Copyright © 2022 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Andersson, E., D. Haase, J. Kronenberg, J. Langemeyer, A. Mascarenhas, M. Wolff and T. Elmqvist. 2022. Based on nature, enabled by social-ecological-technological context: deriving benefit from urban green and blue infrastructure. Ecology and Society 27(4):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13580-270418 Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on Holistic Solutions Based on Nature: Unlocking the Potential of Green and Blue Infrastructure Based on nature, enabled by social-ecological-technological context: deriving benefit from urban green and blue infrastructure Erik Andersson 1,2,3 , Dagmar Haase 4,5, Jakub Kronenberg 6, Johannes Langemeyer 4,7, André Mascarenhas 4, Manuel Wolff 4,8 and Thomas Elmqvist 1 Although green and blue infrastructure (GBI) is recognized in Nagoya, Japan, adopted a plan of action co-developed by and throughout the world for its multifunctionality and its large for local governments. At the global level, the Cities and potential to effectively target and engage with existing and novel Biodiversity Outlook (CBO) project was initiated in 2011 to urban challenges, such as climate change or public health, the full support an overall assessment and offer further guidance understanding of how it fits into the social, ecological, and (Elmqvist et al. 2013), recently followed by a global environmental technological totality of the urban system lags behind. A widely outlook for cities (United Nations Environment Programme held assumption is that GBI's inherent multifunctionality means 2021, United Nations 2022). In parallel, emerging green that it may deliver societal benefits while also supporting infrastructure strategies fostered nature to be considered an biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation and integral part of planning and multi-actor decision making across adaptation objectives (e.g., Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2013, Haase sectors, scales, and different landscapes (European Commission et al. 2014, Pauleit et al. 2019, Egerer et al. 2021). Less clear, 2014). In this vein, the concept “nature-based solutions,” however, is in what settings and under what conditions urban pioneered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature residents differing in age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or (IUCN 2012), has challenged the conventional engineering and interests may perceive and benefit from urban GBI. Interlinkages technological approach to build resilience to urban hazards such between GBI and the built infrastructure, institutions, and as flooding and heat waves (European Commission 2014) by residents of the city are positioned as a strategic, if still contested, ecosystem-based “actions” (United Nations 2022). The approach nexus in urban planning (e.g., Pauleit et al. 2019) and key to wider has developed rapidly as local governments are increasingly urban multi-actor governance (e.g., Buijs et al. 2016, Frantzeskaki grappling with the challenges of climate change–induced extreme et al. 2019). This special feature, “Holistic Solutions Based on weather events and adaptation in densely built environments. Nature: Unlocking the Potential of Green and Blue The role of people in the production of ecosystem services and Infrastructure,” builds primarily on the ENABLE project (https:// their potential well-being has since then become increasingly www.biodiversa.org/1014) and focuses on the need for context- nuanced (Ernstson 2013, Andersson et al. 2015, Palomo et al. sensitive approaches where urban quality of life is understood as 2016) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on co-produced by multiple interlinked factors. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has further The special feature continues a long tradition of trying to developed a global framework to think about relationships understand the generation and use of ecosystem services in cities. between humans and nature, anchored on the notion of nature’s Already in the early 20th century, Park, Burgess, and colleagues contributions to people (Díaz et al. 2015). Rather than societally at the Chicago School of Sociology had applied ecological theory important ecosystem functions, ecosystem services are instead of patterns and processes (Burgess 1925; see McDonnell 2011) to positioned as emergent outcomes of social-ecological interactions describe the structure and function of cities as “social ecology” (e.g., Keeler et al. 2019, Lin et al. 2021, Tzoulas et al. 2021). (Park and Burgess 1925, Hawley 1944). These ideas took flight The global interest in urban resilience and quality of life, urban eight decades later, when the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment GBI, nature-based solutions, environmental and social justice, (2003) turned ecosystem services into a widely used framework and many more fields of inquiry has resulted in an increasingly for discussing the role functioning ecosystems and natural capital rich toolbox of methods, evaluation frameworks, indicators, and have for human well-being. Drawing on valuation aspects, in critical perspectives (e.g., McPhearson et al. 2016, Biernacka and particular, the TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Kronenberg 2018, Wolff and Haase 2019, Langemeyer and Biodiversity) initiative published its synthesis report in 2010 Connolly 2020). Moving forward, the