Copyright © 2021 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. De Luca, C., J. Langemeyer, S. Vaňo, F. Baró, and E. Andersson. 2021. Adaptive resilience of and through urban ecosystem services: a transdisciplinary approach to sustainability in Barcelona. Ecology and Society 26(4):38. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12535-260438 Research, part of a Special Feature on Holistic Solutions Based on Nature: Unlocking the Potential of Green and Blue Infrastructure Adaptive resilience of and through urban ecosystem services: a transdisciplinary approach to sustainability in Barcelona Claudia De Luca 1, Johannes Langemeyer 2,3, Simeon Vaňo 4,5, Francesc Baró 2,6,7 and Erik Andersson 8,9 ABSTRACT. Ecosystem services (ES) from urban green and blue infrastructure (GBI) provide cities and their citizens with benefits necessary to cope with present and future sustainability challenges. Long-term comprehensive urban greening strategies, policies, and plans are thus central to the development of sustainable, liveable, and resilient cities. However, urban greening strategies are increasingly tailored to provide short-term benefits, overlooking the dynamic character of cities, which face both changes in the capacity of GBI to provide benefits (e.g., in the face of climate change) as well dynamic needs and preferences for benefits over time as a result of changing demographic compositions. Starting with a literature review on GBI-relevant policies for the city of Barcelona, we: (1) investigated the presence of resilience thinking in the city's GBI-relevant policies through the application of the urban ecosystem services resilience assessment matrix; (2) investigated resilience thinking in the city's policies through the co-development of scenario narratives of possible futures and their implications for ES; and (3) applied the narratives through a participatory approach to enhance stakeholder thinking on adaptive policies based on possible shifts in ES provision and needs. Application of the matrix identified two main gaps to current GBI-relevant policies related to two main aspects of resilience: recognition and assessment of possible future disturbances and changes, and low understanding of social and structural diversity. Through the co-development of four future scenario narratives (aging and shrinking population, enhanced tourism, gender inequalities, and global warming), stakeholders identified the most susceptible ES in the city of Barcelona. Workshop participants indicated mental well-being, regulation of microclimate, social cohesion, air purification, physical recreation, runoff control, and soil permeability as ES with the widest capacity–demand mismatch. The results elicited discussion around GBI and ES resilience, addressing the need for intersectoral policy integration (including housing, education, and mobility) and for fostering a wider understanding of the role of institutions in providing for a resilient urban future. Through the use of scenario narratives, and highlighting the potential of co-creation, the proposed approach enhances critical thought around ES resilience among key players in the city. The study thereby supports the development of a comprehensive resilience strategy for Barcelona and indicates pathways for how other cities can change their current urban trajectory towards sustained ES flows. Key Words: ecosystem services; green and blue infrastructure; participatory process; resilience principles; scenario narratives; urban greening policies INTRODUCTION The need to build urban resilience has increasingly gained With urbanization on the rise (Güneralp et al. 2017, UN 2019), attention in the last decade in both science and practice (e.g., ecosystem services (ES) provided by urban green and blue Meerow et al. 2004, Quinlan et al. 2016, Moser et al. 2019). infrastructure (GBI) offer multiple health and well-being benefits Resilience studies help us to understand complex social-ecological necessary to cope with present and future urban challenges systems and how to plan and manage them for sustainability, not (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton 2013, Gascon et al. 2015, van den least with respect to climate change (Elmqvist et al. 2019). Berg et al. 2015). These ES include, for example, microclimate However, urban resilience is generally vaguely defined, which regulation, runoff control, and opportunities for outdoor makes its application difficult as an analytical framework recreation (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton 2013, Haase et al. (Sellberg et al. 2018). Resilience is often interpreted as being 2014). Long-term urban policies and strategies can play a central positive, which is misleading. In response, Elmqvist et al. (2019) role in maintaining and increasing ES to create more sustainable, introduced a more precise understanding of urban resilience liveable, and resilient cities (Ahern et al. 2014). However, current connected to sustainable transformations of urban areas. urban strategies often overlook the sectoral integration that is Whereas urban sustainability and ES are considered a normative needed to harness the potential of GBI to support sustainable concept representing a “positive” vision for the future of the urban transformation and create resilience around human well- society (Schröter et al. 2014, Romero-Lankao et al. 2016), the being (McPhearson et al. 2016). Moreover, to maintain well-being authors describe resilience as a neutral, non-normative concept related benefits over time, cities need to build capacity to adapt (e.g., Ernstson 2013) and an intrinsic property of social-ecological both to external drivers of change, such as global climate change urban systems. To fit with a system in constant change, resilience and pandemics, as well as to inherent changes, such as shifting is defined as the “capacity of an urban system to absorb demographic composition (e.g., due to an aging population or disturbances, reorganize and maintain essentially the same migration) and related changing demands for ES benefits from functions over time and continue to develop along a particular GBI over time. trajectory” (Elmqvist et al. 2019:269). This interpretation suggests 1 Department of Architecture, Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna, 2Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 3Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Institute of Geography, Berlin, Germany, 4Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Nitra, Slovakia, 5Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic, 6Department of Geography, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium, 7Department of Sociology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium, 8Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 9North- West University, Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, Potchefstroom, South Africa Ecology and Society 26(4): 38 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art38/ that resilience can be a barrier to the desired transformations if We combined Andersson et al.’s (2019) three interconnected filters the city is following a pathway that is not sustainable, and that it approach (infrastructure, institutions, and perceptions) with needs to be reduced to enable transformation (Moore et al. 2018) seven ES resilience principles proposed by Biggs et al. (2012): (1) toward sustainability. In framing these considerations, we maintain diversity and redundancy, (2) manage connectivity, (3) position the GBI potential of generating multiple ES as the core manage slow variables and feedbacks, (4) foster an understanding feature to be sustained. We argue that this more dynamic of complex adaptive systems, (5) encourage learning and definition will help to secure human well-being in the face of experimentation, (6) broaden participation, and (7) promote challenges related to climate change and social transformations. polycentric governance systems. We argue that adapting the ES resilience principles to the urban realm could support policy- Securing a resilient ES flow in cities has raised substantial policy making in pursuing resilience around the flow of ES by interest (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton 2013, McPhearson et al. anticipating and systemically adapting urban social-ecological 2015, Elmqvist et al. 2017, 2019, Simon et al. 2018). Nevertheless, systems to different drivers of change (see the urban ecosystem tailored policies and interventions are needed to reduce the services resilience assessment matrix in Appendix 1). The resilience of barriers to equitable access to ES (Langemeyer and (assumed) objective of urban policies would be to sustain and Connolly 2020). Moreover, tailored policies should build and maintain both currently used and potential but latent GBI increase resilience around the factors that enable the flow of ES benefits over time. We believe that by applying and adapting Biggs benefits over time (McPhearson et al. 2015). In light of diverse et al.’s (2012) seven principles to the three filters in an urban and changing demands for ES in the future (Langemeyer and context, policies (as an institutional tool) can shape Connolly 2020), planners and decision makers must address infrastructures to ensure their maintenance and connections uncertainties when designing adaptive policies. As Walker et al. (principles 1 and 2). Also, translating into practice principles 3 (2001) suggest, policies should be “devised not to be optimal for and 4, through constant monitoring of slow variables and a best estimate future, but robust across a range of plausible feedback interactions among all three filters, would support futures.” However, from a practical perspective, it is far from policy adjustments and adaptations to multiple drivers of change. obvious what these barriers and enabling factors are, and how to Although policies can reframe the beneficiaries’ perceptions and engage with their resilience. strengthen their capacity to benefit from the system, guiding the Transforming or guiding cities toward desired and sustainable system through changes (principle 5), beneficiaries’ perceptions futures, in which ES capacity aligns with ES demands can also influence infrastructure through GBI co-design and as (Villamagna, et al. 2013, Baró et al. 2016) requires improved well bottom-up influences on GBI governance (principles 6 and integration of resilience thinking into urban policies. Here, we 7; Barnaud et al. 2018). Departing from the premises of this address three specific questions for guiding ES resilience-oriented conceptual framework (Fig. 1), we address four research policy-making: “resilience of what?”, “resilience to what?”, and objectives, as described below, to trigger policy adaptations that “resilience for whom?” This strategy implies a broader enable a resilient ES flow. understanding of: (1) external (e.g., climate change) and inherent Integrating ES resilience principles into policies and planning drivers of change (e.g., demographic changes; i.e., “resilience to approaches (institutions) can function as a lens for identifying what?”); (2) whether and how these drivers and changes affect the leverage points for unlocking the flow of ES from nature to generation of urban ES and the realization of their benefits (i.e., humans, under both current and potential future conditions “resilience of what?”); and (3) who has access to ES considering (Biernacka and Kronenberg 2018, Elmqvist et al. 2019). Thus, evolving ES demands over time (i.e., “resilience for whom?”). the first objective of our empirical approach is to address ES CONCEPTUAL APPROACH resilience within GBI policies and question whether policies can To govern the flow of ES benefits effectively, urban policies must ensure the generation of urban ES and the subsequent realization acknowledge urban ES benefits as fundamentally co-produced of their benefits over time (“resilience of what?”). by natural and human assets (Ernstson 2013, Langemeyer and To avoid narrowly focusing on single external drivers of change Connolly 2020). We understand GBI as the source of local ES, (e.g., climate change) in policy development and definition, our which are negotiated, regulated, and distributed across urban second research objective was to co-develop scenario narratives social-ecological systems (Andersson et al. 2019). The wider to trigger multilayered resilience thinking (Schewenius et al. 2014, social-ecological system is, in turn, strongly influential in shaping Wiese 2016). This objective is meant to support the integration and maintaining the quality and functionality of GBI. To gain a of different drivers of change into policy-making, including their systemic understanding of GBI and the availability, accessibility, interactions, feedbacks, and combined effects on the capacity and and fair distribution of ES, Andersson et al. (2019) proposed a demand of ES (“resilience to what?”). framework of three interconnected systemic filters: infrastructure, institutions, and perceptions. These filters are recognized factors Based on the assumption that GBI benefits tend to be distributed that affect the capacity of GBI to produce ES and hinder or unequally among different social groups (e.g., Ernstson 2013, facilitate the realization of ES benefits by different beneficiaries. Baró et al. 2019), we assume that building resilience around a Although GBI is critical to guarantee the capacity of ES, ES are trajectory of sustainable development needs to be inclusive (Tozer realized in the complex interplay of grey infrastructure (different et al. 2020). Therefore, we need to understand not only which ES types of housing developments, transportation networks, etc.), would be more susceptible to changes under different future actors, roles, rights, responsibility, and management (institutions), scenarios, but also which social groups might become excluded as well as specific needs, knowledge, practice, and identities from the future ES flow of benefits. The third objective is to (perceptions; Andersson et al. 2019). develop a participatory approach to understand the potential Ecology and Society 26(4): 38 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art38/ Fig. 1. The filters (perceptions, institutions, infrastructures) and ecosystem services (ES) resilience principles (P1 to P7) that affect the capacity of urban green and blue infrastructure (GBI) to produce ES and unlock the flow of benefits, under different drivers of changes. The study framework is built on Biggs et al. (2012) and Andersson et al. (2019), using the ES resilience principles and filters as pathways for sustainable policy-making. Arrows from left to right suggest that policy-making might work through the systemic filters and resilience principles to ensure resilient ES flow and counteract drivers of change that undermine the uptake of GBI benefits. changes in ES capacity (infrastructure), citizens’ desires or needs of an urban resilience strategy (Ajuntament de Barcelona 2018b) (perceptions), and the future distribution of benefits among through the coordinated work of several city departments different social groups (“resilience for whom?”). including the city’s Urban Resilience Department. Our study is embedded in the current discourse around resilience building and Our fourth objective is to analyze the proposed policy measures is intended to assess urban ES resilience and explore new policy and their integration of resilience thinking into such policies. options to secure and unlock the future flow of ES. It builds upon Navigating the complexity of assessing future scenarios into a workshop that was part of an ongoing stakeholder engagement participatory resilience thinking will lead to the identification of process organized by the Institute of Environmental Science and adaptive policy measures for building resilience around the future Technology (ICTA) in Barcelona since 2013 (in the context of the flow of urban ES, taking into consideration their capacity and European research projects FP7-Openness, BiodivERsA3- demand. This objective will allow us to assess the proposed ENABLE, EC-H2020-NATURVATION). The stakeholder conceptual and participatory framework for fostering resilience engagement process was initiated to promote new relations, thinking around ES in urban systems. knowledge sharing, and empowerment among GBI-related CASE STUDY stakeholders in Barcelona. The process creates an interface of Our empirical study focused on the city of Barcelona. With 1.62 current urban policies with research, as well as civic and private million inhabitants, Barcelona is the second largest city in Spain initiatives, touching upon themes such as public health, social and one of the most densely populated cities in Europe, with inclusivity, and just planning in urban greening. approximately 16,000 people/km² (Barcelona City Council METHODS Statistical Yearbook 2019). In recent years, the Barcelona city We adopted a transdisciplinary and mixed-method research council has embraced an ES-based approach to urban greening approach (Turnhout 2019) of sequential steps inspired by policy, developing several strategies and plans to support the city’s participatory multi-criteria evaluation approaches (e.g., trajectory toward a more sustainable future (these plans include Langemeyer et al. 2018) to address urban ES resilience. First, we the Barcelona Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan 2020 developed an urban ecosystem services resilience assessment [Ajuntament de Barcelona 2014], Trees for Life: Master Plan for matrix to perform a systematic analysis of how municipal Barcelona’s Trees 2017–2037 [Ajuntament de Barcelona 2017], sustainability policies aligned with adapted ES resilience and the Climate Action Plan, Pla Clima 2018–2030 [Ajuntament principles (following Biggs et al. 2012, Borgström et al. 2015, de Barcelona 2018a]). The Climate Action Plan identifies greening Nykvist et al. 2017, Andersson et al. 2019). Second, we co-created and the related provision of urban ES as one of the most four scenario narratives to investigate potential external drivers important measures for taking climate action. At the time of of or inherent changes in the social-ecological system (Nelson et writing, Barcelona city council was working on the development Ecology and Society 26(4): 38 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art38/ Table 1. Urban ecosystem services resilience assessment matrix (based on Biggs et al. 2012, Borgström et al. 2015, and Nykvist et al. 2017). Ecosystem Aspects Guiding questions services (ES) addressed for the assessment resilience principles P1, P4 Diversity consideration Biological diversity: How are genetic, species, and landscape-level diversity addressed? How are interactions between species and ecological succession addressed? How is complementarity in the landscape addressed? Social diversity: How are the different socio-economic components of the urban areas analyzed? How are cultural and historical values considered? Structural diversity: How is urban structure (in terms of differences and components of neighborhoods) considered? Is spatial and temporal scale considered? P1, P5, P6 Use of different knowledge What kind of knowledge is used? spheres How is involvement of different stakeholders in planning, design, management, and monitoring addressed? Is spatial and temporal scale considered? P2 Physical connectivity How is green and blue infrastructure (GBI) addressed (structures, nodes, networks, species migration)? How is mobility and physical accessibility addressed? How is information flow addressed? Are spatial and temporal scale considered? P3, P4 Disturbance regimes What disturbances are recognized? What responses are addressed (coping, adapting, transforming)? P3, P4 Assessment of forecast, What changes are recognized, e.g., climate, demographical, economic, political, technological innovation, possible changes, and human preferences and lifestyle (cultural ES), tourism, housing, land-use planning? uncertainty Are changes in relation to future supply and demand of ES considered and addressed? How are monitoring, evaluation, and revision addressed? Are spatial and temporal scale considered? P3, P4, P5 System knowledge approach How are the management steps of monitoring, evaluating, revising, and adapting addressed? How are emergent signals captured? How are responses to changes addressed? P3, P4, P5 Institutional flexibility In what ways are the approaches to GBI reactive or proactive? How are alternative approaches recognized? What kind of formulations are used, e.g. shall, should, recommend? P1, P2, P6, Polycentric governance How is governance organized (centralized/decentralized, single/multiple actors, sector divided, strong/weak P7 linkages across levels, sectors and actors)? How is collaboration between actors addressed? How is responsibility organized? al. 2005). The themes for the scenarios were defined through screening did not employ a strict keyword-based content analysis, multiple iterations with the city’s Urban Resilience Department. but relied on both explicit and non-explicit qualitative content Third, the narratives were used in an expert stakeholder workshop analysis applied to all sustainability-related city policies. Neither to trigger critical thinking about possible future shifts in capacity ES nor the resilience terminologies are yet standardized, and both and demand of ES. Finally, this new understanding was used to are contingent on the context and must be sensitive to alternative prompt expert stakeholders to reflect on the adaptation required languages (e.g., Camps-Calvet et al. 2016, Meerow et al. 2016, for a transition to more desirable futures and to propose targeted Sellberg et al. 2018). Thus, in the first screening step, we translated policy interventions. the generic ES resilience principles identified by Biggs et al. (2012) to a case-relevant set of variables described in a language that Policy analysis resonated with how the policies were formulated. We limited the analysis to policies developed at the city level and those that were relevant to the urban GBI and related ES We then performed a full analysis based on the urban ecosystem development that dealt with sustainability, climate, and greening. services resilience assessment matrix (Table 1). This matrix builds Ten GBI-related policies were screened according to their on Biggs et al. (2012), Borgström et al. (2015), Nykvist et al. potential alignment with and treatment of urban ES and their (2017), and Andersson et al. (2019), and aims at adapting the ES relevant resilience aspects (Appendix 2). The process followed a resilience principles to the urban realm. Assessment variables two-step approach. The first step included the screening of all 10 relating to the ES resilience principles spanned sociocultural and policies, with two objectives: (1) to translate the ES resilience biological diversity, urban morphology, planning approaches and principles into a context-relevant articulation that could inform normative context, consideration of external drivers (tourism, an understanding of “resilience of what and to what?”, and (2) climate change, housing, technological innovation, demographic to verify and assess the relevance and scope of the selected policies and political change), and inherent changes (human preferences relative to the ES resilience framework. Consistent with Geneletti and lifestyle) in the urban social-ecological system (Table 1). We and Zardo (2016) and Rozas-Vásquez et al. (2018), our policy translated qualitative judgments (high, medium, and low) Ecology and Society 26(4): 38 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art38/ regarding the level of incorporation of the ES resilience principles around ES flows, tackling the specific issues arising from the into each policy using a score from 1 (low incorporation) to 5 different scenarios. The policies and interventions proposed were (high incorporation) to facilitate the representation of the results. then clustered into different policy sectors together with the The connections between the variables and the seven ES resilience workshop participants, and proposed policy measures were principles are detailed in Appendix 1. further analyzed by the authors after the workshop. For each policy option proposed, the analysis identified which of the three Co-development of scenario narratives systemic filters (infrastructure, institutions, and perceptions; The development of scenario narratives as input to the expert Andersson et al. 2019) was primarily addressed, as well as which stakeholder workshop was done in close collaboration with the type of ES resilience principles were incorporated using the urban city’s Urban Resilience Department in spring 2019. Scenario ecosystem services resilience assessment matrix (Table 1). This narratives describe plausible futures affecting Barcelona’s social- process allowed us to assess whether the applied resilience ecological systems configuration (Palomo et al. 2011, Priess and thinking approach was reflected in the policy measures proposed. Hauck 2014). The co-development of scenario narratives served, Specific modalities of each workshop session are detailed in in particular, to identify and highlight critical external drivers of Appendix 4 and Appendix 5. change and inherent system changes with potential negative effects on resilient ES flow, such as mismatches of ES capacity RESULTS and demand (Villamagna et al. 2013, Baró et al. 2016). The following nine ES were deemed relevant for purposes of this study: Ecosystem services resilience in existing policies regulation of microclimate, runoff control, air purification, Based on the initial screening for the relevance of policies with carbon sequestration, noise reduction, social cohesion, physical regard to ES and resilience, six policies were considered highly recreation, mental well-being, and tourism recreation. This relevant to ES resilience thinking. Nevertheless, two planning selection of ES, which was adapted through discussions with the documents, the new Metropolitan Master Plan and the Urban Resilience Department, built on results from a preceding Superblock Programme, were not assessed using the developed workshop with local stakeholders that focused on the matrix. The new master plan was still under development and not prioritization of urban land uses for the local production of ES available at the time of the analysis. The Superblock Programme (Langemeyer et al. 2020). contains a series of diagnoses and guidelines for redesigning Barcelona neighborhoods and streets, developing action-oriented Participatory workshop guidelines that were not considered relevant for the study. Four The participatory workshop underlying this study took place in policies were analyzed in depth based on the urban ecosystem Barcelona on 6 June 2019 and involved 49 “expert stakeholders” services resilience assessment matrix: the Barcelona Green (including the organizers) from 27 different