Financing Green Infrastructure in Schools: A Case Study in Austria

Abstract

Despite the positive effects of green infrastructure on people and the environment, it is still rarely integrated in public facilities such as schools. The main reason for this is a lack of knowledge about financing options. To fill this gap, the research project MehrGrüneSchulen (Engl.: More Green Schools) develops financing scenarios for green infrastructure in Austrian schools. This case study describes these developed scenarios, which use the principles of crowdsourcing and crowdfunding as well as the newly named principle of chain building. The idea of chain building is to motivate schools that have already successfully financed and built a low-cost greening system to present this process to another school in such a way that they are able to do the same themselves and eventually explain the process to a further school to continue this chain reaction. For the proposed funding scenarios to be effective, there is a need for innovation in education, with a focus on inter-school participation and networking. For this reason, the possible synergies of an online networking platform are discussed, which would help to connect schools and thus further improve the impact of the proposed fundraising processes.

1. Introduction

Recent review articles on green infrastructure note a significant increase in the number of studies on this topic, focusing on urban areas and the associated ecosystem services [1,2,3,4]. However, due to the ambiguity of the term, there is still no accepted definition of green infrastructure. As described by Monteiro et al. [4], “Green infrastructure is […] including green and blue spaces and other ecosystems, designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services at various scales”. In this study, green infrastructure is primarily understood as trees, green facades, green roofs, and other indoor and outdoor systems that include plants.

The positive effects of green infrastructure on the microclimate are a recent topic of research, as it is considered an effective measure for climate change adaptation [5,6]. Especially in cities, where air temperatures are higher than in rural areas due to the urban heat island (UHI) effect, green infrastructure is proposed as a mitigation measure [7,8,9,10,11]. Several studies have been carried out to quantify this cooling effect of green infrastructure, stating a possible reduction in the local air temperature of up to 1 °C with block-scale facade greening [12], a reduction in the mean radiant temperature in 1 m distance of a green wall of 12.8 °C compared to a bare wall [13], and a surface temperature reduction behind a green wall of between 8 °C and 15.5 °C [14,15,16]. However, there are significant positive effects not only on the climate, but also on people. Many studies have demonstrated improvements in air quality due to the greening of buildings [17,18,19,20,21,22], focusing mainly on the application in classrooms—a prime example of poor air quality. Thus, the implementation of green walls in schools can minimize the attention fatigue of students and improve their concentration [23,24]. Other health-related effects of greenery include the reduction of particulate matter concentrations and the optimization of room acoustics through sound absorption, as demonstrated by Pichlhöfer et al. [25] with measurements on four do-it-yourself green walls planted with different plant species in a school environment.

In addition to the direct positive effects on air quality, the greening of school grounds can contribute to environmental education and climate literacy [26,27,28,29,30]. Two studies by Jansson et al. [31,32] have analyzed the benefits of school ground greening from children’s perspectives, investigating the process and children’s participation in the planning, planting, management, and maintenance of their school grounds. It is suggested that the greening of school grounds should be integrated into educational activities, as children’s experiences of ongoing participation and use are important in building a caring relationship with the green space. This is supported by Onori et al. [33], who investigated the factors influencing the implementation of green infrastructure in a primary school setting: for successful implementation, green infrastructure must be seen as a pedagogical resource for teaching sustainability and other skills, as a support for student wellbeing and play, and as a community resource, rather than simply as a technical intervention to improve the school’s environmental performance.

Apart from the numerous benefits of green infrastructure, there are also certain risks and challenges to be addressed: for green facades with climbing plants, the main problems are frequently cutting, the removal of the leaves, the obstruction of maintenance work on the facade, and the blockage of the gutter [34]. Compared to green facades, living walls have much higher installation costs, are complex in the implementation, require frequent and professional maintenance, and have a higher water and nutrient consumption [35]. When being implemented in the school context, it has to be considered that schools operate on tight budgets, making it difficult to finance green infrastructure projects, as the money might be reserved for other essential educational needs. Also, schools are usually lacking the budget for contracting a professional green care company, which may result in a deterioration in the condition of the plants in the long-term. Another challenge can be the resistance from staff, students, or parents to change in general or specifically to green infrastructure projects due to some still widespread prejudices.

To mitigate these risks, schools should integrate sustainability education into the school’s curriculum to promote awareness and understanding among students and staff. For schools considering green infrastructure projects, this study proposes funding models for low-cost do-it-yourself greening systems, as presented in [36], that will provide them with the necessary information about the installation and follow-up costs of different greening systems, possible grants and incentives, relevant stakeholders, and the proper maintenance. Together with the do-it-yourself (DIY) construction manuals of these greening systems, schools are encouraged to use these funding models to initiate their own greening project and eventually involve one or more other schools in this process, thus spreading the idea and knowledge of school greening solutions.

