Reconnecting with nature: Developing urban spaces in the age of climate change

Abstract

Climate change is occurring around us and impacting on our daily lives, meaning that we have to deal with our cities in a different way. There is also increasing awareness of the need for daily contact with green spaces and the natural environment in order to live a happy, productive and meaningful life.
This reflective essay tells the narrative of how urbanisation has been disconnecting humans from nature. Non-sustainable, non-resilient patterns of urbanisation, along with the neglect of inner-city areas, have resulted in fragmentation and urban decline, led to a loss of biodiversity, and caused the deterioration of ecosystems and their services. Urban regeneration projects allow us to ‘repair’ and restore some of this damage whilst enhancing urban resilience. Connecting existing and enhanced ecosystems, and re-establishing ecosystems both within cities and at the peri-urban fringe is vital for strengthening ecosystem resilience and building adaptive capacity for coping with the effects of climate change.
Cities worldwide need to look for suitable solutions to increase the resilience of their urban spaces in the face of climate change. This essay explores how this can be achieved through the integration of nature-based solutions, the re-greening of neighbourhoods and by correctly attributing value to natural capital. Transforming existing cities and neighbourhoods in this way will enable ecosystems to contribute their services towards healthier and more liveable cities.

Full text

Emerald Open Research

Open Peer Review
Discuss this article
(0)Comments
OPINIONARTICLE
Reconnecting with nature: Developing urban spaces in the age
of climate change [version 1; referees: awaiting peer review]
SteffenLehmann 1,2
SchoolofArchitecture,UniversityofNevada,LasVegas,LasVegas,Nevada,89154,USA
FutureCitiesLeadershipLab,InstituteforUrbanResearchandDesign,LasVegas,Nevada,89154,USA
Abstract
Climatechangeisoccurringaroundusandimpactingonourdailylives,
meaningthatwehavetodealwithourcitiesinadifferentway.Thereisalso
increasingawarenessoftheneedfordailycontactwithgreenspacesandthe
naturalenvironmentinordertoliveahappy,productiveandmeaningfullife.
Thisreflectiveessaytellsthenarrativeofhowurbanisationhasbeen
disconnectinghumansfromnature.Non-sustainable,non-resilientpatternsof
urbanisation,alongwiththeneglectofinner-cityareas,haveresultedin
fragmentationandurbandecline,ledtoalossofbiodiversity,andcausedthe
deteriorationofecosystemsandtheirservices.Urbanregenerationprojects
allowusto‘repair’andrestoresomeofthisdamagewhilstenhancingurban
resilience.Connectingexistingandenhancedecosystems,andre-establishing
ecosystemsbothwithincitiesandattheperi-urbanfringeisvitalfor
strengtheningecosystemresilienceandbuildingadaptivecapacityforcoping
withtheeffectsofclimatechange.
Citiesworldwideneedtolookforsuitablesolutionstoincreasetheresilienceof
theirurbanspacesinthefaceofclimatechange.Thisessayexploreshowthis
canbeachievedthroughtheintegrationofnature-basedsolutions,the
re-greeningofneighbourhoodsandbycorrectlyattributingvaluetonatural
capital.Transformingexistingcitiesandneighbourhoodsinthiswaywillenable
ecosystemstocontributetheirservicestowardshealthierandmoreliveable
cities.
Keywords
Climatechange;urbanisation;urbanregeneration;naturalcapital;naturebased
solutions;resourceefficiency;healthycities
1,2
1
2

Referee Status: AWAITING PEER
REVIEW
28Jan2019, :2(First published: 1
)https://doi.org/10.12688/emeraldopenres.12960.1
28Jan2019, :2(Latest published: 1
)https://doi.org/10.12688/emeraldopenres.12960.1
v1
Page 1 of 13
Emerald Open Research 2019, 1:2 Last updated: 28 JAN 2019

Emerald Open Research

SteffenLehmann( )Corresponding author: steffen.lehmann.cities@gmail.com
 :Investigation,Methodology,Writing–OriginalDraftPreparationAuthor roles: Lehmann S
Nocompetinginterestsweredisclosed.Competing interests:
Theauthordeclaresthatthefollowinggrantsupportedthiswork:‘CRUNCH–OperationalisingtheFood-Water-EnergyGrant information:
Nexus’,grantfundedbytheEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil,ESRC(UK),grantreference:ES/S002294/1
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
©2019LehmannS.Thisisanopenaccessarticledistributedunderthetermsofthe ,whichCopyright: CreativeCommonsAttributionLicence
permitsunrestricteduse,distribution,andreproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginalworkisproperlycited.
LehmannS.How to cite this article: Reconnecting with nature: Developing urban spaces in the age of climate change [version 1;
EmeraldOpenResearch2019, :2( )referees: awaiting peer review] 1 https://doi.org/10.12688/emeraldopenres.12960.1
28Jan2019, :2( )First published: 1 https://doi.org/10.12688/emeraldopenres.12960.1
Page 2 of 13
Emerald Open Research 2019, 1:2 Last updated: 28 JAN 2019

