This is the accepted version of the article: Baró Porras, Francesc; Langemeyer, Johannes; Łaszkiewicz, Edyta; [et al.]. «Editorial to the special issue "Advancing urban ecosystem service implemen- tation and assessment considering different dimensions of environmental jus- tice"». Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 115 (Jan. 2021), p. 43-46. DOI 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.008 This version is available at https://ddd.uab.cat/record/235414 under the terms of the license Important note: This is the author’s post-print version of a research paper that was accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Science and Policy (Elsevier). Therefore, it underwent full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the published version: Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Łaszkiewicz, E., Kabisch, N., 2021. Editorial to the special issue “Advancing urban ecosystem service implementation and assessment considering different dimensions of environmental justice.” Environ. Sci. Policy 115, 43–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.008 Editorial to the special issue “Advancing urban ecosystem service implementation and assessment considering different dimensions of environmental justice” Authors: Francesc Baróa,b, Johannes Langemeyera,b, Edyta Łaszkiewiczc, Nadja Kabischd,e 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 c Social-Ecological Systems Analysis Lab, Department of Regional Economics and Environment, Faculty of Economics and Sociology, University of Lodz, POW 3/5, 90-255 Lodz, Poland d Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Geography, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany e Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology, Permoserstraße 15, 04318, Leipzig, Germany Email addresses: francesc.baro@uab.cat (F. Baró); johannes.langemeyer@uab.cat (J. Langemeyer); nadja.kabisch@geo.hu-berlin.de (N. Kabisch); edyta.laszkiewicz@uni.lodz.pl (E. Łaszkiewicz) 1 1. Introduction 2 The ecosystem service (ES) concept is mainstreaming and increasingly taken up by urban 3 policymakers striving for safe, resilient and sustainable cities as stated under UN Sustainable 4 Development Goal 111. In particular, the ES framework is gaining momentum as a conceptual 5 basis for the operationalization of benefits of urban green infrastructure strategies (Demuzere 6 et al. 2014) and, more recently, nature-based solutions (Raymond et al., 2017). Yet, the ES 7 concept has been criticized for its insufficient consideration of fairness and justice, hence ES- 8 based assessments, policies and the implementations of greening projects bare the risk of (re- 9 )producing social inequalities in cities, for example through ‘green gentrification’ (e.g. 10 Ernstson, 2013; Haase et al. 2017, Marshall and Gonzalez-Meler, 2016; Anguelovski et al., 11 2020). Urban ES research is increasingly taking up this criticism, highlighting the need to 12 strengthen the inclusion of equity issues, especially with regard to the distribution of ES in 13 terms of trade-offs, availability, and accessibility of benefits (Daly and Farley, 2011; Kabisch 14 and Haase, 2014, Rigolon et al. 2019). Also, many cities, such as Berlin and Barcelona, are 15 putting increasing emphasis on justice in their new urban green space planning strategies (e.g. 16 Berlin, 2020; Barcelona City Council, 2018). 1 See: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg11 1 Important note: This is the author’s post-print version of a research paper that was accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Science and Policy (Elsevier). Therefore, it underwent full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the published version: Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Łaszkiewicz, E., Kabisch, N., 2021. Editorial to the special issue “Advancing urban ecosystem service implementation and assessment considering different dimensions of environmental justice.” Environ. Sci. Policy 115, 43–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.008 17 18 This Special Issue (SI) aims to be an additional cornerstone in firmly anchoring 19 considerations of equity and justice in urban ES research and praxis, and intends to advance 20 ES justice in cities conceptually, methodologically and empirically. In this SI we build on 21 conceptual legacies from social and environmental justice (Fraser, 1995; Kabisch and Haase, 22 2014) in order to address the implementation and assessment of ‘urban ES justice’ 23 (Langemeyer and Connolly, 2020), which includes aspects of distributive justice, i.e., fair 24 allocation/access of ES for all social groups; procedural/participatory justice, i.e., fair 25 integration of all affected groups into ES-related decision-making processes; and 26 interactional/recognition justice, i.e., recognizing the needs, values, and preferences of all 27 urban residents in relation to ES in a safe, fair, well-coming and non-discriminatory 28 environment, across different spatial and temporal scales. 