Transformation tools enabling the implementation of nature-based solutions for creating a resourceful circular city

The linear pattern of production-consumption-disposal of cities around the world will continue to increase the emission of pollutants and stocks of waste, as well as to impact on the irreversible deterioration of non-renewable stocks of raw materials. A transition towards a circular pattern proposed by the concept of ‘Circular Cities’ is gaining momentum. As part of this urban transition, the emergent use of Nature-based Solutions (NBS) intends to shift public opinion and utilize technology to mitigate the urban environmental impact. In this paper, an analysis of the current research and practical investments for implementing NBS under the umbrella of Circular Cities is conducted. A combined appraisal of the latest literature and a survey of ongoing and completed National-European research and development projects provides an overview of the current enabling tools, methodologies, and initiatives for public engagement. It also identifies and describes the links between facilitators and barriers with respect to existing policies and regulations, public awareness and engagement, and scientific and technological instruments. The paper concludes introducing the most promising methods, physical and digital technologies that may lead the way to Sustainable Circular Cities. The results of this research provide useful insight for citizens, scientists, practitioners, investors, policy makers, and strategists to channel efforts on switching from a linear to a circular thinking for the future of cities.

[1]  G. Brundtland,et al.  Our common future , 1987 .

[2]  P Healey,et al.  Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning , 1998 .

[3]  D. Pearce,et al.  Cost?Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy , 1998 .

[4]  Eszter Hargittai,et al.  Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People's Online Skills , 2002, First Monday.

[5]  E. Martinot,et al.  Renewable Energy Policies and Barriers , 2004 .

[6]  Christian Stegbauer,et al.  Is the digital divide between young and elderly people increasing? , 2005, First Monday.

[7]  Ramia Mazé.  Occupying Time: Design, Time, and the Form of Interaction , 2007 .

[8]  C. Kennedy,et al.  The Changing Metabolism of Cities , 2007 .

[9]  Rolf Wüstenhagen,et al.  Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept , 2007 .

[10]  E. Hargittai,et al.  THE PARTICIPATION DIVIDE: Content creation and sharing in the digital age1 , 2008 .

[11]  Lawrence E. Band,et al.  Beyond Urban Legends: An Emerging Framework of Urban Ecology, as Illustrated by the Baltimore Ecosystem Study , 2008 .

[12]  M. Alberti.  Advances in Urban Ecology: Integrating Humans and Ecological Processes in Urban Ecosystems , 2008 .

[13]  Johan Redström,et al.  RE:Definitions of use , 2008 .

[14]  Pascal Lesage,et al.  Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. : Social and socio-economic LCA guidelines complementing environmental LCA and Life Cycle Costing, contributing to the full assessment of goods and services within the context of sustainable development. , 2009 .

[15]  Gordon Walker,et al.  Beyond Distribution and Proximity: Exploring the Multiple Spatialities of Environmental Justice , 2009 .

[16]  Dari E. Sylvester,et al.  The Digital Divide, Political Participation, and Place , 2010 .

[17]  Diana Gallego Carrera,et al.  Sustainability assessment of energy technologies via social indicators: Results of a survey among European energy experts , 2010 .

[18]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  Environmental decision support systems (EDSS) development - Challenges and best practices , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[19]  Mikhail Chester,et al.  Avoiding unintended tradeoffs by integrating life-cycle impact assessment with urban metabolism , 2012 .

[20]  S. Pincetl,et al.  An expanded urban metabolism method: Toward a systems approach for assessing urban energy processes and causes , 2012 .

[21]  José I. Barredo,et al.  Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services - An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 , 2013 .

[22]  Connor David,et al.  Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services – An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Discussion paper , 2013 .

[23]  M. Hauschild,et al.  Quantification of urban metabolism through coupling with the life cycle assessment framework: concept development and case study , 2013 .

[24]  Niki Frantzeskaki,et al.  The role of partnerships in ‘realising’ urban sustainability in Rotterdam's City Ports Area, The Netherlands , 2014 .

[25]  Randall Davenport,et al.  Thematic strategy on the urban environment , 2014 .

[26]  Ana Deletic,et al.  Can we model the implementation of water sensitive urban design in evolving cities? , 2015, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[27]  Ilse M. Voskamp,et al.  Planning support system for climate adaptation: Composing effective sets of blue-green measures to reduce urban vulnerability to extreme weather events , 2015 .

[28]  Aaron Ceross,et al.  Decision Support Tool , 2015 .

[29]  P. Lant,et al.  The diverse environmental burden of city-scale urban water systems. , 2015, Water research.

[30]  Francesca Rizzo,et al.  Design and social innovation for the development of human smart cities , 2015, Nordic Design Research Conference.

[31]  David Pearlmutter,et al.  Knowledge transfer between stakeholders in the field of urban forestry and green infrastructure: Results of a European survey , 2015 .

[32]  Viatcheslav Kafarov,et al.  Barriers to social acceptance of renewable energy systems in Colombia , 2015 .

[33]  N. Frantzeskaki,et al.  Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action , 2016 .

[34]  J. L. Amprako.  The United Nations World Water Development Report 2015: Water for a Sustainable World , 2016 .