The seriousness and urgency caused by global
warming
With global warming and the impacts of climate change, we
will need to seriously rethink how our cities should evolve to
become more resilient and resource-efficient. A group of leading
scientists have warned of grim prospects if we keep abusing the
planet, and that the commitment of the Paris Agreement (2016)
to keep warming at two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial lev-
els may not be enough to ‘park’ the planet’s climate trajectory
at a stable temperature (IPCC, 2018; Nature, 2018; UNEP, 2017).
Jonathan Watts described the ‘domino-effect of climate events’
that could shift the Earth into a hothouse state, arguing that
prominent scientists have warned that crossing such a threshold
would make efforts to reduce emissions increasingly futile (Watts,
2018). The loss of the Greenland ice sheet could disrupt the
Gulf Stream, in turn raising sea levels and accelerating Antarctic
ice loss, triggering a cascade of melting ice, warmer seas, shift-
ing currents, dying forests and the release of methane trapped in
Siberian permafrost that could tilt the Earth into a ‘hothouse’
state (4°C warmer than the pre-industrial era) beyond which
human efforts to lower emissions will be increasingly impossible.
In ‘Losing Earth’, Nathaniel Rich writes (2018, p. 2):
“If by some miracle we are able to limit global warming to
two degrees Celsius, we will only have to negotiate the extinc-
tion of the world’s tropical reefs, sea-level rise of several
meters and the abandonment of the Persian Gulf. The climate
scientist James Hansen has called two-degree warming
“a prescription for long-term disaster.” Long-term disas-
ter is now the best-case scenario. Three-degree warming is
a prescription for short-term disaster: forests in the Arctic
and the loss of most coastal cities. Robert Watson, a former
director of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, has argued that three-degree warming is
the realistic minimum. Four degrees: Europe in permanent
drought; vast areas of China, India and Bangladesh claimed
by desert; Polynesia swallowed by the sea; the Colorado
River thinned to a trickle; the American Southwest largely
uninhabitable.”
Climate change is not something in a faraway future but is already
around us and impacting on our daily lives. All this has created
an urgency that means we will have to deal with our cities
in a different way.
Our disconnect from nature
Within a very short time, humans have experienced transition
from a life predominantly spent outside towards a very differ-
ent life inside buildings. We have changed how we live, and a
fundamental change in our relationship with nature has been the
result. Over 80% of the UK’s population currently live in urban
areas, and a large portion are estranged from nature (Office
for National Statistics, 2016). Today 90% of our lives is spent
indoors, in controlled interior environments (ASHRAE, 2010);
with increasing ‘screen-time’ spent online.
Everything about how we define ourselves today, our cities,
industries and our technologies, have only been on Earth for
a relatively short period. The earth began to develop around
4.5 billion years ago. Although Homo sapiens emerged some
200,000 years ago, the human impact only really began with the
impact of agriculture; for instance, the Australian aborigines used
fire to assist hunting before that (they also avoided burning
certain areas to retain food sources in drought years). We are a
comparatively young species, and all the while we have been
constantly pulling back from nature. Although we have seen our-
selves increasingly as separate from and superior to nature, our
impact upon nature has been immense. Biodiversity evolves
as different species share the same ecosystem where relation-
ships between the species develop. In this balanced system, the
planet’s biodiversity has grown to include 30 million different
species. Each species is necessary for keeping something in
balance in the natural world, yet we have not respected or
maintained this delicate balance. Since the time of the dinosaurs
65 million years ago, there has not been this level of sustained
destruction on our planet. The current rapid loss of biodiversity is
quite possibly the biggest disaster ever.
In the big picture of Earth’s evolution, Homo sapiens has only
been around for a very short time, and it is likely that the Earth
will still be around for a long time even after we have destroyed
ourselves as a species (the reason why Martin Seligman argues
that we have been misnamed as Homo sapiens, and are not a
‘wise’ species at all).
But today, a new awareness is emerging that is driving the
regeneration and re-greening of our cities. Humans are able to
and have a desire to participate in the community of life and in
nature, interacting with all of the species on this planet, without
necessarily destroying any of it, let alone destroying all of it.
Aboriginal Australians are living proof of how we can take a
different approach to nature. They represent over 50,000 years
of uninterrupted living culture, based on the ‘touching the Earth
lightly’ concept, meaning that you only take from nature what
you really need at that particular moment. Yet over the last
35,000 years we have gradually changed our relationship with
nature. Around this time we see the first cave paintings and
simple tools being developed, followed around 10,000 years
ago by the shift to agriculture, drawing on an awareness of the
cycles and seasons of nature. This has been a process of empow-
ering ourselves, taming the natural world and taking control
of our own lives and our own destiny. We are not at the mercy
of nature; we can farm the land, build dwellings that resist
nature’s forces, and we can harness what agriculture offers.
Everything changed again with scientific discovery, technology
and the Industrial Revolution. Over the last 300 years we saw that
we could manipulate nature through the emergence of science.
Humankind started to believe that it had dominion over the Earth;
and that the Earth and nature have to serve us in our own evolu-
tion. Just think of the discoveries of philosophers and scientists
like Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and Newton. Their under-
standing was that nature was meaningless and purposeless, and its
only function was to ‘serve humans in their evolution’. Descartes
for instance believed that animals had no feelings. His belief
was: ‘Man is at the top and Earth is here for us to use, to
exploit’ (see: Figure 1). The seminal book ‘The limits to growth’
(Meadows et al., 1972) displayed the limits of finite resources
and noted that the whole Industrial Revolution was about taking
Page 3 of 13
Emerald Open Research 2019, 1:2 Last updated: 28 JAN 2019

and extracting minerals and resources, and disposing of waste,
with a complete disregard for the environment (see: Figure 2).
Climate change is caused by humans, through the production of
heat-trapping greenhouse gases caused by carbon-dioxide. We
have changed the whole dynamics of the planet in a very short
time, and we have disrupted billions of years of evolution. Earth
was always able to regulate itself, self-regulating the tempera-
ture and weather system - fragile systems which have now fallen
out of balance. The complex interactive, self-regulating system
of biosphere, geosphere and atmosphere has become messed up
by global warming and the dangerous effects of climate change.
We have been destroying billions of years of creativity and
evolution that enabled all of the vitality on Earth to co-exist
side-by-side. However, we are just awakening to this mistake;
the Earth and nature are not things to dominate and exploit, but
a community we are to be part of, to enjoy and participate in.
Understanding and enjoying nature within the city
The study of ecology allows for an understanding of the Earth
as a single living system that is in balance. Within this system,
cities evolve as the greatest creation of humankind and yet
cities are also a source of overload and environmental stress.
Cities can possess degrading conditions - just think of window-
less work environments, over-crowded housing, air pollution and
noise. They are not obvious places to connect with the natural
environment.
Cronon (1995) asserts that urban inhabitants have created a
wholly artificial view of what nature and wilderness are, based
on ideas of open space and grandeur that do not correspond to
the lived reality of the people who inhabit rural spaces. The view
of nature as a pristine and uninhabited space makes it difficult
to see nature on a smaller, less imposing scale, and to appreciate
for instance that a tree in an urban back garden can equate to a
tree growing in a forest; that the two trees are identical despite
the different setting. The forest tree somehow has a greater
perceived natural value and nature is seen as being something
that does not belong within the city (Cronon, 1995).
Rautio & colleagues (2017) argue that this does not have to be
the case. In working with children in Finland they have found
that urban inhabitants are not disconnected from nature; there is
plenty of nature present in urban environments for them to explore.
To imply that urban children are disconnected is to disregard
the ways in which nature is present in and encroaches on their
lives. Their focus is on how children’s relationships with nature
emerge based upon the setting which they are in. The children’s
understanding of nature in the urban environment is an
assemblage, and may not always be positive as shown in one
child’s description of an urban gull on a landfill site. The author
argues that what is significant here is that nature should not be
viewed as something that exists beyond the city, but instead,
“environmental education research and practice could and
should intensely focus on the everyday materialisations of
complex historical, societal, political and cultural conditions
that give rise to environmental phenomena, human attitudes and
relations included.”
Hand & colleagues (2017) explored how children living in
urban environments respond to different natural environments.
They noted that urban back gardens represented the main source
of interaction with biodiversity for these children, and that
children were not spending less time in nature due to the lack
of natural environments in urban areas, but rather that lifestyle
factors, including parental limits and the attraction of electronic
Figure 1. Diagram ‘Ego-Eco’ – Humankind is part of the ecosystem, not apart from or above it. This diagram depicts this simple fact
clearly (diagram: S. Lehmann, 2010).
Page 4 of 13
Emerald Open Research 2019, 1:2 Last updated: 28 JAN 2019

