Forum Enabling Green and Blue Infrastructure to Improve Contributions to Human Well-Being and Equity in Urban Systems Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/69/7/566/5520779 by guest on 19 June 2020 ERIK ANDERSSON , JOHANNES LANGEMEYER, SARA BORGSTRÖM , TIMON MCPHEARSON , DAGMAR HAASE, JAKUB KRONENBERG, DAVID N. BARTON, MCKENNA DAVIS, SANDRA NAUMANN, LINA RÖSCHEL, AND FRANCESC BARÓ The circumstances under which different ecosystem service benefits can be realized differ. The benefits tend to be coproduced and to be enabled by multiple interacting social, ecological, and technological factors, which is particularly evident in cities. As many cities are undergoing rapid change, these factors need to be better understood and accounted for, especially for those most in need of benefits. We propose a framework of three systemic filters that affect the flow of ecosystem service benefits: the interactions among green, blue, and built infrastructures; the regulatory power and governance of institutions; and people’s individual and shared perceptions and values. We argue that more fully connecting green and blue infrastructure to its urban systems context and highlighting dynamic interactions among the three filters are key to understanding how and why ecosystem services have variable distribution, continuing inequities in who benefits, and the long-term resilience of the flows of benefits. Q1 Keywords: green and blue infrastructure, multifunctionality, urban social–ecological systems, environmental justice, resilience N ature contributes to human well-being in many different ways. Within science, as in other knowledge systems, there is a deep understanding of how to appraise However, there are documented problems with the distri- bution and accessibility of both GBI and its benefits (sensu Fisher et al. 2009, Haines-Young and Potschin 2010). The and manage nature for different ecosystems. However, the uneven distribution of benefits has clear implications for often narrow and targeted approaches need to be placed in when and for whom GBI offers an opportunity to meet a larger context to better understand management options different ES needs (Webster 2007, Reichl 2016, Haase and their broad implications. In this article, we will use et al. 2017). The failure to deliver ES equitably is currently urban green and blue infrastructure (GBI) to demonstrate a discussed in terms of differences in biophysical landscape systems approach to assess the conditions under which eco- conditions and overall urban morphology; urban develop- system services (ES) may be turned into various benefits for ment pathways (Haase et al. 2017); institutional arrange- people and to critically ask questions about the distribution ments, such as property rights and governance schemes and resilience of the flow of diverse benefits. (Biernacka and Kronenberg 2019); current power regimes Green and blue spaces and their functional connections and procedural justice (Low 2013); and, closely related to and interrelations within and adjacent to cities have the the latter, historical legacies of social inequity and structural potential to provide a broad range of ES to urban residents racism (e.g., Bullard 1993, Boone et al. 2009). However, (e.g., Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013, Haase et al. 2014). By our understanding of how factors external to GBI affect its addressing pressing issues such as temperature increases, overall functionality and contribution to the urban system it poor environmental quality, and limited social inclusion, is embedded in is still incomplete. In a time when cities are GBI is also held to contribute to the mitigation of broader undergoing rapid change—more rapid (and new modes of) urban sustainability challenges, such as climate change and affordable transportation or flow of people or informa- impacts, needs for outdoor recreation, and spaces for social tion, decreasing ecological connectivity within GBI but also activity (Kabisch et al. 2017, Elmqvist et al. 2018). new niches for urban species, shifts in public opinion and BioScience 69: 566–574. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. doi:10.1093/biosci/biz058 566 BioScience • July 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 7 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience Forum land tenure, new venues and processes for deliberation and management interventions. The ENABLE approach aims to decision-making (e.g., new public management), and value advance the knowledge of how to work with the functional- articulation are some examples—more conceptual work, as ity of GBI more effectively and equitably—that is, how to well as empirical work, on contextual factors is needed to negotiate trade-offs between different interests and interven- improve the resiliency of the supply and to ensure an equi- tions and to ensure the delivery of social and environmental table distribution of benefits. benefits across diverse beneficiary groups over space and To improve our knowledge about how to better use GBI’s time, given continuous dynamic system change. full potential, it is necessary to understand the translation Our approach is focused on the identification of and of diverse ES into various benefits. The recent literature has analytical attention to the three aforementioned intercon- increasingly stressed the role of coproduction of ES—that is, nected systemic factors important for the flow of benefits: the importance of people and contextual circumstances (e.g., the layout and intersection of infrastructures, including Ernstson 2013, Andersson et al. 2015, Palomo et al. 2016, GBI and transportation networks and built (residential, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/69/7/566/5520779 by guest on 19 June 2020 Díaz et al. 2018). For different types of ES, this coproduction commercial) areas; the institutional arrangement around will look very different. For some regulating ES, such as air GBI (i.e., factors such as ownership and user rights, policy pollution removal and ambient temperature regulation, the intentions, and prescriptions), together with its implementa- key factor is the spatial configuration of the urban land cover tion; the perceptions, understanding, and preferences of the mosaic at a neighborhood level (Hamstead et al. 2016) and beneficiaries, the numerous social and cultural factors that the relations between supply and demand areas (Fisher et al. influence which benefits are ultimately available to people 2009, Syrbe and Walz 2012). For