A Transformative Shift in Urban Ecology Toward A More Active and Relevant Future For The Field and For Cities

Ambio 2024, 53:871–889
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-01992-y
SHIFTS IN URBAN ECOLOGY
A transformative shift in urban ecology toward a more active

and relevant future for the field and for cities
Niki Frantzeskaki , Daniel L. Childers, Steward Pickett,
Fushcia-Ann Hoover, Pippin Anderson, Aliyu Barau,
Joshua Ginsberg, Morgan Grove, Marleen Lodder , Ariel E. Lugo,
Timon McPhearson, Tischa A. Muñoz-Erickson, Mien Quartier,
Selina Schepers, Ayyoob Sharifi, Katrien van de Sijpe
Received: 1 May 2023 / Revised: 7 November 2023 / Accepted: 2 February 2024 / Published online: 20 April 2024
Abstract This paper builds on the expansion of urban We present case study examples of each of the three pathways
ecology from a biologically based discipline—ecology in that make up this transformative shift in urban ecology and
the city—to an increasingly interdisciplinary field—ecology discuss both limitations and opportunities for future research
of the city—to a transdisciplinary, knowledge to action and action with this transdisciplinary broadening of the field.
endeavor—an ecology for and with the city. We build on this
‘‘prepositional journey’’ by proposing a transformative shift in Keywords Cities Co-production Transdisciplinary
urban ecology, and we present a framework for how the field Transformation Urban
may continue this shift. We conceptualize that urban ecology
is in a state of flux, and that this shift is needed to transform
urban ecology into a more engaged and action based field, and INTRODUCTION
one that includes a diversity of actors willing to participate in
the future of their cities. In this transformative shift, these The field of urban ecology has long been focused on
actors will engage, collaborate, and participate in a continuous addressing classic ecological questions in urban land-
spiral of knowledge ? action ? knowledge spiral and back scapes—what has been called ‘‘ecology in cities’’—and in
to knowledge loop, with the goal of co producing sustainable the last decades, it has expanded to include more inter-
and resilient solutions to myriad urban challenges. Our disciplinary and holistic social-ecological approaches—an
framework for this transformative shift includes three ‘‘ecology of cities’’ (Pickett et al 1997; Grimm et al. 2000;
pathways: (1) a repeating knowledge ? action ? Lin and Grimm 2015). More recently, an additional
knowledge spiral of ideas, information, and solutions expansion of urban ecology has acknowledged that the
produced by a diverse community of agents of urban change field now includes a more ‘‘hands-on’’ transdisciplinary
working together in an ‘‘urban sandbox’’; (2) incorporation of approach that is focused on real-world solutions as well as
a social–ecological–technological systems framework in this basic research—an ‘‘ecology for cities’’ (Childers et al.
spiral and expanding the spiral temporally to include the 2015) or ‘‘ecology with cities’’ (Pickett et al. 2022). We
‘‘deep future,’’ where future scenarios are based on a visioning conceptually position urban ecology as a broad field that is
of seemingly unimaginable or plausible future states of cities informed by inter- and transdisciplinary research and
that are sustainable and resilient; and (3) the expansion of the practice with diffused boundaries.