articles in this special (TEEB 2010), followed by a manual for cities (TEEB 2011) and feature recognize the unique character of place, location, and a report specifically targeting local and regional policy makers situation while still striving to elicit universally relevant and (TEEB 2012). Globally, the integration of disciplines and transferable knowledge. Central to all of the contributions is a perspectives inherent in the use of ecosystem services took a big recognition of the importance of context, something that is often step forward in 2010 when the Convention on Biological Diversity shunned as noise in science and research (e.g., Funtowicz and (CBD), at the 10th meeting of the conference of the parties (COP) 1 Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 2Ecosystems and Environment Research Programme, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, 3Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa, 4Department of Geography, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 5Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, Germany, 6Social-Ecological Systems Analysis Lab, Faculty of Economics and Sociology, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland, 7Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain, 8 Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Leipzig, Germany Ecology and Society 27(4): 18 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss4/art18/ Ravetz 1993, Gibbons 2000). Taking a social-ecological- Drawing from several information sources for six case-study cities, technological systems approach to GBI and the benefits urban Kronenberg et al. (2021) analyze investment and planning residents receive from it, we showcase three critical factors (filters) initiatives intended to make GBI benefits available and accessible that influence the realization and distribution of benefits from GBI: to urban residents. They show how underappreciation of the infrastructures (composition and configuration of the urban complexity of social-ecological systems can lead to unintended physical landscape, integration of GBI and grey-built consequences, trade-offs, and constraints in GBI planning, infrastructure); institutions (land tenure, rights, rules, and norms); implementation, and management. Their findings provide and user perceptions and capacities (such as people’s diverse arguments against a simplistic view that urban greening and individual preferences and shared or conflicting values; Andersson blueing will unfailingly lead to positive results in terms of et al. 2019, 2021a). increased resident well-being. Instead, they argue that enabling the flow of benefits from GBI requires a thoughtful consideration In the special feature, we explore new ways of combining concepts, of multiple issues, as they illustrate with the experiences in the methods, tools, and approaches to advance our understanding of case-study cities. urban system complexity through a set of studies examining local contexts and situatedness, systemic interactions, barriers, and Examining one of the above case studies in more detail, in order enabling factors behind delivery and distribution of ecosystem to uncover potential barriers to the enjoyment of the ecosystem service benefits, and insights from inter- and transdisciplinary service benefits of local GBI, Haase et al. (2021) use mental learning processes. Methodologically, the articles in the special mapping to explore place attachment in Halle-Neustadt, feature attest that there are no universal approaches, templates, or Germany. The study demonstrates how negative, unspoken place standard methods that will work across all cases, especially not given meanings and identities contribute to the non-use of urban GBI. the diverse nature of urban contexts, GBI benefits, and their Local GBI was completely absent from mental maps of interactions with the three filters. Instead, the authors in the special recreational opportunities and spaces, an absence reflecting, the feature have sought to identify which questions to ask and how to authors explain, neighborhood neglect and the multi-scalar provide epistemologically agile methodological approaches and character of urban recreational ideas/behavior. tools for seeking to answer them. The three filters framework, Wolff et al. (2022) conceptualize and explore the barrier effects explicit or implicit in the attention given to context, and the unifying of interacting social-ecological-technological factors. The study systems approach used in many of the papers provide a generic uses a framework of physical, personal, and institutional barriers approach to positioning and aligning different methods and data as to analyze three case studies: Stockholm, Sweden; Leipzig, well as different theoretical components and themes. It can especially Germany; and Lodz, Poland. The authors argue that constrained help us address new research questions or re-evaluate existing case access to GBI benefits is not the sum of universally consistent studies and prevailing “truths.” We see several possibilities to use effects of interacting barriers. Instead, they point to the the framework to support cross-case comparability without losing significance that beneficiaries assign to them, captured as case-sensitive depth and nuance, grounded in thematic interlinkages, perceived barrier effects. Grounded in this more comprehensive methods integration, and reflexivity and theorizing back (i.e., understanding of