[35]  Ignacio Escuder-Bueno,et al.  Decision Support Tool for energy-efficient, sustainable and integrated urban stormwater management , 2016, Environ. Model. Softw..

[36]  Fabio Masi,et al.  Integrated valuation of a nature-based solution for water pollution control. Highlighting hidden benefits , 2016 .

[37]  M. Hauck,et al.  Circular Amsterdam. A vision and action agenda for the city and metropolitan area , 2016 .

[38]  Enrico Benetto,et al.  Assessment of Life Cycle Impacts on Ecosystem Services: Promise, Problems, and Prospects. , 2016, Environmental science & technology.

[39]  Casper Boks,et al.  Exploration of the Barriers to Implementing Different Types of Sustainability Approaches , 2016 .

[40]  Emmanuelle Cohen-Shacham,et al.  Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges , 2016 .

[41]  P. Brunner,et al.  Handbook of Material Flow Analysis: For Environmental, Resource, and Waste Engineers, Second Edition , 2016 .

[42]  H. Wehrden,et al.  Cascades of green: A review of ecosystem-based adaptation in urban areas , 2016 .

[43]  Stefanie Hellweg,et al.  LCIA framework and cross-cutting issues guidance within the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. , 2017, Journal of cleaner production.

[44]  Sander Jacobs,et al.  Nature‐Based Solutions for Europe's Sustainable Development , 2017 .

[45]  Teresa Zölch,et al.  Regulating urban surface runoff through nature‐based solutions – An assessment at the micro‐scale , 2017, Environmental research.

[46]  Davide Geneletti,et al.  A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas , 2017 .

[47]  Iain S. Donnison,et al.  Characterisation of Nature-Based Solutions for the Built Environment , 2017 .

[48]  Nadja Kabisch,et al.  Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice , 2017 .

[49]  Joan Rieradevall,et al.  Application of life cycle thinking towards sustainable cities: A review , 2017 .

[50]  Nancy Bocken,et al.  Circular Cities: Mapping Six Cities in Transition , 2017 .

[51]  Miquel Sànchez-Marrè,et al.  Crossing the Death Valley to Transfer Environmental Decision Support Systems to the Water Market , 2017, Global challenges.

[52]  Sébastien Lasvaux,et al.  A review of urban metabolism studies to identify key methodological choices for future harmonization and implementation , 2017 .

[53]  Marcus Linder,et al.  A Metric for Quantifying Product‐Level Circularity , 2017 .

[54]  Dagmar Haase,et al.  The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. , 2017, The Science of the total environment.

[55]  Davide Geneletti,et al.  An impact evaluation framework to support planning and evaluation of nature-based solutions projects , 2017 .

[56]  Anthony Halog,et al.  Systems Thinking for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Review of Recent Developments, Applications, and Future Perspectives , 2017 .

[57]  Danielle Maia de Souza,et al.  Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: A synthesis of knowledge and recommendations for biofuels , 2018 .

[58]  Louise Laumann Kjær,et al.  Life Cycle Costing: An Introduction , 2018 .

[59]  J. Marin,et al.  Interpreting Circularity. Circular City Representations Concealing Transition Drivers , 2018 .

[60]  Grietje Zeeman,et al.  Harvest to harvest: Recovering nutrients with New Sanitation systems for reuse in Urban Agriculture , 2018 .

[61]  M. Niță,et al.  Are Romanian urban strategies planning for green? , 2018 .

[62]  Rafael González-Val,et al.  Natural Resources, Economic Growth and Geography , 2018, Economic Modelling.

[63]  K. Gericke,et al.  Designing Sustainable Technologies, Products and Policies: From Science to Innovation , 2018 .

[64]  Thomas Schaubroeck,et al.  Towards a general sustainability assessment of human/industrial and nature-based solutions , 2018, Sustainability Science.

[65]  Anna Petit-Boix,et al.  Circular economy in cities: Reviewing how environmental research aligns with local practices , 2018, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[66]  Guy Ziv,et al.  The role of community acceptance in planning outcomes for onshore wind and solar farms: An energy justice analysis , 2018, Applied Energy.

[67]  K. Jax,et al.  Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade , 2017, Ecosystem services.

[68]  Joshua L. Sohn,et al.  A Methodology Concept for Territorial Metabolism - Life Cycle Assessment: Challenges and Opportunities in Scaling from Urban to Territorial Assessment , 2018 .

[69]  Torsten Sack-Nielsen.  Circularity City Book: Shaping our urban future , 2018 .

[70]  Joanna Williams.  Circular cities , 2019, Urban Studies.

[71]  L. Corominas,et al.  Assessing stormwater control measures using modelling and a multi-criteria approach. , 2019, Journal of environmental management.

[72]  V. Zeller,et al.  Urban waste flows and their potential for a circular economy model at city-region level. , 2019, Waste management.

[73]  Jaroslav Mysiak,et al.  An assessment framework for climate-proof nature-based solutions. , 2019, The Science of the total environment.

[74]  Véronique Bellon-Maurel,et al.  Coupling economic models and environmental assessment methods to support regional policies: A critical review , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[75]  E. Katsou,et al.  Implementing nature-based solutions for creating a resourceful circular city , 2020, Blue-Green Systems.