Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan Review Article Tracing and building up environmental justice considerations in the urban ecosystem service literature: A systematic review Amalia Calderón-Argelich a, *, Stefania Benetti b, Isabelle Anguelovski a, c, d, James J. T. Connolly e, c, a, Johannes Langemeyer a, f, Francesc Baró g, h, a 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 Department of Methods and Models for Economics, Territory and Finance (MEMOTEF), University of Rome La Sapienza, Via Del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy c Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute (IMIM), Carrer Doctor Aiguader 88, 08003 Barcelona, Spain d Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Passeig Lluís Companys 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain e University of British Columbia, School of Community and Regional Planning, 433-6333 Memorial Road, Vancouver, Canada f Department of Geography, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Germany g Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Geography Department, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium h Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Sociology Department, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: The concept of ecosystem services (ES) has mainstreamed as an interdisciplinary framework in the urban sus­ Green spaces tainability and resilience agenda. While the uptake of ES in urban areas is deeply entangled with multiple values, Urban green infrastructure trade-offs, institutions, management and planning approaches, there is still a lack of a comprehensive and sys­ Cities tematic framework to address environmental justice (EJ) in urban ES assessments. This article presents a sys­ Trade-offs Equity tematic literature review to examine what factors are critical for the effective inclusion of an EJ lens in urban ES Environmental benefits appraisals. More specifically, we assessed how distributional, procedural and recognitional EJ dimensions have been addressed, and in relation to which types of urban ES. Our results reveal that EJ considerations are currently focused on the (un)equal distribution of ES and the associated green and blue infrastructure with regard to socioeconomic groups, with special attention to income and race/ethnicity as the main mechanisms of social stratification. There is also a predominant focus on regulating and cultural ES, analyzing their role on resilience and adaptive capacity on one hand, and recreational values, social cohesion and place-making on the other. In this review, we also evaluate the interconnected dimensions of justice and their constraints, and lay out pathways for new research into intersectional and restorative approaches to justice in ES assessments. Finally, we inter­ rogate what the role of urban ES-based planning might be in making more inclusive and just cities and explore its implications for policy and practice. 1. Introduction aim to become inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable (UN, 2015). Nevertheless, the development of urban ES assessments has so far not Over the last decade, the concept of Ecosystem Services (ES) has been fully integrated an Environmental Justice (EJ) perspective (cf. Ernstson, mainstreamed as an interdisciplinary guiding framework in urban sus­ 2013; Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020; Enssle and Kabisch, 2020). As a tainability and resilience agendas (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013; result, decisions and interventions that do not include a broad range of Haase, Frantzeskaki, & Elmqvist, 2014; Raymond et al., 2017). Cities urban EJ issues might perpetuate or even exacerbate environmental worldwide are increasingly incorporating ES-based approaches to inequalities around benefits from nature and ecosystem services among inform decisions over green and blue infrastructure (see Box 1) planning economically, socially and racially disadvantaged groups (Haase et al., and management (Demuzere et al., 2014; Hansen et al., 2015) with the 2017; Wolch, Byrne, & Newell, 2014). * Corresponding author. E-mail address: amalia.calderon@uab.cat (A. Calderón-Argelich). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104130 Received 13 July 2020; Received in revised form 20 April 2021; Accepted 22 April 2021 Available online 13 May 2021 0169-2046/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). A. Calderón-Argelich et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 The ES framework has recently been criticized for reflecting an diverse socio-cultural values held by different groups (Bertram & Rehdanz, anthropocentric understanding of human-nature relationships and for 2015; Fischer et al., 2018; Jacobs et al., 2016; Swapan, Iftekhar, & Li, 2017). privileging economic valuation approaches (Schröter et al., 2014; Sikor, These efforts towards a more comprehensive urban ES-based appli­ 2013), which may lead to the commodification of ecosystem processes cation framework that systematically incorporates justice in the urban and structures. This is already illustrated by the green branding tools greening governance partially originates in the recent EJ scholarship that cities tend to increasingly incorporate in their greening projects which has traditionally highlighted existing inequities in access to ES (Garcia-Lamarca et al., 2021; McDermott, Mahanty, & Schreckenberg, provision as part of green infrastructure interventions (Byrne & Wolch, 2013). Furthermore, ES assessments are often underpinned by pre­ 2009; Meerow, 2020; Shokry, Connolly, & Anguelovski, 2020; Wolch, scriptive and normative assumptions (Kotsila et al., 2020) expressed in Byrne, & Newell, 2014). Put differently, environmental amenities and broad claims like, for example, that all social groups will derive equal greening policies in urban planning are not exempt from trade-offs and health and well-being benefits from the ES provision of a new greening potential social and racial inequities in the way new green infrastructure intervention. These aspects may neglect values embedded in social is being deployed (Connolly, 2019; Nesbitt, Meitner, Sheppard, & Girl­ structures and perpetuate the unidimensional and techno-economic ing, 2018). They can intensify social-spatial inequities by triggering framing of ES approaches (Lele, Brondizio, Byrne, Mace, & Martinez- processes of social exclusion while leaving historical grievances un­ Alier, 2018; Lele, 2013). At the same time, researchers increasingly touched (Anguelovski, Connolly, Garcia-Lamarca, Cole, & Pearsall, acknowledge that the translation of ES into human benefits is deeply 2018; Connolly & Anguelovski, 2021; Gould & Lewis, 2017; Rigolon & entangled with multiple perceptions, institutions, and infrastructures, Németh, 2019; Safransky, 2018; Schlosberg, 2013; Wolch, Byrne, & especially in urban areas (Andersson et al., 2019; Elmqvist, Gómez- Newell, 2014) Baggethun, & Langemeyer, 2018; Ernstson, 2013). These factors inter­ Consequently, there is a scholarly need for a greater confluence vene in the co-production of ES benefits and therefore need to be care­ —both conceptual and practical— between EJ and urban ES. Such an fully dissected in order to avoid unequal distribution of and access to ES endeavor is needed to bring new light to our understanding of the for marginalized groups, their exclusion from the decision-making diverse environmental relations of different population groups, processes and the disregard of their specific needs, values, demands regarding questions of unequal access, perceptions, and responsibilities and identities (Anguelovski et al., 2020). vis-à-vis urban ES-based agendas. This agreement would also serve as We acknowledge that some of the literature on ES has considered the foundation for ensuring that plural values and demands are recog­ questions previously examined by the longstanding EJ scholarship nized in the political and institutional schemes that shape the ES-based (Dawson et al., 2017; Mohai, Pellow, & Roberts, 2009; Walker, 2011), environmental governance model. In turn, such ES research that bridges such as concerns over unequal access to environmental resources and interdisciplinary EJ concepts and methods can challenge the vision of EJ decision-making power (Costanza, 2003; Heynen & Lindsey, 2003; as a static and idealistic concept rather than a dynamic and pluralistic McAfee, 1999; Tschakert, 2007; Wilson & Howarth, 2002). These early one, which urban communities actively construct in their specific con­ ES analyses broadly explored the links between ES, well-being, poverty texts (Brand, 2015). Thus, expanding the conception of urban green and alleviation and sustainable environmental management, mainly in rural blue infrastructure in this way is required to account not only for (un) livelihoods and natural reserves. For instance, Payment for Ecosystem equal material distribution but also for the actual delivery of benefits Services (PES) —a policy of compensatory market-based tools for and embedded values, and the participation of different social groups in ecosystem protection— has been widely critiqued in communities of the the co-production of ES —or lack thereof (Andersson et al., 2019; Global South for their inability to give proper acknowledgement to is­ Anguelovski et al., 2020; Safransky, 2018). sues of inclusion and poverty alleviation while creating conflicts of land This systematic review paper takes a step toward a combined ES-EJ use (Chaudhary & McGregor, 2018; Chaudhary, McGregor, Houston, & perspective by examining how questions of EJ are currently being Chettri, 2018; Kosoy & Corbera, 2010; Pascual et al., 2014; Schreck­ incorporated into urban ES studies and proposes new directions to bring enberg, Mace, & Poudyal, 2018; Sikor, 2013). On a similar line, the urban EJ and ES together in ways that can foster more inclusive, sus­ current IPBES framework has integrated different worldviews and types tainable, resilient and healthy cities. Our goal is to identify potential of knowledge into its assessments through the Nature’s Contribution to intellectual alliances through the incorporation of the EJ lens into the People approach, emphasizing the need for a combination of generalized assessment of urban ES and to highlight the two fields’ complementar­ understandings and localized, context-specific perspectives of nature’s ities, knowledge gaps, points of conflict, and areas of confluence. benefits vis-à-vis conservation policies (Díaz et al., 2018; Kadykalo et al., 2019; Martin et al., 2016). However, while these efforts demonstrate a 2. Material and methods greater incorporation of plural views of nature in decision-making, ES research regarding processes of urbanization and development remains In order to identify and analyze the scientific literature relevant to relatively new, and there is still a lack of systematic incorporation of our research objectives, we carried out a quantitative systematic review, urban EJ concerns (Haase et al., 2017; F. Marshall et al., 2018). similarly to prior ES reviews on factors of urban greenspace provision Recently, researchers have been calling for a greater focus on EJ in the and governance (Boulton, Dedekorkut-Howes, & Byrne, 2018; Breen, urban ES scholarship in order to integrate broader conceptions of justice Giannotti, Flores Molina, & Vásquez, 2020), biodiversity and ecosystem (See Box 1) into a better diagnosis of urban environmental and health in­ functioning in cities (Haase et al., 2014), ES and human-wellbeing equalities (Aragão, Jacobs, & Cliquet, 2016; Berbés-Blázquez, González, & (Cruz-Garcia et al., 2017) and the conceptualization and involvement Pascual, 2016; Ernstson, 2013; Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020; Marshall & of stakeholders in urban ES research (Luederitz et al., 2015). The novel Gonzalez-Meler, 2016) while fostering more representative and legitimate contribution of our review is that it interrogates the operationalization decision-making processes (Andersson et al., 2019; Langemeyer, Gómez- of environmental justice within urban ES assessments, which has not Baggethun, Haase, Scheuer, & Elmqvist, 2015; Maes, Burkhard, & Geneletti, been previously completed nor addressed in the literature. The process 2018). Furthermore, some urban ES researchers are increasingly incorpo­ of data gathering, screening and analysis followed the widely used rating social dimensions within their assessments, which opens new terrain protocols of the PRISMA Statement for systematic reviews (Moher et al., for EJ analysis, including novel socio-economic and non-monetary valua­ 2009), as depicted in Fig. 1. We first gathered potentially relevant pa­ tions of ES (Amorim Maia et al., 2020; Camps-Calvet, Langemeyer, Calvet- pers using the ISI Web of Science and Scopus, two well-recognized and Mir, & Gómez-Baggethun, 2016; Depietri, Kallis, Baró, & Cattaneo, 2016; widely deployed databases. We performed a search of peer-reviewed Langemeyer, Calcagni, & Baró, 2018), analyses of ecosystems trade-offs articles and reviews published in English. The search string used is (Turkelboom et al., 2018), ecosystem disservices (Escobedo, Kroeger, & available in Table S1 of the Supplementary data. We obtained (on 8th Wagner, 2011; Von Döhren & Haase, 2015), and broad recognition of the January 2020) 136 records from the Scopus database and 189 from the 2 A. Calderón-Argelich et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 Box 1 Glossary of major terms relevant to the key topics of discussion of this review. Urban Ecosystem Services (UES) — Benefits that humans obtain from urban ecosystems and their components (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013; Mader, Patrickson, Calcaterra, & Smit, 2011; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003). Green and Blue Infrastructure (GBI) — A strategically planned network of green and blue spaces in urban areas, designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services and other benefits at various spatial scales (Hansen, Rall, Chapman, Rolf, & Pauleit, 2017). Environmental Justice (EJ) — Plural set of conditions related to the fair distribution of resources, inclusive political processes, and institu­ tionalized recognition of communities that allow for full human flourishing (Schlosberg, 2013). Equity — Used here as the just distribution of environmental goods and burdens. Fairness — Used here as individuals’ perceptions of justice arising from a judgment process (Graham et al., 2015). Distributional Justice — Also known as distributive justice, it refers to the equitable allocation of and access to material costs and benefits for all social groups in both spatial and temporal terms (Schlosberg, 2013). Procedural Justice — Also known as participatory justice, it refers to participatory and inclusive decision-making processes and it is linked with transparent and meaningful citizen involvement (Schlosberg, 2013). Recognitional Justice — Also known as interactional justice, it is related to interpersonal interactions that allow people to express themselves in their own way, provision and access to information, and respect for different needs, values, preferences and