several cultural ES, such (figure 1). The next sections describe how these filters can be as aesthetics or beneficial nature experiences, it is primarily approached analytically and methodologically (table 1) and people’s diverse individual preferences and shared (or con- illustrate how they intersect with the flow and distribution flicting) norms (Vatn 2005). Still, for other ES, such as active of ES benefits. outdoor recreation and food production, it is land tenure and management (Kremen 2005, Langemeyer et al. 2015). GBI connections to other urban infrastructures Andersson and colleagues (2015) argued that this variation City regions are defined by dense and predominantly built could be discussed relative to systemic factors such as insti- (grey) infrastructures that support major functions such as tutions, available equipment, and technology. These factors safety, transportation, communication, illumination, water do not provide ES themselves; instead, they either mediate supply, sanitation, and energy provision. The different infra- or hinder the flow of benefits and therefore affect the distri- structures and their interconnections are primarily impor- bution of benefits to a diverse set of potential beneficiaries. tant for ES with a clear spatial dynamic (sensu Fisher et al. This context dependence is particularly prominent in cities 2009). Individual elements must be understood in terms of in which the mutual dependence of nature and humans is how they connect to elements from multiple different types both kaleidoscopic, because of the density of people and of infrastructure (e.g., green roofs to green walls, transpor- diversity of preferences and perspectives, and enmeshed in tation infrastructure connecting GBI to residential areas, or a human-dominated system of multiple layers of institutions being greened themselves such as grass rails) and not just and technical infrastructures (McPhearson et al. 2016). in terms of how they spatially and functionally connect to Therefore, a more systemic and context- and situation- other elements of the same type (e.g., tree to tree or park to sensitive approach is needed to answer questions about who park; McPhearson et al. 2016). For example, transportation benefits from GBI and why and how we can govern critical may cause environmental problems (e.g., anthropogenic components of the urban system to accommodate different contaminants in storm water, barriers to species’ move- needs and unequal opportunities. We propose that such an ments, and emission of particles), creating a place-specific enabling approach to improve the resilient flow and equi- need for certain ES. In this case, the function of GBI is to table distribution of ES benefits should focus on three key prevent the spread of negative externalities across other factors: infrastructures, institutions, and perceptions. Each infrastructures. Another example, relevant for a different factor acts as a filter directly or interactively together with group of ES, is when transportation is needed to make the the other factors suppressing or enhancing the flows of dif- recreational opportunities of a larger GBI component avail- ferent ES benefits. able to the residents of a non-neighboring housing area. Where policy, planning, and management have histori- Enabling the flow of ES benefits cally treated grey and green infrastructural networks as sep- The ENABLE project (Enabling Green and Blue Infrastructure arate, we now see a trend of increasing integration for using Potential in Complex Social–Ecological Regions, projecten- GBI to address urban resilience and sustainability goals able.eu) has developed a systems-based critical assessment together with prevailing technical infrastructures (Grimm and implementation approach for improving more equitable et al. 2016, Kabisch et al. 2017, Meerow and Newell 2017). and resilient flow of ES benefits in urban contexts. The Examples of integration include hybrid solutions (e.g., urban approach supports both designed mixed methods studies and runoff and sustainable drainage systems or heat protection post hoc expansion of narrowly framed research questions or installations; Depietri and McPhearson 2017) and integrated https://academic.oup.com/bioscience July 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 7 • BioScience 567 Forum ES and to assess this information rela- tive to areas of need or demand for the potential ES benefits. Depending on the benefit, the latter may include residential areas, transportation routes, and work- places. Although physical distance offers a starting point, transportation networks and modes of transportation often offer a better approximation for how avail- able GBI and ES benefits might be (e.g., Van Herzele and Wiedemann 2003). For example, a well-known green space with Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/69/7/566/5520779 by guest on 19 June 2020 multiple connections to public trans- portation and developed recreational facilities, such as benches and picnic areas, might be more accessible than a nearby green space that is not connected to the transportation network and that lacks additional (quality of stay) facili- ties. Additional prerequisites for differ- ent benefits (e.g., location of a pollution source upwind or upstream relative to Figure 1. The systems model. The green and blue infrastructure components vulnerable areas, ambient noise, auxil- and their different ecological qualities provide the first necessary precondition iary facilities for recreation or transpor- for ecosystem services. Systemic factors (the purple boxes) can enable or disable tation infrastructure) need to be mapped the flow of ecosystem services and thus influence translation of ecosystem and used to condition the landscape services into various benefits to beneficiaries (the red box). Downward oriented potential. Weber and colleagues (2014) arrows represent the feedback from beneficiaries and other actors (the red showed that the availability of green arrows) and different filters (the two-way purple arrows) that can influence space in combination with the height of either other filters or the green and blue infrastructure components that buildings helped reduce noise pollution underlie ecosystem service supply. These dynamics are then embedded in larger in residential areas of cities. Larondelle scale change exemplified in the article (but not necessarily restricted to) ­ and colleagues (2014) showed how water land-use change at a regional scale and environmental change at a