individuals’ decisions in terms of accessing and constantly re-questioning and re-examining the phenomena under realizing recreational benefits, the authors propose three study, the theory behind them, and their connections to other issues). complementary pathways for improving access to the recreational Greener for all? benefits of urban GBI: programming the environment, building Planners and scholars are increasingly asked to account for the knowledge, and supporting engagement. accessibility of GBI itself and the opportunities and constraints Treglia et al. (2022) discuss green roofs as a strategy for converting diverse groups of beneficiaries face when trying to realize different often un- and underutilized and potentially problematic spaces GBI benefits. At the core, this means that variation in terms of GBI into multifunctional parts of the landscape, using five boroughs availability does not translate to a matching distribution of benefits, of New York City, USA, as an example. The study demonstrates which are constrained or enabled by additional factors beyond GBI an implicit injustice: outside midtown and downtown Manhattan, distribution. Therefore, contextualized, systemic, multi-sector, and most of the city districts, including areas that face stormwater multi-actor strategies for GBI planning are needed to better account management challenges and communities that are most for other-than-physical constraints, user perspectives, and diversity vulnerable to impacts of heat waves, are comparatively among users. Collective as well as conflicting perceptions of place, underserved. The dataset developed, which is publicly available, people’s role in nature, what constitutes a good life, or the scale at can serve as a baseline for tracking change through time, while which the city is expected to provide for different needs are changing, supporting further research, conversations, and policies related not least through social and technological innovation and to the benefits and distribution of green roofs. transformation (McPhearson et al. 2021). These changes affect, differentially across groups and individuals, the ability to make sense To link infrastructural and institutional factors to the flow of of the urban landscape and access its different benefits, which has benefits from GBI, Łaszkiewicz et al. (2022) study the accessibility implications not least for distributional environmental justice (e.g., of urban green spaces on the basis of urban morphology. They Low 2013, Biernacka and Kronenberg 2018, Anguelovski et al. use the scale of individual buildings in five case study cities 2020). Such tensions are further exacerbated when cities become (Barcelona, Spain; Halle, Germany; Lodz, Poland; Oslo, Norway; denser or gentrified, rewriting the scales relevant for and Stockholm, Sweden) to investigate the share of urban green accommodating different needs, as evidenced not least by spaces in the service area of 300 m walking distance from every restrictions on mobility and local recreation imposed by the residential building in each city. To account for institutional issues, COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Honey-Rosés et al. 2021). the authors include property rights to indicate whether green Ecology and Society 27(4): 18 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss4/art18/ spaces are accessible to the public or not. The study highlights of landscape multifunctionality and how to deal with multiple how locally specific combinations of urban morphology and drivers of change. Tracking and reflecting on the process as much ownership patterns create very different opportunities to benefit as the outcomes, the article discusses resilience building in terms from green spaces. of stakeholder participation; the role of discourses, identities and mandates, agency, and adaptive capacity; and alternative Kraemer and Kabisch (2021) assess green space recreational strategies for dealing with change. quality on the basis of an indicator system detailing (1) natural elements, e.g., the types and configuration of vegetation and the The study by Haase and Wolff (2021) identifies opportunities for proportion of water bodies; (2) built elements, e.g., various regrowth and sustainable land development by applying the recreational facilities and path density; and (3) the embeddedness ecosystem services and green points frameworks to a set of land of green spaces within the built, social, and natural environment use transition rules. The study provides insights into how regrowth (context), e.g., the number of neighboring residents, nearby green and greening can be reconciled in densifying neighborhoods and or blue elements, and exposure to traffic. The study provides tools how effective and flexible different types of green spaces are in and guidance for identifying untapped potential for recreational terms of the ecosystem services they provide. The results for the activities, hindered by, for example, usage barriers, and balancing city of Halle show that ecosystem services benefit flows are likely the trade-offs between benefits for human residents and to increase only in districts where real estate pressure is low, which biodiversity. may exacerbate injustices in terms of green space availability. Now and into the unknown Andersson et al. (2021b) describe the outcomes of taking a case- Climate change, rapid and diverse urbanization (including both sensitive, stepwise approach to finding