organizations, Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan 2020; the stimulus program including local nongovernmental organizations, private for the city’s urban green infrastructure; the Trees for Life: Master consultancies, small enterprises, different levels and departments Plan for Barcelona’s Trees 2017–2037; and the Climate Action of public administrations, and academia (Appendix 3). Following Plan 2030. The policy screening revealed a general recognition of a general introduction of the results of the policy analysis, GBI as a source of ES provision and as an important asset for participants were divided into four heterogeneous breakout Barcelona’s resilience strategy, particularly reflected in the city’s groups to work on two main exercises: simulation of shifting ES greening and climate policies. In line with previous studies capacity and demand, and development of policy options to build (Cortinovis and Geneletti 2018, de Luca et al. 2021), these urban resilience around ES. Each of the four groups was assigned to policies primarily refer to regulating and cultural ES. To some work with one specific scenario narrative, which situated the extent, the policies also incorporated the ES resilience principles, discussion on shifting ES capacity and demand. For each future which we assume will help to sustain ES in the future. Our analysis scenario, participants were asked to assess potential changes in considered the degree of integration and consideration of the ES. Changes were assessed based on either: higher or lower seven principles of ES resilience within four core policies (Fig. 2). number of users and relative awareness of benefits leading to We found the infrastructure filter, or the structural role of GBI increased or decreased pressure on urban GBI (indicating a shift in the city, was broadly addressed in terms of both the current in ES demand), or higher or lower availability of urban GBI state of GBI and future actions to improve the flow of ES leading to increased or decreased ES capacity. In the analysis of (principles 1 and 2). For instance, the Climate Action Plan 2030 the workshop outcomes, numerical values were assigned to sets the goal to increase urban green space by 1.6 km2 (equivalent determine whether the assessed demand for and capacity of the to an additional 1 m²/inhabitant), which corresponds to an single ES in a given scenario would: decrease substantially (−2), increase of 15% of the city’s urban green areas by 2030, an decrease moderately (−1), stay unchanged (0), increase ambitious objective in a compact city such as Barcelona. moderately (+1) or increase substantially (+2). In presenting the results, we use average values, but we acknowledge that Biological diversity and redundancy (principles 1 and 4) are considering the variability in responses may allow detection of a specifically accounted for in terms of biodiversity preservation in lack of consensus over changes in capacity and demand of ES the Barcelona Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan 2020, and may be useful as an indicator of uncertainty (Langemeyer et in the stimulus program for the city’s urban green infrastructure, al. 2018). and in the Trees for Life Master Plan. However, structural and socioeconomic diversity of the urban area are not addressed, Based on the results of the ES capacity and demand assessment except for in the Climate Action Plan 2030, which considers some in the different scenarios, participants were asked to propose socioeconomic issues along with demographic variables tailored and adapted policy interventions to build resilience (principles 1 and 4). These issues include inherent changes such Ecology and Society 26(4): 38 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art38/ Fig. 2. Results from the policy analysis using the urban ecosystem services resilience matrix. The integration of the ecosystem services (ES) resilience principles (P1 to P7) into each green infrastructure policy ranges from 1 (low incorporation) to 5 (high incorporation). SES = social- ecological system; CAS = complex adaptive system as possible increases in population, migration, and external of the policy analysis constituted the entry points for triggering drivers such as the effects of climate change on vulnerable participants’ thoughts on possible disturbances and changes in neighborhoods and populations. The Climate Action Plan 2030 capacity and demand sides of critical ES in the future during the also refers to other relevant policies and plans, clearly showing stakeholder workshop. It is worth highlighting that the four links, connections, synergies, and opportunities with other policy scenarios were defined in spring 2019 before the global COVID-19 sectors, acknowledging institutional flexibility and a systemic pandemic and the ensuing tourism crisis. approach (principles 3, 4, and 5). None of the other three plans account for possible shifts in future ES demands, thus neglecting Future ecosystem services capacity–demand gaps and potential the perceptions filter, at least in the face of systemic changes policy responses (principles 3 and 4). Furthermore, the policy analysis indicated Shifting ecosystem services capacity and demand an explicit but one-dimensional focus on adaptation to climate During the participatory workshop, stakeholders were asked to change and general lack of attention to the management of other assess and discuss the changes in capacity and demand for each disturbances and drivers of change (e.g., climate, demographic, ES to explore the potential gap between the growing demand for economic, political, technological innovation, human preferences and recessing capacity of given ES (Fig. 3). Across the four and perceptions, tourism, housing, and land-use planning; breakout groups working on the different scenarios, participants principles 3 and 4). Greening strategies did recognize major generally assessed that the ES demand will remain stable or disturbances caused by plagues and climate-related events, but increase, whereas the capacity of ES will remain unchanged or did not consider other possible changes and disturbances decrease. The discussions centered around ES that were deemed (principles 3 and 4), such as those related to growing and shifting critical for urban sustainability and citizen’s well-being, including ES demands or capacities. regulating ES such as microclimate regulation, air pollution, and Scenarios of change affecting ecosystem services resilience runoff control (Larondelle et al. 2014), and cultural ES such as After several iterations with the Urban Resilience Department, mental well-being, physical recreation, and social cohesion four scenarios were proposed as the most relevant drivers of (Andersson et al. 2015). The workshop revealed that mental well- change to Barcelona’s resilient ES flow: an aging and shrinking being is the ES most susceptible to future changes, indicated by population, enhanced tourism, gender inequalities, and global the capacity–demand gap (Fig. 3), followed by microclimate warming (Table 2, Appendix 6). The four scenarios and the results regulation, social cohesion, air purification, physical recreation, and runoff control and soil permeability. In contrast, noise Ecology and Society 26(4): 38 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art38/ Table 2. Four scenario narratives co-developed with the Urban Resilience Department. Each scenario is centered around a single narrative that represents a major challenge for urban sustainability. Scenario #1 Aging and shrinking population Scenario #2 Enhanced tourism There is an outmigration of the young population and ageing of the resident Mass tourism is a source of wealth but also of complex challenges. The population. The pressures on health, mobility, housing, job availability, and pressures on housing, services, and urban space availability as well as on the social services have increased substantially. The resulting effects are urban environment have substantially increased. The effects include rising depression and loneliness in elderly people, a lack of opportunities to engage prices, increase in illegal activities, overcrowded and degraded open spaces, (socially and economically), and in public health and well-being. The city and changing attitudes of residents living in affected central neighborhoods. lacks accessible open green spaces which have the capacity to provide Affected residents are deprived of available green spaces and beaches for manifold social and environmental benefits. recreation. Several local movements have emerged and taken action. Scenario #3 Gender inequalities Scenario #4 Global warming An increasing number of women are reporting negative experiences from Climate change has intensified and is affecting the city and its residents. their visits to open spaces, also due to misperception and disinformation. Increase in the number of torrid days, droughts, fires, rain-shortages, and Public spaces are dominantly used by men due to changes in users’ water scarcity presents an immense challenge for the future of the city. Some perceptions. Equal access to green and open public spaces is questioned. residents are affected more than others, particularly vulnerable groups such Women’s access to green spaces is limited, as they perceive them to be as the elderly, children, and pregnant woman. Similarly, heavily built up unsafe. The female population is deprived of benefits related to urban areas are affected the most. An increased importance of friendly and nature. climate-resilient open spaces is highlighted. reduction, tourism recreation, and carbon sequestration were measures that would improve access to GBI for city inhabitants estimated to remain relatively stable in terms of their capacity and through a more inclusive and participatory design that would demand. Carbon sequestration was considered to be the least mitigate pressure on GBI, primarily through limiting the number important ES provided by urban GBI. Tourism recreation had of visitors, especially tourists. We summarized the linkages the smallest gap between capacity and demand. However, between the identified policy clusters, the three filters, the ES participants agreed that mass tourism and the related demands resilience principles, and the capacity and demand of cultural ES for tourism recreation generated by GBI will affect the availability and regulating ES (Fig. 4). of and accessibility to green spaces. In turn, this situation would Most of the greening measures proposed in the workshop negatively affect the provision of other GBI-related benefits, included direct interventions in the current GBI and built including mental and physical recreation and social cohesion, all infrastructure of the city, such as expanding GBI and further of which are derived from GBI through direct nature experiences integrating green and grey infrastructures, and improving the (Bratman et al. 2019) and which appear to be more vulnerable to quality of GBI by making it more socially and ecologically changes. Given the complexity of the resilience thinking exercise, interconnected. It was suggested that greening and climate consensus was difficult to reach in some cases, especially for measures promote diversity and redundancy and increase the assessing ES capacity. For instance, the group addressing the extent of GBI (Fig. 4). Suggested actions ranged from creating global warming scenario had diverging views on changes in new green areas, increasing vegetation and biodiversity, capacity of regulatory services and gained consensus on “no developing sustainable urban drainage systems and permeable changes” only after assuming that the current policies in place, surfaces, and improving nodes and connectivity among different including the Climate Action Plan, Green Infrastructure and green areas. The measures suggested for mobility primarily Biodiversity Plan, and Tree Master Plan, will improve ES capacity. focused on enhancing connectivity (principle 2) by means of The group addressing the gender equality scenario did not arrive redesigning sustainable and slow mobility to leave space for green at a consensus over changes in capacity of social cohesion, mental areas, and improved integration of GBI and grey infrastructure. well-being, and related relational benefits and recreational Also discussed was the importance of rethinking the role of the opportunities. Some participants were of the opinion that ES airport in the city, and limiting its further expansion. capacity will increase simply because women are excluded from daily use of the public space, whereas others opposed this idea. Many of the policy interventions that were discussed target GBI For the enhanced tourism scenario, some participants suggested through processes of maintenance and management rather than that the ES capacity of recreational opportunities, tourism, and addressing GBI directly. Examples included involving citizens in economic benefits will increase only in core urban areas because urban transformation processes and projects to boost community of new developments and emerging economic opportunities, care and maintenance of the GBI, as well as promoting relational whereas ES capacity will decrease in the city’s outskirts. and well-being aspects such as managing urban gardens. Urban planning is one of the guiding instruments at the core of Adaptive policies to maintain ecosystem services potential institutions (Andersson et al. 2019), and many measures proposed To match an overall increased demand and uncertain