Sean Goodwin , Marta Olazabal , Antonio J. Castro , Unai Pascual
{"title":"Measuring the contribution of nature-based solutions beyond climate adaptation in cities","authors":"Sean Goodwin , Marta Olazabal , Antonio J. Castro , Unai Pascual","doi":"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102939","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Measuring the contribution of urban nature-based solutions (NbS) to climate change adaptation is an essential, though complex, step towards understanding who benefits from them, as well as when, where, how and why. However, urban NbS are also framed as being able to meet multiple objectives relating to biodiversity conservation as well as associated social challenges. The complexity of addressing multiple challenges, combined with conflicting visions of what climate adaptation means at the local level, further burdens the identification of clear and relevant goals, processes and information to track progress (i.e. contributions) towards urban adaptation. To explore and question how current on-the-ground practices address this complexity, we analysed a global dataset of indicators (n = 750 indicators) from 74 NbS projects in 61 cities across 40 countries based on an assessment of the literature regarding information and processes used for evaluating urban NbS for adaptation. This was combined with interviews with local actors who evaluate these NbS projects (n = 15). Our results indicate that current urban NbS projects do not appear to balance climate adaptation with other goals, nor do they uniformly conform to prevailing technical standards of quality of traditional monitoring, evaluation and learning processes. Currently NbS projects tend to primarily prioritise shorter-term high-quality ecological indicators, mostly related to biodiversity, while generally other longer-term social and technical indicators lack quality despite capturing a diversity of potential medium- to long-term contributions of NbS. Various political and social factors that influence the way urban NbS to adaptation are evaluated typically go beyond evaluation purposes and range from using indicators to promote NbS as cost-effective solutions or particular political agendas. The diversity of what makes good information and processes to measure contributions to urban adaptation bolsters calls for establishing processes for flexible, commonly agreed-upon guiding principles. We suggest locally grounded recommendations to help identify fit-for-purpose information and processes to evaluate the potential of urban NbS to address interconnected climate, biodiversity, and societal challenges.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":328,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Change","volume":"89 ","pages":"Article 102939"},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environmental Change","FirstCategoryId":"6","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378024001432","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Measuring the contribution of urban nature-based solutions (NbS) to climate change adaptation is an essential, though complex, step towards understanding who benefits from them, as well as when, where, how and why. However, urban NbS are also framed as being able to meet multiple objectives relating to biodiversity conservation as well as associated social challenges. The complexity of addressing multiple challenges, combined with conflicting visions of what climate adaptation means at the local level, further burdens the identification of clear and relevant goals, processes and information to track progress (i.e. contributions) towards urban adaptation. To explore and question how current on-the-ground practices address this complexity, we analysed a global dataset of indicators (n = 750 indicators) from 74 NbS projects in 61 cities across 40 countries based on an assessment of the literature regarding information and processes used for evaluating urban NbS for adaptation. This was combined with interviews with local actors who evaluate these NbS projects (n = 15). Our results indicate that current urban NbS projects do not appear to balance climate adaptation with other goals, nor do they uniformly conform to prevailing technical standards of quality of traditional monitoring, evaluation and learning processes. Currently NbS projects tend to primarily prioritise shorter-term high-quality ecological indicators, mostly related to biodiversity, while generally other longer-term social and technical indicators lack quality despite capturing a diversity of potential medium- to long-term contributions of NbS. Various political and social factors that influence the way urban NbS to adaptation are evaluated typically go beyond evaluation purposes and range from using indicators to promote NbS as cost-effective solutions or particular political agendas. The diversity of what makes good information and processes to measure contributions to urban adaptation bolsters calls for establishing processes for flexible, commonly agreed-upon guiding principles. We suggest locally grounded recommendations to help identify fit-for-purpose information and processes to evaluate the potential of urban NbS to address interconnected climate, biodiversity, and societal challenges.
期刊介绍:
Global Environmental Change is a prestigious international journal that publishes articles of high quality, both theoretically and empirically rigorous. The journal aims to contribute to the understanding of global environmental change from the perspectives of human and policy dimensions. Specifically, it considers global environmental change as the result of processes occurring at the local level, but with wide-ranging impacts on various spatial, temporal, and socio-political scales.
In terms of content, the journal seeks articles with a strong social science component. This includes research that examines the societal drivers and consequences of environmental change, as well as social and policy processes that aim to address these challenges. While the journal covers a broad range of topics, including biodiversity and ecosystem services, climate, coasts, food systems, land use and land cover, oceans, urban areas, and water resources, it also welcomes contributions that investigate the drivers, consequences, and management of other areas affected by environmental change.
Overall, Global Environmental Change encourages research that deepens our understanding of the complex interactions between human activities and the environment, with the goal of informing policy and decision-making.