29 We asked authors to advance new conceptual and theoretical approaches, empirical case 30 studies, and methodological and analytical developments critical for providing new models, 31 tools and approaches for the integration of these three dimensions of justice in urban ES 32 implementation and assessments, and also to come up with particular recommendations for 33 urban environmental planning and policies. Thereby, the SI addresses the need for a 34 comprehensive approach to urban ES that recognizes justice in its multiple dimensions, 35 including potential historic inequalities in ES distributions, diverging values and demands by 36 different population groups, such as children, elderly or historically marginalized groups (cf. 37 Anguelovski et al., 2020), and that allows for the effective inclusion of their interests in the 38 governance and planning of urban green spaces. 39 2. Core themes and contributions 40 The SI comprises eleven manuscripts, which we have clustered with regard to their different 41 ways to address the overarching aims of the SI. First, we highlight the conceptualization of 42 justice in urban ES research, mainly through the paper by Langemeyer and Connolly (2020). 43 Second, we synthesize those papers including an integrated, interdisciplinary or 44 transdisciplinary approach to urban ES assessments as a way to navigate towards generating, 45 improving or maintaining environmental justice in cities, considering recognition, procedural 46 and distributive dimensions. Third, we focus on contributions that include quantification, 47 mapping and assessment of urban ES through innovative methodological and analytical 2 Important note: This is the author’s post-print version of a research paper that was accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Science and Policy (Elsevier). Therefore, it underwent full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the published version: Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Łaszkiewicz, E., Kabisch, N., 2021. Editorial to the special issue “Advancing urban ecosystem service implementation and assessment considering different dimensions of environmental justice.” Environ. Sci. Policy 115, 43–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.008 48 approaches to understand the (mainly distributive) justice implications for vulnerable groups, 49 including low-income residents, migrants, children or older people. Finally, two papers 50 specifically address the phenomenon of green gentrification through the lens of ES. Though 51 the SI only addresses European case studies, there is a good balance across European regions 52 (Southern, Central, Northern and Eastern). In the following, we provide a brief summary of 53 the eleven papers structured around the three aims of the SI. 54 2.1. Conceptualization of justice in urban ecosystem service research 55 As ES are becoming more and more important to the daily experience of urban residents, and 56 thus to urban planning, Langemeyer and Connolly (2020) highlight the urgent need to 57 weave notions of justice into urban ES research and practice. By developing an ES justice 58 model from an urban perspective, the authors provide theoretical entry points and practical 59 examples to address this aspect in urban ES service research. The study highlights the 60 argument that to build an urban ES justice model, some core limitations embedded in the 61 ecological and economic legacy of the ES concept need to be overcome (Norgaard, 2010; 62 Lele, 2013; Pascual et al., 2014). First, this includes moving beyond the classical (rural) 63 framing of stocks of natural capital that deliver benefits to people, which oversimplifies the 64 deeply interconnected character of social-ecological systems in the co-production of benefits 65 for human wellbeing (Andersson et al., 2007; Peterson et al., 2018). Secondly, the 66 predominance of economic understandings of values guiding ES assessments generates an 67 overemphasis on Pareto-optimal solutions, which by definition do not account for inequitable 68 distributive effects of ES (Chaudhary et al., 2018; Saarikoski et al., 2016). The authors 69 highlight critical entry points to overcome these limitations building on the urban 70 environmental justice literature, which – taken together with recent advancements in research 71 on ES services – allows for the development of a new model for urban ES justice. The model 72 presented by Langemeyer and Connolly (2020) considers three relevant filters, namely 73 infrastructure, institutions and people’s perceptions (cf. Andersson et al., 2019), that can 74 either facilitate or hamper the flow of ES benefits. It combines a conceptual model of how 75 these filters impact ES in urban environments with the classical environmental justice triad of 76 recognition, procedural and distributive justice (Fraser, 1995). The paper then contextualizes 77 this combined conceptual framework within larger theoretical arguments about spatial and 78 temporal justice. Spatial justice includes accounting for the benefits and burdens from ES 3 Important note: This is the author’s post-print version of a research paper that was accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Science and Policy (Elsevier). Therefore, it underwent full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the published version: Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Łaszkiewicz, E., Kabisch, N., 2021. Editorial to the special issue “Advancing urban ecosystem service implementation and assessment considering different dimensions of environmental justice.” Environ. Sci. Policy 115, 43–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.008 79 planning outcomes at the micro scale through inter-scalar teleconnections affecting people 80 globally (cf. Swyngedouw and Heynen, 2003). Temporal justice embeds historical 81 perspectives of injustice (cf. Anguelovski et al., 2020), as well as mid and long-term temporal 82 dimensions of ES justice that are related to urban resilience and long-term sustainability 83 (Elmqvist et al., 2019). 