure>

The pondscape of La Pletera is located in the Costa Brava (Catalonia), a popular tourist destination, near the Mediterranean seaside resort of L'Estartit. This saltmarsh and the 20 associated ponds were created in 2014 when the old settlement was replaced by a fully functional saltmarsh ecosystem. Restoration actions included removal of paved streets, a promenade and dams.

The site is now home to 47 aquatic plant species, 104 water birds and 17 families of invertebrates. Relatively few species, which are adapted to the variable temperatures, salinity and nutrient composition, are able to colonise these salt marshes. These species, however, have a very reduced distribution due to the destruction and urbanisation of these coastal habitats. With the presence of these rare species, these ecosystems make an important contribution to regional diversity. The creation of several new lagoons has helped the conservation of the endemic Iberian Toothcarp (Aphanius iberus). The Kentish Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), a bird that builds a cryptic nest on the sand, has also benefitted from the restoration measures.

Today, the area is managed by The Natural Park (Parc Natural del Montgrí, les Illes Medes i el Baix Ter) board and the Town Council of Torroella de Montgrí-L'Estartit. Examples of management include: controlling and adapting public access, maintenance of infrastructures (paths, viewpoints, signage, etc.), management of protected species, environmental education and other outreach activities. There are peripheral footpaths and the public has access to the beach, but not to the dunes or the salt marsh, in order to prevent human pressure in these natural areas.

At this site, biodiversity conservation has proved to be compatible with high visitor numbers. Approximately 100,000 people (walkers and cyclists) visit the pondscape each year for leisure, tourism and nature-watching, using the peripheral footpaths and the viewpoints.

<figure><img src="image_349.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_350.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_351.png" /></figure>
# SAFE MOSQUITO CONTROL IN TOURISTIC ZONES (SPAIN)

## PONDSCAPE LA PLETERA

<figure><img src="image_352.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_353.png" /></figure>

### IDENTITY CARD

**Pondscape area:** 60 ha

20 ponds surrounded by salt marsh vegetation

**Number of people visiting the
pondscape (number/year):** 126,000

**Dominant landcover:**

- pondscape: coastal salt marshes

- surrounding environment: tourist
residential estate, agriculture

**Bioclimatic zone:** Mediterranean

<figure><img src="image_354.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_355.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_356.png" /></figure>

The pondscape at La Pletera is a restored natural habitat located in an area with high tourism pressure on the Spanish Mediterranean shoreline (Costa Brava).

In natural well-preserved ponds, predators (e.g. dragonflies, water bugs, beetles, amphibians, fish) usually control the density of larval mosquitos. Mosquitos thrive in artificial or altered habitats, as in other aquatic habitats where predators are scarce. They can cause health problems and economic losses in areas where tourism is one of the most important economic activities, such as the Costa Brava coastline, where salt marshes (such as La Pletera) are very close to campsites and tourist accommodation.

There are salt marsh mosquitos adapted to temporarily flooded natural areas. Females lay their eggs on dry sediment, where a subsequent flooding event causes the hatching of one single generation of larvae. The simultaneous appearance of millions of individuals after a sudden mosquito emergence strongly affects the economy of tourist areas beside salt marshes.

Active management at La Pletera has proved particularly effective at limiting mosquito numbers. A mosquito control service (Servei de Control de Mosquits de la Badia de Roses i el Baix Ter) oversees and controls mosquito emergence by applying an antilarval biological insecticide (Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti)) on the water after larvae emergence. Bti is a bacterial protein crystal that degrades within a few hours of use. It is safe for most of the aquatic species found in the saltmarsh.

Vegetation monitoring and mapping has enabled the Servei de Control de Mosquits de la Badia de Roses i el Baix Ter to target the application of Bti (and to avoid widespread use). In a salt marsh, small changes in topography have a strong effect on vegetation distribution, which can change dramatically with only a difference of a few centimetres in elevation. The ground height will affect how long the soil is submerged when water levels are high, which in turn dictates which plants can survive there. The strong relationship between flooding, water level, mosquito hatching and vegetation makes the use of vegetation maps very effective for mosquito control.

<figure><img src="image_357.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_358.png" /><figcaption>The vegetation map as a tool for the mosquito monitoring (green colours indicate areas where mosquito larvae are frequent) © Xavier Quintana</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_359.png" /><figcaption>Spreading Bti in targeted areas of the pondscape
© Xavier Quintana</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_360.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_361.png" /></figure>
## 6.7 PONDSCAPES FOR EDUCATION

# DEVELOPMENT OF A POND AND WATER EDUCATION CENTRE IN THE MIDDLE OF A MUNICIPALITY (GERMANY)

### PONDSCAPE SCHÖNEICHE

<figure><img src="image_362.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_363.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_364.png" /></figure>

#### IDENTITY CARD

**Pondscape area:** 16 km²
33 ponds (3.2 ha of water surface)

**Number of people visiting the
pondscape (number/year):** 20,000

**Dominant landcover:**

- pondscape : grassland, pasture

- surrounding environment: agriculture and urban

**Bioclimatic zone:** Continental

<figure><img src="image_365.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_366.png" /></figure>