capacity of refer to land-use rights, actor roles and responsibilities, and the ES, the policy measures proposed by participants can be different ways people can be involved in changing how land is summarized in two larger clusters. The first proposed policy planned for and used. Measures related to institutions and measure was to include measures aimed at increasing and governance processes covered a range of options, such as a sustaining current GBI and the related capacity to generate proposal to include technological innovations and greening regulating ES and cultural ES over time. The second was to include Ecology and Society 26(4): 38 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art38/ Fig. 3. Assessment of the ecosystem services (ES) capacity and demand gaps in the four scenarios (S1 to S4). The darker shading indicates a decreasing trend in ES capacity (–1 = moderate decrease; –2 = substantial decrease), whereas the lighter shading indicates increasing demand for ES (+1 = moderate increase; +2 = substantial increase). The colored bars are averaged values from the ES assessment exercise, which highlight the majority of the respondents’ opinions when consensus was not reached. Values equal to zero correspond to no changes in the ES capacity and demand assessment. criteria as a requirement in building codes, mostly acting on improved accessibility (principles 1 and 6), and more inclusive co- regulating and cultural ES capacity (principles 1 and 2), but also design, co-management, and co-maintenance (principles 4, 5, 6, increasing accessibility and inclusivity of existing green areas, and 7). Feelings of insecurity and the unjust distribution of including the security of those spaces (i.e., addressing cultural ES cultural ES benefits among different citizens groups were at the demand). A number of measures addressed the need to manage core of this discussion, which aligns with Maruthaveeran and van tourist flows so as to not overcrowd urban green areas, and to den Bosch (2014). Education (learning) and awareness-raising limit cultural ES demand in specific places in the city and its measures (principle 5) were mentioned as critical for involving surrounding areas. Proposals addressing tourism included different target groups (elderly, children, women, students) and financial adjustments and suggestions to redirect tourism taxes mostly refer to environmental education activities. to protection, maintenance, and improvement of green areas. Other proposals touched on greening, health, and including DISCUSSION access to green areas in the annual health report as potential Advancing multifaceted urban ecosystem resilience assessments benefits for the human health of the city and managing slow The value of applying the urban ecosystem services resilience variables and feedback (principle 3). assessment matrix lies in the translation of theory into an Another suggestion for the scenarios was to include the elderly analytical and operational framework for which we can assess and women in community initiatives for improving and urban policies, embracing the complexity of cities as adaptive maintaining local GBI (principles 1 and 6). Workshop social-ecological systems while helping to make them manageable participants also proposed measures for strengthening (Table 1). Recognizing and connecting relevant system participation of vulnerable groups in GBI co-design, which would components is critical for building resilience (Biggs et al. 2012), reframe both the physical space and how the urban environment and problem framing may serve as an indication of what solutions is perceived (principle 6). Participants addressed perceptions in are being sought (e.g., Dennis and Brondizio 2020). For instance, several other measures, which differed slightly from the respective applying the urban ecosystem services resilience assessment scenarios. For example, urban farming was mainly addressed in matrix to the sustainability policies of the city of Barcelona the aging scenario and was recognized as a main factor enabling revealed a sophisticated incorporation of principles 1 and 2 GBI benefits for the elderly, which confirms findings by Camps- mainly related to physical connectivity and consideration of Calvet et al. (2016). In contrast, the gender inequalities scenario biological diversity. Incorporating these principles would enhance generated more attention to security (principles 1 and 6), the condition, accessibility, and connectivity of the urban GBI, Ecology and Society 26(4): 38 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art38/ Fig. 4. Linkages between the identified policy clusters, the three filters (Andersson et al. 2019), the ecosystem services (ES) resilience principles (P1 to P7; Biggs et al. 2012), and the capacity and demand of cultural ES (CES) and regulating ES (RES). The thicker lines represent stronger relationships and provide insights into the enabling effects of diverse policy options on ES resilient capacity and demand. SES = social-ecological system; CAS = complex adaptive system connecting biological diversity and also partly including the social Fostering resilience thinking: to what, of what, for whom? and structural diversity of the urban GBI. Principles 6 and 7 are Departing from the gaps identified in the policy assessment, and well embedded in current policies, indicating the city’s growing to elicit answers around our three main research questions interest in actively engaging its citizens and stakeholders in (“resilience of what, to what, and for whom?”), the workshop decision making processes and defining responsibilities, tools, and participants were tasked with co-developing four future scenarios. collaboration methods. Further, we found that scientific and The scenario exercise is at the interface of science and policy and technical knowledge of urban ES and GBI (principle 5) is well in itself is a step to furthering resilience thinking (Pereira et al. integrated into all of the policies, providing an entry point for 2019). After familiarizing themselves with the different future science-driven approaches for addressing the existing gaps. scenarios (“resilience to what?”), participants generally found it Despite progressive incorporation of several crucial principles, easiest to start with evaluating ES demands. Demand for cultural other crucial aspects of urban diversity, such as social and ES (i.e., citizen’s needs) was assigned the highest importance and structural diversity, are not properly addressed in the policies we was the focus of most discussions, which is in line with the assessed. Furthermore, none of the policies we analyzed had a majority of urban ES studies that focus on (changing) ES capacity clearly defined approach for identifying emergent signals, (Haase et al. 2014). Perceptions from a diversity of beneficiaries disturbances, or unforeseen changes, nor for potential respective were explored (i.e., elderly, residents and tourists, and women) as responses (principles 3 and 4) Our study confirms observations well as potential changes in ES demand from vulnerable groups. by McPhearson et al. (2015) that urban ES are particularly valued Equal access and inclusively designed green spaces are considered in the context of climate adaptation, improved citizens’ health crucial to address shifting ES demand in the future (e.g., Ode Sang and well-being, and as means for enhancing the city’s resilience et al. 2016, Fumagalli et al. 2020), not least to foster civic (resilience through urban ES). However, the resilience of urban stewardship (Langemeyer et al. 2018, Andersson et al. 2019). ES (“resilience of what?”) under changing conditions (“resilience Shifting ES demands and beneficiaries’ perceptions were not to what?”), and possible changing demand (“resilience for prominent in the analyzed policies, suggesting that the co- whom?”) (i.e., possible variables, disturbances, slow feedback, and development of the scenario on aging, gender, and tourism changes) have yet to be adequately considered. Although the strongly supported resilience thinking toward this point policies consider the potential effects of climate change on current (“resilience for whom?”). Although participants were instructed GBI, application of the urban ecosystem services resilience to work with a single scenario, they tended to consider different assessment matrix can support a multilayered resilience drivers, particularly mass tourism in conjunction with global assessment to tackle vulnerabilities to multiple external (e.g., warming. This tendency indicates the potential of stakeholder pandemic, technological innovation) and inherent (e.g., workshops for examining difficult problems of complex demographic, lifestyle changes, housing, and socioeconomic) interacting external and inherent changes in relation to multiple drivers of change. ES demands, which can be difficult to capture through other approaches (e.g., computational modeling; Pereira et al. 2019, Scolozzi et al. 2019). Further, on the perception filter, the use of Ecology and Society 26(4): 38 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art38/ the scenario narratives helped participants to understand the et al. 2020). This conclusion points to the role of collaboration in potential changing needs of different groups of GBI users, and fostering a cross-sector understanding of urban areas as complex subsequently provided an improved understanding of current and social-ecological and adaptive systems, through enhanced cross- future demand for ES. Scenario narratives supported not only scale approaches (principles 4 and 5). Thus, the role of institutions stakeholders’ understanding of the consequences of possible in enabling the flow of GBI benefits is not limited to urban development paths (“resilience of what and to what?”; planning, land-use policies, and building rights, but extends to Nakicenovic and Zimm 2017), but also contributed to developing other actors and policy sectors that become co-responsible an inclusive vision for future sustainability (“resilience for enablers or inhibitors of GBI benefits in the city. In recognizing whom?”) and to proposing concrete policy adaptations for these linkages and using them to track performance over time, achieving sustainability (Palomo et al. 2011). the policy measures and adaptations developed to enhance GBI and ES offer more concrete opportunities to increase the Transdisciplinary co-creation toward adaptive sustainability sustainability of the urban system as a whole, pointing toward policies sustainable and resilient trajectories (Elmqvist et al. 2019). The adaptive policy measures suggested during the workshop for Looking at beneficiaries’ perceptions, and taking into account tackling future ES capacity–demand mismatches embrace an that GBI benefits are co-produced and that potential for realizing understanding of the interconnected character of grey and green ES benefits is closely interrelated and shaped by the cultural and infrastructure in the city. The GBI and their different ecological institutional context (Andersson et al. 2019), would improve the qualities provide the first necessary precondition for ES understanding of urban ES flow and benefits in the face of (Andersson et al. 2019), including their maintenance and diverging ES demands and perceptions (see Riechers et al. 2016). resilience over time. These strategies can be understood as This includes the proposal to develop mechanisms that support promoting both the diversity of GBI (principle 1) and its value creation and recognition of, for example, public land and connectivity (principle 2), which are two central aspects of ES the capacity of ES (principle 4). resilience. Interestingly, several policy suggestions addressed transport and mobility, thus parts of the grey infrastructure, a Greater consideration of ES in other policy fields is needed and sector that strongly affects the availability, or lack of, GBI benefits demanded. Applying the urban ecosystem services resilience (Biernacka and Kronenberg 2019). In addition to making the assessment matrix to analyze the effects of policies from other structure of the GBI more resilient, the effects of human activity sectors (e.g., housing, transport, health) to the urban GBI could and the modification of urban ecosystems depend on good also be explored in this light. The proposed scenarios also management and long-term governance to maintain or, in many triggered reflections on uncertainty in planning while eliciting cases, strengthen their ecological qualities. Interestingly, Amorim debate, and not always consensus, with regard to future ES Maia et al. (2020) found in a recent study from Barcelona that resilience. This uncertainty warrants consideration of alternative aesthetically less-pleasing green spaces (those lacking and flexible approaches (principle 4; Walker et al. 2001) based on monuments, fountains, with low quality of common GBI constant monitoring, evaluation, and revision, that are not fully indicators) could lend to improved inclusivity and foster social addressed in current policies, but which were raised during the inclusion, while mitigating social segregation. When asked to workshop (e.g., inclusion of green indicators into the annual develop policy adaptations based on the identified shifts in ES health report). capacity and demands, participants typically developed measures that touched on policy sectors such as mobility, tourism, and CONCLUSION health. Our study provides a tiered, transdisciplinary approach for engaging urban