media over natural play spaces, were the cause of the children’s
increasing disconnect with nature. A behavioural shift is needed
to reattribute value and importance to time that is spent outdoors
in a biodiverse environment. Although Rautio et al. (2017) argue
that the urban population is not necessarily disconnected from
nature, it is fair to say that the time spent connecting with nature
is decreasing for certain groups within society. The penetration of
technology into our everyday lives has led to the development of
a ‘heads-down’ generation who spend more ‘screen-time’ indoors
and less time on outdoor activities, and who do not necessarily
place the same value on natural encounters.
Connecting with nature makes people come alive and nourishes
the senses. Today, we are at a turning point. We understand that
cities need to be built on regenerative principles, as we start to
grasp how everything in life and the environment is connected. We
are revisiting the wisdom of nature to inform our organisational
structures (e.g. local food production) and realise that nature has a
profound positive influence on our health and well-being. We have
arrived at a new understanding, that we are merely participants
in the natural world. We rediscover indigenous traditions
and the interdependence of all things in nature, things which
coexist together. The inter-connectedness of things - it means
that we are not in a privileged position to exploit or destroy the
ecosystem. In fact the opposite is true. We have a position of
stewardship, where we must lead in a respectful and responsible
relationship to the natural world. We are not ‘above’ nature.
The quality of our social, professional and ecological relation-
ships is at the core of what makes us feel alive, happy and safe.
Part of this are walkable neighbourhoods on a human scale and
the ability to enjoy nature within the city. Urban designers world-
wide aim to bring nature back into the city, to compensate for a
lack of parks, gardens and green spaces in cities. Today, we
talk about the concept of ‘Urban Metabolism’, a model which
understands cities as a living organism. Urban metabolism
analyses the flows of energy, resources, food, people and
materials in cities (as if the city were an ecosystem) and pro-
vides a framework for the study of the interactions of natural
and human systems, using the metaphor of the city as a living
organism. Ecologist Arthur George Tansley (1871–1955)
expanded the term in 1935 to encompass the material and ener-
getic streams (Tansley, 1935). Seminal texts by different authors
offer further ecological wisdom on the architect’s relationship
with landscapes and their ecosystems (Carson, 1962; Girardet,
2008; McDonough & Braungart, 2002; McHarg, 1969; Register,
1987).
A new deep understanding of nature has emerged that sees the
commonality of all of life as part of the same ecosystem, and
it influences our thinking of cities as living organisms (one
of these approaches is ‘urban metabolism’). The concept that
the Earth is a self-correcting organism, the so-called Gaia
hypothesis, was developed by James E. Lovelock in 1975 and pub-
lished in 1979 (Lovelock, 1979). It states that the Earth is a vulner-
able system in balance, and that the temperature of the planet and
its atmosphere are produced and maintained by the sum of living
organisms. The Gaia hypothesis is based on the idea that all life
on earth functions as a single system. This system both defines
and maintains the conditions necessary for its survival. Lovelock
argues that the earth’s living matter – including the atmosphere,
oceans and land areas – combine to create a complex system with
the ability to keep our planet a place fit for life.
The Gaia hypothesis has fundamentally altered the way
scientists view evolution and the environment, but not all
agree. Contrary to the Gaia hypothesis, which suggests the Earth
has a self-righting tendency, Johan Rockstroem, Director of
the Stockholm Resilience Centre (2018) and numerous other
leading scientists say that the feedbacks of global warming
could push the planet to a more extreme state. In the face of this
scenario what we need are strategies to mitigate the effects of
climate change (greening up cities will not make a difference
unless there is a sharp reduction in the use of fossil fuels).
From garden cities to Biophilia: healthy and resilient
cities
One important characteristic of complex urban systems is
their resilience. Urban resilience of cities means the ability to
maintain human and ecosystem functions simultaneously over
the long-term (Alberti & Marzluff, 2004). Urban resilience, also
called adaptive capacity, refers to a city’s ability to cope with and
recover quickly from hardship or crisis. A resilient city is
typically one that is prepared and well-equipped to contend with and
mitigate the multiple effects of climate change, such as urban heat
islands, heatwaves, urban flooding, energy blackouts and potential
Figure 2. Diagram: The linear extraction process of resources is unsustainable (diagram: S. Lehmann, 2012).
Page 5 of 13
Emerald Open Research 2019, 1:2 Last updated: 28 JAN 2019

disasters. A resilient city has a robust infrastructural system and
can even turn a crisis into a positive development (Meerow
et al., 2016; Mitchell & Harris, 2012).
Redefining cities in the age of global warming goes right to the
core of our ability to adapt, and underpins our complicated
relationship with nature, technology and place. For some time
now humankind has been out of touch with nature and has lost
its connection to the natural world. There is a need for us to
renew our connection with nature since this is key to both good
health and resilience. Related to this is the importance of re-
greening cities and introducing nature-based solutions through
urban regeneration projects (such as the examples shown at
Figure 3).
A healthy city is conscious of health of its residents and striv-
ing to improve it. Thus, a healthy city has a strong commitment
to health and wellbeing, and a process to achieve it. The WHO
report (2014) refers to the need for sufficient green spaces in
cities and defines what a Healthy City is: “A healthy city is one
that continually creates and improves its physical and social
environments and expands the community resources that enable
people to mutually support each other in performing all
the functions of life and developing to their maximum
potential.” This approach puts health high on the political and
social agenda of cities and builds a strong movement for public
health at the local level. It strongly emphasizes equity, partici-
patory governance and solidarity, inter-sectoral collaboration
and action to address the determinants of urban health. The
concept of Healthy Cities was inspired and supported by the
WHO European Health for All strategy and the Health21
targets and is aligned with the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development.
As predicted by Rachel Carson in ‘Silent Spring’ in 1962,
we are now in the process of redefining our relationship with
nature, and how our lives depend upon it. This new understand-
ing is not about giving up technology, but rather developing the
most advanced technologies to date, for instance through the
biological revolution and nanotechnology. We have to use that
rich and available knowledge to find new and better solutions,
employing ideas of ‘biomimicry’ (Benyus, 2002; Neves & Francke,
2012).
The emulation of nature’s genius is a promising path for our
urban systems, processing and neighbourhood designs. It goes
beyond just emulating natural form, involving systems’ thinking
and asking: how does it fit into the wider ecosystem? Nature
has 3.8 billion years of R&D behind it, which we can learn
from. Learning from nature also means that the principles of a
Circular Economy have become part of this learning process.
The Ellen McArthur Foundation (EMF) argues that ‘a circular
economy is one that is restorative and regenerative by design’
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Part of the circular
economy includes designing out waste and rebuilding natural
capital and resilience. In order to support this, the EMF has
published a series of key texts on the circular economy that are
freely available online.
What does this all mean for the urban regeneration of our
cities? How can we create public spaces, infrastructure, buildings,
neighbourhoods and products without destroying nature and the
ecosystem?
Figure 3. Left: There are numerous ways greenery and vegetation can be integrated in buildings, for instance, such as this
hanging garden in Singapore. Right: Green space and the urban are no contradiction, but can co-exist side by side, as here in Rotterdam
(photos: S. Lehmann, 2010)
Page 6 of 13
Emerald Open Research 2019, 1:2 Last updated: 28 JAN 2019

There is significant potential for a new technological era inspired
by nature. There is enough solar energy every day to power all
of our cities (Afanador et al., 2015; Weissman et al., 2018). We
can improve the cooling of buildings by looking at the natural
world for solutions, for instance we can harness the process of
photosynthesis. Solar power, CO2 and water create – in the proc-
ess of photosynthesis – energy and oxygen. This is relevant,
as we have to ask: could we pull CO2 out of the atmosphere in
this way, for example by planting more urban forests in all cit-
ies? All regenerative city thinking is also relevant for human
health, by providing clean air, clean water, and vibrant local
foods from the natural environment around us (UN-Habitat, 2016;
Woo et al., 2014). Instead, it is tragic what is happening to our
forests and oceans. For instance, it is well documented that plastic
waste leads to toxins entering our bodies through the food chain
(Murphy et al., 2017; Wright & Kelly, 2017).
There is also increasing evidence of the health benefits from
re-greening our cities: for instance, a faster healing proc-
ess from illness (Grinde & Patil, 2009). If we have hospitals
with a window view into a garden, this enables faster recov-
ery from surgery. It relates to the concept of ‘Biophilia’,
nature’s restorative, regenerative capacity. This includes
the benefits for children of being in nature on a daily basis.
(Kellert, 2011; Wilson, 1984). The ‘Biophilia hypothesis’ has first
been introduced by Edward O. Wilson in 1984, suggesting that
‘humans possess an innate tendency to seek connections with
nature and other forms of life’. Biophilia explores the various ways
of greening and re-naturing cities to strengthen the calming and
cooling effect of nature, and the improvement of air quality and
microclimate.
This is timely, as a recent survey (BBC News, 2018, reporting
on a WHO study) has revealed that 47 UK towns and cities
exceed air pollution limits and have an unhealthy environment to
live in. The WHO study found that 30 areas in the UK had fine-
particle air pollution levels in excess of 10 micrograms per
cubic metre; a further 17 cities had fine-particle air pollu-
tion levels that were on this limit. Areas that exceeded the level
included London, Manchester, Swansea, Leeds, Leicester,
Liverpool, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield (beside others).
Fine-particle air pollution is particularly dangerous for human
health as it penetrates deep into the lungs and cardiovascular
system, in doing so contributing directly to diseases including
stroke, heart disease,lung cancer and respiratory problems. But
if the outside air has become so polluted, the ‘open the window’
cooling option is less viable and resolution is sought from
air-conditioning systems, this creates further energy needs,
generating more heat, emissions and pollution.
In today’s fast-paced, over-loaded and distracting built environ-
ment, places of refuge, escape and relaxation are much needed
within the city (with easy access) to separate ourselves from the
external world. Children are masters in identifying and enjoy-
ing such ‘secret places’, and in finding joyous moments in
pocket spaces and intimate gardens, but must be given the oppor-
tunity to spend time outdoors and to appreciate nature as they
encounter it, without preconceptions or prejudice (Hand et al.,
2017; Rautio et al., 2017).
In the urban regeneration process, ideally we want to increase
the density of cities and increase access to urban green space.
Increasing the amount of urban greenery and facilitating access
to urban green space while at the same time increasing urban
density is not a contradiction, but a smart strategy that is feasi-
ble, as currently demonstrated by a number of large regeneration
projects, from Barcelona to Singapore. Malmo in Sweden has
positively branded itself as the ‘City of Parks’, and Singapore
calls itself the ‘City in a Garden’. Of course regeneration must
be done sensitively, both for the environment and the local com-
munity. The New York High Line development has attracted much
praise and attention, but has also drawn criticism for its failure
to address existing social problems and for its gentrifying effect
on the local area (Lang & Rothenberg, 2017; Littke et al., 2016).
Biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation – what
can urban planners and landscape designers do?
Our cities are facing a wide range of challenges, with unsustain-
able urbanisation (frequently at too low density) in turn being
linked to human health problems, the degradation and loss of
natural capital and its corresponding ecosystem services (clean
air, soil and water), climate change and a worrying increase in the
risk of natural disasters. Urban expansion is leading to changes
in the countryside, shifting green space to ‘artificial surfaces’.
An aerial survey of the UK in 2015 revealed that over 22,000 hec-
tares of green space was converted to artificial surfaces between
2006 and 2012. Over 7,000 hectares of this were previously for-
est, and over 14,000 hectares were previously agricultural areas
and farmland. Over 1,000 hectares were changed from wet-
lands to artificial surfaces in order to provide more space for
households. Completion of urban construction sites comprised
nearly 3,000 hectares and completed new industrial and com-
mercial developments slightly over 1,000 hectares (University of
Leicester, 2015).
More research is needed to clearly define the factors in our cur-
rent urbanisation models that hinder the reconnection with nature
in the urban system. These factors are partially economic, social,
technical and environmental. Governments are increasingly
trying to quickly fix the issue of housing affordability by boost-
ing supply and approving inacceptable housing developments
on precious greenfield land. However, far too many homes are
being planned and built on greenfield sites that were formerly
protected green-belt land. There are sufficient brownfield sites
for an extra million homes in England alone, and there is no
excuse for further encroaching into precious greenfield land that
is necessary for recreation, biodiversity, forestry and food supply
(CPRE, 2018). The redevelopment of brownfield land and infill
densification is still not prioritised enough by the government,
developers and policy makers.
Obviously trees and their canopies are a critical piece of the life
support system on this planet and are vital for any future project.
Urban forest projects, constructed wetlands and the urban farm-
ing movement are all good ways to re-integrate nature into an
urban setting (see: Figure 4). Natural elements such as street
trees, gardens and planting have been a feature of cities for
hundreds of years. The most effective urban green space is not a
lawn, but a garden with tree coverage from different types of trees
Page 7 of 13
Emerald Open Research 2019, 1:2 Last updated: 28 JAN 2019

