Mapping the Life Cycle Co-Creation Process of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Climate Change Adaptation

Abstract

Developing urban and peri-urban ecosystem services with nature-based solutions (NBS) and participatory approaches can help achieve more resilient and sustainable environments for cities and urban areas in the face of climate change. The co-creation process is increasingly recognised as the way forward to deal with environmental issues in cities, allowing the development of associated methods and tools that have been described and published for specific stages. It is argued that the co-creation process comprises various interlinked stages, corresponding stakeholders, and subsequent methods and tools that need to be mapped and integrated across all stages. In this study, a Life Cycle Co-Creation Process (LCCCP) for NBS is developed, building on continuous improvement cycles and Design Thinking methodologies, and for which the stages and substages, involved stakeholders and engagement methods and tools are mapped and defined. For stakeholders, the actors of an Urban Living Lab (ULL) are adapted to the LCCCP; for the engagement methods and tools, the goals of stakeholder engagement are used as a guide to select examples of co-creation methods and tools. The developed LCCCP comprises five stages, i.e., CoExplore, CoDesign, CoExperiment, CoImplement and CoManagement, creating a unique path that can be followed by practitioners for NBS co-creation.Resources 2020, 9, 39 2 of 26 they provide to the population [5]. Considering that urban ecosystems and biodiversity represent an important role in climate change adaptation and mitigation, cities must develop a long-term systems-based approach that considers the impacts on urban areas and the human population. Urban areas evolve and are being reshaped constantly as urbanisation advances and more inhabitants are migrating towards metropolitan areas [6]. Hence, "urban planning is a continuous process of foreseeing, anticipating, and preparing for the future" while seeking a balance between interests from different stakeholders and sectors [7] (p. 76). Considering that climate change is constantly generating new challenges for cities, the concept of continuous improvement and innovative measures (combining or integrating urban planning and climate change) need to be taken into consideration.Developing urban and peri-urban ecosystem services with a nature-based and participatory approach can help achieve more resilient and sustainable environments for cities and urban areas [5]. In fact, the claim for new participatory approaches to deal with complex environmental challenges is related to failures in top-down decision-and policy-making processes to deal with those challenges [8][9][10]. These processes were traditionally positioned in the domain of trained experts, lacking detailed local knowledge and support from communities [11]. Moreover, urban biodiversity and ecosystems need to be safeguarded and enhanced for them to deliver critical, nature-based co-benefits that promote the well-being of its inhabitants.Nature-based solutions (NBS) are solutions that can help support clima...

Framing “nature‐based” solutions to climate change

“…For example, natural solutions in NCS literature were characterized as contributing significantly to the “cost‐effective mitigation” (defined by Griscom et al (2017) as less than $100 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent) required to limit global warming to 2°C (Crusius, 2020; Griscom et al, 2017; Griscom et al, 2020). On the NbS side, meanwhile, cost‐effectiveness was primarily referred to in definitional terms, as a critical component of what makes a nature‐based solution a nature‐based solution (DeLosRíos‐White et al, 2020; Kabisch et al, 2016; Pauleit et al, 2017). Authors drew from either the IUCN or European Commission definitions, articulating NbS as “cost‐effective solutions to societal challenges” (DeLosRíos‐White et al, 2020, p. 2), or as more cost‐effective than “traditional” approaches (Depietri & McPhearson, 2017; Kabisch et al, 2016).…”

“…On the NbS side, meanwhile, cost‐effectiveness was primarily referred to in definitional terms, as a critical component of what makes a nature‐based solution a nature‐based solution (DeLosRíos‐White et al, 2020; Kabisch et al, 2016; Pauleit et al, 2017). Authors drew from either the IUCN or European Commission definitions, articulating NbS as “cost‐effective solutions to societal challenges” (DeLosRíos‐White et al, 2020, p. 2), or as more cost‐effective than “traditional” approaches (Depietri & McPhearson, 2017; Kabisch et al, 2016).…”

Policy Instruments to Encourage the Adoption of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Landscapes

“…[2-4]; [13]; [15]; [16]; [19]; [21]; [30]; [32]; [33]; [40]; [41]; [45]; [47]; [49]; [51]; [52]; [55][56][57]; [59]; [61][62][63]; [65]; [67][68][69][70][71]. Information instruments (29) [1]; [3][4][5]; [10]; [13]; [15]; [16]; [19]; [30]; [33]; [40]; [42]; [45]; [47]; [51][52][53][54][55][56]; [59]; [61];…”

“…Information instruments include training and education, as well as communication processes (e.g., workshops, surveys, websites, articles, labels and certifications). Other tools referred to are modelling approaches, risk assessments and land mapping [13,15,19,21,33,41,42]. In fact, the literature acknowledges plan and legislation (plan/legislative), economic instruments (economic), and education and stakeholder engagement (information) as NBS implementation enablers [25].…”

Co-creation Pathway for Urban Nature-Based Solutions: Testing a Shared-Governance Approach in Three Cities and Nine Action Labs

“…Co-creation is not a novel concept; however, incorporating co-creation in CALs to implement NBS required a solid initiative from the three city authorities for getting accustomed to a shared-governance approach based on open participation and citizen empowerment. Accordingly, the novelty in applying co-creation in urban-greening projects has a threefold aim: firstly, to enhance the awareness and knowledge of citizens and stakeholders around NBS and their co-benefits; secondly, to enhance inclusivity in decision-making for urban transformation, hence, accelerating the need for capacity building in public administration towards an effective shared governance; and thirdly, to achieve a better quality of the regeneration interventions, emerging as the results of site-specific processes that build on the continuous improvement cycles and design-thinking stages during the various co-creation phases (DeLosRíos-White et al 2020).…”