evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Riga's Urban Meadows — Community-Led Biodiversity Corridors under urbanLIFEcircles

Latvia · Riga · See the Latvia profile · See the Riga profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 76% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since 2021 Riga has converted mown lawns into 42 flower-rich meadows covering 13.7 hectares, aiming for 45 sites and 15 hectares by 2027 under EU LIFE-funded urbanLIFEcircles, run by the Latvian Fund for Nature with Riga City Council to restore pollinator habitat connectivity.

42 sites
Meadow sites converted (as of mid-2026)
13.7 hectares
Meadow area converted (as of mid-2026)
45 sites (minimum)
Target meadow sites by 2027 (by 2027)
15 hectares (minimum)
Target meadow area by 2027 (by 2027)
10.27 EUR million
Total programme budget (2022-2027)
6.16 EUR million
EU-funded share of budget (2022-2027)
Riga's Urban Meadows — Community-Led Biodiversity Corridors under urbanLIFEcircles

Details

Maturity
Scaling
Promoter
Latvian Fund for Nature (Latvijas Dabas fonds) & Riga City Council
Period
2021–2027
Region (NUTS)
LV00
Keywords
biodiversity, urban planning, municipal government, NGO partnership, pollinators

Context

Riga City Council and the Latvian Fund for Nature (Latvijas Dabas fonds, LFN) have replaced regularly mown amenity lawns with low-intensity-managed urban meadows across the city, starting with the EU LIFE-funded GrassLIFE project in 2021 and continuing under urbanLIFEcircles (LIFE21-NAT-EE-101074453, 2022-2027), a EUR 10.27 million programme (EUR 6.16 million EU-funded) coordinated with the cities of Tartu (Estonia) and Aarhus (Denmark).

Objectives

The programme's stated aim is to restore ecological connectivity for pollinators and other urban wildlife by linking meadow patches into 'urban LIFE circles' connecting green spaces, nature reserves and Natura 2000 sites.

Activities

Delivery combines municipal land management with citizen and neighbourhood-association involvement in selecting and maintaining sites across neighbourhoods including Jugla, Mežaparks, Purvciems, Ķengarags, Grīziņkalns and Āgenskalns.

Results

By mid-2026, Riga counted 42 meadow sites totalling 13.7 hectares, with a formal target of at least 45 sites and 15 hectares by project end in 2027.

Conclusions

LFN and the EU LIFE programme report the area converted and site count as headline metrics, but peer-reviewed pollinator-abundance or plant-species-richness outcomes specific to the Riga sites had not yet been published, so the ecological gains remain an evidenced target rather than a measured result.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — EUR 10.27 million total programme budget (EUR 6.16 million EU-funded) shared across Riga, Tartu and Aarhus under urbanLIFEcircles (LIFE21-NAT-EE-101074453).
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — GrassLIFE started in 2021; urbanLIFEcircles runs 2022-2027.
Staffing & skills
Riga City Council land-management teams, Latvian Fund for Nature (LFN) project staff, Neighbourhood associations and citizen volunteers

Conditions for success

  • EU LIFE co-financing paired with municipal land-management commitment
  • Citizen and neighbourhood-association involvement in site selection and maintenance
  • Coordination across partner cities (Tartu, Aarhus) to share methods

Common failure modes

  • Peer-reviewed pollinator-abundance or species-richness outcomes for the Riga sites are not yet published, so ecological gains remain a tracked target rather than a measured result
  • Reduced mowing frequency can face resident pushback if not accompanied by public communication

Where it fits

Governance type
municipal government + national NGO under an EU LIFE programme
Scale
city-wide network of meadow sites
Income level
high-income

Commonly funded by

LIFE Programme

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful