Reinforcing nature-based solutions through tools providing social-ecological-technological integration

Wellmann, Thilo; Andersson, Erik; Knapp, Sonja; Lausch, Angela; Palliwoda, Julia; Priess, Jörg; Scheuer, Sebastian; Haase, Dagmar

doi:10.1007/s13280-022-01801-4

Cited by 24 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, recent research on nature-based solutions also points to the importance of recognizing and facilitating the feedback loops connecting communities, planners, and scientists (Collier et al 2023 ). Wellmann et al ( 2023 ) pointed to the need for inclusive language and transparency in interactions, so these knowledge feedback loops are acknowledged, and to ensure that equal footing is given to expert and non-expert (often tacit, local, and/or Indigenous) knowledge. In this co-production pathway, communities and stakeholders include citizens, community organizations, and social enterprises alike, with their degree of engagement varying depending on the planning issue or challenge and on the tacit knowledge and experience needed to co-design and co-produce a solution.…”

Section: Unpacking the Transformation Shiftmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Current research notes the importance of multi-actor engagement, that regardless the effort put in especially in the European context (Collier et al 2023 ), it is not (yet) a common practice. Wellmann et al ( 2023 ) pointed to the importance of incorporating input from local communities when planning and designing nature-based solutions, moving to local knowledge integration for locally embedded nature-based solutions. Such local knowledge integration for locally embedded nature-based solutions aligns well with theory and cases studies on collaborative planning for nature-based solutions in cities (Vano et al 2021 ).…”

Section: Unpacking the Transformation Shiftmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Markolf et al ( 2018 ) argued that this single-focused approach to stability in urban systems makes cities more vulnerable to infrastructural failures by creating a false sense of security (Chester et al 2023 ), and that urban infrastructure should be viewed as complex and interconnected social–ecological–technological systems (SETS; Grimm et al 2015 ; McPhearson et al 2016 , 2021 , 2022 ). The SETS literature is growing rapidly, and includes scholarship on the relationship between urban SETS and disturbance (Grimm et al 2017 ; Lugo 2019 , 2020 ), the use of SETS to reduce urban flood risk (Chang et al 2021 ), enhancing positive SETS feedbacks to address heat- and drought-induced stresses on urban ecosystems (Wellmann et al 2023 ), the governance and environmental justice implications of urban SETS (Pineda-Pinto et al 2021 ; Krueger et al 2022 ), and the multifunctional ecosystem services provided by SETS (McPhearson et al 2022 ). Branny et al ( 2022 ) drew on this literature to present a systems approach for "smarter, greener" cities that utilizes SETS-based integrated solutions rather than more traditional, single-dimensional, technology-heavy solutions.…”

Section: Box 2: the Bronx River Alliancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A transformative shift in urban ecology toward a more active and relevant future for the field and for cities

Frantzeskaki,

Childers,

Pickett

et al. 2024

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper builds on the expansion of urban ecology from a biologically based discipline—ecology in the city—to an increasingly interdisciplinary field—ecology of the city—to a transdisciplinary, knowledge to action endeavor—an ecology for and with the city. We build on this “prepositional journey” by proposing a transformative shift in urban ecology, and we present a framework for how the field may continue this shift. We conceptualize that urban ecology is in a state of flux, and that this shift is needed to transform urban ecology into a more engaged and action based field, and one that includes a diversity of actors willing to participate in the future of their cities. In this transformative shift, these actors will engage, collaborate, and participate in a continuous spiral of knowledge → action → knowledge spiral and back to knowledge loop, with the goal of co producing sustainable and resilient solutions to myriad urban challenges. Our framework for this transformative shift includes three pathways: (1) a repeating knowledge → action → knowledge spiral of ideas, information, and solutions produced by a diverse community of agents of urban change working together in an “urban sandbox”; (2) incorporation of a social–ecological–technological systems framework in this spiral and expanding the spiral temporally to include the “deep future,” where future scenarios are based on a visioning of seemingly unimaginable or plausible future states of cities that are sustainable and resilient; and (3) the expansion of the spiral in space, to include rural areas and places that are not yet cities. The three interrelated pathways that define the transformative shift demonstrate the power of an urban ecology that has moved beyond urban systems science and into a realm where collaborations among diverse knowledges and voices are working together to understand cities and what is urban while producing sustainable solutions to contemporary challenges and envisioning futures of socially, ecologically, and technologically resilient cities. We present case study examples of each of the three pathways that make up this transformative shift in urban ecology and discuss both limitations and opportunities for future research and action with this transdisciplinary broadening of the field.