identities (Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020). Restorative Justice — Also known as reparative justice, it is based on acknowledging histories of social trauma and taking recovery measures (Aragão, Jacobs, & Cliquet, 2016; Draus, Haase, Napieralski, Roddy, & Qureshi, 2019; Draus, Lovall, Formby, Baldwin, & Lowe-Anderson, 2019). Fig. 1. Diagram of search and data selection based in PRISMA Statement steps. ISI Web of Science. Following the database search, 15 additional papers Focus on the urban context, including also rural-urban gradient and that referred to urban ES and EJ but not as the main part of their analysis peri-urban studies. During the screening of abstracts, we discarded non- (and thus were not identified in our search string) were suggested by relevant papers that did not meet these criteria. Examples of excluded authors with expertise in this area and, after confirmation of relevant papers include those that broadly mention justice or equity implications content, added to our list. We finally obtained a merged database of 241 of ES but without further analysis, papers only mentioning ES as a po­ identified unique records. From these initial search results, we screened tential indicator of environmental sustainability, and other articles ob­ the abstracts for their relevance to the research goal, using the following tained due to identification errors from database algorithms. Abstracts criteria: 1) Explicit mention and examination of ES; 2) Explicit relation of the retrieved articles were examined by the first two authors, and of the ES framework to EJ, social equity or perceptions of fairness; 3) doubts regarding the inclusion or exclusion of studies were discussed by 3 A. Calderón-Argelich et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 all co-authors until an agreement was reached. After the first selection, was agreed upon in consensus with all co-authors. We selected cate­ the first author reviewed the full-text to confirm eligibility and proceed gories that allowed us to obtain the bibliographic information and scope to the analysis. of the article (i.e. authors, title, keywords, abstract, journal, year of We eventually included 126 relevant papers and carried out an in- publication, category of article, country, continent). We then included depth analysis of these papers following a codification protocol of pre­ information about the nature of ES analyzed, by groups (i.e. provision­ defined possible entries, shown in Table 1. The final review categories ing, regulating, supporting and cultural), and by the ecological struc­ were obtained iteratively by clustering closely related concepts to avoid tures (e.g. allotments, parks, blue spaces, etc.) that produce them. We redundancy and by dividing categories to avoid ambiguity. This classi­ dissected the types of urban ES to better examine the benefits provided fication facilitated the subsequent analysis and data visualization and relative to how they are operationalized in relation to an EJ perspective, following well-established classification frameworks used in previous Table 1 research (see Elmqvist et al., 2018; Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013), Review categories and possible entries for each one. These variables served to such as those from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), The code the 126 analyzed papers. Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) and the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). We also Review Possible entries References categories included ecosystem disservices because trade-offs and negative out­ comes can have potential EJ ramifications and are especially relevant in Category of Case study, review, conceptual article paper. urban areas (Von Döhren & Haase, 2015). Although we did not code the Country Name of the country of the specific disservices considered in our sample, we contend that a holistic study, multiple, not applicable. approach of ES should include the wide range of disservices derived Continent Name of the continent of the from urban green infrastructure, including for instance, tree pollen al­ study, not applicable. lergy, damage to infrastructure, and lack of perceived safety and Ecological Allotments and community Modified from Haase et al. structure gardens, parks, blue spaces (2014); and Hansen, Rall, harassment (Langemeyer & Gómez-Baggethun, 2018). We also identi­ (rivers, lakes, coast, wetlands), Chapman, Rolf, & Pauleit, fied the EJ approach or dimension used by relevant articles, the social agricultural land, forests, other 2017 stratifications at stake in the production of (in)justices, and the types of peri-urban lands (including peri- stakeholders responsible for addressing or producing injustices. We urban areas and urban–rural gradient), brownfields, green selected the social stratification variable to account for the social space connected to grey mechanisms of power that have historically privileged some social infrastructure (green roofs, groups among others (i.e. by income, educational attainment, age, street trees and façades), not gender or race/ethnicity) in the access and vulnerability to environ­ specified (when talking of urban mental benefits and hazards. green infrastructure in general). Groups of ES Provisioning, regulating, Mader, Patrickson, We acknowledge that our review has likely omitted some relevant supporting, cultural, not Calcaterra, & Smit, 2011 literature as it has been limited to peer-reviewed articles already published specified (when talking of ES in and written in English and available in the search databases. Additionally, general terms). our search terms greatly delimit the bounds of the studies we examine, as ES examined Provisioning: food supply, Based on Elmqvist et al. water supply, raw materials. (2018); and Mader, the ES framework is often not used by (urban) EJ researchers and vice versa. Regulating: runoff mitigation, Patrickson, Calcaterra, & ES research often addresses poverty alleviation, distribution of resources, air purification, global climate Smit, 2011 governing systems (Sjöstedt, 2012; Suich, Howe, & Mace, 2015) and trade- regulation, urban temperature offs in human well-being (Daw et al., 2015) but may not be self-identified or regulation, noise reduction, labelled as research related to EJ. On the other hand, there is a large body of waste treatment, moderation of extreme events, erosion literature on EJ, encompassing disciplines such as political ecology and prevention and maintenance of critical geography, which addresses the topic of urban greening without soil fertility. Supporting: habitat referring to the ES framework (Heynen, Kaika, & Swyngedouw, 2006; provision for biodiversity. Ranganathan & Bratman, 2019; Tzaninis, Mandler, Kaika, & Keil, 2020; Cultural: aesthetic benefits, recreational and mental and Wachsmuth & Angelo, 2018). However, the objective of this review was to physical health, sense of place identify the state of the field in terms of the explicit intersection between ES and social cohesion, tourism. and EJ in urban areas among the afore-mentioned bodies of literature with Ecosystem disservices (if an approach that could be transparent and repeatable. For this reason, mentioned). Not specified. despite the bias and limitations expected in systematic reviews, we are EJ dimension Distributional, procedural/ Schlosberg, (2007), examined participatory, recognitional/ Schlosberg (2013) confident that the number and diversity of the articles we have reviewed interactional, not specified. here is representative of the emerging EJ trends within the urban ES liter­ Social Income, educational Agyeman et al. (2016); ature and therefore provides a rigorous picture of the state-of-the-art. stratification attainment, age, gender, race/ Martínez-Alier et al. (2014) related to EJ ethnicity, not specified. Stakeholders Policy makers (including EU- Haase et al. (2014) 3. Results involved policy makers and analysts), NGOs, land owner/landlords, A detailed list of the final reviewed articles is available as Supple­ scientists, firms/industry, mentary data. The 126 articles identified and analyzed covered the time farmers, foresters, public/ residents, tourists, various-local period 2009–2020 with a consistent increase, especially in the last 4 public authorities (including years (Fig. 2). Despite the fact that the seminal paper on urban ES dates city council and municipal back to 1999 (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999), the earliest articles agencies and administrators), included in this review were not published until 2009 (Byrne & Wolch, various-regional public 2009). From the 126 papers in our analysis, 14 were theoretical/con­ authorities (including regional and national agencies and ceptual articles, 12 were literature reviews and 101 were empirical case administrators and studies. Review articles focused on a particular geographical scope or government), no (when there is ecological structure (e.g. Davies & Lafortezza, 2017; Dobbs et al., 2019; no stakeholder involved in the du Toit et al., 2018; Ordóñez-Barona et al., 2019), on a specific ES group research process of the article). (e.g. Chen et al., 2019) or on other emerging aspects related to urban 4 A. Calderón-Argelich et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 Fig. 2. Number of publications analyzed from 2009 to 2019. green spaces such as human health, ecosystem-based adaptation, and factors affecting the value of urban nature-based solutions and green­ space provision (e.g. Boulton, Dedekorkut-Howes, & Byrne, 2018; Brink et al., 2016; Jennings, Floyd, Shanahan, Coutts, & Sinykin, 2017; Keeler et al., 2019). However, none of these reviews systematically addressed Fig. 4. Venn diagram with overlapping bubbles representing the four groups of EJ aspects in urban ES assessments as an overarching topic. The most Ecosystem Services (i.e., Regulating, Provisioning, Cultural, Supporting) frequent journals of publication of the reviewed articles were Landscape considered in the reviewed articles (N = 126). Each number within the figure and Urban Planning (15 articles), Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, represents the number of articles that have examined one or more groups of Ecological Economics, Ecology and Society, and Urban Ecosystems (6 arti­ Ecosystem Services simultaneously. Additionally, 30 articles did not examine cles each). The majority of analyzed articles were case studies with a any group of Ecosystem Services in particular but rather employed a general geographical scope focusing on the Global North (Fig. 3). Nevertheless, approach to the topic. 19 conceptual and review articles did not focus on any country/conti­ nent in particular and are therefore not represented in the map. Fig. 5 displays the specific ES analyzed in the articles in percentages. Almost half of the reviewed papers addressed regulating ES (60 out Note that data source categories are not mutually exclusive, as one of 126), closely followed by cultural ES (Fig. 4). However, 18 articles article might have analyzed more than one ES. Percentages in the considered exclusively cultural ES in their analysis, while regulating and following bar graphs have been quantified in the same way. Cultural ES provisioning ES were more often examined in combination with the rest such as outdoor recreation and contribution to mental and physical of the groups of ES. Supporting ES were the focus in only 21 articles and health are by far the most frequently assessed ES (45.2%). Beyond cul­ 30 articles did not highlight any group of ES, but rather addressed the tural ES, regulating ES are analyzed in our articles mainly through runoff concept in broader terms, without a specific examination or quantifi­ mitigation (27%) and articles addressing provisioning ES focus mostly cation of a certain group. Note that some ES classifications such as CICES on food supply (24.6%). However, 28.6% of our articles considered (Roy Haines-Young, by, & Potschin, 2018) do not include supporting ES some of the previous ES groups but did not fully examine nor quantify as these are considered as ecological functions. any specific ES type. Additionally, 17.4% of the articles mentioned Fig. 3. Geographical distribution of the reviewed articles with specific case study areas (n = 107). 5 A. Calderón-Argelich et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 Fig. 5. Types of ES examined sorted by frequency and clustered by ES group (% of 126 articles). Data categories are not mutually exclusive. ecosystem disservices but with an uneven degree of detail, alluding for instance to spread of diseases, safety perception, social exclusion and green gentrification. The provision of urban ES derives from the institutional arrange­ ments and implementations of the ecological structures of the green and blue infrastructure and their interconnection with the grey infrastruc­ ture (Andersson et al., 2019; Kontogianni, Luck, & Skourtos, 2010; Luederitz et al., 2015). Our results show (see Fig. 6) that most studies (46.8%) did not focus on a specific ecological structure. The category “not specified” was applied to articles framing an ecological domain of analysis in terms of green infrastructure, green spaces, or canopy cover in general. This does not mean that the authors did not refer to specific urban green spaces, but that they aggregated different components of the green infrastructure indistinctively. On the other hand, blue spaces are the ecological structure that has received the most attention within our articles (40.5%), followed by urban forests (23.8%) and parks (16.7%). Distributional justice clearly dominates the EJ approach in urban ES studies, with most articles analyzing this one aspect of justice exclu­ sively (65 out of 126 articles) and others in combination with other Fig. 7. Venn diagram with overlapping bubbles representing the three di­ dimensions (Fig. 7). Distributional considerations included spatial dis­ mensions of justice (i.e., Distributional, Procedural and Recognitional justice) tribution of ES provision, often in comparison with the distribution of considered in the reviewed articles (N = 126). Each number within the figure income and/or racial segregation, and also the distribution of inter­ represents the number of articles that have examined one or more dimension of generational and intragenerational justice, in the sense of temporal justice simultaneously. Additionally, 10 articles did not examine any dimension justice as characterized in Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020. Such exam­ of justice in particular but rather employed a general approach to the concept. ples of temporal justice include future generations facing climate change-related hazards and historical legacies derived from prior pat­ terns of inequities. Fewer articles focused on the procedural aspects of justice, examining participatory processes, stakeholders and policy- making. Recognitional and interactional dimensions of EJ are an emerging issue and were only considered in 25 articles, where the emphasis was on the different needs, values, and preferences of diverse social groups. A few articles (10) did not focus on any one dimension of justice, instead using the concept as a broad concern without going deeper into how environmental inequalities are specifically manifested. Social stratification mechanisms (Fig. 8) showed that income is the most common variable used when examining differences in ES assessments (43.7%), closely linked to educational attainment (26.2%). Race/ethnicity, including migrants and indigenous groups, was also widely considered (30.2% of the publications). We found that very few studies examined race, age or gender as the only EJ variable of their study and we found a lack of in- Fig. 6. Ecological structures considered in the articles sorted by frequency (% depth analysis on the social determinants and mechanisms of exclusion of 126 entries). 