In Austria, the education system has six levels, which, according to the “International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 1997)” of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), are designated ISCED 0 to ISCED 6 in ascending order [37]. This study focuses on schools from ISCED 1 to ISCED 4, which are primary and secondary schools. The competencies in the school sector are divided between the federal and state governments. Only in the case of general, vocational middle and higher schools does the federal government have the responsibility for both legislation and execution. For compulsory schools (primary school, middle school, and polytechnic school), the federal government sets the basic legislation, but the states implement and execute it. The Federal Ministry is responsible for the allocation of resources, which is then handled by the Education Directorate. The amount depends on legally regulated criteria. As the majority of schools are public property (5165 out of 5926 [38]) and they are dependent on the national budget calculations for education, there is, in general, no budget foreseen for green infrastructure or similar projects. As a result, school principals must take care of raising the necessary funds for such initiatives themselves.

The aim of this explanatory case study is to address this problem and to help schools throughout Austria to find a way to finance their green infrastructure projects by providing prototypical scenarios of crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, and chain building using informal networks of schools and the school stakeholders as the main crowd capital. As no other study has yet proposed similar financing scenarios for green infrastructure, this case study will thoroughly describe the process of the creation of these scenarios, starting with the research question, which was defined as “How can green infrastructure be implemented in schools with a minimum of resources such as materials, funds, time and knowledge?” To access this question, a thorough study regarding the costs of green infrastructure is performed, relevant school stakeholders and their possible contributions are analyzed, and based on these inputs, prototypical financing scenarios are synthesized which, in a future research setting, will be applied in practice for validation purposes.

For a better understanding of the developed financing scenarios, some key terms need to be defined:

• Funding model: In the literature [39,40], funding models are described as concepts that are created at the beginning of a project to give it an economic advantage and to provide information about the different financing possibilities. Such models are designed to maintain a balance between revenue deficits and surpluses in order to make financially optimal decisions. For our project, we focused on three parameters for defining funding models—the source of funds, the stakeholders or their motivation for initiating the greening project, and the type of greening.
• Source of funds: In financing, a distinction must be made between external and internal financing [41]. External financing is financial resources that flow into the project and finance it from outside (e.g., a bank). If the financing comes from your own company/institution (e.g., school), it is called internal financing.
• Maturity: There are short-, medium-, and long-term maturities. These indicate the length of time for which the financing is available. The longer the term, the worse the terms may be. A short-term maturity is up to one year, also known as liquidity planning. Medium-term is up to five years, and long-term is anything over five years. Maturity planning is also called capital requirements planning [42].
• Capital requirements: In order to set up a funding model, the capital requirements must first be determined. For classical financing in the corporate sector, the fixed and current assets are used. In the case of school greening, the capital requirement must be determined in relation to the life cycle of the greening system. It must also be determined who will provide this capital for financing. The following aspects are included in the capital requirement [41]: one-time or irregular factors, investments, periodically recurring factors, ongoing components, and tax payments.

The necessary funding for school green infrastructure must be considered in the context of the life cycle (LC) of the “living building material” plant, as it requires ongoing green maintenance (see Section 2). In this sense, following the methodology as proposed in Section 3, possible financing options have been formulated and are presented (see Section 4). The aim of this study is to present the idea and design of these funding models and to highlight the main issues that need to be considered when implementing green infrastructure in schools. With this information, interested schools in Austria and elsewhere are able to plan, finance, build, and maintain low-cost greening systems on their own or with the help of other schools. This is expected to increase the number of school greening projects and contribute to the environmental education of young students.

2. Life-Cycle Costs of School Green Infrastructure

The life cycle of a greening system is divided into four phases—initiation, design and construction, operation, and end of life (see Figure 1).

Design, construction, demolition, and disposal costs are typically one-time costs. Maintenance costs, on the other hand, are recurring and are typically incurred over many years. To calculate life-cycle costs, the value of costs and benefits that occur at different times is determined at the time of valuation using the present discounted value method. This is performed using Formula (1) [43]:

$$K_0\left(i^{\ast }\right)={\sum }_{t=0}^T\frac{Z_t}{{\left(1+i^{\ast }\right)}^t}$$

(1)

where $K_0$ is the present discounted value at time t = 0, $i^{\ast }$ is the computed rate of return, T is the time period under consideration, and $Z_t$ is the cash flow in period t. This allows a value to be created for each payment at time t = 0 so that incoming and outgoing payments can be compared.