This peri-urban pondscape is situated near Berlin (Germany), in the centre of a town (Schöneiche) with about 15,000 inhabitants. The ponds are ancient kettle holes, created by glaciation 10,000-12,000 years ago. Around 90% of the pondscape is accessible to the public and visitor numbers are therefore high (17,000 visitors/year). The local NGO 'Naturschutzaktiv Schöneiche' has developed the Kleiner Spreewaldpark as a centre for education and inspiration. Local people, in particular families, are attracted by footpaths along ponds and waterways, by rich wildlife, and by activity opportunities (e.g. a children's playground).

Information boards have been installed around the site to educate visitors. The site is also used for educational school visits. Being close to residential areas is a big benefit because people visit the site regularly, identify with the site and are aware of environmental change.

The impacts of global warming and change of land use on water availability in the area are directly visible from the drastic annual changes of water level in Kleiner Spreewaldpark. Eighteen of the 33 ponds are now permanently dry. This may motivate local people to engage in action to prevent further loss of local ponds.

These types of nature-based solution are ideally implemented where natural ponds can be found in urban areas. Being close to residential areas means that local people visit the education centre frequently and acquire a deeper understanding of annual changes occurring in the ponds and the threats they face.

<figure><img src="image_367.png" /></figure>

© Paula Mehner

<figure><img src="image_368.png" /></figure>

© Paula Mehner

<figure><img src="image_369.png" /></figure>

© Paula Mehner

<figure><img src="image_370.png" /></figure>
# A PEOPLE'S PARK PROJECT NEAR AN URBAN AREA (TURKEY)

## PONDSCAPE GÖLBAŞI DÜZLÜĞÜ

<figure><img src="image_371.png" /></figure>

### IDENTITY CARD

**Pondscape area:** 0.4 ha
30 ponds (1.8 ha of water surface)

**Number of people visiting the pondscape (number/year):** 140,000

**Dominant landcover:**

- pondscape: nature reserve

- surrounding environment: urban

**Bioclimatic zone:** Central-Anatolian cold arid steppe climate

<figure><img src="image_372.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_373.png" /></figure>

The pondscape Gölbaşı Düzlüğü consists of 30 ponds surrounded by urban infrastructure and separated from each other by dense reeds. Currently, a People's Park project, including the restoration of the pondscape, is being created in an area of approximately 60 hectares. With this restoration project, it is aimed to protect and support local biodiversity, to increase the public's benefit from and awareness of the region, and to serve as an exemplary model for green infrastructure to improve flood resilience.

The project's primary aim is to find protection measures for Centaurea tchihatcheffii, considered 'Critically Endangered' (CR) according to the IUCN criteria. Additionally, the project aims to identify other species that are threatened or endangered, as well as sensitive areas and potential threats to protected areas. A total of 494 plant species were identified within the larger area of the Gölbaşı Special Environmental Protection Area, including three species of amphibians, 12 species of reptiles, 83 species of birds, and 25 species of mammals. Furthermore, the project includes activities such as protection and monitoring efforts in the region, collecting solid waste around the lake and ponds, and educating residents and schools.

This success story evidences the potential of pondscapes to be used by people for leisure and nature education, while promoting its biodiversity.

<figure><img src="image_374.png" /><figcaption>© Golbasi Duzlugu</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_375.png" /><figcaption>Orthetrum cancellatum © Charles J. Sharp</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_376.png" /><figcaption>Centaurea tchihatcheffi © Yanardoner Sevgi</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_377.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_378.png" /><figcaption>© Golbasi Duzlugu</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_379.png" /></figure>
## 6.8 PONDSCAPES AS NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS FOR SUPPORTING IDENTITIES

### TEMPORARY PONDS, LOCAL IDENTITY AND RECREATION (SPAIN)

#### PONDSCAPE ALBERA

<figure><img src="image_380.png" /></figure>

**IDENTITY CARD**

**Pondscape area:** 25 km²
23 ponds (29.8 ha of water surface)

**Number of people visiting the pondscape**
(number/year): 72,500

**Number of stakeholders involved in cultural**
**heritage protection:** 8

**Dominant landcover:** Mediterranean scrub

**Bioclimatic zone:** Mediterranean

<figure><img src="image_381.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_382.png" /></figure>

This group of 241 wet depressions and 23 ponds is located at the foot of the Albera mountains. All the ponds at this site are very shallow and temporary, some with relatively short hydroperiods (from around two to nine months). In especially dry years with low rainfall, all the ponds can remain completely dry. A number of the ponds are priority habitats as defined by the EU Habitat Directive: '3170 Mediterranean temporary ponds' and '3130 Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea'.

