Ambio https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01771-7 PERSPECTIVE Integrating justice in Nature-Based Solutions to avoid nature- enabled dispossession Isabelle Anguelovski , Esteve Corbera Received: 7 January 2022 / Revised: 6 June 2022 / Accepted: 9 July 2022 Abstract Heavily featured over the last few years in of NBS as a climate savior, especially so in the context and global research and policy agreements, Nature-Based manner in which they seem increasingly deployed—that is Solutions (NBS) remain however exposed to much as a policy panacea to be enacted and scaled up through debate over the ways their current design and ability to multi-stakeholder partnerships. Such partnerships are achieve both environmental goals and social needs. As they called for and enacted articulated by a variety of policy become mainstream climate mitigation and adaptation groups, climate leaders, and conservation- or urban-nature options, their capacity to deliver expected benefits, focused researchers who tend to omit or overlook the especially when contemplating equity and justice, is at negative social impacts of NBS (Dumitru et al. 2021; least uncertain. Through a critical review of existing European Environment Agency 2021), which can include debates and perspectives on NBS, this paper questions their displacement; resource, territorial, or community loss uptake and points at the frequent embeddedness of NBS in through nature commodification; and compromised long- speculative and elite-based development paths in both term livelihoods (Kosoy and Corbera 2010; Kull et al. urban and rural areas. We present an alternative, justice- 2015; Gabriel 2016; Anguelovski et al. 2020). oriented approach to NBS so that projects can avoid nature- In contrast, in this paper we caution against making enable dispossession and instead build nature-inspired NBS a nature-enabled dispossession for the most vulnera- justice that prioritizes the needs, identities, and ble residents and communities, and ask: Under which livelihoods of the most ecologically and socially principles and conditions can NBS as a policy tool deliver vulnerable residents. justice benefits across rural and urban areas? What are promising practices that can illustrate a prioritization of Keywords Conservation  Climate adaptation policy  justice in NBS? Upon a review of the policy context around Climate justice  Climate mitigation policy  Land rights  NBS and of critical research on the topic, we propose a Privatized nature step-by-step approach to integrating and mainstreaming justice in NBS policy stages, one that moves away from a rather secondary, superficial, or tokenistic engagement NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS AS A POLICY with justice and places justice needs at the center of policy PANACEA action. NBS are actions inspired by, supported by, or copied While in the latest 2021 negotiations at COP-26 in Glas- from nature, envisioned to protect, sustainably manage, and gow Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) heavily featured for restore ecosystems, while offering environmental, social, their abundant climate co-benefits, critical scholars across economic and climate resilience benefits (European Com- the socio-environmental sciences are calling for NBS mission 2015). These actions encompass well-known land- governance frameworks that can produce more just, low- use and climate mitigation and adaptation interventions, carbon and adaptive societies (Toxopeus et al. 2020; such as the creation of protected areas, ecological Cousins 2021; Sekulova et al. 2021). Building on this restoration and ecosystem services programs, as well as emerging literature, we question the diffusion and branding urban forestry and greening schemes, underpinned by the Ó The Author(s) 2022 www.kva.se/en 123 Ambio umbrella frameworks of ecosystem-based mitigation, profit-making opportunities being already harvested behind adaptation or disaster risk reduction, and water-sensitive putting nature at the center of climate action. For example, urban design or ecological engineering, among others in a parallel side event at the COP26 Conference, the (Dumitru et al. 2021). multinational law firm Clifford Chance issued a report As catch-all term, increasingly popular in ecology/con- highlighting the work of asset management firms to put servation- and health-focused research as well as in policy, NBS ‘‘into a model that’s for profit’’ as well as ‘‘private planning, and business circles associated with climate- for-profit investment.’’3 In August 2022, Intercontinental centered solutions, NBS have gained incredible traction Exchange (ICE), a global provider of data, technology, and since the mid 2010s. Scholars have highlighted NBS infrastructure announced the creation of 10 Nature-Based ecosystem service provision for climate adaptation, Solutions Carbon Credit futures contracts to allow inves- including urban cooling and stormwater management tors to purchase, sell, and hedge carbon credits from 2016 (Gaffin et al. 2012; Baró et al. 2014; Elmqvist et al. 2016), out to 2030. climate mitigation gains such as carbon storage or In this Perspective, we suggest taking stock of both sequestration of forests and agriculture projects (Chen established and more recent scholarly critical evidence 2015; De la Sota et al. 2019), and local health-related across the social ecological sciences, especially in human benefits (Huang et al. 2013; Wolch et al. 2014; Triguero- geography and planning, and avoiding the temptation of Mas et al. 2015). Expert groups such as the IPCC (Inter- endorsing NBS as a policy panacea. This analysis also governmental Panel on Climate Change) and IPBES builds on the recent 2022 IPCC report which, while fea- (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiver- turing NBS for their adaptation and mitigation benefits and sity and Ecosystem Services) have both advocated for the contribution to other sustainable development goals, warns protection and restoration of nature to reduce carbon about the need to avoid negative impacts from NBS pro- emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and protect biodiver- jects (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2022). sity. In 2019, for example, the IPBES highlighted that the We argue that, in their current myriad forms and applica- world faces a nature crisis with weakened capacity of tions, NBS can lead to nature-enabled dispossession and nature to support our dependence on natural resources, fail to deliver the conservation and climate resilience out- calling for the protection and recovery of biodiversity comes they are premised upon. By dispossession we mean (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiver- here the appropriation of land, resources, and urban spaces sity and Ecosystem Services 2019). In 2021, the common held or enjoyed by vulnerable social groups, whose inter- IPBES and IPCC report pointed at the potential synergies ests and relationships with nature become undermined over between biodiversity conservation and climate change time, and whose own ability to remain in place become responses (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on jeopardized by NBS. We stress the need to guarantee Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and Intergovern- inclusive decision-making and adaptive management mental Panel on Climate Change 2021). pathways to avoid any negative impacts resulting from Such recommendations were taken up uncritically by NBS, such as enhanced competition for land and water negotiators at the COP26 in Glasgow in November 2021, with other sectors, reduction of human well-being and short including the EU Commissioner for Environment, Oceans term-only mitigation, pernicious investments in indigenous and Fisheries, who called nature—‘‘our strongest ally in the communities, and dynamics of gentrification through fight against climate change.’’ (European Commission increasing land values (Intergovernmental Panel on Cli- 2021). Prior to COP26, under the European Green New mate Change 2022). These impacts would expose vulner- Deal, the European Commission (EC) had already com- able communities to new insecurities and impacts and mitted to establish a larger EU-wide network of effectively exclude them from the benefits of nature conservation and managed protected areas covering 30% of land and 30% of climate change mitigation and adaptation. We thus chal- sea, following the 2020 Leaders’ Pledge for Nature to lenge the extended policy and traditional scholarly view reverse biodiversity loss.1 The EC also established a NBS- that NBS will improve ‘‘social justice, cohesion and focused research-policy program aimed at advancing the equity’’ and result in more benefits than costs for the local upscaling of NBS, and generating evidence about their actors being affected (Dumitru et al. 2021; European performance.2 Beyond policy-makers, private investors are Environment Agency 2021). also capitalizing upon the call for NBS, revealing the Our call derives from research in sustainability science, political ecology, and environmental justice research which 1 has demonstrated that ‘‘nature-based’’ policies and projects https://www.leaderspledgefornature.org. 2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/research-area/env 3 ironment/nature-based-solutions/research-policy_en#what-is-the-eus- https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefin policy. gs/2021/07/cop26-nature-based-solutions-to-climate-change.pdf. Ó The Author(s) 2022 123 www.kva.se/en Ambio often hide environmental or sustainability ‘‘fixes’’ that related to nature (Tozer et al. 2020). Researchers have also sustain economic growth while depleting the resources and identified green gentrification and displacement together rights of historically marginalized groups (Castree 2008; with green rent seeking and dispossession in many cities, Bakker 2010; Dowie 2011) as well as some of our recent including Barcelona, Boston, Montreal, or Copenhagen, research, which we integrate in our proposal of justice driven by the increasingly private sector-led as well as principles below. Recent reviews of ecosystem-based growth- and profit-oriented orchestration of urban NBS (I. adaptation in urban and rural areas, for example, reveal Anguelovski et al. 2019a, b; Anguelovski et al. 2022; projects’ insufficient attention to citizen participation and Garcı́a-Lamarca et al. 2022). the distribution of costs and benefits across participating actors (Brink et al. 2016; Nalau et al. 2018). All in all, corporations, investors, and real estate developers have TOWARD NATURE-INSPIRED JUSTICE been shown to facilitate, finance, and profit from NBS to sustain natural capital valuation and profit accumulation To avoid the types of socio-environmental dispossessions through the commodification of nature and business-cen- reviewed and to guarantee that NBS do not (re)create tered green urbanism (Kosoy and Corbera 2010; Kull et al. nature-for-elite profit and greenwashing by repackaging 2015; Gabriel 2016). past, harmful, nature conservation and restoration, and Over the past three decades, in rural regions, protected adaptation programs, we suggest below eight justice-cen- areas, Payments for Ecosystem Services, and the United tered principles (Fig. 1) that should govern the present and Nations’ Clean Development Mechanism and future of NBS, drawing on Jordan and Lenschow stages of REDD ? (reducing emissions from deforestation and for- the policy cycle, especially as they refer to environmental est degradation) programs have been associated to net-zero policy making (Jordan and Lenschow 2010), and emission goals that are meant to offset emissions through responding to recent calls for addressing implementation biodiversity conservation, ecosystem restoration, forest challenges and operationalizing NBS principles (Kumar management, and large-scale tree planting. However, such et al. 2020; Wickenberg et al. 2021). Drawing from recent initiatives have been critiqued for miscalculating mitiga- research from colleagues and ourselves, we articulate and tion benefits and for their inability to address concerns dissect these principles in ways that can support decisions related to the rights, resources, and livelihoods of local for more just NBS-related policy options as well as for the communities, particularly if meaningful recognition and design, implementation, and evaluation phases of a more local participation have not guided design and implemen- justice-centered NBS policy or project. We suggest tation (Pascual et al. 2014; Oldekop et al. 2016; Pritchard repoliticizing NBS and moving toward critical approaches, and Brockington 2019; Almanza-Alcalde et al. 2021). The beyond calls for inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches fact that large food conglomerates, airlines, or energy meant to rely on holistic co-creation processes and the companies have invested in such schemes does not justify engagement of a variety of stakeholders across sectors and holding these actors unaccountable and leaving mostly levels (Kumar et al. 2020). industry- and resource-extraction and consumption, First, NBS should count with rigorous, ex ante, assess- development pathways unaddressed. ments of their benefits. Rather than assuming benefits a In urban regions, the deployment of NBS as a specific priori, projects should develop a clear assessment of the strategy has gained traction more recently, particularly mitigation and adaptation benefits to be achieved, and of since the mid 2010s. Through projects such as (re)con- the climate risks and impacts that can be avoided or structed wetlands, rain gardens, resilient parks, green roofs, addressed. For example, tree planting or ‘‘green roofing’’ in community gardens, or waterfront clean and restoration, cities as a cooling strategy is effective (more at daytime cities are working to bring nature back to urban residents than at nighttime), but the evidence for larger scale cooling while addressing biodiversity loss, water and air pollution, effects remains inconclusive (Bowler et al. 2010; Cuthbert and climate threats (Kotsila et al. 2021). Yet, the increasing et al. 2022). Similarly, active reforestation to rehabilitate reliance of municipalities on privately-funded NBS, degraded rural landscapes can increase the provision of branding of new business opportunities for NBS, as well as specific ecosystem services, including climate mitigation the process of large-scale, real estate development along- and soil erosion control, but may not necessarily be a cost- side these new re-naturing areas have raised doubts about effective strategy compared to natural revegetation (Meli their ability to ensure social and environmental sustain- et al. 2017; Honey-Rosés et al. 2018). The use of NBS ability and deliver justice goals (Kabisch et al. 2016; should also maximize both mitigation and adaptation co- Sekulova et al. 2021). Urban greening so far often fails to benefits, as several cities and regions have already com- recognize and redress long-standing inequalities or to mitted to (Meli et al. 2017; Honey-Rosés et al. 2018). integrate different socio-cultural views and identities as In Quito, for example, our research shows that NBS Ó The Author(s) 2022 www.kva.se/en 123 Ambio Fig. 1 From nature-enabled dispossession to nature-inspired justice in NBS policies. Nature-based justice requires a series of principles and associated practices for tackling existing environment and climate, social, and economic challenges related to NBS, from policy option (blue), decision-making (yellow), implementation (red), to evaluation (purple), with an assumption that the principles we outline may have an overlap in the stages that tackle them, hence the use of gradients. NB: The stages of identifying the environmental problem and setting the policy agenda have been omitted because NBS are already a well-established choice in policy forums and schemes to address global environmental challenges projects4 under the Climate Action Plan were selected for 2021). In contrast, NBS that privilege circular and regen- their positive role in addressing risks of erosion and land- erative economies sustained with care, solidarity, and slides while protecting and reforesting indigenous lands, equity-driven principles can provide sustainable and cli- thus meeting ecological and social goals. mate-conscious alternatives. In Portland, Oregon, our Second, NBS also need to guarantee regenerative and research shows how, under a strong climate justice lens, sustainable economic pathways and confront unsustainable minority-owned cooperatives such as Verde are financing land use patterns. These range from large-scale farming, green infrastructure projects to upgrade the homes of Lat- biofuel production, and mining and other resource extrac- inx residents and protect them against climate impacts, tion in rural areas to large-scale real estate development via including heat and flooding (Triguero-Mas et al. 2021). densification and urban sprawl, financial developments, Through Las Adelitas project, Portland cooperatives are visitor- and tourism-driven economies in urban regions. also building affordable housing with green features and Too many NBS are shown to be deployed without a deep turning a former abandoned building into secure and green questioning or revisiting of those economic drivers and housing for Latinx residents. Both initiatives nurture pathways and coincide side-by-side with growth-generat- community wealth creation for racialized groups while also ing and land-use change policy options (Kotsila et al. building individual economic power. Third, NBS must also circumvent the appropriation and/ 4 See a few of those projects here: https://metrodequito.gob.ec/2019/ of enclosure of land for greening and conservation. In 02/25/segunda-arborizacion-en-el-parque-bicentenario/?lang=en. many countries, nature is enclosed to protect land against Ó The Author(s) 2022 123 www.kva.se/en Ambio either rural deforestation or urban growth, yet in doing so Fifth, to prioritize environmental values and social NBS projects also exclude residents from many needed objectives, NBS must avoid greenwashing, that is a