In order to be able to compare future investments, it is necessary to find comparable greening systems. These must have the same risk, because investments with a higher risk also have a higher interest rate. With regard to facade greening, it can be seen as a kind of real estate investment. Therefore, the real estate rate of return can be used as the discount rate for the model. The following specific costs must be incurred by the school owner or operator when considering the entire life cycle of a greening system:

• Design and construction phase with design and construction costs: In summary, these are all costs incurred during the design and construction of the revegetation system. However, they can vary greatly depending on the size, type, and material of the system.
• Operation phase with maintenance and renewal costs: These costs are strongly influenced by the desired appearance and frequency of maintenance. In principle, these costs can be defined as follow-up costs. They include all costs resulting from operation and use. The amount of maintenance depends on the size and height of the greening system. This also determines whether a lifting platform or climbers are required. Ongoing costs also include the amount of water needed to irrigate the vegetation and the electricity used for lighting and water pumps.
• End-of-life phase with demolition and disposal costs: At some point, a revegetation system must be dismantled and disposed of. The costs vary from system to system and can be proportional to its complexity. These costs must be taken into account in advance when calculating ongoing costs.

Due to the “living building material plant”, green infrastructure requires continuous maintenance, which includes adequate irrigation, fertilization, substrate renewal, parasite control, as well as back cut, removing dead plant parts, and replacing plants. If the green maintenance is carried out by an appropriate specialist company, there are additional ongoing costs that can only rarely be covered by schools. The alternative is to maintain greening systems by school wardens, teaching staff and the students themselves, whereby responsibilities must be clearly defined, and, above all, solutions must be found for times when there are no lessons. While school guards are also generally working in the school buildings during the holiday periods, carrying out cleaning activities, their willingness to take on responsibility for additional tasks is usually low. On the other hand, having assigned students to take over the green maintenance has the advantage that they will build a relationship with the greening systems and therefore take better care of them. This can also be viewed as part of biology education and integrated into biology lessons. During times when there are no classes, a maintenance plan would have to be created that involves either willing teachers and students or even their parents in the maintenance of the green infrastructure. Alternatively, temporary irrigation systems would also be possible, which would only have to be checked for functionality once a week.

Decision makers should keep the respective costs in mind when assessing whether or not a revegetation system is affordable for them. Apart from the costs, green infrastructure can also have certain benefits that can be calculated according to Hollands et al. [43], taking into account energy savings due to shading, evapotranspiration, and thermal insulation; noise reduction; humidity increase; extending the lifespan of the facade; and reducing different air pollutants. A model for assessing the total lifespan costs of green infrastructures has been proposed by Almeida et al. [44], including financial, economic, and socioenvironmental costs and benefits regarding infrastructure, users, and environment. The socioenvironmental effects taken into account are sound insulation improvement, air quality improvement, runoff management, improvement in health and well-being, increasing biodiversity, and temperature regulation. In addition to socioeconomic impacts, school greening may also have non-measurable social impacts (e.g., raising awareness of greening in schools). Considering these social costs and benefits, the installation of green infrastructures is a low-risk investment with a quick payback, as shown for green roofs by Bianchini and Hewage [45]. However, in this study, the social benefits of green infrastructures are not included in the life-cycle costs, as the focus is on the financial aspects with regard to the affordability for schools.

Applying a system dynamics model at the city scale, Barrios-Crespo et al. [46] conclude that the implementation of green and blue infrastructure is economically, environmentally, and socially profitable. However, despite the widely recognized economic impact of green infrastructure [47,48,49], Ying et al. observe a lack of economic-related research [1]. As a result, as noted by Oijstaeijen et al. [49], the implementation rate of green infrastructure is stagnating and valuation tools for green infrastructure investments are rarely used as local authorities are often unaware of their true value. It is concluded that by “studying the total economic value and its beneficiaries, appropriate finance methods [for green infrastructure] should be introduced”. For the context of Austrian schools, this study introduces related financing scenarios using the case study method.

3. Methods

The case study method is about theory construction and building, and is based on the need to understand a real-life phenomenon with researchers obtaining new holistic and in-depth understandings, explanations, and interpretations about previously unknown practitioners’ rich experiences, which may stem from creative discovery as much as research design [50]. This explanatory study follows the methodology of Yin [51], dealing with the topic of developing prototypical financing scenarios for green infrastructure application in Austrian schools. In the first step, research was carried out on greening systems available on the Austrian market and their installation costs. As part of an interdisciplinary workshop with manufacturers, horticultural experts, and two school classes, the possibilities for using green infrastructure in a school context were discussed. The problem of financing such additional expenses from the school budget quickly emerged as the primary obstacle, which needed to be addressed.

