• Energy Research

Significant challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted that features of a modern, sustainable and resilient city should not only relate to fulfilling economic and social urban strategies, but also to functional urban design, in particular, related to urban blue and green infrastructure (BGI). Using results from a web-based questionnaire survey conducted May–July 2020 in Moscow (Russia) and Perth (Australia), this paper provides insights regarding citizens’ needs for and values of urban BGI as well as their changes during and after the COVID-19 restrictions. Survey data collected during the lockdown period have captured information about people’s ability to access green and blue spaces within urban BGI, inequalities in access, feelings, and values as well as needs and perceived pathways of future development of urban natural environment. In both cities, lockdowns limited access of people to green spaces which affected their mental and physical health. Survey results revealed that the quality, functionality, and location of open green spaces illustrated a disparity in distribution, meaning that in many cases several communities from particular neighborhoods suffered from limited access to BGI. Furthermore, in addition to analyzing perceptions and values of urban nature during the COVID-19 pandemic, some suggestions for improvement of urban BGI based on the survey responses are provided.

Urban nature and ways of protecting, designing and even mimicking natural processes are some of the most popular themes inspiring humanities and natural science studies in different disciplines around the globe. Urban nature, green infrastructure and nature-based solutions are three intertwined concepts. This paper will highlight some of the many visions for urban nature (e.g., four urban natures: native, cultivated, designed/horticultural and spontaneous natures) and interpretations of nature-based solutions. While there are some similarities in the interpretation of urban natures by different disciplines, some significant differences exist. This paper analyses and synthesises knowledge from divergent theoretical concepts of urban natures in Europe and Australia, and the associated ecological concepts of novel and designed ecosystems. The complexity of urban natures and native landscapes has fostered the development of several typologies that often lead to misunderstanding between discipline areas and difficulties with practical implementation, such as in urban planning or landscape design. We argue that differences in interpreting the scope of urban nature are often underlined by the specific socio-political, historical, cultural and ecological contexts of a country or region (e.g., Australia and Europe). By applying an interdisciplinary approach, we explore the concept of urban natures by analysing and synthesising links between different disciplines. A transdisciplinary perspective is an important premise for collaboration between ecological sciences and landscape architecture in many restoration projects, or when social and ecological sciences jointly address societal challenges with the help of nature-based solutions co-created using participatory approaches. The latter highlights the role of transdisciplinary research to link practitioners, policymakers and scientists, helping to engage with citizens and inform design. The analysis of several examples from Europe and Australia allowed us to depict different approaches to existing urban natures and methods of their design, enhancement and conservation. These examples highlight that different urban natures are sources of inspiration for nature-based solutions that can be successfully implemented in contemporary landscape and planning practice.

AbstractUrban trees are recognised worldwide as one of the most sustainable and effective nature-based solutions to combat the effects of climate change and improve the quality of life for city dwellers by cooling the air, absorbing pollutants and damping noise. Along with protection from flooding and soil retention/restoration, trees also symbolise beauty, aesthetic quality, and orientation in urban spaces. Nevertheless, the relationship between street/park trees and urban society is highly ambivalent when it comes to pollen emissions and allergies, but also due to clearing space for new housing, road extensions, or parking places, which is accepted by large sections of urban society. In addition, climate change in itself is a major challenge to urban trees, as they suffer from drought and are increasingly attacked by pests. Urban planners and community partnerships have already developed a range of strategies (from more expert-led approaches to participatory co-design and actions) to maintain, increase, and diversify tree cover. They have also created new habitats and at the same time caused competition for space in the city, where every square centimetre is fought over. Using the case studies from Central and Eastern Europe and also considering the examples from Northern America and Asia, this commentary highlights the ambivalent relationship between humans and nature in regard to urban trees. It also demonstrates that the acceptance of this ambivalence can be a key to the conservation and maintenance of urban biodiversity through the involvement of different stakeholders including citizens.