84 85 2.2. Integrated urban ecosystem service justice assessments 86 From the conceptualization of environmental justice by Langemeyer and Conolly (2020), 87 particular case studies addressing ES and justice in specific urban green spaces are presented. 88 Park user behavior of different age groups is explored by Kabisch and Kraemer (2020)1. 89 Using two differently designed parks in the German city of Leipzig, authors identify a trend 90 wherein particular park facilities, i.e., infrastructural and vegetation characteristics of parks, 91 determine park use by age group under summer heat conditions in a way that e.g. sports fields 92 invite young generations (teenagers) to be active in groups, to play and to socialize while 93 older people are nearly exclusively observed on benches. From a socio-environmental justice 94 perspective, authors conclude that inviting all age groups to visit urban parks requires an 95 equal provision and maintenance of age-appropriate park design elements, which particularly 96 contributes to a qualitatively improved distributive justice dimension that addresses the needs 97 of younger and older generations. 98 Enssle and Kabisch (2020) explore the patterns of older people’s health and visitation of 99 urban parks and green spaces in the city of Berlin. Authors find that beyond the distributive 100 dimension of urban green spaces, social inclusion into the neighborhood via a social network 101 such as closer relationships and friends is positively associated with park use. From there, 102 Enssle and Kabisch (2020) propose a framework of the three dimensions of socio- 103 environmental justice in regard to ES provision which should help urban planning to consider 104 both the physical and the social environment to be designed in a way that invites older people 105 to visit and use urban green spaces for recreational and social activities, but also to foster the 106 integration of older people in planning processes and the establishment of local community 107 programs. 108 The particular integration of local stakeholders in urban development and regeneration 109 processes and their interactions in relation to ES provision is assessed by Olsson et al. (2020). 4 Important note: This is the author’s post-print version of a research paper that was accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Science and Policy (Elsevier). Therefore, it underwent full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the published version: Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Łaszkiewicz, E., Kabisch, N., 2021. Editorial to the special issue “Advancing urban ecosystem service implementation and assessment considering different dimensions of environmental justice.” Environ. Sci. Policy 115, 43–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.008 110 Using the district of Sofielund in Malmö, Sweden as a study case, authors interviewed local 111 stakeholders, including property owners, managers, businesses and local representatives from 112 the Swedish Union of Tenants. In terms of environmental justice, findings show that a 113 distributive injustice of ES provision influences the local perception of what is just. This has, 114 in turn, consequences for the willingness to participate in planning processes. Authors 115 highlight that a comprehensive involvement of local stakeholders and acknowledgement of 116 their perspectives in planning processes is key to a perception of just urban ES governance. 117 Recommendations for improvements include the establishment of more structured 118 participatory processes, better communication between property owners and the municipality 119 and the recognition of power structures. 120 2.3. Methodological and analytical applications 121 Spatial approaches to assess inequities in the distribution of urban ES represent a substantial 122 contribution to the SI with five papers. Baró et al. (2019) explicitly focus on regulating ES 123 while the others address cultural ES. Baró et al. (2019) analyze the distributive justice 124 implications of the amount of air purification, runoff mitigation and temperature regulation 125 provided by almost 200,000 street trees in the city of Barcelona. The authors find that, unlike 126 previous evidence on urban tree distribution and equity, the provision of regulation ES by 127 street trees is positively associated with the distribution of certain vulnerable groups, such as 128 older people. In light of these results, authors argue that street tree planting strategies can play 129 a relevant redistributive role in terms of local ES provision, especially in compact cities. 130 As part of the assessments of cultural ES, Suárez et al. (2020) use an environmental justice 131 lens to analyze outdoor recreation opportunities provided by urban and peri-urban green 132 spaces in the Oslo metropolitan area. Their findings show that population preferences for 133 daily outdoor recreation areas differ depending on age and place of residence and that 134 migrants and low-income households have relatively less access to these amenities. The 135 authors underscore the point that in order to properly address urban environmental justice, 136 cultural ES assessments should go beyond the analysis of uneven or unequal access and also 137 account for people’s (diverse) preferences. 