global scale. surfaces in the vicinity of built spaces lower the ambient air temperature more effectively than simply increasing the planning frameworks (e.g., Pauleit et al. 2019). Therefore, we share of open space in a neighborhood. Together, these discuss complementary grey, green, and blue infrastructural analyses represent a spatially explicit baseline map of both systems in cities—altering in the dominance of grey and technical and green or blue infrastructures most relevant either green or blue—as the extended infrastructure sup- for the flow of ES benefits that can serve both at aggregated porting and directing the flow of ES benefits. (whole city, urban region) and disaggregated (neighbor- The extent to which the combined infrastructures enable hood, single trees) scales. or obstruct functional links differs across groups and indi- viduals. For example, differences in mobility (and in the The institutional setting: Land-use rights and ability to use different transportation infrastructure) are collectively defined goals among the better recognized (and in the sense of access Many benefits are realized through the active use of GBI to GBI being physical sites, relatively easy to work with) (activities or activities in combination with extraction of causes of unequal access. Certain age groups or people with goods, such as edible plants). Actor roles, rights, and functional limitations may need special infrastructure or responsibilities are framed by institutions, defined in this transportation options to reach a green space for recreation article as the formal and informal rules of a governance (Geurs and Van Wee 2004). In addition, more vulnerable system. These, in turn, need to be understood as situated in groups (e.g., low socioeconomic status) tend to be more a certain social, economic, and political context at a certain exposed to negative externalities or environmental burdens time (North 1991, Ostrom 2009). Together with the physi- (e.g., Jerrett et al. 2001, Padilla et al. 2014). cal infrastructures of the urban landscape, the institutions The assessment of integrated infrastructures needs to provide a setting that individuals and groups can then use combine quantification and evaluation of the potential of in different ways, pursuing different opportunities and ben- GBI (both its different elements and as a whole) to provide efits. Institutions articulate collective or shared values that 568 BioScience • July 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 7 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience Forum Table 1. Capturing the necessary preconditions for ES benefit realization. When is the filter Primary influence on flows Descriptors and Filter particularly relevant? of ES benefits parameters Methods Infrastructure When supply and demand Functional connectivity Quality, character and Spatial analyses of urban do not coincide or where between types of GBI and interconnections of morphology, environmental benefits are dependent areas for housing, services infrastructures, network quality monitoring and on additional facilities or and work. Physical barriers structure and topology, modeling, mapping and mediation (for good and bad) and gray relations between source modeling mobility options influence on the biophysical and demand, transportation environment (externalities), options creating need. Institutions When benefits are strongly Regulation of planning design Land ownership and tenure Policy analysis by the use associated with either active and practical management rights, content of policy and of documents, interviews use (of a resource) or a clear and use. Articulation of access to policy formation and modeling. Participatory, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/69/7/566/5520779 by guest on 19 June 2020 good (especially when the values and goals or agenda processes including influence multistakeholder good is in limited supply). setting. Restrictions to public on value articulating assessments Institutions also have a access, formally or informally institutions, actor mandates, second-order effect on benefit regulating activities that social norms, management distribution or accessibility by enable different benefits rules, policy alignment regulating mobility. (e.g., recreation). Perceptions When benefits are subjective, Individual differences in how Demographics, Interviews, questionnaires, cocreated, intangible, opportunities afforded by socioeconomic status, value behavioral or preference relational or context infrastructure and institutions orientations, knowledge observation, modeling ­ dependent are perceived and valued, (available and held), learning (agent-based models) relational dimensions of value, knowledge as an enabling factor reflect the individuals’ roles and perceptions and the norms Differences in the ability to be heard and influence policy they adhere to in their social contexts—for example, through processes manifest, for example, in gaps between individual political ambitions and priorities (Jacobs 1997, Vatn 2005). preferences and the more consensus-oriented group val- The institutional context, such as sectoral, jurisdictional, and ues as expressed in policy objectives, sanctioned activities, administrative divisions, is often the basis for GBI manage- and management plans (Ernstson 2013). This last points ment and use (Borgström et al. 2006). In addition to under- to the importance of openings for participating in value standing how current policies influence the accessibility of articulation and decision-making. For example, Colding benefits, we see institutions also as ongoing, often cyclic, and Barthel (2013) argued that diversity is needed in insti- processes. Civic movements, planning cycles, and continued tutional arrangements in order to match different people’s policy revisions offer opportunities to influence the distri- abilities and motives for participating, in turn influencing bution of benefits and to reframe targets. Therefore, in our the overall inclusivity and opportunity for people to engage approach, we see institutions as also framing the ways people in the realization of desired benefits. can be involved in changing how land is used. Similar to the physical infrastructure, a fragmented policy Opportunities to realize different ideas and needs are setting in which sectors are not aligned in terms of their tar- not equally open to everyone (Biernacka and Kronenberg gets, management strategies, or monitoring and evaluation 2018, Czembrowski et al. 2019). A