Co-creation and co-production have been recognised as a novel collaborative mode of urban governance, which allows for deep participation to leverage and weave together local, expert and tacit knowledge and ultimately advance urban sustainability and resilience. Co-creation and co-production promote collaborations and partnerships among diverse actors – including civil servants, citizens, planners, entrepreneurs, architects, scientists, and engineers – in the design, implementation, and eventually stewarding of nature-based solutions (NBS). In this way, they can support the generation of new and more integrated knowledge that leads to the design of multifunctional NBS (pertaining not only to their mere technical design but also to their financing, business models, and social innovations) addressing local needs and mobilising local opportunities. In addition, the collaborative nature of co-creation and co-production generates novel and shared problem framings and visions, spurs new relationships between actors (for example between local government and citizens, across city departments) and triggers the (re-)definition of roles and responsibilities and empowerment of actors to become engaged in NBS advocating and stewarding. This report presents the work-in-progress on how in Connecting Nature we have developed the frameworks and guidebooks for co-production of NBS and reflexive monitoring via an iterative co-production process between the scientific partners and cities – so far together with the Connecting Nature frontrunner cities Genk (Belgium), Glasgow (United Kingdom) and Poznań (Poland). Next to supporting the co-production processes on the ground, the framework also integrates insights on how different cities design co-production processes in practice, including the starting considerations/objectives, when and how (not) to connect to which types of actors, the tools used and opportunities and challenges encountered. The frameworks allow to systematise knowledge from the experiences with co-production and reflexive monitoring from cities back to the conceptual level of the design principles and to thus develop conceptually grounded and practice-proven guidebooks with empirical examples and lessons. Setting up high-quality, viable and effective co-production requires good process designs, knowledge about the right tools and methods, as well as enabling conditions that provide the basis for co-production. In summary, the framework encompasses the following building blocks: Co-production design principles provide a heuristic to design and evaluate knowledge co-production processes. Next to facilitating the design and implementation of co-production processes, the principles allow for the outcomes and impacts of co-production to be mapped and measured, for example, whether knowledge-based outputs inform strategic urban agendas. Co-production tools and methods can be used in specific co-production activities and settings so as to facilitate discussions, interactions, and knowledge exchanges between actors in line with a specific objective (e.g. vision development, problem framing). Reflexive monitoring framework that includes a set of tools and methods to continuously learn about how the co-production process proceeds and identify follow-up actions and consequently adapt the process of NBS implementation on the go. We have worked with the cities in Connecting Nature to co-produce and apply the frameworks of co-production and reflexive monitoring. In this way, we could advance and apply the frameworks and methods as reported here, as well as learn from the cities’ experiences to derive conclusions for co-production and reflexive monitoring of NBS implementation. Both frameworks have proven valuable in both cities to support the co-production of NBS and to identify and navigate critical conditions, opportunities, and barriers for co-production. Specifically, the insights help to characterise co-production journeys and patterns in cities and to derive lessons learned. From the insight on needs, barriers, opportunities, and lessons for co-production, we can further expand the co-production framework by identifying co-production capacities that embody the conditions that need to be in place to enable and facilitate co-production. This work has resulted in two draft guidebooks on co-production (Appendix A) and reflexive monitoring (Appendix B), which combine the theoretical review and practical experiences and examples and will be further enriched as the project moves along. The guidebooks are conceived as methodological guidance and rich cookbooks based on the theoretical review and practical experiences and examples with co-production and reflexive monitoring that are presented here. Suggested citation: Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., Lodder, M., Notermans, I., Sillen, D., Albulescu, P., Collier, M.J., Dick, G., Dushkova, D., Dziubala, A., Haase, D., Macsinga, I., Madajczyk, N., McQuaid, S., Osipiuk, A., Quartier, M., Sulea, C., Vandergert, P., van de Sijpe, K., and Vos, P. (2019). Connecting Nature Deliverable 4: Report on outcomes of meetings, consultations, webinars and workshops leading to the publication of a 'Co-creation for cities' guidebook and infographics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7011030