This region has been inhabited for thousands of years, and the local community of Albera has a strong cultural identity which is linked to the landscape, including the many ponds and flooded depressions. The region has many historical monuments, including 24 menhirs and dolmens (standing stones, or megaliths, dating from 3,500-1,800 BCE), seven Romanic churches (9th to 12th century) and hundreds of kilometres of stone walls. For the inhabitants of this region, ponds and their Romanic and megalithic heritage are essential components of their identity. There are several organisations which restore, maintain and disseminate information about this heritage (e.g. Empordanès Excursionist Club, Art and Work Group, Jonquerenc Excursionist Club, Cantallops Cultural Action Association).

Some megalithic monuments were assigned names related to ponds (e.g. Menhir Estanys I, Dolmen Estanys II). Similarly, one Romanic church (Santa Cristina de Canadal) shares its name with two ponds (Canadal Petit pond, Canadal Gran pond). Moreover, the most popular walking trail in the area is called the 'Itinerari dels estanys' (i.e. itinerary of lakes/ ponds), showing how central ponds are to the cultural heritage of the Albera region.

<figure><img src="image_383.png" /></figure>

© J.M. Dacosta

<figure><img src="image_384.png" /></figure>

© Lluís Benejam

<figure><img src="image_385.png" /></figure>

© HES-SO

<figure><img src="image_386.png" /></figure>
## 6.9 LAND USE MANAGEMENT IN THE PONDSCAPE AS A NATURE-BASED SOLUTION FOR IMPROVING HABITAT QUALITY

# LAND USE MANAGEMENT IN THE PONDSCAPE FOR REDUCING AGRICULTURE IMPACTS (SPAIN)

### PONDSCAPE ALBERA

<figure><img src="image_387.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_388.png" /></figure>

**IDENTITY CARD**

**Pondscape area:** 25 km²
23 ponds (29.8 ha of water surface)

**Number of species on the Annex II+IV of the Habitat Directive:** 9

**Dominant landcover:**
Mediterranean scrub

**Bioclimatic zone:** Mediterranean

<figure><img src="image_389.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_390.png" /></figure>

The Albera pondscape consists of 23 main ponds and 241 floodable depressions with different degrees of flooding, all of them of natural origin. All ponds are very shallow and temporary with relatively short hydroperiods (from around 2 to 9 months). Some of these ponds are priority habitats under the European Habitats Directive: '3170 Mediterranean temporary ponds' and '3130 Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea'.

The conservation status of ponds is normally heavily influenced by the land use of both the pondscape and its catchment. From 2010, the Institució Alt Empordanesa per a la Defensa i Estudi de la Natura (IAEDEN), an environmental NGO, established agreements with 29 private landowners in the Albera pondscape to reduce agricultural land use intensity. This covered 14 hectares of the pondscape. In this collaboration framework, low-impact agricultural management is promoted and different projects for environmental conservation are developed. For example, vineyards and olive groves are cultivated using 'ecological techniques' without herbicides and insecticides and grasslands are scythed rather than being used as cow pasture. The aim of the collaboration is to conserve the natural cycle of flora and avoid extra nutrients in ponds. This allows for more 'pond friendly' land use in several areas of the Albera pondscape.

<figure><img src="image_391.png" /></figure>

© Lluís Benejam

<figure><img src="image_392.png" /></figure>

© Sandra Brucet

<figure><img src="image_393.png" /></figure>
# ACTIVE MANAGEMENT OF A PONDSCAPE FOR BIODIVERSITY WITH MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS (BELGIUM)

## PONDSCAPE GETTE VALLEI

<figure><img src="image_394.png" /></figure>

### IDENTITY CARD

**Pondscape area:** 4.79 km²
41 ponds (0.8 ha of water surface)

**Aquatic plant species richness:** 59

**Dominant landcover:**

- pondscape: woodland and small landscape features, including hedges, agricultural plots and grassland

- surrounding environment: predominantly agriculture with small forest patches

**Bioclimatic zone:** Atlantic

<figure><img src="image_395.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_396.png" /></figure>

The Gete Vallei is one of the last large open spaces in Flanders. The pondscape has largely been protected from intensive agriculture and urbanisation. The Gete Vallei pondscape is characterised by its unique biodiversity.

This pondscape has been managed for biodiversity conservation for several decades, with good results. The NGO Natuurpunt plays a key role in nature conservation in this region. The current management is largely organised by a team of local volunteers, which is supported by professionals from Natuurpunt. Natuurpunt owns pieces of land in the region, which are designated as nature reserves to protect them. These reserves are then managed following an approved management plan.

In addition, the NGO collaborates with local farmers and private landowners in the region to manage private land for the purpose of biodiversity conservation. Natuurpunt also aims to enlarge the area under formal protection by obtaining additional land to be designated as a nature reserve.

Management in this area targets both terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, and largely focuses on the maintenance of historical landscape elements, such as flower-rich grasslands, hedges, farmland ponds and semi-natural forest patches. Over the past decades, more than 20 small farmland ponds have been created to enhance aquatic habitat availability and connectivity. Existing ponds are periodically managed by dredging and cutting back shoreline vegetation. The long-lasting management efforts have proved to be successful in conserving biodiversity in the region, most notably the long-term maintenance of a large population of Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus).