first sharp divider is the (Borgström et al. 2006, Stead and Meijers 2009, Cejudo and difference between private and public, and ownership his- Michel 2017) may reduce the contribution of GBI to human tory is a key determinant of present-day property rights, well-being. Information about the institutional setting needs as well as the expectations of responsibility and access. to be added to the baseline maps of infrastructural systems Detailed land-use planning and property laws set the stage by overlaying the physical landscape with information on for formal and informal tenure arrangements and property land ownership, user rights, and formal and informal restric- rights, in turn affecting who can enjoy what benefits where tions, stakeholders, and policy targets. At the local scale, and who has the opportunity to shape the development of this may include land-use zonation, special maintenance, GBI and the overall landscape (Biernacka and Kronenberg and use contracts that promote a more narrow range of ES 2018, Langemeyer et al. 2018). For example, urban gardens, benefits than the combination of GBI type, ownership, and whether they are private or community owned, share many regulations generally would afford (e.g., by highlighting only of the same potential benefits, but the groups of beneficia- a smaller selection of potential uses). However, an important ries (and the terms of their involvement) differ (Colding source of injustice in access to GBI benefits can be found in and Barthel 2013). Higher socioeconomic status often the differences in whose values and preferences are captured affords opportunities to buy extended user or ownership or recognized by prevalent institutions. In addition to the rights and, therefore, access to both decision-making and spatial manifestation of different institutions, studies of the direct management (de Magalhães and Freire Trigo 2017). governance system can identify systemic opportunities and https://academic.oup.com/bioscience July 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 7 • BioScience 569 Forum constraints for influencing and changing current conditions governance structures that can reduce or help resolve such (e.g., Allen and Cochrane 2010, Silver et al. 2010). trade-offs (Biernacka and Kronenberg 2018). It is clear that individual perspectives on values and Individual perceptions, values, and experiences opportunities, as well as benefit interdependence, need to be Culture is an ever-present filter influencing how different taken into account in research and planning. These have, up individuals interpret different environments and circum- until now, been relatively unexplored. The methods chosen stances (Stephenson 2008). Specific needs, knowledge, for assessing the experiential quality of the urban landscape practices, identities, beliefs, worldviews, literature, and art need to be sensitive to the nature of the benefit, the condi- all influence the planning, design, and practical manage- tions under which it is available (e.g., Bergseng and Vatn ment of the GBI sources of ES flow and which ES benefits 2009) and the interpersonal differences among beneficiaries are desired, realized, and recognized and in what form (with regard to their ability to realize and recognize ben- (Setten et al. 2012, Kenter 2016). Age, gender, ethnicity, efits). Assessing different benefits and their values requires Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/69/7/566/5520779 by guest on 19 June 2020 and other cultural and socioeconomic circumstances may tailored methods (e.g., Harrison et al. 2018). Depending further accentuate these differences. For example, the on which component of GBI is being explored, the urban opportunity to be physical active has been highlighted as context it is set in, and the scale of study, the methodological an important benefit by elderly engaging in urban garden- design for capturing these plural values needs to be case and ing (Langemeyer et al. 2018). Although younger people context specific. In turn, the context-specific nature of ben- can be assumed to be as physically active while engag- efits means that extrapolating research findings even among ing in the same type of gardening activities, they do not neighborhoods in a single city requires great caution, if it place the same emphasis on this as an important benefit can be done at all. (Langemeyer et al. 2018). Moreover, the subjective percep- tion is relevant not only for the individual appreciation of Embedded multifunctionality and cities in constant importance and value but also for the interpretation of the change opportunities offered by GBI. Returning to the example Beyond the critical assessment of the current distribution of urban gardening, although women in Southern Europe of ES benefits, the second question the ENABLE approach are less likely than men to engage in gardening activities can provide is a solid basis for addressing what lies ahead. (Camps-Calvet et al. 2016), the opposite has been observed Cities and the people in them are facing upcoming changes in Northern Europe (Barthel et al. 2010). The example that will influence both the need for different ES and the indicates that the individual potential to realize ES benefits distribution of benefits (exemplified in box 1). Some of is closely interrelated and shaped by the cultural and insti- these drivers of change are external, such as climate change tutional context. or large-scale trade or migration patterns, whereas others Even when there are no formal restrictions, differences in are internal and connected to changes in the three filters. knowledge, education, available information, and individual Already, changes such as increasingly hybridized infrastruc- circumstances may privilege some voices and interests tures, increasing privatization of open public space (Lee and more than others (Schlosberg 2009, Sen 2009). The differ- Webster 2006), and new worldviews and expectations are ences in opportunities to realize individual interests remain already evident in many cities (Pereira et al. 2018). With underdeveloped in ES research and practice (Ernstson compact or smart cities being one of the current paradigms 2013, Berbés-Blázquez et al. 2016). One of the foundations for urban growth, the addition of new GBI is often paralleled for enhancing equal opportunities to realize ES benefits in by the loss—or at least geographic displacement toward the relation to multifunctional GBI is the understanding of the urban periphery or the rooftop level—of other types of GBI plurality of values and different needs and abilities among (Westerink et al. 2013, Haaland and van den Bosch 2015). present and future beneficiaries and the extent to which This shifts the baseline for where different ES might be avail- they can realize these desires (e.g., Webster 2002, Agyeman able in the densified urban landscape (Lin and Fuller 2013). 