Environmental Science and Policy 109 (2020) 1–14 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Environmental Science and Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci Weaving notions of justice into urban ecosystem services research and T practice Johannes Langemeyera,b,*, James J.T. Connollya,b a Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Edifici Z (ICTA-ICP), Carrer de les Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain b Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute (IMIM), Carrer Doctor Aiguader 88, 08003 Barcelona, Spain A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T Keywords: In a rising urban age planning for cities around the globe is increasingly based on assessments of ecosystem Ecosystem services services, making enhanced considerations of ecosystem service justice critically important. Yet, justice remains a Environmental justice ‘blind spot’ in urban ecosystem service models and research, which can be traced back to the ecological and Spatial justice economic legacies of the concept itself. This legacy reproduces the normative focus on natural capital as a Temporal justice guarantee of sustaining ecosystem services, enforces a static understanding of nature that insufficiently considers Equity Plural values human agency, and conceptualizes ecosystem service flows from nature to humans in a way that does not reflect the social-ecological structure and constantly shifting priorities of the urban realm. In response, this conceptual paper aims at broadening the analytical foundation for justice in urban ecosystem service assessments by pre- senting a model that links the co-production of urban ecosystem services (including infrastructure, institutions, and perceptions) with established lines of recognition, procedural, and distributional justice. It further highlights the need to embed these classical dimensions of justice within both spatial (downscaled and inter-scalar ap- proaches) and temporal (interrelated past, present, and future conditions) justice frames. Relying on urban environmental, social, spatial and temporal justice theory as well ecosystem service scholarship, we outline theoretical entry points and provide practical examples for weaving notions of justice into urban ecosystem service research and practice, while highlighting future research needs. 1. Introduction becoming a key framework for the analysis of benefits provided by the push since the 1990s to create green infrastructure and, more recently, Urbanisation in the Anthropocene is increasingly embedded in “nature-based solutions” in urban areas (Demuzere et al., 2014; Hansen planetary systems and processes (Brenner and Schmid, 2017; Graham, et al., 2015; Raymond et al., 2017). Yet, despite proximate intellectual 1999) reaching far beyond local political boundaries (Seto et al., 2017; endeavours to link justice and urban ecology, calls for a stronger con- Castells, 2010; Hall and Pain, 2006). As a consequence, cities are in- templation of justice within ES assessments, especially from an em- tensively driving global environmental change (Seto et al., 2010) and pirical perspective (cf. Sikor et al., 2014), have gone largely unheaded are important political arenas for shaping the overall distribution of (Biernacka and Kronenberg, 2019; Ernstson, 2013; Kabisch, 2019). material and immaterial benefits that nature provides to people Currently, only a few real-world urban greening interventions (Anguelovski et al., 2019; Elmqvist et al., 2013; Merrifield, 2013), here consider direct distributional effects in an effort to ensure inclusive ES referred to as ecosystem services (ES). In this context of planetary ur- outcomes. Even when those with an equity consideration are accounted banisation, new urban-centred theoretical framings are required that for, almost all urban greening efforts neglect complex social-ecological support an empirical approach to urban ES justice. processes that unfold across space and over time into emergent new The ES concept has become a dominant metaphor, accounting in- forms of injustice for certain social groups (Anguelovski et al., 2019). strument, and planning tool (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013), These may, for example, include gentrification processes related to the creating a major paradigm shift from natural preservation for nature’s implementation of new urban parks (Anguelovski et al., 2018; Cole sake towards sustaining nature’s benefits for people. ES are also et al., 2017; Gould and Lewis, 2016; Pearsall and Eller, 2020) or ⁎ Corresponding author at: Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Edifici Z (ICTA-ICP), Carrer de les Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain. E-mail address: johannes.langemeyer@uab.cat (J. Langemeyer). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.021 Received 15 September 2019; Received in revised form 29 March 2020; Accepted 30 March 2020 1462-9011/ © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/). J. Langemeyer and J.J.T. Connolly Environmental Science and Policy 109 (2020) 1–14 metabolic benefit (and burden) shifting between cities and the urban of value for understanding one portion of the social justice challenge of hinterland through the implementation new forms of urban agriculture, urban ES ― namely the spatially and temporally particular instances of such as roof-top gardening (Goldstein et al., 2016; McClintock, 2010; injustice in the distribution of benefits (Turkelboom et al., 2018) ― Sanyé-Mengual et al., 2015; Piezer et al., 2019). they do not account well for inter-scalar (tele-)connections character- The justice challenge with regard to the provision of ES is embedded izing ES injustice (e.g. Corbera et al., 2019). Furthermore, they are not in large, systemic interactions that are especially acute in dense urban sufficient to uncover the dynamics of how ES inequalities formed in the areas where effects concentrate. As a result, the direct omission of ef- past or how the future distribution of benefits is likely to unfold forts to mitigate unjust policy outcomes, for example by compensating (Jenerette et al., 2011; Derkzen et al., 2017). for the lack of distributional justice considerations in the general ES The conceptual challenge at hand is not resolved through simple framework through enhanced stakeholder participation (e.g. Hauck alignment of ES with sustainability frameworks. Such an effort has et al., 2014), is only one aspect of what is missing with regard to the proven insufficient because most mainstream applied approaches to justice perspective in urban ES practice. Without developing the sustainability (e.g. Sustainable Development Goals) emphasize eco- broader model that accounts for systemic interactions by incorporating nomic growth in a manner that allows certain aspects of the multiple distributive, procedural, and recognition aspects of ES justice as well as domains of justice to be sacrificed (e.g. distributional goals may be the perspective of larger spatial and temporal implications of urban explicitly targeted while procedural justice is scarcely attended to). As a greening, ES approaches put into practice are unlikely to unfold in a just consequence of neglect for who, how, and where questions, the ‘equity manner. Furthermore, firmly anchoring notions of justice in ES theory deficit’ ― where substantive considerations of social equity and justice points toward new directions for research that require questioning are excluded ― described by Agyeman (2008) for environmental sus- some of the fundamental assumptions and traditions in ES studies tainability is extended to urban environmental policies. Said differently, stemming from the economic and ecological origins of the concept. in the absence of a more balanced accounting for social justice in urban ES research, practical ES approaches are likely to recreate prior patterns 1.1. Justice and ecosystem services of sustainability initiatives where those with political power do not consider the unequal distribution of nature’s benefits to the detriment Justice is understood here as a variegated set of conditions ― pri- of economically, socially, and/or racially disadvantaged groups, both marily concerned with distribution of resources, political processes, and within cities and across scales through global urbanisation networks of social recognition ― that allows for full human flourishing (Schlosberg, ES (Wolch et al., 2014; Wyly, 2015). In response, a distinct model of 2013). If conditions within a given society systematically support some, urban ES justice is needed as a foundation for carving out a different but hinder other individuals or groups with regard to basic flourishing path. The model we develop does so by incorporating distributive, (i.e. fundamentally thriving within reasonable limits) according to procedural, and recognition aspects of justice into a single framework achievable outcomes that they value in order to live a healthy and that also accounts for scalar and temporal dimensions of urbanisation. fulfilled life, then that society is to some degree unjust (Fraser, 1995). A Specifically, we outline a dynamic understanding of urban ES pro- common example of such conditions is based on gender-related in- duction cycles (Langemeyer, 2015) that is meant to challenge the equalities, which may routinely ensure that women (for example) are ecological and economic legacies of the ES concept (Gómez-Baggethun less healthy and more vulnerable to physical and financial violence et al., 2010) and the predominance of utilitarian stock-flow models in (Nussbaum, 2000). A particular extension of this issue that has been its conceptualization (Potschin-Young et al., 2018). Such a dynamic largely overlooked by the urban ES literature is expressed in gender- understanding of an urban ES production cycle, based on the assump- related barriers to the recreational benefits of urban green spaces (e.g. tion of ES co-production (Andersson et al., 2007; Berbés-Blázquez et al., Wang et al., 2015; Wendel et al., 2012). 2016; Boulton et al., 2018; Juntti and Lundi, 2017), needs to in- Of course, without a functioning ecosystem there can be no human corporate a broad conceptualization of the manifold aspects of justice in condition, just or otherwise. Therefore, even while the societal condi- ES research and practice while acknowledging the inter-scalar character tions that support social justice are debated and being updated along- and shifting spatial reach of planetary urban processes (Graham, 1999) side an increasingly planetary view of urbanisation (Brenner, 2018; Shi embedded in a range of simultaneous temporal dynamics being shaped et al., 2016), it is simultaneously necessary to account for the specific by urbanisation (Massey, 1992). Such understanding would acknowl- effects on the underlying ‘ecological condition for justice’ (Holland, edge that fair distribution of ES demands recognition of historic in- 2008). As many scholars have pointed out, these realms are two sides of equalities embedded in ES production and consumption patterns the same social-ecological coin, a point which highlights the need for an alongside current needs in combination with mechanisms to account for explicit model of urban ES justice that links closely with a con- changing (green) infrastructures in the future, shifting societal needs temporary perspective on urbanisation and social justice. Such re- across different social groups, and inclusive procedures that impact conciliation requires at once including considerations of recognition, actions, actors, institutions or states of affairs within urban decision- procedural and distributive justice across different spatial and temporal making praxis. scales (Ernstson, 2013). This approach to ES production would also recognize broad spatial This is not to say that there has been no attention paid to explicit and temporal forces that shape ES provision as a result of urbanisation. justice questions in urban ES research (e.g. Depietri et al., 2016; Access to a spectrum of generalized ES, such as food and clean water, Jennings et al., 2016; Juntti and Lundi, 2017; Wilkinson et al., 2013), underlies the prospects for human flourishing regardless of geographic but rather that the urban ES framework has yet to reconcile a wider location (Heynen, 2014; Wachsmuth, 2012), but there are also highly range of issues raised by scholars of urban social justice and planetary localized conditions that are critical in determining different levels of urbanisation within a model of urban ES justice (Marshall & Gonzalez- accessibility to ecosystem benefits, such as opportunities for recreation, Melen, 2016). The urban ES literature ― as Ernstson (2013) critically which are often of limited availability in urban areas (Alkan-Olsson emphasized ― has primarily and narrowly approached justice from a et al., 2020; Andersson et al., 2019). As well, urbanisation at once static and local perspective of distributive justice, most commonly shapes intra-generational dynamics of wellbeing and inter-generational analysing social trade-offs in relation to greening outcomes. These endowments of resources for living a fulfilled life. Therefore, simulta- trade-off accounting studies focus on unequal distributions of benefits neous attention to the social-ecological interactions that determine between different social groups in a limited spatial and temporal con- access to ES and the preservation of a basic ecological condition upon text and within a given state of infrastructure provision, institutional which just social systems can be built is essential. norms and individual perceptions (e.g. Baró et al., 2019; Egerer et al., In order to outline a model that accounts for the range of issues 2018; Escobedo et al., 2015; Maia et al., 2020). While these studies are impacting justice, this article presents a novel approach to thinking 2 J. Langemeyer and J.J.T. Connolly Environmental Science and Policy 109 (2020) 1–14 about urban ES justice that expands on prior efforts in three ways. First, sustain the flow of benefits (e.g. ibid.) ― a concept which continues to it critically scrutinizes the ecological and economic traditions em- dominate the current scientific understanding of ES. The ‘stock-and- bedded in the ES concept that need to be addressed in order to fully flow’ framing (Norgaard, 2010), which is firmly anchored within a account for the challenges in producing urban ES justice. Second, it utilitarian view of nature’s value, is also reflected in the ES ‘cascade responds to the call from within the ES scholarship to overcome the model’ ― today, probably the most influential conceptual framework in fragmented and incomplete understanding of how the multiple di- ES theory and practice (Potschin-Young et al., 2018). In this model, the mensions of justice beyond distribution ― including, for instance, re- biophysical ecosystem structure and associated processes determine the cognition and procedural justice (Fraser, 1995) ― can inform (urban) flow of ES benefits, to which finally values are attributed (MA, 2005; ES research and practice (e.g. Dawson et al., 2018; Enssle and Kabisch, Potschin and Haines-Young, 2011). 