spiral in space, to include rural areas and places that are not yet We argue that the myriad challenges facing cities and
cities. The three interrelated pathways that define the societies today and into the future require a more involved,
transformative shift demonstrate the power of an urban even activist, urban ecology that is centered on constant
ecology that has moved beyond urban systems science and feedback of interdisciplinary knowledge to action, and
into a realm where collaborations among diverse knowledges back to knowledge. In this paper we present a framework
and voices are working together to understand cities and what including three potential pathways by which the field of
is urban while producing sustainable solutions to urban ecology may experience a transformative shift
contemporary challenges and envisioning futures of toward a future of solution-oriented action and enhanced
socially, ecologically, and technologically resilient cities. relevance. The need for this shift is supported by evidence
The Author(s) 2024

www.kva.se/en 123
872 Ambio 2024, 53:871–889
of a gap between available empirical urban ecological knowledge ? action ? knowledge process of ideas,
knowledge and the urban design, planning, policy, and information, and solutions taking place among a diverse
future visioning that it should be informing (Nesshover community of agents of urban change—we call this the
et al 2017; Gagné et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2021; Raska et al knowledge ? action ? knowledge spiral—that extends
2022). This transformative shift will position the field of beyond the feedbacks as generally defined in co-produc-
urban ecology as an agent of change for society by tion; (2) incorporation of a social–ecological–technological
ensuring that knowledge production, translation, and systems (SETS) framework and expanding the spiral
application are central, more meaningful (socially and upwards, or temporally, to include [what we call] the ‘‘deep
ecologically), and more impactful for both science and future,’’ where building future scenarios allows the
society. This centrality of knowledge ? ac- visioning of previously unimaginable future states of cities
tion ? knowledge feedback is the backbone of our trans- that are sustainable and resilient; and (3) the expansion of
formative shift framework (Fig. 1), which we describe this spiral sideways, or in space, to include rural areas and
below, and which presents a paradigm shift in the field to systems (sensu the Continuum of Urbanity; Boone et al
one that actively engages and informs ongoing policies and 2014; Zhou et al 2021) as well as places that are urban in
urban dynamics. As such, we conceptualize that urban character, but that are not yet cities. We unpack these three
ecology is in a state of flux with a continuous co-evolution transformative shift pathways in ‘‘Unpacking the transfor-
of concepts, knowledge ? action ? knowledge feedback mation shift’’ section.
loops, and engagement with practitioners and communities. Our framework for these transformative shift pathways
The three pathways that we propose to facilitate this begins with a diverse community of actors who work
transformative shift in urban ecology, and that we depict in toward and/or are interested in sustainable and resilient
our framework (Fig. 1), are: (1) a cyclical, reciprocal transformation for cities. These agents of change include
Fig. 1 The transformative shift framework. In this transformation of urban ecology, a diverse collection of actors work together in what we call
an ‘‘urban sandbox’’ (bottom) to address societal challenges in a constant, iterative knowledge ? action ? knowledge loop or spiral (center).
This interdisciplinary and equity-driven process of generating knowledge to solve problems includes social, ecological, and technological aspects
of the urban form, but it also involves consideration of broader, non-urban issues and challenges (rural areas and places that are not yet cities). A
key goal of this transformative shift to produce positive societal action is focus on not just tomorrow, but also on decades into the future, or what
we call the ‘‘deep future’’ (top)
The Author(s) 2024

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio 2024, 53:871–889 873
[among others] scientists, engineers, designers, planners, ecological systems to people (Hill et al. 2021)—is a con-
residents, artists, business owners, and activists. We envi- duit to renaturing the design and evolution of urban form.
sion and hence conceptualize a transformative shift in A key challenge is that this concept is lesser known and
which urban ecology is pursued by more than just urban understood outside academic circles (Brink et al. 2018;
ecologists. In Fig. 1, we situate them at the bottom of the Elliot et al. 2020; De Luca et al. 2021). This knowledge
knowledge ? action ? knowledge spiral in an ‘‘urban gap further corroborates the need for a more inclusive and
sandbox’’. This is a metaphor for the sandboxes often interconnected epistemological pathway between science
found in playgrounds, where children can come together to and practice in urban ecology. For example, urban eco-
play and cooperate; places where collaboration conquers logical infrastructure (Childers et al. 2019) is a more
conflict. We also draw inspiration from the regulatory inclusive term than green infrastructure because it includes
sandboxes, as spaces where different actors come together all urban components that support ecological structure and
to set courses for innovation in a ‘constructed absence of function in cities, not just those that are explicitly designed,
regulation,’ with the focus on collaborative or co-created constructed, or managed for human uses (sensu Barau et al.
innovations (Beckstedde et al. 2023). In our conceptual- 2013, 2020). Rethinking people’s connections to ecological
ization of the urban sandbox, we position the voluntary systems and efforts to curb biodiversity loss will require a
engagement of all interested actors as critical to con- more action-oriented and solution-driven perspective in
tributing to sustainable and resilient transformations in urban ecology. We describe the three pathways of this
cities. On either side of the sandbox are the pillars of ongoing (and needed) transformative shift in ‘‘Unpacking
interdisciplinary knowledge and societal action, with the the transformation shift’’ section, and we address both the
spiral being constant iterations between them. With this challenges of this transformation shift and the opportunities
continuous spiral of feedback loops, interdisciplinary it presents further in ‘‘Challenges and opportunities of the
knowledge is dynamic, builds continuously from social transformative shift in urban ecology’’ section.