138 Liotta et al. (2020) develop a methodological framework to assess inequities in access to the 139 cultural benefits of urban green spaces based on a multidimensional definition of well-being, 140 which integrates aspects related to health, education, insecurity and social relations. In line 5 Important note: This is the author’s post-print version of a research paper that was accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Science and Policy (Elsevier). Therefore, it underwent full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the published version: Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Łaszkiewicz, E., Kabisch, N., 2021. Editorial to the special issue “Advancing urban ecosystem service implementation and assessment considering different dimensions of environmental justice.” Environ. Sci. Policy 115, 43–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.008 141 with Suárez et al. (2020), the application of this approach in the Paris metropolitan region 142 highlights the importance of considering different indicators of social inequity for the 143 prioritization of green infrastructure interventions rather than assessments merely based on 144 green space inequality. 145 Finally, two papers analyze the equity implications of cultural ES distribution in Eastern 146 European cities. Łaszkiewicz and Sikorska (2020) evaluate welfare disparities among 147 children living in Lodz in relation to the nature-based aesthetic appreciation benefits provided 148 by the greenery surrounding home-school routes. They highlight the point that the distributive 149 environmental injustice is not only understood in terms of the inhabitants’ place of living but 150 also regarding inhabitants’ spatial movement (spatially dynamic environmental justice). 151 Sikorska et al. (2020) focused on the role of informal green spaces to reduce distributive 152 inequity in the access to recreational ES for children and elderly residents of Lodz and 153 Warsaw. Both studies found distributive environmental injustices affecting those age groups 154 and highlight the potential role of unmanaged street greenery (i.e., beyond formal green 155 spaces such as parks) in providing ecosystem services in a way that may limit disparities in 156 the access to cultural ES. 157 2.4. Urban ecosystem services and green gentrification 158 Green (ecological, environmental) gentrification is the process where the implementation of 159 new urban green spaces increases neighborhood attractiveness, and consequentially real estate 160 values, potentially foster social displacement or segregation (Anguelovski et al., 2018); 161 thereby increasingly limiting access to ES for vulnerable urban populations over time 162 (Amorim-Maia et al., 2020). Two papers published in this SI address green gentrification as 163 the consequence of new greening initiatives and discuss it in the context of ES (Maia et al., 164 2020) and real estate market valuation (Bockarjova et al., 2020). 165 Amorim-Maia et al. (2020) demonstrate that factors determining green gentrification are not 166 limited to the social and historical conditions of urban green spaces. With the use of geo- 167 located social media data, they show that cultural ES provided by urban parks play a 168 significant role in determining whether these parks are associated (or not) with green 169 gentrification processes or produce environmental injustices in Barcelona. The findings 170 obtained by Amorim-Maia et al. (2020) have relevant policy implications. In particular, they 171 find green gentrification to be primarily attributed to the built infrastructure (such as 6 Important note: This is the author’s post-print version of a research paper that was accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Science and Policy (Elsevier). Therefore, it underwent full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the published version: Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Łaszkiewicz, E., Kabisch, N., 2021. Editorial to the special issue “Advancing urban ecosystem service implementation and assessment considering different dimensions of environmental justice.” Environ. Sci. Policy 115, 43–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.008 172 architectural and artistic features) present in or surrounding the parks enhancing aesthetic and 173 recreational ES, while the actual level of ‘greenness’ does not play a significant role in 174 explaining gentrification processes. 175 Finally, Bockarjova et al. (2020) focused on how the valuation of urban green spaces and ES 176 by real estate buyers relates to green gentrification. In particular, they highlighted the process 177 by which green interventions have an impact on housing markets. With the use of a meta- 178 analysis based on hedonic pricing models, the authors demonstrate that the impact of green 179 interventions on the property market differs by the type of greening and the related ES 180 provision. In particular, real estate buyers value the presence of a park or blue space in the 181 vicinity of their property more than the presence of other types of urban nature. 