4
et al. 2014). Furthermore, many urban ES produce effects only at the local level
(Andersson et al. 2015) and man-made substitutes, when existing, are often characterised by high costs and impacts (Elmqvist et al. 2015). While urban population
continues to grow, maintaining healthy and functioning ecosystems appears therefore of utmost importance to guarantee that the increasing demand for ES in met in
a sustainable way.
Urban planning affects urban ES in multiple ways (Cortinovis 2018). First, the
provision of urban ES depends on the availability and spatial distribution of urban
ecosystems and their components, hence on the strategic decisions on land-use allocations that are made during urban planning processes (Langemeyer et al. 2016).
Second, by defining the spatial arrangement of land uses, urban planning also determines the distribution of population and urban functions, which affects the demand
for urban ES (Baró et al. 2016). Third, planning decisions also contribute to define
some physical properties as well as institutional and management arrangements of
the city (e.g., property type, accessibility) that play a key role in defining who can
benefits from urban ES (Barbosa et al. 2007). Hence, making urban planning aware
of ES and their values, and assessing the impacts of planning actions on ES provision, is fundamental to ensure that benefits from ES are preserved and enhanced.
Acknowledging the presence of nature within cities as beneficial is not an innovation in the urban planning discipline, and references to the importance of green
spaces in cities and to their positive influence on the wellbeing of urban population
can be traced back to the very initial stage of modern planning (see e.g. Howard
1902). However, in the last century, a view of nature in cities as only related to aesthetic and recreational values prevailed, and a strong focus on urban form as a determinant of the environmental performance of cities made other strategies, such as
compactness, density, and functional diversity, prevail even when the then new paradigm of sustainability emerged (Jabareen 2006). Only recently, also thanks to a
growing scientific evidence, ‘greening the city’ has become an imperative for urban
planning. The concepts of ‘ecosystem-based actions’ (Geneletti and Zardo 2016;
Brink et al. 2016) and ‘nature-based solutions’ (Raymond et al. 2017) applied to
cities suggest the active promotion of urban ES and related benefits to sustainably
tackle a wide range of urban challenges.
Within this framework, the integration of ES knowledge and approach in urban
planning is indicated from many sides as a valuable strategy to address some of the
‘wicked’ problems of todays’ urban development, from the necessary transition to
resilience (Collier et al. 2013) to the need for sustainable approaches to address
urban peripheries (Geneletti et al. 2017). That’s why the inclusion of ES in urban
plans started to be considered an indicator of their quality (Woodruff and BenDor
2016), ultimately measuring their capacity to put in place strategic actions towards
more sustainable and resilient cities (Frantzeskaki et al. 2016).
Integrating the ES concept and approach in urban planning processes is expected
to provide multiple benefits. First, to clarify the ecological – structural and functional – foundations of ES provision, thus highlighting the links between human
wellbeing and the state of ecosystems (Haines-Young and Potschin 2010), hence the
1 Introduction
et al. 2014). Furthermore, many urban ES produce effects only at the local level
(Andersson et al. 2015) and man-made substitutes, when existing, are often characterised by high costs and impacts (Elmqvist et al. 2015). While urban population
continues to grow, maintaining healthy and functioning ecosystems appears therefore of utmost importance to guarantee that the increasing demand for ES in met in
a sustainable way.
Urban planning affects urban ES in multiple ways (Cortinovis 2018). First, the
provision of urban ES depends on the availability and spatial distribution of urban
ecosystems and their components, hence on the strategic decisions on land-use allocations that are made during urban planning processes (Langemeyer et al. 2016).
Second, by defining the spatial arrangement of land uses, urban planning also determines the distribution of population and urban functions, which affects the demand
for urban ES (Baró et al. 2016). Third, planning decisions also contribute to define
some physical properties as well as institutional and management arrangements of
the city (e.g., property type, accessibility) that play a key role in defining who can
benefits from urban ES (Barbosa et al. 2007). Hence, making urban planning aware
of ES and their values, and assessing the impacts of planning actions on ES provision, is fundamental to ensure that benefits from ES are preserved and enhanced.
Acknowledging the presence of nature within cities as beneficial is not an innovation in the urban planning discipline, and references to the importance of green
spaces in cities and to their positive influence on the wellbeing of urban population
can be traced back to the very initial stage of modern planning (see e.g. Howard
1902). However, in the last century, a view of nature in cities as only related to aesthetic and recreational values prevailed, and a strong focus on urban form as a determinant of the environmental performance of cities made other strategies, such as
compactness, density, and functional diversity, prevail even when the then new paradigm of sustainability emerged (Jabareen 2006). Only recently, also thanks to a
growing scientific evidence, ‘greening the city’ has become an imperative for urban
planning. The concepts of ‘ecosystem-based actions’ (Geneletti and Zardo 2016;
Brink et al. 2016) and ‘nature-based solutions’ (Raymond et al. 2017) applied to
cities suggest the active promotion of urban ES and related benefits to sustainably
tackle a wide range of urban challenges.
Within this framework, the integration of ES knowledge and approach in urban
planning is indicated from many sides as a valuable strategy to address some of the
‘wicked’ problems of todays’ urban development, from the necessary transition to
resilience (Collier et al. 2013) to the need for sustainable approaches to address
urban peripheries (Geneletti et al. 2017). That’s why the inclusion of ES in urban
plans started to be considered an indicator of their quality (Woodruff and BenDor
2016), ultimately measuring their capacity to put in place strategic actions towards
more sustainable and resilient cities (Frantzeskaki et al. 2016).
Integrating the ES concept and approach in urban planning processes is expected
to provide multiple benefits. First, to clarify the ecological – structural and functional – foundations of ES provision, thus highlighting the links between human
wellbeing and the state of ecosystems (Haines-Young and Potschin 2010), hence the
1 Introduction