Assessing the Potential of Regulating Ecosystem Services as Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Areas

Abstract

Mounting research assesses the provision of regulating ecosystem services by green infrastructure in urban areas, but the extent to which these services can offer effective nature-based solutions for addressing urban climate changerelated challenges is rarely considered. In this chapter, we synthesize knowledge from assessments of urban green infrastructure carried out in Europe and beyond to evaluate the potential contribution of regulating ecosystem services to offset carbon emissions, reduce heat stress and abate air pollution at the metropolitan, city and site scales. Results from this review indicate that the potential of regulating ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructure to counteract these three climate change-related pressures is often limited and/or uncertain, especially at the city and metropolitan levels. However, their contribution can have a substantially higher impact at site scales such as in street canyons and around green spaces. We note that if regulating ecosystem services are to offer effective nature-based solutions in urban areas, it is critically important that green infrastructure policies target the relevant implementation scale. This calls for a coordination between authorities dealing with urban and environmental policy and for the harmonization of planning and management instruments in a multilevel governance approach.

Urban ecosystem services and climate change: a dynamic interplay

“…Regulating services, integral to urban resilience, encompass imperceptible yet crucial functions like maintaining the quality of air and soil, providing flood and disease control, and plant pollination (Haase et al, 2014;McPhearson et al, 2014) (Table 1). Despite their inconspicuous nature, detrimental perturbations of ecosystem regulating services can lead to substantial, intricate losses that pose challenges in restoration (Baró and Gómez-Baggethun, 2017;Palliwoda and Priess, 2021;Morris et al, 2022).…”

“…Some meta-analyses in the USA and China underscore significant carbon sequestration potential in urban green infrastructure (Nowak et al, 2013a;Chen, 2015). Assessments estimating urban carbon budgets generally demonstrate modest impact on offsetting through urban vegetation (Escobedo et al, 2010;Liu and Li, 2012;Vaccari et al, 2013;Baró et al, 2015;Zhao and Sander, 2015;Baró and Gómez-Baggethun, 2017). However, these studies predominantly consider direct carbon sequestration, overlooking urban vegetation's indirect contributions to reducing city energy use (Escobedo et al, 2010;McPherson et al, 2013).…”

Towards a multiscale framework for modeling and improving the life cycle environmental performance of built stocks

“…In terms of life cycle stages, this modeling framework also includes reuse and recycling following European Standard 15978 (2011) and further development of these attributes. The proposed modeling framework takes into account the important role of green infrastructure and nature‐based solutions in regulating environmental flows in cities (Baró & Gómez‐Baggethun, 2017; Moosavi et al., 2021) by capturing the flows linked to growing and maintaining urban trees, notably the sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions as carbon, and water requirements. Assessments relying on life cycle thinking in the area of urban green infrastructure have been deemed scarce by Petit‐Boix et al.…”

Asset management for blue-green infrastructures: a scoping review

“…Nonetheless, how these changes occur over time is an open question. It is also a difficult question as the evaluation of these benefits requires a holistic approach, considering the whole range of benefits provided by different types of NBS and the interactions between them, together with the different spatial scales at which these can be relevant (Baró & Gómez-Baggethun 2017).…”