resources, or, at the very least, restrict what uses can be superficial integration of green objectives, and the priva- made of certain essential resources for their lives and tization of nature for profit. Our recent work demonstrates livelihoods, through development promises (Duffy et al. that too many NBS projects still privilege glitzy greening 2019; Dowie 2011). In addition, while, in many cases, and building the green image of projects, corporations, environmental protection laws are being enforced to keep cities, or regions while deploying greening projects whose the poor out of protected areas -often violently- (Duffy net decarbonization or adaptation gains are rather light. We et al. 2019; Massé 2020), (private) wealth-generating have previously identified this dynamic as urban green activities or groups are entitled to access natural resources, boosterism, that is the construction of a green identity via thus revealing the unequal enforcement of land use regu- emblematic and flagship projects, visuals, discourses, and lations (Massé and Lunstrum 2016). Our research also awards that boost the international reputation of cities such identified such unquestioned dissonances in Medellin, as Vancouver, Nantes, Copenhagen, Dublin, or Amster- Colombia, whereby the construction of a green belt in the dam, or Valencia in order to attract new investments hillslides and slopes of the city strongly regulated the urban (Garcı́a Lamarca et al. 2021). Yet, in many of these cities, growth of informal settlements while leaving high-end real green is rather a brand that is superficially implemented estate developments in El Poblado area untouched and and where nature often becomes privatized. In Dublin, for failing to address the needs of the rural–urban border example, we identified that several green spaces con- (Isabelle Anguelovski et al. 2019a, b). In sum, NBS should structed by real estate developers in the working-class avoid ‘‘grabbing’’ rural and urban landscapes under the neighborhood of The Liberties as public amenities became discourse of creating new green and resilient cities or gated soon after their inauguration in 2019 and were landscapes. granted permission to be gated by the Dublin City Council Relatedly, NBS should foremost avoid land speculation despite the original permitting conditions imposed on the in both rural and urban areas (and associated land grabbing site by law (Anguelovski et al. 2021). In some ways, gui- in agricultural landscapes and green gentrification in ded by the 2015 Liberties Greening Strategy, the Dublin cities). With research on NBS increasingly showing how City Council is working to increase access to green space nature is being grabbed by firms, investors, and developers in the neighborhood by adding new parks such as to increase land value and profits, to market new real estate Bridgefoot Street Park (2022) and Weaver Park (2017). developments, and to close on ‘‘green [land] gaps’’ (Gar- Yet, in practice, we found that those parks are accelerating cı́a-Lamarca et al. 2022), we argue that NBS projects must student- and tourism-led gentrification—with numerous be decoupled from speculative and profit-driven dynamics, building permits given to student housing and hotel and rather play a much stronger social role for residents developers denounced by residents—and risk being and users, in ways that can secure their needs and appropriated by temporary visitors, while smaller, nearby responsibilities (Kotsila et al. 2020). For example, in informal green spaces are getting demolished (Anguelovski Barcelona, our most recent research identifies that the new et al. 2021). In rural lands, a growing body of evidence has 2021–2030 Pla Natura and one specific program called also demonstrated that NGOs and other commercial actors Mans al Verd5 envision the increase of urban green space are increasingly profiting from conservation (Clements through the cession of empty lots to residents so that these et al. 2016) through the enactment of private protected can be managed and farmed as community gardens. Here, areas, which are legitimized on the grounds of the current the municipality so far manages to privilege and value extinction we are facing, and from eco-tourism practices residents’ quality of life and biodiversity protection over which might result in the marginalization of local social the sale of unused land to real estate developers. In rural groups and the under valuation of local livelihoods, as lands, NBS proponents should also learn from the design shown in recent research in Colombia’s Tayrona National and implementation principles that explain successful Natural Park (Bocarejo and Ojeda 2016). community-driven restoration, sustainable resource man- Sixth, NBS should be inclusive and empowering, i.e., agement, and conservation initiatives, which range from they should visibilize and recognize the often overlooked, specific successful examples of UN-endorsed ‘‘territories non-expert knowledge of residents and users, especially so and areas conserved by indigenous peoples and local for historically marginalized groups, and genuinely include communities,’’ known as ICCAs (Eghenter 2018; Ban et al. them in the design and management of NBS projects. 