2020; Ernstson, 2013; Pascual et al., 2014). Third, it internalizes the With other social sciences only timidly embracing the ES approach, particular spatial challenge raised by planetary processes of urbaniza- environmental economists have been at the forefront of determining the tion (Heynen, 2003; Jansson, 2013) and it pushes toward a more ba- (monetary) value of ES based on their utility and thereby have shaped lanced approach to the temporal implications of ES (Anguelovski et al., the interpretations of ES as the concept is translated from a policy 2020; Derkzen et al., 2017; Wilkinson et al., 2013). metaphor to a scientific approach and increasingly applied in practice Overall, this article highlights the multiple entry- and docking- (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010; Lele, 2013; Norgaard, 2010). While points for social justice that already exist within ES scholarship and monetary valuation has been strongly disputed and there is an ongoing indicates the gaps to be closed for a coherent approach to the wider partial push-back within contemporary ES scholarship (e.g., Corbera empirical project of urban ES justice. It begins with a reflection on the et al., 2007; Matulis, 2014), the utilitarian economic goal of a ‘potential historic legacies of ES scholarship, highlighting conceptual burdens for Pareto improvement’ (i.e. economic efficiency), occurring when the sum urban ES-based equity analyses that need to be overcome. Importantly, of benefits outweighs the sum of the costs (e.g. of a project or a policy), we recognize that the lack of consideration for justice in urban ES is more persistent and remains as either the explicit or implicit moti- analyses is in part reflective of the limited role played by humanities vation for decision-making based on ES assessments (Saarikoski et al., and social sciences (beyond economists) in developing and shaping the 2016). This economic legacy neglects distributional effects by definition ES concept. Following this background, we respond to the repeated as it favours a ‘homogenous approach to communities’ that fails to calls for stronger considerations of equity and justice in urban ES re- consider social diversity (Chaudhary et al., 2018:99). It presents com- search that expand understanding of how such considerations can be plex social-ecological relationships as neutral exchanges between operationalized (Ernstson, 2013; Haase et al., 2017). Here, we provide a ‘nature’ and ‘people’ governed by economic rationality, thereby con- new approach to conceptualizing how justice fits into the dynamic re- cealing conflicts and power imbalances in specific geographical and lationship between people and urban nature in the process of co-pro- historical contexts (Kull et al., 2015). One exception to this circum- ducing ES, including the interlinked character of perceptions, institu- stance is found in the literature on payments for ES, where ES justice tions and infrastructure (Biernacka and Kronenberg, 2018; 2019 considerations are often explicit. While utilitarian thinking is also Andersson et al., 2019), which act as filters for the uptake of urban ES. prevalent here; strong emphasis is put on the ES provider-user re- Unlike the environmental justice (EJ) and urban political ecology lit- lationships and related injustices, where the monetary value of ES eratures (which have seen a sustained effort to mine the lessons of so- benefits (i.e. the marginal utility) stands at the centre of compensation cial justice scholarship, e.g. Heynen et al., 2006; Schlosberg, 2013; payments to reward the efforts of the ES providers (cf. Sikor et al., Swyngedouw and Heynen, 2003) ― from which we pull important 2013). lessons ― urban ES research is still developing a robust engagement While the economic utility paradigm, striving for the maximization with a justice framework. We set out here some proposed guideposts for of net benefits, remains dominant in ES assessments, the practical re- such engagement. sponses to repeated calls (e.g. Kosoy and Corbera, 2010; Saarikoski et al., 2016) for empirical considerations of social incommensurability 2. Conceptual legacies of values and differences in preferences related to differences in socio- economic situations remain scarce. Despite important conceptual ad- Although the ES concept lacks a single, coherent framework, and is vances, empirical ES literature still often overlooks inherent (i.e. in- the object of continued normative and epistemological debates (Lele, trinsic) nature values as well as relational values of and about nature 2013), a major cause for the ‘equity deficit’ in ES research is generally (including eudaimonistic values) that are non-utilitarian (Chan et al., ascribed to the ecological and economic legacies of the concept 2016, 2018; Jax et al., 2013). Díaz et al. (2018) assume that this defi- (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010; Díaz et al., 2018; Pascual et al., 2014). ciency is related to the alienation between ES research and other sci- These legacies have intellectual tendrils that still reach into the main- entific fields more concerned with justice, especially the social sciences, stream application of the concept today. Thus, before teasing out im- which they argue has accelerated since the path-leading Millennium portant advances in ES research and presenting the conceptualization of Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005). The consequence is an enduring urban ES justice, it is worthwhile to briefly revisit the historic legacy lack of differentiated understanding of people’s perceptions, cultural embedded in the ES concept that hampers a stronger embrace of social framings, epistemological perspectives and the distribution of benefits justice perspectives. and values in practice (Chan et al., 2012; Díaz et al., 2018; Norgaard, While the ecological-economic legacy of ES dates back to the 1970s 2010), which constitutes a major obstacle for ES scholarship to develop (e.g. Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1981), it received an important reinterpreta- an empirical justice perspective (Pascual et al., 2014). tion through the highly influential Brundtland (1987) report introdu- While the normative utilitarian dimensions of ES scholarship are a cing sustainable development as the principle of “development that meets primary limiting factor with regard to the integration of social justice the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future concerns, there is also a decided thematic bias emerging from ecolo- generations to meet their own needs”. This understanding includes gical legacies in relation to the rural origins of the ES concept with social equity as a consideration, but there has been a notable lack of which to contend. Where social science research conducted through an attention to such concerns relative to ecological preservation and eco- economic lens mainly focused on utility values as an endpoint of linear nomic growth goals (Agyeman, 2008). The ES model, premised on and unidirectional processes of value creation by nature, ecologists maintaining natural capital to sustain future generations’ wellbeing including their urban offshoot maintain an often limited focus on eco- (Costanza and Daly, 1992), has developed in a similar fashion. The lack logical structure and functions (the beginning of the ES cascade) as the of equity focus within sustainability was reflected as well in the foun- source of ES flows (Haase et al., 2014). This (rural) conceptualization of dational economic metaphor of ES as ‘stocks of natural capital’ that stock-and-flow thinking is predominant in the ES work influenced by 3 J. Langemeyer and J.J.T. Connolly Environmental Science and Policy 109 (2020) 1–14 the cascade model and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, but in- reflect in part the still shy engagement with the concept by urbanists sufficiently reflects the urban realm. More precisely, it overemphasizes and social scientists, other than economists (DeGroot et al., 2018), and the maintenance of (pristine) ecosystems in order to guarantee sus- the corresponding lack of a coherent urban ES justice conceptualiza- tainable flows of ES. Consequently, it overlooks the fundamental tion. character of urban ES being deeply co-produced by natural and human Yet, as ES scholarship has also made some considerable progress assets (Andersson et al., 2007; Boulton et al., 2018; Raymond et al., beyond its ecological and economic origins (Sikor, 2013; Maes et al., 2018) and does not fully account for the planetary nature of urbani- 2018; Corbera, 2015), we see good reason to push it further toward sation processes (Brenner and Schmid, 2017), where urban demands inclusion of explicit social justice concerns. In the following section, we drive the production of ES (e.g. in the form of food and recreation) at highlight the alternative trends in ES theory, practice, and research, the global scale. The over-emphasis on the biophysical structures un- which parallel the classical ecological and economic paradigms and derlying the generation of ES benefits in urban ES assessments (cf. which, as we show, when properly teased out, allow for the ES fra- Haase et al., 2014) is due to an insufficient consideration of the dy- mework to support comprehensive equity and justice assessments of namics of service-providing social structures, institutions and eco- urban greening. system governance, as well as constantly changing needs and wants among urban citizens and shifting priorities for specific ES (cf. 3. Expanding the meaning of social justice for urban ecosystem Andersson et al., 2019). services research In short, the bias toward ecological structure and function in ES research belies its own social-ecological aspect. It can be disputed The ES framework has an inherently positive connotation of eco- whether and to what extent stock-flow models are useful in reflecting system–society relationships. Yet, for developing a framework of ES non-urban realities under global production processes (cf. Spangenberg justice, it is critical to also consider negative outcomes, or ‘burdens’, of et al., 2014), but they surely fall short in describing the production of greening that accompany the production of ES (Lele, 2013). Burdens urban ES for and within metropolitan regions, which are critically de- might include potential environmental impacts from the material and termined by the importance of feedbacks from governance patterns, energy inputs required to maintain urban ES, as well as considerations human agency, and relations of power in shaping ecosystems as well as of physical, psychological and societal detriments of urban greening the concentrated production and accessibility of ES (Krasny et al., 2014; (Langemeyer and Gómez-Baggethun, 2018). For example, green roof Langemeyer et al., 2018). For a consistent urban ES justice framework, strategies must consider environmental burden shifting related to en- it is essential to overcome the predominance of this dualistic and uni- hanced demand for water, nutrient and energy imports; street tree se- directional understanding of ES that flow from “nature” to “people” (cf. lection must consider allergenic species; and green space and urban Peterson et al., 2018a), which overemphasise natural processes and park creation must acknowledge the greenhouse gas emissions involved underplay the critical importance of integrated social-ecological sys- with production of new spaces and social effects like the sensation of tems. insecurity by some female park users (cf. Wang et al., 2015; Wendel The conceptual approach named ‘nature’s contributions to people’ et al., 2012) as well as the secondary effect of enhanced property prices emerging from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on in the surrounding area that may drive gentrification processes Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Díaz et al., 2018) more (Łaszkiewicz et al., 2018; Maia et al., 2020). strongly embraces of the notion that there is an intertwined aspect of The urban EJ perspective, which developed parallel to, but not human and ecological processes, yet it still maintains a largely dualistic much in conversation with, the somewhat younger urban ES approach, view of nature and society (Peterson et al., 2018b). Building on pre- has explicitly addressed these isssues. While also focussing on human- vious endeavours (e.g. Spangenberg et al., 2014), a less dualistic un- ecosystem interactions, the urban EJ approach started from a more derstanding that departs significantly from the stock-and-flow model is explicit focus on detrimental effects and inequities in human experi- currently developing within urban social-ecological systems literature. ences. These different foci have led to a logical separation in terms of For instance, Langemeyer (2015) highlighted the circular relationship level of uptake and connection with issues of social justice. As a result, between human preference systems, urban governance and managed advances in thinking around EJ can inform efforts to further in- ecosystems. This literature sees urban ES as intertwined and fully em- corporate