actors’ interactions and weaved knowledges, and continu-
ously interacts, shapes, and is shaped by societal action and
vice versa. Embedded within this spiral are the ecological, UNPACKING THE TRANSFORMATION SHIFT
social, and technological systems, also known as SETS,
that make up the city’s infrastructures. Challenges and In this section, we explore three pathways that capture how
problems are constantly spinning into the knowl- the transformative shift is being manifest or simply how the
edge ? action ? knowledge spiral, which spins out sus- field is already moving toward an inclusive and open
tainable, resilient solutions. Where the spiral expands research paradigm. We also propose a direction for pro-
beyond this urban SETS realm, it is incorporating rural gressing urban ecology farther by bringing other disciplines
areas and systems and places with urban characteristics but on board.
that are not yet cities. And the spiral spins out of the top
into ‘‘deep futures’’ (Fig. 1). In this transformation of urban Pathway #1: Embracing
ecology, a diverse collection of actors work together in the knowledge ? action ? knowledge spiral
what we call an ‘‘urban sandbox’’ (bottom of Fig. 1) to
address societal challenges in a constant, iterative knowl- Moving from a linear model of knowledge to policy and
edge ? action ? knowledge loop or spiral (center of fo civic action toward a more interactive mode of how urban
rFig. 1). This interdisciplinary and equity-driven process of ecological knowledge connects to, builds from, and is
generating knowledge to solve problems includes social, enriched action is the first proposed pathway of the trans-
ecological, and technological aspects of the urban form, but formational shift. Specifically, this is a fundamental shift in
it also involves consideration of broader, non-urban issues urban ecology from knowledge-generating research to a
and challenges (rural areas and places that are not yet knowledge-to-action-to-knowledge enterprise. As we con-
cities). A key goal of this transformative shift to produce ceptualized in the urban sandbox model (Fig. 1), there are
positive societal action is focus on not just tomorrow, but continuous interactions and feedback among the diverse
also on decades into the future, or what we call the ‘‘deep knowledges that urban change agents bring to social action,
future’’ (top of Fig. 1). co-producing a spiral of connected interactions. Expertise
To develop this transformative shift, we draw from the and experience gained through participatory action
literature on ecosystem services, urban ecological infras- research or community-based participatory research prof-
tructure, and nature-based solutions to illustrate how the fers valuable lessons on how to grow, expand, and open the
transformative shift propagates and the conditions required knowledge inquiry process in urban ecology. This pathway
to facilitate it. The ecosystem services concept—alongside considers that in every scientific inquiry into real-life social
alternative conceptualizations such as the contributions of systems, such as urban systems, knowledge production
The Author(s) 2024

www.kva.se/en 123
874 Ambio 2024, 53:871–889
requires social validity that comes from consultation and Space for multi-actor engagement, activation, and co-
collaboration with willing social actors. While the co-pro- production
duction of knowledge in urban ecology is not a new concept
(Cadenasso and Pickett 2018), it is receiving increased This transformational pathway needs to create and advocate
attention as a mode of active engagement of diverse actors in for the inclusion of urban residents as stakeholders in decision-
framing social conditions for transformative and sustainable making processes and processes of city-making. This is not a
urban solutions (Frantzeskaki and Kabisch 2016; Kabisch common practice in urban planning, even though there is
2019; Visconti 2023; Wickenberg 2023). We argue that the considerable evidence of the value of ecological knowledge
continuous interactions between knowledge inputs and and perceptions of residents in shaping urban infrastructures.