Based on the research carried out and the results of the interdisciplinary workshop, the next step was to calculate the life-cycle costs for conventional facade greening systems. For this purpose, the life cycle of a greening system was divided into project initialization, design and construction, maintenance and renewal, and demolition and disposal (see Section 2). After calculating the life-cycle costs of different green walls (ground-based and trough-based systems with and without trellises, and facade-based systems), it became apparent that, except for simple ground-based systems without trellises, their costs are by far too high to be financed by schools themselves. As a consequence, these systems were not pursued further in the present study. Instead, the attention was shifted to other greenery systems for schools that could be built and maintained at low costs and without demanding special horticultural or technical knowledge. For this reason, indoor and outdoor low-cost greening systems have been developed that can be built, maintained, and eventually be disposed of by students of secondary schools themselves, as shown in [36]. When calculating the life-cycle costs of the developed low-cost greening systems, two scenarios were used: 1. a minimum-cost scenario, assuming that the maintenance is performed by the students, for example, as part of the biology classes; and 2. a maximum-cost scenario, assuming a maintenance contract with a green care company. In each case, it is assumed that the wooden parts of the greening systems will receive a new coat of wood stain every three years. In addition, the plants and substrate are assumed to be replaced every five years. The lifetime of the low-cost greening systems is assumed to be 15 years. With these assumptions, the life-cycle costs of four indoor and six outdoor greening systems are calculated, examining the allocation of costs to the different life-cycle phases as presented in Section 4.1. All prices are based on the year 2021. The greening systems considered are shown in Appendix A.

In the next step, a total of six interviews were conducted between May and June 2021. When selecting the interview subjects, the researchers’ existing networks were used. After contacting schools that have already implemented green infrastructure and a school that would like to implement vertical greenery, three directors and three teachers accepted the interview invitations. With regard to the respective school types, elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools were represented. The interviews were partly conducted online and were limited to the Lower Austria and Vienna area.

The method of guided interviews was used. These make it possible to generate important and relevant information on the research questions. The interview guide was created based on theoretical considerations, the previous findings from the study, and the research questions. In this way, the great advantage of the qualitative interview can be used to determine the individual definitions of reality of the people interviewed [52], although the conversation is directed by the interviewer. However, the questions are formulated openly in order not to violate the principle of openness and to enable the person questioned to answer freely. This can result in new and relevant aspects for the researcher. In this form of interview, the people interviewed are seen as experts whose specialist knowledge of the field being researched is crucial.

The interview guide contained the following questions divided into three main themes:

• Green infrastructure in and around the selected schools: What are the origin stories of greenery? Who did the initiative come from? Were there supporting factors, expertise, instructions, assistance, or obstacles? What do decision-making processes look like? How were/are the individual actors involved in the greening? What is the status of the green infrastructure including the responsibilities today?
• Costs and financing: What types and options of financing were used for the green infrastructure(s)? Which costs—including in the form of unpaid work and external costs—can be identified? Have collaborations been entered into for financing?
• General information about green infrastructure in/around schools: How is “green” and greenery generally assessed in/at/around schools? Opinions and outlook with regard to suggestions for interested schools, the integration of more green in the school culture, as well as obstacles and barriers.

Privacy policy declarations were created for the interviews and presented to the interviewees. The recorded conversations were transcribed or (in one case where recording was not permitted) handwritten notes were made. The statements from the transcripts and notes were then clustered, evaluated, and reflected upon. The main goal of this evaluation was to identify institutions, contact persons, and possible financiers for the various green infrastructure and school types and to define their possibilities and limits of support and financing.

Innovative solutions were then sought to address the problems that arose from the analysis of life-cycle costs and the expert interviews, taking into account the prevailing structural conditions. The active-learning technique “mind mapping” was used to generate ideas [53], linking the different arguments associated with the research question “How can green infrastructure be implemented in schools with a minimum of resources such as materials, funds, time and knowledge?”. When theoretically running through the possible processes, three fictitious main processes (green infrastructure implementation scenarios) emerged (see Section 4.4).

In order to assure the validity and reliability of the case study according to Riege [50], we used multiple sources of evidence in the data collection phase, comparisons with the extant literature on financing scenarios for schools (which in this case were missing), defined the boundaries of our research, and validated the interim findings with interviews and experts. The limitation of this study lies in the fact that the proposed financing scenarios require a further validation in practice, which will be performed in a future research step.

4. Results

Firstly, the life-cycle costs of indoor and outdoor low-cost greening systems are presented, examining the allocation of costs to the life-cycle phases. Next, the conclusions of the expert interviews are summarized, showing the most relevant school stakeholders in Austria, categorizing them into possible initiators and financiers. With this background knowledge, a path to customized financing for interested schools is drawn, differentiating between no, internal, or external funding. In the end, the creation of a networking platform for school stakeholders is proposed, making way for innovative solutions for the funding of low-cost green infrastructure.

4.1. Allocation of Costs to the Life-Cycle Phases

The calculated life-cycle costs of the considered low-cost greening systems for indoor and outdoor spaces are presented in

Table 1. Life-cycle costs of indoor greening systems considered in this project, including construction, maintenance, and disposal costs, for a lifespan of 15 years.