6 A. Calderón-Argelich et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 taken up by urban ES assessments. Procedural justice and analyses of participatory processes are receiving increasing attention, especially vis- à-vis decision-making and governance structures for the operationali­ zation of ecosystem services in policy or planning, for instance. Never­ theless, the existing scholarship still barely considers recognitional justice: The diversity of needs, values and identities that different social groups hold vis-à-vis urban ES has been generally overlooked, despite the rich literature on plural values in ES research, both from a theoret­ ical (Arias-Arévalo et al., 2018; Dendoncker et al., 2013; Kenter, 2016) and an applied perspective (Langemeyer, Gómez-Baggethun, Haase, Scheuer, & Elmqvist, 2015; Martín-López, Gómez-Baggethun, García- Llorente, & Montes, 2014; Turkelboom et al., 2018). Given the scope of papers in this review, in order to expand and refine Fig. 8. Social stratification related to the considerations of justice sorted by analyses of distributional justice, ES researchers should consider expanding frequency (% of 126 entries). their socio-spatial analysis in terms of methods, temporality and scale (cf. Ernstson, 2013; Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020). For instance, besides related to those other variables (for exceptions see Byrne & Wolch, 2009; comparing urban green infrastructure and the socio-economic profile of Fortnam et al., 2019; Kabisch & Boschvan, 2017). nearby residents (which is also necessary), new research should combine A wide majority (74.6%) of the reviewed articles included a stake­ quantitative and qualitative methods at different temporal and geographical holder assessment as part of their study (Fig. 9). Local residents and the scales while striving for more ambitious analyses of access, power and general public were frequently involved in ES assessments (38.1%) institutional structures (Lehmann, Martin, & Fisher, 2018). Studies like along with various public local authorities (32.5%). Policy-makers Connolly & Anguelovski (2021) and Nardone et al. (2021) are an example of (29.4%) and various public regional authorities (22.2%) were also how to examine prior historical processes such as the practice of redlining in often considered, either participating in surveys, interviews and work­ the US and how they continue to influence the distribution of green spaces shops or as mediators facilitating maps and other data. and contribute to racial health inequities. Moving beyond residential met­ Fig. 10 shows a cross-tabulation of ES groups and EJ dimensions. rics of access to green amenities and considering the multiple geographies of This overview allows us to identify the extent to which distributional where urban residents work, play or study (see for instance Baró, Camacho, justice dominates across ES groups, consistently followed by procedural Pérez Del Pulgar, Triguero-Mas, & Anguelovski, 2021) can also contribute and recognitional dimensions. This distributional focus is especially to a better understanding of ES distributional inequalities. pronounced in regulating ES studies, with 45 articles in total. On the The common view within ES research that EJ concerns can be other hand, procedural justice is mostly considered in cultural ES studies reduced to distributional aspects may reflect a biased emphasis on the (18 articles). Recognitional aspects emerge mainly in cultural ES as­ specific geographic location of ES (e.g. socio-spatial analysis of resi­ sessments (10 articles) but also in regulating and general ES assess­ dential green areas), and sometimes generates a justice-blind, de-polit­ ments. To better illustrate the different intersections among ES groups icized analysis of ES provision (Dikeç, 2001; Perreault, Bridge, & and EJ dimensions, Table 2 displays some key and illustrative examples McCarthy, 2015; Soja, 2015; Swyngedouw & Heynen, 2003). Indeed, of articles included in our review and how they approach EJ in a similar the emphasis on the equitable spatial distribution of ES is seen as less cross-tabulation table. relevant for certain aspects of ES that can (or cannot) be enjoyed regardless of the proximity to the place of production (Baró et al., 2019; 4. Discussion Fisher, Turner, & Morling, 2009). For instance, while street trees regu­ lates temperatures at a local scale by diminishing the urban heat island 4.1. Prevailing justice dimensions in the urban ecosystem service literature effect (Mueller et al., 2019), carbon sequestration mitigates climate change at a global scale, and nearby residents have no privilege in The trilogy of now-classic categories for understanding the di­ perceiving such benefits. Furthermore, exclusively distributional ap­ mensions of social justice including distribution-procedure-recognition proaches can be rendered incomplete, and even misleading, by the has been widely used in EJ research (Bustos, Folchi, & Fragkou, 2017; enduring presence of urban dynamics of inequality and exclusion, which Holifield, 2012; Paloniemi et al., 2015; Whyte, 2011) and is starting to are driven by complex and multi-scalar processes, such as historic spread throughout ES research. Our analysis reveals that, as might be segregation, housing discrimination, inter-racial wealth gaps, or the expected given its predominant role in EJ studies, the distributional broader political economy of uneven urban development (Pulido, 2000). dimension of justice is the most covered with regard for EJ approaches In recent research, recognitional justice has begun to be addressed in a broad manner, emphasizing individual needs and perceptions (e.g. Assmuth et al., 2017; Graça et al., 2018; Nesbitt et al., 2019) and pointing out the lack of consideration of specific socially vulnerable groups (e.g. Koh et al., 2017; Suhren et al., 2014). However, we found that urban ES assessments examining recognitional aspects of justice often lack a deeper analysis of how individual perceptions are translated into environmental inequities and related with sociopolitical arrange­ ments and structural exclusion processes. For instance, one overlooked question is whose values are prioritized in greening policies, given the differential access of communities to green space within the mechanisms that create and maintain inequality among them. Another one concerns which specific identities, needs and practices of socially vulnerable groups are being neglected in a way that deprives them of such benefits. However, we did find that recognitional justice research dealing with Fig. 9. Stakeholders involved in the ES assessments sorted by frequency (% of historical and racialized legacies of unequal access to urban greening 126 entries). The bar labelled “No” means that no stakeholder was assessed in interventions and ES in more context-specific approaches is emerging (e. the reviewed article. g. Anderson et al., 2020; Draus, Lovall, & et al., 2019). However, the ES 7 A. Calderón-Argelich et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 Fig. 10. Cross tabulation of group of ES by dimension of EJ (showing number of publications). Each column represents the number of entries that considered one ES group and EJ dimension at the same time. Note multiple hits per entry were possible. scholarship can further refine both conceptualization and operationali­ implementation of ES to mitigate the higher exposure of vulnerable zation of the recognitional implications of ecological structures. For populations. Similarly, EJ research has already taken an increasing in­ instance, this research path has been explored by EJ research through terest in climate issues, and has pointed out the unequal distribution of the interrogation of legacies of violence, exclusion and trauma experi­ climate change risks, which disproportionately affect the urban poor enced in urban green spaces by racialized and gendered minorities (Anguelovski et al., 2016; Chu, Anguelovski, & Roberts, 2017; Shi et al., (Anguelovski et al., 2020; Brownlow, 2006; Finney, 2014; Rigolon & 2016; Thomas & Twyman, 2005). Németh, 2018). Regulating ES assessments have the potential to support climate While we found few cases focused exclusively on recognition (Fort­ justice claims by identifying which ES can be more climate-responsive so nam et al., 2019; Graça et al., 2018), recognitional and procedural EJ as to build urban adaptive capacity without exacerbating environmental perspectives usually play complementary roles in the way they are inequities (Byskov et al., 2019). This approach would require account­ addressed in ES research (Assmuth et al., 2017; Nesbitt et al., 2019). This ing for social and structural inequalities vis à vis climate change impacts link might be explained by the common use within ES studies of and their adaptive interventions. It would also call for effectively participatory processes as a legitimate tool for effectively recognizing including the needs of disadvantaged and vulnerable populations in diverse preferences and values within and among social groups. In urban green infrastructure programs (Schlosberg, 2013) and ensuring contrast, distributional assessments seem to have a privileged epistemic that they are not displaced by them, as the recent EJ scholarship dis­ position in which there is no need to build legitimacy in alliance with the cusses (Anguelovski et al., 2019; Connolly, 2018; Shokry, Connolly, & other dimensions of EJ, implying that the ultimate operationalization of Anguelovski, 2020). Yet, it remains to be seen whether ES assessments justice of most urban ES researchers is articulated around the fair dis­ will fully incorporate climate justice perspectives in urban resilience and tribution of and access to ES across different social groups. This episte­ climate action programs. mological assertion implied by the trends within ES research is one that EJ considerations are also frequent in cultural ES assessments, with has been long debated with EJ research and social justice scholarship recreational opportunities (and the related physical and mental health more widely (Fraser, 2009). improvements) included in almost half of the reviewed articles. This Meanwhile, even while the tridimensional approach to justice used in EJ heterogeneous group of urban ES assessments addresses the different literature is mobilized in limiting ways within the ES literature, we found uses of green spaces and related public health outcomes, and the that the conceptualization of justice within the reviewed ES studies is deeply incorporation of perceptions and preferences into decision-making anchored into one or into a combination of the distributional, procedural processes (e.g. Chen et al., 2019; Cochran et al., 2019; Jennings, Lar­ and recognitional dimensions. However, in order to avoid imposing son, & Yun, 2016; Wolch et al., 2014). Recently, cultural ES assessments boundaries that close off a broad range of potential urban injustices and how have explored new research approaches for the analysis of recreational they are experienced by the studied communities (Anguelovski et al. 2020), opportunities in cities, like participatory mapping (Rall, Hansen, & it is necessary to expand the research on broader and novel analytical ap­ Pauleit, 2019), use of social media data (Amorim Maia et al., 2020; proaches of (in)justice within ES literature. Langemeyer, Calcagni, & Baró, 2018) and structured observations (Winter et al., 2019). We contend that the use of mixed methods combining these novel approaches with social science approaches of 4.2. Environmental justice across ecosystem service types qualitative and participatory methods and interviews (e.g. Derkzen et al., 2017), has potential to advance towards a more effective Our findings show that assessments of regulating and cultural ES are consideration of plural values and experiences of (in)justice departing those that address EJ concerns the most. These are the ES groups that are from cultural ES. in general more often addressed in urban ES assessments, as seen in Additionally, novel conceptualizations related to cultural ES are previous reviews (Haase, Larondelle, & et al., 2014; Luederitz et al., gaining momentum through the relational values approach (e.g. Bremer 2015). The regulating ES assessments we examined primarily focused on et al., 2018; Calcagni et al., 2019), which offers new channels of climate change adaptation, resilience, and mitigation of environmental connection with the dimensions of EJ that are currently under- risks (e.g. Baró, Calderón-Argelich, Langemeyer, & Connolly, 2019; represented in urban ES literature. Cultural ES can contribute to build­ Finewood, Matsler, & Zivkovich, 2019; Jenerette, Harlan, Stefanov, & ing out a recognitional and procedural justice analysis by incorporating Martin, 2011; Kabisch, Korn, Stadler, & Bonn, 2017). These assessments plural cultural identities, knowledge systems and social interactions in discuss, among other topics, the unequal distribution of environmental policies and decision-making processes (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, health threats and propose more participatory governance and the 8 A. Calderón-Argelich et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 Table 2 2013). More specifically, relational values, that is, preferences, princi­ Cross-table of key examples from our sample (N = 126) showing how articles ples, and virtues associated with the relationships between people and have considered EJ dimension for each ES group. nature (Chan et al., 2016) can play an important role in extending the ES Distributional Procedural Recognitional framework beyond narrow and techno-economic utilitarian framings Provisioning Exploring spatial Examining Accounting for and towards more inclusive and pluralistic decision-making (Chapman, inequities and participatory needs, aspirations ( Satterfield, & Chan, 2019) and consideration of the relations and per­ vulnerability in processes, policies, Fortnam et al., 2019) ceptions of vulnerable communities with respect to urban nature (Himes access to water ( stakeholder identities, & Muraca, 2018). Favarodo et al., involvement ( perceptions, social In relation to provisioning ES, our results show that this group has 2016), food ( Dennis, Armitage, interactions and Bozeman, Ashton, & James, 2016) and trust (Bremer et al., been mainly linked to EJ through food provision from urban gardens and & Theis, 2019), and community 2018; Juntti & allotments (e.g. Dennis et