foundations for resilience sprawl and shrinkage), shifting demographics, and lifestyle building. Three cases, Halle-Neustadt, Barcelona (De Luca et al. preferences all influence what we look to GBI to deliver, and the 2021), and Stockholm (Borgström et al. 2021), are evaluated and nature of GBI itself. In the face of rapid and often large-scale discussed in terms of outcomes and output, how they tried to change, resilience has become a byword (Elmqvist et al. 2019, make use of a shared conceptual framework, the challenges they 2021, McPhearson et al. 2021). Although urban residents still faced, and what the outcomes were. This exploratory work points depend largely on external support systems for their basic well- to a new way of engaging with urban resilience. The strength of being (Seto et al. 2012, Friis and Nielsen 2019), some issues ask the conceptual-methodological approach is that it is not limited for local solutions. GBI, or the many different urban ecosystems, to the identification of specific interventions or policy options, are a core asset for improving, mitigating, or reducing site-specific nor is it trying to prevent change; rather, it focuses on how to and often locally caused environmental burdens (particles, noise, move with change and build resilience through the constant waste, soil and water contamination, heat islands, flooding) and balancing of different types of social-ecological-technological provide an attractive but sensitive setting for physical exercise change. (Tzoulas et al. 2007, van den Bosch and Sang 2017). Learning (together) by doing Shade et al. (2020) evaluate the implementation of a variety of Inter- and transdisciplinary research projects bring with them GBI practices in Philadelphia, USA, intended to help meet state both challenges and opportunities for learning among all and federal stormwater regulations. To build resilience in pace stakeholders involved. This is a particularly relevant aspect in with climate change, the authors demonstrate how the city social-ecological research projects, which deal with complex, real- government will need to expand its green infrastructure plan and world systems and difficult problems involving various consider the co-benefits of climate change adaptation when stakeholders’ interests, needs, and views, while demanding planning new projects. Additionally, the authors argue that for expertise from a wide range of disciplines (Reed 2008, Cvitanovic true climate change resilience to be achieved, green infrastructure et al. 2016, Freeth and Caniglia 2019). In theory, the value of GBI implementation must be connected to citywide greening efforts is widely appreciated, and keeping or making cities green has and accelerate and continue beyond the near term for localities broad general societal support (as expressed, for example, by to function as they do today. Sustainable Development Goal 11 [https://sdgs.un.org/goals/ goal11]). However, the reality of fragmented and sectoral policy Starting with a review on GBI-relevant policies and co- and planning, diverging economic interests, and often poor fit development of scenario narratives of possible futures, De Luca between the mandate, ambit, and resources of the many actors et al. (2021) investigate the presence of resilience thinking in involved in creating and maintaining GBI make long-term Barcelona’s GBI-relevant policies. Building on this baseline, the provisioning of GBI benefits uncertain (Grunewald et al. 2021). study develops participatory scenarios and evaluates their Building resilience around GBI, and equitable flows of desired implications for ecosystem service provision and overall strategies benefits, requires knowledge, both about what needs to be done for dealing with change. Straddling research and practice, the and how it can be done. Dialogue and deliberative processes are study both supports the development of a comprehensive gaining traction as (potentially) democratic and inclusive ways to resilience strategy for Barcelona and indicates pathways for how handle the complex, context-sensitive nature of GBI well-being other cities can sustain flows of ecosystem services. benefits (Mascarenhas et al. 2016, Hölscher et al. 2021). Yet these Using the rapidly urbanizing landscape in Stockholm as a case, processes call for careful attention to a number of procedural Borgström et al. (2021) apply resilience thinking to the urban aspects to ensure their fairness, validity, and actionability. context. Drawing on insights from the design and implementation Mascarenhas et al. (2021) put forward an analytical framework of a participatory dialogue process, they explore the emergence for assessing the learning process of both the research team and Ecology and Society 27(4): 18 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss4/art18/ other participating stakeholders within the scope of an resilience, environmental justice, or GBI benefits, the filters international transdisciplinary project dealing with urban green framework offers a structure for connecting theories and and blue infrastructure. The framework is structured around five analytical lenses. The articles of this special feature show how to dimensions of the learning process: “Why learn?” (the purpose of untangle complexity and relate seemingly disconnected issues and knowledge generation and sharing); “What to learn about?” (the thus provide depth to ideas like multifunctionality. Deep case types of knowledge