System	Construction Costs	Maintenance Costs MIN/MAX	Disposal Costs	Life-Cycle Costs MIN/MAX
Green domino	400 €	470 €/4700 €	270 €	1140 €/5370 €
Green cloud	570 €	560 €/12,080 €	360 €	1490 €/13,010 €
Mobile partition wall	560 €	1400 €/15,070 €	270 €	2230 €/15,900 €
Modular green wall	330 €	440 €/11,640 €	360 €	1130 €/12,330 €
Mean value	465 €	718 €/10,873 €	315 €	1498 €/11,653 €

(indoor) and

Table 2. Life-cycle costs of outdoor greening systems considered in this project, including construction, maintenance, and disposal costs, for a lifespan of 15 years.

System	Construction Costs	Maintenance Costs MIN/MAX	Disposal Costs	Life-Cycle Costs MIN/MAX
Green classroom	1360 €	1700 €/17,080 €	880 €	3940 €/19,320 €
Green trio	1970 €	1700 €/8020 €	790 €	4460 €/10,780 €
T-bench	960 €	800 €/7650 €	970 €	2730 €/9580 €
The vessel	1050 €	800 €/4700 €	440 €	2290 €/6190 €
Green fountain	940 €	1140 €/9730 €	700 €	2780 €/11,370 €
Place evergreen	2330 €	1320 €/17,450 €	1320 €	4970 €/21,100 €
Mean value	1435 €	1243 €/10,772 €	850 €	3528 €/13,057 €

(outdoor), supposing a lifespan of 15 years. Looking at the life-cycle phases and the associated costs of all the greening systems considered in this study, it is evident that for almost all the variants (indoor and outdoor, minimum and maximum costs), the maintenance phase accounts for the highest percentage of the costs. The only exception is the more complex open-space greening systems when the maintenance is performed by the school. In this case, the construction costs may exceed the maintenance costs. The allocation of costs to the life-cycle phases for the minimum and maximum maintenance costs is shown in Figure 2 for indoor greening systems and in Figure 3 for outdoor greening systems. The figures use the average of the respective costs for the indoor and outdoor greening systems.

A comparison of the minimum and maximum life-cycle costs shows that significant savings can be made in the maintenance phase, mostly through in-kind contributions from students or other school stakeholders. As schools typically lack funding, only green infrastructure systems that are built, maintained, and eventually disposed of by the students themselves appear to be affordable. The innovative solutions for financing green infrastructure in a typical school setting, as shown in Section 4.4, therefore focus on low-cost greening systems. Other types of green infrastructure, such as green roofs and facades, cannot be financed by schools alone—such larger systems must therefore be initiated and implemented by the Federal Real Estate Company or the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science, and Research, which have already jointly signed a five-point plan for more sustainability in school construction in order to make Austria’s schools pioneers in sustainability across Europe [54].

4.2. Results of the Interviews

The aim of the interviews was to question and explore the possibilities and limits of financing as well as the responsibilities and decision-making powers of different school stakeholders, to get to know internal processes, and to identify the main initiators. The people interviewed emphasized the advantages of greenery and identified few or no disadvantages. Frequently mentioned advantages were the educational value and the social impact. In this way, greening becomes a topic of learning and teaching, through which students gain practical access to nature and its life cycles. Thanks to open-air classes, lessons are no longer limited to classrooms, but instead take place in “green” places, which provide an opportunity for action-oriented and research-based learning. In addition to using school gardens to encounter nature, school gardens become places of communication and encourage social processes that are often not possible to the same extent indoors.

Disadvantages were identified primarily where there is a lack of sufficient staff—especially school wardens, as they play an important role both in implementation and in green care, maintenance, and servicing. If there is not enough staff available, it is generally assumed that green infrastructure cannot be implemented sustainably. Reservations were particularly expressed regarding the topic of indoor greening and vertical greening. Difficulties in terms of longevity and sustainability, an adequate choice of plants in a hot indoor climate, required permits, the maintenance of the facades, or uncertainties in green maintenance were put forward as arguments. Against this background and based on the interviews carried out, a connection can be assumed between attitudes toward indoor greening or vertical greening and the level of information. Especially those who have not (yet) dealt with the topic in depth are skeptical about these types of greening. There seems to be a lack of centralized information for schools interested in the topic of greening. Increased awareness could help dispel reservations and prejudices. The interviewees attributed the fact that greenery is not yet being implemented across the board in Austrian schools primarily to the lack of human resources, fluctuations in the teaching staff, and financing options.