<figure><img src="image_397.png" /></figure>

© HES-SO

<figure><img src="image_398.png" /></figure>

© Pieter Jan Alles

<figure><img src="image_399.png" /></figure>

© Pieter Jan Alles

<figure><img src="image_400.png" /></figure>
## 6.10 PUTTING A PONDSCAPE UNDER PROTECTION

### THE DESIGNATION OF A PONDSCAPE AS NATURE RESERVE (BELGIUM)

#### PONDSCAPE TOMMELEN

<figure><img src="image_401.png" /></figure>

**IDENTITY CARD**

**Pondscape area:** 0.18 km²
144 ponds (1.3 ha of water surface)

**Area protected (e.g. nature reserve):** 95%

**Dominant landcover:**

- pondscape: extensive grazing land with some forest patches

- surrounding environment: urban

**Bioclimatic zone:** Atlantic

<figure><img src="image_402.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_403.png" /></figure>

The Tommelen pondscape was created unintentionally by bombing during World War II. It was designated as a nature reserve in 2006. It is currently owned by the municipality of Hasselt and has been managed by the nature conservation NGO Natuurpunt (and local volunteers) since 1996.

The designation of the pondscape as a nature reserve (approximately 80% of the area is currently under protection status) has been a first major step in the effective protection of the pondscape. This also resulted in the creation of a management plan that targets biodiversity conservation and provides access to essential financing to maintain the pondscape. Part of the area is fenced from the public in order to reduce disturbance by visitors. The designation has also resulted in the creation of footpaths to make the area more accessible to local people. Tommelen is now an important green space in close proximity to the city, and is frequented by people for recreation and wildlife-watching.

Today, the site hosts an exceptionally rich amphibian community, including both the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) and the European Tree Frog (Hyla arborea).

<figure><img src="image_404.png" /><figcaption>▲ Hyla arborea © Wim Dirckx</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_405.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_406.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_407.png" /></figure>
## 6.11 MULTIFUNCTIONALITY AT THE PONDSCAPE LEVEL

### COMPLEMENTARITY OF POND TYPES AND FUNCTIONS IN A PONDSCAPE (SWITZERLAND)

#### PONDSCAPE RHÔNE GENEVOIS

<figure><img src="image_408.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_409.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_410.png" /></figure>

**IDENTITY CARD**

**Pondscape area:** 15 km²
46 ponds (13.3 ha of water surface)

**Dominant landcover:**
woodland and agriculture

**Bioclimatic zone:** Continental

<figure><img src="image_411.png" /></figure>

Between 1970 and 2018, 15 large ponds (ranging from 5,000 m² to 30,000 m²) as well as many medium- and small-sized ponds were created at this site. Some ponds have been dug to restore natural habitats on previously developed land and others to create new opportunities for recreation, such as swimming and fishing. They demonstrate the multiple roles a pondscape can play.

Separating ponds for nature from recreational ponds simultaneously promotes the protection of pond biodiversity and delivers numerous Nature's Contributions to People.

This is a landscape scale nature-based solution, with the implementation of a large set of smaller scale nature-based solution. These are several features for managing the flow of visitors, together with the full protection of several natural areas: footpaths, parking, barbecues, beaches, fences, pontoons for fishing and nature observatories. Outcomes for biodiversity are achieved by creating new habitats for target species (e.g. toads, swallows) and reintroducing threatened species (e.g. European Pond Turtle). Populations are monitored to measure success. Bird-watching is also promoted in several locations.

Factors which have helped make this site so successful include:

* Designing ponds for a specific purpose, rather than trying to create multifunctional ponds.

* Implementing a management plan and controlling the flow of visitors.

* Encouraging collaboration between local authorities, NGOs and private consultancies.

This pondscape is a good example of using nature-based solutions to enhance biodiversity, improve human health and mitigate against a changing climate. This type of nature-based solution can potentially be included in local strategies and policies and would benefit from financial subsidies. Depending on the local geology, some costs can even be offset by selling materials extracted on site (e.g. gravel).

<figure><img src="image_412.png" /></figure>

© Beat Oertli

<figure><img src="image_413.png" /></figure>

© Adrienne Sörder

<figure><img src="image_414.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_415.png" /></figure>

© Dariuskrs
# 7. Further reading and practical resources

Arnaboldi, F., Alban, N., 2007. La gestion des mares forestières de plaine. Guide technique de l'Office National des Forêts.

Biggs, J., Hoyle, S., Matos, I., Oertli, B., Teixeira, J. (2024). Using ponds and pondscapes as nature-based solutions: Guidance for policy makers on the use of ponds and pondscapes as nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation, EU Horizon 2020 Ponderful project, CIIMAR. www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13847395

Biggs, J., Williams, P., 2024. Ponds, Pools and Puddles. HarperCollins. New Naturalist Series Volume: 148. 614pp.