2020), to specific policy-driven or project-based initiatives Otherwise, the needs, vulnerabilities, and identities of such worldwide (Brooks et al. 2012; Dawson et al. 2021). groups risk becoming marginalized while the preferences of higher income or more politically empowered groups get 5 https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/ca/pla-buits. catered to (Anguelovski et al. 2020). In racialized urban Ó The Author(s) 2022 www.kva.se/en 123 Ambio contexts in particular, the design, norms, and rules around across the US and in rural lands across the Global South, new green spaces have been shown to overlook the needs the land of poor and racialized residents has been appro- of immigrant and minority residents as well as their per- priated through urban segregation and urban renewal ceptions of nature and even to increase their control, policies as well as by large land grabbing practices for policing, and exclusion, thus making nature in cities conservation, farming, or resource extraction in the coun- increasingly white (Finney 2014; Kabisch and Haase 2014; tryside (Brockington and Igoe 2006; Sändig 2021). As NBS Anguelovski and Connolly 2021). In several countries, projects are established to protect nature and land assets for both in urban and rural regions, conservation and sustain- climate and environmental goals, they must also give new able resource management programs and projects aimed at rights and reparations to marginalized residents so that land climate adaptation or mitigation have also been disadvan- can play an emancipatory function by guaranteeing repro- tageous to the poorest and politically disempowered social ductive and/or productive functions and helping secure groups (Nagoda and Nightingale 2017; Ramirez-Reyes economic needs and cultural practices for vulnerable et al. 2018; Sovacool 2018; Hoang et al. 2019). In Mexico, groups. NBS can also play a reparative role, especially so for example, our recent research shows mixed results: in post-war or conflict contexts, where new public green although the country’s programs of payments for ecosys- spaces can help address a violent history and associated tem services have contributed to halt deforestation and socio-spatial trauma and separation. In Berlin, for example, reduce land-use emissions, their design has mostly favored researchers have found that the creation of new large parks the participation of land-entitled families, which in turn has has helped the city’s reunification post 1990 by both resulted in unequal distributions of the programs’ incen- embracing the city’s historic heritage and making new tives at community level (Costedoat et al. 2015; Corbera parks accessible to all residents (Draus et al. 2019). In et al. 2020; Izquierdo-Tort et al. 2022; Jones et al. 2020). In Colombia, since 2017, we identified that the national Law contrast with such exclusionary dynamics, in the broader of payments for ecosystem services (PES) was passed to Cape Town, for example, one promising project we have reinforce the country’s 2016 Peace Accords by promoting identified is the Cape Town Environmental Education publicly funded PES that could support forest conservation Trust which tries to address the Apartheid’s legacy of and rural development strategies in regions that had suf- exclusive access to nature for white elites by improving the fered historical violence and where illegal crops were inclusiveness of urban and peri-urban nature reserves and grown, and by allowing former guerrilla and paramilitary the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation. Among members (and their families) to become formal recipients others, it builds participation pathways for racialized of payments (Moros et al. 2020). A few years after their communities traditionally excluded from reserves by deployment, however, the ad hoc and insufficiently funded fomenting spiritual connections to the spaces, connecting implementation of such programs seem to limit their through visitors’ needs and values, and integrating green transformative potential (Montes Cortés 2018). skills development (Tozer et al. 2020). As mid- and long- term goal, NBS projects must help tackle long-term green inequalities if they are to fulfill their A NEW (JUST) TALE FOR NATURE-BASED potential of addressing social and economic objectives in SOLUTIONS addition to environmental and climate goals. Green inequalities relate here to the lack of opportunity and We acknowledge that many NBS have been enacted with capacity held by low-income residents to benefit from NBS the best ecological and socio-economic intentions in mind projects through economic schemes than can support their and offer promising results for climate adaptation and livelihoods at the individual and community level. In mitigation. However, as we have argued above, their several projects we have examined, NBS are ‘‘intention- prospective benefits should not be taken for granted, as ally’’ coupled with equity measures. In Washington DC, evidence from the past and the present suggest that risks the 11th Street Bridge Park project—the transformation of are many and negative impacts can abound. Therefore, the a bridge in a greenway with new biodiversity features and eight principles and associated case examples developed in recreational opportunities as well as adjacent river clean-up this paper outline promising approaches and practices for and restoration—is coupled with an Equitable Develop- the governance of NBS as a justice-inspired and -centered ment plan that funds new minority-owned businesses and policy tool in the rural and urban areas where they are social venues, supports affordable housing measures to enacted. Specifically, we see the principles as safeguards to help avoid displacement, and creates resident-driven improve NBS governance frameworks in ways that gen- greening (Anguelovski et al. 2022). erate more just processes and outcomes, and avoid that Last, NBS must also guarantee that people’s relationship NBS for climate mitigation and adaptation lead to nature- with land and nature is repaired and supported. In cities enabled dispossession. Ó The Author(s) 2022 123 www.kva.se/en Ambio Our cautionary and critical approach to NBS and our REFERENCES plea to make these policies and projects socially just and environmentally effective are being increasingly recog- Almanza-Alcalde, H., P. Satyal, E. Corbera, A.P. SotoSánchez, and M. Pskowski. 