show abstract

Section: Unpacking the Transformation Shiftmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Unpacking the Transformation Shiftmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Box 2: the Bronx River Alliancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A transformative shift in urban ecology toward a more active and relevant future for the field and for cities

Frantzeskaki,

Childers,

Pickett

et al. 2024

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, water-sensitive urban design (WSUD) is a design approach to NBS. NBS serves as a useful tool for facilitating research and communication between practice and academia [7,8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Urban Green Spaces Typology’s Contribution to Comprehensive Green Infrastructure Planning: A Study of Canberra, the National Capital of Australia

Ignatieva

Mofrad

2023

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The urban densification agenda for the Australian Capital Territory announced in 2012 as well as the climate-related impacts (such as flood and rising temperature) have made the role of green infrastructure in this city more critical than at any other time. The Living Infrastructure Plan for Canberra was proposed by the local government in 2019 and it is currently being developed. However, there is a lack of understanding of the variety of urban green infrastructure characters, associated urban green space types, and their contributions to the green infrastructure plan. Therefore, this research aims to study the existing types of urban green infrastructure and green spaces in Canberra and investigate their potential sociocultural and ecological contributions that need to be considered in developing green infrastructure plans. To achieve this, we employed a socioecological approach and a mix of methods including a literature review, a review of policy documents, semi-structured interviews with experts, geospatial data, and field observation. Ten main urban green infrastructures were identified in Canberra and associated green spaces and their ecosystem services were discussed. Finally, a framework was delineated to suggest recommendations for the identified urban green infrastructure types with the aim of improving the green infrastructure planning practice by enhancing, preserving, and reinforcing green spaces. The findings provide a foundation for coordinating green infrastructure decision making and suggest a framework for designing high-quality and multifunctional green spaces. The study concludes that further investigation is required to comprehend the diversity of urban green infrastructures and their ecosystem services, co-benefits, synergies, and trade-offs.

show abstract

“…The fact is, biotic and abiotic components in NbS are also vulnerable towards climate change-induced extreme events that they are intended to address 30,31 . However, the resilience of the biological foundation of NbS are mostly ignored in researches and practices, when compared to their "optimal provisioning" of ecosystem services 32 . Broader social and ecological factors, processes, effects are still lacking of integration in NbS design, implementation, and governance, so that the pathway to leverage NbS for resilient and sustainable urban FRM is still unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urban flood risk management needs nature-based solution from social-ecological system perspective

Kong

Zhou

Yin

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People-nature interdependencies in the social-ecological system (SES) are fundamental to coping with urban flood risks. Nature-based solutions (NbS), a holistic tool considering the people-nature interdependencies, have been advocated widely for urban flood risk management (FRM). However, how NbS has been used from SES perspectives in urban FRM is still not well elaborated, which refers to how NbS contribute to SES factors, processes, and effects? and what SES approaches may support NbS design, implementation, and governance? Therefore, this study first conducted a systematic review of ecological measures in urban FRM during 2000–2022, which showed an imbalance distribution of global knowledge, divergent linkages with social and ecological benefits, and growing insights from SES perspectives. According to the proposed conceptual framework, NbS’ contributions to urban FRM are explained by three dimensions: integrating socioeconomic and ecological factors, coupling social and biophysical processes, and identifying potential tradeoffs/synergies. However, inadequate understandings of NbS’ resilience, effectiveness, and synergy are still key challenges in existing studies that might hamper their contributions to both people and nature. Hence, SES approaches that leverage NbS in future FRM are suggested based on the conceptual framework, including multiple-scale flood resilience assessment, process-based effectiveness modeling, “win-win” effects prediction, and monitoring. We hope that urban FRM can leverage NbS through SES approaches to jointly achieve flood risk mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity protection, and human well-being in the sustainable and resilient pathway.

show abstract

Reinforcing nature-based solutions through tools providing social-ecological-technological integration

Cited by 24 publications

References 92 publications

A transformative shift in urban ecology toward a more active and relevant future for the field and for cities

A transformative shift in urban ecology toward a more active and relevant future for the field and for cities

Understanding Urban Green Spaces Typology’s Contribution to Comprehensive Green Infrastructure Planning: A Study of Canberra, the National Capital of Australia

Urban flood risk management needs nature-based solution from social-ecological system perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About