182 183 3. Concluding remarks 184 Previous urban ES assessments have provided useful information for planning urban green 185 infrastructure and the implementation of nature-based solutions, but some have also lacked 186 context in terms of how different residential groups benefit, especially when considering 187 diverse needs. In this Special Issue we presented case studies, new concepts, and advanced 188 methodologies that provide some of this context by integrating the ES concept with 189 considerations of environmental justice. The studies embedded in this Special Issue highlight 190 the point that, in order to make environmental justice considerations explicit, urban ES 191 assessments need to address the societal distribution of ES, people’s multiple values, 192 perceptions and needs, fairness of ES-based decision-making processes, and aspects related to 193 spatial, temporal and interactional justice. 194 For instance, the studies show that certain ES provided by urban green spaces might favor 195 green gentrification processes, and that the complex role of the ‘green’ in these processes 196 needs to be carefully scrutinized. Particularly in recent debates over fostering nature-based 197 solutions, more in-depth research is needed to create a sound understanding of how it can be 198 ensured that these interventions (and the related ES provision) benefit all potential user 199 groups. Furthermore, several papers also highlight a need to more strongly consider informal, 200 unmanaged or street green infrastructure and the critical role they can play in reducing 201 distributive injustices in the access to ES, potentially compensating for the patchy and 7 Important note: This is the author’s post-print version of a research paper that was accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Science and Policy (Elsevier). Therefore, it underwent full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the published version: Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Łaszkiewicz, E., Kabisch, N., 2021. Editorial to the special issue “Advancing urban ecosystem service implementation and assessment considering different dimensions of environmental justice.” Environ. Sci. Policy 115, 43–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.008 202 generally uneven distribution of more formal green spaces such as urban parks. 203 In short, urban green spaces are an important part of the urban socio-ecological system which 204 provides numerous benefits to residents that are of particular importance in the context of 205 challenges coming with climate change, urbanization and even with the current Covid-19 206 pandemic. We, as researchers, can help urban planning to identify and even quantify these 207 benefits and – most importantly – try to assess to whom these benefits are available or not to 208 provide most informed recommendations. Continuously highlighting the importance of 209 environmental and social justice aspects in these assessments raises awareness in urban green 210 space planning and implementation campaigns and may help urban planners and decision 211 makers in creating and applying instruments that contribute to developing more sustainable 212 and just cities. However, creating just planning processes that foster participation and 213 inclusion without sacrificing efforts to ensure future justice, resilience and sustainability 214 remains a challenging task. 215 216 Declaration of Competing Interest 217 The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. 218 219 Acknowledgements 220 We are thankful to all authors for their contributions, to the reviewers for their insightful 221 comments and expertise. We particularly thank the editor in chief Prof. Martin Beniston and 222 the Editorial team of Elsevier / Environmental Science and Policy for their highly valuable 223 comments and commitment to this special issue. We are also grateful to all participants of the 224 session “Advancing urban ecosystem service assessments for more inclusive and just cities” 225 organized in the ESP 10 World Conference (Hannover, Germany, 2019). The work of the 226 guest editors for this special issue was partly funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, 227 Innovation and University and the National Science Centre (Poland) (grant no. 228 2016/22/Z/NZ8/00003) through the 2015-2016 BiodivERsA COFUND (project ENABLE, 229 code PCIN-2016-002), the European Research Council (project GREENLULUs; grant 230 agreement ID: 678034 and URBAG grant agreement ID 818002); the EU’s Horizon 2020 8 Important note: This is the author’s post-print version of a research paper that was accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Science and Policy (Elsevier). Therefore, it underwent full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the published version: Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Łaszkiewicz, E., Kabisch, N., 2021. Editorial to the special issue “Advancing urban ecosystem service implementation and assessment considering different dimensions of environmental justice.” Environ. Sci. Policy 115, 43–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.008 231 framework program for research and innovation (project NATURVATION, grant agreement 232 ID: 730243), and the research project ‘Environmental-health Interactions in Cities 233 (GreenEquityHEALTH) – Challenges for Human Well-being under Global Changes’ (2017– 234 2022) funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), funding 235 code: 01LN1705A, 236 237 238 239 Note: 1Please, note that Kabisch and Kraemer (2020) is referred to by Kabisch et al. (2020). 