2021. Participatory injustice in Mexico’s Readi- nized in socio-ecological research and have also been put ness process to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest forward by others. In October 2021, for example, the Degradation (REDD?). Human Ecology 50: 79–80. House of Lords Science and Technology Committee wrote Anguelovski, I., A.L. Brand, J.J. Connolly, E. Corbera, P. Kotsila, J. Alok Sharma, the COP26 President, warning that NBS Steil, M. Garcia Lamarca, M. Triguero-Mas, et al. 2020. Expanding the boundaries of justice in urban greening scholar- should not be a substitute for the need to de-carbonize ship: Towards an emancipatory, anti-subordination, intersec- economies and that they should be implemented with the tional, and relational approach. Annals of the American real partnership of local communities and affected peo- Association of Geographers 110: 1743–1769. ple.6 The Committee echoes the fear of environmental Anguelovski, I., A.L. Brand, M. Ranganathan, and D. Hyra. 2022. Decolonizing the Green City: From environmental privilege to NGOS and alliances, such as the World Rainforest emancipatory green justice. Environmental Justice 15: 1–11. Movement,7 the Indigenous Environmental Network, or Anguelovski, I., J. Connolly, M. Garcia Lamarca, H. Cole, and H. Friends of the Earth, who have called for a ‘‘No to Nature Pearsall. 2019a. New scholarly pathways on green gentrification: Based Solutions,’’ denouncing both the risks of monocul- What does the urban ‘‘green turn’’ mean and where is it going? Progress in Human Geography 43: 1064–1086. ture tree plantations and industrial agriculture.8 Anguelovski, I., and J.J. Connolly, eds. 2021. The Green City and In a context in which nature is being produced, enclosed, Social Injustice: 21 Tales from North America and Europe. and governed in increasingly privatized manners and with London: Routledge. unequal social impacts, NBS should also challenge the Anguelovski, I., J.J. Connolly, H. Cole, M. Garcia-Lamarca, M. Triguero-Mas, F. Baró, N. Martin, D. Conesa, et al. 2022. Green political economy of rural and urban development while gentrification in European and North American Cities. Nature guaranteeing that residents enjoy nature’s benefits, enhance Communications 13: 3816. their well-being, and access the emancipatory functions Anguelovski, I., C. Irazábal-Zurita, and J.J. Connolly. 2019b. that nature and land can and should play for all. Grabbed urban landscapes: Socio-spatial tensions in green infrastructure planning in Medellı́n. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 43: 133–156. Anguelovski, I., P. Kotsila, D. Moore, and M. Lennon. 2021. Funding Open Access Funding provided by Universitat Autonoma Environmental Inequities in Fast-growing Dublin: Combined de Barcelona. This study was funded by Ministerio de Ciencia, Scarcity of Green Space and Affordable Housing for The Innovación y Universidades (Grant No. CEX2019-000940-M) and by Liberties. In The Green City and Social Injustice: 21 Tales from the European Research Council (Grant No. GA678034). North America and Europe, ed. I. Anguelovski and J.J. Connolly. London: Routledge. Declarations Bakker, K. 2010. The limits of ‘neoliberal natures’: Debating green neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography 34: 715–735. Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing or conflict of Ban, N.C., E. Wilson, and D. Neasloss. 2020. Historical and interest. contemporary indigenous marine conservation strategies in the North Pacific. Conservation Biology 34: 5–14. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Baró, F., L. Chaparro, E. Gómez-Baggethun, J. Langemeyer, D.J. Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, Nowak, and J. Terradas. 2014. Contribution of ecosystem adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as services to air quality and climate change mitigation policies: long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the The case of urban forests in Barcelona, Spain. Ambio 43: source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate 466–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0507-x if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this Bocarejo, D., and D. Ojeda. 2016. Violence and conservation: Beyond article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless unintended consequences and unfortunate coincidences. Geofo- indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not rum 69: 176–183. included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended Bowler, D.E., L. Buyung-Ali, T.M. Knight, and A.S. Pullin. 2010. use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright the empirical evidence. Landscape and Urban Planning 97: holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons. 147–155. org/licenses/by/4.0/. Brink, E., T. Aalders, D. Ádám, R. Feller, Y. Henselek, A. Hoffmann, K. Ibe, A. Matthey-Doret, et al. 2016. Cascades of green: A review of ecosystem-based adaptation in urban areas. Global Environmental Change 36: 111–123. Brockington, D., and J. Igoe. 2006. Eviction for conservation: a global overview. Conservation and Society 4: 424–470. 6 https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/193/science-and-techn Brooks, J.S., K.A. Waylen, and M.B. Mulder. 2012. How national ology-committee-lords/news/158042/committee-urges-cop26-to-inclu context, project design, and local community characteristics de-naturebased-solutions-in-its-decision-text/. influence success in community-based conservation projects. 7 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: https://wrm.org.uy/actions-and-campaigns/more-than-200-groups- 21265–21270. say-no-to-nature-based-solutions/. 8 https://grain.org/en/article/6734-no-to-nature-based-dispossessions. Ó The Author(s) 2022 www.kva.se/en 123 Ambio Castree, N. 2008. Neoliberalising nature: The logics of deregulation Gaffin, S.R., C. Rosenzweig, and A.Y. Kong. 2012. Adapting to and reregulation. Environment and Planning A 40: 131–152. climate change through urban green infrastructure. Nature Chen, W.Y. 2015. The role of urban green infrastructure in offsetting Climate Change 2: 704–704. carbon emissions in 35 major Chinese cities: A nationwide Garcı́a Lamarca, M., Anguelovski, I., Cole, H., Connolly, J. J., estimate. Cities 44: 112–120. Arguelles, L., Baró, F., Perez del Pulgar, C., and Shokry, G. Clements, H.S., J. Baum, and G.S. Cumming. 