social justice into ES research and practice. Analogously, the bedded in (bio-)physical structures (which includes green, blue and tools for measuring ES developed within ES scholarship can inform EJ built elements) that are responsive to the urban institutional context analysis in ways that push that field forward (e.g. Baró et al., 2019; and determined by people’s cultural and individual perceptions to Maia et al., 2020). Thus, a synthetic perspective of the two fields is realize those benefits (Andersson et al., 2019). This integrated con- perhaps a reasonable goal within research and practice. ceptualization of ES production is a necessary foundation for a sys- The urban EJ movement launched in the late twentieth century in tematic consideration of urban ES justice because it allows for sec- the U.S. as a variant of environmentalism premised on principles de- ondary (and potentially detrimental) feedback processes to be taken fined by people of colour that – similarly to current urban ES equity into account. scholarship – initially focused almost entirely on distributional justice In brief, equity, fairness, or justice are often not explicitly part of the issues (Taylor, 2000; Agyeman et al., 2016). Early urban EJ work historic lineage of ‘outcome variables’ in both normative and analytical highlighted inequities in the concentrations of toxic waste and other ES frameworks (Lele, 2013). Some have even criticized the ES approach environmental hazards in or near low-income and non-White commu- as a tool for reinforcing inequalities and injustice (Corbera et al., 2007; nities (Bullard, 1990). By the 2010s, however, there was a push to shift McAfee, 2012; Matulis, 2014). The economic and ecological legacies EJ toward a more variegated and nuanced approach that examines are reflected within the normative goal of maintaining ‘natural capital’ justice issues associated with urban environmental health and well- for future generations (MA, 2005); an idea that prioritizes inter-gen- being from a distributional, procedural, and recognition perspective erational justice over intra-generational justice and largely ignores the (Walker, 2009; Mohai et al., 2009). This shift toward a more pluralistic relationship between the two, which creates an imbalance in the understanding of justice continues to elevate concerns over decision- prioritisation given to the different temporal dimensions of ES provision making processes (participation) and stigmatization of places asso- (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010; Aragão et al., 2016). As a consequence, ciated with certain social groups (recognition, or ‘interaction’) to nearly ES scholarship often undervalues the interdependent aspects of inter- as central a position as long-standing questions of socio-spatial dis- and intra-generational justice. Some have even criticized the ES ap- tribution of environmental goods and bads. proach as a tool for reinforcing inequalities and injustice (Corbera et al., Efforts to integrate a similarly variegated view of social justice in ES 2007; McAfee, 2012; Matulis, 2014). These qualities of the ES approach research (cf. Sikor, 2013; Dawson et al., 2018) have generally not been 4 J. Langemeyer and J.J.T. Connolly Environmental Science and Policy 109 (2020) 1–14 accounted for in the urban ES realm, and only a few approaches have ecosystems (structure and functions), and (c) people’s perceptions un- embedded this variegated view within wider concepts of spatial and derstood as the subjective and context-dependent definition of ES temporal justice (e.g. Derkzen et al., 2017). Rather, as with early EJ benefits and their importance (Juntti and Lundi, 2017; Biernacka and scholarship, this work is generally limited to examinations of distribu- Kronenberg, 2019). Bringing these three elements together is essential tional justice issues alone (Boone et al., 2010; Schwarz et al., 2015; because, for example, urban park projects with infrastructural and in- Baró et al., 2019), although considerations of other dimensions of jus- stitutional elements designed to achieve distributional and procedural tice are to some extent present (cf. Cohen et al., 2019; Enssle and justice can overcome psychological barriers to accessibility rooted in Kabisch, 2020; Ernstson, 2013; Martin et al., 2016). While these efforts recognition injustices (Seymour, 2012). ES provision requires all of are important foundational elements for a fully-developed under- these ‘filters’ (Andersson et al., 2019) operating at once in order to standing of urban ES justice, a strictly distributional perspective is achieve a just outcome. highly limiting for well-known reasons, including a contested view of Moving outward on the figure, ES justice is dependent on three what actually entails a just distribution (i.e. there are several competing filters of urban ES production highlighted in the centre ― infra- principles for making such a determination) and the need to account for structure, institutions, and perceptions, each of which are substantially other essential elements to theorizing justice (Sikor, 2013; Lukasiewicz linked with a type of justice. Distributive justice is primarily linked with et al., 2017; Lamont, 2017). As well, a longstanding critique of the infrastructure because it is outcomes-oriented, addressing the final strictly distributional approach highlights the inattention to issues re- uptake of ES benefits by different societal groups (Chaudhary et al., lated to identity and power that generate distributional injustices and 2018), which are based on the available (green) infrastructure and ES may not be visible from pure resource allocation perspectives (Fraser, generating processes, but also on institutional barriers and social per- 1998; Young, 1990). In response, there is an emerging call within ES ceptions (Andersson et al., 2019; Biernacka and Kronenberg, 2019). scholarship to conceptualise ES justice in a more nuanced fashion (e.g. Procedural justice links with the institutional filter because it focuses on Dawson et al., 2018), and this approach is especially projected onto the the processes and power relationships in decision-making and the realm of urban greening (Wolch et al., 2014). governance of urban greening, including the framing of and people’s Building on and extending recent efforts within urban ES scholar- participation in decision-making affecting ES (cf. Zafra-Calvo et al., ship to engage more fully with questions of justice, the first layer of our 2017). Recognition justice is most closely aligned with perceptions proposed conceptual model links several approaches, shown in Fig. 1, because it involves acknowledging people’s distinct identities and his- to achieve urban ES justice. The figure reflects advances in urban ES tories (He and Sikor, 2015) and is related to the plurality in ES needs, as research (e.g. Langemeyer, 2015; Andersson et al., 2019) that account well as multiple types and levels of people’s preferences (or values) for the fundamental and interrelated role of (a) infrastructure including attached to ES benefits, including notions of what is perceived to be built and green infrastructure limiting or enabling the (local) avail- just. ability of ES, (b) institutions, including human agency and urban gov- The three ES justice dimensions and associated ES filters are also ernance systems (policy and planning) that determine access to and interrelated among themselves (Sikor, 2013). For example, recognition control over ES (Berbés-Blázquez et al., 2016) and shape urban justice is fundamental to participation in decision-making processes Fig. 1. Core elements of the empirical urban ecosystem services justice model: Recognition, procedure, distribution. 5 J. Langemeyer and J.J.T. Connolly Environmental Science and Policy 109 (2020) 1–14 (aka procedural justice), both of which fundamentally influence dis- et al., 2018). Ernstson (2013) was the first to recognize the articulation tribution justice of ES. This tight interrelation is recognized (and de- of (plural) values as a necessary step for urban ES justice. Multiple bated) in the wider social justice literature and points toward a need to methods have been developed and applied to capture the plurality of see the urban EJ and urban ES perspectives as closely related efforts. values (see Arias-Arévalo et al., 2018), both from epistemological (i.e. EJ scholars and activists have always refused to define the en- considering value types such as utility values, relational values and vironment in strictly ecological terms (Schlosberg, 2013), seeing it in- intrinsic values) and ontological (i.e. addressing multiple value di- stead as the totality of social, built, and ecological systems that struc- mensions such as ecological, socio-cultural and economic) perspectives. ture human and non-human life experiences. This perspective is For example, Langemeyer et al. (2015) showed for an urban park in reflective of the ES understanding of integrated social-ecological Barcelona that non-monetary and monetary valuation approaches (-technical) systems and is increasingly mirrored by urban ecosystem conducted with the same sample group led to different outcomes with (service) research (Andersson et al., 2019; Depietri and McPhearson regard to the value of ES. et al., 2017). Yet, both perspectives are reaching their intellectual limits Yet, more empirical approaches to operationalize the theoretical, with regard to questions of justice. Taken together, these efforts push us epistemological and ontological advances of the plural values literature toward an EJ emphasis on distributional, recognition, and procedural and methods for the integrated valuation of ES are required in urban justice as a means for considering the depth and interconnection be- green infrastructure planning. In line with Martin et al. (2016), a first tween infrastructure, institutions and perceptions in shaping overall ES step to improve recognition is the acknowledgement that ES govern- justice. In the sections that follow, we describe each of the elements ance underlies a particular value and moral paradigm, which may that comprise this first layer of the synthetic conceptual model of urban produce the perception of injustice from a different ontological per- ES justice proposed in Fig. 1 (the full model is outlined in subsequent spective. Normative aspects are important both in the conceptualisation sections) and delineate where progress has already been made in urban of ES and in their measurement and evaluation (Jax et al., 2013), which ES research. highlights the importance of recognizing unequal power relations and influences in ES governance (Martin et al., 2016). A pragmatic step 3.1. Recognition justice forward would be to follow the EJ model and to strengthen the focus on people’s experiences of ES. This would mean expanded assessments of Recognition justice regards the consideration of different social and the preferences and needs for ES by different societal groups in the form cultural values, including the specific understanding of what is just (He of dialogue rather than predefined ecosystem service models, and with and Sikor, 2015) and the needs and preferences of different social specific emphasis on vulnerable, historically disadvantaged and si- groups (Dawson et al., 2018). If a group’s interests and values are lenced groups within society. Unnikrishnan et al. (2016) argue that systematically excluded from decision-making about the resources of ‘knowledge of historical contexts of access to ecosystem services […] society that allow for human flourishing, then recognition injustice has can help understand trends in contemporary management’. occurred (Fraser, 1995). This is particularly related to circumstances Common approaches in assessing urban ES values, such as in- wherein certain groups and neighbourhoods are stigmatized due to dividual valuation surveys and group valuation, impart clear ad- negative (mis)conceptions and thus they are not afforded the right to vantages in presenting plural values (Camps-Calvet et al., 2016; Alkan- participate in the public realm without shame or disrespect (Honneth, Olsson et al., 2020), though small sample sizes bear the risk of missing 2004). In a clear example, systems of apartheid involve extreme re- particular viewpoints and larger-scale interests. Novel ES valuation cognition injustice because exclusion is based entirely on one identity approaches, such as the assessment of social media data differentiated as inferior. Even after apartheid in South Africa, this led to repressive EJ by users and geography are promising in terms of recognizing the challenges for Black South Africans (McDonald, 2004). In another more preferences across broader social groups and larger scales (e.g. Calcagni common example, urban park users often perceive spaces quite differ- et al., 2019), but include their own methodological drawbacks and ently. In Brooklyn, New York, drummers have been gathering from biases (e.g. Lenormand et al., 2018). The same holds true for the re- nearby immigrant and black neighbourhoods since the late 1960s to presentation of values by stakeholder representatives as commonly hold boisterous drum circles, which recent whiter and wealthier re- applied across larger areas. sidents have classified as objectionable and a nuisance. Increasingly, Here, there is no universal answer from a theoretical ES perspective the view of newer residents is more emphasized in public conversation (He and Sikor, 2015). ES differ dramatically in their entitlement, with (Gould & Lewis, 2012). place attachment, aesthetics, and noise and heat reduction being re- There is a strong precedent for connecting ES scholarship to the levant at the local scale, air pollution reduction at the regional scale and fundamental concerns of recognition justice through the rich literature carbon sequestration at the global scale (see section 3.4). In addition, on ‘value pluralism’ (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013) and recent values and needs change over time (see section 3.5) and in an ideal discussions on different epistemologies of nature’s contributions to process of urban planning, the