240 241 References 242 1. Amorim-Maia, A.T., Calcagni, F., Connolly, J.J.T., Anguelovski, I., Langemeyer, J., 2020. Hidden drivers of 243 social injustice: uncovering unequal cultural ecosystem services behind green gentrification. Environ. Sci. 244 Policy 112, 254–263. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.021 245 2. Andersson, E., Barthel, S., Ahrné, K., 2007. Measuring social–ecological dynamics behind the generation of 246 ecosystem services. Ecol. Appl. 17 (5), 1267–1278. 247 3. Andersson, E., Langemeyer, J., Borgström, S., McPhearson, T., Haase, D., Barton, D., Davis, M., 248 Kronenberg, J., Naumann, S., Röschel, L., Stange, E., Baró, F., 2019. Enabling green and blue infrastructure 249 to improve contributions to human well-being and equity in urban systems. BioScience 58. 250 https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz058.Anguelovski I., Brand A.L., Connolly J.J.T., Corbera E., Kotsila P., 251 Steil J., Garcia-Lamarca M., Triguero-Mas M., Cole H., Baró F., Langemeyer J., Pérez del Pulgar, C., Shokry 252 G., Sekulova F., Arguelles L. 2020. Expanding the Boundaries of Justice in Urban Greening Scholarship: 253 Toward an Emancipatory, Antisubordination, Intersectional, and Relational Approach. Annals of the 254 American Association of Geographers, 1-27. DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1740579 255 4. Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J.T., Masip, L., Pearsall, H., 2018. Assessing green gentrification in historically 256 disenfranchised neighborhoods: a longitudinal and spatial analysis of Barcelona. Urban Geogr. 39, 458–491. 257 doi:10.1080/02723638.2017.1349987 258 5. Barcelona City Council, 2018. Barcelona Climate Plan 2018-2030. Retrieved from: 259 http://hdl.handle.net/11703/109218. 260 6. Baró, F., Calderón-Argelich, A., Langemeyer, J., Connolly, J.J.T., 2019. Under one canopy? Assessing the 261 distributional environmental justice implications of street tree benefits in Barcelona. Environ. Sci. Policy 262 102, 54–64. doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2019.08.016 263 7. Berlin [Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen], 2020. Environmental Justice in Berlin. 264 https://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/d901_01.htm, accessed: 01.09.2020 265 8. Bockarjova, M., Botzen, W.J.W., van Schie, M.H., Koetse, M.J., 2020. Property price effects of green 266 interventions in cities: A meta-analysis and implications for gentrification. Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 293– 267 304. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.024 268 9. Chaudhary, S., McGregor, A., 2018. A critical analysis of global ecosystem services (Paristhitiki sewa) 269 discourse in Nepal. Land Use Policy 75, 364–374. 270 10. Daly HE and Farley J (2011) Ecological Economics, Second Edition: Principles and Applications. Island 271 Press. 272 11. Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H., Bhave, A.G., Mittal, N., Feliu, 9 Important note: This is the author’s post-print version of a research paper that was accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Science and Policy (Elsevier). Therefore, it underwent full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the published version: Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Łaszkiewicz, E., Kabisch, N., 2021. Editorial to the special issue “Advancing urban ecosystem service implementation and assessment considering different dimensions of environmental justice.” Environ. Sci. Policy 115, 43–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.008 273 E., Faehnle, M., 2014. Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale 274 assessment of green urban infrastructure. J. Environ. Manage. 146, 107–115. 275 12. Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., Takeuchi, K., Folke, 276 C., 2019. Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nat. Sustain. 2 (4), 267. 277 13. Enssle, F., Kabisch, N., 2020. Urban green spaces for the social interaction, health and well-being of older 278 people— An integrated view of urban ecosystem services and socio-environmental justice. Environ. Sci. 279 Policy 109, 36–44. doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2020.04.008 280 14. Ernstson, H., 2013. The social production of ecosystem services: A framework for studying environmental 281 justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 109, 7–17. 282 15. Fraser, N. (1995). From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a'post-socialist'age. New left 283 review, (212), 68. 284 16. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., 2013. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. 285 Ecol. Econ. 86, 235–245. 286 17. Haase, D., Kabisch, S., Haase, A., Andersson, E., Banzhaf, E., Baró, F., Brenck, M., Fischer, L., 287 Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N. et al. (2017) Greening cities – to be socially inclusive? About the alleged 288 paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat International. 