and bushes. As far back as his 1722 book (Fairchild, 1722), ‘The
City Gardener’, the English botanist Thomas Fairchild (1667–
1729) noted that city residents feel more relaxed and healthy when
they can enjoy gardens and greenery. He suggested to improve air
pollution and improve the urban micro-climate in London by
creating parks and gardens, and he also realised that numerous
small gardens with trees and bushes are more effective rather
than just a large park with a lawn. Almost three hundred years
later, the research on the urban heat island (UHI) effect
confirms Fairchild’s observation (Bowler et al., 2010; Doick
et al., 2014).
The dangerous UHI effect leads to significantly warmer urban
areas compared to surrounding rural areas, and this temperature
difference is usually larger at night than during the day. The UHI
effect occurs because the dense, dark surfaces (such as bitumen
on roads and concrete on building roofs) absorb and store
heat during the day and then release it at night. Urban greenery
can help reduce this heat gain and the impact on human health
(Lehmann, 2015; Sailor, 2014). The main cause of the UHI effect
is from the modification of land surfaces and material, for instance
concrete roofs that store and trap solar heat during the day. It can
best be counteracted by green roofs (and facades) with planting
and vegetation, white or light-coloured surfaces (using the albedo
effect to reflect solar radiation) and the use of materials that absorb
less heat (Note: from 2012 to 2014, the author was principal
investigator of ‘Urban Climate Research’, the largest study of the
UHI effect in Australian cities). It is only a question of time until
green roofs will become mandatory for new buildings in the UK.
Understanding the many benefits of urban greening, munici-
palities are now looking at how urban areas can adapt their
landscapes to better cope with increasing heat stress and the UHI
effect. There is growing understanding and appreciation that re-
naturing cities can help provide viable solutions for urban
engineering, using and exploiting the properties of natural eco-
systems and the services that they provide. Ecosystem services
that city vegetation delivers, through avenues, gardens, parks,
wetlands, urban forests, green roofs and living walls are much
celebrated. These ‘nature-based solutions’ (NBS) can provide
practical, sustainable, cost-effective and adaptive alternatives for
various urban planning objectives; by working with nature,
rather than against it, it is possible to take further steps towards
a more competitive, resource efficient and greener economy
(often termed ‘green growth’). It can also help to enhance natural
capital rather than depleting it.
The term ‘nature-based solutions’ refers to the use of nature for
tackling environmental and societal challenges while increasing
biodiversity. A definition offered by the European Union Com-
mission, who has been funding some of our research in NBS,
states that these solutions ‘inspired and supported by nature,
which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental,
social and economic benefits and help build resilience (…)
and bring more, and more diverse, nature and natural features
and processes into cities, landscapes and seascapes, through
locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions’
(EU-Commission, 2015 and EU-Commission, 2017).
For instance, green roofs or walls can be used to reduce the
impact of high temperatures, collect storm water, reduce
pollution and fine dust, and act as carbon sinks, all whilst simul-
taneously enhancing biodiversity. Similarly, the collection and
storage of rain water in constructed wetlands, or the protection of
Figure 4. A tree knows no waste, but provides a large range of ecosystem services (image: S. Lehmann, 2010).
Page 8 of 13
Emerald Open Research 2019, 1:2 Last updated: 28 JAN 2019

