Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities POLICY BRIEF September 2021 © 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Please cite the work as follows: Guerry, Anne D, Jeffrey R. Smith, Eric Lonsdorf, Gretchen C. Daily, Xueman Wang and Yuna Chun. 2021. “Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities.” Policy Briefing. Global Platform for Sustainable Cities, World Bank. Washington, DC. © World Bank. Front cover images, top to bottom: Tropical parrots, San Jose, Costa Rica/G J Beck; Haizhu wetland in Guangzhou, China/Guangzhou Municipal Government; Zona Sul panorama, Rio de Janerio, Brazil/luoman; Giraffe against backdrop of Nairobi city skyline, Kenya/WLDavies Back cover images: Child feeding butterfly/FluxFactory; Grey Heron in Sidney, Australia/James Wheeler; Replanting vegetation in New Zealand/Albertdw. Graphic design: ULTRA Designs, Inc. Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities POLICY BRIEF September 2021 Acknowledgments T he policy briefing note was developed in and Tony Wong of Monash University, and Paul Ehrlich, Erin collaboration with the Natural Capital Project. Mordecai, Neil Nathan, and Taylor M. Powell of Stanford The Natural Capital team included Anne D. University also provided valuable input. The team worked Guerry, Jeffrey R. Smith, and Gretchen C. Daily under the guidance of Sameh Wahba (Global Director of of Stanford University and Eric Lonsdorf of the the Urban, Disaster Risk Management, Resilience and Land University of Minnesota. Centered at Stanford University, Global Practice), Francis Ghesquiere (Practice Manager of the Natural Capital Project is a partnership of the Chinese Urban Unit of the East Asia and Pacific region) and Maitreyi Academy of Sciences, the University of Minnesota, the Das (Practice Manager of the Global Programs Unit) of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, The Nature Conservancy, and World Bank. The team is also grateful to Anne Himmelfarb, World Wildlife Fund. who copyedited the document. The World Bank team was led by Xueman Wang and The policy briefing received financial support from the supported by Yuna Chun. The policy briefing was enriched World Bank and its Global Platform for Sustainable Cities by the insightful feedback from Barjor Mehta, Giovanni (GPSC). The GPSC is a knowledge platform led by the World Ruta, Brenden Jongman, Laurent Corroyer, Irene Rehberger Bank with financial support from the Global Environment Bescos, Borja Reguero, Defne Osmanoglou, and William Facility. Further support to the Stanford-based Natural Young of the World Bank, and Professor Lu Zhi of Peking Capital Project team came from the LuEsther Mertz University. Roy Remme of Leiden University, Steven Chown Charitable Trust and the Winslow Foundation. ii Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities Contents 1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. What is urban biodiversity? What is urban nature?............................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Why do urban biodiversity and urban nature matter to people?..................................................................................... 1 1.3. How do biodiversity and nature outside the city impact the quality of life in the city?............................................ 6 2. What is at stake?.......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1. How can urbanization affect biodiversity?............................................................................................................................. 8 2.2. How can urban sprawl undermine the well-being of city dwellers?................................................................................. 8 2.3. What are the risks of urban development without consideration of urban biodiversity and nature?................... 9 3. What can urban leaders do?.................................................................................................................................................. 12 3.1. What is ecological planning?...................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.2. How can ecological planning help protect nature and biodiversity?............................................................................... 14 3.3. Conceptual framework to guide urban ecological planning.............................................................................................. 16 4. Practical tools for analyzing and comparing biodiversity and ecosystem services to support decisions.................................................................................................................................................................... 25 4.1. Urban nature.................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 4.2. Urban biodiversity......................................................................................................................................................................... 28 4.3. Urban ecosystem services.......................................................................................................................................................... 29 5. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Bibliography................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Boxes Box 1: Glossary of terms ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Box 2: Case study: Nature-based climate adaptation in cities..................................................................................................... 4 Box 3: Case study: Upstream investments to secure water supply............................................................................................. 7 Box 4: Case study: The RISE (Revitalizing Informal Settlements and their Environments) project.................................... 10 Box 5: Case study: Investing in nature for health.............................................................................................................................. 11 Box 6: Equity in urban nature for biodiversity, ecosystem services, and people...................................................................... 13 Box 7: Case study: Cape Town’s biodiversity...................................................................................................................................... 15 Box 8: Case study: Understanding the value of the Haizhu wetland in Guangzhou, China.................................................... 18 Box 9: At what scales can ecological planning provide answers to urban leaders?................................................................. 20 Box 10: How to identify peer cities to guide ecological planning..................................................................................................... 21 Box 11: Zoonotic and vector-borne disease health risks of urbanization..................................................................................... 23 Box 12: The Singapore Index...................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Box 13: InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs)............................................................................. 30 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities iii Lotus flowers and Finches. Photo: kool99 Bird’s eye view of Shanghai. Photo: URF iv Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 1. Introduction T his is the urban century; over half of humanity This report presents the scientific basis for why and how now lives in cities and more than 70 percent incorporating biodiversity and nature into urban design is are expected to do so by 2050 (Liu et al. 2020; crucial for achieving sustainability, livability, resilience, and UN DESA 2018). An estimated 60 percent of equity in cities and beyond. After defining key terms and urban areas that will exist in 2050 have not concepts (remainder of section 1), this report examines what yet been built (United Nations 2013). Thus, the design of is at stake regarding urban nature and biodiversity (section future cities—and the evolution of today’s—will determine 2), explores what urban leaders can do to promote them the health and well-being of billions of people (Ramaswami (section 3), and offers some practical tools and approaches et al. 2016; Munro and Grierson 2018; Vidal et al. 2020). for incorporating urban nature and biodiversity into urban At the same time, the coming decades are predicted to decision-making (section 4). witness the most dramatic reduction in biodiversity since the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago (IPBES 1.1. What is urban biodiversity? What is urban 2019a). The rapid growth in human populations in cities nature? and their use of land, water, timber, and energy—often on Urban biodiversity is the variety and abundance of life in a biodiversity-rich terrain—are a major driver of these losses city (Puppim de Oliveira et al. 2014). Urban nature refers to (Elmqvist et al. 2013). all life in a city, including expansive and relatively wild green and blue spaces, as well as gardens, green roofs, street Today, cities are hubs of social interchange, economic trees, birds, and butterflies (Turini and Knop 2015). Different vitality, and innovation. Yet the pace and scale of global elements of urban nature can be home to different types transformation in where and how people live pose threats and amounts of biodiversity. For example, a city park with to biodiversity and nature that demand serious attention. forested trails, a stream, and a pond may be rich in urban Against this backdrop, urban leaders have a significant biodiversity because it is home to many types and large opportunity and responsibility to safeguard the well-being numbers of trees, birds, frogs, fish, and beneficial microbes. of their constituents and the natural systems on which In contrast, another nearby city park that features sports they depend. In today’s complex world, it is natural—and fields and picnic areas is also an example of urban nature sometimes necessary—to compartmentalize sectors and but supports little biodiversity. Another way to think of this realms of experience. Thus, urban planning traditionally is that urban nature defines the extent of the geographic occurs without much consideration of biodiversity and space, while urban biodiversity refers to specific attributes nature. Similarly, conservation planning often ignores cities of that space, such as the species richness or abundance as places with little to no biodiversity. There are multiple of individuals (see box 1 for definitions of other important advantages to recognizing both the many societal benefits terms). of nature in cities and the ways in which cities and urban cultures can support biodiversity. It is therefore imperative 1.2. Why do urban biodiversity and urban that cities are designed in ways that maintain the provision nature matter to people? of ecosystem services and that national and international Natural features (e.g., mountains, rivers, lakes, coastlines, conservation plans consider urban centers. (World Bank forests, wetlands, trees, birds, and bees) help create a Group, 2021). unique, thriving region that draws and retains residents Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 1 Box 1 GLOSSARY OF TERMS While terms such as nature, green and blue space, and biodiversity may be used interchangeably in colloquial settings, each has a distinct definition. The precise definitions given here are those used in this report; they integrate meanings associated with the terms in the literature (see sample references). Blue space: Areas that feature surface water prominently, values in biophysical or monetary terms. The UN System such as ocean beaches or cliffs, wetlands, lakes, and rivers of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA) is the most and their surroundings (Nutsford et al. 2016). well-known natural capital accounting approach (Ruijs, van der Heide, and van den Berg 2018). UN SEEA has adopted Ecological planning: A type of landscape design that is gross ecosystem product (GEP) as a metric for (1) revealing cognizant of biodiversity and nature. In urban contexts, the contribution of ecosystems to society; (2) guiding it is planning that recognizes the mutual dependencies of investments in conserving and restoring ecosystems; and people, nature, and biodiversity for livability and well-being. (3) evaluating such investments and tracking progress It entails smart use of nature-based solutions to urban (Ouyang et al. 2020). problems; the blending of “gray” and “green” solutions to create sustainable cities; and investing in nature to attract Nature-based solutions: Targeted investments in nature talent and further investment so as to yield competitiveness aimed at solving particular problems. Such solutions gen- and vitality (Steiner et al. 1988). erally support human well-being by maintaining a comfort- able and secure physical environment, with protection from Ecosystem disservices: The negative impacts of nature on people, such as allergic reactions from pollen, diminished air flooding, extreme heat, and other climate risks. They also quality from emissions of some plants, and disease spread provide additional ecosystem services beyond those tar- by some wildlife. Good management of urban nature can geted, often referred to as co-benefits (van den Bosch and maximize the desired benefits that contribute to human Sang 2017). health and well-being while minimizing negative impacts One Health: A collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisci- (von Döhren and Haase 2015). plinary approach—working at the local, regional, national, Ecosystem services: The benefits people obtain from and global levels—that seeks to achieve optimal health out- nature, such as provision of food, timber, flood protection, comes by recognizing the interconnection between people, climate stability, mental and physical health, recreational animals, plants, and their shared environment (CDC 2018). opportunity, beauty, and cultural, intellectual, and spiritual Urban biodiversity: The variety and abundance of life in a stimulation (Guerry et al. 2017). A related, broader term is city. It is most commonly and simply measured in terms “nature’s contributions to people” (Díaz et al. 2018; IPBES of ecosystem types and extents (e.g., lakes, grasslands, 2019a). wetlands, and forests) and in terms of the types and Green infrastructure: Elements of nature infused in urban abundances of plant and animal species within them design that serve utilitarian needs of cities, such as flood (Puppim de Oliveira et al. 2014). protection, water infiltration and purification, noise Urban ecosystem services: Those benefits generated by reduction, and cooling (Fairbrass et al. 2017). urban nature and biodiversity, and not those generated by Green space: Relatively extensive areas with vegetation; in nature outside of a city, such as provision of safe drinking urban settings, this includes parks, botanical or zoological water, from which the city also benefits (Hamel et al., gardens, community gardens, allotment areas, cemeteries, forthcoming). and golf courses (Jansson and Polasky 2010). Urban nature: The totality of plant, animal, fungal, and Natural capital accounting: An accounting framework microbial life in a city, including expansive and relatively that quantifies stocks and flows of natural capital for wild green and blue spaces, as well as small elements of a given region in a given time period (e.g., the amount of more domesticated life embodied in gardens, natural roofs, standing forest in Costa Rica or Germany in 2020 and street trees, and flowering shrubs (Bratman, Hamilton, and the flow of benefits therefrom). The accounts may report Daily 2012). 2 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities and visitors alike (World Bank 2019). Urban biodiversity the US state of California were found to store 2 percent and urban nature influence the well-being of city- of the total carbon of California forests and sequester 12 dwellers and the livability of cities via multiple pathways percent of the total annual carbon sequestered by forests (Keeler et al. 2019). Benefits provided to people by urban in California (McPherson et al. 2013). nature and biodiversity and are often referred to as Monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services is complex urban ecosystem services. The Millennium Ecosystem but can be done transparently and rigorously and can help Assessment framework divides ecosystem services into inform decisions. Proximity to urban nature can increase four categories: provisioning services (products obtained property values; forests, large parks, and the percentage from ecosystems), regulating services (benefits obtained of green space in a 500 m radius positively influenced from regulation of ecosystem processes), cultural services apartment prices in a study of over 9,000 real estate (nonmaterial benefits obtained from ecosystems), and transactions in Poland (Czembrowski and Kronenberg supporting services (services necessary for the production 2016). At a broader geographic scale, an examination of of all other services) (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment over 85,000 transactions across Europe also showed a 2005). The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and positive effect of forests, parks, and water on real estate Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has refined these concepts, prices (Wüstemann and Kolbe 2015). More generally, a emphasizing the central, pervasive role that culture plays in meta-analysis of the economic value of green and blue human-nature connections and operationalizing the role of spaces for recreation and health benefits, conducted using indigenous and local knowledge in understanding nature’s studies in the US and Europe, suggests that people value contributions to people (Díaz et al. 2018; IPBES 2019a). access to green and blue spaces and are willing to pay to Recognizing these diverse and vital benefits can help solve improve such local environments to gain the health benefits multifaceted urban problems, reduce risk and expenditures, of undertaking leisure activities in them (Lynch, Spencer, address inequity, improve the livability of cities, and yield and Tudor Edwards 2020). Finally, a study in France showed multiple advantages from one intervention (see box 2 on that adding green and blue spaces leads cities to become nature-based climate adaptation in cities). Street trees, more compact, increases population densities, raises real rivers, and wetlands cool the air and can play a significant estate values, and changes demographic distribution role in the mitigation of urban heat islands (Tan, Lau, and Ng patterns (Roebeling et al. 2017). 2016; Rosenzweig, Solecki, and Slosberg 2006; Loughner While a focus on the ecosystem services provided by et al. 2012). Urban green spaces can increase the livability urban nature and urban biodiversity can be useful to of cities by alleviating the urban heat island effect by 2°C municipal decision makers, it is important to recognize during the day and up to 12°C at night (Zhang et al. 2017; the other values they offer. An emphasis on measurable Raj et al. 2020). Vegetated areas included with pavement ecosystem services should not undervalue other aspects and rooftops allow water to penetrate into the ground, of biodiversity, such as the intangible ways that urban reducing flooding and downstream pollution and increasing biodiversity can improve lives and the intrinsic, cultural, and the recharge of precious groundwater (Ishimatsu et al. spiritual values of biodiversity. Urban species and spaces 2017; Chan et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2020). Coral reefs, can play an important role in linking city-dwellers to nature mangroves, seagrass beds, and beaches protect coastal and can instill pro-environment behavior (Cox and Gaston cities from erosion and flooding (Kuehler, Hathaway, and 2016, Zhang, Goodale, and Chen 2014). Many cities become Tirpak 2017). Parks and other natural areas promote famous or known for their relationships with certain species. recreation, exercise, inspiration, and social connection, For example, the return of the pelican to New Orleans (in the enhancing mental and physical health (Bratman et al. 2019; US state of Louisiana) after the BP oil spill marked a huge McCormack et al. 2010; Sturm and Cohen 2014). Urban turning point for the city. For many people, biodiversity—in nature can also help mitigate climate change by storing cities and outside of them—has intrinsic value irrespective and sequestering carbon. For example, urban forests across of any utilitarian benefits derived from it (Oksanen 1997). Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 3 Box 2 CASE STUDY Nature-based climate adaptation in cities Cities are responsible for over 70 percent of global climate refugees in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin emissions, primarily from transportation and built America are expected to move within the borders of their infrastructure within cities and from the production of own countries by 2050 (World Bank 2018), most of them goods consumed by urban residents (UN-Habitat 2011). to cities and informal settlements, where they will remain Cities are also where some of the most extreme impacts particularly vulnerable to extreme weather. of climate change will be felt. Increased frequency and/ These grim statistics do not have to be the future. Taking or severity of extreme events—such as heat waves, floods action today can reduce the number of people forced to (from storms and rising seas), droughts, fires and smoke, move by 80 percent; critical actions include reducing and storms—will stress urban communities and systems. emissions, building climate migration into development Recent research has estimated that without migration, 1–3 planning, and further understanding climate migration billion people will soon live outside of the climatic niche in (World Bank 2018; Adger et al. 2020. Of course, cities which human society developed (Xu et al. 2020). Moreover, can play a leading role in the mitigation of greenhouse gas if sea levels rise as projected, the homes of up to 340 emissions by using renewable energy, limiting industrial million people may be below projected annual flood levels emissions, bolstering public transport, and more. However, by 2050 (Kulp and Strauss 2019). Climate change will likely cities can also make strides toward climate adaptation and spur major migrations of people to cities from the hottest mitigation by promoting urban nature and biodiversity. This and driest regions that can no longer support lives and case study provides three brief examples of the many urban livelihoods. If current trends continue, 140 million climate areas undertaking such work. In Barcelona, Spain, a collection of ecological planning strategies is being deployed to achieve key objectives, including climate adaptation. For example, the city’s Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan envisions a city where “nature and urbanity interact and enhance one another” and where citizens benefit from the city’s natural heritage (City of Barcelona 2013). This plan, together with the city’s “Trees Masterplan” (City of Barcelona 2016), the “Urban Green Corridors Program,” the protection of peri-urban forest, and the creation of dunes on heavily used urban beaches, offers nature-based solutions that serve multiple purposes: providing cooling through shade and evapotranspiration; increasing the amount, quality, Battambang, Cambodia. Photo: URF and connectivity of green space; and protecting people and valuable resources against sea-level rise (Oppla n.d.). Battambang, Cambodia, is working to build climate change resilience while planning for a doubling of its pop- ulation by 2030. Unplanned development of this riverside town has combined with climate change risk to make the region vulnerable to both flooding and drought. As part of an Asian Development Bank project, representatives from different government agencies and key sectors are working together to map expected climate extremes, understand vulnerabilities, and develop adaptation measures. Na- ture-based adaptation solutions include rehabilitation of a canal system for flood control and associated co-benefits, and development of a multi-use zone with natural drainage infrastructure, which incorporates housing for the current residents of informal settlements around wetlands that Park Güelll, Barcelona, Spain. Photo: Vladislav Zolotov flood each year (ADB 2016). 4 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities Box 2 CASE STUDY Nature-based climate adaptation in cities (cont.) Moreover, the ongoing, gradual transformation of urban rise, the county drew on stakeholder engagement and local forest is designed to promote arboreal biodiversity; it scientific expertise to create two alternative scenarios focuses on a rich array of species, with no single species of nature-based adaptation for each of five regions in to make up more than 15 percent of the total number the county. One scenario focused on current and planned of street trees. This approach, which is being achieved projects to restore coastal habitats, such as marshes and gradually, is meant to reduce pest and disease risk, beaches, and the other included additional nature-based eliminate use of pesticides and fertilizer, and reduce water adaptation strategies, such as horizontal levees and use by avoiding large monocultures and focusing on native beach creation; the suitability of nature-based adaptation species best suited to future climate. The approach has strategies was in both cases determined by rigorous science been successful so far, not only in biophysical terms but (Beagle et al. 2019). The team compared both strategies to also in social distributive justice terms, as it has benefited an entirely engineered solution using InVEST (Integrated vulnerable populations in particular (Baró et al. 2019; Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs), a software Climate ADAPT 2016). suite used to compare changes in ecosystem services with changes in management, policy, climate, etc. (see box 13 The County of San Mateo, located in the heart of Silicon for more information). The two nature-based scenarios Valley in the US state of California, has used a conceptual resulted in five to seven times more marshland area than framework to guide urban ecological planning (described in the engineered solution, in turn yielding five to six times section 3.3) to explore how alternative options for adapting more carbon storage and sequestration and five to seven to sea-level rise—such as use of coastal, tidal, and riverine times greater retention of runoff. The county has distributed habitat restoration—might deliver a variety of ecosystem fact sheets with this information to leaders throughout service benefits.1 After exploring vulnerability to sea-level the region and is working to build a toolkit to help inform specific adaptation choices.2 These three locales—as well as the many others linked together by similar efforts, such as C40, Eurocities, Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), and the Resilient Cities Network—can provide inspiration for other cities implementing the framework laid out in section 3.3. Cities can and must be part of the solution to climate change or they will bear significant costs. Nature-based solutions can play a role in adaptation and mitigation. Using the best available science and tools can help urban leaders envision, compare, and create a positive future. Scaling up this type of work and sharing lessons across cities, the C40 network of cities already reports approximately 10,000 actions as San Mateo, California, United States. Photo: SpVVK part of climate adaptation and mitigation strategies (C40 Cities 2020). For a sample fact sheet, see Sea Change San Mateo County, “San Mateo 2 Sea Change San Mateo County, “Nature-Based Shoreline Protection 1 OLU.” https://seachangesmc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/San- Strategies,” https://seachangesmc.org/current-efforts/nature-based- Mateo-OLU-Factsheet.pdf. shoreline-protection-strategies/. Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 5 1.3. How do biodiversity and nature outside some tens or hundreds of kilometers away (Kauffman et the city impact the quality of life in the city? al. 2014; Goldman-Benner et al. 2012; Hunink and Droogers et al. 2015; see box 3 on upstream investments to secure Nature and biodiversity in peri-urban and rural areas also provide crucial benefits to urban residents. Conversely, water supply). Some cities rely on far-away ecosystems to unchecked urban sprawl into outlying areas can impact maintain healthy air quality; for example, Beijing relies on the residents of the city center in a multitude of ways. Inner Mongolia (Ouyang et al. 2016). Similarly, countless Cities can help maintain biodiversity by serving as key cities rely on nature that exists outside of their borders to nodes between connected ecosystems in the landscape’s provide recreation and beauty, such as the natural wonders surrounding cities (The Nature Conservancy 2018). Cities outside of San José (Costa Rica), Salt Lake City (United rely on resources coming from outside of their city borders, States), and Nairobi (Kenya), to name just a few. Lastly, with nearby agricultural lands providing food, timber, much of the scenic beauty and character of some cities, fuel, and fiber (Folke et al. 1997; Rainham, Cantwell, and such as Vancouver (Canada) and Taipei (Taiwan), comes Jason 2013). Many cities, like New York, Beijing, Nairobi, from natural features that exist outside of their municipal Cape Town, and Quito, depend on water from source areas borders. Stanley Park, Vancouver, Canada/© Michael Wels 6 6 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities Box 3 CASE STUDY Upstream investments to secure water supply Miyun, Beijing, China. Photo: Bonandbon Dw | Dreamstime.com In the mid-1990s, New York City made one of the most storage and sequestration, crop pollination, and pest con- famous investments in ecosystem service provision in trol (Goldman-Benner et al. 2012). In socioeconomic terms, recent history: it invested about US$1.5 billion in a variety the objectives also include sustainable improvements in hu- of watershed protection actions and policies, including a man livelihoods and well-being. payment for upstream property holders designed to improve Investments may include protection of native vegetation, drinking water quality for 10 million consumers, rather than restoration of degraded lands, improved agricultural spending the estimated US$6–8 billion needed for building a practices, and shifting of some farmers into other livelihoods, water filtration plant (this figure excludes annual operating through training and other support. The investments target and maintenance costs) (Chichilnisky and Heal 1998; Daily the twofold goal of improving upstream livelihoods and and Ellison 2002). The experiment continues successfully downstream water security. Investments are targeted today. across landscapes to yield the highest return, subject to Worldwide, watershed degradation compromises the water stakeholder preferences. A great deal of stakeholder input supply of nearly a billion people, with tremendous economic feeds into the analysis of options. Monitoring programs and health consequences (McDonald and Shemie 2014; can ensure that these investments lead to measurable Herrera et al. 2017; Salzman et al. 2018). Given rapidly improvements in a variety of objectives, including water growing populations, increasing human impacts in upstream quality, biodiversity, livelihood options and security, and watersheds, and climate change, water security for cities access to nature by urban residents through weekend is a growing concern for governments, corporations, and recreation (as in the Catskills-Delaware watershed serving residents. New York City and the Miyun Watershed serving Beijing, for example). The overall effort also involves advancing The New York City investment is currently one of many standards in biophysical modeling (much of it through such experiments underway in major cities across the world InVEST), financing, governance, and monitoring. (Bremer et al. 2016; Vogl et al. 2017; Zheng et al. 2013; Li et al. 2015). These efforts typically involve a reciprocal water- Since New York City’s investment proved successful, the shed agreement, through which downstream water users model has spread widely across Latin America, where there and other parties (e.g., municipal water companies, con- are now over 50 funds in different stages of establishment servation and human development organizations) pay for in major cities. The model is also spreading rapidly across upstream changes in land cover and use in order to achieve China (Zheng et al. 2016) and is being tested in Africa certain objectives. In biophysical terms, the objectives may and other regions (Salzman et al. 2018). Further progress include maintenance or enhancement of water quality, reg- could be made upon the emergence of flexible yet durable ular water flows (for dry-season supply and flood control), institutions that could help guide the growth of cities and groundwater recharge, and terrestrial and aquatic biodi- management of the natural capital and land stewards they versity. Other benefits are also anticipated, such as carbon depend on for green and inclusive development. Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 7 2. What is at stake? 2.1. How can urbanization affect biodiversity? (Maklakov et al. 2011). In many cases, urban development Across the planet, three-quarters of the land surface has leads to the replacement of native species with non-native been transformed by human interventions, two-thirds of species that are well adapted to urban environments the oceans are under severe threat, and over 85 percent globally. This shift leads to biotic homogenization threatens of wetlands have been destroyed. The average abundance to reduce the biological uniqueness of local ecosystems of nonhuman species in their native home regions has (Blair 2001). For plants, birds, and butterflies along urban declined by more than 20 percent, and approximately gradients, the number of non-native species increases 1 million species face imminent extinction (IPBES 2019b). toward centers of urbanization while the number of native species decreases (Kowarik 1995; Blair and Launer 1997). Against this backdrop, urbanization can have significant negative impacts on global biodiversity. Some 60 percent It is worth noting here that this report focuses on localized of urban areas that will likely exist in 2050 have yet to be biophysical linkages between a city and its hinterlands. built (United Nations 2013). Between 1985 and 2015, urban However, cities also exert massive environmental pres- land cover grew by almost 10,000 km2 each year (Liu et al. sures on the entirety of the globe by driving resource ex- 2020). From 1992 to 2000, 190,000 km2 of natural habitat traction and land conversion in far-away places through was lost to urban growth, and an additional 290,000 km2 global trade. These impacts that are moderated through will be at risk by 2030 (The Nature Conservancy 2018). economic drivers have profound effects (e.g., Mirabella Better planning of urban growth, management of pro- and Allacker 2017, Świąder et al. 2020). tected areas near cities, integration of habitat for biodi- versity within cities, and use of nature-based solutions to 2.2. How can urban sprawl undermine the urban problems can all help reverse the negative impacts well-being of city dwellers? of cities on biodiversity (The Nature Conservancy 2018). Urban sprawl can affect human well-being in numerous ways. In some cities, providing habitat is key to the local and Globally, nearly a billion people depend on watersheds that even global survival of plants and animals on the brink of have degraded capacity to deliver safe, reliable water, where extinction. Examples include the signature Presidio man- city investments in restoration and protection upstream could zanita plant and Mission blue butterfly in San Francisco yield high returns (Herrera et al. 2017; Salzman et al. 2018). (United States), and migratory birds along the coastline of Like water supplies, urban food supplies come from places China, which is a crucial part of the West Pacific Flyway. now threatened by degradation and urban sprawl (Hatab et Of the global Key Biodiversity Areas (IUCN 2016), 300 are al. 2019). That is because historically, cities were typically at least 50 percent urbanized, showing the importance of founded in places of exceptionally fertile land. Unchecked designing urban areas for long-term biodiversity conser- urban sprawl into outlying areas not only endangers the vation (The Nature Conservancy 2018). provision of water and food; it also threatens access to rural and natural landscapes for mental and physical health, Some species thrive in urban habitats. For example, birds recreation, and cultural benefits, thereby undermining the with broader environmental tolerances are more likely to well-being of urban economies and residents. make cities their homes (Bonier et al. 2007). Birds with bigger brains are also more likely to thrive in urban environments A quantitative analysis of the change in ecosystem service 8 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities value was recently conducted for Montreal (Canada) and investments in parks to investments in health (see box 5 surrounding areas. This study found a nearly 25 percent on investing in nature for health). Furthermore, human decrease in the value of ecosystem services provided by beings are host to many microbial symbionts, together the landscape from 1966 to 2010—from $1.026 billion forming a single “holobiont” (Margulis and Fester 1991) that CAD per year to $791 million CAD per year. The most is interdependent with biodiversity in the environment. significant declines were driven by losses in air quality, People likely require contact with diverse microbial habitats water purification, habitat for biodiversity, and recreation to live healthy lives, and urbanization may disrupt these opportunities (Dupras and Alam 2014). Box 3 provides vital symbiotic relationships (Mills et al. 2019). further examples. Although increasingly hidden, the dependence of urban 2.3. What are the risks of urban development people on nature remains utterly fundamental not only in without consideration of urban biodiversity health but in other dimensions as well, including security and nature? in water, food, and climate (Ouyang et al. 2016; Keeler The vast range in quality of life within and across the world’s et al. 2019). Destroying the nature that remains in and cities today helps in visualizing what is at stake in failing to around cities imperils drinking water, healthy diets and consider urban biodiversity and nature. Rapid urbanization food systems, security from flooding and heat stress, and can result in informal settlements that imperil the health the core human experiences nature stimulates—creativity, and well-being of both people and nature—which are connection, and freedom. Our current trajectory will take us tightly connected, as the One Health approach maintains. into a future ever more depleted of nature, with escalating Incorporating nature-based solutions into problem-solving risks, shocks, and costs (Rockström et al. 2009; IPBES in informal settlements can offer a way forward for urban 2019a; see box 2 on nature-based climate adaptation in development that takes nature and biodiversity into cities). Indeed, the coronavirus pandemic, which follows account (see box 4 on revitalizing informal settlements and decades of intensifying disasters wrought through land their environments). conversion and climate change, is both a warning that highlights the tight interconnections of people and nature In many cities, children grow up and adults live with almost and an opportunity to shift trajectory. no contact with nature. The implications of this situation are profound, ranging from elevated mental health Solutions to urban problems will necessarily come from risks (Lederbogen et al. 2011), to compromised immune a range of interventions that include gray (or built) function (Roslund et al. 2020), to loss of intergenerational infrastructure, green (or natural) infrastructure, and understanding of humans’ intimate interdependencies hybrids of the two. Urban development that defaults to with nature. Urban living is associated with heightened gray infrastructure risks inefficient use of resources and risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease and of a lost opportunities for synergies. A city choosing to manage suite of mental disorders, including depression, anxiety, stormwater, for example, could construct drains for urban stress, loneliness, and schizophrenia (Hartig et al. 2014; flood protection; or it could build a park that could both Kondo et al. 2018). Of course, many factors contribute to store floodwaters when needed and provide recreational these risks, but a growing body of research demonstrates opportunities that increase health and well-being, causal links between experiences of nature and human contribute to urban cooling by mitigating heat islands, health (Soga and Gaston 2016). In line with these findings, offer carbon storage and sequestration to mitigate climate new policy and management approaches seek to connect change, and serve as a habitat for biodiversity. Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 9 Box 4 CASE STUDY The RISE (Revitalizing Informal Settlements and their Environments) project Much of the rapid urbanization expected to occur by 2050 Four major environmental improvements are being sought will be in Asia and Africa, where many of the new urban through the RISE program: dwellers will live in informal settlements on the edges of 1. Better-managed hydrology to reduce the impacts of flood- towns and cities. At present, close to 1 billion people live in ing and to enhance climate change resilience slum conditions, and by 2030 this number is expected to swell to 2 billion (World Bank 2018). Reductions in mosquito vectors associated with poor 2. sanitation, poor drainage, and limited hard waste solutions The RISE (Revitalizing Informal Settlements and their Environments) project is a prime example of a program 3. Improvements in thermal conditions to provide resilience deploying nature-based solutions in informal settlements. to projected rising temperatures, which compromise RISE is a randomized control trial of a water-sensitive green human health and productivity engineering intervention to improve health and environments Reductions in anthropogenic noise and an increase in 4. in informal settlements. The goal is to demonstrate how a audible biodiversity, which are associated with improved novel, nature-based approach can lessen environmental human well-being contamination by improving sanitation and access to clean water and by reducing stormwater impacts. RISE is being undertaken in Fiji, Suva, and Makassar, Indo- nesia. The ultimate aim is to scale up a set of demonstrably Taking these steps will improve human health in informal effective solutions that can improve the lives and environ- settlements, especially for children, who are profoundly ments of informal settlement residents globally. For more affected by poor sanitation. The intervention, which is information, see the RISE program website at https://www. funded under the Our Planet Our Health program of the rise-program.org/. Wellcome Trust, will also reduce exposure of inhabitants to flooding hazards. BEFORE Batua in Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia, before (left) and after (right) the RISE intervention. Source: Kerrie Burge, RISE Program, Monash University AFTER 10 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities Box 5 CASE STUDY Investing in nature for health Projects often have a primary focus on programming to improve community health. For example, Camden and Islington in the United Kingdom initiated a two-year program in 2019 to reshape the management of urban green spaces to tackle health challenges. The program aims to develop close links between health providers and parks, test innovative opportunities in the active use of green space for health, and create equitable engagement and access to parks. The program also develops infrastructure for health-focused green spaces.3 The UK has also launched investments in improving the quantity and quality of urban green spaces. For example, the National Health Service (NHS) Forest project invests in creating green spaces around health care sites such as hospitals and clinics, with the aim of leveraging health benefits of nature for patients, staff, and the surrounding community. The project is active in nearly 200 sites Bycicle path in Bogota, Colombia. across the UK. The project started in 2009 and is funded Photo: Working In Media by charitable trusts, individual donations, and businesses and is coordinated by a charity. NHS Forest has planted over 65,000 trees, helped develop therapeutic gardens, and A large and growing body of research has shown that improved access to green spaces.4 nature experience is associated with both mental health and physical health (Bowler et al. 2010; Hartig et al. 2014; In Phoenix, Arizona (US), the Vitalyst Health Foundation van den Berg et al. 2015; Ohly et al. 2016; Ives et al. 2017; provided a US$125,000 grant to the Arizona Community White et al. 2017). Given the relative scarcity of urban Tree Council in 2019 to implement a Park Rx program in nature, much of this research has focused on linkages medically underserved communities and improve the quality between access to nature and the well-being of populations of and access to local parks.5 Together with city authorities in urban settings (Roe et al. 2013; Wheeler et al. 2015; and stakeholder groups, the Arizona Community Tree Mitchell et al. 2015; Dadvand et al. 2016; van den Berg et Council plants trees, provides amenities such as benches, al. 2016). As urbanization increases globally, living habits and removes barriers to park access, while also encouraging health care professionals to prescribe time in parks for their tend toward reduced regular contact with outdoor nature patients (Warren 2019). and increased time spent indoors, looking at screens and performing sedentary activities (Hofferth 2009; Atkin et Health and well-being are recognized as key benefits of al. 2013). Recognition of the intimate connections between urban green spaces, and there are positive examples from access to nature and the mental and physical health of cities around the world in which this link is leveraged to urban residents can highlight new pathways for investment create, maintain, and promote urban nature for human in health. health. There is clearly room for improvement, as financing urban green spaces is a continuous struggle and the Investing in urban nature and parks can improve the health multitude of health benefits are still being uncovered. of the surrounding community by increasing physical activity, social cohesion, and stress relief. Cities, health care 3 Beyond Greenspace, “Making the Most of Green Space for People’s organizations, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) Health: Case Study Parks for Health Camden and Islington,” https:// around the world are increasingly recognizing the One beyondgreenspace.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/ci-parks-case- study-final.pdf. Health concept and leveraging the connections between 4 See the NHS Forest website at https://nhsforest.org/. nature and health to target investments in local green and 5 Vitalyst Health Foundation, “2019 Innovation and Medical Assistance blue infrastructure for upstream health prevention. Grants,” http://vitalysthealth.org/grants-2019/. Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 11 3. What can urban leaders do? Chongqing Wenfeng Forest Park overlooking the Wushan Yangtze River Bridge, Photo: © Jingaiping | Dreamstime.com M elding the arenas of urban planning and program,6 and the NGO American Forests has recently nature conservation yields a powerful emphasized urban forestry, specifically working to reduce vision for sustainable, livable, equitable inequities in the distribution of trees in US cities.7 The cities of the future. Simultaneously, cities Biophilic Cities Network connects cities, scholars, and have an important role to play in protecting advocates to build better understanding of the ways in which biodiversity and nature. Mapping, measuring, and valuing the nature in cities contributes to the lives of urban residents.8 benefits provided to people by urban nature can help cities The international platform Nature of Cities connects people deploy limited resources efficiently, thoughtfully design with across the globe who are interested in the design and creation nature, and generate multiple benefits from urban nature. of better cities for all.9 The Cities with Nature program of Mapping also reveals the distribution of those benefits ICLEI is another example of an international network for to different populations, informing policies that improve sharing best practices across cities.10 equity (see box 6 on equity in urban nature for biodiversity, ecosystem services, and people). Initiatives to include urban nature in planning, to foster 6 US Forest Service, “Urban Wildlife,” https://www.fs.fed.us/research/ biodiversity within cities, and to share knowledge and urban/wildlife.php. 7 American Forests, “Tree Equity in American Cities,” https://www. experience across cities are beginning to take hold. For americanforests.org/our-work/urban-forestry/. example, in the US, the Forest Service has an urban forest 8 Biophilic cities network, https://www.biophiliccities.org. 9 Nature of Cities, https://www.thenatureofcities.com. 10 ICLEI Cities with Nature, https://www.citieswithnature.org. 12 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities Box 6 Equity in urban nature for biodiversity, ecosystem services, and people Cities around the globe, in both developed and developing processes) will cause populations to go locally extinct nations, are challenged by inequitable distribution of both or that genetic drift (stochastic processes) will lead to material and natural wealth. While the economic inequalities deleterious mutations due to lack of sufficient outbreeding in cities have been well-documented for decades (Akyelken opportunities. 2020), researchers and practitioners are only now beginning Some ecosystem service analyses address the equity in to fully appreciate the unequal distribution of urban nature, distribution of green spaces and their benefits. For example, biodiversity, and ecosystem services across cities (Jennings approaches to modeling urban cooling and access to nature et al. 2012; Lin et al. 2015). and its impacts on physical and mental health aim not only Wealthy neighborhoods have much higher density of urban to maximize net benefits but also to spread them across green and blue spaces than impoverished neighborhoods, the entirety of the city. Further work to understand how where many individuals and populations live with changes in climate and urban planning might decrease or insufficient access to nature (Rigolon et al. 2018a, 2018b), exacerbate inequity in the distribution of urban ecosystem which has been demonstrated to have negative effects services is a critical research frontier. on human health, both physical and mental (Beyer et al. Many of the metrics of urban biodiversity discussed here 2014; Jennings et al. 2016). Furthermore, reduced access to do not explicitly account for the distribution of species green space inhibits educational growth in schoolchildren across the city and the ways in which that distribution (Browning and Rigolon 2019). may impact people. Unfortunately, some of the actions A recent analysis found strong linkages between historic most advantageous for urban biodiversity may further practices of “redlining” in the United States and the entrench existing inequities. Actions such as increasing intensity of the urban heat island effect: neighborhoods the size of existing green spaces, which is undoubtedly that were subject to racial discrimination in the past and good for biodiversity, may further exacerbate inequities in present have higher surface temperatures (Hoffman et al. human access to urban nature, biodiversity, and ecosystem 2020). Perhaps more surprising, however, is recent evidence services. that racially discriminatory practices in cities affect not As the community of scientists and practitioners works only human inhabitants of those cities, but also the ecology to advance the science and tools related to equity and and evolutionary history of other urban species (Schell et urban biodiversity and nature, decision-makers must al. 2020). For example, the existence of only small, isolated remain cognizant of how different strategies or tactics will patches of green space in under-resourced communities exacerbate or alleviate inequalities in their city (Schell et al. makes it more likely that ecological drift (stochastic 2020). 3.1. What is ecological planning? done at the scale of a region, a metropolitan area, an urban core, a neighborhood, a district, or a parcel of land. Ecological planning in cities is urban design with nature. It is planning that is cognizant of biodiversity and nature— Both within and beyond cities, ecological planning guides both within and outside urban boundaries—and the decisions based on an understanding of nature and people ways in which a city impacts and depends upon them. as interlinked elements of an ecological system (Ndubisi It is planning that recognizes that the well-being of city 2014). Ecological design and planning use nature as an residents is affected by biodiversity and nature. It is smart inspiration and blend nature and culture, science, and art use of nature-based solutions to urban problems and the to improve the well-being of all (Steiner, Thompson, and blending of gray and green solutions to create sustainable Carbonell 2016). Ecological planning is closely connected cities. Ecological planning guides smart urbanization that to landscape urbanism, a theory of urban design that limits sprawl and directs new development to places with flexibly integrates built, natural, and social infrastructure minimal impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, (Waldheim 2006). while also meeting a city’s development goals. It can be Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 13 Ecological planning refers to the broad strategy of setting of the city. Further information about many of incorporating biodiversity and nature into urban planning. these actions can be found in the Convention on Biological Various tactics can be used in the service of ecological Diversity’s Cities and Biodiversity Outlook (Secretariat of planning to better incorporate nature into the city, the Convention on Biological Diversity 2012) and in guides depending on the decision context and strategy. Some to nature-based solutions, such as the World Banks’s important examples of tactics include the following: flagship report on green and gray infrastructure (Browder et al. 2019) and its guide to implementing nature-based Improve existing green spaces for local biodiversity flood solutions (World Bank 2017). (Beninde, Veith, and Hochkirch 2015). Identify habitats that used to exist in the city and All of the tactics above are useful for ecological planning, restore them (Blaustein 2013). but often they are not particularly useful without bigger- picture planning, or a strategy that helps explain the Enrich and/or reintroduce native plant and animal broader context—one that asks what species we are species (Burghardt, Tallamy, and Shriver 2009). trying to support, what problems we are trying to solve, Plant native plants in parks, roadsides, and and what groups could benefit most from urban nature. gardens (Tallamy 2009). Bigger-picture planning also helps target the tactics to the Encourage urban gardening for food security, places where investment will provide the biggest returns for food for pollinators, and mental health and other accomplishing the stated goals (e.g., enhancing particular benefits (Langmeyer et al. 2016; Soga et al. 2017). elements of biodiversity, nature, and/or ecosystem services Connect fragmented ecosystems by expanding for key beneficiaries). The rest of this document can help green spaces near one another, particularly by identify appropriate strategies and tactics for protecting adding corridors of vegetation or other forms of and enhancing urban nature and biodiversity. connectivity (Beninde, Veith, and Hochkirch 2015). 3.2. How can ecological planning help protect Expand tree canopy using native species nature and biodiversity? (Shackleton et al. 2015). Better ecological planning can help reverse the negative Build tunnels or overpasses to enable movement impacts of cities on biodiversity. To be effective, ecological of animals throughout the city, particularly across planning is nested within urban planning. A recent UN roads or other linear features (Riley et al. 2014; report (UN Environment 2018) describes five key principles Teixeira et al. 2013). of building better cities: (1) density (minimizing sprawl while Add parks and other green spaces to the city maintaining sufficient green space), (2) diversity of use and (Beninde, Veith, and Hochkirch 2015). income, (3) design (walkability, traffic safety, tree cover), (4) Use nature-based solutions when possible for distance to transit, and (5) destination access (sustainable stormwater and flood management (Ishimatsu et transportation) (UN-Habitat 2018). Principles (1) and (3) are al. 2017). intimately tied to ecological planning. Attention to these approaches and principles can guide targeted investments Use transdisciplinary collaborations between to secure cities’ livability, sustainability, resilience, and urban planners, engineers, and ecologists to design equity, today and into the future. Cape Town (South Africa) stormwater and flood management plans (World is an example of a city that has successfully integrated Bank 2019). ecological planning into its broader urban planning efforts— These sorts of actions and many others could be undertaken, to the benefit of local biodiversity (see box 7 on Cape Town’s depending on the specific ecological and socioeconomic biodiversity). 14 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities Box 7 CASE STUDY Cape Town’s biodiversity Cape Town is situated in one of Earth’s most biodiverse regions. Not only does Cape Town have disproportionately high levels of species richness, but also it has an extremely high rate of endemism, with 190 plant species and over 100 animal species found only in Cape Town (Helme and Tinder- Smith 2006; Cape Nature 2011; Holmes et al. 2012). Cape Town is not the only city with significant biodiversity—but where it Orange-breasted Sunbird on Table Mountain, South Africa. stands out is how well it has protected that Photo: TheUntravelledWorld biodiversity within its municipal borders. The city prides itself on maintaining high levels of biodiversity, perhaps best demonstrated by its recent victory in the Town perceives crime as a risk to biodiversity because some City Nature Championship, where residents of Cape Town people may view elements of natural habitat as unkempt, recorded the most species of any city globally (City Nature likely to promote crime, and thus undesirable. However, it is Challenge 2021),11 recording 50 percent more species than these very elements that are key to preserving biodiversity. the second-place city. It is therefore necessary to balance these concerns in the Cape Town’s success in maintaining biodiversity within its broader urban planning process. city limits can be traced to its thorough evaluation and Next, the city of Cape Town uses information about biodi- incorporation of biodiversity in four key steps: (1) monitoring versity and threats to biodiversity to inform urban ecolog- biodiversity, (2) assessing threats, (3) reducing threats, and ical planning. The BioNet and other supporting biodiversity (4) assessing efficacy of programs. assessments are used alongside other sources to inform First, Cape Town has an extensive biodiversity monitoring decisions across all arenas of urban planning. Because Bio- system that was put into place in the early 2000s (Rebelo et Net is explicitly incorporated into the Spatial Development al. 2011). This program draws on ongoing monitoring efforts Framework for Cape Town (ICLEI 2012), it ensures that bio- and proposes new protected areas of vegetation within the diversity and nature are not left out of key urban planning city called Critical Biodiversity Areas.12 These areas are decisions. defined based on field studies of where unique vegetation Lastly, the city has made concrete recommendations on types are located, how much of each type is protected, how to conduct continued monitoring of biodiversity post- and what the national and international guidelines are for intervention (City of Cape Town 2018). Though the Spatial protecting habitat. Crucially, this program is constantly Development Framework for Cape Town does not explicitly evolving, with frequent updates to the initial assessment include scenario assessment, the data collected, the process (e.g., Benn 2008). used, and the types of decisions informed are consistent Second, Cape Town has developed a holistic assessment of with the conceptual framework to guide urban ecological the threats posed to its biodiversity. It has identified nine planning laid out in section 3.3. This approach has allowed unique drivers of biodiversity loss in Cape Town: urbanization, Cape Town to make significant gains in the conservation of invasive species, agriculture, fire, mowing, overexploitation, urban nature and biodiversity. For example, from 2008 to pollution, hydrology, and crime (City of Cape Town 2018). 2018 the amount of protected area expanded by 10,000 This identification of threats reveals linkages between urban hectares, and the management assessment score of these planning and biodiversity conservation in domains whose sites increased from around 33 percent to around 75 relevance might not otherwise be clear. For example, Cape percent in this time period (City of Cape Town 2018). City Nature Challenge 2021, “2019 Leaderboard” (accessed September 20, 2020), https://citynaturechallenge.org/leaderboard-2019/ 11 South Africa National Biodiversity Institute, “City of Cape Town’s Biodiversity Observation Network,” http://bgis.sanbi.org/capetown/bionetwork.asp. 12 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 15 3.3. Conceptual framework to guide urban building, and the team aims to educate constituents and ecological planning build support for the general concept of using nature-based solutions, qualitative results are often sufficient. For ex- A general framework for decision-making is essential ample, in the case of a proposed park designed to address to guide urban ecological planning. This section briefly flooding (by storing temporary floodwater) and offer other outlines an overall process by which municipal leaders co-benefits (such as opportunities for recreation, carbon can most successfully incorporate information about storage and sequestration, and the mitigation of urban biodiversity and nature into urban decision-making. This heat), a simple list of benefits provided by habitat types is not a new framework, but rather a suggestion for how could help build support from local taxpayers and other the consideration of nature and biodiversity can be part of stakeholders. If, however, decision-makers are trying to standard planning processes. It aligns with more specific determine whether a park or a built infrastructure solu- frameworks for nature-based solutions for flood protection, tion is a more cost-effective form of flood control, scenario such as the World Bank (2017) guide on nature-based flood protection, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF 2016) Green exploration is likely necessary, and in this case a more de- Guide, and The Nature Conservancy (2021) Blue Guide. The tailed analysis would be in order. And when specific design framework describes three steps to developing a strategy, questions are being asked about a park—such as, how big or the bigger-picture overview, for urban ecological planning. it would need to be to provide the desired level of flood pro- Step 1 and Step 3 are common elements of any planning tection—quantitative analysis of detailed data is critical. process; but Step 2 needs more explanation; hence section 4 In this step, leaders also identify useful data sources and below details tools and approaches for accomplishing Step experts within their network and compile available data 2 in the context of bringing urban biodiversity and nature about urban biodiversity and nature. These data come into decisions. Section 4 also provides guidance for how to from a range of sources, including satellite imagery, local use and evaluate specific tactics (individual development of government databases, conservation organizations, local management actions) to achieve the overarching strategy. zoos and botanic gardens, and community members. In- corporating traditional cultural knowledge through an inte- STEP 1 grated stakeholder process is key to ensuring that diverse Build the foundation: Identify stakeholders, goals, community voices and values are considered. specific questions, and information needs Some key questions that might be asked in this step In this first step, municipal leaders establish the outlines include the following: of the ecological planning process, including goals and objectives, specific questions being asked, team members, Whose voices do we need to hear? stakeholders/advisors, timeline, and work plan. The team What is our shared vision for the future of our city/ identifies the scale and scope of the ecological planning district/neighborhood, and what roles might urban process and engages with key stakeholders and community biodiversity and nature play in that future? voices to ensure broad participation. When planning an What is our shared vision for urban biodiversity and assessment of urban biodiversity and urban nature, it urban nature? is critical to think about the goals; clear articulation of How might ecological planning move our city/district/ the goals determines key aspects of the assessment and neighborhood forward? planning. Careful inclusion of appropriate stakeholders in goal-setting can help illuminate diverse visions and What data, expertise, and other resources do we need values, and ensure support for the process and its ultimate to achieve our goals? How can we work with groups outcomes (Reed 2008; Haddaway et al. 2017). within our city or broader network to acquire them? To what climate, social, or health issues might nature Different types of questions and decisions call for different provide solutions? types of information (Hamel et al., forthcoming). In some cases, coarse information that provides qualitative results What scale of questions are we asking? (Box 9 is sufficient. In others, more detailed, quantitative assess- specifically addresses this question.) ments are required. When the goal of an assessment of ur- What are we trying to achieve, and what metrics will we ban biodiversity and nature is communication and capacity use to assess and monitor success? 