involved); “Who to learn with?” (the actors understandings depend on the integration of different ways of involved); “How to learn?” (the methods and tools used); “When understanding the system. The filters and their effects can be to learn?” (the timing of different stages). Applying the captured and portrayed with very different types of data and framework, Mascarenhas et al. illustrate how it can support analytical approaches. As Mascarenhas et al. (2021) attest, how reflexivity and capture the learning process taking place in to weigh and combine evidence remains a challenge, in particular transdisciplinary research more comprehensively than similar when diverse actors are involved. Finally, the iterative and existing frameworks. reflexive way of studying and learning within the ENABLE project with respect to results, concepts, and methods has led to Borgström et al. (2021) argue that deep knowledge of the strong coalitions between local stakeholders and scholars, complexities of urban land use and governance requires the informed and driven by local settings and challenges, with a involvement of diverse stakeholders. However, handling this mutual knowledge gain for both groups. diversity poses a challenge for process design; combining the ambition of an inclusive process and the need to be relevant with the use of bridging concepts increases the risk of reducing the Responses to this article can be read online at: level of complexity of the deliberative process. There is also a risk https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses. of participation bias, where stakeholders knowledgeable about php/13580 green-blue infrastructure are easier to engage compared with stakeholders with knowledge about drivers of change and urban governance, which will influence the system understanding and envisioned alternative pathways for taking action. Pointing to the value of a shared conceptual system framework, Acknowledgments: Andersson et al. (2021a) describe how the combination of the This research was funded through the 2015-2016 BiodivERsA three filters model (Andersson et al. 2019) and the ecosystem COFUND call for research proposals, with the national funders the service cascade (Haines-Young and Potschin 2010) can guide and Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences, connect layers of inquiry and different epistemological and Spatial Planning; the Swedish Environmental Protection approaches to building context-relevant knowledge, while Agency; the German Aerospace Center; the National Science allowing for flexibility for aligning with local circumstances. The Centre (Poland; grant no. 2016/22/Z/NZ8/00003); the Research study synthesizes insights from a set of exploratory case studies Council of Norway; and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and to outline pathways for gradually building a cumulative Competitiveness. understanding across cases and city contexts. Many of the cases include different elements of participatory learning and alternative ways and different knowledges to draw on for answering similar questions. The article concludes by discussing LITERATURE CITED key questions about GBI and how overall urban planning and Andersson, E., S. Borgström, D. Haase, J. Langemeyer, A. governance can help ensure its contributions to urban quality of Mascarenhas, T. McPhearson, M. Wolff, E. Łaszkiewicz, J. life. Kronenberg, D. N. Barton, and P. Herreros-Cantis. 2021a. A In conclusion context sensitive systems approach for understanding and Expanding the filters conceptualization, this special feature enabling ecosystem service realization in cities. Ecology and provides an operational framework and flexible epistemological Society 26(2):35. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12411-260235 approach for the complex questions that lie at the heart of urban Andersson, E., S. Borgström, D. Haase, J. Langemeyer, M. Wolff, social-ecological-technological studies. The articles in the special and T. McPhearson. 2021b. Urban resilience thinking in practice: feature show the breadth, variety, and advantages of applying the ensuring flows of benefit from green and blue infrastructure. filters approach. First, filters help to develop a differentiated Ecology and Society 26(4):39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12691-260439 understanding of when and how GBI has an influence on its urban context and thus matters for the quality of life of urban Andersson, E., J. Langemeyer, S. Borgström, T. McPhearson, D. inhabitants (and vice versa). Inherently different dynamics and Haase, J. Kronenberg, D. N. Barton, M. Davis, S. Naumann, L. time scales make the filters relevant for discussing the interplay Röschel, and F. Baró. 2019. Enabling green and blue between slow and fast change, and between resilience and infrastructure to improve contributions to human well-being and transformation. equity in urban systems. BioScience 69(7):566-574. https://doi. Second, the filters framework, through its guidance for building org/10.1093/biosci/biz058 deep, comprehensive case studies, helps to explore, understand, Andersson, E., T. McPhearson, P. Kremer, E. Gomez-Baggethun, and make sense of the different range, sensitivity, and explanation D. Haase, M. Tuvendal, and D. Wurster. 2015. Scale and context power of applied methods both within cases and by comparing dependence of ecosystem service providing units. Ecosystem them. When intersected with other conceptualizations like Services 12:157-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.001 Ecology and Society 27(4): 18 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss4/art18/ Anguelovski, I., A. L. Brand, J. J. T. Connolly, E. Corbera, P. Elmqvist, T., M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Kotsila, J. Steil, M. Garcia-Lamarca, M. Triguero-Mas, H. Cole, Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. and F. Baró, et al. 2020. Expanding the boundaries of justice in Sendstad, K. C. Seto, and C. Wilkinson, editors. 2013. urban greening scholarship: toward an emancipatory, Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges antisubordination, intersectional, and relational approach. and opportunities. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. https://doi. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 110 org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1 (6):1743-1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1740579 Ernstson, H. 2013. The social production of ecosystem services: Biernacka, M., and J. Kronenberg. 2018. Classification of a framework for studying environmental justice and ecological institutional barriers affecting the availability, accessibility and complexity in urban landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning attractiveness of urban green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban 109(1):7-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.005 Greening 36:22-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.09.007 European Commission, Directorate–General for Environment. Borgström, S., E. Andersson, and T. Björklund. 2021. Retaining 2014. Building a green infrastructure for Europe. Publications multi-functionality in a rapidly changing urban landscape: Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg. insights from a participatory, resilience thinking process in Frantzeskaki, N., T. McPhearson, M. J. Collier, D. Kendal, H. Stockholm, Sweden. Ecology and Society 26(4):17. https://doi. Bulkeley, A. Dumitru, C. Walsh, K. Noble, E. van Wyk, C. org/10.5751/ES-12432-260417 Ordóñez, C. Oke, and L. Pintér. 2019. Nature-based solutions for Buijs, A., T. J. M. Mattijssen, A. P. N. Van der Jagt, B. Ambrose- urban climate change adaptation: linking science, policy, and Oji, E. Andersson, B. H. M. Elands, and M. S. Møller. 2016. practice communities for evidence-based decision-making. Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: fostering the BioScience 69(6):455-466. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz042 diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic Freeth, R., and G. Caniglia. 2020. Learning to collaborate while governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability collaborating: advancing interdisciplinary sustainability research. 22:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.002 Sustainability Science 15:247-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Burgess, E. W. 1925. The growth of the city: an introduction to a s11625-019-00701-z research project. Pages 47-62 in R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, and Friis, C., and J. Ø. Nielsen, editors. 2019. Telecoupling: exploring R. D. McKenzie, editors. The city. University of Chicago Press, land-use change in a globalised world. Springer, Cham, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11105-2 Cvitanovic, C., J. McDonald, and A. J. Hobday. 2016. From Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post- science to action: principles for undertaking environmental normal age. Futures 25(7):739-755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287 research that enables knowledge exchange and evidence-based (93)90022-L decision-making. Journal of Environmental Management 183 (Part 3):864-874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.038 Gibbons, M. 2000. Mode 2 society and the emergence of context- sensitive science. Science and Public Policy 27(3):159-163. https:// De Luca, C., J. Langemeyer, S. S. Vaňo, F. Baró, and E. Andersson. doi.org/10.3152/147154300781782011 2021. Adaptive resilience of and through urban ecosystem services: a transdisciplinary approach to sustainability in Gómez-Baggethun, E., Å. Gren, D. N. Barton, J. Langemeyer, T. Barcelona. Ecology and Society 26(4):38. https://doi.org/10.5751/ McPhearson, P. O’Farrell, E. Andersson, Z. Hamstead, and P. ES-12535-260438 Kremer. 2013. Urban ecosystem services. Pages 175-251 in T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Díaz, S., S. Demissew, J. Carabias, C. Joly, M. Lonsdale, N. Ash, Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. A. Larigauderie, J. R. Adhikari, S. Arico, A. Báldi, et al. 2015. Sendstad, K. C. Seto, and C. Wilkinson, editors. Global The IPBES conceptual framework—connecting nature and urbanization, biodiversity, and ecosystem services: challenges and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:1-16. opportunities. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht, Netherlands. https:// https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_11 Egerer, M., D. Haase, T. McPhearson, N. Frantzeskaki, E. Grunewald, K., O. Bastian, J. Louda, A. Arcidiacono, P. Brzoska, Andersson, H. Nagendra, and A. Ossola. 2021. Urban change as M. Bue, N. I. Cetin, C. Dworczyk, L. Dubova, A. Fitch, L. Jones, an untapped opportunity for climate adaptation. npj Urban D. La Rosa, A. Mascarenhas, S. Ronchi, M. A. Schlaepfer, D. Sustainability 1:22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00024-y Sikorska, and A. Tezer. 2021. Lessons learned from implementing Elmqvist, T., E. Andersson, N. Frantzeskaki, T. McPhearson, P. the ecosystem services concept in urban planning. Ecosystem Olsson, O. Gaffney, K. Takeuchi, and C. Folke. 2019. Services 49:101273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101273 Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban Haase, D., N. Larondelle, E. Andersson, M. Artmann, S. century. Nature Sustainability 2:267-273. https://doi.org/10.1038/ Borgström, J. Breuste, E. Gomez-Baggethun, Å. Gren, Z. s41893-019-0250-1 Hamstead, R. Hansen, N. Kabisch, P. Kremer, J. Langemeyer, E. Elmqvist, T., E. Andersson, T. McPhearson, X. Bai, L. L. Rall, T. McPhearson, S. Pauleit, S. Qureshi, N. Schwarz, A. Bettencourt, E. Brondizio, J. Colding, G. Daily, C. Folke, N. Voigt, D. Wurster, and T. Elmqvist. 2014. A quantitative review Grimm, D. Haase, D. Ospina, S. Parnell, S. Polasky, K. Seto, and of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and S. Van Der Leeuw. 2021. Urbanization in and for the implementation. Ambio 43:413-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Anthropocene. npj Urban Sustainability 1:6. https://doi. s13280-014-0504-0 org/10.1038/s42949-021-00018-w Ecology and Society 27(4): 18 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss4/art18/ Haase, D., and M. Wolff. 2021. Enabling ecosystem services at Lin, B. B., A. Ossola, M. Alberti, E. Andersson, X. Bai, C. Dobbs, the neighborhood scale while allowing for urban regrowth: the T. Elmqvist, K. L. Evans, N. Frantzeskaki, R. A. Fuller, et al. case of Halle, Germany. Ecology and Society 27(1):22. https:// 2021. Integrating solutions to adapt cities for climate change. doi.org/10.5751/ES-12988-270122 Lancet Planetary Health 5(7):e479-e486. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S2542-5196(21)00135-2 Haase, D., M. Wolff, and N. Schumacher. 2021. Mapping mental barriers that prevent the use of neighborhood green spaces. Low, S. 2013. Public space and diversity: distributive, procedural Ecology and Society 26(4):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12675-260416 and interactional justice for parks. Pages 295-310 in G. Young and D. Stevenson, editors. The Ashgate research companion to Haines-Young, R. H., and M. Potschin. 2010. The links between planning and culture. Routledge, Surrey, UK. biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Pages Mascarenhas, A., J. Langemeyer, D. Haase, S. Borgström, and E. 110-139 in D. G. Raffaelli and C. L. J. Frid, editors. Ecosystem Andersson. 2021. Assessing the learning process in ecology: a new synthesis. Cambridge University Press, transdisciplinary research through a novel analytical approach. Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750458.007 Ecology and Society 26(4):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12631-260419 Hawley, A. H. 1944. Ecology and human ecology. Social Forces Mascarenhas, A., T. B. Ramos, D. Haase, and R. Santos. 2016. 22(4):398-405. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315087863-4 Participatory selection of ecosystem services for spatial planning: Hölscher, K., and N. Frantzeskakis. 2021. Perspectives on urban insights from the Lisbon metropolitan area, Portugal. Ecosystem transformation research: transformations in, of, and by cities. Services 18:87-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.02.011 Urban Transformations 3:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-021-00019- McDonnell, M. J. 2011. The history of urban ecology: an z ecologist’s perspective. Pages 5-13 in J. Niemelä, editor. Urban Honey-Rosés, J., I. Anguelovski, V. K. Chireh, C. Daher, C. K. ecology: patterns, processes, and applications. Oxford University van den Bosch, J. S. Litt, V. Mawani, M. K. McCall, A. Orellana, Press, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1093/ E. Oscilowicz, U. Sánchez, M. Senbel, X. Tan, E. Villagomez, O. acprof:oso/9780199563562.003.0002 Zapata, and M. J. Nieuwenhuijsen. 2021. The impact of McPhearson, T., S. T. A. Pickett, N. B. Grimm, J. Niemelä, M. COVID-19 on public space: an early review of the emerging Alberti, T. Elmqvist, C. Weber, D. Haase, J. Breuste, and S. questions - design, perceptions and inequities. Cities & Health 5: Qureshi. 2016. Advancing urban ecology toward a science of S263-S279. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1780074 cities. BioScience 66(3):198-212. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/ International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2012. biw002 The IUCN Programme 2013-2016. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. McPhearson, T., C. M. Raymond, N. Gulsrud, C. Albert, N. Keeler, B. L., P. Hamel, T. McPhearson, M. H. Hamann, M. L. Coles, N. Fagerholm, M. Nagatsu, A. S. Olafsson, N. Soininen, Donahue, K. A. M. Prado, K. K. Arkema, G. N. Bratman, K. A. and K. Vierikko. 2021. Radical changes are needed for Brauman, J. C. Finlay, et al. 2019. Social-ecological and transformations to a good Anthropocene. npj Urban technological factors moderate the value of urban nature. Nature Sustainability 1:5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00017-x Sustainability 2:29-38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0202-1 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island, Kraemer, R., and N. Kabisch. 2021. Parks in context: advancing Washington, D.C., USA. citywide spatial quality assessments of urban green spaces using fine-scaled indicators. Ecology and Society 26(2):45. https://doi. Palomo, I., M. R. Felipe-Lucia, E. M. Bennett, B. Martín-López, org/10.5751/ES-12485-260245 and U. Pascual. 2016. Disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-production. Pages 245-283 in G. Woodward Kronenberg, J., E. Andersson, D. N. Barton, S. T. Borgström, J. and D. Bohan, editors. Ecosystem services: from biodiversity to Langemeyer, T. Björklund, D. Haase, C. Kennedy, K. Koprowska, society, part 2. Academic, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1016/ E. Łaszkiewicz, T. McPhearson, E. E. Stange, and M. Wolff. 2021. bs.aecr.2015.09.003 The thorny path toward greening: unintended consequences, trade-offs, and constraints in green and blue infrastructure Park, R. E., and E. W. Burgess. 1925. The city. Chicago University planning, implementation, and management. Ecology and Press, Chicago, USA. Society 26(2):36. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12445-260236 Pauleit, S., B. Ambrose-Oji, E. Andersson, B. Anton, A. Buijs, D. Langemeyer, J., and J. J. T. Connolly. 2020. Weaving notions of Haase, B. Elands, R. Hansen, I. Kowarik, J. Kronenberg, T. justice into urban ecosystem services research and practice. Mattijssen, A. Stahl Olafsson, E. Rall, A. P. N. N. van der Jagt, Environmental Science and Policy 109:1-14. https://doi. and C. K. van den Bosch. 2019. Advancing urban green org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.021 infrastructure in Europe: outcomes and reflections from the GREEN SURGE project. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening Łaszkiewicz, E., M. Wolff, E. Andersson, J. Kronenberg, D. N. 40:4-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.10.006 Barton, D. Haase, J. Langemeyer, F. Baró, and T. McPhearson. 2022. Greenery in urban morphology: a comparative analysis of Reed, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental differences in urban green space accessibility for various urban management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141 structures across European cities. Ecology and Society 27(3):22. (10):2417-2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13453-270322 Ecology and Society 27(4): 18 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss4/art18/ Seto, K. C., A. Reenberg, C. G. Boone, M. Fragkias, D. Haase, Wolff, M., A. Mascarenhas, A. Haase, D. Haase, E. Andersson, T. Langanke, P. Marcotullio, D. K. Munroe, B. Olah, and D. S. T. Borgström, J. Kronenberg, E. Łaszkiewicz, and M. Simon. 2012. Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Biernacka. 2022. Conceptualizing multidimensional barriers: a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 framework for assessing constraints in realizing recreational (20):7687-7692. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117622109 benefits of urban green spaces. Ecology and Society 27(2):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13180-270217 Shade, C., P. Kremer, J. S. Rockwell, and K. G. Henderson. 2020. The effects of urban development and current green infrastructure policy on future climate change resilience. Ecology and Society 25(4):37. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12076-250437 The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Progress, Malta. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). 2011. TEEB manual for cities: ecosystem services in urban management. TEEB, Geneva, Switzerland. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). 2012. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in local and regional policy and management. H. Wittmer and H. Gundimeda, editors. Earthscan, London, UK. Treglia, M. L., T. McPhearson, E. W. Sanderson, G. Yetman, and E. N. Maxwell. 2022. Examining the distribution of green roofs in New York City through a lens of social, ecological, and technological filters. Ecology and Society 27(3):20. https://doi. org/10.5751/ES-13303-270320 Tzoulas, K., J. Galan, S. Venn, M. Dennis, B. Pedroli, H. Mishra, D. Haase, S. Pauleit, J. Niemelä, and P. James. 2021. A conceptual model of the social–ecological system of nature-based solutions in urban environments. Ambio 50:335-345. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13280-020-01380-2 Tzoulas, K., K. Korpela, S. Venn, V. Yli-Pelkonen, A. Kazmierczak, J. Niemelä, and P. James. 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: a literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning 81(3):167-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001 United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). 2021. Global environment for cities-GEO for cities: towards green and just cities. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. United Nations. 2022. Nature-based solutions for supporting sustainable development. Resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on 2 March 2022. UNEP/EA.5/ Res.5. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. van den Bosch, M., and Å. O. Sang. 2017. Urban natural environments as nature-based solutions for improved public health – a systematic review of reviews. Environmental Research 158:373-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.040 Wolff, M., and D. Haase. 2019. Mediating sustainability and liveability—turning points of green space supply in European cities. Frontiers in Environmental Science 7:61. https://doi. org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00061