mangrove forests along coastlines utilise a nature-based solution
to achieve several objectives, including disaster risk reduction.
Urban flood control is regulated in a natural way, with mangroves
alleviating the impact of wind and waves on coastal settlements
or cities whilst also capturing CO2. Additionally, the mangrove
forests can provide safe nurseries for marine life and help
control coastal erosion resulting from a rise in sea-levels,
mitigating potentially harmful effects on the environment and on
human health and society (Kabisch et al., 2016; Lennon & Scott,
2014; Maes & Jacobs, 2017).
New urban design concepts should form a model for incorporat-
ing and re-introducing greenery and biodiversity into the urban
built environment. Maintaining biodiversity in the face of urbani-
sation, habitat loss, environmental deterioration and climate
change is one of the most extreme challenges of the present day.
The inclusion of trees, shrubs and other plant matter into green
spaces and gardens within the city is of paramount importance
in helping to keep the urban landscape cool, mitigating against
buildings and pavements which increase heat absorption and
heat storage, causing the UHI effect.
Numerous studies have been conducted on the role of green
canopies in urban life, with the result that tree coverage
differs widely between cities (Pauleit et al., 2005; Schwarz et al.,
2015). One of these, the 2018 MIT Senseable City Lab study,
established the Green View Index (GVI) that represents the
total percentage of a city covered by trees. The study found that
Paris has a very high population density but only a GVI of 8.7
percent, compared to London (12.7 percent), Amsterdam (20.6) or
Oslo (28.8 percent) (MIT Senseable City Lab, 2018).
The urban neighbourhoods of the future will have to offer new
forms of green space. These will serve a dual purpose, exist-
ing both as areas for recreation whilst acting at the same time to
mitigate the warmer urban microclimate. Tomorrow’s neighbour-
hoods will also need to generate at least 50% of their own power
themselves (Lehmann, 2015). Integrated development which
concentrates on energy and water management, green infra-
structure and the urban microclimate will take a leading role in
urban regeneration. A good example for this trend is Barangaroo
waterfront development at East Darling Harbour in Sydney,
Australia’s largest urban renewal project. Here all of the
roofscapes are green roofs, which provide rainwater storage and
contribute to a reduction in the UHI. Open public space forms
40% of the site, which is already setting new standards for
the renewal of Australian inner-city precincts. Similar to
HafenCity in Hamburg, the developers use landscaping to deal with
flood protection (see: Figure 5 and Figure 6).
Measuring the value of nature: Natural Capital
‘Natural capital’ is the world’s stock of natural resources, includ-
ing soil, rocks and minerals, air, water and all living things.
Humans are able to derive a wide range of ‘ecosystem services’
from this stock of natural capital, indeed these services are what
makes life possible, and include water supply, food and biomass
supply, clean air supply, energy supply, carbon storage and
sequestration, flood control, natural medicines, and so on.
There are also several less visible ecosystem services includ-
ing climate regulation, the pollination of crops by insects, and
natural flood defences provided by mangrove forests, not to
mention the inspiration and well-being we take from the natural
environment (Hawken et al., 1999) (see: Figure 7).
The World Forum on Natural Capital explains why our natural
capital debt is an issue: “With natural capital, when we draw
down too much stock from our natural environment we also run
up a debt which needs to be paid back, for example by replant-
ing clear-cut forests, or allowing aquifers to replenish them-
selves after we have abstracted water. If we keep drawing down
stocks of natural capital without allowing or encouraging nature
to recover, we run the risk of local, regional or even global
ecosystem collapse” (The World Forum on Natural Capital, 2018).
Understandably, all of these essential services cannot be
valueless or priceless, but also have a significant value in mon-
etary, financial terms. For example, a recent report calculated
that by providing atmospheric regulation and flood prevention,
California’s street trees provide over US$1 billion per year in
ecosystem services, and by offering services as diverse as storm
protection, fisheries support and ecotourism, Mexico’s mangrove
forests contribute an annual US$70 billion to the economy (Rizvi
et al., 2015; TEEB for Business Coalition, 2013). The study cal-
culated for the first time the financial risk in real monetary terms
of unpriced natural capital inputs to production across differ-
ent sectors on a regional scale. By using an environmentally
extended input-output model (EEIO), it also estimated, holistically
and at a high level, how these may flow through global
supply chains to producers of consumer goods. Interestingly,
the study demonstrated that some business activities do not
generate sufficient profit to cover their natural resource use and
pollution costs (e.g. coal mining activities continuously ignore
indirect costs to health) (Shanahan et al., 2015).
There is a real economy from natural capital that we are not
discovering, or accounting for. We are getting the benefits but
not recording the value. However, if natural capital were be lost
we would feel it immediately, not least in economic terms. An
accurate cost-benefit analysis is needed to find out what is
the real cost is of not doing the things we need to do for
sustainability? Investment can then be made wisely.
Revaluing Parks and Green Spaces is a study published in 2018
conducted in line with HM Treasury’s best practice in valuing
non-market goods. It measures the contribution of parks and green
spaces in UK cities towards individual wellbeing, both in finan-
cial and social terms. It provides a robust economic valuation
of parks and green spaces in the UK, quantifying the improve-
ments in health and wellbeing associated with their frequent use.
It is the first study on parks and green spaces to apply a welfare
weighting methodology, allowing for more informed evidence-
based policy decisions. The study by UK charity Fields in Trust
estimates that the country’s parks and green spaces save the
UK Government more than £111 million (US$200 million)
in visits to the doctor each year (Fields in Trust, 2018).
Page 9 of 13
Emerald Open Research 2019, 1:2 Last updated: 28 JAN 2019

Figure 7. Eco-system services include numerous essential services provided by nature, such as water management and supply,
biodiversity, food and biomass, clean air supply and humidity control, energy, carbon storage and sequestration, and flood control
(image: S. Lehmann, 2016).
Figure 5. Barangaroo in Sydney is Australia’s largest urban regeneration project (image: courtesy of Lendlease).
Figure 6. Vegetation and greenery keeps city temperatures cooler during summer, reducing the urban heat island effect. Left: Special
cameras reveal urban heat islands. Right: The informal green spaces of university campuses contribute positively to the city (Images, urban
heat island effect and campus in Munich: courtesy S. Lehmann).
Page 10 of 13
Emerald Open Research 2019, 1:2 Last updated: 28 JAN 2019