Other difficulties in the implementation of the green infrastructure were identified by the interviewees as bureaucratic hurdles, lack of consent, lack of knowledge and awareness among young teachers, responsibilities regarding care, safety requirements, as well as costs and financing. The school budget can rarely be used to cover the costs of green infrastructure projects. Larger projects, such as the creation of school gardens, were usually carried out as part of new construction, conversions, or renovations of school buildings and were therefore financed by the school owner (e.g., the Federal Real Estate Company). Financing by the parents’ association was used at some schools. However, this possibility seems to depend on how active this association is at the respective school. In addition, parents’ associations do have limited resources and usually take on the financing of smaller projects, such as the purchase of new plants. The class cashbox or collection campaigns at schools are also used for smaller purchases. The financing element of project funding seems to be less common and was only used by two schools that had good networks on the one hand and a good level of information regarding this instrument on the other. A similar picture emerges for participating in prize competitions or financing through prize money—only one school reported regular use of this instrument.

A big topic in all discussions was unpaid work—especially in green maintenance when this is executed by teachers. According to one interviewee, teachers at their school invest around 95% of their unpaid time primarily in green maintenance. Unpaid work, for example, using informal networks, not only supports schools in reducing costs, but ultimately also contributes to the better feasibility of projects. The local economy also seems to be relevant to green infrastructure projects, especially in terms of donations, and in some cases, also through unpaid or low-cost labor.

A well-developed overall concept, which concretizes the ideas and in which the first plans and drafts are presented, can be particularly helpful and supportive in obtaining the necessary consents and approvals, and contributes to the success of the project. Because they are easier to implement, schools generally prefer smaller green infrastructure projects. In the schools examined, “do-it-yourself (DIY)” solutions dominated, which were implemented together with the support of other actors—such as committed parents, ecology consultants, or even with the help of local companies or the school owner.

4.3. The Path to Customized Financing

When considering low-cost greening systems, interested schools can follow a three-step path to their individual funding model, as shown in Figure 4. Starting with the definition of the initiator of the greening project and its financial and legal possibilities, the second step is to clarify the desired green infrastructure, which leads to the actual costs of the greening project. Finally, the amount of funding needed can be determined, depending on personal capital and the amount of work required. A “Greening Funding Checklist” is provided in Appendix B to guide interested school representatives through their individual funding options.

At the beginning of every greening project, there is an initiator, i.e., someone who is involved or interested in a particular school. Since schools usually do not have significant financial resources, the project initiator needs to find a financier or some other solution to provide the materials needed to build the greening system. For school greening projects focusing on Austria, a list of possible stakeholders, including initiators and financiers, is presented in

Table 3. Stakeholders for school greening projects, including initiators and financiers.

Initiators	Financiers
Director Teachers School maintenance Community Parents’ association Other schools Pupils Building yard School owner Students Research associations	Magistrate services Subsidies Federal Real Estate Company Communities Local companies District council

.

Whether and to what extent a financier is needed depends on the actual cost of the greening system to be built. Therefore, it is essential for the initiator to define the desired greening system in as much detail as possible, or, from the other side, to define the maximum cost of the greening system, taking into account any funding that may be acquired. The most important distinction, however, is between low-cost and high-cost greening systems. Due to the generally very low equity of schools, high-cost greening systems are almost impossible to finance and are therefore not considered a realistic option in this study. Therefore, the financing models developed, as presented in Section 4.4, focus on low-cost greening systems.

In general, there are four stages in the life cycle of a greening system, each with its own costs: firstly, the initiation of the project, starting with an initial idea, with costs mainly depending on the time required; secondly, the design and construction of the greening system, with one-time costs depending on the size of the system and the quality of the materials used; thirdly, the use of the greening system, with ongoing maintenance, and renewal costs; and fourthly, the dismantling with one-time demolition and disposal costs. Depending on the complexity of the greening systems and the technical and horticultural skills of the students, three possible financing scenarios can be distinguished, as shown in Figure 5.

In Scenario A, all four phases of the greening system’s life cycle are funded by one stakeholder. This is usually only the case for high-cost and high-tech greening systems, as they require a large amount of financial resources throughout the life cycle and therefore require continuous funding. Scenario B is similar to Scenario A, except that the deconstruction and disposal is performed by another actor. This may be the case for high-cost greening systems that are funded by some public subsidy and deconstructed or reused by the school, or for low-cost greening systems that are designed, built, and maintained by the school itself, but disposed of at the end of their life by a waste management company. However, in some cases, as shown in Scenario C, low-cost greening systems are initiated and planned by a school or a research association, but once constructed, a green care company is contracted to maintain the system during its lifetime, and disposal is ultimately handled by another company.

Specifically, depending on the type of funding (no funding, internal, or external funding), the type of greening (indoor, outdoor, or facade greening), the stakeholders involved, and the source of money or materials, this results in different funding options, as shown in

Table 4. Funding opportunities for school green infrastructure, including the cases of no funding, internal, and external funding, listing possible sources of funding, the respective stakeholders, the types of greening that can be funded, the applicable funding scenarios, as well as the responsibilities for the operation, and end-of-life phase.