2016. Money and 2021. Urban green boosterism and city affordability: for whom is motives: An organizational ecology perspective on private land the ‘branded’ green city? Urban studies. conservation. Biological Conservation 197: 108–115. Garcı́a-Lamarca, M., I. Anguelovski, H.V. Cole, J.J. Connolly, C. Corbera, E., S. Costedoat, D. Ezzine-de-Blas, and G. Van Hecken. Pérez-del-Pulgar, G. Shokry, and M. Triguero-Mas. 2022. Urban 2020. Troubled encounters: Payments for ecosystem services in green grabbing: Residential real estate developers discourse and Chiapas, Mexico. Development and Change 51: 167–195. practice in gentrifying Global North neighborhoods. Geoforum Costedoat, S., E. Corbera, D. Ezzine-de-Blas, J. Honey-Rosés, K. 128: 1–10. Baylis, and M.A. Castillo-Santiago. 2015. How effective are Hoang, C., P. Satyal, and E. Corbera. 2019. ‘This is my garden’: biodiversity conservation payments in Mexico? PLoS ONE 10: Justice claims and struggles over forests in Vietnam’s REDD?. e0119881. Climate Policy 19: S23–S35. Cousins, J.J. 2021. Justice in nature-based solutions: Research and Honey-Rosés, J., M. Maurer, M.I. Ramı́rez, and E. Corbera. 2018. pathways. Ecological Economics 180: 106874. Quantifying active and passive restoration in Central Mexico Cuthbert, M.O., G. Rau, M. Ekström, D. O’Carroll, and A. Bates. from 1986–2012: Assessing the evidence of a forest transition. 2022. Global climate-driven trade-offs between the water Restoration Ecology 26: 1180–1189. retention and cooling benefits of urban greening. Nature Huang, C., A.G. Barnett, Z. Xu, C. Chu, X. Wang, L.R. Turner, and S. Communications 13: 1–10. Tong. 2013. Managing the health effects of temperature in Dawson, N., B. Coolsaet, E. Sterling, R. Loveridge, D. Nicole, S. response to climate change: Challenges ahead. Environmental Wongbusarakum, K. Sangha, L. Scherl, et al. 2021. The role of Health Perspectives 121: 415–419. Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2022. Climate Change equitable conservation. Ecology and Society 26: 19. 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Summary for De la Sota, C., V. Ruffato-Ferreira, L. Ruiz-Garcı́a, and S. Alvarez. Policy-Makers. IPCC. 2019. Urban green infrastructure as a strategy of climate change Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and mitigation. A case study in northern Spain. Urban Forestry & Ecosystem Services. 2019. Summary for policymakers of the Urban Greening 40: 145–151. global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services Dowie, M. 2011. Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiver- Between Global Conservation and Native Peoples. Cambridge: sity and Ecosystem Services. MIT press. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Draus, P., D. Haase, J. Napieralski, J. Roddy, and S. Qureshi. 2019. Ecosystem Services and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Wounds, ghosts and gardens: Istorical trauma and green Change. 2021. Spotlighting the Interactions of the Science of reparations in Berlin and Detroit. Cities 93: 153–163. Biodiversity and Climate Change. Duffy, R., F. Massé, E. Smidt, E. Marijnen, B. Büscher, J. Verweijen, Izquierdo-Tort, S., E. Corbera, A. Martin, J.C. Lillo, and J. Dupras. M. Ramutsindela, T. Simlai, et al. 2019. Why we must question 2022. Contradictory distributive principles and land tenure the militarisation of conservation. Biological Conservation 232: govern benefit-sharing of payments for ecosystem services 66–73. (PES) in Chiapas, Mexico. Environmental Research Letters 17: Dumitru, A., L. Wendling, S. Vandewoestijne, and M. Cardinali. 055009. 2021. Evaluating the Impact of Nature-Based Solutions: A Jones, K.W., A. Mayer, J. Von Thaden, Z.C. Berry, S. López- Summary for Policy Makers. Brussels: European Commission. Ramı́rez, J. Salcone, R.H. Manson, and H. Asbjornsen. 2020. Eghenter, C. 2018. Indigenous effective area-based conservation Measuring the net benefits of payments for hydrological services measures: Conservation practices among the Dayak Kenyah of programs in Mexico. Ecological Economics 175: 106666. North Kalimantan. Parks 24: 69–78. Jordan, A., and A. Lenschow. 2010. Environmental policy integra- Elmqvist, T., E. Gómez-Baggethun, and J. Langemeyer. 2016. tion: A state of the art review. Environmental Policy and Ecosystem Services from Green Infrastructure in Cities. In Governance 20: 147–158. Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services, ed. M. Potschin, R. Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Haines-Young, R. Fish, and R.K. Turner, 452–468. Routledge. Artmann, M., Haase, D., Knapp, et al. 2016. Nature-based European Commission. 2015. Towards an EU Research and Innova- solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban tion Policy Agenda for Naturebased Solutions & Re-naturing areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and Cities: Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on opportunities for action. Ecology and Society, 21. ‘Naturebased Solutions and Re-naturing Cities’. Kabisch, N., and D. Haase. 2014. Green justice or just green? European Commission. 2021. Bridging COP26 and COP15: EU Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landscape Highlights the Need to Tackle the Nature and Climate Crises and Urban Planning 122: 129–139. Together. Brussels: European Commission. Kosoy, N., and E. Corbera. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as European Environment Agency. 2021. Nature-Based Solutions in commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics 69: 1228–1236. Europe: Policy, Knowledge and Practice for Climate Change Kotsila, P., I. Anguelovski, F. Baró, J. Langemeyer, F. Sekulova, and Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction. J.T. Connolly. 2021. Nature-based solutions as discursive tools Finney, C. 2014. Black Faces, White Spaces: Reimagining the and contested practices in urban nature’s neoliberalisation Relationship of African Americans to the Great Outdoors. processes. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 4: Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press Books. 252–274. Gabriel, N. 2016. ‘‘No place for wilderness’’: Urban parks and the Kotsila, P., K. Hörschelmann, I. Anguelovski, F. Sekulova, and Y. assembling of neoliberal urban environmental governance. Lazova. 