At the individual level, the study found that the Total Economic
Value of using parks and green spaces breaks down annually
to £30.24 of benefits per person. In addition, the wellbeing
value associated with the frequent use of local parks and green
spaces is estimated to be worth an incredible £34.2 billion
(US$62.23 billion) per year to the UK adult population as a whole
(see the research here: www.fieldsintrust.org/research). These
findings are compelling figures to consider when discussing
the business case for governments and stakeholders investing in
more urban green spaces.
Giving ‘ecosystem services’ a monetary value allows for new
measures of progress, which are not measured by simplistic GDP
growth or other common economic measures. Based on these
concepts, ‘environmental justice’ has emerged as a new term,
meaning a focus on the fair distribution of the environmental ben-
efits and burdens, increasingly informing environmental policy.
Ideally, every person on the globe should ‘enjoy the same equal
access to a healthy environment in which to live, learn and
work’ (U.S. EPA, 2012; in this context, also refer to the SITES
rating system managed by GBCI).
We need more greenery and gardens in our cities, green roofs
(planted areas combined with white-coloured roofscapes) and
water features, like ponds and small lakes. Merging nature with
the urban, the Urban Manifesto (Lehmann, 2019) proposes an
ecological network with a value system based on an economy of
prosperity (not turnover) that also values our natural capital, so
we can be citizens, not just merely consumers. It is essential that
every urban regeneration project comes with new public green
space, small gardens and parks in a wide range of sizes. There
are, of course, very different conceptions of what an urban park
might be. For instance, Hyde Park in London has been open
to the public since 1635 and demonstrates the value of a large
(240 hectare in size) park in the city. Frederick Law Olmsted
who designed New York’s Central Park in the 1860s, conceived it
as a large urban park (340 hectare in size) and a place to escape
from the city, as a place in contrast to the surrounding city.
Olmsted was committed to egalitarian ideals and was of the
belief that common green space should be equally accessible to
all citizens at all times, and defended against private intrusion.
This is now a fundamental principle behind the idea of a ‘pub-
lic park’, but was it was previously not assumed to be necessary.
Over a hundred years later, Bernard Tschumi, who designed
Parc de la Villette in Paris (1982), viewed the park as a continu-
ation of the city, with irregular non-hierarchical pathways that
lead to nowhere in particular. Another example is the High Line
Park, an elevated linear park in Manhattan (2009) designed
by James Corner Field Operations. Today, a public park for
the 21st century is seen as a vital space for cooling cities,
cross-cultural neighbourhood contact and social encounters, and
as a spatial connector in an increasingly digital and segregated
city.
Lessons learnt: Knowing where to begin
Every city is unique. Cities not only differ in their size, den-
sity and population distribution, but also in their location and in
the ways in which they are vulnerable to climate change. When
it comes to strategies to increase resilience, what works in
one city may not work in another. Urban regeneration projects
allow to ‘repair’ and restore some of the damage caused to
ecosystems whilst enhancing urban resilience. Even when change
is acknowledged as necessary, it can be a daunting prospect.
Facing the need for change on a large scale it can be helpful to
remember that cities are never finished; cities are constantly
undergoing transformation. What is needed now is to nudge
that transformation in the direction of sustainable and resilient
solutions, making the most of opportunities for re-greening, using
resources efficiently and acknowledging the value of natural
capital.
A good example for such a project is the international research
project the author is currently working on: Crunch – the Food-
Water-Energy Nexus explores these issues in greater depth
using integrated methods (see: www.fwe-nexus.eu).
It may require a paradigm shift in thinking. By beginning to
place a value on natural capital, and assessing our vital systems
as a whole and not as separate parts, we can begin to make effi-
ciency savings that previously would not have been apparent. In
doing so, we not only benefit financially through saving valuable
resources and mitigating against environmental risks resulting from
climate change, but also contribute towards the repair and renewal
of our ecosystem, conserving resources that are finite and helping
to prevent further global temperature rise (Lehmann, 2017).
Getting approval for change is not always easy. However, the
sooner we can begin to transform our cities into greener, more
efficient, climate resilient places to live, the sooner we begin to
mitigate against the problems which require this transformation in
the first place. By acting quickly we can work to prevent the Earth
entering into a ‘hothouse’ state, beyond which human efforts
to reduce emissions will be increasingly impossible. This, if
nothing else, should provide the impetus necessary to take the
first brave steps towards change.
Data availability
No data is associated with this article.
Grant information
The author declares that the following grant supported this work:
‘CRUNCH – Operationalising the Food-Water-Energy Nexus’,
grant funded by the Economic and Social Research Council,
ESRC (UK), grant reference: ES/S002294/1
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and
analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Acknowledgements
This article was supported by the Urban Futures Lab at the
School of Architecture, University of Nevada at Las Vegas, USA;
see: https://www.urban-futures-lab.com/. The author is also grateful
for the assistance by Claire Coulter.
Page 11 of 13
Emerald Open Research 2019, 1:2 Last updated: 28 JAN 2019