16 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities Some key outputs from this step include the following: choices, or investments change nature, biodiversity, and the flows of ecosystem services to people in the city. An An expert team, a strategic, inclusive vision, and a work example of this approach in Guangzhou, China is detailed plan in box 8. Section 4 details useful tools, such as a modified Clear questions for the ecological planning process at version of the Singapore Index and InVEST, that can help hand identify potential changes in biodiversity and ecosystem Metrics and indicators with which to assess success services associated with different decisions; with that information, decision-makers can weigh trade-offs and Compilations or assessments of relevant data and oth- better understand possible impacts on the distribution of er resources benefits to different stakeholders in the city (see box 6 on A clearly articulated goal for proposed nature-based equity in urban nature for biodiversity, ecosystem services, solutions and people). Participation and realistic expectations of local resi- Some key questions that might be asked in this step dents and stakeholders include the following: What is the baseline of biodiversity in the region of STEP 2 interest today? Analyze and compare: Articulate possible What ecosystem services are provided where? alternatives and evaluate likely outcomes against stated goals Are ecosystem services distributed equitably in our With clear goals in hand, stakeholders, communities, city? If not, what demographic groups currently benefit and leaders next articulate the baseline of biodiversity from urban nature, and how might this situation shift in and ecosystem services in the region as well as possible the future? alternative development plans for their area of interest. What are some possible alternative futures for our city, By using the tactics described above, decision-makers district, or neighborhood? can generate scenarios of potential futures for their city How and where can we best invest in urban nature to by adding, rearranging, or rethinking the management of achieve our stated goals? green and blue spaces. These scenarios might translate How do environmental or societal changes affect alternative visions or policy options into possible future biodiversity and the provision of benefits to people? maps of the city, district, or neighborhood. Ideally, the team Some key outputs include the following: translates the stated goals and objectives into alternative future maps with different maps representing different Current maps of biodiversity, ecosystem types, and visions and policies. ecosystem services Original species diversity, and ecosystem types and Next, the team uses the baseline and alternative future services scenarios to compare the likely outcomes of each alternative with respect to the chosen metrics. With the Alternative future maps of the area of interest original project objectives in mind, the team digs into the Maps and summary tables reflecting agreed-upon data and uses qualitative or quantitative models or other metrics of urban nature, urban biodiversity, and urban projections to understand how policies, management ecosystem services compared across alternatives Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 17 Box 8 CASE STUDY Understanding the value of the Haizhu wetland in Guangzhou, China The Haizhu Wetland. Photo: The World Bank Guangzhou, China belongs to one of the world’s largest metro Such values are measured in biophysical (e.g., degrees of areas, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, cooling), monetary (e.g., energy savings), and other metrics with a population of 72 million in 2019. The Haizhu wetland of value (e.g., mortality risk). in Guangzhou occupies 11 km2; it is the largest wetland The marginal value provided to Guangzhou by the Haizhu located in the downtown core of a Chinese megacity. The wetland via the examined ecosystem services is at least Haizhu wetland is locally known as the “Green Heart” of the $146.8 million USD over the next 30 years, in addition city. It provides many services to residents. For example, it to reduced mortality risk and increased workplace is highly accessible from the Central Business District and productivity in the surrounding landscape. Including other densely populated areas, making it a key component additional ecosystem services that were beyond the scope of greenspace access for locals. Indeed, the wetland of this analysis, such as water purification and flood received over 60 million visitors from 2012-2020. It is mitigation, would most certainly add to this reported value. also an important area supporting biodiversity in the city, Understanding the ecosystem services provided by the with 177 bird species (compared to 72 bird species locally, Haizhu wetland enables city officials and urban planners outside the wetland) and 325 documented insect species to make ecologically-informed decisions about urban (compared to 66 outside). development in Guangzhou. In 2020, the World Bank partnered with the local planning This approach represents a substantial leap in valuing agency in Guangzhou and the Natural Capital Project to urban ecosystem services to inform ecological planning explore some of the important benefits provided by the by articulating the marginal values of urban green spaces. wetland to people. The goal was to quantify key benefits The team used a combination of existing and prototype provided by the wetland—in biophysical, monetary, Urban InVEST models to assess the marginal values of the and other metrics—to make those benefits explicit to Haizhu wetland. InVEST is a free and open-source software decision-makers and help protect the wetland from future suite that has been used in over 185 countries globally; it development. To do so, the team mapped and modeled four leverages geospatial data inputs alongside known ecological services provided by the wetland: climate change mitigation processes to predict the provision of ecosystem services (carbon storage and sequestration), urban cooling, access to from land and seascapes (Sharp et al., 2020, Hamel et al. in nature for recreation, and improvements in health (through press). This is one of the first applications of Urban InVEST. both mental health and physical health pathways). The This approach is globally generalizable; software, tools, team then calculated the provision of those same services data, and workflows are available to make it easier and in a future in which the wetland was replaced by dense more efficient to understand the services provided by urban residential development. This allowed for the calculation nature and to use that understanding to inform urban of the marginal value of the examined ecosystem services. planning decisions across China and throughout the world. Source: World Bank Report on Guangzhou Sustainable Urban Cooling Options, forthcoming. 18 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities STEP 3 ensures that both the process and the end results have good Synthesize and inform: Summarize results, inform support and accomplish stated objectives. Throughout, it is decisions, and iterate essential to build in a diversity of knowledge sources and The first step builds the foundation, laying out goals of the to value the cultural and traditional knowledge available specific ecological planning enterprise to be undertaken. through local collaborators. The second step creates alternative future scenarios and Some key questions asked in this step include the following: evaluates what those scenarios might mean for progress How do we present results in a way that is most accessi- against the objectives. This final step builds on the previous ble to stakeholders and other important audiences? two to synthesize results in decision-relevant ways, inform decisions, and plant the seeds of implementation. What worked well, and how can we improve? How thoroughly did we consider urban nature and urban This process involves learning as a group and equips biodiversity in our decision process? Are we content municipal leaders with the tools they need to incorporate with the likely impacts of our decisions on urban nature urban nature and biodiversity into urban design. The team and biodiversity? has been working with key stakeholders throughout the What are the next steps to get to implementation of the process, but this is when the final results are delivered plan? and discussed. With target audiences in mind, the team packages and presents the results in compelling ways to Some key outputs from this step include the following: key stakeholders. Interactive maps of urban nature and biodiversity, simple diagrams showing projected changes in urban Of course, information about urban nature and biodiversity nature, and local workshops to communicate the city’s and their value to people (both monetary and nonmonetary) is only one of many types of information used to make vision for the future decisions about urban land use and development. A good An updated version of the desired future and a process synthesis of the work done throughout these steps can for how to derive plans to reach that future help bring the diverse values and beneficiaries of urban An interpretation guidebook for nature education biodiversity and nature to the fore and thus allow for The process focuses on getting to a plan. Of course, decision-making that best serves both nature and people additional actions are necessary to fund, implement, in the city. monitor, and review activities consistent with that plan. Iteration and evaluation—of both the results and the ICLEI’s guidance for biodiversity action plans for cities process itself—are important throughout the course of this lays out a broader, five-step process from initiation to work. Building in evaluation and iteration from start to finish monitoring and review (ICLEI 2015). Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 19 Box 9 CASE STUDY At what scales can ecological planning provide answers to urban leaders? Ecological planning is a useful concept that can operate at Where do parks and other forms of open space most many different scales and levels of specificity, to (1) guide benefit the health of urban residents? How might we the development of the city as a whole—often in relation articulate these values and find new funding sources to other cities, (2) identify areas for investment in urban for urban green spaces? (See box 5 on investing in na- nature and biodiversity, and create zonation schemes ture for health.) across the city, and (3) inform specific land use decisions How can we improve equity in the delivery of nature’s within the city. benefits to residents? (See box 6 on equity in urban 1. Scale beyond urban borders. The broadest planning scale nature for biodiversity, ecosystem services, and peo- looks at a city as a whole and/or at multiple cities, or seeks ple.) to meet national or international targets. Questions at this What parts of the city provide the greatest potential scale help urban leaders gain inspiration from peer cities to for both biodiversity and flood protection services? guide the development trajectory of the whole city. Ques- How might nature-based solutions improve the tions at this scale can also help lenders and NGOs prioritize well-being of the most vulnerable in my city? (See box investments in particular cities—or help those cities argue 4 on the RISE project.) for such investments. For example: What urban plans, strategies, or policies should urban nature and urban biodiversity be incorporated into Does our city have globally significant levels of bio- (e.g., a city master plan, stormwater management diversity either within the city or in the hinterlands? What are current levels of protection for biodiversi- plan, zoning plans, etc.)? ty in our city and the surrounding areas? Are there These questions are being asked by city governments, functional corridors connecting urban nature to na- planners, utilities, NGOs, environmental justice groups, and ture outside the city? public-private partnerships. Is our city one that would significantly benefit from 3. Scale of individual parcels within the city. The third plan- upstream or upwind investments in ecosystem res- ning scale addresses local assessments that can inform par- toration to improve water or air quality? (See box 3 ticular land use decisions within a city. Asking and answering on upstream investments to secure water supply.) questions at this scale takes place daily, and cumulatively Which cities have pioneered approaches that my city shapes the future of cities. Better answering these sorts of could adopt? (See box 10 on how to identify peer cit- questions could transform the evolution of cities: ies to guide ecological planning.) What can our city do to meet biodiversity targets What benefits do urban residents get from this nat- set by national and international agreements (e.g., ural area within the city, and does it make sense to UN Sustainable Development Goals, EU Biodiversity maintain it as is? Strategy)? Considering a broad range of stakeholders—includ- ing commercial businesses, schools, and community These questions are being asked principally by city groups—what use of a particular parcel will best sat- governments and planners, in consultation with national isfy diverse objectives? governments and international organizations to guide urban design at the highest levels. In light of the coronavirus pandemic and shelter-in- place orders, how can we best serve neighborhoods 2. Scale of city as a whole. The next planning scale is small- with poor access to parks for physical activity and er, focusing on the city as a whole. Questions at this scale mental health: through increasing the number and can be used to prioritize investment in urban biodiversity size of local parks, improving transportation to more and nature and to create zoning plans within a city. These distant parks, or providing programs that targets questions help explore opportunities and challenges in the those with greatest need? (See box 11 on health risks city, such as stormwater management or resilience to in- related to urbanization.) tensifying temperature extremes. Illustrative questions in- What types of management (or tactics) might great- clude the following: ly enhance urban biodiversity in this landscape (e.g., Where in the city do we see significant levels of urban increasing tree cover and diversity, removing harmful biodiversity? invasive species, restoring natural vegetation, adding Where does urban nature provide the most benefits to connectivity and/or corridors for key species)? people in this city? These questions might be asked by private landowners, Where are more trees, wetlands, or other surface wa- city governments, community associations, development ters needed in the core urban area to moderate tem- agencies, or public-private partnerships. perature? 20 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities Box 10 How to identify peer cities to guide ecological planning While every city faces a unique set of challenges and that is commonly used by indexes of urban biodiversity, opportunities, it is possible to identify groups of peer including city age, size, and population density; economic cities—those sharing certain commonalities and potential profile; equity in allocation of resources; baseline levels of policy solutions that relate to the biological, geological, biodiversity; and amounts of green and blue space. Cities social, and governance context—by means of a simple may relate to one another in some or all of these metrics. typology. This typology can help highlight policy choices This typology can be used alongside the steps outlined in related to the allocation of urban green and blue space, or section 3 to (1) help identify goals, (2) identify potential other actions related to promoting urban biodiversity and policies or future scenarios, and (3) evaluate the success of ecosystem services. Its components reflect information the decision-making process and its outcomes. Possible metrics How might this metric influence decisions related to urban nature? Environmental Climate Warmer cities may be more cognizant of urban heat island effects. conditions Topography Coastal cities or cities with large bodies of water may be more concerned Elevation with flood mitigation. Proximity to coastline Mountainous cities are likely to see dramatic shifts in biodiversity with Presence of rivers, lakes, climate change and the upward migration of species. wetlands, etc. Age Age of city Older cities have more established infrastructure. Time since reaching 100,000 Older cities likely have more entrenched zoning schemes. people Younger cities may be more flexible in reallocating land. Time since reaching half of current population Size and Area of city Larger cities can support more green space and biodiversity. density Population size Denser cities are expected to have less green space. Population density More populous cities are likely to need to more green space to meet citizens’ demands for nature. Economic Gross domestic product (GDP) More affluent cities may have more tax revenue to allocate to urban nature conditions GDP per capita (e.g., the establishment and upkeep of urban parks, bioswales, street trees, Economic breakdown by sector etc.). (manufacturing vs. services vs. Cities with a higher proportion of their economy in manufacturing sectors technology) may have less land to allocate to nature because of the footprint of GEP (gross ecosystem product) factories. They may also face unique challenges with regards to local pollution. Cities can track and communicate the benefits of nature to society. Cities with high dependence on outside sources of water or other benefits can target financial investments in securing those ecosystems and the livelihoods of their stewards. Cities providing sustainably produced natural products can command higher prices for them and receive other credit for their commitment to sustainability. Equity within Heterogeneity by neighborhood Cities with more uneven distribution of household income and wealth may city in household median income have a longer history of inequality to actively overcome. Heterogeneity by neighborhood Urban residents in informal settlements or poor neighborhoods may have in distance to nearest green particularly strong dependence on urban nature, because of vulnerability to space hazards and lack of built infrastructure providing safe water, cooking fuel, or cooling. They may also experience greater disservices, such as exposure to insect and animal pests. Cities with less equal access to green spaces across neighborhoods may have to do more to ensure future green spaces are allocated equitably across neighborhoods. Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 21 Box 10 How to identify peer cities to guide ecological planning (cont.) Possible metrics How might this metric influence decisions related to urban nature? Baseline Maximum species richness Cities in biodiversity hotspots (high species richness) are expected to have biodiversity Number of unique ecosystems higher levels of biodiversity; peer cities in hotspots might strive for similar Extent of Key Biodiversity levels of biodiversity (e.g., by increasing the amount and quality of urban Areas in the city green space). Cities with lots of different types of ecosystems within their boundaries should have higher levels of biodiversity. Existing green Amount of city area dedicated Cities with lots of green space may have less need or desire to allocate and blue space to nature additional land to urban nature. Historical patterns in amount Cities on a trajectory of decreasing green space with time are especially of green space per year vulnerable to further loss of urban nature. Understanding where a city falls along these seven spectra behind Stockholm in green space as a share of area (25 can help decision-makers seek peer cities for inspiration. percent compared to 31 percent). Similarly, Bogota might For example, Copenhagen and Stockholm have similar look to Rio de Janeiro as a peer, since the two share similar ages (close to 1,000 years old and around 800 years old, levels of biodiversity (718 bird species and 612 bird species, respectively), sizes (180 km2 and 188 km2), economies respectively [Map of Life 2020]) and are similar in age (US$78,000 and US$75,000 GDP per capita), and (both over 400 years old), area (685 km2 and 485 km2), and underlying biodiversity pools (204 bird species versus 181 population (7.41 million and 6.32 million). bird species [Map of Life 2020]), though Copenhagen lags Green-billed Tingua, Bogota, Colombia. Photo: dalomo84 Toucan and Macaw, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Photo: agustavop 22 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities Box 11 Zoonotic and vector-borne disease health risks of urbanization Vector control . Photo: Muhammad Gunawansyah Connections between nature, biodiversity, and cities Before the dawn of agriculture, people living in low-density bring numerous benefits, detailed throughout this report. groups were likely relatively free of virulent epidemic disease However, careful consideration of disease risks associated (Inhorn and Brown 1990). Only when critical community with urbanization can inform wise ecological planning sizes and densities were reached did zoonotic diseases, that prioritizes the health of human populations and the such as smallpox, influenza, and measles, seriously affect ecosystems on which they depend. people; these are thought to have evolved from monkeypox, avian flu, and canine distemper, respectively (Fenner et The COVID-19 global pandemic is a dramatic example of the al. 1974). Measles could not persist in human populations importance of understanding, mitigating, and responding until there were cities of about 200,000 to 500,000 people to zoonotic disease emergence in an increasingly urbanized (Black 1975). and globalized world. Zoonotic diseases are caused In early urban centers, it was not only the density of human by pathogens (e.g., bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other populations but also the conditions in those centers that eucaryotic parasites) transmitted between other animals enabled infectious disease to thrive. For example, poor and people; they comprise the majority of known infectious sanitation and health infrastructure were likely the primary illnesses in people (Wolfe et al. 2007). drivers of the first instances of plague outbreaks in early While the COVID-19 pandemic has often been referred urban centers. The earliest known example of plague caused to as “unprecedented,” the history of humanity is marked the collapse of an early European mega-settlement more by pandemics (Huremović 2019). Some of these—such as than 5,000 years ago. Compact housing arrangements and the spread of yellow fever and malaria to the Americas amassed food storage, alongside high densities of animals via the slave trade—have profoundly altered the course (including rats and fleas), created ideal conditions for the of civilizations (Athni et al. 2021). The ongoing threat of disease that continued to spread across Eurasia through emerging diseases, together with increasing urban-wildlife various trade routes (Rascovan et al. 2019). interfaces, underscores the importance of evidence-based From this and other historical examples, several key factors ecological planning in the shaping and reshaping of healthy, driving zoonotic and vector-borne health risks emerge: (1) vibrant cities for the future. human population of sufficient size and density; (2) lack of Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 23 Box 11 Zoonotic and vector-borne disease health risks of urbanization (cont.) sanitation and health services; (3) heightened population represent critical points for transmission. Industrial agricul- mobility and speed of transport; (4) agricultural intensifi- ture, wildlife trade, wet markets, and research laboratories cation, declines in large wildlife, and associated rise of ro- are some examples of these interfaces that require careful dents; and (5) contact with animals and human-wildlife- management and safety protocols to mitigate health risks. environment interfaces (Daily and Ehrlich 1996). Each of Habitat degradation is also widening human-wildlife-envi- these drivers is increasingly exacerbated by urbanization. ronment interfaces. Landscape-scale changes—including The majority of global population growth (resulting, in large agricultural intensification, loss of large wildlife, promo- part, from internal migration) is expected to occur in urban tion of rodents (Dirzo et al. 2014; Young et al. 2014), and centers in developing countries where access to adequate urbanization—result in the expansion of ecotones, transi- health infrastructure may be comparatively limited (World tion zones between ecological systems. Ecotones host di- Bank 2018). Increased density will also raise the risk of dis- verse wildlife-human interactions that increase the risk of ease transmission, especially in growing peri-urban slums emerging infectious diseases (Despommier et al. 2006). For (Waldman 2015). People in informal settlements often have limited access not only to health services, but also to sani- example, bats are a well-known source of zoonoses, includ- tation infrastructure such as insect screening, drinking wa- ing the Ebola, Nipah, Hendra, and SARS-CoV-2 viruses (Let- ter treatment, plumbing, and wastewater treatment, all of ko et al. 2020). Habitat fragmentation and destruction that which limit the spread of disease. often accompany urbanization can force bats and other an- imals to shift their behavior from feeding in more remote, Mobility of people is also key to disease transmission. natural ecosystems to feeding in agricultural lands, urban For example, mobile phone data have shown that human parks, and developed areas, greatly increasing the risk of movements are an important component of the transmission disease transmission (Plowright et al. 2011; Wacharaplue- of malaria (Wesolowski et al. 2012). The COVID-19 sadee et al. 2018). pandemic demonstrated how rapidly an emerging pathogen can spread in today’s interconnected world; local disease The compounding of various risk factors necessitates outbreaks can now become global with breathtaking speed. cross-sectoral solutions. The One Health approach offers In addition, long-term resettlements from conflict and insight for urban planning. It recognizes that human health natural disaster can increase the spread of diseases with is intimately connected to the health of other animals and longer latency periods (Institute of Medicine and National the environment and calls on experts across disciplines Research Council 2010). to integrate their approaches to public health crises (CDC Contact with animals is a significant factor for zoonotic risk, 2018). The One Health approach is urgently needed and is and a variety of human-wildlife-environment interfaces now gaining some traction around the world. 24 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 4. Practical tools for analyzing and comparing biodiversity and ecosystem services to support decisions A ll three steps above are equally essential to Just as urban planners often have to manage many ensuring positive outcomes, as is the follow- potentially competing aims in designing metropolitan up monitoring described more fully in other areas (Levy 2016), ecological planning often requires frameworks.13 The remainder of this section, the consideration of many different forms of nature, however, addresses Step 2—analyzing and biodiversity, and ecosystem services that may or may comparing biodiversity and ecosystem services to support not be aligned (Anderson et al. 2009; Nelson et al. 2009). decisions. Goal-setting and stakeholder engagement (Step Many frameworks have been put forward to evaluate how 1) and synthesizing information and iterating with decision- well a city is currently supporting nature, biodiversity, makers and communities (Step 3) are already integral parts ecosystem services, and in turn people (Hansen and Pauleit of urban planning and municipal governance. Of course, 2014; Woodruff and BenDor 2016). These frameworks they will need to be done anew as part of an ecological focus on evaluating cities against criteria such as (1) the planning enterprise, but the tools and approaches are not demographics of the city, (2) the amount of nature protected novel (Yiftachel 1989; Malbert 1998). It is the analysis of within the city, (3) the levels of urban biodiversity, (4) the urban nature and biodiversity (Step 2), and the necessary provisioning of ecosystem services in and for the city, and tools and approaches for carrying it out, that represent a (5) local governmental structures and policies put forth to significant impediment to ecological planning in current ensure continued protection of nature (Chan et al. 2014). To practice. This section outlines how to evaluate the efficacy allow for specificity, this section focuses on two important of various tactics used to determine which management tools for understanding biodiversity and ecosystem services actions are most useful in achieving the strategy or goals in cities: the Singapore Index and InVEST, described in detail outlined in Step 1. in box 12 and box 13, respectively. Many different types of tools are useful when analyzing and Expansion of the Singapore Index to enable its use in the comparing biodiversity and ecosystem services in cities. evaluation of current patterns and predicted future trends Almost all mapping requires a geographic information in urban nature, biodiversity, and ecosystem services will system (GIS). Both licensed tools (ArcGIS) and free and open- enhance its utility in planning and ensure that it is useful in source tools (QGIS) are available for manipulating spatial Step 2. Additional metrics of urban nature, biodiversity, and information. The Global Platform for Sustainable Cities ecosystem services can be incorporated to complement (GPSC) describes natural asset and biodiversity valuation in the set of metrics already included in the Singapore Index. cities and outlines some useful tools (GPSC 2019). Urban nature, urban biodiversity, and urban ecosystem services are all key themes for understanding both the See for example Daily et al. (2009); ICLEI (2015). See also the online 13 baseline and likely future states of nature in the city. course offered by edX., “Introduction to the Natural Capital Project Approach,” https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-to-the-natural- Important metrics and tools for assessing each of these capital-project-approach. themes is discussed in turn below. Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 25 Box 12 The Singapore Index Cape Town, South Africa. Photo: Vera Shestak The Singapore Index (Chan et al. 2014) is a self-assessment of the five possible values for each indicator. More detail on tool for cities that generates a profile of the city’s key how each section is scored is given in section 4.2. Each city information, including location, physical features, merits an annual score (out of a possible 92) and is expected demographics, economic indicators, biodiversity features, to recalculate the index annually to track its progress and the administrations responsible for urban nature. (Centre for Liveable Cities 2015). Based on this profile, cities evaluate their performance on The Singapore Index has been applied in 50 cities globally a number of metrics in four categories: (1) the availability of to track current levels of urban biodiversity, nature, and urban nature (such as amount of green space, configuration ecosystem services. In at least 36 of these cases, it was of green and blue space, etc.), (2) biodiversity (such as bird the city’s municipal government that applied the metrics species richness, plant species richness, proportion of directly, while in the remaining cases academics or NGOs invasive species, etc.), (3) ecosystem services (such as water carried out the analysis for a given city. The application of regulation, climate regulation, etc.) and (4) administration the Singapore Index has been widespread and varied, with of nature (such as funding to programs, number of policies cities from all continents and many nations taking part. A in place, etc.). The index tracks 23 indicators spread across full list of cities that have applied the Singapore Index to these four categories, each of which is scored between 0 date can be found on the interactive web viewer at www. and 4, with clear quantitative metrics associated with each tinyurl.com/SI-Cities. 4.1. Urban nature entails coding areas as urban nature or protected natural areas specifically within a GIS. The amount and spatial distribution of area dedicated to urban green and blue spaces forms the backbone of any In some cases, leaders will not want to go beyond this level city’s plan for conserving urban biodiversity and ecosystem of documentation and quantification of urban nature. In services. There are two metrics that can best measure other cases, they will want to explore the distribution of the baseline of urban nature. First, cities can evaluate the urban nature throughout the city (both at the baseline and percentage of their landscape that is currently dedicated in alternative scenarios). Understanding what metrics to to green and/or blue space. Second, planners can assess use to monitor the configuration of urban nature depends what proportion of this space is permanently protected on whether the endpoints of interest are ecosystem services through legislation or zoning. A city’s green and blue spaces or biodiversity or both. are easily assessed over time, using GIS software and data The distribution of green and blue spaces throughout a city from satellites such as MODIS or Landsat (Kabisch et al. is important for planners to consider as they think about 2016), while public records indicate the amount that is equity in the delivery of services to different communities protected by statutes (Girault 2017). Creating scenarios within the city. Some urban ecosystem services provided for green and blue space is a simple matter in theory and by urban green space, such as climate mitigation through 26 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities carbon storage and sequestration, benefit people who are specific development plans, such as the addition of green far away from that green space. Others, such as urban infrastructure in a particular place, and more flexible plans, cooling services, benefit only nearby people. Consideration such as doubling the number of urban street trees in flexible of the equitable distribution of urban green spaces and the locations. Once these policy positions are translated to services they provide to people is critical. maps, however, calculation of future matrix permeability is readily achievable. To maintain healthy levels of biodiversity within a city, it is not enough simply to have areas of dedicated green and Unfortunately, increases in these connectivity metrics blue space; species must be able to move between these that are good for biodiversity can feed into dynamics areas in order to maintain healthy populations—that is, that increase inequities in the distribution of urban nature there must be connectivity. Decision-makers can consider and its benefits. To counter unequal distribution of green three metrics in the evaluation of how well green spaces space, some cities (e.g., New York) and nongovernmental within a city are connected and thus how well they might organizations have set goals for every resident to be support urban biodiversity: (1) the perimeter-to-area ratio, within a 10-minute walk from a park.14 The EU has outlined (2) the average distance between green and/or blue spaces, methodologies for exploring and comparing 10-minute- and (3) the permeability of the urban matrix. walk access to parks across European cities (Poelman 2016). Many small parks distributed evenly throughout a The perimeter-to-area metric measures how intact urban city will lead to lower connectivity for wildlife, highlighting nature is: cities with large contiguous patches have much the need for clearly articulated goals, scenario planning, lower ratios of perimeter to area, and cities with many small, and careful balancing of trade-offs when considering the isolated patches have higher average ratios (Cook 2002; appropriate level and distribution of urban nature for a Hunsaker, Carpenter, and Messer 1990). Again, this metric particular city. is easily calculable through Landsat or MODIS images and can easily be recalculated for potential scenarios of change. Beyond the amount of green and blue space and the connectivity between them, one further aspect of The perimeter-to-area metric, however, ignores the spatial urban nature is important to urban biodiversity: vertical arrangement of the patches relative to one another, which complexity. More vertical complexity in available habitats necessitates the inclusion of additional connectivity tends to lead to higher levels of biodiversity (Davies and metrics. The first is the average distance between green Asner 2014). Vertical complexity is best measured with spaces, calculated as the mean of all possible pairwise two metrics. The first is simply the mean canopy height of distances between parks. This is again calculable under urban nature, with a preference for taller trees, indicating current conditions from satellite imagery, and recalculable older and more mature urban green spaces (Newbold et with scenarios of change by simply adding or removing al. 2015). The second is the inter-quartile range of canopy more green space (Brown 2008; Davis and Glick 1978; height across urban green spaces. This metric captures MacArthur and Wilson 1967). a key point: while mature, tall trees will be generally The third and final connectivity metric builds in the beneficial, grasslands, shrublands, and other habitats are recognition that urban biodiversity may not only exist in also key. Hence attention must be paid to the diversity of urban green and blue spaces, but may live in, and move vertical structure (Goetz et al. 2007). Present-day values throughout, the entirety of the city (Kowarik 2011; Werner for these variables can be derived from LIDAR imagery, 2011). Those cities with more natural elements throughout and future scenario scores can be generated based on are more likely to prove beneficial for the maintenance proposed policy interventions (e.g., introduction of mowing and movement of biodiversity. Thus, the final metric is the and expansion of woodland area). It should be noted that permeability of the urban matrix. This value theoretically increasing vertical complexity is only one way to manage ranges between 0 and 1 (but in reality will be much closer land use intensity, and cities could also seek to reduce the to 0) and is calculated as the proportion of each pixel chemical inputs (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides) that are applied that is classified as photosynthetic vegetation. This to parcels of urban nature. metric is responsive to increasing density of street trees, addition of green infrastructure, and similar initiatives. Calculating how this metric will change under future 14 NYC Parks, “Walk to a Park Initiative,” https://www.nycgovparks. scenarios is more complicated, as it can include both site- org/planning-and-building/planning/walk-to-a-park; Trust for Public Lands, “10 Minute walk,” https://www.tpl.org/10minutewalk. Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 27 4.2. Urban biodiversity healthy populations of those species, and (3) do not overly preference common species over rare species. The use of The Singapore Index (box 12) contains a number of classical these three complementary metrics is possible because of metrics of biodiversity. These metrics focus on the number frequent, widespread point counts for birds that already of species, with an emphasis on iconic groups such as cover many cities. Programs such as the Breeding Bird birds and butterflies. They typically rely on estimates of Survey or Farmland Bird Survey provide a framework that species richness, as well as the change in richness through other cities currently lacking such coverage can follow time (Chan et al. 2014). While helpful in many cases, these (Pardieck et al. 2019; Sauer et al. 2017). The recording of metrics leave out two key aspects of biodiversity: (1) the both species richness and abundance, alongside known abundance of animals or representation of ecosystems absences of species, allows for a much fuller understanding (Pereira et al. 2013), and (2) the representation of less iconic of bird biodiversity than the diversity of other taxa. taxa (Donaldson et al. 2016). This section suggests building upon and/or expanding the metrics in the Singapore Index For taxa other than birds and plants, high-quality for maximum decision-making utility. It proposes methods biodiversity data can be difficult to find (Donaldson et al. for assessing these metrics in the absence of high-quality 2016). However, the rise of popular citizen science platforms data and suggests how they can be extrapolated into such as iNaturalist or the Global Biodiversity Information future scenarios of change. Facility (GBIF) can fill a key void. It is important to note that the most popular citizen science platform for reporting The first two new metrics (beyond those used by the species occurrences varies by country, and individual cities Singapore Index) are associated with the diversity of plants should use data coming from those platforms that are most within a city’s boundaries. Plants are one of the easier robust in their regions. These platforms record the latitude, taxonomic groups to sample, especially with repeated longitude, time of sample, and identity of all species in visits through time; it is feasible to calculate the following their database (GBIF 2017). From this, city managers can metrics using local plant surveys conducted by the conduct annual surveys of how many vertebrate and government, universities, or NGOs (see the supplement to invertebrate species are found within their city each year. Aronson et al. [2014]). If that is not possible, the procedure It is important to note that some statistical considerations described below for quantifying total species richness can will make the analyses much more robust (Haque et al. be applied for plants as well. Surveys should enumerate the 2018; Pardo et al. 2013). For example, relying on a three- total number of plant species as well as the proportion of year moving average of total species richness, rather than those species that are invasive (Gulezian and Nyberg 2010). individual annual snapshots, will lend robustness to the While invasive species are problematic at all trophic levels, analysis. Moreover, it is important to standardize the total the links between overall levels of biodiversity and the level number of observations used to calculate species richness of non-native species in an urban or suburban area are the for each year, as the increasing popularity of such services clearest and most well-resolved (Burghardt, Tallamy, and has also led to rapid increases in the number of individual Shriver 2009; Burghardt et al. 2010). organisms recorded and can make present species richness Birds are often used as indicators of animal biodiversity look artificially high relative to years past. at large (Butchart et al. 2010). Not only does the species The meta-analysis from Beninde, Veith, and Hochkirch richness of birds tend to correlate well with total species (2015) allows for the extension of static indexes to include richness, but also the plethora of data available for projections of how biodiversity is likely to change with birds enables much more nuanced consideration of alterations to urban green space or other natural elements, bird biodiversity than would be possible for other taxa such as street trees. This meta-analysis compiles data from (Donaldson et al. 2016). Therefore, three additional metrics 75 global cities and examines how the number of species in can be used to indicate avian biodiversity: total species a given city is affected by the level of urban nature in that richness, total abundance, and the evenness of the bird city. It found that species richness increases significantly community (evenness refers to how similar the population as a function of the amount of green space, the vertical sizes of each bird species are relative to one another). structure of green space, the area of water bodies in a green Comprehensively these three metrics ensure that policies space, and the presence of biological corridors between (1) promote a large number of species, (2) encourage green spaces. This finding allows for the projection of how 28 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities species richness will likely change under various scenarios effects of vegetation, (3) recreation and education—area of considered in Step 2 above. parks with natural areas, and (4) recreation and education— number of visits per child below 16 years to parks with Biodiversity can be represented not only by the number natural areas per year. Some practical complements to the of species in a city, but also by the abundance and Singapore Index will allow urban leaders to make decisions evenness of those species. Similarly, biodiversity can also informed by understanding of ecosystem services and be characterized at other levels of biological organization how they can contribute to the well-being of a city and its (Miraldo et al. 2016). At present, data limitations prevent residents. meaningful evaluation of genetic diversity, but at a larger scale it is possible to incorporate ecosystem diversity There are a number of tools that are available to help assess into urban development plans. For example, it is feasible the provision of ecosystem services, though relatively few to integrate metrics of how well cities are protecting the have been used in urban environments. See De Groot et al. ecoregions contained within their boundaries. Ecoregions (2018); Bagstad et al. (2013); Hamel et al. (forthcoming); are zones that represent distinct habitat types (Bailey and the Ecosystems Knowledge Network tool;15 see also 2004) and contain distinct groupings of species (Smith et al. box 13 on InVEST tools. 2018). Stratifying conservation plans to protect land across When using information about biodiversity and ecosystem all the ecoregions within a city can help ensure that all services to inform decisions, it is helpful to use the three species within that city are being protected, not just those steps outlined in section 3.3. In consultation with key in the dominant ecoregion. Such calculations can be carried stakeholders, the team members decide early on in the out using global maps (Dinerstein et al. 2017; Olson et al. process what services are important for their context and 2001) or more finely tuned maps for the country or region. what metrics they think are useful to compare across the 4.3. Urban ecosystem services outcomes of the alternative future scenarios. A key choice is in the services to model. For example, urban cooling is The Singapore Index (box 12) includes four metrics of critical importance in Phoenix, Arizona, in the United representing ecosystem services. Two metrics represent States, but less so in a high-elevation city such as Bogotá, regulating services (water quantity and climate) and Colombia. two metrics represent a cultural service (recreation and education). The four metrics are (1) regulation of quantity of Ecosystems Knowledge Network, “Welcome to Tool Assessor” 15 water, (2) climate regulation—carbon storage and cooling (accessed June 2, 2021), https://ecosystemsknowledge.net/tool. San Cristóbal de las Casas, Mexico. Photo: diegograndi Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 29 Box 13 InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) InVEST (Integrated Valuation of The index is then used to estimate a reduction in temperature Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) due to vegetation. Finally, there are two optional valuation is a collection of software models methods to estimate the value of heat mitigation based on that use spatial data and analysis energy consumption and work productivity. Calculating the to value the goods and services from difference between present-day cooling and the amount of nature. It helps explore how changes cooling provided by different scenarios will allow cities to in ecosystems can lead to changes evaluate the percentage gain or loss in service provisioning. in the flows of many different benefits to people (Sharp et al. Flood mitigation (urban stormwater flooding and coastal 2019; Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2019; Hamel et al., forthcoming). flooding): Natural infrastructure can play a role in mitigating InVEST is free and open source, designed to work at any both urban stormwater flooding and coastal flooding. scale and in any location globally, and can be used to model multiple ecosystem services. For urban stormwater flooding, natural infrastructure operates mainly by reducing runoff, slowing surface flows, The multiservice, modular design of InVEST provides an and creating space for water to drain naturally (in floodplains effective tool for balancing the environmental and economic or basins). The InVEST model calculates the runoff reduction, goals of diverse decision-makers. InVEST models use i.e., the amount of runoff retained per pixel compared to the geographic information systems (GIS) in which maps are storm volume. For each watershed, it also calculates the both the inputs and outputs. InVEST can return results in potential economic damage by overlaying information on biophysical metrics (e.g., degrees of urban cooling), economic potential flood extent and built infrastructure. metrics (e.g., avoided cooling costs, and other social metrics (e.g., changes in mortality/morbidity). The models allow For coastal flooding, natural infrastructure operates mainly for diverse spatial resolutions, enabling users to ask and by reducing the impacts of coastal hazards by decreasing answer questions at local, regional, or global scales. InVEST the forces of winds and waves and by creating space has been available for more than a decade and has users in for water along coastlines (e.g., parkland that can take over 185 countries worldwide. The original tools focused on floodwaters, thereby protecting buildings or transportation terrestrial and freshwater systems, with marine and coastal infrastructure). Coastal cities are at an increased risk of tools added second, and the first urban tools added in 2019. storm-induced erosion and flooding (inundation) as climate The urban tools within InVEST are described in Hamel et al. change and human development progress. There is a need (forthcoming); the supplemental information in Hamel et al. to better understand how both biological and physical offers a description of other ecosystem service assessment modifications to the environment increase coastal exposure. tools and their applicability to urban systems. The InVEST Coastal Vulnerability model produces a qualitative Building on the use of InVEST tools to inform decisions outside vulnerability index that differentiates areas according to of cities (e.g., Ruckelshaus et al. 2013), new Urban InVEST their level of exposure to storm-induced erosion and flooding. tools have now been used to inform ecological planning When coupled with global population information, the model in Paris (France), Shenzhen (China), and Minneapolis/St. can highlight regions that are most vulnerable to storm surge Paul (US) (Hamel et al., forthcoming). The InVEST modeling along a given coastline. Model inputs include information approach to key urban ecosystem services—urban cooling, about the local coastal geomorphology along the shoreline, flood mitigation, climate change mitigation, and mental and the location of natural habitats (e.g., seagrass, kelp, physical health—is described below. wetlands, etc.), rates of net sea-level change, bathymetry, topography of the coastal area, storm wind speed and wave Urban cooling: As cities around the world experience more power data, and population distribution. The model outputs intense and frequent heat waves, urban heat mitigation is help to identify the relative contribution of each variable to increasingly becoming a priority. Vegetation provides shade, overall coastal exposure, highlighting the protective benefits increases cooling via evapotranspiration, and modifies the that natural habitats can offer to coastal communities. This thermal properties of an urban environment. This reduces information can better inform development strategies for the urban heat island effect, which improves the health and city managers, landowners, and other relevant stakeholders. well-being of the community, both physically and mentally. Rather than quantifying shoreline retreat or inundation, the Lower mortality and morbidity and greater comfort and model provides a more qualitative representation of coastal productivity are associated with reduced urban heat hazard and risk. islands. The InVEST Urban Cooling model integrates shade, evapotranspiration, albedo, and the distance from cooling For both types of flooding, scenario analysis can calculate islands (e.g., parks) to formulate an index of heat mitigation. how much in ecosystem service provisioning a city is set 30 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities Ras Al Khor Wildlife Sanctuary, Dubai. Photo: Aleksandra Tokarz to gain or lose from the different policies or development landscape where degradation of coastal ecosystems should scenarios it might pursue. be avoided and restoration of coastal ecosystems should be prioritized in order to preserve and enhance these carbon Climate change mitigation: Both marine and terrestrial storage and sequestration services. ecosystems sequester carbon from the atmosphere, helping to regulate Earth’s climate. The InVEST Carbon Storage Mental and physical health: Particularly in cities, where and Sequestration model uses spatial land use data and people’s contact with nature can be minimal, access to integrates four different carbon pools (above-ground nature is often associated with improved mental and biomass, below-ground biomass, soil, and dead organic physical health (e.g., Bowler et al. 2010; Hartig et al. 2014; matter) to estimate the total amount of carbon stored in a Kondo et al. 2018). An international group of experts recently landscape or sequestered over time. Additional data on the laid out the conceptual basis for a spatial model like those market or social value of sequestered carbon, its annual in InVEST that could be used to examine how changes in rate of change, and a discount rate can be used to estimate access to nature in a city, district, or neighborhood might the monetary value of this ecosystem service to society. impact the mental health (and associated expenditures) of This model can be used anywhere along the urban-to-rural local residents (Bratman et al. 2019). The approach includes gradient, from the most densely populated urban core to gathering information about natural features (such as parks undeveloped hinterlands. and street trees), exposure of local populations to those natural features (e.g., street tree density or amount of local Coastal cities may also be interested in modeling the carbon park area), types of experience (e.g., active or passive), and storage and sequestration provided by coastal environments. demographic information. Mangroves, coastal marshes, and seagrasses, in particular, store enormous amounts of carbon in their biomass (e.g., There is also a powerful connection between access to sediments, leaves, etc.). Carbon continually accumulates nature and physical health. Notably, contact with nature in marine sediments, resulting in massive reservoirs. This promotes physical activity; and increases in physical activity long-term storage of carbon in marine ecosystems mitigates yield substantive increases in health (Remme et al. 2021). climate change as the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. Insufficient physical activity is a key risk factor for morbidity Management activities that alter coastal vegetation cover, and premature mortality globally. In 2010, physical inactivity such as the clearing of mangrove forests, also alter the was the fourth leading risk factor for noncommunicable potential to store and sequester carbon in those ecosystems. diseases, accounting for over 3 million preventable deaths (WHO 2010). With sedentary urban lifestyles contributing The InVEST Coastal Blue Carbon model explores the amount to this risk (Fisher et al. 2017), policies that enhance access of carbon stored and sequestered over a coastal zone at to and programming in urban nature have the potential to particular points in time as land cover changes. Using significantly increase health (Hunter et al. 2019). an estimate of the monetary social value for stored and sequestered carbon, or where available a market price, General models for both mental and physical health—which the InVEST Coastal Blue Carbon model also quantifies can help shed light on how changes in climate, management, the marginal value of storage and sequestration. Results and land use in a city are likely to impact mental and physical of the InVEST Coastal Blue Carbon model can be used to health—are now being developed. Until they are available, compare current and future scenarios of carbon stock and bespoke local analyses of connections between urban nature net sequestration, as well as to identify locations within the and health can be used to inform decisions. Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 31 5. Conclusion A s described throughout this document, one More than any other parts of the planet, urban ecosystems important way for urban leaders to rise to are designed for and by people. They are a reflection and today’s challenges is to bring biodiversity product of human culture and a vital arena in which the and nature into urban design through urban deep cultural shifts needed to drive greater sustainability ecological planning. Such planning recognizes and equity are originating and building. Leadership to that cities depend on biodiversity and that biodiversity address the escalating risks and costs of destabilizing depends on cities. Ecological planning not only illuminates Earth’s life-support systems and climate must come from the linkages between urbanization and biodiversity, but cities. The world-class cities of the future will be created also helps integrate this understanding into urban planning, today, as cities create and work toward livable, sustainable, strategy, and investment. We have the knowledge, data, and equitable futures using cutting-edge science, inclusive, tools, and approaches to direct investment in nature to expansive visioning, and comprehensive and strategic solve many different types of urban problems. Using these planning that works with, and not against, nature. approaches today will help cities of the future become more sustainable, livable, resilient, and equitable. Photo: andresr 32 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities Bibliography ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2016. Nature-Based Solutions Benn, G. 2008. “City of Cape Town BioNet: Terrestrial for Building Resilience in Towns and Cities: Case Studies Systematic Conservation Plan Re-analysis: Methods from the Greater Mekong Subregion. Mandaluyong City, and Results.” https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ Philippines: Asian Development Bank. https://www.adb. download?doi=10.1.1.567.9592&rep=rep1&type=pdf. org/sites/default/files/publication/215721/nature-based- Beyer, K. M., Kaltenbach, A., Szabo, A., Bogar, S., Nieto, F. J., & solutions.pdf. Malecki, K. M. 2014. Exposure to neighborhood green space Adger, W. N., A.-S. Crépin, C. Folke, D. O. Medina, F. S. Chapin, K. and mental health: evidence from the survey of the health of Segerson, K. C. Seto, et al. 2020. “Urbanization, Migration, Wisconsin. International journal of environmental research and Adaptation to Climate Change.” One Earth 3: 396–99. and public health, 11(3), 3453-3472. Akyelken, N. 2020. Urban conceptions of economic inequalities. Black, F. L. 1966. “Measles Endemicity in Insular Populations: Regional Studies, 54(6), 863-872. Critical Community Size and Its Evolutionary Implication.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 11 (2): 207–11. Anderson, B. J., P. R. Armsworth, F. Eigenbrod, C. D. Thomas, S. Gillings, A. Heinemeyer, D. B. Roy, and K. J. Gaston. Blair, R. B. 2001. “Birds and Butterflies along Urban Gradients in 2009. “Spatial Covariance between Biodiversity and Two Ecoregions of the U.S.” In Biotic Homogenization, edited Other Ecosystem Service Priorities.” Journal of Applied by J. L. Lockwood and M. L. McKinney, 33–56. Norwell, MA: Ecology 46 (4): 888–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- Kluwer. 2664.2009.01666.x. Blair, R. B., and A. E. Launer. 1997. “Butterfly Diversity and Aronson, M. F. J., F. A. La Sorte, C. H. Nilon, M. Katti, M. A. Human Land Use: Species Assemblages along an Urban Goddard, C. A. Lepczyk, P. S. Warren, et al. 2014. “A Global Gradient.” Biological Conservation 80:113–25. Analysis of the Impacts of Urbanization on Bird and Plant Blaustein, R. (2013). Urban Biodiversity Gains New ConvertsCities Diversity Reveals Key Anthropogenic Drivers.” Proceedings around the world are conserving species and restoring of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281(1780): habitat. BioScience, 63(2), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1525/ 20133330. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3330. bio.2013.63.2.3 Athni, T. S., M. S. Shocket, L. I. Couper, N. Nova, I. R. Caldwell, Bonier, F., Martin, P. R., & Wingfield, J. C. (2007). Urban birds have J. M. Caldwell, J. N. Childress, et al. 2021. “The Influence of broader environmental tolerance. Biology letters, 3(6), 670- Vector-Borne Disease on Human History: Socio-Ecological 673. Mechanisms.” Ecology Letters 24 (4): doi: 10.1111/ele.13675. Bowler, D. E., L. M. Buyung-Ali, T. M. Knight, and A. S. Pullin. 2010. Atkin, A. J., K. Corder, U. Ekelund, K. Wijndaele, S. J. Griffin, and E. “A Systematic Review of Evidence for the Added Benefits to M. F. van Sluijs. 2013. “Determinants of Change in Children’s Health of Exposure to Natural Environments.” BMC Public Sedentary Time.” PLOS One 8: e67627. Health 10 (1): 456. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10- Bagstad, K. J., D. J. Semmens, S. Waage, and R. Winthrop. 2013. 456. “A Comparative Assessment of Decision-Support Tools Bratman, G. N., C. B. Anderson, M. G. Berman, B. Cochran, S. for Ecosystem Services Quantification and Valuation.” de Vries, J. Flanders, C. Folke, et al. 2019. “Nature and Ecosystem Services 5: 27–39. Mental Health: An Ecosystem Service Perspective.” Science Bailey, R. G. 2004. “Identifying Ecoregion Boundaries.” Advances 5 (7): aax0903. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv. Environmental Management 34 (1): S14–S26. https://doi. aax0903. org/10.1007/s00267-003-0163-6. Bratman, G. N., J. P. Hamilton, and G. C. Daily. 2012. “The Baró, F., A. Calderón-Argelich, J. Langemeyer, and J. J. T. Connolly. Impacts of Nature Experience on Human Cognitive Function 2019 “Under One Canopy? Assessing the Distributional and Mental Health.” In Annals of the New York Academy Environmental Justice Implications of Street Tree Benefits in of Sciences 1249 (The Year in Ecology and Conservation Barcelona.” Environmental Science & Policy 102: 54–64. Biology), edited by Richard Ostfeld and William Schlesinger, 118–36. Beagle, J., J. Lowe, K. McKnight, S. M. Safran, L. Tam, and S. Jo Szambelan. 2019. San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Bremer, L. L., Auerbach, D. A., Goldstein, J. H., Vogl, A. L., Shemie, Atlas: Working with Nature to Plan for Sea Level Rise D., Kroeger, T., ... & Tiepolo, G. (2016). One size does not fit Using Operational Landscape Units. SFEI Contribution 915. all: Natural infrastructure investments within the Latin Richmond, CA: San Francisco Estuary Institute and SPUR. American Water Funds Partnership. Ecosystem Services, 17, https://www.sfei.org/documents/adaptationatlas. 217-236. Beninde, J., M. Veith, and A. Hochkirch. 2015. “Biodiversity in Browder, G., S. Ozment, I. Rehberger Bescos, T. Gartner, and G.- Cities Needs Space: A Meta-analysis of Factors Determining M. Lange. 2019. Integrating Green and Gray: Creating Next Intra-urban Biodiversity Variation.” Ecology Letters 18 (6): Generation Infrastructure. Washington, DC: World Bank 581–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12427. and World Resources Institute. https://openknowledge. worldbank.org/handle/10986/31430. Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 33 Brown, G. 2008. “A Theory of Urban Park Geography.” Journal of City of Barcelona. 2016. “Més I Millors Arbres Per A Barcelona.” Leisure Research 40 (4): 589–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 https://www.barcelona.cat/barcelonasostenible/ 0222216.2008.11950154. sites/default/files/articles/document/5982/ pdarbratresumexecutiu.pdf. Browning, M. H., & Rigolon, A. (2019). School green space and its impact on academic performance: A systematic literature City of Cape Town. 2018. “Biodiversity Report.” http://resource. review. International journal of environmental research and capetown.gov.za/documentcentre/Documents/City%20 public health, 16(3), 429 research%20reports%20and%20review/CCT_Biodiversity_ Report_2018-07-27.pdf. Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, C. Philips, and K. J. Shropshire. 2010. “Non-native Plants Reduce Abundance, Richness, Climate ADAPT. 2016. “Barcelona Trees Tempering the and Host Specialization In Lepidopteran Communities.” Mediterranean City Climate.” https://climate-adapt.eea. Ecosphere 1 (5): art11. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES10-00032.1 europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/barcelona-trees- tempering-the-mediterranean-city-climate. Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2009. “Impact of Native Plants on Bird and Butterfly Biodiversity in Cook, E. A. 2002. “Landscape Structure Indices for Assessing Suburban Landscapes.” Conservation Biology 23 (1): 219–24. Urban Ecological Networks.” Landscape and Urban https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01076.x. Planning 58 (2): 269–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169- 2046(01)00226-2. Butchart, S. H. M., M. Walpole, B. Collen, A. van Strien, J. P. W. Scharlemann, R. E. A. Almond, J. E. M. Baillie, et al. Cox, D. T., and K. J. Gaston. 2016. “Urban Bird Feeding: 2010. “Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines.” Connecting People with Nature.” PLOS One 11 (7): e0158717. Science 328 (5982): 1164–68. https://doi.org/10.1126/ https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158717. science.1187512. Czembrowski, Piotr, and Jakub Kronenberg. 2016. “Hedonic C40 Cities. 2020. “Why Cities?: Ending Climate Change Begins Pricing and Different Urban Green Space Types and Sizes: in the Cities.” https://www.c40.org/ending-climate-change- Insights into the Discussion on Valuing Ecosystem Services.” begins-in-the-city. Landscape and Urban Planning 146: 11–19. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.10.005. Cape Nature. 2011. “Cape Town’s Unique Plants and Animals.” http://resource.capetown.gov.za/documentcentre/ Dadvand, P., X. Bartoll, X. Basagaña, A. Dalmau-Bueno, D. Documents/Graphics%20and%20educational%20material/ Martinez, A. Ambros, M. Cirach, et al. 2016. “Green Spaces Biodiv_fact_sheet_07_EndemicSpecies_2011-03.pdf. and General Health: Roles of Mental Health Status, Social Support, and Physical Activity.” Environment International CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2018. “One 91: 161–67. Health.” https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/index.html. Daily, G. C., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1996. “Global Change and Human The Centre for Livable Cities, Singapore (CLC). 2015. Biodiversity: Susceptibility to Disease.” Annual Review of Energy and the Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore. Cengage Environment 21: 125–44. Learning Asia. Daily, G. C., and K. Ellison. 2002. The New Economy of Nature: Chan, F. K. S., J. A. Griffiths, D. Higgitt, S. Xu, F. Zhu, Y. T. Tang, The Quest to Make Conservation Profitable. Washington, et al. 2018. “‘Sponge City’ in China—A Breakthrough of DC: Island Press. Planning and Flood Risk Management in the Urban Context.” Land Use Policy 76: 772–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Davies, A. B., and G. P. Asner. 2014. “Advances in Animal Ecology landusepol.2018.03.005. from 3D-LiDAR Ecosystem Mapping.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29 (12): 681–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Chan, L., O. Hillel, T. Elmqvist, P. Werner, N. Holman, A. Mader, and tree.2014.10.005. E. Calaterra. 2014. User’s Manual on the Singapore Index Davis, A. M., and T. F. Glick. 1978. “Urban Ecosystems and Island on Cities’ Biodiversity (also known as the City Biodiversity Biogeography.” Environmental Conservation 5 (4): 299–304. Index). Singapore: National Parks Board, Singapore. https:// https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689290000638X. www.cbd.int/authorities/doc/Singapore-Index-User- Manual-20140730-en.pdf. De Groot, R., S. Moolenaar, M. van Weelden, I. Konovska, and J. de Vente. 2018. “The ESP Guidelines in a Nutshell.” FSD Working Chaplin-Kramer, R., Sharp, R. P., Weil, C., Bennett, E. M., Pascual, Paper 2018-09, Foundation for Sustainable development, U., Arkema, K. K., ... & Daily, G. C. (2019). Global modeling of Wageningen, The Netherlands. nature’s contributions to people. Science, 366(6462), 255- 258. Despommier, D. 2006. “The Role of Ecotones in Emerging Infectious Diseases.” Ecohealth 3: 281–89. Chichilnisky, G., and G. Heal. 1998. “Economic Returns from the Biosphere.” Nature 391: 629–30. Díaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martín-López, R. T. Watson, Z. Molnár, R. Hill, et al. 2018. “Assessing Nature’s City of Barcelona. 2013. “Barcelona Green Infrastructure and Contributions to People.” Science 359: 270–72. Biodiversity Plan 2020.” http://w110.bcn.cat/MediAmbient/ Continguts/Documents/Documentacio/BCN2020_ Dinerstein, E., D. Olson, A. Joshi, C. Vynne, N. D. Burgess, E. GreenInfraestructureBiodiversityPlan.pdf. Wikramanayake, N. Hahn, et al. 2017. “An Ecoregion- Based Approach to Protecting Half the Terrestrial Realm.” BioScience 67 (6): 534–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/ bix014. 34 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities Dirzo, R., H. S. Young, M. Galetti, B. Isaac, G. Ceballos, and N. J. Guerry, AD, S Polasky, J Lubchenco, R Chaplin-Kramer, GC B. Collen. 2014. “Defaunation in the Anthropocene.” Science Daily, R Griffin, M Ruckelshaus, IJ Bateman, A Duriappah, T 345: 401–06. Elmqvist, MW Feldman, C Folke, J Hoekstra, PM Kareiva, BL Keeler, S Li, E Mckenzie, Z Ouyang, B Reyers, TH Ricketts, Donaldson, M. R., N. J. Burnett, D. C. Braun, C. D. Suski, S. G. J Rockstrom, H Tallis, and B Vira. 2015. Natural capital and Hinch, S. J. Cooke, and J. T. Kerr. 2016. “Taxonomic Bias and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to International Biodiversity Conservation Research.” FACETS. practice. Natural capital informing decisions: from promise https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2016-0011. to practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Dupras, J., and M. Alam. 2014. “Urban Sprawl and Ecosystem Sciences 112(24): 7348-7355 Services: A Half Century Perspective in the Montreal Area Gulezian, P. Z., and D. W. Nyberg. 2010. “Distribution of Invasive (Quebec, Canada).” Journal of Environmental Policy & Plants in a Spatially Structured Urban Landscape.” Planning 17 (2): 180–200. Landscape and Urban Planning 95 (4): 161–68. https://doi. Elmqvist, Thomas, Michail Fragkias, Julie Goodness, org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.12.013. Burak Güneralp, Peter J. Marcotullio, Robert I. McDonald, Haddaway, N. R., C. Kohl, N. R. da Silva, J. Schiemann, A. Spök, Susan Parnell, et al., eds. 2013. Urbanization, R. Stewart, J. B. Sweet, and R. Wilhelm. 2017. “A Framework Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges for Stakeholder Engagement During Systematic Reviews and Opportunities: A Global Assessment. Dordrecht, and Maps in Environmental Management.” Environmental Netherlands: Springer. https://link.springer.com/content/ Evidence 6 (1): article 11. pdf/10.1007%2F978-94-007-7088-1.pdf. Hamel P., A. D. Guerry, S. Polasky, B. Han, J. A. Douglass, M. Fairbrass, A. J., P. Rennert, C. Williams, H. Titheridge, and K. Hamann, B. Janke. 2021. “Mapping the Benefits of Nature in E. Jones. 2017. “Biases of Acoustic Indices Measuring Cities with the InVEST Software.” Urban Sustainability. Biodiversity in Urban Areas.” Ecological Indicators 83: 169–77. Hansen, R., and S. Pauleit. 2014. “From Multifunctionality to Multiple Ecosystem Services? A Conceptual Framework Fenner, F., B. R. McAuslan, C. A. Mims, J. Sambrook, and D. O. for Multifunctionality in Green Infrastructure Planning White. 1974. “Persistent Infections.” In The Biology of Animal for Urban Areas.” AMBIO 43 (4): 516–29. https://doi. Viruses, 452–76. org/10.1007/s13280-014-0510-2. Fisher, J. E., Andersen, Z. J., Loft, S., & Pedersen, M. (2017). Haque, M. M., D. A. Nipperess, J. B. Baumgartner, and L. J. Opportunities and challenges within urban health and Beaumont. 2018. “A Journey through Time: Exploring sustainable development. Current Opinion in Environmental Temporal Patterns amongst Digitized Plant Specimens from Sustainability, 25, 77-83. Australia.” Systematics and Biodiversity 16 (6): 604–13. Folke, C., Å. Jansson, J. Larsson, and R. Costanza. 1997. https://doi.org/10.1080/14772000.2018.1472674. “Ecosystem Appropriation by Cities.” Ambio 26 (3): 167–72. Hartig, T., R. Mitchell, S. Vries, and H. Frumkin. 2014. GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility). 2016. “Final “Nature and Health.” Annual Review of Public Health Report of the Task Group on GBIF Data Fitness for Use 35 (1): 207–28. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- in Distribution Modelling.” http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/ publhealth-032013-182443. RG.2.2.27191.93608. Hatab, A. A., M. E. R. Cavinato, A. Lindemer, and C. J. Lagerkvist. Girault, C. 2017. “Between Naturalness and Urbanity, How Are 2019. “Urban Sprawl, Food Security and Agricultural Protected Areas Integrated into Cities? The Case of Helsinki Systems in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review of (Finland).” Articulo: Journal of Urban Research 16. https:// the Literature.” Cities 94: 129–42. doi.org/10.4000/articulo.3270. Helme, N. A., and T. H. Trinder-Smith. 2006. “The Endemic Flora Goetz, S., D. Steinberg, R. Dubayah, and B. Blair. 2007. “Laser of the Cape Peninsula, South Africa.” South African Journal Remote Sensing Of Canopy Habitat Heterogeneity as a of Botany 72 (2): 205–10. Predictor of Bird Species Richness in an Eastern Temperate Herrera, D., A. Ellis, B. Fisher, C. D. Golden, K. Johnson, M. Forest, USA.” Remote Sensing of Environment 108 (3): 254– Mulligan, A. Pfaff, T. Treuer, and T. H. Ricketts. 2017. 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2006.11.016. “Upstream Watershed Condition Predicts Rural Goldman-Benner, R. L., S. Benitez, T. Boucher, A. Calvache, G. C. Children’s Health across 35 Developing Countries.” Nature Daily, P. Kareiva, T. Kroeger, and A. Ramos. 2012. “Water Communications 8 (1): 1–8. Funds and PES: Practice Learns from Theory and Theory Hofferth, S. L. 2009. “Changes in American Children’s Time— Can Learn from Practice.” Oryx 46 (1): 55–63. 1997 to 2003.” Electronic International Journal of Time Use GPSC (Global Platform for Sustainable Cities). 2019. “Natural Research 6: 26–47. Asset and Biodiversity Valuation in Cities.” Technical paper. Hoffman, J. S., Shandas, V., & Pendleton, N. (2020). The effects World Bank, Washington, DC. http://documents1.worldbank. of historical housing policies on resident exposure to intra- org/curated/en/287521568801462241/pdf/Technical- urban heat: A study of 108 US urban areas. Climate, 8(1), 12. Paper.pdf. Holmes, P. M., Rebelo, A. G., Dorse, C., & Wood, J. (2012). Can Cape Town’s unique biodiversity be saved? Balancing conservation imperatives and development needs. Ecology and Society, 17(2). Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 35 Hunink, J. E., and P. Droogers. 2015. “Impact Assessment of IUCN (2016) A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Investment Portfolios for Business Case Development of Biodiversity Areas, Version 1.0. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. the Nairobi Water Fund in the Upper Tana River, Kenya.” Ives, C. D, M. Giusti, J. Fischer, D. J. Abson, K. Klaniecki, C. FutureWater, Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://www. Dorninger, J. Laudan, S. Barthel, et al. 2017. “Human–Nature futurewater.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/TanaWF_ Connection: A Multidisciplinary Review.” Current Opinion in FWreport_133.pdf. Environmental Sustainability 26–27: 106–13. Hunsaker, C., D. Carpenter, and J. Messer. 1990. “Ecological Jansson, Å., and S. Polasky. 2010. “Quantifying Biodiversity for Indicators for Regional Monitoring.” Bulletin of the Ecological Building Resilience for Food Security in Urban Landscapes: Society of America 71 (3): 165–72. Getting Down to Business.” Ecology and Society 15 (3). Huremović, D., ed. 2019. Psychiatry of Pandemics: A Mental Jennings, V., Johnson Gaither, C., & Gragg, R. S. (2012). Promoting Health Response to Infection Outbreak. Cham, Switzerland: environmental justice through urban green space access: A Springer Nature. synopsis. Environmental Justice, 5(1), 1-7. Hunter, M. R., Gillespie, B. W., & Chen, S. Y. P. (2019). Urban Jennings, V., Larson, L., & Yun, J. (2016). Advancing sustainability nature experiences reduce stress in the context of daily life through urban green space: Cultural ecosystem services, based on salivary biomarkers. Frontiers in psychology, 10, equity, and social determinants of health. International 722. Journal of environmental research and public health, 13(2), Kabisch, N., M. Strohbach, D. Haase, and J. Kronenberg. 2016. 196. “Urban Green Space Availability in European Cities.” Kauffman, C. M. 2014. “Financing Watershed Conservation: Ecological Indicators 70: 586–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Lessons from Ecuador’s Evolving Water Trust Funds.” ecolind.2016.02.029. Agricultural Water Management 145: 39–49. ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability). 2012. “Local Keeler, B. L., P. Hamel, T. McPhearson, M. H. Hamann, M. L. Sustainability in South Africa: Cape Town and EThekwini.” Donahue, K. A. Meza Prado, K. K. Arkema, et al. 2019. http://www.citego.org/bdf_fiche-document-1291_ “Social-Ecological and Technological Factors Moderate the en.html#:~:text=The%20BioNet%20ensures%20that%20 Value of Urban Nature.” Nature Sustainability 2 (1): 29–38. biodiversity,biodiversity%20and%20prioritized%20 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0202-1. ecological%20areas. Kondo, M. C., J. M. Fluehr, T. McKeon, and C. C. Branas. 2018. ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability). 2015. “Urban Green Space and Its Impact on Human Health.” “BiodiverCITIES: A Handbook for Municipal Biodiversity International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Planning and Management.” ICLEI–Local Government for Health 15 (3): 445. Sustainability (Management) Inc., Toronto. Kowarik, I. 1995. “On the Role of Alien Species in Urban Flora Inhorn, M. C., and P. J. Brown. 1990. “The Anthropology of and Vegetation.” In Plant Invasions—General Aspects and Infectious Disease.” Annual Review of Anthropology 19 (1): Special Problems, edited by P. Pysek, K. Prach, M. Rejmánek, 89–117. and P. M. Wade, 85–103. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: SPB Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Academic. 2009. Sustaining Global Surveillance and Response to Kowarik, I. 2011. “Novel Urban Ecosystems, Biodiversity, and Emerging Zoonotic Diseases. Washington, DC: The National Conservation.” Environmental Pollution 159 (8): 1974–83. Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.02.022. IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Kuehler, E., J. Hathaway, and Tirpak. 2017. “Quantifying the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). 2019a. Global Benefits of Urban Forest Systems as a Component of the Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Green Infrastructure Stormwater Treatment Network.” Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform Ecohydrology 10: e1813. on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Edited by E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo. Bonn, Germany: Kulp, S. A., and B. H. Strauss. 2019. “New Elevation Data Triple IPBES Secretariat.  Estimates of Global Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding.” Nature Communications 10 (1): 1–12. IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). 2019b. Lederbogen, F, P. Kirsch, L. Haddad, F. Streit, H. Tost, P. Schuch, S. “Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Wüst, et al. 2011. “City Living and Urban Upbringing Affect Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Neural Social Stress Processing in Humans.” Nature 474: Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity 498–501. and Ecosystem Services.” Edited by S. Diaz, J. Settele, E. Letko, M., S. N. Seifert, K. J. Olival, R. K. Plowright, and V. J. S. Brondízio, H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, et al. Munster. 2020. “Bat-borne Virus Diversity, Spillover and IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. Emergence.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 18 (8): 461–71. Ishimatsu, K., K. Ito, Y. Mitani, Y. Tanaka, T. Sugahara, and Levy, J. M. 2016. Contemporary Urban Planning. New York and Y. Naka. 2017. “Use of Rain Gardens for Stormwater London: Taylor & Francis. Management in Urban Design and Planning.” Landscape and Ecological Engineering 13 (1): 205–12. 36 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities Li, C., H. Zheng, S. Li, X.-S. Chen, J. Li, W.-H. Zeng, Y. Liang, et al. Mills, Jacob G., Justin D. Brookes, Nicholas J. C. Gellie, Craig 2015. “Impacts of Conservation and Human Development Liddicoat, Andrew J. Lowe, Harrison R. Sydnor, Torsten Policy across Stakeholders and Scales.” Proceedings of the Thomas, Philip Weinstein, Laura S. Weyrich, and Martin F. National Academy of Sciences USA 112: 7396–7401. Breed. 2019. “Relating Urban Biodiversity to Human Health with the ‘Holobiont’ Concept.” Frontiers in Microbiology 10: Lin, B., Meyers, J., & Barnett, G. (2015). Understanding the 550. doi: 0.3389/fmicb.2019.00550. potential loss and inequities of green space distribution with urban densification. Urban forestry & urban greening, 14(4), Mirabella, N., and K. Allacker. 2017. “The Environmental 952-958. Footprint of Cities: Insights in the Steps Forward to a New Methodological Approach.” Procedia Environmental Sciences Liu, X., Y. Huang, X. Xu, X. Li, X. Li, P. Ciais, P. Lin, et al. 2020. 38: 635–42. “High-Spatiotemporal-Resolution Mapping of Global Urban Change from 1985 to 2015.” Nature Sustainability 3: 564– Miraldo, A., S. Li, M. K. Borregaard, A. Flórez-Rodríguez, S. 70. Gopalakrishnan, M. Rizvanovic, Z. Wang, C. Rahbek, K. A. Marske, and D. Nogués-Bravo. 2016. “An Anthropocene Map Loughner, C. P., D. J. Allen, D. L. Zhang, K. E. Pickering, R. R. of Genetic Diversity.” Science 353 (6307): 1532–35. https:// Dickerson, and L. Landry. 2012. “Roles of Urban Tree Canopy doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf4381. and Buildings in Urban Heat Island Effects: Parameterization and Preliminary Results.” Journal of Applied Meteorology Mitchell, R. J., E. A. Richardson, N. K. Shortt, and J. R. Pearce. and Climatology 51 (10): 1775–93. 2015. “Neighborhood Environments and Socioeconomic Inequalities in Mental Well-Being.” American Journal of Lynch M., L. H. Spencer, and R. Tudor Edwards. 2020. “A Preventive Medicine 49: 80–84. Systematic Review Exploring the Economic Valuation of Accessing and Using Green and Blue Spaces to Improve Munro, K., and D. Grierson. 2018. “Nature, People and Place: Public Health.” International Journal of Environmental Informing the Design of Urban Environments in Harmony Research and Public Health 17 (11): 4142. doi:10.3390/ with Nature through the Space/Nature Syntax. In Lifelong ijerph17114142. Learning and Education in Healthy and Sustainable Cities, edited by U. Azeiteiro, M. Akerman, W. Leal Filho, A. F. MacArthur, R. H., and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island F. Setti, and L. L. Brandli, 105–25. Cham, Switzerland: Biogeography. Rev. ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Springer. Press. Ndubisi, F. O., ed. 2014. The Ecological Design and Planning Maklakov, A. A., Immler, S., Gonzalez-Voyer, A., Rönn, J., & Kolm, Reader. Washington, DC: Island Press. N. (2011). Brains and the city: big-brained passerine birds succeed in urban environments. Biology letters, 7(5), 730- Nelson, E., G. Mendoza, J. Regetz, S. Polasky, H. Tallis, H., 732. Cameron, D. R. Chan, et al. 2009. “Modeling Multiple Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity Conservation, Commodity Malbert, Björn. 1998. “Urban Planning Participation: Linking Production, and Tradeoffs at Landscape Scales.” Frontiers Practice and Theory.” Doctoral dissertation, Department of in Ecology and the Environment 7 (1): 4–11. https://doi. Urban Design and Planning, Chalmers Technical University, org/10.1890/080023. Göteborg, Sweden. Newbold, T., L. N. Hudson, S. L. L. Hill, S. Contu, I. Lysenko, R. A. Margulis, Lynn, and René Fester, eds. 1991. Symbioses as a Senior, L. Börger, et al. 2015. “Global Effects of Land Use on Source of Evolutionary Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Local Terrestrial Biodiversity.” Nature 520 (7545): 45–50. Press. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324. McCormack, G. R., M. Rock, A. M. Toohey, and D. Hignell. 2010. Nutsford, D., A. L. Pearson, S. Kingham, and F. Reitsma. 2016. “Characteristics of Urban Parks Associated with Park Use “Residential Exposure To Visible Blue Space (but Not Green and Physical Activity: A Review of Qualitative Research.” Space) Associated with Lower Psychological Distress in a Health & Place 16 (4): 712–26. Capital City.” Health & Place 39: 70–78. McDonald, R., & Shemie, D. (2014). Urban Water Blueprint: OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Mapping conservation solutions to the global water Development). 2008. “Screening Study: Ranking Port Cities challenge. The Nature Conservancy. with High Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate Extremes: McPherson, E. G., Xiao, Q., & Aguaron, E. (2013). A new approach Interim Analysis: Exposure Estimates.” OECD Environment to quantify and map carbon stored, sequestered and Working Paper 1, OECD Publishing. emissions avoided by urban forests. Landscape and Urban Ohly, H., M. P. White, B. W. Wheeler, A. Bethel, O. C. Ukoumunne, Planning, 120, 70-84. V. Nikolaou, and R. Garside. 2016. “Attention Restoration Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems Theory: A Systematic Review of the Attention Restoration and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Potential of Exposure to Natural Environments.” Journal Washington, DC: Island Press. https://www. of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B: Critical millenniumassessment.org/en/Framework.html. Reviews 19: 305–43. Oksanen, M. 1997. “The Moral Value of Biodiversity.” Ambio 26 (8): 541–45. Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 37 Olson, D. M., E. Dinerstein, E. D. Wikramanayake, N. D. Burgess, and Spread of Basal Lineages of Yersinia pestis During the G. N. V. Powell, E. C. Underwood, J. A. D’amico, et al. Neolithic Decline.” Cell 176 (1-2): 295–305. 2001. “Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map Rebelo, A. G., Holmes, P. M., Dorse, C., & Wood, J. (2011). Impacts of Life on Earth.” BioScience 51 (11): 933–38. https://doi. of urbanization in a biodiversity hotspot: conservation org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2. challenges in Metropolitan Cape Town. South African Journal Oppla. n.d. “Barcelona: Nature-based Solutions (NBS) of Botany, 77(1), 20-35. Enhancing Resilience to Climate Change.” https://oppla.eu/ Reed, M. S. 2008. “Stakeholder Participation for Environmental casestudy/17283. Management: A Literature Review.” Biological Conservation Ouyang, Z., C. Song, H. Zheng, S. Polasky, Y. Xiao, I. J. Bateman, 141 (10): 2417–31. J. Liu, et al. 2020. “Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP): A Remme, RP, H Frumkin, AD Guerry, AC King, L Mandle, C Sarabu, Tractable Approach for Bringing Ecological Information into GN Bratman, B Giles-Corti, P Hamel, B Han, JL Hicks, P Decision-Making.” Proceedings of the National Academy of James, JJ Lawler, T Lindahl, H Liu, Y Lu, B Oosterbroek, Sciences USA 117: 14593–601. B Paudel, JF Sallis, J Schipperijn, R Sosič, S de Vries, BW Ouyang, Z., H. Zheng, Y. Xiao, S. Polasky, J. Liu, W. Xu, Q. Wang, Wheeler, SA Wood, T Wu, and GC Daily. 2021. An ecosystem et al. 2016. “Improvements in Ecosystem Services from service perspective on urban nature, physical activity, and Investments in Natural Capital in China.” Science 352: health. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences. 1455–59. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2018472118 Pardieck, K. L., D. J. Ziolkowski, M. Lutmerding, V. Aponte, and Rigolon, A., Browning, M., & Jennings, V. (2018). Inequities in the M.-A. Hudson. 2019. “North American Breeding Bird Survey quality of urban park systems: An environmental justice Dataset 1966–2018, version 2018.0 [Data set].” U.S. investigation of cities in the United States. Landscape and Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.5066/P9HE8XYJ. Urban Planning, 178, 156-169. Pardo, I., M. P. Pata, D. Gómez, and M. B. García. 2013. “A Novel Rigolon, A., & Németh, J. (2018). “We’re not in the business Method to Handle the Effect of Uneven Sampling Effort in of housing:” Environmental gentrification and the Biodiversity Databases.” PLOS One 8 (1): e52786. https://doi. nonprofitization of green infrastructure projects. Cities, 81, org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052786. 71-80. Pereira, H. M., S. Ferrier, M. Walters, G. N. Geller, R. H. G. Riley, S. P., Brown, J. L., Sikich, J. A., Schoonmaker, C. M., & Jongman, R. J. Scholes, M. W. Bruford, et al. 2013. “Essential Boydston, E. E. (2014). Wildlife friendly roads: the impacts Biodiversity Variables.” Science 339 (6117): 277–78. https:// of roads on wildlife in urban areas and potential remedies. doi.org/10.1126/science.1229931. In Urban Wildlife Conservation (pp. 323-360). Springer, Boston, MA. Plowright, R. K., P. Foley, H. E. Field, A. P. Dobson, J. E. Foley, P. Eby, and P. Daszak. 2011. “Urban Habituation, Ecological Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F. S. Chapin, E. Connectivity and Epidemic Dampening: The Emergence of Lambin, T. M. Lenton, et al. 2009. “Planetary Boundaries: Hendra virus from Flying Foxes (Pteropus spp.).” Proceedings Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Ecology of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278 (1725). http:// and Society 14 (2): 32. doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.0522. Roe, J., C. Thompson, P. Aspinall, M. Brewer, E. Duff, D. Miller, Poelman, Hugo. 2016. “A Walk to the Park?: Assessing Access R. Mitchell, and A. Clow. 2013. “Green Space and Stress: to Green Areas in Europe’s Cities.” European Commission Evidence from Cortisol Measures in Deprived Urban working paper WP 01/2016. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_ Communities.” International Journal of Environmental policy/sources/docgener/work/2016_03_green_urban_area. Research and Public Health 10: 4086–4103. pdf. Roebeling, P., M. Saraiva, A. Palla, I. Gnecco, C. Teotónio, T. Puppim de Oliveira, J. A., C. N. Doll, R. Moreno-Peñaranda, and Fidelis, F. Martins, H. Alves, and J. Rocha. 2017. “Assessing O. Balaban. 2014. “Urban Biodiversity and Climate Change.” the Socio-economic Impacts of Green/Blue Space, Urban Global Environmental Change 1: 461–68. Residential and Road Infrastructure Projects in the Confluence (Lyon): A Hedonic Pricing Simulation Approach.” Rainham, D., R. Cantwell, and T. Jason. 2013. “Nature Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 60 (3): Appropriation and Associations with Population Health 482–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1162138. in Canada’s Largest Cities.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 10 (4): 1268–83. Rosenzweig, C., W. Solecki, and R. Slosberg. 2006. “Mitigating New York City’s Heat Island with Urban Forestry, Living Raj, S., Paul, S. K., Chakraborty, A., & Kuttippurath, J. (2020). Roofs, and Light Surfaces.” New York City Regional Anthropogenic forcing exacerbating the urban heat islands Heat Island Initiative Final Report 06-06. http://www. in India. Journal of environmental management, 257, nyserda.ny.gov/-/media/Files/Publications/Research/ 110006. Environmental/EMEP/NYC-Heat-Island-Mitigation.pdf. Ramaswami, A., A. G. Russell, P. J. Culligan, K. R. Sharma, and Roslund, M. I., Puhakka, R., Grönroos, M., Nurminen, N., Oikarinen, E. Kumar. 2016. “Meta-principles for Developing Smart, S., Gazali, A. M., ... & ADELE research group. (2020). Sustainable, and Healthy Cities.” Science 352 (6288): Biodiversity intervention enhances immune regulation and 940–43. health-associated commensal microbiota among daycare Rascovan, N., K. G. Sjögren, K. Kristiansen, R. Nielsen, E. children. Science advances, 6(42), eaba2578. Willerslev, C. Desnues, and S. Rasmussen. 2019. “Emergence 38 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities Ruckelshaus, M., E. McKenzie, H. Tallis, A. Guerry, G. Daily, P. Tan, Z., K. K. L. Lau, and E. Ng. 2016. “Urban Tree Design Kareiva, S. Polasky, et al. 2013. “Notes from the Field: Approaches for Mitigating Daytime Urban Heat Island Lessons Learned from Using Ecosystem Services to Inform Effects in a High-Density Urban Environment.” Energy and Real-World Decisions.” Ecological Economics 115: 11–12. Buildings 114: 265–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009. Teixeira, F. Z., Printes, R. C., Fagundes, J. C. G., Alonso, A. C., & Ruijs, A., M. van der Heide, and J. van den Berg. 2018. “Natural Kindel, A. (2013). Canopy bridges as road overpasses for Capital Accounting for the Sustainable Development wildlife in urban fragmented landscapes. Biota Neotropica, Goals: Current and Potential Uses and Steps Forward.” PBL 13(1), 117-123. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Nature Conservancy. 2018. Nature in the Urban Century. Netherlands. https://edepot.wur.nl/446240. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. https://www. Salzman, J., G. Bennett, N. Carroll, A. Goldstein, and M. Jenkins. nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/TNC_ 2018. “The Global Status and Trends of Payments for NatureintheUrbanCentury_FullReport.pdf. Ecosystem Services.” Nature Sustainability 1: 136–44. The Nature Conservancy. 2021. “The Blue Guide to Coastal Sauer, J. R., D. K. Niven, J. E. Hines, D. J. Ziolkowski, K. L. Pardieck, Resilience: Protecting Coastal Communities through Nature- J. E. Fallon, and W. A. Link. 2017. “The North American Based Solutions.” The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966–2015.” Turrini, T., & Knop, E. (2015). A landscape ecology approach Version 2.07 2017. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, identifies important drivers of urban biodiversity. Global Laurel, MD. https://doi.org/10.5066/F7C24TNP. change biology, 21(4), 1652-1667. Schell, C. J., Dyson, K., Fuentes, T. L., Roches, S. D., Harris, N. C., UN (United Nations) 2015. “The UN Sustainable Development Miller, D. S., Woelfle-Erskine, C. A., & Lambert, M. R. (2020). Goals.” http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ The ecological and evolutionary consequences of systemic summit/. racism in urban environments. Science, 369(6510). https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.aay4497. UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). 2013. World Economic sand Social Survey 2013: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2012. Sustainable Development Challenges. New York: United Cities and Biodiversity Outlook. Montreal: Secretariat of the Nations. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/ Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/doc/ wess/wess_current/wess2013/WESS2013.pdf. health/cbo-action-policy-en.pdf. UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Shackleton, S., Chinyimba, A., Hebinck, P., Shackleton, C., & Affairs). 2018. “World Urbanization Prospects: 2018 Kaoma, H. (2015). Multiple benefits and values of trees in Revision—Key Facts.” United Nations, New York. https:// urban landscapes in two towns in northern South Africa. population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018- Landscape and Urban Planning, 136, 76-86. KeyFacts.pdf. Sharp, R., Tallis, H. T., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A. D., Wood, S. A., UN Environment. 2018. “Sustainable Urban Infrastructure Chaplin-Kramer, R., ... & Olwero, N. (2019). InVEST 3.7. 0 Transitions in the ASEAN Region: A Resource Perspective.” user guide. Collaborative publication by The Natural Capital United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. https:// Project. resourceefficientcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ Smith, J. R., A. D. Letten, P.-J. Ke, C. B. Anderson, J. N. ASEAN-Region-web.compressed.pdf. Hendershot, M. K. Dhami, G. A. Dlott, et al. 2018. “A Global UN Environment, GI-REC, International Resource Panel. 2018. Test of Ecoregions.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 2 (12): 1889. “Building Better Cities: ASEAN Looks to the Future,” https:// https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0709-x. citiesipcc.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018/03/Fact-Sheet_- Soga, M., and K. J. Gaston. 2016. “Extinction of Experience: The South-East-Asia_Future_Infrastructure-1.pdf. Loss of Human–Nature Interactions.” Frontiers in Ecology van den Berg, M., M. van Poppel, I. van Kamp, S. Andrusaityte, B. and the Environment 14 (2): 94–101. Balseviciene, M. Cirach, A. Danileviciute, et al. 2016. “Visiting Steiner, F., Young, G., & Zube, E. (1988). Ecological planning: Green Space Is Associated with Mental Health and Vitality: retrospect and prospect. Landscape journal, 7(1), 31-39. A Cross-Sectional Study in Four European Cities.” Health Place 38: 8–15. Steiner, F., G. F. Thompson, and A. Carbonell, eds. 2016. Nature and Cities: The Ecological Imperative in Urban Design and van den Berg, M, W. Wendel-Vos, M. van Poppel, H. Kemper, W. Planning. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. van Mechelen, and J. Maas. 2015. “Health Benefits of Green Spaces in the Living Environment: A Systematic Review Sturm, R., and D. Cohen. 2014. “Proximity to Urban Parks and of Epidemiological Studies.” Urban Forestry and Urban Mental Health.” The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Greening 14: 806–16. Economics 17 (1): 19. van den Bosch, M., and Å. O. Sang. 2017. “Urban Natural Świąder, M., D. Lin, S. Szewrański, J. K. Kazak, K. Iha, J. van Environments as Nature-Based Solutions for Improved Hoof, I. Belčáková, and S. Altiok. 2020. “The Application Public Health–A Systematic Review of Reviews.” of Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity for Environmental Environmental Research 158: 373–84. Carrying Capacity Assessment: A New Approach for European Cities.” Environmental Science & Policy 105: 56–74. Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities 39 Vidal, D., C. Fernandes, L. Viterbo, N. Barros, and R. Maia. 2020. World Bank. 2017. Implementing Nature-Based Flood Protection: “Healthy Cities to Healthy People: A Grid Application to Principles and Implementation Guidance. Washington, DC: Assess the Potential of Ecosystems Services of Public Urban World Bank. Green Spaces in Porto, Portugal.” European Journal of Public World Bank. 2018. Groundswell: Preparing for Internal Climate Health 30 (Supplement 2): ckaa040-050. Migration. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://www. Vogl, A. L., J. H. Goldstein, G. C. Daily, B. Vira, L. Bremer, R. worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2018/03/19/ McDonald, D. Shemie, E. Tellman, and J. Cassin. 2017. groundswell---preparing-for-internal-climate-migration. “Mainstreaming Investments in Watershed Services to World Bank. 2019. Chongqing 2035: Spatial and Economic Enhance Water Security: Barriers and Opportunities. Transformation for a Global City. Overview. Washington, DC: Environmental Science & Policy 75: 19–27. World Bank. von Döhren, P., and D. Haase. 2015. “Ecosystem Disservices World Bank Group. 2021. Unlocking Nature-Smart Development : Research: A Review of the State of the Art with a Focus on An Approach Paper on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Cities.” Ecological indicators 52: 490–97. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://openknowledge. Wacharapluesadee, Supaporn Prateep Duengkae, Aingorn worldbank.org/handle/10986/36047 Chaiyes, Thongchai Kaewpom, Apaporn Rodpan, Sangchai Wüstemann, Henry, and Jens Kolbe. 2015. “Estimating the Value Yingsakmongkon, Sininat Petcharat, Patcharakiti of Urban Green Space: A Hedonic Pricing Analysis of the Phengsakul, Pattarapol Maneeorn, and Thiravat Housing Market in Cologne, Germany.” Discussion Paper Hemachudha. 2018. “Longitudinal Study of Age-specific 2015-002, Humboldt University, Berlin. Pattern of Coronavirus Infection in Lyle’s Flying Fox (Pteropus lylei) in Thailand.” Virology Journal 15 (1): 1–10. WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2016. Natural and Nature-Based Flood Management: A Green Guide. Washington, DC: World Waldheim, C., ed. 2006. The Landscape Urbanism Reader. New Wildlife Fund. York: Princeton Architectural Press. Xu, C., T. A. Kohler, T. M. Lenton, J. C. Svenning, and M. Scheffer. Waldman, L. 2015. “Urbanisation, the Peri-urban Growth and 2020. “Future of the Human Climate Niche.” Proceedings of Zoonotic Disease.” IDS Practice Paper in Brief 22, Institute of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (21): 11350–55. Development Studies, Brighton, UK. Yiftachel, O. 1989. “Towards a New Typology of Urban Planning Warren, Kyley. 2019. “Prescription for Nature: Grant Aims Theories.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design to Boost Patient Health through Park Time.” Cronkite 16 (1): 23–39. News, November 20, 2019, https://cronkitenews.azpbs. org/2019/11/20/prescription-park-time/. Young, H. S., R. Dirzo,  K. M. Helgen, D. J. McCauley, S. A. Billeter, M. Y. Kosoy, L. M. Osikowicz, D. J. Salkeld, T. P. Werner, P. 2011. “The Ecology of Urban Areas and Their Functions Young, and K. Dittmar. 2014. “Declines in Large Wildlife for Species Diversity.” Landscape and Ecological Engineering Increase Landscape-Level Prevalence of Rodent-Borne 7 (2): 231–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-011-0153-4. Disease in Africa.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Wesolowski, A., N. Eagle, A. J. Tatem, D. L. Smith, A. M. Noor, R. Sciences USA 111 (19): 7036–41. W. Snow, and C.O. Buckee. 2012. “Quantifying the Impact of Zhang, W., E. Goodale, and J. Chen. 2014. “How Contact Human Mobility on Malaria.” Science 338: 267–70. with Nature Affects Children’s Biophilia, Biophobia and Wheeler, B. W., R. Lovell, S. L. Higgins, M. P. White, I. Alcock, N. Conservation Attitude in China.” Biological Conservation 177: J. Osborne, K. Husk, C. Sabel, and M. H. Depledge. 2015. 109–16. “Beyond Greenspace: An Ecological Study of Population Zhang, Y., Murray, A. T., & Turner Ii, B. L. (2017). Optimizing green General Health and Indicators of Natural Environment Type space locations to reduce daytime and nighttime urban heat and Quality.” International Journal of Health Geographics 14: island effects in Phoenix, Arizona. Landscape and Urban 17. Planning, 165, 162-171. White, M. P., S. Pahl, B. W. Wheeler, M. H. Depledge, and L. Zhang, L., Y. Oyake, Y. Morimoto, H. Niwa, and S. Shibata. 2020. E. Fleming. 2017. “Natural Environments and Subjective “Flood Mitigation Function of Rain Gardens for Management Wellbeing: Different Types of Exposure Are Associated with of Urban Storm Runoff in Japan.” Landscape and Ecological Different Aspects of Wellbeing.” Health Place 45: 77–84. Engineering 16: 223–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.03.008. Zheng, H., Y. Li, B. E. Robinson, G. Liu, D. Ma, F. Wang, F. Lu, Z. WHO (World Health Organization). 2010. Global Ouyang, and G. C. Daily. 2016. “Using Ecosystem Service Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health. Geneva: Tradeoffs to Inform Water Conservation Policies and WHO Press. Management Practices.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Wolfe, N., C. Dunavan, and J. Diamond. 2007. “Origins of Major Environment 14: 527–32. Human Infectious Diseases.” Nature 447: 279–83. https:// Zheng, H., B. E. Robinson, Y. Liang, S. Polasky, D.-C. Ma, F.-C. doi.org/10.1038/nature05775. Wang, M. Ruckelshaus, Z. Ouyang, and G. C. Daily. 2013. Woodruff, S. C., and T. K. BenDor. 2016. “Ecosystem Services in “The Benefits, Costs, and Livelihood Implications of a Urban Planning: Comparative Paradigms and Guidelines Regional PES (Payment for Ecosystem Service) Program.” for High Quality Plans.” Landscape and Urban Planning 152: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.003. (41): 16681–86. 40 Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Cities Panama City from Parque Metropolitano Rainforest. Photo: Jack Osborne Cities are increasingly recognizing the role of the natural environment in shaping healthy and livable places that enhance human capital and urban resilience. This paper shares how cities are using innovative approaches for policy making and planning to account for natural assets and to protect and enhance biodiversity. A range of policy options is provided together with a practical action plan for conducting assessments of natural assets in and around cities. With this information cities can holistically assess, plan, create, and maintain natural assets to leverage their value for residents’ wellbeing.