Built Environment
Green infrastructure, Nature-based solutions, Urban nature, spatial planning, Climate change adaptation, Urban densification, Environmental equity, Governanc

Perspectives on Urban Greenspace: Progress, Failures and Ways Ahead

About this issue

Issue number
Volume 51 – Number 4

Summary

Share

Global processes of urbanization are exerting unprecedented pressures on ecological systems, while cities themselves have become increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (Revi et al., 2014). In this context, green infrastructure (GI) and nature-based solutions (NbS) have emerged as key concepts guiding the transformation of urban areas towards greater sustainability and resilience (Pauleit et al., 2017). Both are now widely explored in inter- and transdisciplinary research initiatives, and many cities have adopted forward-looking green space strategies that reflect their principles (Escobedo et al., 2019; Matsler et al., 2021; Pauleit et al., 2019).

The concept of GI builds on earlier traditions in landscape ecology and planning, including greenway planning (Horte and Eisenman, 2020). Although interpreted in diverse ways, from technical stormwater management to more holistic frameworks for multifunctional urban landscapes, over the past two decades, GI has become firmly embedded in both the scientific literature and in practice, with significant global uptake (Mell, 2025). Here, we define it broadly as a strategic approach for planning networks of greenspaces in urban areas that provide multiple ecological, social, and economic benefits to society (Pauleit et al., 2020).

NbS is a more recent concept that has gained momentum for urban areas in Europe through extensive EU-funded transdisciplinary research and demonstration projects (Pauleit et al., 2017; Bulkeley et al., 2020; McPhearson et al., 2023). The EU defined NbS as ‘solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience’ (European Commission, 2021). Implementation-oriented action is emphasized, typically through participatory co-design, co-creation, and co-management processes situated in urban living labs. The two concepts discussed here are closely related, with GI emphasizing a planning perspective, while NbS tend to focus more on action and specific projects. However, due to the wide range and ambiguity of existing definitions for both concepts, it is important to recognize how they coexist and are sometimes used interchangeably in both scientific and practical contexts.

This special issue represents a continuation of earlier academic efforts to critically assess urban greenspace planning and policy. Twenty-two years ago, Built Environment published the issue Perspectives on Urban Greenspace in Europe (2003), which emerged from the EU-funded COST Action C11 ‘Greenstructure and Urban Planning’ (Werquin et al., 2005). That collection reflected the state of the art in European green space planning, with ‘greenstructure’ serving as a conceptual precursor to today’s GI discourse. A decade later, the EU-funded GREEN SURGE project (2013–2017) further advanced the GI concept, elaborating it as a strategic framework for multifunctional greenspace networks in urban contexts (Pauleit et al., 2019).

The urgent need to adapt to climate change and stop the loss of biodiversity, while also providing healthy urban environments for an increasing population, makes these discussions more pertinent than ever. Urban greenspaces are widely recognized as essential for both climate resilience and human wellbeing. However, their ongoing loss and degradation in many rapidly urbanizing areas reveal a continuing conflict between urban growth and ecological sustainability. Furthermore, governance of urban greenspaces has become increasingly complex, with conflicts over long-term stewardship, competing land-use priorities, and inequitable access to green benefits. Issues of social and environmental justice have become central to contemporary debates on urban greenspace (Anguelovski et al., 2019; Hoover et al., 2021; Pineda-Pinto et al., 2022).

Against this backdrop, this issue aims to provide insights into recent advances and persisting challenges in urban greening, framed as GI or NbS, while identifying future priorities in light of global urbanization trends. Contributions from Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Europe, alongside a global review, provide a deliberately international scope, thereby enabling comparison of shared challenges and locally specific responses.

Mell (2025) offers a comprehensive review of the evolution of GI since its inception, identifying core principles such as multifunctionality, connectivity, and accessibility as widely accepted in academia, while noting the diversity of practices globally. His analysis highlights how GI has been adapted through related concepts such as Urban Forestry (North America, Australia), Sponge City (China), and Water-Sensitive Urban Design (Australia), with local contexts shaping priorities and applications. Regional differences are striking: in dense Asian cities, vertical greening and rooftop gardens respond to limited land availability; in Latin America, GI debates are increasingly influenced by indigenous knowledge and contested governance; in Africa, overlapping formal and informal land rights pose significant challenges. Mell demonstrates GI’s strength as a bridging concept, enabling its adoption in such varied policy and legal frameworks.