policy-making to foster adaptive resilience of and Although it is widely recognized that urban planning decisions in through urban ES. The approach consisted of assessing the city’s sectors such as land use (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2017, Li et al. 2020), baseline and trajectory for GBI and ES policy, developing possible transport and mobility (Ghent 2018), and tourism (Taff et al. future scenarios, and co-developing pathways to enhance 2019) have a strong effect on ES capacity over time, the workshop adaptive capacities for urban policies. Application of the urban results suggested that these changes also influence demand for ecosystem services resilience assessment matrix for tailoring the ES. For instance, limiting air and port (cruise ships) traffic would ES resilience principles (Biggs et al. 2012) and integrating the three lower the demand for cultural ES, and thus, the pressure on the filters approach (Andersson et al. 2019) produced valuable results current GBI; further, it would reduce air pollution and greenhouse in the case study application, indicate that specific dimensions of gas emissions, thus reducing the need for urban GBI to provide ES capacity and demand are especially vulnerable to change, these regulatory ES. including microclimate regulation, water balances, mental well- Furthermore, although the impacts of ES on human health and being, and social cohesion. well-being are at the center of many studies, suggested measures The study revealed for the city of Barcelona an explicit need for also include improved long-term observation and monitoring of fostering systemic, iterative resilience thinking and for health benefits and the capacity of GBI to fulfill this need. The considering multilayered processes of change and varied feedback discussion elicited from the scenarios clearly showed that, on the loops. Analysis of current policies and plans revealed the city’s institutional side, an integration beyond urban greening and current trajectory, with regard to sustainability goals, and planning is needed, including health, tourism, transport and highlighted the objectives for action that are needed to support a mobility, and education and awareness. These sectors need to be timely and sustainable urban transformation (Elmqvist et al. connected to decision-making about land use and quality of life 2019). Overall, this research further elucidates the need for (Webster 2007, Bendt et al. 2013, Colding and Barthel 2013, Tozer strengthening awareness and advancing learning among key Ecology and Society 26(4): 38 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art38/ urban stakeholders and planners regarding urban social- Acknowledgments: ecological systems as complex adaptive systems. While a shared knowledge base strongly supported the stakeholder engagement We would like to thank Ares Gabas Masip, Maria Gómez Llabrés process, given the participants’ previous awareness and and their team at the Barcelona's Urban Resilience Department, understanding of the topic n considering the diversity of Myroslava Savisko for supporting the policy analysis, as well as experience and background of workshop participants, involving Filka Sekulova, Luis Campos, Katriona McGlade and Andoni stakeholders from other policy fields and experts in sectors other Gonzales Gomez for supporting the workshop moderation. This than sustainability and resilience with diverse knowledge on GBI research was funded through the 2015-2016 BiodivERsA COFUND and ES topics would be beneficial for further exploring, call for research proposals, by the national funders: the Swedish investigating, and enhancing the role of institutional Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences, and collaboration while also fostering an understanding of urban Spatial Planning, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, areas as complex social-ecological and adaptive systems (principle the German Aeronautics and Space Research Centre, the National 4). Science Centre (Poland) (grant no. 2016/22/Z/NZ8/00003), the Research Council of Norway, and the Spanish Ministry of Economy The process and application of theory to practice highlights the and Competitiveness. It also received funding through the EU's need for adaptive policies to focus not only on reshaping Horizon 2020 framework program for research and innovation infrastructures, but to address institutions and perceptions, to be (project NATURVATION, grant agreement ID: 730243). JL proactive in anticipating future needs and perceptions, and to acknowledges additional funding from the European Research develop new modes of decision making, co-creation, and co- Council (ERC Consolidator Grant: 818002-URBAG). FB's management of GBI. Based on adapting and applying the seven contributions were also supported by the European Research principles of resilience to the urban realm and connecting them Council (project GREENLULUs; grant agreement ID: 678034). with the three filters, we argue that adaptive policies (as an CdL acknowledges additional funding from the Marco Polo institutional tool) should shape current infrastructures with the scholarship supporting her visiting semester at ICTA-UAB. This aims of speaking to and reframing the perceptions of research also contributes to the "María de Maeztu" Programme for beneficiaries, while also acting preventively to anticipate future Units of Excellence of the Spanish Ministry of Science and needs and perceptions. The use of the urban ecosystem services Innovation (CEX2019-000940-M) at ICTA-UAB. resilience assessment matrix in policy-making and planning, together with a participatory approach using scenario narratives, can function as a lens for understanding the city’s trajectory with Data Availability: regard to sustainability and resilience, identifying leverage points The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in current policies for unlocking the flows of ES from nature to from Appendices 1 to 6 of the same study. More information can humans (“resilience of what”), dealing with uncertainties be available on request from the corresponding author. (“resilience to what”), and ensuring inclusivity (“resilience for whom”). LITERATURE CITED Ahern, J., S. Cilliers, and J. Niemelä. 2014. The concept of Responses to this article can be read online at: ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: a https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses. framework for supporting innovation. Landscape and Urban php/12535 Planning 125:254-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.020 Ajuntament de Barcelona. 2017. Trees for life : Master Plan for Author Contributions: Barcelona’s Trees 2017–2037. Àrea d’Ecologia Urbanisme i Mobilitat, Ajuntament de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. https:// Claudia de Luca developed the methods and performed the analysis bcnroc.ajuntament.barcelona.cat/jspui/handle/11703/102492 presented in this work. She contributed to the development and the organization of the workshop and supported the development of the Ajuntament de Barcelona. 2014. Barcelona Green Infrastructure conceptual framework. She was responsible to draft and coordinate and Biodiversity Plan 2020. Direcció d‘Espais Verds i the writing work around the research paper. Johannes Langemeyer Biodiversitat, Àrea d’Hàbitat, Ajuntament de Barcelona, coordinated the whole process. He coordinated the development and Barcelona, Spain. https://hdl.handle.net/11703/85101 organization of the workshop and the development of the conceptual Ajuntament de Barcelona. 2018a. Climate Action Plan 2018– framework. He edited and contributed to the writing of the paper. 2030. Tinencia d‘Alcaldia d‘Ecologia, Urbanisme i Mobilitat, Simeon Vano contributed to the development and organization of Àrea d‘Ecologia, Gerència d‘Ecologia Urbana, Adjuntament de the workshop. He also contributed to draft the methods and results Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. http://hdl.handle.net/11703/109218 sections. Francesc Baró coordinated the development and organization of the workshop. He edited and reviewed the paper. Ajuntament de Barcelona. 2018b. Barcelona: building a resilient Erik Andersson supported the development of the conceptual city. Ecologia Urbana,Gerència Adjunta de Mobilitati framework. He edited and reviewed the paper. Infrastructures, Department de Reiliencia Urbana, Ajuntament de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. [online] URL: http://ajuntament. barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/sites/default/files/ModelResilienc­ iaBarcelona.pdf Ecology and Society 26(4): 38 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art38/ Amorim Maia, A. T., F. Calcagni, J. J. T. Connolly, I. Anguelovski, Bratman, G. N., C. B. Anderson, M. G. Berman, B. Cochran, S. and J. Langemeyer. 2020. Hidden drivers of social injustice: de Vries, J. Flanders, C. Folke, H. Frumkin, J. J. Gross, T. Hartig, uncovering unequal cultural ecosystem services behind green P. H. Kahn Jr., M. Kuo, J. J. Lawler, P. S. Levin, T. Lindahl, A. gentrification. Environmental Science and Policy 112:254-263. Meyer-Lindenberg, R. Mitchell, Z. Ouyang, J. Roe, L. Scarlett, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.021 J. R. Smith, M. van den Bosch, B. W. Wheeler, M. P. White, H. Zheng, and G. C. Daily. 2019. Nature and mental health: an Andersson, E., J. Langemeyer, S. Borgström, T. McPhearson, D. ecosystem service perspective. Science Advances 5(7). https://doi. Haase, J. Kronenberg, D. N. Barton, M. Davis, S. Naumann, L. org/10.1126/sciadv.aax0903 Röschel, and F. Baró. 2019. Enabling green and blue infrastructure to improve contributions to human well-being and Camps-Calvet, M., J. Langemeyer, L. Calvet-Mir, and E. Gómez- equity in urban systems. BioScience 69(7):566-574. https://doi. Baggethun. 2016. Ecosystem services provided by urban gardens org/10.1093/biosci/biz058 in Barcelona, Spain: insights for policy and planning. Environmental Science and Policy 62:14-23. https://doi. Andersson, E., M. Tengö, T. McPhearson, and P. Kremer. 2015. org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.007 Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability. Ecosystem Services 12:165-168. https://doi. Colding, J., and S. Barthel. 2013. The potential of ‘urban green org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.002 commons’ in the resilience building of cities. Ecological Economics 86:156-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.10.016 Barnaud, C., E. Corbera, R. Muradian, N. Salliou, C. Sirami, A. Vialatte, J.-P. Choisis, N. Dendoncker, R. Mathevet, C. Moreau, Cortinovis, C., and D. Geneletti. 2018. Ecosystem services in V. Reyes-García, M. Boada, M. Deconchat, C. Cibien, S. Garnier, urban plans: what is there, and what is still needed for better R. Maneja, and M. Antona. 2018. Ecosystem services, social decisions. Land Use Policy 70:298-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. interdependencies, and collective action: a conceptual landusepol.2017.10.017 framework. Ecology and Society 23(1):15. https://doi. org/10.5751/ES-09848-230115 Dennis, E. M., and E., Brondizio. 2020. Problem framing influences linkages among networks of collective action Baró, F., A. Calderón-Argelich, J. Langemeyer, and J. J. T. situations for water provision, wastewater, and water conservation Connolly. 2019. Under one canopy? Assessing the distributional in a metropolitan region. International Journal of the Commons environmental justice implications of street tree benefits in 14(1):313-328. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.974 Barcelona. Environmental Science and Policy 102:54-64. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.016 de Luca C., J. Martin, and S. Tondelli. 2021. Ecosystem services integration into local policies and strategies in the city of Bologna: Baró, F., I. Palomo, G. Zulian, P. Vizcaino, D. Haase, and E. analysis of the state of the art and recommendations for future Gómez-Baggethun. 2016. Mapping ecosystem service capacity, development. Pages 127-139 in A. Arcidiacono and S. Ronchi, flow and demand for landscape and urban planning: a case study editors. Ecosystem services and green infrastructure: perspectives in the Barcelona metropolitan region. Land Use Policy from spatial planning in Italy. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. 57:405-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.006 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54345-7_10 Bendt, P., S. Barthel, and J. Colding. 2013. Civic greening and Eagles, P. F. J. 2014. Research priorities in park tourism. Journal environmental learning in public-access community gardens in of Sustainable Tourism 22(4):528-549. https://doi. Berlin. Landscape and Urban Planning 109(1):18-30. https://doi. org/10.1080/09669582.2013.785554 org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.003 Elmqvist, T., E. Andersson, N. Frantzeskaki, T. McPhearson, P. Biernacka, M., and J. Kronenberg. 2018. Classification of Olsson, O. Gaffney, K. Takeuchi, and C. Folke. 2019. institutional barriers affecting the availability, accessibility and Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban attractiveness of urban green spaces. Urban Forestry and Urban century. Nature Sustainability 2(4):267-273. https://doi. Greening 36(December):22-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.09.007 org/10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1 Biernacka, M., and J. Kronenberg. 