2013). Strategies for making spaces more multifunctional Moreover, more and more people will look to remaining GBI and more used often assume compatibility of use, but this is to satisfy their ES needs and desires (Gren et al. 2018). These not always possible. The activities associated with realizing different trends make resilience, in addition to justice, a key different benefits may be directly in conflict (e.g., Dinnie question for planning, governing, and managing GBI (e.g., et al. 2013, Biernacka and Kronenberg 2018), or the value of McPhearson et al. 2016, Andersson et al. 2017). Increasing a specific benefit may deteriorate if too many people seek to recognition of the many values tied to GBI is driving both an realize it at the same time (e.g., quiet and restorative experi- active engagement with the biophysical structure of GBI itself ences of nature). In addition, accessibility also has a psycho- (e.g., by the rollout of new types of GBI such as green roofs logical dimension, related to the perceptions of a given place across the urban landscape) and the larger system around it. based on unwritten social norms and the prospective users’ The latter includes both interventions for increased acces- negative feelings (in particular, of not being welcome there sibility (e.g., by increasing affordable transportation access, or feeling unsafe). Therefore, increased accessibility needs providing information and adding amenities to GBI) and to be viewed in the light of institutional conditioning and measures for building resilience against different threats 570 BioScience • July 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 7 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience Forum Box 1. Systemic filters in action: The case of Barcelona. Barcelona is a compact Mediterranean city with little per capita urban green space relative to other European cities (Baró et al. 2014), especially in the city center. It is currently challenged by climate change and human health issues (e.g., heat waves, flash floods, and air pollution), placing the question of how to unlock or redirect flows of GBI benefits high on the agenda. The city is also undergoing a process of shifting user preferences and expectations in response to new value framings, new lifestyles, and demographic changes. Increasing use by both residents and visitors is creating new trade-offs and, with them, new institutional and management challenges. For example, recreational activities (e.g., cycling, trail running) have substantially increased in the periurban natural area of Collserola (currently protected as a natural park) during the last decade, putting pressure on biodiversity and other disturbance sensitive benefits. As a first step toward finding workable solutions, the city council has approved several strategic policies in order to enhance and increase GBI within the municipality (e.g., Barcelona City Council 2018). New types of hybrid green–blue–grey infrastructure have Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/69/7/566/5520779 by guest on 19 June 2020 opened up new options for where greening is possible (e.g., the creation of urban parks such as the Jardins de la Rambla de Sants, on top of railway infrastructures, and the recent municipal funding of 10 green roof projects). This makes it possible to target and repur- pose problematic or underserved areas in which traditional GBI elements, such as parks or gardens, are impossible. Eventually, new types of GBI and mobility options are intended to provide a more equitable distribution of GBI benefits, especially in terms of cultural ES and regulating ES such as runoff control or mitigation of the urban heat island effect. However, new types of mobility and connec- tions between built-up areas and GBI need to be balanced by a new institutional framing (what is allowed, what is promoted). The same goes for GBI itself and the different benefits it has to offer: institutional arrangements and officially recognized and sanctioned uses are under revision seeking to strike a new balance between conflicting interests. For example, Collserola Park authorities are restrict- ing mass recreational activities, such as trail races, in order to minimize the impacts on biodiversity and habitat services. Participatory approaches to capture different societal perceptions and demands are already in place, although the alignment of new GBI, institu- tional regulations and diverse stakeholder perceptions and interests is one of the main challenges of Barcelona’s GBI planning in the forthcoming years. For example, there has been a recent push for naturalization of GBI elements to increase their climate change resilience (e.g., turning irrigated grass lawns into Mediterranean meadows that dry out during the summer), done in dialogue with stakeholders. However, even if some people have embraced new management approaches better suited to local (and future) conditions with more frequent extreme climate events such as heat waves, others still prefer traditional practices and idealized views of nature. In all, awareness of—and methods for comprehensively assessing and aligning—the three systemic filters will be necessary to provide a sustainable flow of GBI benefits over time in a more resilient city of Barcelona. (e.g., extreme events but also vandalism). However, making be addressed at larger temporal and spatial scales. Processes GBI itself and the factors that enable flows of ES benefits such as green gentrification (e.g., Anguelovski et al. 2018, resilient has received less attention (McPhearson et al. 2015, Łaszkiewicz et al. 2018) serve as examples of how the Andersson et al. 2017). implementation of new urban GBI can change the access to Change—or, rather, simultaneous processes of inter- benefits by changing neighborhood demographic structures linked changes—needs to be accounted for in both studies and in turn lead to unjust outputs in the mid- or long term, and governance of ES benefit flows. As is evident from the including the displacement of the most vulnerable. Targeted account of different benefit flows and filter effects, build- strategies, with their specific emphasis on