Search

Record climate extremes are reducing urban liveability, compounding inequality, and threatening infrastructure. Adaptation measures that integrate technological, nature-based, and social solutions can provide multiple co-benefits to address complex socioecological issues in cities while increasing resilience to potential impacts. However, there remain many challenges to developing and implementing integrated solutions. In this Viewpoint, we consider the value of integrating across the three solution sets, the challenges and potential enablers for integrating solution sets, and present examples of challenges and adopted solutions in three cities with different urban contexts and climates (Freiburg, Germany; Durban, South Africa; and Singapore). We conclude with a discussion of research directions and provide a road map to identify the actions that enable successful implementation of integrated climate solutions. We highlight the need for more systematic research that targets enabling environments for integration; achieving integrated solutions in different contexts to avoid maladaptation; simultaneously improving liveability, sustainability, and equality; and replicating via transfer and scale-up of local solutions. Cities in systematically disadvantaged countries (sometimes referred to as the Global South) are central to future urban development and must be prioritised. Helping decision makers and communities understand the potential opportunities associated with integrated solutions for climate change will encourage urgent and deliberate strides towards adapting cities to the dynamic climate reality., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Cities comprise of mixed green patches that vary in size and are highly scattered and disconnected. Although small green spaces largely dominate the cityscape, they are often neglected and ignored by the naturalists and conservationists, as they do not fulfill the large green spaces criteria. The citizens on the other hand seem to have a different perception and requirements from small green spaces as they are within their neighbourhood. Bangalore, a developing city within South India, consists of a large number of newly formed residential areas which have pocket green spaces in the form of neighbourhood parks (henceforth NPs). They are maintained by the municipality and are mainly designed for recreation purposes, completely neglecting the fact that these spaces could be essential for biodiversity. Here, there is a disconnect between the requirements of the citizens, conservationists and the end product that the municipality delivers. Here, through a questionnaire survey we assess the biodiversity citizens are fond off, and use them as surrogate taxa for the not so immediately obvious taxa, insects to enumerate the biodiversity within NPs. We analyze and identify landscape characteristics around NPs which could enhance the biodiversity within NPs. Our results reveal that people are fond of Birds and Butterflies and we use them as surrogates for the inconspicuous taxa to assess biodiversity within NPs. 55 tree species, 45 species of birds, 41 species of butterflies and 68 morpho species of insects were recorded. We demonstrate that small green spaces are critical systems and help support biodiversity across three scale within the city. Interestingly, results suggests that density of NPs is more important rather than the size of NPs. Also, the presence of high density of NPs within a neighbourhood could support similar biodiversity that large green spaces support. Finally, this study provides insights on the landscape matrix that could help enhance biodiversity support service within NPs and the surrounding neighbourhood., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.