social action must be both conceptualized and grounded in Modes of knowledge production such as co-design, and co-
empirical experiments and evidence. production already demonstrate how 360 degrees of knowl-
Pickett et al. (2021) posited that ecology with the city is edge generation is possible, albeit challenging and not immune
inherently transdisciplinary and requires interaction and to concerns about selective inclusivity or even intentional
co-production among scientists, decision-makers, regula- exclusivity. Grabowski et al. (2023) provide an analysis of 120
tors, and residents. Building from this understanding, they relevant green infrastructure plans in 20 U.S. city documents
noted that the ‘‘coproduction of just, actionable knowledge via text analysis that shows that equitable involvement of
[…] can be used in equitable ways for planning and residents and communities in the planning apparatus is, in fact,
managing the city’’. Andersson et al. (2022) argued for the rare. Current research notes the importance of multi-actor
need for multi-sector and multi-actor engagement in engagement, that regardless the effort put in especially in the
planning for nature in the city ‘‘to better account for non- European context (Collier et al. 2023), it is not (yet) a common
physical constraints, user perspectives and diversity among practice. Wellmann et al. (2023) pointed to the importance of
users.’’ Schaefer (2022) noted the value of co-production incorporating input from local communities when planning
for increasing understanding, respect, and trust among and designing nature-based solutions, moving to local
scientists, planners, and other decision-makers, and for knowledge integration for locally embedded nature-based
urban ecologists to reflect on their roles in the process. solutions. Such local knowledge integration for locally
Marshall et al. (2020) also showed how a knowledge-to- embedded nature-based solutions aligns well with theory and
action feedback loop can be organized to facilitate the cases studies on collaborative planning for nature-based
weaving of various stakeholder interests, perspectives, and solutions in cities (Vano et al. 2021). As Connop et al. (2016)
knowledges toward a ‘patch atlas’ tool and atlas ecological pointed out, the understanding and consideration of local
urbanism model. context needs to lead the design and development of local
Similarly, recent research on nature-based solutions also biodiversity interventions. Adding an intergenerational per-
points to the importance of recognizing and facilitating the spective to this, Grey et al. (2023) pointed to the importance of
feedback loops connecting communities, planners, and considering aging communities and individuals in the co-
scientists (Collier et al 2023). Wellmann et al. (2023) production of knowledge and place for ecological urbanism.
pointed to the need for inclusive language and transparency Shared spaces for knowledge co-production among diverse
in interactions, so these knowledge feedback loops are and willing actors, such as the urban sandbox show in Fig. 1,
acknowledged, and to ensure that equal footing is given to function to reconfigure power relations embedded in tradi-
expert and non-expert (often tacit, local, and/or Indige- tional systems of knowledge production (Patel 2022). An
nous) knowledge. In this co-production pathway, commu- important aspect of these shared, neutral spaces is the need to
nities and stakeholders include citizens, community decenter academia in the co-production of knowledge
organizations, and social enterprises alike, with their (Alonso-Yanez et al. 2019). Thinking from the urban sandbox
degree of engagement varying depending on the planning (Fig. 1), that may mean that in some urban contexts, citizens
issue or challenge and on the tacit knowledge and experi- may be the ones starting the feedback loop of knowledge to
ence needed to co-design and co-produce a solution. Zhou action to knowledge and start with shaping transformative
et al. (2021) noted that ‘‘urban ecosystem research is often solutions to urban challenges with scientists, joining the urban
justified by practical concerns’’ in their argument for a sandbox in later stages of the co-production process. This
transdisciplinary urban ecology as a basis for a science of means that the co-production of knowledge can and should
cities. For this pathway to progress, new institutional take place without the prominence of academic knowledge,
approaches need to be created by shifting ways of thinking while not neglecting its value (Rademacher et al 2018).
about the knowledge production enterprise to one of multi- The democratization of the knowledge enterprise of
actor engagement and for deconstructing social–ecological urban ecology has recognized value for urban planning and
injustices in how knowledge is employed for decision- for society. Moving to open modes of knowledge co-pro-
making (Muñoz-Erickson et al. 2017). duction allows for power redistribution and new
The Author(s) 2024

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio 2024, 53:871–889 875
relationships to be created (McHale et al 2018; Woroniecki in actively and openly engaging with citizens in the
et al. 2020). Going beyond advocating the importance of knowledge production process (Conte et al 2023) that is an
co-production to advancing approaches and tools to iterative, communication process (Bruckermann et al
achieve co-production has been an advancement of the 2022). Greving et al. (2023) argue that citizen science can
field in recent years. Zhou et al. (2021) showed how a achieve a sense of pride and responsibility for contributing
plurality of theories, when integrated into the meta-city to urban ecological conservation, which further relates to
concept, can facilitate a transdisciplinary pathway for awareness of urban wildlife. As with any open engagement
urban ecology. Co-production approaches have been tri- approach, citizen science is not immune to challenges and
aled, designed, and evaluated in different transdisciplinary limitations. Bonney (2021) specifically points out that cit-
settings (as designs) such as urban living labs (Frantzeskaki izen science field is increasingly more criticized about
2019; Barau et al. 2020; Mahmoud et al. 2021) and par- equity, diversity, and inclusion in the way volunteers are
ticipatory scenario development (Cook et al. 2021; De recruited and explains the challenges that come with such
Luca et al. 2021; Cook et al. 2022). an open approach to inquiry whereas recognizing the need
An example of democratizing knowledge is citizen for citizen science to ‘‘address historic inequities that have
science, which involves citizens collecting, documenting, limited whose knowledge is valued by and represented in
or broadly being active in the data collection phase of both academic research and regulatory monitoring.’’