recognition of values and preferences people (Díaz et al., 2018). These advances are fundamentally based on would be assessed at different scales in different moments of time. the assumption of incommensurability of values, which means values Recognition justice can thus only be the initial step for weaving notions cannot be reduced to a single (monetary) metric (Gómez-Baggethun of ES justice into urban planning ― it is closely interlinked with the and Barton, 2013) without systematically excluding certain people concept of procedural justice and points toward important questions: based solely on their assumed cultural identity and associated value How is the use of the ES concept framed? Whose values are included preferences. The literature around plural values of ES emphasizes the and seen as important in decision-making processes (cf. Jax et al., need for considering people’s non-utilitarian preferences, including 2013)? intrinsic and relational values connected to ES (e.g. Chan et al., 2016) as Succinctly, an empirical approach to recognition justice requires well as culturally different conceptualizations of nature (e.g. Díaz et al., acknowledging and balancing power inequalities in the articulation and 2018) alongside monetary valuation approaches stemming from pre- measurement of values. For example, this would mean comparing the dominant utilitarian paradigms in ES research. values of local communities with those communicated by decision- The focus on plural values has made crucial advances in enlarging makers, or those by private companies vs. minority interests (cf. He and the capacity to operationalize recognition justice through ES research. Sikor, 2015). To the extent that recognition has been linked with par- From the theoretically rich and multifaceted debate around an ‘in- ticipation within ES valuation, typically more attention is paid to the tegrated valuation’ (Aragão et al., 2016) of ‘plural values’ (Kenter, groups rendered ‘visible’ to or by the institutions that define partici- 2016) emerges the need for empirically disaggregated recognition of pation formats and regulations (Agarwal, 2001; Velicu and Kaika, different societal groups and their preferences and values (Dawson 2017). The EJ literature has a long history of addressing power 6 J. Langemeyer and J.J.T. Connolly Environmental Science and Policy 109 (2020) 1–14 inequalities around the environment, resulting in insights that are costly damage to built infrastructure are likely to be prioritized. If the highly relevant to ES valuation processes that link recognitoin with framing is focused on wider objectives of increased human health, food participatory engagement (Wolch et al., 2014). and water provision, air pollution reduction and recreational services are more likely to be prioritized. To date framing of ES decision- 3.2. Procedural justice making, including legal framing (cf. Ibid.), remains insufficiently ad- dressed by the urban ES literature to fully understand its justice im- As with recognition justice, the path toward procedural justice has a plications. However, framing influences the consideration of policy precedent within emerging ES scholarship. The classical stock-flow options and limits alternative choices in ES decision-making (Opdam model of ES has generally considered valuation as an endpoint; how- et al., 2015), and is, thus, likely to have profound importance for just ES ever, ‘it is difficult to isolate valuation from decision-making processes planning. because people feel there are strong ethical or moral issues at stake that In brief, procedural justice is widely seen as an important basis upon need to be debated’ (Kenter, 2016). Consequently, stakeolder partici- which recognition and distributional justice is achieved, but there is pation has been promoted to add legitimacy to ES-based decision- disagreement over whether fair and participatory procedures comprise making (Hauck et al., 2014), especially since the recognition of plural the essential route toward just outcomes, or rather are best character- values (Kenter, 2016). In this vein, group-based deliberative ES valua- ized as necessary but insufficient conditions (Fainstein, 2010). Gen- tion has developed in a manner that can be neatly integrated into land erally, EJ has seen open and participatory decision-making processes as use decision-making processes (e.g. Langemeyer et al., 2018; Kenter, a central concern, but not adopted an essentialist approach to proce- 2016), and thus constitutes an entry point for enhancing procedural dural justice ― EJ is more than fair procedures. With regard to urban ES justice. Importantly, though, these group-based deliberations may be justice, this is perhaps a productive stance to adopt. Participation is an top-down or bottom-up and do not necessarily result in more just out- important aspect, but because ES is not a neutral concept, it cannot be comes (Silver et al., 2010). The open-ended aspect of participation assumed that this is sufficient. Rather, ES embeds a set of predefined highlights a central issue for urban ES justice. assumptions and limits policy options, with implications for urban de- In the urban environment, procedural justice is largely about the sign and the (re-) distribution of benefits among urban dwellers (cf. presence of equitable spaces of engagement (Martin et al., 2016) that Kotsila et al., 2020). This raises wider spatial and temporal concerns determine who is involved with shaping the social, built, and ecological and associated recognition and distribution challenges that need to be conditions of the city and how that involvement takes place. The path considered separately within the development of a concept of urban ES toward procedural justice is premised on participatory democracy with justice. collaborative and communicative engagement across a wide set of stakeholders (Fischer, 2009). Participation is theorized to lead to more 3.3. Distributional justice just outcomes because it reinforces social rights and increases equity in decision-making (Cunill, 2004). Furthermore, participatory planning Distributional justice is perhaps one of the most theorized concepts that integrates stakeholder knowledge strengthens public decisions by within Western society, and has been at the heart of Western urban reducing blind spots and enhances locally-atuned benefits (Shrader- planning and EJ scholarship since at least the 1980s (Taylor, 2000; Frechette, 2002) ― something partially recognized by urban ES scho- Connolly and Steil, 2009). Political philosopher John Rawls (1971) larship (e.g. Hauck et al., 2014). A procedural injustice has occurred if developed the most commonly employed (and critiqued) notion of the process by which decisions are made is not inclusive and fair in justice as that circumstance which people would prefer if they were terms of who is impacted by a given regulation; who is given voice in deciding how to distribute the resources of society from the perspective decision-making; and who can access relevant information (Connolly of their ‘original position’ behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ and knew nothing and Steil, 2009). For example, when recent immigrant groups are ex- of what their social position or capabilities would be. For Rawls, this cluded from the design and use of parks and public spaces because of meant that distributional injustice occurs when societal resources are legal and language limitations or ethnocentric planning processes, their unevenly accessible to the point where some individual or group is cultural norms for use, and thus ability to access ES from the park, may harmed. For example, the urban EJ movement in the United States was be illegalized or designed out (e.g. Kabisch and Haase, 2014). Here founded on empirical evidence of unjust distribution of environmental again, it is evident that recognition justice is tightly linked with pro- hazards that exposed low income and minority communities to health cedural justice. risks (Bullard, 1990). While distribution equity is a main pillar of social EJ literature highlights the point that, beyond allowing subjects to justice theory, other approaches (especially procedural and recogni- enter dialogue as representatives of certain social groups, the terms tion) were developed to address its main weakness: a focus on dis- under which this participation takes place and the level of influence tributional outcomes does not illuminate the structural obstacles to stakeholders have on the decision-making process will depend on the achieving a just distribution (Marcuse, 2009). formal and informal rules and power structures that define (environ- The importance of distributional issues is elevated for ES because a mental) politics and the ‘framing’ of decision-making relative to ex- specific greening policy or planning intervention may shift benefits and isting norms around ES provision (Scott and Oelofse, 2005). Thus, en- detriments from one individual to another, but might simultaneously hancing procedural justice in ES provision requires not only the also cause beneficial and detrimental effects across different ES do- identification of different interest groups with regard to valuation, but mains for a single societal group or even an individual. For instance, the also an examination of the social-political and cultural context, in- transformation of informal allotment gardens into the integrated food stitutions, governance structures, and power relations within which growing and recreational park Quinta da Granja in Lisbon in 2011 decision-making is taking place (cf. Dawson et al., 2018; Pascual et al., meant a reduction of space for (private) growing activities, and a shift 2017). This is the case because the prioritization of one set of ES over from the delivery of multiple ES related with urban gardening (Camps- another may not only be related to participation or scientific goals but Calvet et al., 2016) for a few to recreational benefits for the many. The also to the wider framing of decision-making processes, as well as the example (described by Costa et al., 2016:221) shows that distributional overarching approach to ES, for example in terms of utilitarian stock- effects cannot be properly evaluated without considerations of re- flow models. Established norms around who has better opportunities to cognition and procedural justice. It also shows that common aggregated participate in ES planning impacts this framing, while laws can set the assessments of ES, such as those inherent to Pareto-optimization ap- boundaries for fair processes (Aragão et al., 2016). proaches, contribute little to enlarge the understanding of (distribu- For instance, if the importance of urban ES is framed in terms of tional) justice outcomes of urban ES planning and management monetary benefits and costs, flood mitigation and other ES that reduce (Chaudhary and McGregor, 2018) and require, instead, a differentiated 7 J. Langemeyer and J.J.T. Connolly Environmental Science and Policy 109 (2020) 1–14 analysis of trade-offs between different societal groups, with regard to Second, temporal perspectives on justice that account at once for both beneficial as well as detrimental effects. inter- and intra-generational justice (as opposed to one or the other) are Despite its longer tradition as a field of study and its more devel- mostly omitted (Forsyth, 2014). This expanded temporal justice di- oped understanding as a concept, distributional justice concerns have mension proceeds from the recognition that acknowledging present not received widespread attention within the ES literature. Attempts to manifestations of past and historic inequalities is often essential in more strongly address distributional justice of ES by looking closer at order to ensure just outcomes for future generations (Meyer, 2017). the accessibility (Chaudhary and McGregor, 2018) and uneven provi- These additional areas of inquiry have been taken up elsewhere (e.g. sion (Larson et al., 2016; Turkelboom et al., 2017, Goldenberg et al., Lukasiewicz et al., 2017) but need to be explicitly linked with the ES 2018; Baró et al., 2019) of different ES by groups of society, such as framework in order to explicate a full urban ES justice model. caste, income and gender, still remain a small niche in urban ES re- search. This is surprising as other ES sub-fields, namely the payments 4.1. Spatial justice for ES literature, have more strongly addressed questions of distribu- tional justice over the past decade (Corbera et al., 2007; Sikor, 2013). Spatial justice is one means by which theorists have focused on As well, the deficit of distributional analyses has been noted by several particularly inter-scalar and inter-related issues (Swyngedouw and scholars. Sievers-Glotzbach (2013:162) highlights the need to ‘consider Hynen, 2003) of recognition, procedure, and distribution within an the distribution of access rights to ecosystem services’. Along this line of urban context (Dikeç, 2001; Soja, 2013). As these scholars have pointed argument, distributional justice in urban areas was conceptualized with out, the particularly spatial element of justice concerns requires its own regard to the availability and accessibility of green spaces to different consideration because the spatial organization of society is a distinct societal groups (Lukasiewicz et al., 2017); whereas, Elmqvist et al. political target that can be shaped in ways that acutely further or hinder (2013) articulated the need for explicit attention to the distribution and social justice. This point is especially apt for the purpose of creating an trade-offs between specific benefits and detrimental ecosystem–society empirical urban ES justice framework capable of providing analytical relationships. Ernstson (2013) developed a model for specifically in- guidance to urban greening policies and ES thinking more broadly tegrating the concept of distributional justice into ES scholarship. Dis- because of the spatial nature of ES. For such a framework, two issues tinguishing generation of ES, distribution of ES, and articulation of ES are most relevant. These include the ‘socioenvironmental metabolic values, he puts specific emphasis on the spatial complexity both in relations that come together’ in a specific global-local place ecological (urban green areas as interconnected nodes of ecological (Swyngedouw and Heynen, 2003) as well as how environmental ex- flows) and social terms (competing networks of value articulation). ternalities and injustice play out at different spatial scales (Heynen, Thereby, he indicates pathways for moving between spatial levels in the 2003). We refer to these issues in our model as ‘downscale’ and ‘in- analysis of distributional justice of ES, which we further address under terscale’ ES justice, respectively (Fig. 2). 