Biggs, J., Williams, P., Withfield, M., Fox, G., Nicolet P., 2000. Ponds, pools and lochans. Guidance on good practice in the management and creation of small waterbodies in Scotland. SEPA. 78 pp.
https://www.europeanponds.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ponds_pools_lochans_2000.pdf

Boothby, J. (Ed), 1997. British Pond Landscape. Action for Protection and Enhancement. Proceedings of the UK Conference of the Pond Life Project, University College Chester.

Boothby, J. (Ed), 1999. Ponds & Pond Landscapes of Europe, Proceedings of the International Conference of the Pond Life Project, Maastricht.

Brönmark, C, Hansson, L.A, 2000. The Biology of Lakes and Ponds. New York, Oxford University Press.

Caramujo, M.J., Cunha, C., de Carvalho, C.C.C.R, Luís, C., 2012. Presos no Charco – Biodiversidade de crustáceos em charcos temporários. Universidade de Lisboa.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308764368_Presos_no Charco_Biodiversidade_de_crustaceos em_charcos_temporarios

Davidson, T., Levi, Eti E., Bucak, T., Girard, L., Robin, J., 2024. Report on carbon sequestration in ponds. The balance between greenhouse gas emissions and carbon burial. EU Horizon project PONDERFUL

Decrey, M., Beytrison, U., Bourgeois, J.-P., Consuegra, D., Demierre, E., Gallinelli, P., Hornung, J., Sordet, A., Vecsernyés, Z., Oertli, B., 2022. Guide pratique pour l'optimisation des services écosystémiques des plans d'eau urbains.
https://campus.hesge.ch/conforto/?p=258

Dick, J., Carruthers-Jones, J., Carver, S., Dobel, A.J., & Miller, J.D., 2020. How are nature-based solutions contributing to priority societal challenges surrounding human well-being in the United Kingdom: a systematic map. Environmental Evidence, Vol. 9, pp. 1–21.
https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-020-00208-6

Dumitru, A., Wendling, L. (Eds), 2021. Evaluating the impact of nature-based solutions – A handbook for practitioners. European Commission. Luxembourg.
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/244577

Dumitru, A., Wendling, L. (Eds), 2021. Evaluating the Impact of Nature-Based Solutions: Appendix of Methods. European Commission. Luxembourg.
https://repository.uel.ac.uk/item/896vx

Engelhardt, W., 1996. Was lebt in Tümpel, Bach und Weiher? Pflanzen und Tiere unsere Gewässer. 14 Aufl. Stuttgart: Franckh-Cosmos.

EPCN, 2008. The Pond Manifesto.
https://www.europeanponds.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/EPCN-manifesto_english.pdf

<figure><img src="image_416.png" /></figure>
Figueras-Anton, A., Tiwari, A., Briggs, L., Rasmussen, M., 2024. Development of standards for commercialization and 'best practice' design code. Amphi International Aps.

Freshwater Habitats Trust, 2011. Pond Creation Toolkit.

https://freshwaterhabitats.org.uk/advice-resources/pond-creation-hub/pond-creation-toolkit/

Frossard, P.-A., Oertli, B., 2015. Manuel de gestion. Recommandations pour la gestion des mares urbaines pour favoriser la biodiversité. Hepia, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280935771_Manuel_de_gestion_Recommandations_pour_la_gestion_des_mares_urbaines_pour_favoriser_la_biodiversite

Glandt, D., 2006. Praktische Kleingewässerkunde. Laurenti-Verlag, Bielefeld.

Grillas, P., Gauthier, P., Yavercovski, N., Perennou, C., 2004. Mediterranean temporary pools, Volume 1 – Issues relating to conservation, functioning and management. Tour du Valat, France.

Grillas, P., Gauthier, P., Yavercovski, N., Perennou, C., 2004. Mediterranean temporary pools, Volume 2 – Species information sheets. Tour du Valat, France.

Herteman, M., Norden, M., Vandersarren, G., 2023. Guide Technique de Restauration et Entretien des Mares des Antilles. Rema Project.

https://www.uicn-fr-ressources.fr/rema/guide-technique-rema-2023.pdf

Hoffman R.L., Tyler T.J., Larson G.L., Adams M.J., Wente W., Galvan S., 2005. Sampling protocol for monitoring abiotic and biotic characteristics of mountain ponds and lakes: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods.

https://www.europeanponds.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/USGSSamplingProtocol2005.pdf

IGB, 2023. Small standing water bodies as biodiversity hotspots – particularly valuable, but highly endangered. Options for action, protection and restoration. IGB Dossier, Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin.

https://www.igb-berlin.de/sites/default/files/media-files/download-files/IGB_Dossier_Small_standing_water_bodies_2023.pdf

IUCN, 2020. IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. A User-friendly Framework for the Verification, Design and Scaling up of NbS. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland.

https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2020-020-En.pdf

Lefeuvre, J.C. (Dir.), 2010. Carrières, biodiversité et fonctionnement des hydrosystèmes. Buchet-Chastel, Ecologie. 381 pp.

https://www.europeanponds.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/carrières_bio_2010.pdf

LIFE Charcos, 2018. Temporary Ponds: a natural habitat to be protected!

https://lifecharcos.lpn.pt/downloads/paginas/863/anexos/en.pdf

Macan TT., 1973. Ponds and Lakes. Crane, Russak & Company, Inc. New York.