2019. Urban green space Elmqvist, T. 2017. Development: sustainability and resilience availability, accessibility and attractiveness, and the delivery of differ. Nature 546:352. https://doi.org/10.1038/546352d ecosystem services. Cities and the Environment 12(1). [online] Ernstson, H. 2013. The social production of ecosystem services: URL: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol12/iss1/5/ a framework for studying environmental justice and ecological Biggs, R., M. Schlüter, D. Biggs, E. L. Bohensky, S. B. BurnSilver, complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape and Urban G. Cundill, V. Dakos, T.M. Daw, L.S. Evans, K. Kotschy, A.M. Planning 109(1):7-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.005 Leitch, C. Meek, A. Quinlan, C. Raudsepp-Hearne, M.D. Robards, M.L. Schoon, L. Schultz, and P.C. West. 2012. Toward Fumagalli, N., E. Fermani, G. Senes, M. Boffi, L. Pola, and P. principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Inghilleri. 2020. Sustainable co-design with older people: the case Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37:421-448. of a public restorative garden in Milan (Italy). Sustainability 12 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836 (8):3166. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083166 Borgström, S., Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, and B. Crona. 2015. Gascon, M., M. Triguero-Mas, D. Martínez, P. Dadvand, J. Forns, Developing an analytical framework for assessing progress A. Plasència, and M. J. Nieuwenhuijsen. 2015. Mental health toward ecosystem-based management. Ambio 44:357-369. benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0655-7 Ecology and Society 26(4): 38 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art38/ spaces: a systematic review. International Journal of ecological conservation area, Beijing, China. Forests 11(5):584. Environmental Research and Public Health 12(4):4354-4379. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11050584 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120404354 Maruthaveeran, S., and C. C. K. van den Bosch. 2014. A socio- Geneletti, D., and L. Zardo. 2016. Ecosystem-based adaptation ecological exploration of fear of crime in urban green spaces – a in cities: an analysis of European urban climate adaptation plans. systematic review. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 13 Land Use Policy 50:38-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.003 (1):1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.11.006 McPhearson, T., E. Andersson, T. Elmqvist, and N. Frantzeskaki. Ghent, C. 2018. Mitigating the effects of transport infrastructure 2015. Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. development on ecosystems. Consilience: The Journal of Ecosystem Services 12:152-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Sustainable Development 18(1):58-68. https://doi.org/10.7916/ ecoser.2014.07.012 consilience.v0i19.3892 McPhearson, T., S. T. A. Pickett, N. B. Grimm, J. Niemelä, M. Gómez-Baggethun, E., and D. N. Barton. 2013. Classifying and Alberti, T. Elmqvist, C. Weber, D. Haase, J. Breuste, and S. valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Qureshi. 2016. Advancing urban rcology toward a science of Economics 86:235-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019 cities. BioScience 66(3):198-212. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/ biw002 Grêt-Regamey, A., E. Sirén, S. H. Brunner, and B. Weibel. 2017. Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem Meerow, S., J. P. Newell, M. Mendizabal, O. Heidrich, E. Feliu, services concept. Ecosystem Services 26(Part B): 306-315. https:// G. García-Blanco, A. Mendizabal, S. T. A. Pickett, M. L. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.012 Cadenasso, J. M. Grove, B. McGrath, M. L. Cadenasso, A. J. Felson, Å. Jansson, P. Romero-Lankao, D. M. Gnatz, O. Güneralp, B., Y. Zhou, D. Ürge-Vorsatz, M. Gupta, S. Yu, P. L. Wilhelmi, and M. Hayden. 2004. Reaching for a sustainable, Patel, M. Fragkias, X. Li, and K. C. Seto. 2017. Global scenarios resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services. of urban density and its impacts on building energy use through Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 86(2):410-418. 2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (34):8945-8950. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606035114 Meerow, S., J. P. Newell, and M. Stults. 2016. Defining urban resilience: a review. Landscape and Urban Planning 147:38-49. Haase, D., N. Larondelle, E. Andersson, M. Artmann, S. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011 Borgström, J. Breuste, E. Gomez-Baggethun, Å. Gren, Z. Hamstead, R. Hansen, N. Kabisch, P. Kremer, J. Langemeyer, E. Moore, M. L., P. Olsson, W. Nilsson, L. Rose, and F.R. Westley. L. Rall, T. McPhearson, S. Pauleit, S. Qureshi, N. Schwarz, A. 2018. Navigating emergence and system reflexivity as key Voigt, D. Wurster, and T. Elmqvist. 2014. A quantitative review transformative capacities. Ecology and Society 23(2). https://doi. of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and org/10.5751/ES-10166-230238 implementation. Ambio 43(4):413-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Moser, S., S. Meerow, J. Arnott, and E. Jack-Scott. 2019. The s13280-014-0504-0 turbulent world of resilience: interpretations and themes for Laarman, J. G., and H. M. Gregersen. 1996. Pricing policy in transdisciplinary dialogue. Climatic Change 153:21-40. https:// nature-based tourism. Tourism Management 17(4):247-254. doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2358-0 https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(96)00016-7 Nakicenovic, N., and C. Zimm. 2017. Back to the future: the role Langemeyer, J., and J. J. T. Connolly. 2020. Weaving notions of of quantitative scenarios and narratives in understanding justice into urban ecosystem services research and practice. transformation to sustainability. Pages 23-34 in N. Dalhaus and Environmental Science and Policy 109:1-14. https://doi. D. Weißkopf, editors. Future scenarios of global cooperation — org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.021 practices and challenges. Käte Hamburger Kolleg/Centre for Global Cooperation Research. Duisburg, Germany. https://doi. Langemeyer, J., I. Palomo, S. Baraibar, and E. Gómez-Baggethun. org/10.14282/2198-0403-GD-14 2018. Participatory multi-criteria decision aid: operationalizing an integrated assessment of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Nelson, G. C., E. Bennett, A. A. Berhe, K. G. Cassman, R. Defries, Services 30(PartA):49-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.012 T. Dietz, A. Dobson, A. Dobermann, A. Janetos, M. Levy, D. Marco, N. Nakicenovic, B. O’Neill, R. Norgaard, G. Petschel- Langemeyer, J., D. Wedgwood, T. McPhearson, F. Baró, A. L. Held, D. Ojima, P. Pingali, R. Watson, and M. Zurek. 2005. Madsen, and D. N. Barton. 2020. Creating urban green Drivers of change in ecosystem condition and services. Pages infrastructure where it is needed – a spatial ecosystem service- 173-214 in S.R. Carpenter, P.L. Pingali, E.M. Bennett, and M.B. based decision analysis of green roofs in Barcelona. Science of Zurek, editors. Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios, the Total Environment 707:135487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. volume 2. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, D.C., scitotenv.2019.135487 USA. [online] URL: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/ documents/document.331.aspx.pdf Larondelle, N., D. Haase, and N. Kabisch. 2014. Mapping the diversity of regulating ecosystem services in European cities. Nykvist, B., S. Borgström, and E. Boyd. 2017. Assessing the Global Environmental Change 26:119-129. https://doi. adaptive capacity of multi-level water governance: ecosystem org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.008 services under climate change in Mälardalen region, Sweden. Regional Environmental Change 17(8):2359-2371. https://doi. Li, Z., X., Cheng and H. Han. 2020. Future impacts of land use org/10.1007/s10113-017-1149-x change on ecosystem services under different scenarios in the Ecology and Society 26(4): 38 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art38/ Ode Sang, Å., I. Knez, B. Gunnarsson, and M. Hedblom. 2016. Parnell, P. Romero-Lankao, D. Simon, and M. Watkins, editors. The effects of naturalness, gender, and age on how urban green 2018. The urban planet—knowledge towards sustainble cities. space is perceived and used. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi. 18:268-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.06.008 org/10.1017/9781316647554 Palomo, I., B. Martín-López, C. López-Santiago, and C. Montes. Taff, B. D., J. Benfield, Z. D. Miller, A. D’antonio, and F. 2011. Participatory scenario planning for protected areas Schwartz. 2019. The role of tourism impacts on cultural management under the ecosystem services framework: the ecosystem services. Environments - MDPI 6(4):1-12. https://doi. Doñana social-ecological system in southwestern Spain. Ecology org/10.3390/environments6040043 and Society 16(1):23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03862-160123 Tozer, L., K. Hörschelmann, I. Anguelovski, H. Bulkeley, and Y. Pereira, L., N. Sitas, F. Ravera, A. Jimenez-Aceituno, and A. Lazova. 2020. Whose city? whose nature? towards inclusive Merrie. 2019. Building capacities for transformative change nature-based solution governance. Cities 107:102892. https://doi. towards sustainability: imagination in intergovernmental science- org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102892 policy scenario processes. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 7:35. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.374 Population Division. 2019. World urbanization prospects: the Priess, J. A., and J. Hauck. 2014. Integrative scenario 2018 revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/420). United Nations, New York, development. Ecology and Society 19(1):12. https://doi. New York, USA. [online] URL: https://population.un.org/wup/ org/10.5751/ES-06168-190112 Publications/Files/WUP2018-Report.pdf Quinlan, A. E., M. Berbés-Blázquez, L. J. Haider, and G. D. van den Berg, M., W. Wendel-Vos, M. van Poppel, H. Kemper, Peterson. 2016. Measuring and assessing resilience: broadening W. van Mechelen, and J. Maas. 2015. Health benefits of green understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives. spaces in the living environment: a systematic review of Journal of Applied Ecology 53(3):677-687. https://doi. epidemiological studies. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 14 org/10.1111/1365-2664.12550 (4):806-816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.008 Riechers, M., J. Barkmann, and T. Tscharntke. 2016. Perceptions Villamagna, A. M., P. L. Angermeier, and E. M. Bennett. 2013. of cultural ecosystem services from urban green. Ecosystem Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework Services 17:33-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.007 for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological Complexity 15:114-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.07.004 Romero-Lankao, P., D. M. Gnatz, O. Wilhelmi, and M. Hayden. 2016. Urban sustainability and resilience: from theory to practice. Walker, W. E., S. A. Rahman, and J. Cave. 2001. Adaptive policies, Sustainability (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121224 policy analysis, and policy-making. European Journal of Rozas-Vásquez, D., C. Fürst, D. Geneletti, and O. Almendra. Operational Research 128(2):282-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 2018. Integration of ecosystem services in strategic environmental S0377-2217(00)00071-0 assessment across spatial planning scales. Land Use Policy Webster, C. 2007. Property rights, public space and urban design. 71:303-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.015 Town Planning Review 78(1):80-101. https://doi.org/10.3828/ Schewenius, M., T. McPhearson, and T. Elmqvist. 2014. tpr.78.1.6 Opportunities for increasing resilience and sustainability of urban Wiese, F. 2016. Resilience thinking as an interdisciplinary guiding social-ecological systems: insights from the URBES and the cities principle for energy system transitions. Resources 5(4):30. https:// and biodiversity outlook projects. Ambio 43:434-444. https://doi. doi.org/10.3390/resources5040030 org/10.1007/s13280-014-0505-z Schröter, M., E. H. van der Zanden, A. P. E. van Oudenhoven, R. P. Remme, H. M. Serna-Chavez, R. S. de Groot, and P. Opdam. 2014. Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conservation Letters 7 (6):514-523. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091 Scolozzi, R., T., Schirpke, D., Geneletti. 2019. Enhancing ecosystem services management in protected areas through participatory system dynamics modelling. Landscape Online 73:1-17. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201973 Sellberg, M. M., P. Ryan, S. T. Borgström, A. V. Norström, and G. D. Peterson. 2018. From resilience thinking to resilience planning: lessons from practice. Journal of Environmental Management 217:906-918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.012 Simon, D., C. Griffith, and H. Nagrenda. 