al., 2016; Egerer et al., 2018; Gregory et al., resources (Balbi organization and Lundy, 2017) in 2016; Porter, 2018). The minor role of provisioning ES in the literature et al., 2019). mobilization ( relation to farming, can be explained by the perception of many urban gardens as sources of Porter, 2018) in fishing and water gardens, and ES resources. cultural ES rather than solely food production, leaving their provision­ values for coastal ing role as secondary (Langemeyer, Camps-Calvet, Calvet-Mir, Barthel, management ( & Gómez-Baggethun, 2018). Another area of research addressing pro­ Atkinson et al., visioning ES found in our review is the analysis of Payment for 2016). Ecosystem Services (PES) programs (e.g. Abebe et al., 2019; Bremer Regulating Socio-spatial Evaluating urban Considering the analysis of the climate change influence of et al., 2018; Caro-Borrero et al., 2015; Kovacs et al., 2016; Moreno- distribution of ES adaptation historical legacies of Sanchez et al., 2012; Van Hecken, Bastiaensen, & Vásquez, 2012). provided by street planning processes ( private and public These analyses examined perceptions over watershed and forestry PES trees, green roofs Hughes, 2015) green spaces ( schemes and their potential conflict for water supply between urban and and drainage engagement, Anderson et al., rural–urban residents. Although it is controversial whether PES schemes systems across governance and 2020) and cultural urban areas (Baró political actors of heritage, local can aggravate environmental inequalities in rural areas (Calvet-Mir, et al., 2019; La green stormwater perceptions and Corbera, Martin, Fisher, & Gross-Camp, 2015; Kosoy & Corbera, 2010; Rosa & Pappalardo, infrastructure ( awareness of a McDermott, Mahanty, & Schreckenberg, 2013; Pascual et al., 2014), 2019; Sanchez & Finewood, Matsler, forestry program by interactions between PES and urban environments and their implica­ Reames, 2019). & Zivkovich, 2019) urban–rural and management communities (Caro- tions for EJ remain unexplored through cross-scale approaches (Scholes policies and Borrero et al., 2015; et al., 2013) and may offer important pathways for understand the ES-EJ decision-making in Suhren et al., 2014). link of cities and their surroundings. abandoned areas ( Gulachenski et al., 2016). 4.3. Moving the field of urban ecosystem services forward Supporting Distribution and Analyzing ES perceptions access to habitat participatory across While this review demonstrates the still narrow and uneven link and biodiversity processes and socioeconomic between urban ES assessment and different aspects of EJ, we argue for provided by green programs (Cohen gradient of street the inclusion of an expanded analysis of dimensions of justice within the areas across socio- et al., 2019; Pearson trees (Graça et al., spatial data ( et al., 2010) and 2018) and cultural ES framework, including restorative, reparative and intersectional as­ Dobbs, Nitschke, & policies enhancing rights and pects of justice as it is being explored by EJ researchers (Agyeman et al., Kendal, 2014; community preferences of 2016; Anguelovski et al., 2020; Aragão et al., 2016; Draus, Haase, & Escobedo et al., participation ( minority groups et al., 2019; Draus, Lovall, & et al., 2019) and tentatively suggested in 2015) and strategic Gregory, Leslie, & doing home spatial plans ( Drinkwater, 2016) gardening (Koh, some of our reviewed articles (e.g. Anderson et al., 2020; Fortnam et al., Wilkinson et al., of land use Hahn, & Ituarte- 2019). Restorative justice highlights the need to acknowledge past ex­ 2013). scenarios Lima, 2017; periences of violence, oppression and exclusion and the extent to which frameworks Raymond et al., green interventions can address historical trauma and promote the in­ providing habitat 2019) for clusion of specific neighborhoods and communities (Draus, Haase, & for biodiversity. biodiversity conservation. et al., 2019). Intersectional justice can help to understand how multiple Cultural Examining uneven Exploring public Analyzing how identities (such as gender, class, race/ethnicity, sexuality or disability, access and use of participation for experts recognize among others) interact and are (un)recognized in the green infrastruc­ cultural ES such as urban green citizen demands, ture planning processes (Anguelovski et al., 2020; Jerneck, 2018). In recreation and infrastructure obstacles and place attachment planning (Rall, opportunities for short, the new frontier of EJ research offers ES scholarship an oppor­ through spatial Hansen, & Pauleit, recreation in blue tunity to not just catch up in terms of justice considerations, but also to distribution and 2019), water spaces (Assmuth leap forward and help shape that frontier. availability of governance, et al., 2017) as well While research on urban ES has been geographically biased towards residential water planning and as individual needs, US, China and Europe (Haase, Larondelle, & et al., 2014; Luederitz et al., and green areas ( management ( expectations and Fleischer, Paloniemi et al., preferences 2015), our review shows a pattern with a predominance of US and Eu­ Felsenstein, & 2018) and regarding urban ropean studies and a meager presence of Chinese assessments. The Lichter, 2018; institutions, green space reason behind this pattern is probably related to the historical urban- Łaszkiewicz, policies and management and oriented focus of the EJ scholarship, which developed in the US Kronenberg, & democratic governance ( Marcińczak, 2018; processes in Biernacka & (Anguelovski, 2013) and to the bias due to the use of English as the Viinikka, diversified farming Kronenberg, 2018) language of publication in our inclusion criteria. Additionally, our re­ Paloniemi, & systems (Bacon and the significance sults show a clear preponderance of household income as the main in­ Assmuth, 2018). et al., 2012). of environmental dicator of social vulnerability. Although income is widely used in the education (Wolsink, stratification of environmental inequalities, other forms and drivers of 2016). exclusion and alterity coexist in subtler or often fully visible but over­ looked ways (Gregory, Johnston, Geraldine, Watts, & Whatmore, 2009). Several EJ studies have pointed out that race is often the primary driver 9 A. Calderón-Argelich et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 of injustice (Mohai & Saha, 2015; Pulido, 2000). Assessments addressing 4.4. Implications for policy and practice race/ethnicity are mostly from North American cases (accounting for 22 out of the 36 articles examining race/ethnicity as a social stratification An EJ perspective has the potential to make ES assessments more mechanism), which is likely explained by the importance of EJ move­ effective at contributing to the good quality of life for all in urban areas. ments and the relevance of environmental racism both as a field of Policy-makers cannot assume that ES-based greening strategies in cities activism and a field of study in the US (Pulido, 2000). However, they are will always reach historically disenfranchised neighborhoods or include the not the only places where race-driven environmental inequities or the needs and values of their unprivileged residents (Anguelovski, inequities in ES manifest in practice. For example, the exclusion, Argüelles, & et al., 2018). Urban planning agendas need to acknowledge marginalization, and racism directed at racialized immigrants in Europe the interconnections between different needs, in order to achieve is also shaping access to environmental amenities (Antypas et al., 2016; greener, healthier, more climate-responsive, and inclusive cities. For Harper, Steger & Filčák, 2009). this reason, we propose three guidelines for urban policy and practice Furthermore, we detect that gender-specific barriers have been towards an effective inclusion of social equity and justice considerations especially overlooked in the general ES literature (Brown & Fortnam, in urban ES-based assessments and interventions. 2018; Cruz-Garcia et al., 2019; Fortnam et al., 2019; Yang, Passarelli, 1) Provide explicit considerations of EJ with clear operational definitions. Lovell, & Ringler, 2018). From the articles covered in this review, Urban ES assessments should not only mention but rather fully only 2 included gender as a central part of the study (Fortnam et al., integrate a clear operational definition of how justice is being concep­ 2019; Suhren et al., 2014) and 12 other articles treated it as one of tualized and examined. This would also help to reveal biases, implicit many other demographic variables, giving it a relatively limited assumptions and instrumental motivations (Friedman et al., 2018). relevance. Some studies, for instance, accounted for the differences Thus, it is necessary to provide clear indicators of environmental in­ in the way that men and women perceive and value urban ES (e.g. equities in ways that allow for standardization and comparison, and to Abebe et al., 2019; Asah & Blahna, 2019; Graça et al., 2018; Keith further discuss the links between ecological structures, social stratifi­ et al., 2018; Winter et al., 2019), but only gave rather brief expla­ cation processes and their political and economic context. Urban nations concerning the environmental attitudes attributed to women greening strategies should clarify the indicators that will measure not (Zelezny, Chua, & Aldrich, 2000). This trend implies that most arti­ only the preexisting forms of environmental inequity and social exclu­ cles including gender as a variable did not further explore the justice sion in the context of their interventions, but also those that may arise implications of gendered mechanisms of exclusion in green infra­ from the intervention itself. Further, social inequities should be exam­ structure planning processes. We contend from our results that there ined in both the process and the outcome of planning, implementation is lack of analysis focusing into how gender interacts with urban ES and management of greening strategies and projects. ES scholarship and how gendered perceptions of the public space translate into should also scrutinize the different priorities behind ES-based plans and unequal access to green and blue infrastructure, institutions and strategies, the negotiation of their benefits and trade-offs, and the gen­ decision-making power. Environmental and sustainable develop­ eral political agendas that they serve (Kotsila et al., 2020). This involves ment urban agendas have already been explored in gender-focused answering questions like in which proportion men and women access a urban planning research (Buckingham, 2020; Hayden, 1980; given urban green space, how its design and implementation takes into Sánchez de Madariaga & Roberts, 2012; Spain, 2014) and gender account people with disabilities or how representative the participatory mainstreaming policies (UN Women, 2020). However, we argue that process was in regard to migrant communities, among other examples. adding the gender and intersectional justice perspective into the ES 2) Incorporate new methodologies and cross-sectoral collaboration framework can offer crucial and novel insights when designing The ES scholarship should engage and co-evolve with the EJ research greening and sustainability agendas. agenda in a mutual dynamic of developing interdisciplinary methods, Our review confirms that examining the participation of different theoretical framings and practices vis-à-vis urban environmental in­ stakeholders in decision-making effectively enhances the identifica­ equities (Berbés-Blázquez, González, & Pascual, 2016; Langemeyer & tion, valuation, and management of context-specific urban ES (Lue­ Connolly, 2020). ES assessments now have the opportunity to fully deritz et al., 2015) and is therefore a useful tool when considering the develop their own analyses of procedural and recognitional justice and EJ implications of accessibility to urban green infrastructure and its assimilate the perspectives of stakeholders from different backgrounds benefits. The high degree of stakeholder involvement within the (Charoenkit & Piyathamrongchai, 2019; Fortnam et al., 2019). reviewed articles explains their emphasis on policy-making and Embracing contrasting views and perspectives of different stakeholders participatory processes in the design, allocation and management of is a necessary step in achieving a more representative and legitimate green and blue infrastructure. Actually, green infrastructure, green decision-making process for green interventions and governance model spaces or canopy cover in general is the main focus in almost half of the of cities. Multiple methods have been developed within EJ and other empirical studies of the reviewed literature. Nevertheless, our results social disciplines, which may broaden our understanding of ES by point to the particular importance of blue infrastructure in building capturing different dimensions of value (i.e. relational, intrinsic, non- the climate adaptation capacity of cities (BenDor & Stewart, 2011; monetary, etc.) and valuation methods (Langemeyer & Connolly, Favarodo et al., 2016; Garcia-Cuerva, Berglund, & Rivers, 2018) as 2020). For instance, feminist urban researchers have explored qualita­ well as its recreational opportunities (Assmuth et al., 2017; Derkzen, tive methods such as photovoice, participatory research and further van Teeffelen, & Verburg, 2015; Suhren et al., 2014; Unnikrishnan, mixed praxis as effective strategies to increase women’s participation in Manjunatha, & Nagendra, 2016). A more nuanced classification of urban planning (Hesse-Biber, 2012; Kindon, 2003; McIntyre, 2003; Ortiz ecological structures, as already extensively used in ES literature (i.e. Escalante & Gutiérrez Valdivia, 2015). The incorporation of such qual­ green, blue and grey infrastructure such as street trees, green roofs, itative methods in ES assessments opens a promising path of novel coastal areas, lakes, rivers, wetlands) would greatly benefit EJ litera­ research practices, especially those that can uncover recognitional di­ ture in pushing its scope beyond parks and urban forests, which have mensions of injustice. received most of its attention so far (Heynen, Perkins, & Roy, 2006; As stated in target 11.7 of the SDG, cities are places of encounter and Nesbitt, Meitner, Sheppard, & Girling, 2018; Walker, 2011). Thus, ES must “provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and research can develop a more complete analysis of the connections public spaces, particularly for women and children, older persons and persons between environmental injustices and different ecological structures with disabilities”. However, lack of access to environmental benefits is while acknowledging the current uncertainties and knowledge limi­ only one of the several drivers of injustice that surround cities. Urban tations regarding issues of ecosystem interactions, climate-change ef­ green infrastructure will follow global trends of gendered and ethnically fects, decision making and management (Solé & Ariza, 2019). exclusionary urban planning unless policies and governance institutions 10 A. Calderón-Argelich et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 