News #13

Figure: Novel integrated approach for (1) modeling biodiversity outcomes (e.g., using species distribution models; pathway 1); (2) modeling ecosystem services outcomes (e.g., using health-related environmental variables; pathway 2); (3) modeling nature experience outcomes (e.g., by designing experiments that identify the functional relationship between NbS and the well-being response, and between NbS and the connection to nature); (4) combining spatial predictions of those outcomes and exploring them against each other to identify trade-offs and synergies between pathways; and (5) using systematic conservation planning tools (e.g., Marxan [71]) to identify the optimal solution for specific city that balances environmental, well-being, and socio-economic considerations.

DID YOU KNOW?

When cities implement Nature-Based Solutions, do they automatically deliver multiple benefits? This research by Agathe Colléony and Assaf Shwartz from 2019 proves... that it depends. The authors show that urban greening operates through three distinct pathways—biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human-nature experiences—and each can produce different, sometimes conflicting outcomes, like for example "protecting the mountain gazelle in an abandoned agriculture area within the city of city of Jerusalem, Israel (“Gazelle Valley”) can serve as a meaningful experience of nature, but also encourages the imprinting of this endangered mammal'', or more relatable to polish conditions: ''wild boars can elicit people’s interest but also cause human–wildlife conflicts'' (page 5).

To overcome this complexity, they propose a five-step scientific framework. It begins with predicting where species are likely to thrive, then modeling where people will be healthier and happier, identifying the functional relationships behind these patterns, comparing trade-offs and synergies, and finally using optimization tools to select the most effective planning strategies, as shown in the graph attached.

This structured approach replaces guesswork with evidence, helping cities move beyond “one-size-fits-all” greening and toward truly sustainable, people-centered design.

If you were an ecologist, a municipal representative or an urban planner, would you use this framework?

Colléony, A., & Shwartz, A. (2019). Beyond assuming co-benefits in nature-based solutions: A human-centered approach to optimize social and ecological outcomes for advancing sustainable urban planning. Sustainability, 11(18), 4924.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/18/4924