2018. Rethinking urban sustainability and resilience. Pages 149-162 in T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson, S. Appendix 1 Urban ecosystem services resilience assessment matrix. Criteria for assessing expressions of ES resilience thinking in policies regarding GBI in urban context (authors adaptation, based on Borgström et al 2015, and Nykvist et al 2017, Biggs et. a, 2012) ES resilience Specification/Guiding questions for the Qualitative evaluation criteria Relation to aspects assessment Biggs Resilience principle Diversity Biological diversity: High: All the components are addressed in detail. P1,P 4 consideration How are genetic, species and landscape Biodiversity is addressed at genetic and species level; level diversity addressed? different relations in the system (e.g., food webs) are How are interactions between species described as well as essential processes (e.g., nutrient and/or ecological succession cycling, hydrology); well consideration of different addressed? social groups, their current or potential employment How is complementarity in the rates, housing characteristics, growing population, and landscape addressed? increasing immigration is taken into account in spatial Social diversity: and temporal scales; considered differences of How are the different socio-economic neighbourhood/district characteristics components of the urban areas Medium: several components of biodiversity in terms analyzed? of species are addressed; no detailed reference to the How are cultural and historical values different relation in the system. growing population considered? and increasing immigration is mentioned without Structural diversity: spatial or temporal scales, some information about How is urban structure (in terms of different social groups and their employment rates are neighbourhoods’ differences and mentioned. No clear division in districts' components) considered? characteristics Spatial/temporal scale is considered? Low: no components of biodiversity in terms of species are addressed; no reference to the different relations in the system. rowing population and increasing immigration not addressed or very vague. no reference to the spatial component of the socio economic and demographic characteristics Use of What kind of knowledge is used? High: Different kind of knowledge have been used (i.e P1, P5, P6 different How is involvement of different reference to scientific framework or existing studies, knowledge stakeholders in planning, design, informal knowledge, previously acquired knowledge); spheres management, monitoring etc. detailed explanation and presentation of the addressed? stakeholders to be included in the different steps, Spatial/temporal scale is considered? collaboration pathways and different role clearly explained. Medium: Knowledge-base is not completely clear; some references to previous study but not comprehensive assessment of the knowledge sphere included. Stakeholders presented in different details, collaboration mentioned, but not clear roles and methods Low: Knowledge base is fuzzy and not references. Not clear reference to stakeholders either to roles and methods of collaboration Physical How is green and blue infrastructure High: Map of the existing blue and green infrastructure P2 connectivity (structures, nodes, networks, species presented, evaluated and used as a base for further migration etc.) addressed? discussion on the topics; existing nodes, networks, and How is mobility and physical possibilities for species migration have been accessibility addressed? addressed. Concrete actions agreed and well presented How is information flow addressed? to improve current infrastructures connectivity. Spatial/temporal scale is considered? Accessibility to the green and blue infrastructure is assessed and well considered. Physical nodes and mobility and transport scheme have been previously assessed and the results are integrated in the policy. Actions on how to improve it are considered. Medium: reference to the overall green infrastructure present but not clear the level of detail; existing nodes, networks and species migration mentioned; mention to future development of the structures, but no concrete actions mentioned. Accessibility to the spaces is considered but not detailed explained neither in present or future actions Low: reference to the overall green infrastructure present but not clear the level of detail; existing nodes, networks and species migration not mentioned; no mentions of future development of the structures. accessibility and connectivity are not consider neither as an assessment neither for future development Disturbance What disturbances are recognized? High: disturbances have been identified and assessed P3, P4 regimes What responses are addressed (coping, with clear reference to spatial and temporal frame. adapting, transforming)? Responses to disturbances have been clearly identified (i.e. action plans, strategy, etc.)– specify which disturbances and responses have been considered Medium: main disturbances have been identified, but there’s no clear spatial and temporal frame. Responses to disturbances have also been considered, but not clear actions planned - specify which disturbances and responses have been considered Low: disturbances have not been identified, neither clear responses to possible events Assessment of What changes are recognised, e.g. High: main possible changes trend and scenario P3, P4 forecast, possible climate, demographical, economic, relevant for the city development and planning have changes and political, technological innovation, been considered, they have been integrated and uncertainty human preferences and lifestyle (CES), overlapped among them; monitoring, evaluation and tourism, housing, land use planning? revision methods and actions have been addressed. Are changes in relation with future Possible changes in ES capacity and demand have capacity and demand of ES considered been addressed, even if not explicitly mentioned as and addressed? such. How are monitoring, evaluation and Medium: main possible changes, trend and scenario revision addressed? have been considered, with low level of detail and no Spatial/temporal scale is considered? integration among them; monitoring, evaluation and revision are mentioned but not explained in detail. Possible changes in ES capacity and demand are not clearly addressed, even if not explicitly mentioned as such. Low: main possible changes trend and scenario have not been considered, maybe mentioned but not assessed; no reference to monitoring evaluation and revision. Possible changes in ES capacity and demand are not addressed, neither implicitly. How are the management steps of High: management steps of monitoring, evaluating, System P3, P4, P5 monitoring, evaluating, revising and revising and adapting are well addressed. Responses knowledge adapting addressed? to changes as well as emergent signals are well defined approach How are emergent signals captured? and integrated. How are responses to changes Medium: management steps of monitoring, evaluating, addressed? revising and adapting are mentioned, but not clearly addressed as well as emergent signals. Responses to changes are not clearly defined and integrated. Low: no specific management steps of monitoring, evaluating, revising and adapting are mentioned neither emergent signals are addressed. Responses to changes are not defined and integrated. In what ways is the approaches to GBI High: alternative approaches are considered and clear Institutional P3, P4, P5 reactive or proactive? criteria for decision support are recognized. High flexibility How are alternative approaches degree of flexibility of the policy is recognized and recognized? structured. What kind of formulations are used, e.g. Medium: alternative approaches are recognized, bit not shall, should, recommend? clear criteria to support decision are recognized. Flexibility and adaptation of the policy are considered but not addressed. Low: alternative approaches are not recognized; possible flexibility of the policy has not been considered How is governance organised High: multi-stakeholders and participatory process have Poly centric P1,P2, P6,P7 (centralised/decentralised, single been set up from the policy development and have governance actor/multiple actors, sector divided, been integrated in the strategy/action plans for future strong/weak linkages across levels, collaboration. Governance models are clearly defined sectors and actors)? and flexible. Responsibility and roles are also well How is collaboration between actors explained. Collaboration among stakeholders is well addressed? defined; dedicated tools instruments and methods How is responsibility organised? have been developed. Medium: multi-stakeholders and participatory process have been set up but not clearly integrated and explained in the overall process. Governance models are defined but with low level of details. Roles, responsibilities and competences are implicitly considered but not clearly defined in the text. Collaboration among stakeholders is mentioned but dedicated tools instruments and methods are not clearly defined. Low: multi-stakeholders and participatory process are not integrated and explained in the overall process. Governance models, responsibility and roles are fuzzy and not clearly identified. Not clear how stakeholders will cooperate Appendix 2 Barcelona relevant policies analysed in the context of this study N Name of the relevant document 1 Ajuntament de Barcelona. Àrea d’Ecologia Urbanisme i Mobilitat. 2015. “Guide to Living Terrace Roofs and Green Roofs.” 2 Ajuntament de Barcelona. Àrea d’Ecologia Urbanisme i Mobilitat. 2017. “Trees for Life : Master Plan for Barcelona’s Trees 2017 - 2037.” 3 Ajuntament de Barcelona. 2014. “Plan Del Verde y de La Biodiversidad de Barcelona 2020.” 4 Ajuntament de Barcelona. 2018a. Departament de Resiliència Urbana, Gerència d'Ecologia Urbana, 100 Resilient Cities (Associació) “Barcelona : Preliminary Resilience Assessment.” 5 Ajuntament de Barcelona. 2018b. “Pla Clima 2018-2030.” 6 PGM/PGU - Metropolitan Planning regulation of the general plan - "PDU- QUADERNS PDU METROPOLITÀ 03 - Urbanism of open spaces: landscape, leisure and production 7 Ajuntament de Barcelona 2018. Pla estratègic dels espais litorals de la ciutat – under development 8 Ajuntament de Barcelona 2015, Comissió d'Hàbitat Urbà i Medi Ambient, Gerència Adjunta de Medi Ambient i Serveis Urbans, Àrea d'Hàbitat Urbà Pla de millora de la qualitat de l’aire de Barcelona 2015-2018 9 Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2015. Pacto de Milán de política alimentaria urbana 10 Ajuntament de Barcelona 2016. Omplim de vida els carrers, la implantació de les superilles a Barcelona : mesura de govern- The superblock plan Appendix 3 List of participants to the workshop Nº Affiliation Sector 1 Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Research Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), (organizer) 2 Ajuntament de Barcelona, Departamento de Resiliencia Public Administration Urbana (co-organizer) 3 Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna (co-organizer) Research 4 ENT, medi ambient i gestió (co-organizer) SME 5 Ecologic Institute (co-organizer) Research 6 100 resilient cities Research 7 Generalitat de Catalunya - DTES Public Administration 8 Àrea Metropolitana de BarcelonaAMB Public Administration 9 Diputació de Barcelona Public Administration 10 Suez Industry 11 LEITAT Research and Innovation 12 Universitat Oberta de Catalunya Research 13 Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona - Generalitat de Public Administration Catalunya 14 Cátedra UNESCO de Sostenibilidad- Research 15 Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya - UPC-BarcelonaTech Research 16 Universitat Internacional de Catalunya UIC Research 17 Fàbrical del Sol Public Administration environmental education centre 18 Som Natura NGO – civil society 19 Elrisell SME Consultancy 20 Eix Verd SME Social enterprise 21 Oficina Catalana del Canvi Climàtic Public Administration and research 22 Barcelona Cicle de l'Aigua SA (BCASA) Public Administration 23 Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona Public Administration 24 Universitat de Màlaga Public Administration 25 Barcelona Regional Public Administration 26 Ajuntament de Sabadell Public Administration 27 Huertosinthesky NGO – civil society Appendix 4 Ecosystem services assessment workshop exercise Objectives This exercise aims to reveal potential shifts in the demand and supply of ES exposed by the scenarios - possible futures. Materials Scenario print-outs 50x (10x4 for participants + 2x4 for moderators); Printed images 12x (3 per scenario); Impact assessment poster 4x (1 per group); Sticky points 40x (10 per group); Markers in different colors 16x (poster operations) Description After the introducing presentation by Johannes and Claudia, participants are divided into 3 or 4 heterogeneous groups to work independently on the assigned scenario (1 per group). Each group is formed by the maximum number of 10 participants (depending on the final list of participants). Group sessions are operated by the facilitator and the note-taker (1 and 1 per group). The facilitator presents the scenario (5min), supported by the images placed on the table and printed scenario materials, including bullet points as a summary. Each group will then start to work on the ES impact assessment (Figure 1), represented by selected list of ES (icons) placed on the scale. Participants are asked to assess the shifting ES supply/demand reflecting on the presented scenario. Each group receives sticky points (one per ES to be assessed + 1 extra sticky point for potential suggestions of different ES by participants) that