4.1. In addition, we claim the need to acknowledge temporal asym- The extended model launches a spatial dimension of justice, in- metries in the distribution of benefits and detriments from urban troducing the empirical relevance of downscale and interscale relations. greening, not least in the face of potential ‘green gentrification’ The downscale aspect of spatial justice shown on the left side of the axis (Anguelovski et al., 2018; Gould and Lewis, 2016), in relation to novel in our model concerns the mechanisms through which space becomes a thoughts on urban resilience (Elmqvist et al., 2019), which are further container for social division that is obscured by aggregated measures of discussed in the section 4.2. ES provisions. To downscale these measures is to account for spatial In summary, we argue that established distribution, recognition, difference like social segregation, class-oriented placemaking, and and procedure analyses are foundational for larger spatial and temporal (inner-city) distribution of different needs for ES. For example some justice issues. Distributional, recognition, and procedural justice de- areas have higher flood risks (Norman et al., 2012), increased exposure pend on aligned governance, social, and ecosystem processes. In turn, to poor air quality (Grineski et al., 2007), better access to ES benefits larger spatial and temporal justice goals can only be built upon func- (Baró et al., 2019), or higher need for ES (Langemeyer et al., 2020). It tional distributional, recognition, and procedural justice measures. has been highlighted that ‘inequity appears stronger when studied at Thus, spatial and temporal justice, addressed in the following section, smaller spatial scales’ (Tan and Samsudin, 2017). Although this type of are understood here as built-upon and cross-cutting the classical justice spatial justice is closely related to and often incorporated within dis- trilogy, but also relating to each of the areas in this trilogy. tributional justice considerations, urban ES justice demands specific attention to the fact that spatial ES justice not only builds on individual 4. Expanding the frontiers of urban ecosystem service justice consideration of recognition, procedural, and distributional forms of justice, but also establishes a model for how these forms of justice in- As shown in section 3, small bodies of urban ES literature have teract within existing spatial configurations (Soja, 2010). developed around each of the three dimensions of justice that have A second spatial justice concern, shown on the right side of the axis, been taken up within EJ literature (and within literature on social regards ‘interscalar’ relations (i.e. Soja, 2010:13). In his seminal essay, justice more broadly), with a focus on the distributional dimension (e.g. Ernstson (2013) emphasizes the fact that many ES are characterized by Ernstson, 2013). However, much work remains in each of these do- dependencies between cities as consumption areas and regional, na- mains given the historic disregard in ES scholarship. We argue that tional and global production areas. And many ES consumed in cities are while expanded work on the justice trilogy is necessary, this still falls produced at the cost of livelihoods of the global poor (Jax et al., 2013; short of a comprehensive understanding of urban ES justice in at least Martínez-Alier, 2002). Most acutely, this refers to circumstances where two respects. efforts to improve ES justice originate in cities and then diffuse First, individual accounts of the types of justice do not incorporate throughout to larger, and sometimes perverse, effect. For example, in wider issues of spatial justice that particularly acknowledge the si- Philadelphia, there was an effort with many ES benefits to equitably multaneous spatial demands of planetary urbanisation. While some distribute green infrastructure flood mitigation and water purification. injustices are only becoming evident through super local-scale per- However, the cultural preferences for such infrastructure were not ac- spectives (Alkan-Olsson et al., 2020), others demand consideration of counted for to the detriment of low income and minority neighbour- metabolic (or life-cycle) impacts at a planetary scale related to urban ES hoods, resulting in an unjust riskscape in the city (Shokry et al., 2020). uptake (Heynen, 2014; Wachsmuth, 2012). This additional spatial As such outcomes are aggregated throughout the globe, the end result is justice dimension acknowledges that the interrelations between the an extreme imbalance in the distribution of risk according to socio- types of social justice are, in part, determined by multi-scalar connec- cultural divisions. With regard to the overall effect, localized distribu- tions between local and global ES processes. tional and recognition justice aggregate in such a way that only a larger 8 J. Langemeyer and J.J.T. Connolly Environmental Science and Policy 109 (2020) 1–14 Fig. 2. Toward an empirical urban ecosystem services justice model: Spatial dimension included. spatial justice perspective could account for, which highlights the need exists for Barcelona’s carbon emissions, of which only 0.47 percent can to conceptualize the importance of scale in the spatial distribution of ES be compensated by urban green infrastructure (ibid.), forcing the city to (Ernstson, 2013). rely on ecosystems globally for mitigation. Similarly, urban areas un- Although the literature on payments for ES has incorporated a equally demand ES from the global hinterland for recreational activities spatial justice perspective (e.g. Corbera et al., 2007; Sikor et al., 2013), or tourism, the production of food, water and raw material (Grimm a wider conceptualization and assessment of scale-related injustice is et al., 2008). Thinking about a just transfer of ES to cities, primarily mostly lacking in urban ES scholarship (Pascual et al., 2017, but see means questioning the relationship between the consumers of ES and Depietri et al., 2016). A promising entry point for urban ES spatial their (rural) stewards (Barnaud et al., 2018) as well as negative effects justice research is constituted by the emerging literature on tele- on people and non-human beings in remote areas ― potentially pro- coupling or connections of ES (Seto et al., 2012). So far, this literature ducing unjust geographies globally. More generally, spatial ES justice has particularly highlighted ways to improve recognition justice related requires considering if the transfer of ES from outside to inside cities to ES consumption and production across different spatial scales (cf. hampers individuals and groups elsewhere from flourishing. Corbera et al., 2019). In this regard, Pascual et al. (2017) recommend The arenas for solving questions of spatial justice in ES are as wide that ES research integrate other analytical approaches, such as urban as the spectrum of ES, and vary primarily with the transfer of each metabolic flows, life cycle analysis and risk-based approaches to better single ES (cf. Demuzere et al., 2014). A fair recognition of ES needs and recognise what they refer to as ‘off-stage burdens’. Expanding this line preferences would consequently require a multi-scale plural approach of thinking toward the interactions among recognition, procedural, and to valuation. An example has recently been presented by Langemeyer distributional issues is an important entry point into a wider spatial et al. (2020) in the form of a decision-making framework that combines justice model of urban ES. ES needs at a super local scale with those defined at the city scale ― The most prominent examples to counteract scale-related injustices different groups have different needs at different scales, and sometimes in praxis are payment systems for the rural-urban transfer of ES, such as these scalar needs are at odds. Thus, scale is a highly political notion watershed programs to pay farmers in order to maintain water pur- (Smith, 1992). ES, such as recreation, urban temperature reduction, and ification capacities benefitting urban populations, for example de- opportunities for social cohesion, are produced in situ and require local scribed for New York and Munich (Grolleau and McCann, 2012). These arenas to solve injustices. Spatial justice regarding the provision of systems are specifically designed to alleviate inequities in ES provision water, air purification and carbon sequestration requires regional or and demonstrate that analyses of mismatches between ecosystem even global political treaties; examples are given by the Intergovern- supply and demand in urban areas provide an entry point for re- mental Panel on Climate Change or regional payment schemes. Due to cognizing spatial-scale related injustices (Baró et al., 2015). However, the lack of practicality of capturing people’s values globally, vicarious there are also examples where payment systems work at cross-purposes information needs to be taken into account, making sure that local to across scales. For example, popular cap-and-trade emissions programs global entitlements are considered within urban decision-making. can reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the multi-national scale but also intensify spatial clustering of emissions in historically over-exposed areas (Stuhlmacher et al., 2019). These outcomes highlight the need for 4.2. Temporal justice an integrated spatial model that accounts for the mixed effects across scales. The temporal dimension of urban ES justice research necessitates Urban ES scholarship has produced some important assessments breaking down the binary approach to inter- and intra-generational regarding the dependency of urban areas on their hinterland. In the justice that still characterizes ES research. As discussed in section 2, ES case of Barcelona, ES supply-demand mismatch analyses have high- scholarship has a strong focus on inter-generational justice in terms of lighted the strong dependency of the city on its global hinterland. For sustaining natural capital and a flow of benefits for future generations example, for air pollution reduction ― one of the core challenges for (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010), while still nascent studies focus on urban planners in Barcelona ― the dependency is reported to be ex- notions of intra-generational justice. The segregated thinking focused treme; only 0.52 percent of municipal NO2-emission are mitigated by on either (blurry) long-term sustainability targets for future generations urban vegetation, while 99.48 percent are posted as a burden on the or narrow present distributional assessments minimizes the complex city’s regional surroundings (Baró et al., 2014). A similar situation interrelation between future, present, and past conditions of social- ecological systems. Preservation of future ES is reliant on shifts in the 9 J. Langemeyer and J.J.T. Connolly Environmental Science and Policy 109 (2020) 1–14 Fig. 3. Full empirical urban ecosystem services justice model: Temporal dimension included. provision and demand for specific ES, which may have distributional Recent urban resilience debates (Elmqvist et al., 2019) are one effects both within the current society and in future societies, but which promising conceptual entry-point for considerations of temporal justice are also rooted in unequal distribution, recognition, and participation in ES. Underscoring the neutral character of the resilience concept, in the past (Anguelovski et al., 2020). In other words, societal changes meaning resilience is not per se advantageous, Elmqvist et al. (2019) over prior periods affect whether ES distribution and access occurring highlight the need for cities to evaluate if their (greening) trajectory is now will adhere to notions of justice in the future. This interrelated following a desirable pathway. From a temporal justice perspective, a temporal justice challenge is represented on the vertical axis of our desirable pathway would be given if policies adapt to changing con- model (Fig. 3). ditions in such a way as to enhance future equity in the access to the ES. The full model introduces a temporal dimension of justice, high- Evaluating the pathway a city is on raises two critical questions for lighting the need for an integrated consideration of past, present and urban greening initiatives: (1) What will be the ES that different in- future conditions of urban social-ecological systems. One example of dividuals and groups require for their flourishing in the future? (shifting the temporal challenge in ES justice can be found in urban greening ES demand); (2) How can the flow of the ES that different individuals projects meant to increase ES in cities that have been reported to cause and groups require be maintained in the future? (shifting ES supply). In social change at temporal scales outside the purview of normal plan- order to address the second question, it is particularly necessary to ning processes (Gould and Lewis, 2016). For example, a recent study account for current and past patterns of unjust distribution, recognition, from Barcelona (Anguelovski et al., 2018), highlights the risk of ‘green and participation with regard to ES provision. Following Elmqvist et al. gentrification’, that is enhanced pressure (primarily through increased (2019), if a city is not following a desirable pathway with regard to housing prices) and in ultima ratio the expulsion of vulnerable people these two questions, its resilience must be reduced rather than en- from a neighbourhood due to green developments, followed by reduced hanced and an ‘abrupt transformation’ should be desired. accessibility to locally provided ES. This shift of ES across socio-eco- Climate change, socio-demographic changes, and other drivers not nomic groups, which has previously been observed in the U.S. (e.g. only modify the provision of ES, but might also affect the future needs Curran and Hamilton, 2012) but seems to be pertinent to European or demand for ES. In this context, urban ES justice research needs to be cities as well (cf. Łaszkiewicz et al., 2018), happens over medium-term linked to vulnerability or risk assessments that allow planners to project time scales. The final effect seen through the green gentrification lens is shifting needs for ES in the future. For example, increased heat island one of a high degree of inter-generational injustice (future generations effects in the inner parts of Barcelona put an additional burden on of socially vulnerable groups are excluded from ES improvements) as a vulnerable social groups living in these areas (cf. Baró et al., 2019), result of current intra-generational processes premised on prior patterns which may lead to stronger demand for temperature regulating nature- of spatial injustice. based solutions. However, this might lead to a complex dilemma. 