different filters ing resilience around flows of multiple benefits cannot rely or subsets of ES, will always favor some actors and interests on just one approach, however holistic it may be. Working rather than others. Finding ways to balance different strate- with and through the three filters can be complementary gies and the scales at which this balance must be struck is at or contradictory, and they may have indirect consequences a premium, and this can only be done in a specific place at for GBI itself, as well as who gets to benefit from it. The a specific time. approach outlined in this article provides new ground for asking questions and reevaluating existing strategies for Conclusions building resilience. Strategies for managing and promoting With functioning ecosystems as the baseline for continued multifunctionality, when the different ES are inherently dif- human well-being in the face of future changes, GBI will play ferent in how they are linked up to the three filters, need to an ever more important role in ensuring the resilience and take different justice dimensions into account. For example, sustainability of and within urban areas. However, the effec- strategies drawing on institutional factors raise questions of tiveness of GBI in delivering its full potential of societal ben- representative democracy, accountability, and legitimacy in efits is largely determined by the wider system in which the governance (e.g., Cosens 2013). Furthermore, our approach GBI is embedded. We suggest that careful consideration of emphasizes that distributional effects are not necessar- three systemic filters will help GBI solutions to address envi- ily spatially and temporally immediate and that trade-offs ronmental as well as social challenges. In short, the approach between ES or the interests of different beneficiaries need to suggests that GBI functionality is a transdisciplinary and https://academic.oup.com/bioscience July 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 7 • BioScience 571 Forum cross-sectoral issue and that the interactions and intersec- in Urban Areas: Links between Science, Policy and Practice. Springer tions between different factors are at least as decisive as the International Publishing. Andersson E, McPhearson T, Kremer P, Gomez-Baggethun E, Haase D, quality and accessibility of GBI itself. It also suggests that Tuvendal M, Wurster D. 2015. Scale and context dependence of ecosys- an improved understanding of the conditions under which tem service providing units. Ecosystem Services 12: 157–164. different types of GBI components deliver multiple intercon- Angueloversuski I, Connolly JJT, Masip L, Pearsall H. 2018. Assessing green nected benefits and how these are received by diverse groups gentrification in historically disenfranchised neighborhoods: A longitu- of beneficiaries will also enable upscaling of good examples dinal and spatial analysis of Barcelona. Urban Geography 39: 458–491. Barcelona City Council. 2018. Climate Plan 2018–2030. http://hdl.handle. and the effective implementation of different nature-based net/11703/109218 solution designs. There may also be trade-offs between the Baró F, Chaparro L, Gómez-Baggethun E, Langemeyer J, Nowak DJ, current desired state when it comes to a fair distribution of Terradas J. 2014. Contribution of ecosystem services to air quality benefits and viable strategies, designs, or system configura- and climate change mitigation policies: The case of urban forests in tions that could support continued flows of benefits across Barcelona, Spain. Ambio 43: 466–479. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/69/7/566/5520779 by guest on 19 June 2020 Barthel S, Folke C, Colding J. 2010. Social–ecological memory in gardening: diverse futures. Retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem services. Global Methodologically, we argue that there are no specific Environmental Change 20: 255–265. frameworks or standard methods that will work across all Berbés-Blázquez M, González JA, Pascual U. 2016. Towards an ecosys- cases, especially not given the diverse nature of benefits tem services approach that addresses social power relations. Current and their interactions with the three filters; instead, we seek Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19: 134–143. Bergseng E, Vatn A. 2009. Why protection of biodiversity creates conflict: to identify which questions to ask and provide input to an Some evidence from the Nordic countries. Journal of Forest Economics informed discussion of the relevant knowledge needs for a 15: 147–165. specific case. The presented unifying systems approach and Biernacka M, Kronenberg J. 2018. Classification of institutional barriers the logic behind can help as a generic approach to position- affecting the availability, accessibility and attractiveness of urban green ing and aligning different methods and data, as well as dif- spaces. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 36: 22–33. Biernacka M, Kronenberg J. 2019. Urban green space availability, accessibil- ferent theoretical components and themes. Especially, it can ity, and attractiveness, and the delivery of ecosystem services. Cities and help us address new research questions or reevaluate old the Environment 12 (art, 5). case studies and truths. Borgström ST, Elmqvist T, Angelstam P, Alfsen-Norodom C. 2006. Scale mismatches in management of urban landscapes. Ecology and Society Acknowledgments 11: 16. Camps-Calvet M, Langemeyer J, Calvet-Mir L, Gómez-Baggethun E. 2016. First, we want to thank all our colleagues working on Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: ENABLE for critical discussions and help with devel- Insights for policy and planning. Environmental Science and Policy oping the approach. We especially want to thank Erik 62: 14–23. Stange for reading and commenting on an early version Cejudo GM, Michel CL. 2017. Addressing fragmented government action: of the manuscript and our anonymous reviewers. This Coordination, coherence, and integration. Policy Sciences 50: 745–767. Czembrowski P, Łaszkiewicz E, Kronenberg J, Engström G, Andersson, E. research was funded through the 2015–2016 BiodivERsA 2019. Valuing individual characteristics and the multifunctionality of COFUND call for research proposals, with the national urban green spaces: The integration of sociotope mapping and hedonic funders the Swedish Research Council for Environment, pricing. PLOS ONE 14 (art. e0212277). Agricultural Sciences, and Spatial Planning; the Swedish Colding J, Barthel S. 2013. The potential of “urban green commons” in the Environmental Protection Agency; the German Aerospace resilience building of cities. Ecological Economics 86: 156–166. Cosens B. 2013. Legitimacy, adaptation, and resilience in ecosystem man- Center; the National Science Centre (Poland; grant no. agement. Ecology and Society 18: 3. 