explicitly coordinate against this. To achieve this end, local and regional development of synergies between EJ and ES assessments will require a level governments need to include civil society organizations in a multi- broader incorporation of procedural and recognitional dimensions of actor model of governance and take a cross sectoral approach to coor­ justice. This can be achieved by expanding current methodological ap­ dinate the work of departments like urban green planning, public health, proaches with more qualitative methods, and by involving stakeholders social affairs, housing, gender equality and others. with contrasting needs and perspectives. It is crucial to take an inter­ 3) Consider trade-offs, conflicts, and deep inequalities across different sectional approach in analyzing the perceptions, preferences, and dimensions of justice and ES identities of historically unprivileged social groups, in order to under­ It is indispensable that environmental and planning policies incor­ stand and ultimately overcome their specific social-ecological vulnera­ porate trade-offs and complexity into their analyses, so as to reflect bilities. Likewise, ES-based urban green interventions have yet to tackle potential disservices related to urban green infrastructures (Angue­ broader conceptions of justice, such as restorative justice related the lovski, 2016; Berbés-Blázquez et al., 2016; Wolch et al., 2014). Urban historical trauma faced by social groups that may have suffered planning interventions that promote green branding discourses involve oppression under past policies and land uses. trade-offs between ecological and social processes that can ultimately Finally, the ES framework can enrich the assessment of urban envi­ exacerbate unaffordability and social inequalities, and constitute a form ronmental inequalities, in providing both conceptual and practical tools of green gentrification (Garcia-Lamarca et al., 2021; Wolch et al., 2014). to better understand the benefits, disservices and trade-offs that are at For instance, green intervention that might seem inclusive and/or stake within urban green and blue infrastructure interventions. equity-driven might in fact involve the short- or mid-term displacement Conversely, EJ can support the empowerment of local communities in or exclusion of the most socially vulnerable groups (Anguelovski, Con­ the co-production of urban ES and ensure the creation of greener and nolly, Garcia-Lamarca, Cole, & Pearsall, 2018; Cole, Lamarca, Connolly, more just cities. & Anguelovski, 2017; Curran & Hamilton, 2012; Wolch, Byrne, & Newell, 2014). Acknowledgements Further, there is a need to better understand the consequences of privileging one dimension of justice above others in urban green plan­ Authors acknowledge financial support from the following organi­ ning (Friedman et al., 2018). Focusing exclusively on the distributional zations: 1) Secretary of University and Research from Generalitat de aspects of ES can mask injustices in green planning procedures and Catalunya and European Social Fund through AGAUR-FI grant; 2) the historical privileges imposed by past planning decisions and policies Laboratory for the Analysis of Social-Ecological Systems in a Globalized such as racial residential segregation (Nardone et al., 2021; Yi, Kreuter, world (LASEG), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and Generalitat de Han, & Güneralp, 2019). Still, procedural and recognitional approaches Catalunya (2017-SGR-775); 3) the EU’s Horizon 2020 framework pro­ have not yet been widely incorporated in ES-based urban green in­ gram for research and innovation (project NATURVATION, grant terventions. In fact, inadequate institutional structures, exclusionary agreement ID: 730243 and INTERLACE grant agreement: 869324); 4) participatory processes and limited citizen participation hinder distri­ the European Research Council (project GREENLULUs; grant agreement butional just outcomes (McDermott et al., 2013). Likewise, acknowl­ ID: 678034 and the ERC Consolidator Grant: 818002-URBAG); 5) edging recognitional concerns can help to expand our knowledge of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and University through the needs and values of urban communities, thereby encouraging their 2015-2016 BiodivERsA COFUND (project ENABLE, code PCIN-2016- participation and stewardship. Finally, restorative concerns in green 002); 6) the “María de Maeztu” Programme for Units of Excellence of interventions need to be addressed as well (Draus, Haase, & et al., 2019) the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CEX2019-000940-M); by acknowledging the exclusionary effects of previous land use policies 7) University of Rome La Sapienza through a doctoral fellowship. in disinvested spaces, to then effectively promote corrective and Finally, we also thank the anonymous reviewers of this article for their restorative, emancipatory measures for marginalized groups (Angue­ helpful suggestions and advice on an earlier version of this manuscript. lovski et al., 2020). Appendix A. Supplementary data 5. Conclusion Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. The urban ES literature has generally taken a normative and pre­ org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104130. scriptive approach to green and blue spaces by assuming that everyone will benefit equally from their services, but without properly problem­ References atizing and contesting the urban greening agenda that is being imple­ mented in many cities worldwide (Anguelovski, Argüelles, & et al., Abebe, S. T., Dagnew, A. B., Zeleke, V. G., Eshetu, G. Z., & Cirella, G. T. (2019). Willingness to pay for watershed management. Resources, 8(2), 1–18. https://doi. 2018; Haase et al., 2017). However, current research on urban ES is org/10.3390/resources8020077. increasingly taking into account the EJ implications that arise from the Agyeman, J., Schlosberg, D., Craven, L., & Matthews, C. (2016). Trends and Directions in planning, implementation and management of urban green and blue Environmental Justice: From Inequity to Everyday Life, Community, and Just Sustainabilities. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. https://doi.org/ infrastructure. In this paper, we have systematically reviewed how 10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-090052. urban ES assessments have incorporated EJ perspectives, accounting for Amorim Maia, A. T., Calcagni, F., John, J., Connolly, T., Anguelovski, I., & the operationalization of different justice dimensions, social groups and Langemeyer, J. (2020). Hidden drivers of social injustice: Uncovering unequal cultural ecosystem services behind green gentrification. Environmental Science and stakeholders. We found that the literature on urban ES explicitly Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.021. addressing EJ issues is still nascent, raising many possibilities for further Anderson, P., Charles-Dominique, T., Ernstson, H., Andersson, E., Goodness, J., & research in new theoretical, empirical, and geographical directions. Elmqvist, T. (2020). Post-apartheid ecologies in the City of Cape Town: An examination of plant functional traits in relation to urban gradients. Landscape and Distributional analyses of regulating and cultural ES are the most Urban Planning. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103662. frequent studies within the literature so far, especially focusing on rec­ Andersson, E., Langemeyer, J., Borgström, S., Mcphearson, T., Haase, D., Kronenberg, J., reational opportunities and climate change adaptation benefits. … Baró, F. (2019). Enabling Green and Blue Infrastructure to Improve Contributions to Human Well-Being and Equity in Urban Systems. BioScience, 566(7). https://doi. We contend that the urban ES literature has followed a similar org/10.1093/biosci/biz058. pattern to that of EJ in its progressive incorporation of justice di­ Anguelovski, I. (2013). New Directions in Urban Environmental Justice: Rebuilding mensions and social groups into its analysis. The prevailing focus on Community, Addressing Trauma, and Remaking Place. Journal of Planning Education distributional justice might be hindering the conceptualization of other and Research, 33(2), 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X13478019. Anguelovski, I. (2016). From Toxic Sites to Parks as (Green) LULUs? New Challenges of drivers of environmental inequalities, such as historical legacies and Inequity, Privilege, Gentrification, and Exclusion for Urban Environmental Justice. power imbalances across socio-spatial scales. The next step in this Journal of Planning Literature. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412215610491. 11 A. Calderón-Argelich et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 Anguelovski, I., Argüelles, L., Baró, F., Cole, H., Connolly, J. J. T., García-Lamarca, M., & Green Infrastructure Management in Latin America. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 2, Wood, E. (2018). Green trajectories: Municipal policy trends and strategies for greening in 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2020.572360. Europe, Canada and United States (1999-2016). Barcelona: Barcelona Laboratory for Bremer, L. L., Brauman, K. A., Nelson, S., Prado, K. M., Wilburn, E., & Fiorini, A. C. O. Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainabil- ity and ICLEI–Local Governments for (2018). Relational values in evaluations of upstream social outcomes of watershed Sustainability. Payment for Ecosystem Services: a review. Current Opinion in Environmental Anguelovski, I., Brand, A. L., Connolly, J. J. T., Corbera, E., Kotsila, P., Steil, J., … Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.024. Argüelles Ramos, L. (2020). Expanding the Boundaries of Justice in Urban Greening Brink, E., Aalders, T., Ádám, D., Feller, R., Henselek, Y., Hoffmann, A., … Wamsler, C. Scholarship: Toward an Emancipatory, Antisubordination, Intersectional, and (2016). Cascades of green: A review of ecosystem-based adaptation in urban areas. Relational Approach. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 1–27. Global Environmental Change, 36, 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1740579. gloenvcha.2015.11.003. Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J. J. T., Garcia-Lamarca, M., Cole, H., & Pearsall, H. (2018). Brown, K., & Fortnam, M. (2018). Gender and Ecosystem Services. A blind spot. In New scholarly pathways on green gentrification: What does the urban ‘green turn’’ Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation: Trade-Offs and Governance. mean and where is it going?’. Progress in Human Geography, 43(6), 1064–1086. Brownlow, A. (2006). An archaeology of fear and environmental change in Philadelphia. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132518803799. Geoforum, 37(2), 227–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.02.009. Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J. J. T., Pearsall, H., Shokry, G., Checker, M., Maantay, J., … Buckingham, S. (2020). Gender and Environment (2n Edition). Routledge. Roberts, J. T. (2019). Why green “climate gentrification” threatens poor and Bustos, B., Folchi, M., & Fragkou, M. (2017). Coal mining on pastureland in Southern vulnerable populations. PNAS, 116. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920490117. Chile; challenging recognition and participation as guarantees for environmental Anguelovski, I., Shi, L., Chu, E., Gallagher, D., Goh, K., Lamb, Z., … Teicher, H. (2016). justice. Geoforum, 84, 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.12.012. Equity Impacts of Urban Land Use Planning for Climate Adaptation: Critical Byrne, J., & Wolch, J. (2009). Nature, race, and parks: Past research and future directions Perspectives from the Global North and South. Journal of Planning Education and for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography, 33(6), 743–765. https://doi. Research, 36(3), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16645166. org/10.1177/0309132509103156. Antypas, A., Atkins, L., Borthwick, F., Cahn, C., Filcak, R., Harper, K., … Steger, T. Byskov, M. F., Hyams, K., Satyal, P., Anguelovski, I., Benjamin, L., Blackburn, S., … (2016). Making the Case for Environmental Justice in Central & Eastern Europe. CEU Venn, A. (2019). An agenda for ethics and justice in adaptation to climate change. Center for Environmental Policy and Law (CEPL). The Health and Environment Alliance Climate and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1700774. (HEAL). The Coalition for Environmental Justice. Calcagni, F., Amorim Maia, A. T., Connolly, J. J. T., & Langemeyer, J. (2019). Digital co- Aragão, A., Jacobs, S., & Cliquet, A. (2016). What’s law got to do with it? Why construction of relational values: Understanding the role of social media for environmental justice is essential to ecosystem service valuation. Ecosystem Services, sustainability. Sustainability Science, 1, 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019- 22, 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.012. 00672-1. Arias-Arévalo, P., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., & Pérez-Rincón, M. (2018). Calvet-Mir, L., Corbera, E., Martin, A., Fisher, J., & Gross-Camp, N. (2015). Payments for Widening the evaluative space for ecosystem services: A taxonomy of plural values ecosystem services in the tropics: A closer look at effectiveness and equity. Current and valuation methods. Environmental Values, 27(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/ Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 10.3197/096327118X15144698637513. cosust.2015.06.001. Asah, S. T., & Blahna, D. J. (2019). Involving Stakeholders’ Knowledge in Co-designing Camps-Calvet, M., Langemeyer, J., Calvet-Mir, L., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2016). Social Valuations of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Implications for Decision- Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: Insights for Making. Ecosystems. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-019-00405-6. policy and planning. Environmental Science & Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Assmuth, T., Hellgren, D., Kopperoinen, L., Paloniemi, R., & Peltonen, L. (2017). Fair envsci.2016.01.007. blue urbanism: Demands, obstacles, opportunities and knowledge needs for just Caro-Borrero, A., Corbera, E., Neitzel, K. C., & Almeida-Leñero, L. (2015). “We are the recreation beside Helsinki Metropolitan Area waters. International Journal of Urban city lungs”: Payments for ecosystem services in the outskirts of Mexico City. Land Use Sustainable Development, 9(3), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Policy, 43, 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.11.008. 19463138.2017.1370423. Chan, K. M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez- Atkinson, S. C., Jupiter, S. D., Adams, V. M., Ingram, J. C., Narayan, S., Klein, C. J., & Baggethun, E., & Turner, N. (2016). Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the Possingham, H. P. (2016). Prioritising mangrove ecosystem services results in environment. PNAS. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.5146.0560. spatially variable management priorities. PLoS ONE, 11(3). https://doi.org/ Chapman, M., Satterfield, T., & Chan, K. M. A. (2019). When value conflicts are barriers: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151992. Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive Bacon, C. M., Getz, C., Kraus, S., Montenegro, M., & Holland, K. (2012). The social programs? Land Use Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.017. dimensions of sustainability and change in diversified farming systems. Ecology and Charoenkit, S., & Piyathamrongchai, K. (2019). A review of urban green spaces Society, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05226-170441. multifunctionality assessment: A way forward for a standardized assessment and Balbi, S., Selomane, O., Sitas, N., Blanchard, R., Kotzee, I., O’Farrell, P., & Villa, F. comparability. Ecological Indicators, 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. (2019). Human dependence on natural resources in rapidly urbanising South African ecolind.2019.105592. regions. Environmental Research Letters, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ Chaudhary, S., & McGregor, A. (2018). A critical analysis of global ecosystem services aafe43. (Paristhitiki sewa) discourse in Nepal. Land Use Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Baró, F., Calderón-Argelich, A., Langemeyer, J., & Connolly, J. J. T. (2019). Under one landusepol.2018.03.024. canopy? Assessing the distributional environmental justice implications of street tree Chaudhary, S., McGregor, A., Houston, D., & Chettri, N. (2018). Environmental justice benefits in Barcelona. Environmental Science and Policy, 102. https://doi.org/ and ecosystem services: A disaggregated analysis of community access to forest 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.016. benefits in Nepal. Ecosystem Services, 29, 99–115. Baró, F., Camacho, D. A., Pérez Del Pulgar, C., Triguero-Mas, M., & Anguelovski, I. Chen, X., de Vries, S., Assmuth, T., Dick, J., Hermans, T., Hertel, O., … Reis, S. (2019). (2021). School greening: Right or privilege? Examining urban nature within and Research challenges for cultural ecosystem services and public health in (peri-)urban around primary schools through an equity lens. Landscape and Urban Planning. environments. Science of the Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.104019. scitotenv.2018.09.030. BenDor, T., & Stewart, A. (2011). Land use planning and social equity in North Carolina’s Chu, E., Anguelovski, I., & Roberts, D. (2017). Climate adaptation as strategic urbanism: compensatory wetland and stream mitigation programs. Environmental Management, Assessing opportunities and uncertainties for equity and inclusive development in 47(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9594-z. cities. Cities, 60, 378–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.10.016. Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J. A., & Pascual, U. (2016). Towards an ecosystem Cochran, F., Jackson, L., Neale, A., Lovette, J., & Tran, L. (2019). A community ecohealth services approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in index from enviroatlas ecosystem services metrics. International Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 19, 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/ cosust.2016.02.003. ijerph16152760. Bertram, C., & Rehdanz, K. (2015). Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: Cohen, M., Quinn, J. E., Marshall, D., & Sharp, T. (2019). Sustainability assessment of a Comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosystem Services, 12, 187–199. https:// community open space vision. Sustainability Science, 14(6), 1565–1580. https://doi. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.011. org/10.1007/s11625-019-00659-y. Biernacka, M., & Kronenberg, J. (2018). Classification of institutional barriers affecting Cole, H. V. S., Lamarca, M. G., Connolly, J. J. T., & Anguelovski, I. (2017). Are green the availability, accessibility and attractiveness of urban green spaces. Urban Forestry cities healthy and equitable? Unpacking the relationship between health, green and Urban Greening, 36, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.09.007. space and gentrification. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. https://doi. Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological org/10.1136/jech-2017-209201. Economics, 29. Connolly, J. J. T. (2018). From Systems Thinking to Systemic Action: Social Vulnerability Boulton, C., Dedekorkut-Howes, A., & Byrne, J. (2018). Factors shaping urban and the Institutional Challenge of Urban Resilience. City and Community, 17(1), greenspace provision: A systematic review of the literature. Landscape and Urban 8–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12282. Planning, 178, 82–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.029. Connolly, J. J. T. (2019). From Jacobs to the Just City: A foundation for challenging the Bozeman, J. F., Ashton, W. S., & Theis, T. L. (2019). Distinguishing Environmental green planning orthodoxy. Cities, 91, 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Impacts of Household Food-Spending Patterns Among U.S. Demographic Groups. cities.2018.05.011. Environmental Engineering Science, 36(7), 763–777. https://doi.org/10.1089/ Connolly, J. J. T., & Anguelovski, I. (2021). Three Histories of Greening and Whiteness in ees.2018.0433. American Cities. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/ Brand, A. L. (2015). The Politics of Defining and Building Equity in the Twenty-First fevo.2021.621783. Century. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(3), 249–264. https://doi. Costanza, R. (2003). Social goals and the valuation of natural capital. Environmental org/10.1177/0739456X15585001. Monitoring and Assessment, 86(1–2), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1023/A: Breen, A., Giannotti, E., Flores Molina, M., & Vásquez, A. (October 2020). From 1024045221992. “Government to Governance”? A Systematic Literature Review of Research for Urban 12 A. Calderón-Argelich et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 Cruz-Garcia, G. S., Sachet, E., Blundo-Canto, G., Vanegas, M., & Quintero, M. (2017). To ecosystem services. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 1040–1053. https://doi. what extent have the links between ecosystem services and human well-being been org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.09.011. researched in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? Ecosystem Services, 25, 201–212. Escobedo, F. J., Kroeger, T., & Wagner, J. E. (2011). Urban forests and pollution https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.04.005. mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environmental Pollution, Cruz-Garcia, G. S., Vanegas Cubillos, M., Torres-Vitolas, C., Harvey, C. A., 159, 2078–2087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010. Shackleton, C. M., Schreckenberg, K., … Sachet, E. (2019). He says, she says: Favarodo, A. K. M. I., Maria, N. C., Cutolo, S. A., Toledode, R. F., Landin, R., Tolffo, F. A., Ecosystem services and gender among indigenous communities in the Colombian & Giatt, L. L. (2016). Inequities and Challenges for a Metropolitan Region to Improve Amazon. Ecosystem Services, 37, Article 100921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Climate Resilience. In Climate Change and Health. Improving Resilience and Reducing ecoser.2019.100921. Risks. Springer. Curran, W., & Hamilton, T. (2012). Just green enough: contesting environmental Finewood, M. H., Matsler, A. M., & Zivkovich, J. (2019). Green Infrastructure and the gentrification in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Local Environment. The International Journal Hidden Politics of Urban Stormwater Governance in a Postindustrial City. Annals of of Justice and Sustainability, 37–41. the American Association of Geographers, 109(3), 909–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Davies, C., & Lafortezza, R. (2017). Urban green infrastructure in Europe: Is greenspace 24694452.2018.1507813. planning and policy compliant? Land Use Policy, 69, 93–101. https://doi.org/ Finney, C. (2014). Black Faces, White Spaces. Chapel Hill: The University of North 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.018. Carolina Press. Daw, T. M., Coulthard, S., Cheung, W. W. L., Brown, K., Abunge, C., Galafassi, D., … Fischer, L. K., Honold, J., Botzat, A., Brinkmeyer, D., Cvejić, R., Delshammar, T., … Munyi, L. (2015). Evaluating taboo trade-offs in ecosystems services and human Kowarik, I. (2018). Recreational ecosystem services in European cities: Sociocultural well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of and geographical contexts matter for park use. Ecosystem Services, 31, 455–467. America, 112(22), 6949–6954. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414900112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.015. Dawson, N. M., Grogan, K., Martin, A., Mertz, O., Pasgaard, M., & Rasmussen, L. V. Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem (2017). Environmental justice research shows the importance of social feedbacks in services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68, 643–653. https://doi.org/ ecosystem service trade-offs. Ecology and Society, 22(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014. 09481-220312. Fleischer, A., Felsenstein, D., & Lichter, M. (2018). A Spatially Accurate Method for Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H., … Faehnle, M. Evaluating Distributional Effects of Ecosystem Services. Ecological Economics, 145, (2014). Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale 451–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.019. assessment of green urban infrastructure.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Fortnam, M., Brown, K., Chaigneau, T., Crona, B., Daw, T. M., Gonçalves, D., … Schulte- jenvman.2014.07.025. Herbruggen, B. (2019). The Gendered Nature of Ecosystem Services. Ecological Dendoncker, N., Keune, H., Jacobs, S., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2013). Inclusive Economics, 159, 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.018. Ecosystem Services Valuation. In Ecosystem Services: Global Issues, Local Practices (pp. Fraser, N. (2009). Social justice in the age of identity politics. In G. L. Henderson, & 3–12). Elsevier Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-419964-4.00001-9 M. Waterstone (Eds.), Geographic Thought: A Praxis Perspective. Routledge. Dennis, M., Armitage, R. P., & James, P. (2016). Appraisal of social-ecological innovation Friedman, R. S., Law, E. A., Bennett, N. J., Ives, C. D., Thorn, J. P. R., & Wilson, K. A. as an adaptive response by stakeholders to local conditions: Mapping stakeholder (2018). How just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in conservation involvement in horticulture orientated green space management. Urban Forestry and research. Environmental Research Letters, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- Urban Greening, 18, 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.05.010. 9326/aabcde. Depietri, Y., Kallis, G., Baró, F., & Cattaneo, C. (2016). The urban political ecology of Garcia-Cuerva, L., Berglund, E. Z., & Rivers, L. (2018). An integrated approach to place ecosystem services: The case of Barcelona. Ecological Economics, 125, 83–100. Green Infrastructure strategies in marginalized communities and evaluate https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.003. stormwater mitigation. Journal of Hydrology, 559, 648–660. https://doi.org/ De Madariaga, I. S., & Roberts, M. (2016). Fair shared cities: The impact of gender 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.066. planning in Europe. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315581835. Garcia-Lamarca, M., Anguelovski, I., Cole, H., Connolly, J. J. T., Argüelles, L., Baró, F., … Derkzen, M. L., Nagendra, H., Van Teeffelen, A. J. A., Purushotham, A., & Verburg, P. H. Shokry, G. (2021). Urban green boosterism and city affordability: For whom is the (2017). Shifts in ecosystem services in deprived urban areas: Understanding people’s ‘branded’ green city? Urban Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019885330. responses and consequences for well-being. Ecology and Society, 22(1). https://doi. Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Barton, D. N. (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services org/10.5751/ES-09168-220151. for urban planning. Ecological Economics, 86, 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Derkzen, M. L., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Quantifying urban ecolecon.2012.08.019. ecosystem services based on high-resolution data of urban green space: An Gould, K. A., & Lewis, T. L. (2017). Green Gentrification. Urban sustainability and the assessment for Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(4), struggle for environmental justice. Routledge. 1020–1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12469. Graça, M., Queirós, C., Farinha-Marques, P., & Cunha, M. (2018). Street trees as cultural Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R. T., Molnár, Z., … elements in the city: Understanding how perception affects ecosystem services Shirayama, Y. (2018). Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science, 359 management in Porto, Portugal. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 30, 194–205. (6373), 270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.02.001. Dikeç, M. (2001). Justice and the spatial imagination. Environment and Planning A, 33 Graham, S., Barnett, J., Fincher, R., Mortreux, C., & Hurlimann, A. (2015). Towards fair (10), 1785–1805. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3467. local outcomes in adaptation to sea-level rise. Climatic Change, 130(3), 411–424. Dobbs, C., Escobedo, F. J., Clerici, N., de la Barrera, F., Eleuterio, A. A., MacGregor- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1171-7. Fors, I., … Hernández, H. J. (2019). Urban ecosystem Services in Latin America: Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Geraldine, P., Watts, M., & Whatmore, S. (2009). The dictionary Mismatch between global concepts and regional realities? Urban Ecosystems, 22(1), of Human Geography (5th). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0805-3. Gregory, M. M., Leslie, T. W., & Drinkwater, L. E. (2016). Agroecological and social Dobbs, C., Nitschke, C. R., & Kendal, D. (2014). Global Drivers and Tradeoffs of Three characteristics of New York city community gardens: Contributions to urban food Urban Vegetation Ecosystem Services. PLoS ONE, 9(11), Article 113000. https://doi. security, ecosystem services, and environmental education. Urban Ecosystems, 19(2), org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113000.t001. 763–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-015-0505-1. Draus, P., Haase, D., Napieralski, J., Roddy, J., & Qureshi, S. (2019). Wounds, ghosts and Gulachenski, A., Ghersi, B. M., Lesen, A. E., & Blum, M. J. (2016). Abandonment, gardens: Historical trauma and green reparations in Berlin and Detroit. Cities, 93 ecological assembly and public health risks in counter-urbanizing cities. (June), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.05.002. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(5), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050491. Draus, P., Lovall, S., Formby, T., Baldwin, L., & Lowe-Anderson, W. (2019). A green space Haase, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Elmqvist, T. (2014). Ecosystem services in urban vision in Southeast Michigan’s most heavily industrialized area. Urban Ecosystems, landscapes: Practical applications and governance implications. Ambio, 43(4), 22(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0765-7. 407–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0503-1. du Toit, M. J., Cilliers, S. S., Dallimer, M., Goddard, M., Guenat, S., & Cornelius, S. F. Haase, D., Kabisch, S., Haase, A., Andersson, E., Banzhaf, E., Baró, F., … Wolff, M. (2018). Urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services in sub-Saharan Africa. (2017). Greening cities – To be socially inclusive? About the alleged paradox of Landscape and Urban Planning, 180, 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. society and ecology in cities. Habitat International, 64, 41–48. https://doi.org/ landurbplan.2018.06.001. 10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.04.005. Egerer, M. H., Philpott, S. M., Bichier, P., Jha, S., Liere, H., & Lin, B. B. (2018). Gardener Haase, D., Larondelle, N., Andersson, E., Artmann, M., Borgström, S., Breuste, J., … well-being along social and biophysical landscape gradients. Sustainability Elmqvist, T. (2014). A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: (Switzerland), 10(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010096. Concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio, 43(4), 413–433. https://doi.org/ Elmqvist, T., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Langemeyer, J. (2018). Ecosystem Services 10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0. Provided by Urban Green Infrastructure. Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services, Hansen, R., Rall, E., Chapman, E., Rolf, W., & Pauleit, S. (2017). Urban Green 452–468. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315775302-39. Infrastructure Planning: A Guide for Practitioners. GREEN SURGE. Enssle, F., & Kabisch, N. (2020). Urban green spaces for the social interaction, health and Hansen, R., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Rall, E., Kabisch, N., Kaczorowska, A., … well-being of older people— An integrated view of urban ecosystem services and Pauleit, S. (2015). The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in planning socio-environmental justice. Environmental Science and Policy, 109(September discourses of European and American cities. Ecosystem Services, 12, 228–246. 2019), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.013. Ernstson, H. (2013). The social production of ecosystem services: A framework for Harper, Krista, Tamara Steger, and Richard Filcak (2009). Environmental Justice and studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Roma Communities in Central and Eastern Europe. Environmental Policy and Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Governance 19:4 (July/August 2009). landurbplan.2012.10.005. Hayden, D. (1980). What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like? Speculations on Housing, Escobedo, F. J., Clerici, N., Staudhammer, C. L., & Corzo, G. T. (2015). Socio-ecological Urban Design, and Human Work.. https://doi.org/10.1021/bi0017172. dynamics and inequality in Bogotá, Colombia’s public urban forests and their Hesse-Biber, S. (2012). Feminist Approaches to Triangulation: Uncovering Subjugated Knowledge and Fostering Social Change in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of 13 A. Calderón-Argelich et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/ La Rosa, D., & Pappalardo, V. (October 2019). Planning for spatial equity - A 1558689812437184. performance based approach for sustainable urban drainage systems. Sustainable Heynen, N. C., & Lindsey, G. (2003). Correlates of urban forest canopy cover. Cities and Society. , Article 101885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101885. Implications for Local Public Works. Public Works Management and Policy, 8(1), Langemeyer, J., Calcagni, F., & Baró, F. (2018). Mapping the intangible: Using 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X03253604. geolocated social media data to examine landscape aesthetics. Land Use Policy, Heynen, N., Kaika, M., Swyngedouw, E., (2006). In the Nature of Cities . Urban political 542–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.049. ecology and the politics of urban metabolism. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.5822 Langemeyer, J., Camps-Calvet, M., Calvet-Mir, L., Barthel, S., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. /978-1-59726-986-5. (2018). Stewardship of urban ecosystem services: understanding the value(s) of Heynen, N., Perkins, H. A., & Roy, P. (2006). The Political Ecology of Uneven Urban urban gardens in Barcelona. Landscape and Urban Planning, 170, 79–89. https://doi. Green Space. The Impact of Political Economy on Race and Ethnicity in Producing org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.013. Environmental Inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Affairs Review, 42(1), 3–25. https:// Langemeyer, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Haase, D., Scheuer, S., & Elmqvist, T. (2015). doi.org/10.1177/1078087406290729. Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning Himes, A., & Muraca, B. (2018). Relational values: The key to pluralistic valuation of through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Environmental Science and Policy, ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. https://doi.org/ 62, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.013. 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005. Langemeyer, J., & Connolly, J. J. T. (2020). Weaving notions of justice into urban Holifield, R. (2012). Environmental Justice as Recognition and Participation in Risk ecosystem services research and practice. Environmental Science and Policy, 109, Assessment: Negotiating and Translating Health Risk at a Superfund Site in Indian 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.021. Country. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(3), 591–613. https:// Langemeyer, J., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2018). Urban biodiversity and ecosystem doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.641892. services. In A. Ossola, & J. Niemelä (Eds.), Urban Biodiversity - From Research to Hughes, S. (2015). A meta-analysis of urban climate change adaptation planning in the Practice. Routledge. U.S. Urban Climate, 14, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.06.003. Łaszkiewicz, E., Kronenberg, J., & Marcińczak, S. (2018). Attached to or bound to a Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martín-López, B., Barton, D. N., Gomez-Baggethun, E., place? The impact of green space availability on residential duration: The Boeraeve, F., … Washbourn, C. L. (2016). A new valuation school: Integrating environmental justice perspective. Ecosystem Services, 30, 309–317. https://doi.org/ diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosystem Services, 22, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.002. 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007. Lehmann, I., Martin, A., & Fisher, J. A. (2018). Why Should Ecosystem Services Be Jenerette, G. D., Harlan, S. L., Stefanov, W. L., & Martin, C. A. (2011). Ecosystem services Governed to Support Poverty Alleviation? Philosophical Perspectives on Positions in and urban heat riskscape moderation: Water, green spaces, and social inequality in the Empirical Literature. Ecological Economics, 149, 265–273. https://doi.org/ Phoenix, USA. Ecological Applications, 21(7), 2637–2651. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.003. 41416684. Lele, S. (2013). Environmentalisms, justices and the limits of Ecosystem Services Jennings, V., Floyd, M. F., Shanahan, D., Coutts, C., & Sinykin, A. (2017). Emerging Frameworks. In The Justices and Injustices of Ecosystems Services (pp. 1–210). issues in urban ecology: Implications for research, social justice, human health, and https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203395288. well-being. Population and Environment, 39(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Lele, S., Brondizio, E. S., Byrne, J., Mace, G. M., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2018). Framing the s11111-017-0276-0. Environment. Rethinking Environmentalism: Linking Justice, Sustainability, and Jennings, V., Larson, L., & Yun, J. (2016). Advancing sustainability through urban green Diversity. Strüngmann Forum Reports. space: Cultural ecosystem services, equity, and social determinants of health. Luederitz, C., Brink, E., Gralla, F., Hermelingmeier, V., Meyer, M., Niven, L., … von International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(2). https://doi. Wehrden, H. (2015). A review of urban ecosystem services: Six key challenges for org/10.3390/ijerph13020196. future research. Ecosystem Services, 14, 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. A. Jerneck (2018). What about Gender in Climate Change? Twelve Feminist Lessons from ecoser.2015.05.001. Development. Sustainability. 10.3390/su10030627. Mader, A., Patrickson, S., Calcaterra, E., Smit, J. (2011). TEEB – The Economics of Juntti, M., & Lundy, L. (2017). A mixed methods approach to urban ecosystem services: Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2011). TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Experienced environmental quality and its role in ecosystem assessment within an Urban Management. www.teebweb.org. inner-city estate. Landscape and Urban Planning, 161, 10–21. https://doi.org/ Maes, J., Burkhard, B., & Geneletti, D. (2018). Ecosystem services are inclusive and 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.01.002. deliver multiple values. A comment on the concept of nature’s contributions to Kabisch, N., & Boschvan, M. A. den. (2017). Urban Green Spaces and the Potential for people. One Ecosystem, 3. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e24720. Health Improvement and Environmental Justice in a Changing Climate. In Nature-based Marshall, F., Dolley, J., Bisht, R., Priya, R., Waldman, L., Amerasinghe, P., & Randhawa, Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas. Linkages between Science, Policy P. (2018). Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation in urbanising contexts. In and Practice. Springer. Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation: Trade-Offs and Governance (pp. Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., & Bonn, A. (2017). Nature-based Solutions to Climate 111–125). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429507090. Change Adaptation in Urban Areas. Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice. Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., García-Llorente, M., & Montes, C. (2014). Trade- Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_5. offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators. Kadykalo, A. N., López-Rodriguez, M. D., Ainscough, J., Droste, N., Ryu, H., Ávila- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003. Flores, G., … Harmáčková, Z. V. (2019). Disentangling “ecosystem services” and Marshall, K. A., & Gonzalez-Meler, M. A. (2016). Can ecosystem services be part of the “nature”s contributions to people’. Ecosystems and People. https://doi.org/10.1080/ solution to environmental justice? Ecosystem Services, 22, 202–203. https://doi.org/ 26395916.2019.1669713. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.008. Keeler, B. L., Hamel, P., McPhearson, T., Hamann, M. H., Donahue, M. L., Meza Prado, K. Martin, A., Coolsaet, B., Corbera, E., Dawson, N. M., Fraser, J. A., Lehman, I., & A., … Wood, S. A. (2019, January 1). Social-ecological and technological factors Rodriguez, I. (2016). Justice and conservation: The need to incorporate recognition. moderate the value of urban nature. Nature Sustainability. Nature Publishing Group. Biological Conservation, 197(2016), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0202-1. biocon.2016.03.021. Keith, S. J., Larson, L. R., Shafer, C. S., Hallo, J. C., & Fernandez, M. (2018). Greenway Martínez-Alier, J., Anguelovski, I., Bond, P., Bene, D. D., Demaria, F., Gerber, J.-F., … use and preferences in diverse urban communities: Implications for trail design and Yánez, I. (2014). Between activism and science: Grassroots concepts for management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 172, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sustainability coined by Environmental Justice Organizations. Journal of Political landurbplan.2017.12.007. Ecology, 21(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.2458/v21i1.21124. Kenter, J. O. (2016). Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and McAfee, K. (1999). Selling Nature to save It? Biodiversity and Green Developmentalism. participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 17(2), 133–154. https://doi.org/ Services, 21, 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.010. 10.1068/d170133. Kindon, S. (2003). Participatory video in Geographic Research: A Feminist practice of McDermott, M., Mahanty, S., & Schreckenberg, K. (2013). Examining equity: A looking? Area, 48(4), 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12246. multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem Koh, N. S., Hahn, T., & Ituarte-Lima, C. (2017). Safeguards for enhancing ecological services. Environmental Science and Policy, 33, 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compensation in Sweden. Land Use Policy, 64, 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envsci.2012.10.006. landusepol.2017.02.035. McIntyre, A. (2003). Through the eyes of women: Photovoice and participatory research Kontogianni, A., Luck, G. W., & Skourtos, M. (2010). Valuing ecosystem services on the as tools for reimagining place. Gender, Place and Culture, 10(1), 47–66. https://doi. basis of service-providing units: A potential approach to address the “endpoint org/10.1080/0966369032000052658. problem” and improve stated preference methods. Ecological Economics, 69(7), Meerow, S. (2020). The politics of multifunctional green infrastructure planning in New 1479–1487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.019. York City. Cities. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102621. Kosoy, N., & Corbera, E. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services as commodity Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-being. A fetishism. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1228–1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. framework for Assessment: Washington, DC: Island Press. ecolecon.2009.11.002. Mohai, P., Pellow, D., & Roberts, J. T. (2009). Environmental Justice. Annual Review of Kotsila, P., Anguelovski, I., Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., Sekulova, F., & Connolly, J. J. T. Environment and Resources, 34(1), 405–430. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- (2020). Nature-based solutions as discursive tools and contested practices in urban environ-082508-094348. nature’s neoliberalisation processes. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, Mohai, P., & Saha, R. (2015). Which came first, people or pollution? Assessing the 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620901437. disparate siting and post-siting demographic change hypotheses of environmental Kovacs, E. K., Kumar, C., Agarwal, C., Adams, W. M., Hope, R. A., & Vira, B. (2016). The injustice. Environmental Research Letters, 10(11), Article 115008. https://doi.org/ politics of negotiation and implementation: A reciprocal water access agreement in 10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/115008. the Himalayan foothills, India. Ecology and Society, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Altman, D. G., Antes, G., … Tugwell, P. ES-08462-210237. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The 14 A. Calderón-Argelich et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), Article e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/ services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/ journal.pmed.1000097. 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.004. Moreno-Sanchez, R., Maldonado, J. H., Wunder, S., & Borda-Almanza, C. (2012). Schreckenberg, K., Mace, G., & Poudyal, M. (2018). Ecosystem Services and Poverty Heterogeneous users and willingness to pay in an ongoing payment for watershed Alleviation. Trade-offs and Governance. Routledge. protection initiative in the Colombian Andes. Ecological Economics, 75, 126–134. Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E. H., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Remme, R. P., Serna- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.01.009. Chavez, H. M., de Groot, R. S., & Opdam, P. (2014). Ecosystem Services as a Mueller, N., Rojas-Rueda, D., Khreis, H., Cirach, M., Andrés, D., Ballester, J., … Contested Concept: A Synthesis of Critique and Counter-Arguments. Conservation Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2019). Changing the urban design of cities for health: The Letters, 7(6), 514–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091. superblock model. Environment International, 105132. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. Shi, L., Chu, E., Anguelovski, I., Aylett, A., Debats, J., Goh, K., … Van Deveer, S. D. ENVINT.2019.105132. (2016). Roadmap towards justice in urban climate adaptation research. Nature Nardone, A., Rudolph, K. E., Morello-Frosch, R., & Casey, J. A. (2021). Redlines and Climate Change, 6(2), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2841. greenspace: The relationship between historical redlining and 2010 greenspace Shokry, G., Connolly, J. J. T., & Anguelovski, I. (2020). Understanding climate across the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives, 129(1), 1–9. https://doi. gentrification and shifting landscapes of protection and vulnerability in green org/10.1289/EHP7495. resilient Philadelphia. Urban Climate, 31, 100539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Nesbitt, L., Meitner, M. J., Girling, C., & Sheppard, S. R. J. (2019). Urban green equity on uclim.2019.100539. the ground: Practice-based models of urban green equity in three multicultural cities. Sikor, T. (2013). The justices and injustices of ecosystems services. The Justices and Injustices Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. of Ecosystems Services. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/ ufug.2019.126433. 9780203395288. Nesbitt, L., Meitner, M. J., Sheppard, S. R. J., & Girling, C. (2018). The dimensions of Sjöstedt, M. (2012). Ecosystem services and poverty reduction: How do development urban green equity: A framework for analysis. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 34, practitioners conceptualize the linkages. European Journal of Development Research, 240–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.009. 24(5), 777–787. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2012.16. Ordóñez-Barona, C., Devisscher, T., Dobbs, C., Aguilar, L. A. O., Baptista, M., Soja, E. W. (2015). Seeking Spatial Justice. University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/ Navarro, N. M., & Escobedo, F. J. (2019). Trends in Urban Forestry Research in Latin 10.5749/minnesota/9780816666676.001.0001. America & the Caribbean: a Systematic Literature Review and Synthesis. Urban Solé, L., & Ariza, E. (2019). A wider view of assessments of ecosystem services in coastal Forestry & Urban Greening. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126544. areas: The perspective of social-ecological complexity. Ecology and Society, 24(2). Ortiz Escalante, S., & Gutiérrez Valdivia, B. (2015). Planning from below: Using feminist https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10883-240224. participatory methods to increase women’s participation in urban planning. Gender Spain, D. (2014). Gender and Urban Space. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 581–598. and Development, 23(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/ https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043446. 13552074.2015.1014206. Suhren, E. J., Devita, F., Prüter, K., Tarumun, S., Glaser, M., & Glaeser, B. (2014). River Paloniemi, R., Apostolopoulou, E., Cent, J., Bormpoudakis, D., Scott, A., Grodzińska- Health and Community Health: A Collaborative Action-oriented Social-ecological Jurczak, M., … Pantis, J. D. (2015). Public Participation and Environmental Justice Analysis. Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution, 11. in Biodiversity Governance in Finland, Greece, Poland and the UK. Environmental Suich, H., Howe, C., & Mace, G. (2015). Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A Policy and Governance, 25(5), 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1672. review of the empirical links. Ecosystem Services, 12, 137–147. https://doi.org/ Paloniemi, R., Niemelä, J., Soininen, N., Laatikainen, T., Vierikko, K., Rekola, A., … 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.005. Kyttä, M. (2018). Environmental justice for the governance of aquatic environments. Swapan, M. S. H., Iftekhar, M. S., & Li, X. (2017). Contextual variations in perceived Local Environment, 23(3), 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/ social values of ecosystem services of urban parks: A comparative study of China and 13549839.2017.1422118. Australia. Cities, 61, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.11.003. Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., … Muradian, R. Swyngedouw, E., & Heynen, N. C. (2003). Urban political ecology, justice and the politics (2014). Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience, 64(11), of scale. Antipode, 35(5), 898–918. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 1027–1036. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu146. 8330.2003.00364.x. Pearson, L. J., Park, S., Harman, B., & Heyenga, S. (2010). Sustainable land use scenario Thomas, D. S. G., & Twyman, C. (2005). Equity and justice in climate change adaptation framework: Framework and outcomes from peri-urban South-East Queensland. amongst natural-resource-dependent societies. Global Environmental Change. https:// Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 96(2), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.10.001. landurbplan.2010.02.006. Tschakert, P. (2007). Environmental services and poverty reduction: Options for Perreault, T., Bridge, G., & McCarthy, J. (2015). The Routledge Handbook of Political smallholders in the Sahel. Agricultural Systems, 94(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/ Ecology. Annals of Tourism Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.11.004. 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.07.010. Porter, C. (2018). What Gardens Grow: Outcomes from Home and Community Gardens Turkelboom, F., Leone, M., Jacobs, S., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., Baró, F., … Supported by Community-based Food Justice Organizations. Journal of Agriculture, Rusch, V. (2018). When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the Food Systems, and Community Development, 187–205. https://doi.org/10.5304/ context of spatial planning. Ecosystem Services, 29 (November 2017), 566–578. jafscd.2018.08a.002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011. Rall, E., Hansen, R., & Pauleit, S. (2019). The added value of public participation GIS Tzaninis, Y., Mandler, T., Kaika, M., & Keil, R. (2020). Moving urban political ecology (PPGIS) for urban green infrastructure planning. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, beyond the “urbanization of nature”. Progress in Human Geography. https://doi.org/ 40, 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.06.016. 10.1177/0309132520903350. Pulido, L. (2000). Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development UN Sustainable Development Goals Goal 11: Sustainable cities and communities (2015). in Southern. Source. Annals of the Association of American Geographers (Vol. 90). Retrieved from https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal11. Ranganathan, M., & Bratman, E. (2019). From Urban Resilience to Abolitionist Climate UN Women (2020). Gender mainstreaming: A global strategy for achieving gender Justice in Washington. DC. Antipode, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12555. equality and the empowerment of women and girls. United Nations. Raymond, C. M., Diduck, A. P., Buijs, A., Boerchers, M., & Moquin, R. (2019). Exploring Unnikrishnan, H., Manjunatha, B., & Nagendra, H. (2016). Contested urban commons: the co-benefits (and costs) of home gardening for biodiversity conservation. Local Mapping the transition of a lake to a sports stadium in Bangalore. International Environment, 24(3), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2018.1561657. Journal of the Commons, 10(1), 265–293. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.616. Raymond, C. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M. R., … Van Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J., & Vásquez, W. F. (2012). The viability of local payments Calfapietra, C. (2017). A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits for watershed services: Empirical evidence from Matiguás, Nicaragua. Ecological of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environmental Science and Policy, 77, 15–24. Economics, 74, 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008. Viinikka, A., Paloniemi, R., & Assmuth, T. (2018). Mapping the distributive Rigolon, A., & Németh, J. (2018). What Shapes Uneven Access to Urban Amenities? Thick environmental justice of urban waters. Fennia, 196(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/ Injustice and the Legacy of Racial Discrimination in Denver’s Parks. Journal of Planning 10.11143/fennia.64137. Education and Research.. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18789251. Von Döhren, P., & Haase, D. (2015). Ecosystem disservices research: A review of the state Rigolon, A., & Németh, J. (2019). Green gentrification or ‘just green enough’’: Do park of the art with a focus on cities. Ecological Indicators, 52, 490–497. https://doi.org/ location, size and function affect whether a place gentrifies or not?’. Urban Studies. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.027. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038514547803. Wachsmuth, D., & Angelo, H. (2018). Green and gray: New ideologies of nature in urban Roy Haines-Young, by, Potschin, M. (2018). Common International Classification of sustainability policy. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(4), Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 Guidance on the Application of the Revised 1038–1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1417819. Structure. Walker, G. (2011). Environmental Justice. Concepts, Evidence and Politics. Routledge. Safransky, S. (2018). Land Justice as a Historical Diagnostic: Thinking with Detroit. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203610671. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(2), 499–512. https://doi.org/ Whyte, K. P. (2011). The Recognition Dimensions of Environmental Justice in Indian 10.1080/24694452.2017.1385380. Country. Environmental Justice, 4(4), 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1089/ Sanchez, L., & Reames, T. G. (2019). Cooling Detroit: A socio-spatial analysis of equity in env.2011.0036. green roofs as an urban heat island mitigation strategy. Urban Forestry and Urban Wilkinson, C., Saarne, T., Peterson, G. D., & Colding, J. (2013). Strategic spatial planning Greening, 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.014. and the ecosystem services concept - An historical exploration. Ecology and Society, Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining Environmental Justice. Theories, Movements and Nature. 18(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05368-180137. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Wilson, M. A., & Howarth, R. B. (2002). Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: Schlosberg, D. (2013). Theorising environmental justice: The expanding sphere of a Establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecological Economics, 41(3), discourse. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00092-7. 09644016.2013.755387. Winter, P. L., Padgett, P. E., Milburn, L. A. S., & Li, W. (2019). Neighborhood Parks and Scholes, R. J., Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Spierenburg, M. J., & Duriappah, A. (2013). Multi- Recreationists’ Exposure to Ozone: A Comparison of Disadvantaged and Affluent scale and cross-scale assessments of social-ecological systems and their ecosystem 15 A. Calderón-Argelich et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 214 (2021) 104130 Communities in Los Angeles. California. Environmental Management, 63(3), 379–395. Yang, Y. C. E., Passarelli, S., Lovell, R. J., & Ringler, C. (2018). Gendered perspectives of https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01140-3. ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/ Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.015. environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough”. Landscape Yi, H., Kreuter, U. P., Han, D., & Güneralp, B. (2019). Social segregation of ecosystem and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. services delivery in the San Antonio region, Texas, through 2050. Science of the Total landurbplan.2014.01.017. Environment, 667, 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.130. Wolsink, M. (2016). Environmental education excursions and proximity to urban green Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P.-P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on Gender Differences in space – densification in a ‘compact city’. Environmental Education Research, 22(7), Environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56. 1049–1071. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1077504. 16