Oertli, B., Decrey, M., Beytrison, U., Bourgeois, J.-P., Consuegra, D., Camponovo, R., Demierre, E., Gallinelli, P., Sordet, A., & Vecsernyés, Z., 2023. Etangs urbains. Un nouveau guide permet d'optimiser leurs multiples services écosystémiques. Aqua & Gas, 9, 26-32.

Oertli, B., Frossard, P.-A., 2013. Les mares et étangs: écologie, conservation, gestion, valorisation. Presses Polytechniques Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne. 480 pp.

https://www.europeanponds.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/livre_mares_etangs.pdf

Oertli, B., Sordet, A., Bartrons, M., Beklioglu, M., Benejam, L., Biggs, J., Boissezon, A., Hornung, J., Lago, M., Lemmens, P., Meerhoff, M., Mehner, T., Nicolet, P., Quintana, X., Rasmussen, M., Robin, J., Williams, P., Brucet, S., 2024. Nature-based Solutions using Ponds and Pondscapes: 16 leaflets (English and local languages) presenting the PONDERFUL Demonstration Sites (DEMO-sites). https://zenodo.org/records/12160725

<figure><img src="image_417.png" /></figure>
O'Rourke, A., Loughran, F. (Eds.), 2024. *The Irish Pond Manual: A Guide to the Creation and Management of Ponds*. An Taisce.

https://www.antaisce.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=01f01b3a-a3fd-4a51-822b-8fa991ad75fd

Pedroso, N.M., Almeida, E., Pinto-Cruz, C. (Eds.), 2018. *Manual de boas práticas para a conservação dos charcos temporários mediterrânicos*. Life Charcos. 28pp.

https://lifecharcos.lpn.pt/downloads/paginas/866/anexos/charcosguiadeboaspraticas2018compressed.pdf

Pinto-Cruz, C. (Ed.), 2018. *Illustrated guide of the South-West Coast Mediterranean Temporary Ponds*. https://lifecharcos.lpn.pt/downloads/paginas/865/anexos/guiadasespecieslifecharcosweb.pdf

Pinto-Cruz C., Silva V., Pedroso N.M. (Ed.), 2012. *Charcos Temporários do Sul de Portugal*. Cátedra Rui Nabeiro Biodiversidade, Universidade de Évora.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233809606 Charcos_Temporarios_do_Sul_de_Portugal

**PONDERFUL** Project. (2023, May 18). Exploring the importance of ponds [Video].

YouTube. https://youtu.be/s16LCC_wLvE?si=wL7QO8sgD8_MtrrL

**PONDERFUL** Project. (2024, April 29). How to create a new pond? [Video].

YouTube. https://youtu.be/Yr8k72ceN34?si=AgDixU-2NVGL1El4

Prompt, E., Guillerme, N., 2011. *Les étangs piscicoles, un équilibre dynamique*. ISARA-Lyon et l'Université Lyon, France.

Roth, C., Fuchs, E., Grossenbacher, K., Jungen, H., Klötzli, F., Marrer, H., 1981. *Etangs naturels – Comment les projeter, les aménager, les recréer*. Office fédéral des forêts, Division de la protection de la nature et du paysage, Berne.

Ruiz, E., 2008. *Management of Natura 2000 habitats. 3170 * Mediterranean temporary ponds*. European Commission.

http://votaniki.gr/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/3170_Mediterranean_temporary_ponds.pdf

Sancho, V., Lacomba, I., 2010. *Conservación y Restauración de Puntos de Agua para la Biodiversidad*. Colección Manuales Técnicos de Biodiversidad, 2. Generalitat. Conselleria de Medi Ambient, Aigua, Urbanisme i Habitatge. 168 pp.

https://www.europeanponds.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/manual_charcas.pdf

Sayer, C.D., Biggs, J., Greaves, H.M., Williams, P., 2023. *Guide to the restoration, creation and management of ponds*. University College London, London, UK.

https://norfolkponds.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/guide_to_restoreation_creafion_management_ponds.pdf

Sayer, C., Burningham, H., Alderton, E., Axmacher, J., Robinson, P., Greaves, H. Hind, A., 2023. *Bringing lost ponds back to life: the art of ghost pond resurrection*. Conservation Land Management, 21 (1), 25-31.

Tiwari, A., Figueras-Anton, A., Briggs, L., Rasmussen, M., 2024. *Report describing the prototypes NBS 'CLIMA-pond'.* Amphi International Aps.

