The Contribution of Nature-Based Solutions to Socially Inclusive Urban Development– Some Reflections from a Social-environmental Perspective

Abstract

Nature-based solutions have emerged to be a major approach or concept when discussing about the sustainable future four cities and are expected to represent solutions for societal problems. When looking closer at this approach, it becomes, however, obvious that the concept is loaded with too many expectations concerning the societal -and, what is more, the social -context of today's urban reality. Furthermore, nature-based solutions are not inherently socially just; when aiming at bringing together environmental sustainability and social equity/inclusion, then a range of issues have to be critically looked at. Set against this background, the paper reflects on the contribution of nature-based solutions to a socially inclusive urban development. In the focus are trade-offs and blind spots of the hitherto discussion. The paper is thought to be first and foremost a positioning paper and is based on five theses. The paper argues, among others, that nature-based solutions offer, if discussed comprehensively and seriously, a potential for creating and shaping more sustainable cities. In order to meet this objective, they should, however, be seen as more than just tools, technologies and instruments. Nature-based solutions have to be improved as a comprehensive approach, especially with respect to their societal and social embeddings and the full picture of their impacts.

Setting the Social Monitoring Framework for Nature-Based Solutions Impact: Methodological Approach and Pre-Greening Measurements in the Case Study from CLEVER Cities Milan

“…The authors have related only the positive responses recorded from each question (Table 4). The reason for this decision is that the final aim of this research article is to provide insight into simple quantitative analysis and methods to support NBS pre-greening procedures and the co-implementation phase [25,28,63,[81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89]. Hence, the percentages or numbers reported below refer to the highest positive value recorded in each category: very important or very satisfied on Likert scale questions; yes (or only one category) in Binary questions; for multiple choice or ranking scales, the first four priorities are considered in the matrix.…”

Spotlight on social equity, finance and scale: Promises and pitfalls of nature-based solutions

“…Justice and equity are elements that are rarely problematized in discussions around the funding and financing of NbS. As discussed in the previous section, the apolitical discourse around NbS fails to consider that they are not inherently socially just and that a range of issues associated with them must be critically evaluated, including how and why they are financed (Haase 2017).…”

“…One aspect of finance in need of examination is the fact that the concept is often discursively mobilizeded in such a way as to privilege quantifiable benefits, profit, quick economic returns and growth within urban nature's governance (Haase 2017;. The material implication of this discourse is that a market-driven governance of NbS tends to prioritize projects that serve high income groups (Toxopeus et al 2020).…”

Synergy in the systemic approach to architectural performance

“…The shift from the anthropocene towards the post-anthropocene, however, cannot emerge without human involvement unless we consider a total humanitarian catastrophe. Therefore, we cannot reach environmental justice without social justice, and vice versa (Davidová & Zímová, 2018;Haase, 2017;McIntyre-Mills, 2014). The commonly used term of ecosystem services is, by definition, designed to bring benefits to those involved.…”