References
Afanador A, Begemann E, Bourgault C, et al.: The potential of scaling up proven
low-carbon solutions. 2015.
Reference Source
Alberti M, Marzluff J: Ecological resilience in urban ecosystems: linking urban
patterns to human and ecological functions. Urban Ecosyst. 2004; 7(3): 241–265.
Publisher Full Text
ASHRAE: Guideline 10P, Interactions Affecting the Achievement of Acceptable
Indoor Environments, Second Public Review. ASHRAE, Atlanta, USA. 2010.
BBC News: UK’s most polluted towns and cities revealed. online news 4 March
2018, updated 4 May 2018; accessed 10 July 2018. 2018.
Reference Source
Benyus J: Biomimicry-Innovation inspired by Nature. 2002.
Reference Source
Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali L, Knight TM, et al.: Urban greening to cool towns and
cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landsc Urban Plan. 2010;
97(3): 147–155.
Publisher Full Text
Carson R: Silent Spring. Penguin Modern Classic, London and New York. 1962.
Reference Source
CPRE: State of Brownfield 2018: An analysis demonstrating the potential of
brownfield land for housing. Campaign to Protect Rural England; London, UK.
2018.
Reference Source
Cronon W: The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.
In William Cronon, ed., Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature,
New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1995; 69–90.
Reference Source
Doick KJ, Peace A, Hutchings TR: The role of one large greenspace in mitigating
London’s nocturnal urban heat island. Sci Total Environ. 2014; 493: 662–671.
PubMed Abstract
|
Publisher Full Text
Ellen MacArthur Foundation: The Circular Economy. A Wealth of Flows (2nd edn).
2017; accessed 10 July 2018.
Reference Source
European Union Commission, DG Research and Innovation: Towards an EU
research and innovate policy agenda for nature-based solutions and re-
naturing cities. Final report of the Horizon 2020 expert group on ‘Nature-based
solutions and re-naturing cities’, European Commission, Brussels, 2015; 70.
Publisher Full Text
European Union Commission: Nature-based Solutions: Innovating with Nature.
European Commission, Brussels, 2017; accessed 10 July 2018.
Reference Source
Fairchild T: The City Gardener. T. Woodward, London. 1722.
Reference Source
Fields in Trust: Revaluing Parks and Green Spaces. study published in 2018, UK;
2018; accessed 10 July 2018.
Reference Source
Girardet H: Cities, People, Planet: Urban Development and Climate Change (2nd
edn). John Wiley & Sons, London. 2008.
Reference Source
Grinde B, Patil GG: Biophilia: does visual contact with nature impact on health
and well-being? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009; 6(9): 2332–2343.
PubMed Abstract
|
Publisher Full Text
|
Free Full Text
Hand KL, Freeman C, Seddon PJ, et al.: The importance of urban gardens in
supporting children’s biophilia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114(2): 274–279.
PubMed Abstract
|
Publisher Full Text
|
Free Full Text
Hawken P, Lovins A, Lovins H: Natural Capitalism. Creating the Next Industrial
Revolution. Little Brown and Company, New York. 1999.
Reference Source
IPCC: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global
warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas
emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat
of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. In
Press, 2018.
Reference Source
Kabisch N, Frantzeskaki N, Pauleit S, et al.: Nature-based solutions to climate
change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators,
knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol Soc. 2016; 21(2): 39.
Publisher Full Text
Kellert SR: Biophilic Design. The Architecture of Life. Tamarack Media, USA.
movie, 2011.
Reference Source
Lang S, Rothenberg J: Neoliberal urbanism, public space, and the greening of
the growth machine: New York City’s High Line park. Environ plann A. 2017;
49(8): 1743–1761.
Publisher Full Text
Lehmann S: Urban microclimates: mitigating urban heat stress. Lehmann, S.
(ed.) Low Carbon Cities: Transforming Urban Systems, Routledge, London, 2015; 251.
Reference Source
Lehmann S: The challenge of transforming a low-density city into a compact
city. Bay JHP. and Lehmann, S. (eds) Growing Compact. Urban Form, Density and
Sustainability, Routledge, London, 2017; 69–93.
Reference Source
Lehmann S: Urban Regeneration: A manifesto for transforming UK cities in the
age of climate change. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2019.
Reference Source
Lennon M, Scott M: Delivering ecosystems services via spatial planning:
reviewing the possibilities and implications of a green infrastructure
approach. Town Plan Rev. 2014; 85(5): 563–587.
Publisher Full Text
Littke H, Locke R, Haas T: Taking the High Line: elevated parks, transforming
neighbourhoods, and the ever-changing relationship between the urban and
nature. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban
Sustainability. 2016; 9(4): 353–371.
Publisher Full Text
Lovelock JE: Gaia, a new look at life on Earth. Oxford University Press, UK. 1979.
Reference Source
Maes J, Jacobs S: Nature-Based Solutions for Europe’s Sustainable
Development. Conserv Lett. 2017; 10(1): 121–124.
Publisher Full Text
McDonough W, Braungart M: Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make
Things. North Point Press, New York, NY. 2002.
Reference Source
McHarg I: Design with Nature. Doubleday/Natural History Press, New York; Falcon
Press, Philadelphia. 1969.
Reference Source
Meadows D, Meadows DL, Randers J, et al.: The Limits to Growth: a report for
the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books,
New York, NY (1971 Report/1972 Book). 1972.
Reference Source
Meerow S, Newell JP, Stults M: Defining urban resilience. A review. Landscape
Urban Plan. 2016; 147: 38–49.
Publisher Full Text
MIT Senseable City Lab: Treepedia, developed in collaboration with WEF.
Cambridge MA, USA; accessed 5 Aug 2018. 2018.
Reference Source
Mitchell T, Harris K: Resilience: a risk management approach. Background Note
ODI, Overseas Development Institute, UK. 2012.
Reference Source
Murphy F, Russell M, Ewins C, et al.: The uptake of macroplastic & microplastic
by demersal & pelagic fish in the Northeast Atlantic around Scotland. Mar
Pollut Bull. 2017; 122(1–2): 353–359.
PubMed Abstract
|
Publisher Full Text
Nature Editorial: Climate talks are not enough. Nature. 2018; 556: 407–408.
Publisher Full Text
Neves J, Francke I: Creative product design using biomimetics. Design and
Nature VI: Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering, 2012; 4: 149.
Publisher Full Text
Office for National Statistics: Small Area Population Estimates 2013. Office for
National Statistics, London 2016.
Pauleit S, Jones N, Nyhuus S, et al.: Urban Forest Resources in European Cities.
In Urban Forests and Trees. ed Cecil Konijnendijk, Kjell Nilsson, Thomas Randrup,
Jasper Schipperijn. Springer Verlag; Berlin, Heidelberg. 2005.
Publisher Full Text
Rautio P, Hohti R, Leinonen RM, et al.: Reconfiguring urban environmental
education with ‘shitgull’ and a ‘shop’. Environ Educ Res. 2017; 23(10): 1379–1390.
Publisher Full Text
Register R: Eco-City Berkeley: Building Cities for a Healthy Future. North
Atlantic Books, Boston. 1987.
Reference Source
Rich N: Losing Earth: The Decade we almost stopped Climate Change. New
York Times, New York; accessed 10 Aug. 2018. 2018.
Reference Source
Rizvi AR, Baig S, Verdone M: Ecosystems Based Adaptation: Knowledge Gaps
in Making an Economic Case for Investing in Nature Based Solutions for
Climate Change. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN 48. 2015.
Reference Source
Sailor DJ: A Holistic View of the Effects of Urban Heat Island Mitigation. In Low
Carbon Cities: Transforming Urban Systems. Routledge, London, Ed. S. Lehmann,
2014; 270–281.
Reference Source
Schwarz K, Fragkias M, Boone CG, et al.: Trees grow on money: urban tree
canopy cover and environmental justice. PLoS One. 2015; 10(4): e0122051.
PubMed Abstract
|
Publisher Full Text
|
Free Full Text
Shanahan DF, Lin BB, Bush R, et al.: Toward improved public health outcomes
from urban nature. Am J Public Health. 2015; 105(3): 470–477.
PubMed Abstract
|
Publisher Full Text
|
Free Full Text
Page 12 of 13
Emerald Open Research 2019, 1:2 Last updated: 28 JAN 2019

Tansley AG: The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms. Ecology.
1935; 16(3): 284–307.
Publisher Full Text
TEEB for Business Coalition: Natural Capital at Risk. accessed 10 July 2018.
2013.
Reference Source
The World Forum on Natural Capital: What is Natural Capital? accessed 10 July
2018. 2018.
Reference Source
UNEP: The Emissions Gap Report 2017. United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), Nairobi, 2017.
Reference Source
UN-Habitat: The City We Need 2.0. United Nations Human Settlements Programme
(UN-Habitat). Nairobi, 2016.
Reference Source
University of Leicester: State of our countryside: Land-use map of the UK.
accessed 10 Aug. 2018. 2015.
Reference Source
U.S. EPA: Environmental Justice, policy by the EPA. Washington DC. accessed
10 July 2018. 2012.
Reference Source
Watts J: Domino-effect of climate events could move Earth into a ‘hothouse’
state. The Guardian, London; accessed 10 Aug. 2018. 2018.
Reference Source
Weissman G, Sargent R, Fanshaw B: Renewables on the Rise 2018, A Decade
of Progress Toward a Clean Energy Future. Environment America Research &
Policy Center; Denver, Colorado. 2018.
Reference Source
Wilson EO: The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press, New York. 1984.
Woo F, Wortmann J, Schurig S, et al.: Regenerative Urban Development: A
Roadmap to the City We Need. Hamburg: World Future Council. 2014.
Reference Source
World Health Organization (WHO): Healthy Cities. Promoting Health and Equity.
Copenhagen; accessed 10 July 2018. 2014.
Reference Source
Wright SL, Kelly FJ: Plastic and Human Health: A Micro Issue? Environ Sci
Technol. 2017; 51(12): 6634–6647.
PubMed Abstract
|
Publisher Full Text
Page 13 of 13
Emerald Open Research 2019, 1:2 Last updated: 28 JAN 2019