Trintignac, P., Bouin, N., Kerleo, V., Le Berre, M., 2013. *Guide des bonnes pratiques pour la gestion piscicole des étangs dans les Pays de la Loire* 2004-2013.

Williams, P., Biggs, J., Whitfield, M., Thorne, A., Bryant, S., Fox, G., Nicolet, P., 1999. *The Pond Book: a guide to the management and creation of ponds*. Freshwater Habitats Trust, Oxford.

Williams, P., Biggs, J., Crowe, A., Murphy, J., Nicolet, P., Weatherby, A., Dunbar, M., 2010. *Countryside Survey. Pond report 2007*. https://www.europeanponds.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/CountrysideSurveyPondReport_UK_2007.pdf

WWT, 2022. *Creating Urban Wetlands for Wellbeing*. A route map.

https://www.wwt.org.uk/uploads/documents/2022-06-08/wwt-creating-urban-wetlands-for-wellbeing.pdf

<figure><img src="image_418.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_419.png" /></figure>
# 8. References

[1] European Commission (no date), Nature-based solutions. Accessed 14 May 2024, <https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/environment/nature-based-solutions_en>

[2] Biggs, J., Von Fumetti, S. and Kelly-Quinn, M., 2017. The importance of small waterbodies for biodiversity and ecosystem services: implications for policy makers. Hydrobiologia 793, pp.3-39.

[3] Richardson, D. C., Holgerson, M. A., Farragher, M. J., Hoffman, K. K., King, K. B. S., Alfonso, M. B., Andersen, M. R., Cheruveil, K. S., Coleman, K. A., Farruggia, M. J., Fernandez, R. L., Hondula, K. L., López Moreira Mazacotte, G. A., Paul, K., Peierls, B. L., Rabaey, J. S., Sadro, S., Sánchez, M. L., Smyth, R. L. and Sweetman, J. N., 2022. A functional definition to distinguish ponds from lakes and wetlands. Scientific Reports, 12, 10472.

[4] Almond, R. E. A., Grooten, M., Juffe Bignoli, D. and Petersen, T. (Eds), 2022. Living Planet Report 2022 - Building a nature-positive society. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

[5] Horton, B.P., Shennan, I., Bradley, S. L., Cahill, N., Kirwan, M., Kopp, R. E. and Shaw, T. A., 2018. Predicting marsh vulnerability to sea-level rise using Holocene relative sea-level data. Nature Communications, 9, 1-7.

[6] de Felipe, M., Aragonés, D. and Díaz-Paniagua, C., 2023. Thirty-four years of Landsat monitoring reveal long-term effects of groundwater abstractions on a World Heritage Site wetland. Science of the Total Environment, 880, 163329.

[7] Eeles, B., 2010. Anthropomorphic rock cut tombs as temporary ponds in the Alt Penedès region of Catalonia, Spain. European Pond Conservation Network Newsletter, No. 4, 6-7.

[8] Aubin, J., Rey-Valette, H., Mathé, S., Wilfart-Monziols, A., Legendre, M., Slembrouck, J., Chia, E., Masson, G., Callier, M., Blancheton, J-P., Tocqueville, A., Caruso, D. and Fontaine, P., 2014. Guide de mise en oeuvre de l'intensification écologique pour les systèmes aquacoles. © Diffusion INRA-Rennes, 131 p. ISBN : 978-2-9547969-1-8

[9] European Commission, 2023. Do it yourself (DIY) manual for mobilising and engaging stakeholders and citizens in climate change adaptation planning and implementation. Accessed 14 May 2024. <https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/56804bb8-ddb9-40c8-8370-1648e2262b80_en?filename=ec_diy-manual-adaptation-climate-change-mission.pdf>

[10] Cunillera-Montcusí, D., Borthagaray, A. I., Boix, D., Gascón, S., Sala, J., Tornero, I. and Arim, M., 2021. Meta-community resilience against simulated gradients of wildfire: disturbance intensity and species dispersal ability determine landscape recover capacity. Ecography, 44, 1022-1034.

[11] Naselli-Flores, L., Termine, R. and Barone, R., 2016. Phytoplankton colonization patterns. Is species richness depending on distance among freshwaters and on their connectivity? Hydrobiologia, 764, 103-113.

[12] Natural England and RSPB, 2019. Climate Change Adaptation Manual - Evidence to support nature conservation in a changing climate, 2nd Edition. Natural England, York, UK.

[13] Fahy, J. C., Demierre, E. and Oertli, B., 2024. Long-term monitoring of water temperature and macroinvertebrates highlights climate change threat to alpine ponds in protected areas. Biological Conservation, 290, 110461.

[14] Williams, P., Whitfield, M., Biggs, J., Bray, S., Fox, G. Nicolet, P., Sear, D., 2004. Comparative biodiversity of rivers, streams, ditches and ponds in an agricultural landscape in Southern England. Biological Conservation, Volume 115, Issue 2.