2016/22/Z/NZ8/00003); the Research Council of Norway; Depietri Y, McPhearson T. 2017. Integrating the grey, green, and blue in cities: and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. Nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation and risk reduction. TM’s participation was additionally supported by the US Pages 91–109 in Kabisch N, Korn H, Stadler J, Bonn A, eds. Nature-Based National Science Foundation through the Urban Resilience Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas. Springer. Díaz S et al. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359: to Extreme Weather-Related Events Sustainability Research 270–272. Network (NSF grant no. SES 1444755). SB’s participation Dinnie E, Brown KM, Morris S. 2013. Community, cooperation and con- was additionally supported by the School of Architecture flict: Negotiating the social well-being benefits of urban greenspace and Built Environment at the Royal Institute of Technology, experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning 112: 1–9. in Stockholm, Sweden. Elmqvist T, Bai X, Frantzeskaki N, Griffith C, Maddox D, McPhearson T, Parnell S, Romero-Lankao P, Simon D, Watkins M, eds. 2018. Urban Planet. Cambridge University Press. References cited Ernstson H. 2013. The social production of ecosystem services: A frame- Agyeman J. 2013. Introducing Just Sustainabilities: Policy, Planning, and work for studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in Practice. Zed Books Ltd. urban landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 109: 7–13. Allen J, Cochrane A. 2010. Assemblages of state power: Topological shifts in Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. 2009. Defining and classifying eco- the organization of government and politics. Antipode 42: 1071–1089. system services for decision making. Ecological Economics 68: Andersson E, Borgström S, McPhearson T. 2017. Double insurance in 643–653. dealing with extremes: Ecological and social factors for making nature- Geurs KT, Van Wee B. 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and trans- based solutions last. Pages 51–64 in Kabisch N, Korn H, Stadler J, port strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Bonn A, eds. Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation geography 12: 127–140. 572 BioScience • July 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 7 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience Forum Gómez-Baggethun E et al. 2013. Urban ecosystem services. Pages 175–251 Lin BB, Fuller RA. 2013. Sharing or sparing? How should we grow the in Elmqvist T, et al., eds. Global Urbanization, Biodiversity, and world’s cities? Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 1161–1168. Ecosystems: Challenges and Opportunities Cities and Biodiversity Low S. 2013. Public space and diversity: Distributive, procedural and inter- Outlook: Scientific Analyses and Assessments. Springer. actional justice for parks. Pages 295–310 in Young G, Stevenson D, eds. Gren Å, Colding J, Berghauser-Pont M, Marcus L. 2018. How smart is smart The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning and Culture. Ashgate growth? Examining the environmental validation behind city compac- Publishing. tion. Ambio: 1–10. de Magalhães C, Freire Trigo S. 2017. “Clubification” of urban public Grimm NB, Cook EM, Hale RL, Iwaniec DM. 2016. A broader fram- spaces? The withdrawal or the re-definition of the role of local govern- ing of ecosystem services in cities: Benefits and challenges of built, ment in the management of public spaces. Journal of Urban Design 22: natural, or hybrid system function. Pages 203–212 in Seto KC-Y, 738–756. Solecki WD, Griffith CA, eds. Handbook on Urbanization and Global McPhearson T, Andersson E, Elmqvist T, Frantzeskaki N. 2015. Resilience Environmental Change. Routledge. of and through urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 12: Haaland C, van den Bosch CK. 2015. Challenges and strategies for urban 152–156. green-space planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. McPhearson T, Pickett STA, Grimm NB, Niemelä J, Alberti M, Elmqvist T, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/69/7/566/5520779 by guest on 19 June 2020 Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 14: 760–771. Weber C, Haase D, Breuste J, Qureshi S. 2016. Advancing urban ecology Haase D et al. 2017. Greening cities: To be socially inclusive? About the toward a science of cities. BioScience 66: 198–212. alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat International Meerow S, Newell JP. 2017. Spatial planning for multifunctional green 64: 41–48. infrastructure: Growing resilience in Detroit. Landscape and Urban Haase D et al. 2014. A Quantitative review of urban ecosystem ser- Planning 159: 62–75. vice assessments: Concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43: North DC. 1991. Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5: 413–433. 97–112. Haines-Young RH, Potschin M. 2010. The links between biodiversity, Ostrom E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social– ecosystem services, and human well-being. Pages 110–139 in Raffaelli ecological systems. Science 325: 419–422. DG, Frid CLJ, eds. Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. Cambridge Padilla CM, Kihal-Talantikite W, Vieira VM, Rossello P, Le Nir G, Zmirou- University Press. Navier D, Deguen S. 2014. Air quality and social deprivation in four Hamstead ZA, Kremer P, Larondelle N, Haase D. 2016. Classification of the French metropolitan areas: A localized spatio-temporal environmental heterogeneous structure of urban landscapes (STURLA) as an indicator inequality analysis. Environmental Research 134: 315–324. of landscape function applied to surface temperature in New York City. Palomo I, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM, Martín-López B, Pascual U. 2016. Ecological Indicators 70: 574–585. Disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-produc- Harrison PA, Dunford R, Barton DN, Kelemen E, Martín-López B, Norton tion. Advances in Ecological Research 54: 245–283. L, Termansen M, Saarikoski H, Hendriks K, Gómez-Baggethun E. 2018. Pauleit S et al. 2019. Advancing Urban Green Infrastructure in Europe: Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree Outcomes and reflections from the GREEN SURGE project. Urban approach. Ecosystem Services 29: 481–498. Forestry and Urban Greening 40: 4–16. Van Herzele A, Wiedemann T. 2003. A monitoring tool for the provision Pereira L, Bennett E, Biggs R, Peterson G, McPhearson T, Norström A, of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Olsson P, Preiser R, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Vervoort J. 2018. Seeds of the Planning 63: 109–126. future in the present: Exploring pathways for navigating towards “good” Jacobs M. 1997. Sustainability and markets: On the neoclassical model of Anthropocenes. Pages 327–350 in Elmqvist T, Bai X, Frantzeskaki environmental economics. New Political Economy 2: 365–385. N, Griffith C, Maddox D, McPhearson T, Parnell S, Romero-Lankao Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Kanaroglou P, Eyles J, Finkelstein N, Giovis C, Brook P, Simone D, Watkins M, eds. Urban Planet: Knowledge towards JR. 2001. A GIS–environmental justice analysis of particulate air pollu- Sustainable Cities. Cambridge University Press. tion in Hamilton, Canada. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Reichl AJ. 2016. The High Line and the ideal of democratic public space. Space 33: 955–973. Urban Geography 37: 904–925. Kabisch N, Stadler J, Korn H, Bonn A. 2017. Nature-based solutions for Schlosberg D. 2009. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, societal goals under climate change in urban areas: Synthesis and ways and Nature. Oxford University Press. forward. Pages 323–336 in Kabisch N, Korn H, Stadler J, Bonn A, eds. Sen AK. 2009. The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press. Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas. Setten G, Stenseke M, Moen J. 2012. Ecosystem services and landscape Springer. management: Three challenges and one plea. International Journal of Kenter JO. 2016. Shared, plural, and cultural values. Ecosystem Services Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 8: 1–8. 21: 175–183. Silver H, Scott A, Kazepov Y. 2010. Participation in urban contention and Kremen C. 2005. Managing ecosystem services: What do we need to know deliberation. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34: about their ecology? Ecology Letters 8: 468–479. 453–477. Langemeyer J, Baró F, Roebeling P, Gómez-Baggethun E. 2015. Contrasting Stead D, Meijers E. 2009. Spatial planning and policy integration: values of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas: The case of park Concepts, facilitators, and inhibitors. Planning Theory and Practice 10: Montjuïc in Barcelona. Ecosystem Services 12: 178–186. 317–332. Langemeyer J, Camps-Calvet M, Calvet-Mir L, Barthel S, Gómez-Baggethun Stephenson J. 2008. The cultural values model: An integrated approach to E. 2018. Stewardship of urban ecosystem services: Understanding the values in landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 84: 127–139. value(s) of urban gardens in Barcelona. Landscape and Urban Planning Syrbe R-U, Walz U. 2012. Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem 170: 79–89. services: Providing, benefiting, and connecting areas and landscape Larondelle N, Hamstead ZA, Kremer P, Haase D, McPhearson T. 2014. metrics. Ecological Indicators 21: 80–88. Applying a novel urban structure classification to compare the relation- Vatn A. 2005. Institutions and the Environment. Edward Elgar. ships of urban structure and surface temperature in Berlin and New Weber N, Haase D, Franck U. 2014. Assessing modelled outdoor traffic- York City. Applied Geography 53: 427–437. induced noise and air pollution around urban structures using the Łaszkiewicz E, Kronenberg J, Marcińczak S. 2018. Attached to or bound to concept of landscape metrics. Landscape and Urban Planning 125: a place? The impact of green space availability on residential duration: 105–116. The environmental justice perspective. Ecosystem Services 30: 309–317. Webster C. 2002. Property rights and the public realm: Gates, green belts, Lee S, Webster C. 2006. Enclosure of the urban commons. GeoJournal 66: and Gemeinschaft. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 27–42. 29: 397–412. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience July 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 7 • BioScience 573 Forum Webster C. 2007. Property rights, public space and urban design. Town del Mar Medical Research Institute, in Barcelona, Spain. Sara Borgström is Planning Review 78: 81–101. affiliated with the Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Westerink J, Haase D, Bauer A, Ravetz J, Jarrige F, Aalbers CBEM. 2013. Science and Engineering, at the Royal Institute of Technology—KTH, in Dealing with Sustainability Trade-Offs of the Compact City in Peri- Stockholm, Sweden. Timon McPhearson is affiliated with the Urban Systems Urban Planning Across European City Regions. European Planning Lab, The New School, in New York, New York. Timon McPhearson is affili- Studies 21: 473–497. ated with the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, in Millbrook, New York. Dagmar Haase is affiliated with the Institute of Geography at Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, in Berlin, Germany. Dagmar Haase is affiliated with Erik Andersson (erik.andersson@su.se) and Timon McPhearson are affiliated the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, Department of with the Stockholm Resilience Centre, at Stockholm University, in Stockholm, Computational Landscape Ecology, in Leipzig, Germany. Jakub Kronenberg Sweden. Erik Andersson is affiliated with the North-West University, in is affiliated with the Faculty of Economics and Sociology at the University Potchefstroom, South Africa. Johannes Langemeyer and Francesc Baró are of Lodz, in Lodz, Poland. David N. Barton is affiliated with the Norwegian affiliated with the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at Institute for Nature Research, in Trondheim, Norway. McKenna Davis, the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, in Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain. Sandra Naumann, and Lina Röschel are affiliated with the Ecologic Institute, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/69/7/566/5520779 by guest on 19 June 2020 Johannes Langemeyer and Francesc Baró are affiliated with the Hospital in Berlin, Germany 574 BioScience • July 2019 / Vol. 69 No. 7 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience