Recently published green infrastructure, nature-based solutions, and ecosystem disservices (ED) literature have focused primarily on the supply of urban regulating and cultural ecosystem services (ES). Other literature on urban and peri-urban agriculture has mostly studied the role of localized, intensive agricultural practices in providing food to inhabitants. The aim of this review is to raise awareness and stress the knowledge gap on the importance of urban provisioning ES, particularly when implementing an edible green infrastructure (EGI) approach as it can offer improved resilience and quality of life in cities. We compiled and systematically analyzed studies on urban ES and ED related to a number of EGI typologies. Our systematic review of the relevant literature via an EGI framework, identified more than 80 peer-reviewed publications that focused on ES and food production in urban areas. An EGI approach can contribute socially, economically, and environmentally to urban sustainability and food security. However, such benefits must be weighed against ED trade-offs, including: potential health risks caused by human exposure to heavy metals and organic chemical contaminants often present in urban surroundings. We conclude with recommendations and guidelines for incorporating EGI into urban planning and design, and discuss novel areas for future research. 1. NBS is an approach that improves upon the livability and resilience of cities in retrospect to climate change. Although these concepts are apparently used interchangeably, below we refer to urban GI as hybrid infrastructure of green and built systems (e.g. urban forests, wetlands, parks, green roofs, and walls that together can contribute to ecosystem resilience) and human benefits through their ecological processes or ES (Demuzere et al., 2014; Russo et al., 2016). These benefits or ES are also referred to as NBS when GI is incorporated into urban management, planning, design, and sociopolitical practices and policies for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Indeed, urban GI has been found to contribute positively to outdoor and indoor environments (Russo et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2014), while providing many relevant ES − including important health benefits (Coutts and Hahn, 2015). As such, GI delivers measurable ES and benefits that are fundamental to the concept of a sustainable city (Ahern et al., 2014). Urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry (UPAF), on the other hand have been studied and can be considered a set of experiences and practices for implementing the GI approach in and around cities (Eigenbrod and Gruda, 2015; Escobedo et al., 2011). UPAF systems focus on agro-forestry production and agro-ecological practices (e.g. production of vegetables, mushrooms, fruits, crops, aromatic and medicinal herbs, and ornamental plants) as well as the raising of animals (e.g. livestock and aquaculture) in and around urban areas (FAO, 2016). Whereas GI, as stated earlier, is closely related to ES and human wellbeing, with particular focus on regu...