Regional case studies from across the globe further illustrate the challenges of embedding GI and NbS in practice. Vásquez et al. (2025) analyse policies in Santiago (Chile), Bogotá (Colombia), and Lima (Peru), revealing both progress and limitations in urban greenspace planning. In all three cities, instruments have been developed at both regional and local levels that positively impact the advancement of green infrastructure. However, inequities in its distribution persist and may even be reinforced. To address these challenges, collaborative development of public policies is essential to break down municipal and sectoral silos, clearly defining concrete actions for implementation while strongly committing to equity.

Du Plessis and Breed (2025), focusing on Tshwane (South Africa), highlight the limited institutional support for GI alongside opportunities for cross-sectoral partnerships and inclusive co-management. Severe resource constraints and land invasions further worsen the situation. Their analysis draws on a review of policy documents, interviews, and a workshop with officials. Enu and Pauleit (2025) present a synthesis of NbS implementation pathways in Sub-Saharan Africa, proposing a multi-scalar roadmap including participatory governance, financing and integrated monitoring frameworks to address such systemic barriers. The paper also explores the effectiveness of different NbS scenarios for flood mitigation potential in a hydrological modelling approach.

From a European perspective, Hansen et al. (2025) examine Urban Nature Plans as a new strategic instrument emerging from the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030. Their analysis of German cities underscores both the potential and the limitations of this tool, depending on local capacities and political commitments. Pauleit et al. (2025) demonstrate the potential of urban GI for climate resilience at neighbourhood scales. In transdisciplinary projects, close collaboration between an interdisciplinary research consortium and the planning and environmental departments of the City of Munich (Germany) was crucial in transitioning from providing evidence to integrating climate mitigation and adaptation into planning processes. To create transformative change, it is essential to focus on systemic governance and mobility transitions.

Taken together, these contributions provide a broad overview of current developments in urban greening research and practice. They confirm that while conceptual progress has been substantial, significant barriers to implementation remain, rooted in governance complexity, political priorities, and structural inequalities. At the same time, they highlight the adaptability of GI and NbS as guiding frameworks across diverse contexts to address local challenges (Hansen et al., 2021; Mell, 2025). Local applications may bear different names, while sharing GI and NbS principles such as multifunctionality, connectivity and social inclusiveness.

The evidence supporting the social and environmental benefits of GI and NbS is increasingly strong, which aids in planning and implementing actions on the ground. However, we still need more information, particularly regarding the biodiversity of various GIs and NbS, and their connections to human health and wellbeing – a topic not addressed in this issue. Further inter- and transdisciplinary research and monitoring are also needed to understand the long-term impacts of GI strategies and their management implications, particularly regarding climate change adaptation and cost-benefit ratios from a lifecycle perspective.

To fully harness the transformative potential of GI and NbS, substantial changes are needed in how governments operate. This includes breaking down sectoral silos and fostering deeper engagement with civil society, particularly in addressing social and environmental injustices through co-governance frameworks. Additionally, local land use rights and regulatory frameworks must evolve to support multifunctional green infrastructure as systemic solutions in contested urban areas. Overcoming these and other identified barriers – discussed in several papers in this issue – will require more courage and a long-term commitment from political leaders.

Although six papers cannot cover every aspect, this issue contributes to ongoing discussions about how urban greenspaces, conceptualized as GI and NbS, can effectively support transformations towards sustainability and resilience in cities. Going forward, it will be essential to focus on justice, innovative governance, and systemic integration to fully realize this potential globally.

