Search

Nature-based solutions (NBS) were introduced as integrated, multifunctional and multi-beneficial solutions to a wide array of socio-ecological challenges. Although principles for a common understanding and implementation of NBS were already developed on a landscape scale, specific principles are needed with regard to an application in urban areas. Urban areas come with particular challenges including (i) spatial conflicts with urban system nestedness, (ii) specific urban biodiversity, fragmentation and altered environments, (iii) value plurality, multi-actor interdependencies and environmental injustices, (iv) path-dependencies with cultural and planning legacies and (v) a potential misconception of cities as being artificial landscapes disconnected from nature. Given these challenges, in this perspective paper, we build upon and integrate knowledge from the most recent academic work on NBS in urban areas and introduce five distinct, integrated principles for urban NBS design, planning and implementation. Our five principles should help to transcend governance gaps and advance the scientific discourse of urban NBS towards a more effective and sustainable urban development. To contribute to resilient urban futures, the design, planning, policy and governance of NBS should (1) consider the need for a systemic understanding, (2) contribute to benefiting people and biodiversity, (3) contribute to inclusive solutions for the long-term, (4) consider context conditions and (5) foster communication and learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The lack of resilience of urban systems to weather and climate variability—termed type I adaptation—and also to climate change—type II adaptation—are both major challenges to the livability and sustainability of cities in the Global South. However, there is often competition and conflict in these cities between actions that address existing adaptation deficits (type I) and projected adaptation gaps (type II). Extending the concept of the environmental Kuznets curve, this paper argues that synergistic action on type I and type II adaptation is essential in order for these cities to maintain their livability and build resilience to climate variability and climate change in the face of growing urban populations. A proposed unifying framework has been demonstrated in Can Tho, Vietnam, where there are significant adaptation deficits due to rapid urbanization and adaptation gaps due to climate change and socioeconomic changes. The analysis in Can Tho reveals the lack of integration between type I and type II measures that could be overcome by closer integration between various stakeholders in terms of planning, prioritizing, and implementing adaptation measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]