Search results

Nature-based solutions (NBS) generate different impacts at the urban scale, such as the ability to regulate water or store carbon, comparable to traditional, gray infrastructures in a more cost-efficient way. On the other hand, by their intrinsic nature, NBS do deliver a series of other services that are commonly defined as social, economic, and environmental cobenefits. These benefits are not always valued in a consistent and complete way, so there is the need to compile a more comprehensive evidence base on the social, economic, and environmental effectiveness of NBS. The chapter attempts to identify a categorization of the existing NBS and define the ecosystem services (ES) provided by them. Furthermore, starting from the results achieved through the definition of the existing NBS frameworks assessment, the chapter will identify a set of key performance indicators KPIs, based on the ES produced by NBS, to measure the economic, social, and environmental benefits generated in by NBS at the urban level taking into account their multifunctional character. In total, 66 key performance indicators have been individuated: 3 for provisioning services, 38 for regulating services, 17 for cultural services, and 8 for supporting services. Each indicator has been associated to a category of ES in order to measure and evaluate the performances of NBS implemented in cities.

Sustainability issues have become crucial to mitigate urban heat islands (UHIs) and reduce the global warming effect. The climate change news is frequently heard lately due to the extreme weather to the extent that the increasing earth’s temperature often causes disaster and loss of property and life. New adaptation needs to new climate context and limits the on-going effects. One of the ways is adopting green roofs on buildings. Implementing sustainable practices such as green roofs will help mitigate this adverse effect in urban areas. Green roofs provide many benefits such as enhancing the aesthetical quality of the built environment, reduce UHIs, reduce energy consumption, improve storm-water attenuation, roof longevity, and reduce noise pollution. However, only a few buildings in Malaysia have considering green roofs as a main green feature element. There is barely number of buildings that have green roof design even though it offers benefits to the community and environment. This chapter has emphasised the types of green roof systems that are potentially suitable in Malaysia climate and obstacles associated with the green roof system. The study found the barriers to implementing green roofs in Malaysia, especially during the stage of building operation in maintaining the green roof system. The survey has been done, which revealed nine factors that hinder the green roof application. This study also highlights the challenges to overcome the barriers of implementing green roofs in Malaysia.

The assessment of ecosystem services (ES) in urban areas can be an important policy instrument for both strategic directives at national and regional levels and concrete actions at municipality level. A unifying underpinning framework that combines different administrative levels through a common, consistent basis would greatly facilitate the mainstreaming of such an instrument. Three key concepts underpin this framework: urban ecosystems, nature-based solutions (NBS), and ES. First, NBS are acknowledged as the ecological assets that in the urban context can provide ES, meant as complex processes made possible through the existence of natural and seminatural systems at various scales. Second, the classification of urban ecosystems needs to be consistent with the treatment of urban areas in ecosystem accounting and with NBS levels of intervention and primary objectives. Third, by serving societal challenges, it is important to clearly frame the strategic drivers of change: whether it concerns management practices of current land use or radical conversions in land use. Finally, once such a framework will be in place, it can facilitate sustainability assessment in urban ecosystems by quantifying the presence of NBS, whose creation/maintenance assure the delivery of ES. The purpose of this chapter is to theoretically frame an ES-based approach, but this is only a first step. Many more steps are required on to concretely put this framework in practice at different administrative levels, such as strategic planning and policy setting (at national level), and urban, peri-urban, and coastal development (at municipal level).

Chapter 17 discusses challenges for financing nature-based solutions (NBS). Financing NBS is a key challenge to ensure scaling of the use of NBS in urban areas. This is mainly due to the difficulty to monetize the value generated through the provisioning of ecosystem services, as well as the multiple cobenefits that NBS provide. Certain types of NBS, such as green roofs, have been able to allow for private value capture, enabling such projects to attract private or blended capital. Others, where benefits are generally regarded as public good, have to rely on different financing strategies and instruments. The section provides an overview of financing solutions (public, private, and blended instruments) for different types of NBS and their applicability to NBS in the urban context.

How are our cities confronting the challenges posed by a warming climate, the loss of biodiversity, and the increasing urban heat island effect? ― This chapter discusses the opportunities and benefits of applying the concepts of renaturalization and rewilding of cities. It introduces nature-based solutions (NBS) in urban planning that are integrated with the aim to enhance urban resilience and to slow down the biodiversity decline, which can be applied in two areas: through the conception of new green neighborhoods and through the regeneration and regreening of existing but neglected parts of the city, such as postindustrial brownfields or economically weak districts.

Contact to nature is essential for human existence, urban well-being, and a good quality of life. Green spaces in cities – big or small – all contribute to health and well-being. However, many cities do not offer residents easy access to green space within the city. Improving better access and extending gardens and parks will deliver a large number of benefits, such as ecosystem services, better water management for enhanced urban flood control, and slowing down the biodiversity loss, with the potential to restore damaged ecosystems. Furthermore, additional green space and NBS help to keep cities cool during heat waves and improve the urban microclimate.

In this context, NBS and regreening can generate significant benefits for citizens, improve urban health and well-being, and offer an opportunity to effectively deploy nature to resolve major societal challenges ― such as social inclusion, food security, and disaster risk reduction. However, it is essential that the design of NBS is fully integrated with other complementary planning interventions and seeks synergies across all sectors.

This chapter aims to further the conceptual clarity of co-creation, by classifying and exploring the spectrum of non-government actor–led governance arrangements for the co-creation of nature-based solutions (NBS) across different European contexts. Case studies from pilot demonstrators in current Horizon 2020 projects (proGIreg, CLEVER Cities, and EdiCitNet in Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) are used to illustrate collaborative governance arrangements within the operating space of co-creation, delineate respective actor roles, and identify lessons learnt.

Although people have always been aware of the role and importance of green space, trees, and other nature in cities, wider recognition and policy support is of a much more recent date, for example in the context of current climate and public health challenges. The nature-based solutions concept has emerged as a strong, recent attempt for “mainstreaming” of nature in political, planning, and economic areas. Starting from a description of the role of nature in cities, this chapter introduces the nature-based solutions concept and its current spread and implementation in an urban context. It also raises some questions about the next steps in implementing the concept, perhaps moving away from too much focus on a utilitarian view of nature and ecosystem and toward considering nature as a framework for all planning and decision-making.

The need to design buildings with due consideration for bioclimatic and passive design is central to promoting sustainability in the built environment from an energy perspective. Indeed, the energy and atmosphere considerations in building design, construction and operation have received the highest consideration in green building frameworks such as LEED and BREEAM to promote SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure and SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities and contributing directly to support SDG 13: Climate Action. The research literature is rich of findings on the efficacy of passive measures in different climate contexts, but given that these measures are highly dependent on the prevailing weather conditions, which is constantly in evolution, disturbed by the climate change phenomenon, there is pressing need to be able to accurately predict such changes in the short (to the minute) and medium (to the hour and day) terms, where AI algorithms can be effectively applied. The dynamics of the weather patterns over seasons, but more crucially over a given season means that optimum response of building envelope elements, specifically through the passive elements, can be reaped if these passive measures can be adapted according to the ambient weather conditions. The use of representative mechatronics systems to intelligently control certain passive measures is presented, together with the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to capture the complex building physics involved to predict the expected effect of weather conditions on the indoor environmental conditions.