are used to indicate the shifting supply/demand for selected ES (by participants). If no consensus is made within a group on the placement of certain ES on the scale (which ES and how they shift), moderator will start the voting. Fig 5.2 – Ecosystem Services categories presented in the workshop Fig 5.1 – Ecosystem Services impact assessment poster used in the workshop poster Appendix 5 Policy options workshop exercise Objectives This part aims at understanding how current policies and strategies can work to ensure the ES provisions in the long-term perspective – by discovering resilient policy options. Materials Post-its 40x and pens 40x (the individual exercise); Policy development poster 4x (1 per group); Markers in different colors 16x (poster operations) Description Participants will be asked to individually reflect on the ES impact assessment within the given scenario, and to propose a policy-oriented action (the same groups are maintained). First, each participant receives one post-it from the facilitator. Then, participants are asked to write their name and the acronym of the organization they belong to on their post-it (this will allow facilitators to understand if there are certain ‘clusters’ of stakeholders). This exercise is individual (5min), where participants are asked the following reflection remark: “Please indicate the ES that you consider as most important to be addressed. Name one measure that you find most promising in order to guarantee the future supply of ES under the scenario of change you worked with.” After the individual exercise, participants briefly present their ideas one by one. Meanwhile, moderator collects filled post-its and start to cluster the written ideas on the poster (Figure 2) according to common features (i.e. addressed policy sectors, addressed ES, etc.) (10 minutes). When the brief presentations are over, and all ideas are placed on the flipchart, moderator triggers the discussion among the participants referring to collected ideas (30 minutes). The discussion is directed by the following reflection remarks: “How can the measures be integrated into existing policies. What themes, sectors, and policies are most relevant to be addressed? What policy action/intervention would you propose to improve “resilience” of current policies?” During the discussion, moderator keeps incorporating the new ideas and observations in the poster – as these may arise. This is done by operating with the marker and by replacing around the post-its. Fig. 6.2 Policy options poster development poster. Appendix 6 Scenario Narratives 1# Scenario: Ageing and shrinking population (moderator: Claudia de Luca , notes: Katriona McGlade) ▪ Barcelona 2025; outmigration of young population and ageing of resident population emerged as main issues. ▪ The pressures on health, mobility, housing, job availability, and social services have substantially increased. ▪ Elders suffer high levels of depression and loneliness, lacking opportunities to engage (socially or economically), and in public health and wellbeing. ▪ City is lacking accessible open green spaces, as these have capacity to provide manifold social and environmental benefits. Barcelona 2025; As a consequence of the climate and economic crisis in the last 15 years, the city lost around 200.000 inhabitants, mostly young educated people, resulting in a resident population of around 1.4 million 1. Also, birth rate has decreased substantially over the period, as young people continue facing serious barriers in access to secure jobs and affordable housing, with direct consequences on household formation and natality levels. As a matter of fact, elderly people account now for over 27% of the resident population (compared to 21% in 2016) generating an increased pressure on urban systems, such as health, mobility and social services among others. In terms of household composition, this is resulting in an increasing number of elderly people living alone, as well as in new and crowded retirement homes managed by the City Council, private entities and third sector organisations. The Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona (ASPB) reports that depression rates especially among the elderly population are becoming alarming, calling for concrete actions to address the challenges of ageing population in an integrated way. Within this context, scientific evidences on the positive links between health, social interaction, and green public spaces, are becoming increasingly acknowledged by policy-makers with competencies over public health, seeking to foster the use of green and public spaces by local population, especially elderly people. However, in a high-density urban area, with limited space for urban regeneration and rapidly changing demographic patterns, these efforts require integrated and creative solutions across several policy areas. 2# Scenario: Enhanced tourism (moderator: Maria Gómez, notes: Luis Campos) ▪ Barcelona 2025; mass tourism is a source of wealth but also of complex challenges. ▪ The pressures on housing, services, and urban space availability as well as on urban environment have substantially increased. ▪ This has resulted in rising prices, increase in illegal activities, overcrowded and degraded open spaces, and in changing attitudes of residents living in affected central neighbourhoods. ▪ Affected residents are deprived of available green spaces and beaches for recreation. Several local movements have emerged and started to act. ▪ Policy interventions are needed in order to re-establish the availability open spaces and related benefits, fostering the wellbeing of residents. Barcelona in 2025; tourism further increased. The city now received more than 30million annual visits, in average more than 160,000 per day2. Hospitality business and related tourism offers have grown substantially. Tourism belongs to the most important economic activities in Barcelona, providing income to a large share of the residents. Nevertheless, the negative impacts of tourism are being progressively questioned. 1 http://www.bcn.cat/estadistica/angles/dades/tpob/projeccions/pob/prpob/base2013/bcn/t111.htm 2 This means a yearly increase by about 1% since 2017. http://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/economiatreball/sites/default/files/documents/mesura_de_govern_mobilitat_0.pdf From an environmental point of view3 – carbon footprint, water usage, waste disposal – mass tourism is hardly sustainable in a very compact and dense city as Barcelona. From a social point of view, attitude of some resident groups has drastically changed in the last 15 years. As from 2015, the city council has started developing measures to regulate mass tourism (e.g. diversifying offers, licence limitation, tourism taxation, etc.). Nevertheless, it did not prove to be effective on some of the main issues: housing prices (20% rise in central neighbourhoods), public transport, and especially access to open spaces and cultural sites – Barceloneta beach, Ciutadella, Parc Guell, Mont Juic, public squares and ramblas. Also, a trend of ‘urban nature tourism’ emerges, flooding parks in Barcelona with birdwatchers, picknickers, beerdrinkers. The wellbeing of residents has suffered, as they are deprived of the beneficiary effects coming from the nature experience. Also, affected green spaces are now subjects of degradation. Residents started to avoid using these green spaces and beeches, as they are overcrowded and noisy. An integrated policy action is needed in order to foster the social life, to enable access to recreation in the city, and to improve health and wellbeing of its citizens. 3# Scenario: Gender inequality (moderator: Johannes Langemeyer, notes: Filka Sekulova) ▪ Barcelona 2025; Public spaces are dominantly used by male population due to certain changes in perceptions and behaviours. Equal access to green and open public spaces is questioned and gender issues are increasingly raising. ▪ An increasing number of women is reporting negative experiences from their visits of open spaces, also due to misperception and disinformation. The “stories” are spreading fast. ▪ The access to green spaces by women became limited, as they perceive them as unsafe. ▪ In result, the female population is deprived of benefits related with urban nature. ▪ Policy interventions are needed to re-establish the accessibility to open spaces and related benefits. Barcelona in 2025. the number of visits to green spaces by female population has declined in the last years, resulting in more “homogenized” male-oriented user groups. This trend emerged as a product of changing behaviours and perceptions of public spaces in Barcelona, especially among women. Some serious questions related to gender equity have been put forth. Negative experiences, including ambushes, thievery, sexual harassment, and other dangerous encounters have been reported, whereas the victims are being predominantly women. Even though these encounters are rather rare, the stories continue to spread. The public community, and specifically women, widely perceive the open spaces as unsafe. Especially larger green spaces that are difficult to control, such as Collserola, Montjuic, Park Güell, or Tres Turons, are evoking negative thoughts and anxiety. Besides female population, families and elderly have started to avoid these areas too. The accessibility to nature experience in the city has become limited as the feeling of safeness has dropped extremely. Changing perceptions further affect behaviours; concerned user groups (mostly women and elderly) are feeling threatened, what induces their suspicious behaviour and tendency to avoid social encounters in the public spaces. Social interactions and gender equity are disrupted. In fact, green spaces are considered by women to be the most unsafe urban areas4, due to crime and violence that they are exposed to. Female users are deprived of the benefits linked to the green space use as result of realities narrated above. To re-establish social equity in terms of the opportunities to experience urban nature for all, policy interventions will be necessary. 4# Scenario: Global warming (moderator: Francesc Barò, notes: Andoni Gonzales) ▪ Barcelona 2025; climate change has intensified and is affecting the city and its residents. ▪ Increase in the number of torrid days, droughts, fires, rain-shortages, and water scarcity represent and immense challenge for the future life in the city. 3 Rico A. et al., 2019. Carbon footprint of tourism in Barcelona, Tourism management, 70 (2019), 491-504 4 https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/dones/sites/default/files/documentacio/17_661_web_bcn_v2_0.pdf ▪ Some residents are affected more than other; especially vulnerable groups are elderly, children, and pregnant woman. Similarly, heavily build-up areas are affected the most. ▪ An increased importance of friendly and climate-resilient open spaces is highlighted. ▪ Policy interventions are needed in order to preserve and foster the capacity of provisions originating from open spaces, as these are becoming critically scarce Barcelona 2025; Global feedback processes have accelerated the global warming trend to an extent unpredicted by most climate scientists. Barcelona became a critically endangered region, exposing its population to risk and uncertainty. Rapidly changing climate manifests its power through a high variability and frequent occurrence of extreme events. A number of torrid days (reaching over 33°C) and the duration of droughts increased eight-fold. Intensive urbanization amplifies the urban heat island effect, making the build-up area hotter by 20°C comparing to the surrounding green areas5. The number of deaths counts for 2000 human lives per year due to the heat in Barcelona only 6. Districts with the lowest coverage of green spaces are hit most heavily, as they become unbearably hot. These areas correspond with the poorer population, whereas elderly, children and pregnant women are the most vulnerable groups. Tropical nights exhausts people as they are not able to have a needed rest after a torrid day. Heat waves cause premature births, physical and mental diseases, but also financial shortages of poorer residents due to intense use of cooling technologies; also, resulting in higher energy use and thus intensifying the climate change. At the same time, the city experiences severe rainfall shortages and thus water scarcity. Furthermore, fire hazards concern not only the Collserola, but appears in the neighbourhoods of Vallvidrera, Tibidabo i les Planes, Horta, Canyelles, or Torre Baró, where thousands of people reside. By contrast, rainfall gains on intensity in form of a storm events which frequently flood the city; floods and landslides are threatening residents and causing ample economic damages. A 72% of impermeable surfaces7 and lack of climate-resilient green spaces in Barcelona are boosting impacts to maximum. Another critical water-related issue will soon emerge on the coastline, where the sea level may rise by additional 1m and start to flood the recreational areas. Citizens’ health and wellbeing started to decrease. A discomfort from heat, droughts, fires, or storm events, has led to a higher demand for friendly and resilient open green spaces. Integrated policy action is required to preserve ecosystem provisions that are necessary for security and wellbeing of citizens. 5,8 http://lameva.barcelona.cat/barcelona-pel-clima/en 7 https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/en/what-we-do-and-why/energy-and-climate-change/climate-plan