10 J. Langemeyer and J.J.T. Connolly Environmental Science and Policy 109 (2020) 1–14 Returning to the example of green gentrification, some have pointed to the three dimensions described here does not necessarily fully reflect the challenge of adding more green space in vulnerable neighbourhoods the ways in which urban residents experience justice (Anguelovski (Wolch et al., 2014); enhanced availability of specific ES, such as urban et al., 2020). As Velicu and Kaika (2017) argue, EJ is not a ‘formalized cooling have been observed to enhance these effects (Jenerette et al., and preconceived “thing” to be delivered or applied’ but rather an ideal 2011) and the notion has been expanded to include climate resilience that people continuously redefine. Considering this point, a more hol- (Keenan et al., 2018). However, a recent Barcelona-centred study istic consideration of justice in ES assessments would not only integrate concludes that some of these effects might be mitigated by the design of the three different types of justice but also move deeper to problematize green spaces and the specific type of ES they provide (cf. Terra Maia aspects of agency, visibility and the use of discourse as shaping factors et al., 2020). of justice. This reveals the need for embedding ES assessments in a Urban EJ research has recently started to directly address the justice socio-political context where processes of environmental governance, implications of complex urban social-ecological dynamics over time ES valuation and negotiations over access and use of natural resources (Anguelovski et al., 2018), and urban ES justice research in many ways are continuously (re)defined (Swyngedouw and Heynen, 2003). How- needs to catch up. Recognising benefits and detriments of urban nature- ever, we suggest here that careful understanding of how to deploy these based solutions in view of socio-economic dynamics and longer tem- three elements of justice coupled with a broad view of spatial and poral scales is an important start. Longitudinal policy document ana- temporal justice forms the blueprint for highly valuable next steps lysis (Wilkinson et al., 2013) can show shifting recognition of ES in forward in enabling ES scholarship to undertake systematic analyses of urban policy-making over time. Stronger emphasis is required as well social equity in urban greening policies. on the linear distribution of ES benefits over time across different social In this regard, an urban ES justice framework requires a full un- groups, but also on possible rebound effects and feedbacks to the det- derstanding of the multiple drivers of social justice and an integrated riment of vulnerable groups. Again, such information requires an ana- conception of the distribution of benefits across space and time. lysis that looks at longer time periods and also at larger geographical Standardized approaches for measuring and monitoring urban ES jus- scales, including the city and supra-city scale, rather than being con- tice in such an integrated way are broadly missing. In the model we fined in the geographical boundaries of a single greening intervention. present, the framing and functioning of the governance-institutions- A good example of attempts to account for the full temporal di- ecosystems dimension supports the three aspects of social justice (dis- mension of urban ES justice has been provided by Derkzen et al. (2017), tribution, recognition, and procedure). However, these three aspects who performed household interviews and group mapping sessions in are themselves impacted by a wider dimension of spatial justice, which urban communities in Bangalore, India, in order to understand shifts in is comprised of the synthetic interactions between distribution, re- ES and people’s responses to these shifts. They found people’s capacity cognition, and procedure within urban land use as well as the multi- to adapt to ecosystem degradation and restoration and related provision scalar global processes of producing urban ES. Finally, all of these di- of ES depend on a household’s ability to adapt and on individual cir- mensions are embedded within temporal dynamics that combine past, cumstances, such as land tenure and financial capital, with less adaptive present and future ES conditions. capacity for the poorest. By examining people’s experiences the study Importantly, considerations of justice have to be incorporated into was able to emphasize temporal shifts in ES access; thereby providing the framing role played by ES in shaping urban land use decisions. critical insights to develop adaptation strategies that safeguard the most While ES assessments are very useful in highlighting people’s de- vulnerable social groups from further marginalization. pendency on nature, ES is characterized by a primarily anthropocentric focus, a utilitarian perspective, and positivist worldview stemming from 5. Conclusions its conceptual legacy. As well, the ES concept ‘frames the environmental problem in a particular way: as a case of the earth’s life-support systems ES assessments highlight the multiple benefits of urban green in- being in jeopardy, which in turn jeopardises all human well-being on frastructure (Haase et al., 2014), and have become a strong discursive spaceship earth’ (Lele, 2013). Consequently, most of the ES literature vehicle for supporting urban greening agendas. The ES concept is has — at best — treated the question of social justice rather mechan- thereby quickly entering into new domains; from ‘awareness raising’ istically, incorporating elements of a vague idea of justice. The resulting about nature’s benefits towards ‘priority setting’ in multiple aspects of notion of justice, we argue, is too narrow and non-specific to ensure a decision-making (cf. Gómez-Baggethun and Barton, 2013). This means robust link between ES and social justice in the context of planetary ES assessments are increasingly informing actual decisions over green urbanisation. infrastructure policies, planning and the implementation of nature- based solutions in cities, and are applied to evaluate the benefits re- Declaration of Competing Interest sulting from the use, restoration and creation of parks and green roofs, of wetlands and riparian sites as well as changing management regimes of various types of urban natures that extend outward into the planetary The authors declare that they have no known competing financial system of urbanization processes. In short, ES is a tool in political interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ- processes that determine greening agendas. Given this increasing im- ence the work reported in this paper. portance for ES assessments, critical reflection on the extent to which the ES concept and its application accounts for justice is demanded. Acknowldegdements Recent developments in urban ES and urban EJ research are broadening the respective classical foci of the two fields ― the flow of We would like to thank two unknown reviewers for their critical benefits from nature to people on the one hand and negative impacts feedback and valuable remarks. Thanks also to Panagiota Kotsila, and from environmental degradation on vulnerable societal groups on the other colleagues at the Barcelona Urban Environmental Justice and other hand (Chaudhary and McGregor, 2018). The net effect of this Sustainability lab and of the ENABLE project for their support and collective intellectual expansion might facilitate a future alignment of critical reflections on different drafts of the manuscript. Finally thanks the two research fields that refines stock-flow dominated urban ES to Stefania Benetti and Amalia Calderon-Argelich for a systematic lit- models by adding a more engaged approach to equity and justice. In erature review on ecosystem services and environmental justice that that respect, urban ES can better serve as a tool for ensuring urban helped us to improve the manuscript. This research has been funded by greening/sustainability initiatives are linked with social justice. the ENABLE project through the 2015-2016 BiodivERsA COFUND call Arguably, though, even a version of urban ES that synthesizes the for research proposals, with the national funders: The Swedish Research lessons of EJ is insufficient. For one, the decomposition of justice into Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences, and Spatial Planning, 11 J. Langemeyer and J.J.T. Connolly Environmental Science and Policy 109 (2020) 1–14 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, German Aeronautics and Chan, K.M., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better Space Research Centre, National Science Centre (Poland), The Research address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8–18. Chan, K., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Council of Norway, the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Turner, N., 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Universities, also through Juan de la Cierva to JJTC (IJCI-2016-31100), Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the Unitated States of America 13 and the European Research Council (ERC Starting Grant: GA678034 (6). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1225002113. Retrieved from. Chan, K.M., Gould, R.K., Pascual, U., 2018. Editorial overview: relational values: what are and ERC Consolidator Grant: 818002-URBAG). they, and what’s the fuss about? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, A1–A7. Chaudhary, S., McGregor, A., 2018. A critical analysis of global ecosystem services References (Paristhitiki sewa) discourse in Nepal. Land Use Policy 75, 364–374. Cohen, M., Quinn, J.E., Marshall, D., Sharp, T., 2019. Sustainability assessment of a community open space vision. Sustain. Sci. 14 (6), 1565–1580. Agarwal, B., 2001. Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an analysis Cole, H.V., Lamarca, M.G., Connolly, J.J., Anguelovski, I., 2017. Are green cities healthy for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Dev. 29 (10), 1623–1648. and equitable? Unpacking the relationship between health, green space and gentri- Agyeman, J., Schlosberg, D., Craven, L., Matthews, C., 2016. Trends and directions in fication. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 71 (11), 1118–1121. environmental justice: from inequity to everyday life, community, and just sustain- Connolly, J., Steil, J., 2009. Introduction: finding justice in the city. Searching for the Just abilities. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41. City. Routledge, pp. 21–36. Alkan-Olsson, J., Brunner, J., Nordin, A., Hanson, H., 2020. Socially Just Urban Corbera, E., 2015. Valuing nature, paying for ecosystem services and realizing social Ecosystem Service Governance-perspectives From the Super Local Scale. Sofielund, justice: a response to Matulis (2014). Ecol. Econ. 110, 154–157. Malmö, Sweden This issue. Corbera, E., Brown, K., Adger, W.N., 2007. The equity and legitimacy of markets for Andersson, E., Barthel, S., Ahrné, K., 2007. Measuring social–ecological dynamics behind ecosystem services. Develop. Change 38 (4), 587–613. the generation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Appl. 17 (5), 1267–1278. Corbera, E., Busck-Lumholt, L.M., Mempel, F., Rodríguez-Labajos, B., 2019. Andersson, E., Langemeyer, J., Borgström, S., McPhearson, T., Haase, D., Barton, D., Environmental justice in telecoupling research. Telecoupling. Palgrave Macmillan, Davis, M., Kronenberg, J., Naumann, S., Röschel, L., Stange, E., Baró, F., 2019. Cham, pp. 213–232. Enabling green and blue infrastructure to improve contributions to human well-being Costa, S., Fox-Kämper, R., Good, R., Sentić, I., 2016. The position of urban allotment and equity in urban systems. BioScience 58. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz058. gardens within the urban fabric. Urban Allotment Gardens in Europe. Routledge, pp. Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J.T., Masip, L., Pearsall, H., 2018. Assessing green gentrifi- 223–250. cation in historically disenfranchised neighborhoods: a longitudinal and spatial Costanza, R., Daly, H.E., 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv. analysis of Barcelona. Urban Geogr. 39 (3), 458–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Biol. 6, 37–46. 02723638.2017.1349987. Cunill, N., 2004. balance of citizen participation in social policies. Proposal for an ana- Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J., Garcia-Lamarca, M., Cole, H., Pearsall, H., 2019. New lytical framework (original title: balance de la participación ciudadana en las scholarly pathways on green gentrification: what does the urban ‘green turn’mean políticas sociales. Propuesta de un marco analítico). In Citizen Participation and Local and where is it going? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 43 (6), 1064–1086. Social Policies (Original Title: Participación Ciudadana Y Políticas Sociales Del Anguelovski, I., Brand, A.L., Connolly, J.J.T., Corbera, E., Kotsila, P., Steil, J., Garcia- Ámbito Local). Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales de la Universidad Nacional Lamarca, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Cole, H., Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Pérez del Pulgar, Autónoma De México, pp. 57–75. Instituto Nacional de Desarrollo Social. Consejo C., Shokry, G., Sekulova, F., Arguelles, L., 2020. Expanding the boundaries of justice Mexicano de Ciencias Sociales. Retrieved from. http://ru.iis.sociales.unam.mx/ and equity in urban greening scholarship: towards an emancipatory, intersectional, jspui/handle/IIS/4420. and relational approach. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr (AN-2019-1228.R1, accepted). Curran, W., Hamilton, T., 2012. Just green enough: contesting environmental gentrifi- Aragão, A., Jacobs, S., Cliquet, A., 2016. What’s law got to do with it? Why environmental cation in Greenpoint. Brooklyn. Local Environment 17 (9), 1027–1042. https://doi. justice is essential to ecosystem service valuation. Ecosystem Services, Integrated org/10.1080/13549839.2012.729569. valuation of ecosystem services: challenges and solutions 22, 221–227. https://doi. Dawson, N., Coolsaet, B., Martin, A., 2018. Justice and equity: emerging research and org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.012. policy approaches to address ecosystem service trade-offs. Ecosystem Services and Arias-Arévalo, P., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Pérez-Rincón, M., 2018. Poverty Alleviation. Routledge, pp. 22–38. Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: a taxonomy of plural values DeGroot, et al., 2018. Ecosystem services are nature’s contributions to people. Response and valuation methods. Environ. Values 27 (1), 29–53. to: Dìaz et al. (2018). Science 359 (6373), 270–272. Barnaud, C., Corbera, E., Muradian, R., Salliou, N., Sirami, C., Vialatte, A., et al., 2018. Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H., Bhave, A.G., Ecosystem services, social interdependencies, and collective action: a conceptual Mittal, N., Feliu, E., Faehnle, M., 2014. Mitigating and adapting to climate change: framework. Ecol. Soc. 23 (1), 1–14. multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J. Environ. Baró, F., Chaparro, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Langemeyer, J., Nowak, D.J., Terradas, J., Manage. 146, 107–115. 2014. Assessing ecosystem services provided by urban forests in relation to air quality Depietri, Y., McPhearson, T., 2017. Integrating the grey, green, and blue in cities: nature- and climate change mitigation policies in Barcelona. Spain. AMBIO 43, 466–479. based solutions for climate change adaptation and risk reduction. Nature-based Baró, F., Calderón, A., Langemeyer, J., Connolly, J.J.T., 2019. Under one canopy? Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas. Springer, Cham, pp. 91–109. Assessing the distributional environmental justice implications of street tree benefits Depietri, Y., Kallis, G., Baró, F., Cattaneo, C., 2016. The urban political ecology of eco- in Barcelona. Environ. Sci. Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.016. system services: the case of Barcelona. Ecol. Econ. 125, 83–100. Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J.A., Pascual, U., 2016. Towards an ecosystem services Derkzen, M.L., Nagendra, H., Van Teeffelen, A.J., Purushotham, A., Verburg, P.H., 2017. approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Shifts in ecosystem services in deprived urban areas: understanding people’s re- Sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 19, 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02. sponses and consequences for well-being. Ecol. Soc. 22 (1). 003. Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R.T., Molnár, Z., et al., 2018. Biernacka, M., Kronenberg, J., 2018. Classification of institutional barriers affecting the Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359 (6373), 270–272. https://doi. availability, accessibility and attractiveness of urban green spaces. Urban For. Urban org/10.1126/science.aap8826. Green. 36, 22–33. Dikeç, M., 2001. Justice and the spatial imagination. Environ. Plan. A 33 (10), Biernacka, M., Kronenberg, J., 2019. Urban green space availability, accessibility and 1785–1805. attractiveness, and the delivery of ecosystem services. Cities and the Environment Egerer, M.H., Philpott, S.M., Liere, H., Jha, S., Bichier, P., Lin, B.B., 2018. People or (CATE) 12 (1), 5. place? Neighborhood opportunity influences community garden soil properties and Boone, C.G., Cadenasso, M.L., Grove, J.M., Schwarz, K., Buckley, G.L., 2010. Landscape, soil-based ecosystem services. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, vegetation characteristics, and group identity in an urban and suburban watershed: Ecosystem Services & Management 14 (1), 32–44. why the 60s matter. Urban Ecosyst. 13 (3), 255–271. Ehrlich, P., Ehrlich, A., 1981. Extinction: the Causes and Consequences of the Boulton, C., Dedekorkut-Howes, A., Byrne, J., 2018. Factors shaping urban greenspace Disappearance of Species. provision: a systematic review of the literature. Landsc. Urban Plan. 178, 82–101. Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P.J., McDonald, R.I., Brenner, N., 2018. Debating planetary urbanization: for an engaged pluralism. Environ. et al., 2013. Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Plan. D 36 (3), 570–590. Opportunities: A Global Assessment. Brenner, N., Schmid, C., 2017. Planetary urbanization. The Globalizing Cities Reader. Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., Routledge, pp. 479–482. Takeuchi, K., Folke, C., 2019. Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the Brundtland, G.H., 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and urban century. Nat. Sustain. 2 (4), 267. Development: Our Common Future. United Nations. Enssle, F., Kabisch, N., 2020. ). Enhancing the Value of Urban Green Spaces for Social Bullard, R., 1990. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. Westview, Interactions, Health and Well-being of Older People – an Integrated View on Urban Boulder, CO. Ecosystem Services and Socio-environmental Justice. This Issue. Calcagni, F., Terra Amorin Maia, A., Connolly, J.J.T., Langemeyer, J., 2019. Digital co- Ernstson, H., 2013. The social production of ecosystem services: a framework for studying construction of values for sustainability: exploring the potential of social media data environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landsc. in revealing relational values and informing sustainability science. Sustain. Sci. 14 Urban Plan. 109 (1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.005. (5), 1309–1321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00672-1. Escobedo, F.J., Clerici, N., Staudhammer, C.L., Corzo, G.T., 2015. Socio-ecological dy- Camps-Calvet, M., Langemeyer, J., Calvet-Mir, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., 2016. Ecosystem namics and inequality in Bogotá, Colombia’s public urban forests and their ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: insights for policy and services. Urban For. Urban Green. 14 (4), 1040–1053. planning. Environ. Sci. Policy 62, 14–23. Fainstein, S., 2010. The Just City. Cornell University Press. Castells, M., 2010. The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd edition. Wiley-Blackwell, West Fischer, F., 2009. Discursive planning: social justice as discourse. Searching for the Just Sussex, UK. City. Routledge, pp. 72–91. 12 J. Langemeyer and J.J.T. Connolly Environmental Science and Policy 109 (2020) 1–14 Forsyth, T., 2014. Climate justice is not just ice. Geoforum 54, 230–232. Kotsila, P., Anguelovski, A., Baró, F., Conolly, J., Langemeyer, J., Sekulova, F., 2020. Fraser, N., 1995. From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a’post-so- Nature-based solutions as discursive tools and contested practices in urban nature’s cialist’age. New Left Rev. 212, 68. neoliberalisation processes. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space (EPE 901437, accepted). Fraser, N., 1998. Social justice in the age of identity politics: redistribution, recognition Krasny, M.E., Russ, A., Tidball, K.G., Elmqvist, T., 2014. Civic ecology practices: parti- and participation. In: Peterson, Grethe (Ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values cipatory approaches to generating and measuring ecosystem services in cities. XIX, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1998), pp. 3–5. Ecosyst. Serv. 7, 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.11.002. Goldenberg, R., Kalantari, Z., Destouni, G., 2018. Increased Access to Nearby Green-blue Kull, C.A., de Sartre, X.A., Castro-Larrañaga, M., 2015. The political ecology of ecosystem Areas Associated with Greater Metropolitan Population Well-being. https://doi.org/ services. Geoforum 61, 122–134. 10.1002/ldr.3083. Lamont, J., 2017. Distributive Justice. Routledge. Goldstein, B., Hauschild, M., Fernandez, J., Birkved, M., 2016. Urban versus conventional Langemeyer, J., 2015. Urban ecosystem services. The Value of Green Spaces in Cities. agriculture, taxonomy of resource profiles: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36 (1), 9. PhD-Thesis. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona & Stockholm University ISBN 978- Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for 91-7649-290-1. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:866074/ urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86, 235–245. FULLTEXT01.pdf. Gómez-Baggethun, E., De Groot, R., Lomas, P.L., Montes, C., 2010. The history of eco- Langemeyer, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E., 2018. Urban biodiversity and ecosystem services. system services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and In: Ossola, A., Niemelä, J. (Eds.), Urban Biodiversity – From Research to Practice. payment schemes. Ecol. Econ. 69 (6), 1209–1218. Routledge, Oxon and New York, pp. 36–53 ISBN 978-1-138-22438-4. Gould, K.A., Lewis, T.L., 2016. Green Gentrification: Urban Sustainability and the Langemeyer, J., Baró, F., Roebeling, P., Gómez-Baggethun, E., 2015. Contrasting values of Struggle for Environmental Justice. Routledge. cultural ecosystem services in urban areas: the case of park Montjuic in Barcelona. Graham, S., 1999. Global grids of glass: on global cities, telecommunications and pla- Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.016. netary urban networks. Urban Stud. 36 (5-6), 929–949. Langemeyer, J., Baraibar, S., Palomo, I., Gómez-Baggethun, E., 2018. Participatory multi- Grimm, N.B., Faeth, S.H., Golubiewski, N.E., Redman, C.L., Wu, J., Bai, X., Briggs, J.M., criteria decision aid: a way to operationalize ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 30, 2008. Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319 (5864), 756–760. 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.012. Part A. Grineski, S., Bolin, B., Boone, C., 2007. Criteria air pollution and marginalized popula- Langemeyer, J., Wedgwood, D., Barton, D., Baró, F., McPhearson, T., 2020. Creating tions: environmental inequity in metropolitan Phoenix. Arizona. Social Science nature-based solutions where they are needed – a spatial ecosystem service-based Quarterly 88 (2), 535–554. decision analysis of green roofs in Barcelona. Sci. Total Environ. 707 (10), 135487. Grolleau, G., McCann, L.M., 2012. Designing watershed programs to pay farmers for https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135487. water quality services: case studies of Munich and New York City. Ecol. Econ. 76, Larson, L.R., Keith, S.J., Fernandez, M., Hallo, J.C., Shafer, C.S., Jennings, V., 2016. 87–94. Ecosystem Services and Urban Greenways: What’s the Public’s Perspective? https:// Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., et al., doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.004. 2014. A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, Łaszkiewicz, E., Kronenberg, J., Marcińczak, S., 2018. Attached to or bound to a place? models, and implementation. Ambio 43 (4), 413–433. The impact of green space availability on residential duration: the environmental Haase, D., Kabisch, S., Haase, A., Andersson, E., Banzhaf, E., et al., 2017. Greening cities – justice perspective. Ecosyst. Serv. 30, 309–317. to be socially inclusive? About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities. Lele, S., 2013. Environmentalisms, justices and the limits of ecosystem services frame- Habitat Int. 64, 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.04.005. works. The Justices and Injustices of Ecosystem Services. Earthscan, London, pp. Hall, P., Pain, K., 2006. The Polycentric Metropolis. Earthscan, London, UK. 119–139. Hansen, R., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Rall, E., Kabisch, N., Kaczorowska, A., Kain, Lenormand, M., Luque, S., Langemeyer, J., Tenerelli, P., Zulian, G., Aalders, I., J., Artmann, M., Pauleit, S., 2015. The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in Chivulescu, S., Clemente, P., Dick, J., van Dijk, J., van Eupen, M., Giuca, R.C., planning discourses of European and American cities. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 228–246. Kopperoinen, L., Lellei-Kovács, E., Leone, M., Lieskovsky, J., Schirpke, U., Smith, Hauck, J., Saarikoski, H., Turkelboom, F., Keune, H., 2014. Stakeholder Involvement in A.C., Tappeiner, U., Woods, H., 2018. Multiscale Socio-ecological Networks in the Ecosystem Service Decision-making and Research. OpenNESS Reference Book. EC Age of Information. Pre-print. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.00734. FP7 Grant Agreement, (308428). Retrieved from. http://www.openness-project.eu/ Lukasiewicz, A., Dovers, S., Robin, L., McKay, J., Schilizzi, S.G., Graham, S., 2017. library/reference-book/sp-stakeholder-involvement. Current status and future prospects for justice research in environmental manage- He, J., Sikor, T., 2015. Notions of justice in payments for ecosystem services: insights ment. Natural Res. Environ. Justice: Australian Perspectives 228. from China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program in Yunnan Province. Land Use Policy MA - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: 43, 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.011. Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Heynen, N.C., 2003. The scalar production of injustice within the urban forest. Antipode Maes, J., Burkhard, B., Geneletti, D., 2018. Ecosystem services are inclusive and deliver 35, 980–998. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2003.00367.x. multiple values. A comment on the concept of nature’s contributions to people. One Heynen, N., 2014. Urban political ecology I: the urban century. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 38 (4), Ecosyst. 3, e24720. 598–604. Maia, A.T.A., Connolly, J.J.T., Calcagni, F., Anguelovski, I., Langemeyer, J., 2020. Hidden Heynen, N., Kaika, M., Swyngedouw, E., 2006. The Nature of Cities Urban Political drivers of social injustice: uncovering unequal cultural ecosystem services behind Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism. Routledge, London. green gentrification. Environ. Sci. Policy (this issue). Holland, B., 2008. Justice and the environment in Nussbaum’s “Capabilities approach” Marcuse, P., 2009. From justice planning to commons planning. Searching for the Just why sustainable ecological capacity is a meta-capability. Polit. Res. Q. 61 (2), City. Routledge, pp. 111–122. 319–332. Martin, A., Coolsaet, B., Corbera, E., Dawson, N.M., Fraser, J.A., Lehmann, I., Rodriguez, Honneth, A., 2004. Recognition and justice: outline of a plural theory of justice. Acta I., 2016. Justice and conservation: the need to incorporate recognition. Biol. Conserv. Sociol. 47 (4), 351–364. 197, 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.021. Jansson, Å., 2013. Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of Martínez-Alier, J., 2002. The Environmentalism of the Poor. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 86, 285–291. Massey, D., 1992. Politics and space/time. New Left Rev. 65 65. Jax, K., Barton, D.N., Chan, K.M.A., de Groot, R., Doyle, U., Eser, U., Görg, C., Gómez- Matulis, B.S., 2014. The economic valuation of nature: a question of justice? Ecol. Econ. Baggethun, E., Griewald, Y., Haber, W., Haines-Young, R., Heink, U., Jahn, T., 104, 155–157. Joosten, H., Kerschbaumer, L., Korn, H., Luck, G.W., Matzdorf, B., Muraca, B., McAfee, K., 2012. Nature in the market-world: ecosystem services and inequality. Neßhöver, C., Norton, B., Ott, K., Potschin, M., Rauschmayer, F., von Haaren, C., Development 55 (1), 25–33. Wichmann, S., 2013. Ecosystem services and ethics. Ecol. Econ. 93, 260–268. https:// McClintock, N., 2010. Why farm the city? Theorizing urban agriculture through a lens of doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.008. metabolic rift. Cambridge J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 3 (2), 191–207. Jenerette, G.D., Harlan, S.L., Stefanov, W.L., Martin, C.A., 2011. Ecosystem services and McDonald, D.A. (Ed.), 2004. Environmental Justice in South Africa. Juta and Company urban heat riskscape moderation: water, green spaces, and social inequality in Ltd.. Phoenix. USA. Ecological applications 21 (7), 2637–2651. Merrifield, A., 2013. The Politics of the Encounter: Urban Theory and Protest Under Jennings, V., Larson, L., Yun, J., 2016. Advancing sustainability through urban green Planetary Urbanization Vol. 19 University of Georgia Press. space: cultural ecosystem services, equity, and social determinants of health. Int. J. Meyer, L.H., 2017. Intergenerational Justice. Routledge (Chapter5). Environ. Res. Public Health 13 (2), 196. Mohai, P., Pellow, D.N., Roberts, J.T., 2009. Environmental justice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Juntti, M., Lundy, L., 2017. A mixed methods approach to urban ecosystem services: Resour. 34, 405–430. experienced environmental quality and its role in ecosystem assessment within an Norgaard, R.B., 2010. Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity inner-city estate. Landsc. Urban Plan. 161, 10–21. blinder. Ecol. Econ. 69 (6), 1219–1227. Kabisch, N., 2019. Urban ecosystem service provision and social-environmental justice in Norman, L.M., Villarreal, M.L., Lara-Valencia, F., Yuan, Y., Nie, W., Wilson, S., Amaya, G., the City of Leipzig, Germany. Atlas of Ecosystem Services. Springer, Cham, pp. Sleeter, R., 2012. Mapping socio-environmentally vulnerable populations access and 347–352. exposure to ecosystem services at the U.S.–Mexico borderlands. Appl. Geogr. 34, Kabisch, N., Haase, D., 2014. Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces 413–424. in Berlin, Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 122, 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Nussbaum, M., 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. landurbplan.2013.11.016. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Keenan, J.M., Hill, T., Gumber, A., 2018. Climate gentrification: from theory to empiri- Opdam, P., Coninx, I., Dewulf, A., Steingröver, E., Vos, C., van der Wal, M., 2015. cism in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Envir. Res. Lett. 13 (5), 054001. Framing ecosystem services: Affecting behaviour of actors in collaborative landscape Kenter, J.O., 2016. Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and planning? Land Use Policy 46, 223–231. participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., Gomez- 21, 291–307. Baggethun, E., Muradian, R., 2014. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem Kosoy, N., Corbera, E., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. services. BioScience 64 (11), 1027–1036. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu146. Ecol. Econ. 69 (6), 1228–1236. Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., et al., 2017. Valuing 13 J. Langemeyer and J.J.T. Connolly Environmental Science and Policy 109 (2020) 1–14 nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. Shrader-Frechette, K., 2002. Environmental Justice: Creating Equality, Reclaiming 26–27, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006. Democracy. Oxford University Press. Pearsall, H., Eller, J.K., 2020. Locating the green space paradox: a study of gentrification Sievers-Glotzbach, S., 2013. Ecosystem services and distributive justice: considering ac- and public green space accessibility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Landsc. Urban cess rights to ecosystem services in theories of distributive justice. Ethics Policy Plan. 195, 103708. Environ. 16 (2), 162–176. Peterson, G.D., Harmáčková, Z.V., Meacham, M., Queiroz, C., Jiménez-Aceituno, A., Sikor, T., 2013. The justices and injustices of ecosystem services. The Justices and Kuiper, J.J., Malmborg, K., Sitas, N.E., Bennett, E.M., 2018a. Connecting people’s Injustices of Ecosystem Services. Routledge, pp. 24–28. contributions to nature to nature’s contributions to people. Response to: Dìaz et al. Sikor, T., Martin, A., Fisher, J., He, J., 2014. Toward an empirical analysis of justice in (2018). Science 359 (6373), 270–272. ecosystem governance. Conserv. Lett. 7, 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl. Peterson, G.D., Harmáčková, Z.V., Meacham, M., Queiroz, C., Jiménez-Aceituno, A., 12142. Kuiper, J.J., Malmborg, K., Sitas, N.E., Bennett, E.M., 2018b. Welcoming different Silver, H., Scott, A., Kazepov, Y., 2010. Participation in urban contention and delibera- perspectives in IPBES: “Nature’ s contributions to people” and “Ecosystem services.”. tion. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 34 (3), 453–477. Ecol. Soc. 23 (1), 39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10134-230139. Smith, N., 1992. Geography, difference and the politics of scale. Postmodernism and the Piezer, K., Petit-Boix, A., Sanjuan-Delmás, D., Briese, E., Celik, I., Rieradevall, J., et al., Social Sciences. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 57–79. 2019. Ecological network analysis of growing tomatoes in an urban rooftop green- Soja, E.W., 2013. Seeking Spatial Justice Vol. 16 University of Minnesota Press. house. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 1495–1504. Spangenberg, J.H., von Haaren, C., Settele, J., 2014. The ecosystem service cascade: Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., 2011. Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate perspective. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35 (5), 575–594. social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy. Ecol. Econ. 104, 22–32. Potschin-Young, M., Haines-Young, R., Görg, C., Heink, U., Jax, K., Schleyer, C., 2018. Stuhlmacher, M., Patnaik, S., Streletskiy, D., Taylor, K., 2019. Cap-and-trade and emis- Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: reading the ecosystem service sions clustering: a spatial-temporal analysis of the european union emissions trading cascade. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 428–440. scheme. J. Environ. Manage. 249, 109352. Rawls, J., 1971. A Theory of Justice. Belknap; Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Swyngedouw, E., Heynen, N.C., 2003. Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of Raymond, C.M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M.R., et al., 2017. scale. Antipode 35 (5), 898–918. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solu- Tan, P.Y., Samsudin, R., 2017. Effects of spatial scale on assessment of spatial equity of tions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 77, 15–24. urban park provision. Landsc. Urban Plan. 158, 139–154. Raymond, C.M., Giusti, M., Barthel, S., 2018. An embodied perspective on the co-pro- Taylor, D.E., 2000. The rise of the environmental justice paradigm: injustice framing and duction of cultural ecosystem services: toward embodied ecosystems. J. Environ. the social construction of environmental discourses. Am. Behav. Sci. 43, 508–580. Plan. Manag. 61 (5-6), 778–799. Turkelboom, F., Leone, M., Jacobs, S., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., Baró, F., Saarikoski, H., Mustajoki, J., Barton, D., Geneletti, D., Langemeyer, J., Gómez-Baggethun, Termansen, M., Barton, D.N., et al., 2018. When we cannot have it all: ecosystem E., Marttunen, M., Antunes, P., Keune, H., Santos, R., 2016. Multi-criteria decision services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (C), 566–578. analysis and cost-benefit analysis: comparing alternative frameworks for integrated https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011. valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 22, 238–249. Unnikrishnan, H., Manjunatha, B., Nagendra, H., 2016. Contested urban commons: Sanyé-Mengual, E., Oliver-Solà, J., Montero, J.I., Rieradevall, J., 2015. An environmental mapping the transition of a lake to a sports stadium in Bangalore. Int. J. Commons and economic life cycle assessment of rooftop greenhouse (RTG) implementation in 10 (1). Barcelona, Spain. Assessing new forms of urban agriculture from the greenhouse Velicu, I., Kaika, M., 2017. Undoing environmental justice: Re-imagining equality in the structure to the final product level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (3), 350–366. Rosia Montana anti-mining movement. Geoforum 84, 305–315. Schlosberg, D., 2013. Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a dis- Wachsmuth, D., 2012. Three ecologies: urban metabolism and the society-nature oppo- course. Env. Polit. 22 (1), 37–55. sition. Sociol. Q. 53 (4), 506–523. Schwarz, K., Fragkias, M., Boone, C.G., Zhou, W., McHale, M., Grove, J.M., et al., 2015. Walker, G., 2009. Beyond distribution and proximity: exploring the multiple spatialities Trees grow on money: urban tree canopy cover and environmental justice. PLoS One of environmental justice. Antipode 41, 614–636. 10 (4), e0122051. Wang, D., Brown, G., Liu, Y., 2015. The physical and non-physical factors that influence Scott, D., Oelofse, C., 2005. Social and environmental justice in South African cities: in- perceived access to urban parks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 133, 53–66. cluding ‘invisible stakeholders’ in environmental assessment procedures. J. Environ. Wendel, H.E.W., Zarger, R.K., Mihelcic, J.R., 2012. Accessibility and usability: green Plan. Manag. 48 (3), 445–467. space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in Latin Seto, K.C., Reenberg, A., Boone, C.G., Fragkias, M., Haase, D., Langanke, T., et al., 2012. America. Landsc. Urban Plan. 107 (3), 272–282. Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (20), Wilkinson, C., Saarne, T., Peterson, G.D., Colding, J., 2013. Strategic spatial planning and 7687–7692. the ecosystem services concept–an historical exploration. Ecol. Soc. 18 (1). Seto, K.C., Golden, J.S., Alberti, M., Turner, B.L., 2017. Sustainability in an urbanizing Wolch, J.R., Byrne, J., Newell, J.P., 2014. Urban green space, public health, and en- planet. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114 (34), 8935–8938. vironmental justice: the challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc. Urban Seymour, M., 2012. Just sustainability in urban parks. Local Environ. 17 (2), 167–185. Plan. 125, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2011.646968. Wyly, E., 2015. Gentrification on the planetary urban frontier: the evolution of Turner’s Shi, L., Chu, E., Anguelovski, I., Aylett, A., Debats, J., Goh, K., et al., 2016. Roadmap noösphere. Urban Stud. 52 (14), 2515–2550. towards justice in urban climate adaptation research. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6 (2), Young, I.M., 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press. 131–137. Zafra-Calvo, N., Pascual, U., Brockington, D., Coolsaet, B., Cortes-Vazquez, J.A., Gross- Shokry, G., Connolly, J.J., Anguelovski, I., 2020. Understanding climate gentrification Camp, N., et al., 2017. Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management and shifting landscapes of protection and vulnerability in green resilient in protected areas. Biol. Conserv. 211 (March), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Philadelphia. Urban Clim. 31, 100539. biocon.2017.05.014. 14