64, 41-48. DOI: 289 10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.04.005 290 18. Kabisch, N., & Haase, D. (2014). Just green or justice of green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, 291 Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 129e139. 292 19. Kabisch, N., Kraemer, R., 2020. Physical activity patterns in two differently characterised urban parks under 293 conditions of summer heat. Environ. Sci. Policy 107, 56–65. doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2020.02.008 294 20. Kabisch, N., Kraemer, R., Brenck, M. Corrigendum to “Physical activity patterns in two differently 295 characterised urban parks under conditions of summer heat” [Environ. Sci. Policy 107 May (2020) 56–65]. 296 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.004 297 21. Langemeyer, J., Connolly, J.J.T., 2020. Weaving notions of justice into urban ecosystem services research 298 and practice. Environ. Sci. Policy 109, 1–14. doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2020.03.021 299 22. Łaszkiewicz, E., Sikorska, D., 2020. Children’s green walk to school: An evaluation of welfare-related 300 disparities in the visibility of greenery among children. Environ. Sci. Policy 110, 1–13. 301 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.009 302 23. Lele, S., 2013. Environmentalisms, justices and the limits of ecosystem services frameworks. The Justices 303 and Injustices of Ecosystem Services. Earthscan, London, pp. 119–139. 304 24. Liotta, C., Kervinio, Y., Levrel, H., Tardieu, L., 2020. Planning for environmental justice - reducing well- 305 being inequalities through urban greening. Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 47–60. 306 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.017 307 25. Low, S. (2013). Public space and diversity: Distributive, procedural and interactional justice for parks. In G. 308 Young, & D. Stevenson (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to planning and culture (pp. 295–310). 309 Surrey: Ashgate Publishing. 310 26. Marshall, K.A., Gonzalez-Meler, M.A., 2016. Can ecosystem services be part of the solution to 311 environmental justice? Ecosyst. Serv. 22, 202–203. 312 27. McAfee, K., 2012. Nature in the market-world: ecosystem services and inequality. Development 55 (1), 25– 313 33. 314 28. Norgaard, R.B., 2010. Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol. Econ. 69 315 (6), 1219–1227. 316 29. Olsson, J.A., Brunner, J., Nordin, A., Hanson, H.I., 2020. A just urban ecosystem service governance at the 317 neighbourhood level- perspectives from Sofielund, Malmö, Sweden. Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 305–313. 318 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.025 319 30. Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Muradian, 320 R., 2014. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience 64 (11), 1027–1036. 321 https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu146. 322 31. Peterson, G.D., Harmáčková, Z.V., Meacham, M., Queiroz, C., Jiménez-Aceituno, A., Kuiper, J.J., 323 Malmborg, K., Sitas, N.E., Bennett, E.M., 2018. Connecting people’s contributions to nature to nature’s 10 Important note: This is the author’s post-print version of a research paper that was accepted for publication in the journal Environmental Science and Policy (Elsevier). Therefore, it underwent full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the published version: Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Łaszkiewicz, E., Kabisch, N., 2021. Editorial to the special issue “Advancing urban ecosystem service implementation and assessment considering different dimensions of environmental justice.” Environ. Sci. Policy 115, 43–46. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.008 324 contributions to people. Response to: Dìaz et al. (2018). Science 359 (6373), 270–272. 325 32. Raymond, C.M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M.R., Geneletti, D., Calfapietra, 326 C., 2017. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature- based solutions in urban 327 areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 77, 15–24. 328 33. Saarikoski, H., Mustajoki, J., Barton, D., Geneletti, D., Langemeyer, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Marttunen, 329 M., Antunes, P., Keune, H., Santos, R., 2016. Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis: 330 comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 22, 238– 331 249. 332 34. Scott, D., Oelofse, C., 2005. Social and environmental justice in South African cities: including ‘invisible 333 stakeholders’ in environmental assessment procedures. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 48 (3), 445–467. 334 35. Sikorska, D., Łaszkiewicz, E., Krauze, K., Sikorski, P., 2020. The role of informal green spaces in reducing 335 inequalities in urban green space availability to children and seniors. Environ. Sci. Policy 108, 144–154. 336 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.007 337 36. Suárez, M., Barton, D.N., Cimburova, Z., Rusch, G.M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Onaindia, M., 2020. 338 Environmental justice and outdoor recreation opportunities: A spatially explicit assessment in Oslo 339 metropolitan area, Norway. Environ. Sci. Policy 108, 133–143. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.014 340 37. Swyngedouw, E., Heynen, N.C., 2003. Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode 35 341 (5), 898–918. 11