A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas

To address challenges associated with climate resilience, health and well-being in urban areas, current policy platforms are shifting their focus from ecosystem-based to nature-based solutions (NBS), broadly defined as solutions to societal challenges that are inspired and supported by nature. NBS result in the provision of co-benefits, such as the improvement of place attractiveness, of health and quality of life, and creation of green jobs. Few frameworks exist for acknowledging and assessing the value of such co-benefits of NBS and to guide cross-sectoral project and policy design and implementation. In this paper, we firstly developed a holistic framework for assessing co-benefits (and costs) of NBS across elements of socio-cultural and socio-economic systems, biodiversity, ecosystems and climate. The framework was guided by a review of over 1700 documents from science and practice within and across 10 societal challenges relevant to cities globally. We found that NBS can have environmental, social and economic co-benefits and/or costs both within and across these 10 societal challenges. On that base, we develop and propose a seven-stage process for situating co-benefit assessment within policy and project implementation. The seven stages include: 1) identify problem or opportunity; 2) select and assess NBS and related actions; 3) design NBS implementation processes; 4) implement NBS; 5) frequently engage stakeholders and communicate co-benefits; 6) transfer and upscale NBS; and 7) monitor and evaluate co-benefits across all stages. We conclude that the developed framework together with the seven-stage co-benefit assessment process represent a valuable tool for guiding thinking and identifying the multiple values of NBS implementation.

[1]  N. Frantzeskaki,et al.  The Dynamics of Urban Ecosystem Governance in Rotterdam, The Netherlands , 2014, AMBIO.

[2]  P. Kareiva,et al.  Ecosystem services , 2005, Current Biology.

[3]  Navroz K. Dubash,et al.  Measuring the Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation , 2014 .

[4]  C. V. D. Bosch,et al.  User participation in urban green spaces – For the people or the parks? , 2015 .

[5]  J. Colding,et al.  The potential of ‘Urban Green Commons’ in the resilience building of cities , 2013 .

[6]  Jan Staes,et al.  Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services; Soil ecosystems , 2018 .

[7]  Katharina Helming,et al.  Does research applying the DPSIR framework support decision making , 2012 .

[8]  Elisabeth K. Larson,et al.  The value of water-related amenities in an arid city: The case of the Phoenix metropolitan area , 2013 .

[9]  SWITCH in Birmingham, UK: experimental investigation of the ecological and hydrological performance of extensive green roofs , 2009 .

[10]  C. V. Izeogu Urban development and the environment in Port Harcourt , 1989 .

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

[12]  Yoshihisa Kashima,et al.  Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world , 2016 .

[13]  Julian D. Olden,et al.  Case studies in co-benefits approaches to climate change mitigation and adaptation , 2017 .

[14]  Rebecca Jordan,et al.  Using fuzzy cognitive mapping as a participatory approach to analyze change, preferred states, and perceived resilience of social-ecological systems , 2015 .

[15]  N. Frantzeskaki,et al.  Ecosystem Services in Urban Land-Use Planning: Integration Challenges in Complex Urban Settings - Case of Stockholm , 2016 .

[16]  D. Geneletti,et al.  Ecosystem-based adaptation in cities: An analysis of European urban climate adaptation plans , 2016 .

[17]  T. Gerstenberg,et al.  Perception and preference of trees: A psychological contribution to tree species selection in urban areas , 2016 .

[18]  Darryl J. Newport,et al.  Renaturing cities using a regionally-focused biodiversity-led multifunctional benefits approach to urban green infrastructure , 2016 .

[19]  Elizabeth Fassman-Beck,et al.  A comprehensive typology for mainstreaming urban green infrastructure , 2014 .

[20]  R. D. Groot,et al.  Effects of urban trees on local outdoor microclimate: synthesizing field measurements by numerical modelling , 2015, Urban Ecosystems.

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

[22]  Richard J Hobbs,et al.  Hurdles and Opportunities for Landscape-Scale Restoration , 2013, Science.

[23]  A. R. Ennos,et al.  The effect of street trees and amenity grass on urban surface water runoff in Manchester, UK , 2013 .

[24]  D. Horst,et al.  The role of cultural ecosystem services in landscape management and planning , 2015 .

[25]  T. Elmqvist,et al.  Civic ecology practices : Participatory approaches to generating and measuring ecosystem services in cities , 2014 .

[26]  L. Gallagher,et al.  The Science, Policy and Practice Interface , 2017 .

[27]  Frans van de Ven,et al.  Adaptation Planning Support Toolbox: Measurable performance information based tools for co-creation of resilient, ecosystem-based urban plans with urban designers, decision-makers and stakeholders , 2016 .

[28]  Simon Bell,et al.  DPSIR = A Problem Structuring Method? An exploration from the "Imagine" approach , 2012, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[29]  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 .

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

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

[32]  K. Calvin,et al.  A multi-model assessment of the co-benefits of climate mitigation for global air quality , 2016 .

[33]  Peter H. Verburg,et al.  Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes. , 2017 .

[34]  Stanley T. Asah,et al.  Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach , 2017 .

[35]  Paula Vandergert,et al.  Urban transformation with TURAS open innovations; opportunities for transitioning through transdisciplinarity , 2016 .

[36]  P. Verburg,et al.  Green infrastructure for urban climate adaptation : How do residents’ views on climate impacts and green infrastructure shape adaptation preferences? , 2017 .