	No Funding	Internal Funding	External Funding
Source	Material remnants of building yards; material donations from companies	School budget; class cashbox; collecting campaigns	Project grants; prize money
Stakeholder	School; individual/informal networks	School; parents’ association	School keeper; school owner
Type of greening	Indoor greening; open-space greening	Indoor greening; open-space greening	Indoor greening; open-space greening; facade greening
Funding scenario	Not applicable	Scenarios A, B, C	Scenarios A, B, C
Responsibility	School: -Maintenance -Disposal	School: -Maintenance -Disposal and/or External: -Maintenance -Disposal	External: -Maintenance -Disposal and/or School: -Disposal

.

Based on the findings presented above, this study formulated innovative solutions for financing low-cost greening measures, which are described in the following section.

4.4. Innovative Solutions for the Funding of Low-Cost Greening

In order to investigate the feasibility of green infrastructure in schools, firstly, the legal framework was established, then the case study of low-cost greening at the Camillo Sitte Bautechnikum (CSBT) in Vienna was analyzed in order to develop implementation scenarios for other schools. The focus was on greening systems that students could produce themselves at low cost. To capitalize on the different competencies of the schools and to create synergies, a technical school and a horticultural school were encouraged to cooperate. The study shows that several factors are crucial for the implementation of such greening measures in schools. These include legal and architectural conditions, but also design skills, time and financial resources, and strong networking among participants. In order to increase the very important networking part, the creation of a networking platform (see Figure 6) is proposed, which would reduce the time and financial resources of all participants or stakeholders by distributing tasks and competencies.

This concept of sharing via a platform can be seen as a form of “crowdsourcing”, which is “an interactive form of service provision that […] involves a large number of extrinsically or intrinsically motivated players” [56]. As a result, participants share knowledge, proven projects, building materials and ideas, and delegate (“source”) tasks to the “crowd”, which allows for significant cost reductions. Through the networking between schools and the exchange of information about projects that have already been carried out, the advertising effect leads to greater participation and the formation of chains, i.e., “chainbuilding”. The networking platform also facilitates possible funding and financing processes between the participants by creating an efficient processing and flow of money through the school association structure. In the literature, this process is called “crowdfunding”, which is described as the financing of big ideas and projects by many small amounts of private donors (the “crowd”) [56]. Crowdfunding is a new financing element at the beginning of this multi-stage financing chain and usually represents the initial financing of innovative ideas. It can be used to finance start-up projects, prototypes, market research, customer acquisition, or expansion projects.

An implementation scenario of a networking platform is shown in Figure 7. There, an initiator announces on the platform his interest in starting a greening project. In this example, this initiator is a technical school (School A) that has a construction yard and can provide materials or even construction kits for the greening system. Another institution (School B) joins the platform because it is a horticultural school and can provide plants for the greening project. Other interested platform users (Schools X, Y, Z) who want to implement a greening system in their class are informed through the platform. Schools A and B sell the provided materials to Schools X, Y, Z. The invoicing is performed through the association structure of Schools A and B. Since the networking platform communicates projects and plans to the outside world, it is possible that individuals, companies, or sponsors are also informed about these projects and offer donations (e.g., materials). In addition, the networking platform allows for the free uploading and downloading of technical building instructions, research work, knowledge, and optimizations. Thus, the processes of “input”, “production”, “development”, and even “financing”, which were carried out with great effort in the research project, are distributed via the platform to a “crowd”, in which each participant can contribute according to his or her experience. In summary, the implementation scenario described above also combines the principles of “crowdsourcing” and “crowdfunding” in one process.

Once schools have created a low-cost greening system, they are invited to share their practical knowledge on the networking platform and present it to other interested stakeholders in a greening workshop. In doing so, they start the process of “chain building” by “connecting” and “chaining” other schools. A practical example of how this chain-building process can be initiated is shown in Figure 8: An individual actor, be it a teacher or just an engaged student, wants to implement some greening in his or her classroom. After a short online search, this initiator will find the networking platform with all the necessary information about many different greening systems. After presenting the idea to other class members and/or the school principal, the plan is approved and adapted to the school’s framework. With the information from the networking platform, the class knows about the costs of the greening system and finds some help about funding possibilities. With this help, the necessary money and materials are collected and used to build even two greening systems within the craft classes. One will stay in the classroom and the other will be passed on to another class who will be taught how to complete the same process. They will then pass on their new built greening systems to two other classes, and the chain reaction will continue. In this way, more and more schools will be motivated to participate in building low-cost greening systems—in other words, this is how “crowds” are won.

5. Discussion

As noted above, green infrastructure for schools is an increasingly popular topic, and there is a large amount of research demonstrating its positive impact on student health and education. However, schools face challenges in implementing green infrastructure because they cannot afford to purchase expensive, high-tech greening systems that require automatic irrigation and maintenance by an experienced green maintenance company. Meeting schools’ green infrastructure needs requires low-cost greening systems that can be built by students as part of an arts and crafts class and maintained by students during biology class or recess, minimizing the cost of the entire greening life cycle and maximizing the educational benefits to students.