[15] Uisce Éireann (no date). Dunhill wetlands. Accessed 14 May 2024. <https://www.water.ie/help/wastewater/wetlands/dunhill-wetlands/>

<figure><img src="image_420.png" /></figure>
[16] Georgiou, M., Morison, G., Smith, N., Tieges, Z. and Chastin, S., 2021. Mechanisms of impact of blue spaces on human health: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 2486.

[17] Smith, N., Georgiou, M., King, A. C., Tieges, Z., Webb, S. and Chastin, S., 2021. Urban blue spaces and human health: A systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative studies. Cities, 119, 103413.

[18] CSBI, 2015. A cross-sector guide for implementing the mitigation hierarchy. Prepared by the Biodiversity Consultancy on behalf of IPIECA, ICMM and the Equator Principles Association: Cambridge UK.

[19] Brzeziński, M., Chibowska, P., Zalewski, A., Borowik, T. and Komar, E., 2018. Water vole Arvicola amphibius population under the impact of the American mink Neovison vison: Are small midfield ponds safe refuges against this invasive predator? Mammalian Biology, 93, 182-188.

[20] Magnus, R. and Rannap, R., 2019. Pond construction for threatened amphibians is an important conservation tool, even in landscapes with extant natural water bodies. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 27, 323-341.

[21] McGoff, E., Dunn, F., Moliner Cachazo, L., Williams, P., Biggs, J., Nicolet, P. and Ewald, N. C., 2017. Finding clean water habitats in urban landscapes: professional researcher vs citizen science approaches. Science of the Total Environment, 581-582, 105-116.

[22] Davidson, T., Levi, Eti E., Bucak, T., Girard, L and Robin, J., 2024. Report on carbon sequestration in ponds. The balance between greenhouse gas emissions and carbon burial. University of Vic - Central University of Catalonia, Spain

[23] Gascón, S., Boix, D. and Sala, J., 2009. Are different biodiversity metrics related to the same factors? A case study from Mediterranean wetlands. Biological Conservation, 142, 2602-2612.

[24] Dumitru, A. and Wendling, L. (Eds), 2021. Evaluating the impact of nature-based solutions: A handbook for practitioners. European Commission. Luxembourg.

[25] Williams, P., Biggs, J., Stoate, C., Szczur, J., Brown, C. and Bonney, S., 2020. Nature based measures increase freshwater biodiversity in agricultural catchments. Biological Conservation, 244, 108515.

[26] Tasker, S. J. L., Foggo, A., Scheers, K., van der Loop, J., Giordano, S and Bilton, D. T., 2024. Nuanced impacts of the invasive aquatic plant Crassula helmsii on Northwest European freshwater macroinvertebrate assemblages. Science of the Total Environment, 913, 169667.

[27] European Commission (no date). Invasive alien species. Accessed 14 May 2024. <https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/invasive-alien-species_en#implementation>

[28] European Commission (no date). EASIN - European Alien Species Information Network. Accessed 14 May 2024. <https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin>

[29] White, K. J., Petrovan, S. O. and Mayes, W. M., 2023. Pollutant accumulation in road mitigation tunnels for amphibians: A multisite comparison on an ignored but important issue. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 11, 1133253.

[30] Poulin, B., Lefebvre, G., Hilaire, S. and Després, L., 2022. Long-term persistence and recycling of *Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis* spores in wetlands sprayed for mosquito control. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 243, 114004.

[31] Sayer, C., Biggs, J., Greaves, H. and Williams, P., 2023. Guide to the restoration, creation and management of ponds. University College London, London, UK.

[32] Hill, M. J., Wood, P. J., White, J. C., Thornhill, I., Fairchild, W., Williams, P., Nicolet, P. and Biggs, J., 2023. Environmental correlates of aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity in garden ponds: Implications for pond management. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 17, 374-385.

<figure><img src="image_421.png" /></figure>
[33] Tiwari, A., Figueras-Anton, A., Briggs, L., Rasmussen, M., 2024. Report describing the prototypes NBS 'CLI-MA-pond'. Amphi International Aps.

[34] Figueras-Anton, A., Tiwari, A., Briggs, L., Rasmussen, M., 2024. Development of standards for commercialization and 'best practice' design code. Amphi International Aps.

[35] McDonald, H., Seeger, I., Lago, M. and Scholl, L., 2023. Synthesis report on sustainable financing of the establishment of ponds and pondscapes. PONDERFUL Project (EU Horizon 2020 GA no. ID869296), Deliverable 1.4.

[36] Toxopeus, H., Polzin, F., 2021. Reviewing financing barriers and strategies for urban nature-based solutions. Journal of Environmental Management, 289, 112371.

[37] Ryfisch, S., Seeger, I., McDonald, H., Lago, M. and Blicharska, M., 2023. Opportunities and limitations for nature-based solutions in EU policies - Assessed with a focus on ponds and pondscapes. Land Use Policy, 135, 106957.

<figure><img src="image_422.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_423.png" /></figure>

© Eva Bronzini
<figure><img src="image_424.png" /></figure>