[37]  Maggie Roe,et al.  Green Infrastructure Planning Guide , 2006 .

[38]  Ian Mell,et al.  Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? Examining the “green” of Green Infrastructure development , 2013 .

[39]  Mojca Nastran,et al.  Advancing urban ecosystem governance in Ljubljana , 2016 .

[40]  Sarah Jones,et al.  The role of green infrastructure in climate change adaptation in London , 2014 .

[41]  T. Elmqvist,et al.  Insurance Value of Green Infrastructure in and Around Cities , 2016, Ecosystems.

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

[43]  N. Frantzeskaki,et al.  The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning discourses of European and American cities , 2015 .

[44]  A. Meiner,et al.  An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 , 2016 .

[45]  Dale S. Rothman,et al.  Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR , 2008 .

[46]  Ralf Seppelt,et al.  Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability , 2015 .

[47]  J. C. Stevens,et al.  A Ground-Based Method of Assessing Urban Forest Structure and Ecosystem Services , 2008 .

[48]  Thomas Elmqvist,et al.  Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities. Final report of the Horizon 2020 expert group on nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities. , 2015 .

[49]  C. Raymond,et al.  Integrating multiple elements of environmental justice into urban blue space planning using public participation geographic information systems , 2016 .

[50]  Stanley T. Asah,et al.  The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people , 2015 .

[51]  B. Grizzetti,et al.  Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union , 2012 .

[52]  I. M. Bouwma,et al.  Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies , 2017 .

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

[54]  Joanne F. Tynon,et al.  Attitudes about urban nature parks: A case study of users and nonusers in Portland, Oregon , 2013 .

[55]  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 .

[56]  Juliane Mathey,et al.  Greening cities – To be socially inclusive?: About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities , 2017 .

[57]  Carl Folke,et al.  Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability , 2017 .

[58]  Leo Posthuma,et al.  Definition and use of Solution-focused Sustainability Assessment: A novel approach to generate, explore and decide on sustainable solutions for wicked problems. , 2016, Environment international.

[59]  Md. Saidul Islam,et al.  Community Capitals as Community Resilience to Climate Change: Conceptual Connections , 2016, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[60]  Tommy Dalgaard,et al.  Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: Trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape , 2014 .

[61]  Grazia Zulian,et al.  Mapping green infrastructure based on ecosystem services and ecological networks: A Pan-European case study , 2015 .

[62]  J. Ahern,et al.  The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: A framework for supporting innovation , 2014 .

[63]  N. Mittal,et al.  Mitigating and adapting to climate change: multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. , 2014, Journal of environmental management.

[64]  W. Adger,et al.  Resilience implications of policy responses to climate change , 2011 .

[65]  N. Kabisch Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning—The case of Berlin, Germany , 2015 .

[66]  A. Bonn,et al.  Nature-Based Solutions for Societal Goals Under Climate Change in Urban Areas – Synthesis and Ways Forward , 2017 .

[67]  I. Kruhlov,et al.  Measurement, Collaborative Learning and Research for Sustainable Use of Ecosystem Services: Landscape Concepts and Europe as Laboratory , 2013, AMBIO.

[68]  N. Frantzeskaki,et al.  Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: A quantitative assessment in five European cities , 2015 .

[69]  M. Barba,et al.  Spinal Fusion in the Next Generation: Gene and Cell Therapy Approaches , 2014, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[70]  J. B. Andrade,et al.  Early Stage Design Decisions: The Way to Achieve Sustainable Buildings at Lower Costs , 2014, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[71]  Josep Peñuelas,et al.  Urban plant physiology: adaptation-mitigation strategies under permanent stress. , 2015, Trends in plant science.

[72]  Marcus Collier,et al.  Operationalizing urban resilience through a framework for adaptive co-management and design: Five experiments in urban planning practice and policy , 2016 .

[73]  N. Frantzeskaki,et al.  Advancing urban environmental governance: Understanding theories, practices and processes shaping urban sustainability and resilience , 2016 .

[74]  John Icely,et al.  A review of the application and evolution of the DPSIR framework with an emphasis on coastal social-ecological systems , 2015 .

[75]  R. Leichenko,et al.  Climate change and urban resilience , 2011 .

[76]  N. Frantzeskaki,et al.  Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany , 2016 .

[77]  M. Scopelliti,et al.  Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas , 2015 .

[78]  Dominique van de Walle,et al.  Impact Evaluation , 2008 .

[79]  Advancing urban ecosystem governance in Rotterdam: From experimenting and evidence gathering to new ways for integrated planning , 2016 .

[80]  E. Bennett,et al.  Disentangling the Pathways and Effects of Ecosystem Service Co-Production , 2016 .

[81]  E. Ostrom,et al.  Insight, part of a Special Feature on A Framework for Analyzing, Comparing, and Diagnosing Social-Ecological Systems Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges , 2014 .

[82]  K. Specht,et al.  Application and evaluation of a participatory “open innovation” approach (ROIR): The case of introducing zero-acreage farming in Berlin , 2016 .

[83]  M. Futter,et al.  Realising the potential of natural water retention measures in catchment flood management: trade‐offs and matching interests , 2018 .

[84]  Jorge Humberto Amorim,et al.  Functional traits of urban trees: air pollution mitigation potential , 2016 .

[85]  M. Dennis,et al.  User participation in urban green commons: Exploring the links between access, voluntarism, biodiversity and well being , 2016 .