REFERENCES

  • Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J., Garcia-Lamarca, M., Cole, H. and Pearsall, H. (2019) New scholarly pathways on green gentrification: what does the urban ‘green turn’ mean and where is it going? Progress in Human Geography, 43(6), pp. 1064–1086. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132518803799.
  • Bulkeley, H., Naumann, S., Vojinović, Z., Calfapietra, C. and Whiteoak, K. (2020) Nature-based solutions. State of the art in EU-funded projects. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Accessible at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8bb07125-4518-1....
  • Du Plessis, T. and Breed, C. (2025) Finding recourse for public sector urban green infrastructure uptake in the City of Tshwane and beyond. Built Environment, 51(4), pp. 520–544.
  • Enu, K.B. and Pauleit, S. (2025) Moving NbS from concept to action in Sub-Saharan Africa: strategic pathways for scaling implementation. Built Environment, 51(4), pp. 545–568.
  • Escobedo, F.J., Giannico, V., Jim, C.Y., Sanesi, G. and Lafortezza, R. (2019). Urban forests, ecosystem services, green infrastructure and nature-based solutions: nexus or evolving metaphors. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 37, pp. 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.02.011.
  • European Commission & Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2021) Evaluating the Impact of Nature-based Solutions: A Summary for Policy Makers. Luxembourg: Publications Office. doi:10.2777/2219.
  • Galdámez, E., Kauark-Fontes, B., Vásquez, A., Salbitano, F., Mercado, G., Wild, T. and Pauleit, S. (2025) Beyond experimentation: how are urban nature-based solutions living labs in Europe and Latin America designed and implemented for transformative change? Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 21(1), 2545644. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2025.2545644.
  • Hansen, R., van Lierop, M., Rolf, W., Gantar, D., Šuklje Erjavec, I., Rall, E.L. and Pauleit, S. (2021). Using green infrastructure to stimulate discourse with and for planning practice: experiences with fuzzy concepts from a pan-European, a national and a local perspective. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 3, pp. 257–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-021-00087-2.
  • Hansen, R., Enderich, L. and Davis, M. (2025) Urban nature plans: strategic tool for integrated biodiversity and climate planning in German Cities. Built Environment, 51(4), pp. 569–587.
  • Hoover, F.-A., Meerow, S., Grabowski, Z. and McPhearson, T. (2021) Environmental justice implications of siting criteria in urban green infrastructure planning. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 23(5), pp. 665–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.1945916.
  • Horte, O. and Eisenman, T. (2020). Urban greenways: a systematic review and typology. Land, 9(2), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9020040.
  • McPhearson, T., Kabisch, N. and Frantzeskaki, N. (eds.) (2023) Nature-based Solutions for Cities.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Matsler, A.M., Meerow, S. Mell, I.C. and Pavao-Zuckerman, M.A. (2021). A ‘green’ chameleon: exploring the many disciplinary definitions, goals, and forms of ‘green infrastructure’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 214, 104145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104145.
  • Mell, I, (2025) Is the grass always greener? A retrospective analysis of Green Infrastructure Planning Post-1994. Built Environment, 51(4), pp. 466–491.
  • Pauleit, S., Zölch, T., Hansen, R., Randrup, T.B. and Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. (2017) Nature-based solutions and climate change – four shades of green, in Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J. and Bonn, A. (eds.) Nature-based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice. Cham: Springer Nature, pp. 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_3.
  • Pauleit, S., Ambrose-Oji, B., Andersson, E., Anton, B., Buijs, A., Haase, D., Elands, B., Hansen, R., Kowarik, I., Kronenberg, J., Mattijssen, T., Stahl Olafsson, A., Rall, E., van der Jagt, A.P.N. and Konijnendijk van den Bosch C. (2019) Advancing urban green infrastructure in Europe: outcomes and reflections from the GREEN SURGE project. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 40, pp. 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.10.006.
  • Pauleit, S., Hansen, R., Rall, E.L. and Rolf, W. (2020) Urban green infrastructure: strategic planning of urban green and blue for multiple benefits, in Douglas, I., Anderson, P.M.L., Goode, D., Houck, M.C., Maddox, D. , H. Nagendra, H. and Tan, P.Y. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Urban Ecology, 2nd ed. London: Routledge, pp. 931–941.
  • Pauleit, S., Erlwein, S., Feder, S., Linke, S. and Zölch, T. (2025) Climate resilient green cities of the future: building evidence for action. Built Environment, 51(4), pp. 588–613.
  • Pineda-Pinto, M., Frantzeskaki, N. and Nygaard, C.A. (2022) The potential of nature-based solutions to deliver ecologically just cities: lessons for research and urban planning from a systematic literature review. Ambio, 51, pp. 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01553-7.
  • Revi, A., Satterthwaite, D.E., Aragón-Durand, F., Corfee-Morlot, J., Kiunsi, R.B.R., Pelling, M., Roberts, D.C. and Solecki, W. (2014) Urban areas, in Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea. P.R. and White, L.L. (eds.) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 535–612. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/.
  • Vásquez, A., Giannott i, E., Galdámez, E., Dobbs, C., Amaya-Espinel, J.D., Marques, T. and Ramírez, P.L. (2025) Towards greener cities in Latin America: the role of policies in shaping urban vegetation dynamics. Built Environment, 51(4), pp. 492–519.
  • Werquin, A.C., Duhem, B., Lindholm, G., Oppermann, B., Pauleit, S. and Tjallingii, S. (eds.) (2005) Green Structure and Urban Planning: Final report (COST Action C11). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.