2020. Clashing temporalities of care and support as key Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 19: 278–284. determinants of transformatory and justice potentials in urban gardens. Cities 106: 102865. Ó The Author(s) 2022 123 www.kva.se/en Ambio Kull, C.A., X.A. de Sartre, and M. Castro-Larrañaga. 2015. The Tozer, L., K. Hörschelmann, I. Anguelovski, H. Bulkeley, and Y. political ecology of ecosystem services. Geoforum 61: 122–134. Lazova. 2020. Whose city? Whose nature? Towards inclusive Kumar, P., S.E. Debele, J. Sahani, L. Aragão, F. Barisani, B. Basu, E. nature-based solution governance. Cities 107: 102892. Bucchignani, N. Charizopoulos, et al. 2020. Towards an Triguero-Mas, M., P. Dadvand, M. Cirach, D. Martı́nez, A. Medina, operationalisation of nature-based solutions for natural hazards. A. Mompart, X. Basagaña, R. Gražulevičien_e, et al. 2015. Science of the Total Environment 731: 138855. Natural outdoor environments and mental and physical health: Massé, F. 2020. Conservation law enforcement: Policing protected Relationships and mechanisms. Environment International 77: areas. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 110: 35–41. 758–773. Triguero-Mas, M., M. Fontan, and T. Dommerholt. 2021. Can Massé, F., and E. Lunstrum. 2016. Accumulation by securitization: community mobilization be inclusive of the black community in Commercial poaching, neoliberal conservation, and the creation its fight against green gentrification? In The green city and social of new wildlife frontiers. Geoforum 69: 227–237. injustice: 21 tales from North America and Europe, ed. Meli, P., K.D. Holl, J.M. Rey Benayas, H.P. Jones, P.C. Jones, D. I. Anguelovski and J.J. Connolly. London: Routledge. Montoya, and D. Moreno Mateos. 2017. A global review of past Wickenberg, B., K. McCormick, and J.A. Olsson. 2021. Advancing land use, climate, and active vs. passive restoration effects on the implementation of nature-based solutions in cities: A review forest recovery. PloS one 12: e0171368. of frameworks. Environmental Science & Policy 125: 44–53. Montes Cortés, C. 2018. La reglamentación del pago por servicios Wolch, J., J. Byrne, and J. Newell. 2014. Urban green space, public ambientales en la implementación del Acuerdo de Paz. Una health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making novedad ilusoria. Cátedra Unesco: derechos humanos y violen- cities ‘just green enough.’ Landscape and Urban Planning 125: cia: gobierno y gobernanza. Justicia restaurativa y la relación 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017. con los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales (DESC) de las vı´ctimas del conflicto armado. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to Moros, L., E. Corbera, M.A. Vélez, and D. Flechas. 2020. Pragmatic jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. conservation: Discourses of payments for ecosystem services in Colombia. Geoforum 108: 169–183. Nagoda, S., and A.J. Nightingale. 2017. Participation and power in climate change adaptation policies: Vulnerability in food AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES security programs in Nepal. World Development 100: 85–93. Isabelle Anguelovski (&) is an urban planner whose research is Nalau, J., S. Becken, and B. Mackey. 2018. Ecosystem-based situated at the intersection of unequal urban development, land use Adaptation: A review of the constraints. Environmental Science planning in the context of climate change, and environmental justice. & Policy 89: 357–364. She is an ICREA Research Professor at UAB-ICTA and co-directs the Oldekop, J.A., G. Holmes, W.E. Harris, and K.L. Evans. 2016. A Laboratory for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of (BCNUEJ). protected areas. Conservation Biology 30: 133–141. Address: Institució Catalana de Recerca I Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Pascual, U., J. Phelps, E. Garmendia, K. Brown, E. Corbera, A. Passeig de Lluı́s Companys 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain. Martin, E. Gomez-Baggethun, and R. Muradian. 2014. Social Address: Institute of Environmental Science and Technology & equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience Department of Geography, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 64: 1027–1036. Campus UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain. Pritchard, R., and D. Brockington. 2019. Forests: Regrow with locals’ e-mail: Isabelle.Anguelovski@uab.cat participation. Nature 569: 630–630. Ramirez-Reyes, C., K.R. Sims, P. Potapov, and V.C. Radeloff. 2018. Esteve Corbera is an environmental social scientist who studies Payments for ecosystem services in Mexico reduce forest human-nature relationships, and the impact of social, policy and fragmentation. Ecological Applications 28: 1982–1997. environmental change on resource governance. He is an ICREA Sändig, J. 2021. Contesting large-scale land acquisitions in the Global Research Professor at UAB-ICTA and co-directs the Laboratory for South. World Development 146: 105581. the Analysis of Socio-Ecological Systems in a Global World Sekulova, F., I. Anguelovski, B. Kiss, P. Kotsila, F. Baró, Y.V. (LASEG). Palgan, and J. Connolly. 2021. The governance of nature-based Address: Institució Catalana de Recerca I Estudis Avançats (ICREA), solutions in the city at the intersection of justice and equity. Passeig de Lluı́s Companys 23, 08010 Barcelona, Spain. Cities 112: 103136. Address: Institute of Environmental Science and Technology & Sovacool, B.K. 2018. Bamboo beating bandits: Conflict, inequality, Department of Geography, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and vulnerability in the political ecology of climate change Campus UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain. adaptation in Bangladesh. World Development 102: 183–194. Toxopeus, H., P. Kotsila, M. Conde, A. Katona, A.P. van der Jagt, and F. Polzin. 2020. How ‘just’is hybrid governance of urban nature- based solutions? Cities 105: 102839. Ó The Author(s) 2022 www.kva.se/en 123