This study develops funding models for low-cost greening systems that allow schools to raise the money or resources necessary to purchase and construct these systems on their own. These funding models leverage the collective capacity of the crowd, which consists of all school stakeholders interested in school greening. Through a networking platform, interested schools can connect and share information and lessons learned from successful green infrastructure implementations. As a result, schools are supported in the implementation of their greening projects, creating a greener learning environment for students, while spreading the idea of school greening and contributing to a more sustainable education system.

Crowdsourcing in a school context has already been evaluated by Zualkernan [57,58] and Qutaifan et al. [59], who investigated the ability of teachers in a developing country to create and contribute high-quality multiple-choice questions for primary school students, thereby increasing crowd knowledge, which according to Blesik et al. [60] can be defined as “a collaborative aggregation of context-dependent information contributed and used by participants that is stored in an artefact and provided to fulfil a purpose”. According to Ren [61] and Malhotra and Kubowicz [62], the number and quality of new ideas received from a crowd can be increased by providing a diverse set of examples of good and bad ideas, as well as a series of modifications of initial ideas. In some cases, the likelihood of participating in a design crowdsourcing contest can also be increased by offering monetary rewards, as highlighted by Patel et al. [63]. Applied to the networking platform proposed in this study, this would suggest that monetary rewards for uploading images and design plans of implemented green infrastructure could further increase the number of schools participating in this school greening process. The necessary funding for the rewards would need to be provided by the municipality, state, or other grants.

As Cai Guo-pei et al. [64] note, “innovation needs to be innovated, […] and combined with education in colleges and universities”. This is also true for group innovation using the principles of crowdsourcing and crowdfunding. There are many studies that advocate methods of crowdfunding and demonstrate their effectiveness in generating crowd capital or increasing the likelihood that their campaigns will be funded [65,66,67,68,69,70,71]. However, crowdfunding needs to be innovated to be applicable in the school context.

This study proposes methods of crowdfunding suitable for schools, using the school network as a crowd, thus benefiting from the heterogeneity of different school types and the “cheap labor” of students. The critical success factors of these methods are the willingness of teachers to go beyond their teaching duties to deal with the topic of school greening and to network with other schools; the interest of students in this topic and their participation in the green infrastructure maintenance; and to some extent, also the engagement and support of the parents’ associations and other stakeholders. The main challenges can be defined as the initialization and maintenance of the networking platform; the acquisition of financial resources or construction materials; and especially the ongoing maintenance of the already realized greening systems. However, thanks to the special engagement of individual stakeholders, some schools in Austria have already managed to implement greening systems on their own. Sharing the experiences of these implementations as well as the proposed financing scenarios on a networking platform could be the first step in this process, eventually motivating other school stakeholders to start their own school greening project.

6. Conclusions

In this study, the life-cycle costs of indoor and outdoor vegetation systems were calculated and allocated to the life-cycle phases. It was shown that for almost all green infrastructure applications, the operation phase accounts for the highest percentage of costs. To minimize these costs, the maintenance should be performed by the students themselves, which is only possible with low-tech greening systems, as suggested in [36]. To guide interested school representatives to their individual financing options for a low-cost, low-tech greening system, this study proposes a three-step path: 1. define the greening project initiator; 2. clarify the desired green infrastructure; and 3. determine the amount of funding needed. Depending on the type of funding, the type of greening, the stakeholders involved, and the source of money or materials, different funding options are listed, leading to the development of implementation scenarios for green infrastructure at schools. The basis for these scenarios—namely crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, and chain building—is the establishment of a networking platform where schools interested in greening solutions can connect and find useful information on the topic, including construction manuals and examples of successful school greening projects. The combination of these tools has the potential to continuously attract new schools to the network, each contributing to the fundraising process and thus significantly increasing the number of green schools in Austria.

The feasibility of this concept is not limited to Austrian schools as the school structure and the financial situation may be similar in other countries. Anyway, the successfully implementation of the proposed financing scenarios is strongly dependent on the functioning of the networking platform, which will require either state funding for the maintenance or a great number of volunteers (mainly school teachers) keeping the platform up to date. Without state funding, there is the risk that nobody will take responsibility for the maintenance of the networking platform and that its usage will gradually decline, eventually leading to a decline in school greening measures as well. To prevent this outcome, school greening must be regarded as a topic of public interest, being integrated into school building directives on the one hand and included in the curricula of crafts and biology lessons of primary and secondary schools on the other hand. With the support of the federal government, green infrastructure measures could be publicly promoted and the cooperation of and networking between schools could be actively strengthened to enhance the initialization of school infrastructure projects throughout Austria.