Within CONNECTING Nature, we are dealing with developing innovative nature-based solutions (NBS) for climate change adaptation, health and well-being, social cohesion and sustainable economic development in European cities. In order to enable "learning by comparing" and "generating new knowledge" from multiple NBS related studies, a novel data and knowledge base is needed which requires a specified methodological approach for its development. This paper provides conceptual and methodological context and techniques for constructing such a data and knowledge base that will systematically support the process of NBS monitoring and assessment:•A methodology presents the comprehensive, multi-step approach to the NBS data and knowledge development that helps to guide work and influence the quality of an information included.•The paper describes the methodology and main steps/phases for developing a large data and knowledge base of NBS that will allow further systematic review.•The suggested methodology explains how to build NBS related databases from the conceptualization and requirements phases through to implementation and maintenance. In this regard, such a methodology is iterative, with extensive NBS stakeholders' and end-user's involvement that are packaged with reusable templates or deliverables offering a good opportunity for success when used by practitioners and other end-users.•The NBS data and knowledge base gathers information about different NBS models and generations into one easy-to-find, easy-to-use place and provides detailed descriptions of each of the 1490 NBS cases from urban centers in Europe.•The data and knowledge base thus helps users identify the best and most appropriated NBS model/type for addressing the particular goals and, at the same time, considers the local context and potential.•The data obtained can be used for the further meta-analysis by applying statistics or searching for specific sample cases and thus enables to generate and expand the knowledge from multiple NBS related studies, in both qualitative and quantitative ways.

The concept of a nature-based solution (NBS) has been developed in order to operationalize an ecosystem services approach within spatial planning policies and practices, to fully integrate the ecological dimension, and, at the same time, to address current societal challenges in cities. It exceeds the bounds of traditional approaches that aim ‘to protect and preserve’ by considering enhancing, restoring, co-creating, and co-designing urban green networks with nature that are characterized by multifunctionality and connectivity. NBSs include the main ideas of green and blue infrastructure, ecosystem services, and biomimicry concepts, and they are considered to be urban design and planning tools for ecologically sensitive urban development. Nowadays, NBSs are on their way to the mainstream as part of both national and international policies. The successful implementation of NBSs in Europe and worldwide, which is becoming increasingly common, highlights the importance and relevance of NBS for sustainable and livable cities. This paper discusses the roles, development processes, and functions of NBSs in cities by taking Leipzig as a case study. Using data from interviews conducted from 2017 to 2019, we study the past and current challenges that the city faces, including the whole process of NBS implementation and successful realization. We discuss the main drivers, governance actors, and design options of NBSs. We highlight the ecosystem services provided by each NBS. We discuss these drivers and governance strategies by applying the framework for assessing the co-benefits of NBSs in urban areas in order to assess the opportunities and challenges that NBSs may have. This way, we are able to identify steps and procedures that help to increase the evidence base for the effectiveness of NBS by providing examples of best practice that demonstrate the multiple co-benefits provided by NBSs.

This opinion paper discusses urban lawns, the most common part of open green spaces and urban green infrastructures. It highlights both the ecosystem services and also disservices provided by urban lawns based on the authors’ experience of working within interdisciplinary research projects on lawns in different cities of Europe (Germany, Sweden and Russia), New Zealand (Christchurch), USA (Syracuse, NY) and Australia (Perth). It complements this experience with a detailed literature review based on the most recent studies of different biophysical, social, planning and design aspects of lawns. We also used an international workshop as an important part of the research methodology. We argue that although lawns of Europe and the United States of America are now relatively well studied, other parts of the world still underestimate the importance of researching lawns as a complex ecological and social phenomenon. One of the core objectives of this paper is to share a paradigm of nature-based solutions in the context of lawns, which can be an important step towards finding resilient sustainable alternatives for urban green spaces in the time of growing urbanisation, increased urban land use competition, various user demands and related societal challenges of the urban environment. We hypothesise that these solutions may be found in urban ecosystems and various local native plant communities that are rich in species and able to withstand harsh conditions such as heavy trampling and droughts. To support the theoretical hypothesis of the relevance of nature-based solutions for lawns we also suggest and discuss the concept of two natures—different approaches to the vision of urban nature, including the understanding and appreciation of lawns. This will help to increase the awareness of existing local ecological approaches as well as an importance of introducing innovative landscape architecture practices. This article suggests that there is a potential for future transdisciplinary international research that might aid our understanding of lawns in different climatic and socio-cultural conditions as well as develop locally adapted (to environmental conditions, social needs and management policies) and accepted nature-based solutions.