research that also improves or enriches ecological literacy An illustrative case is presented in Box 1, which over-
(Bonney et al. 2009). Citizen science has shown potential views the different formats of co-production used by
Box 1: Re-connecting people–nature through co-production in the City of Genk, Belgium
The city of Genk, Belgium, has been undertaking urban regeneration of the Stiemer Stream over the past 10 years. The
banks of the stream were primarily paved and suffered from littering and sewage overflows because the city had turned
its back on the Stiemer many years ago, effectively stigmatizing any effort to rejuvenate the area (Tractebel et al 2019).
By envisioning the Stiemer and its surrounding valley as a connector of neighborhoods and social groups, the city
officers/planners of Genk were able to co-design a new planning process that engaged scientists, citizens, and
entrepreneurs in different forums and formats. Four co-production formats generated the most impactful outcomes in
terms of ideas, new senses of place and belonging of the communities, and nature-based enterprises, meaning local
small-medium enterprises that stewarded part of the valley for its protection and for deriving socio-economic benefits
from its regeneration such as beekeeping, eco-tourism activities, and nature management (Hill 2022). These four co-
production formats are:
(a) Co-design workshops with scientists, urban planners, and citizens: For the planning and implementation of the
Stiemer Valley large-scale regeneration project, the city of Genk engaged scientists and other experts on nature-based
solutions as systemic interventions to help regenerate the valley. From 2014 to 2022 14 of these co-design workshops
took place, focusing on different planning needs, such as the identification of nature-based solutions for sustainable
urban water drainage systems and urban trees, engagement with citizens to identify desires and needs for infrastructure
for recreation and cultural events, and monitoring and evaluation co-production workshops to assess progress and
outcomes. These workshops produced two long-term co-design trajectories (‘Junior Team’ and ‘Waterrijk Water-
schei’), of which the latter is still ongoing. An example of such a co-design trajectory is the Junior Team process—set
up by the city’s Youth Department and Environment department together with a local university college—that
involved twelve 10–12 years-old children to envision the future of the Stiemer valley, raising their awareness and
knowledge while co-developing ideas on how to make the valley attractive. Three resulting ideas were realized and
implemented, including a treehouse (Hölscher et al. 2020; Schepers et al. 2019)
(b) Stiemer Deals: Stiemer Deals are tailor-made agreements among the City of Genk and other stakeholders (e.g.,
individual citizens, organizations, private companies) in which the objectives of all parties are pursued, resulting in a
win–win situation for both. The Stiemer Deals concept embodies a social innovation strategy that enables multiple and
diverse actors to feel ownership over the Stiemer Valley planning process. The concept aims to accelerate the
socioeconomic transformation of the valley. An example of a Stiemer Deal outcome is a local organization for
psychologically vulnerable people that partnered with a Flemish nature organization to adopt and manage a grassland
habitat in the Stiemer Valley (Hölscher et al. 2022)
The Author(s) 2024

www.kva.se/en 123
876 Ambio 2024, 53:871–889
Box 1: (continued)
(c) Friends of the Stiemer Group: Created in November 2018, this is a group of engaged citizens that act as
ambassadors for the Stiemer process and mediate between the city government and citizens. This initiative epitomizes
structural, ongoing communication and participation in the Stiemer Valley process. The ’Friends of the Stiemer’
cooperate with the city administration and external experts in a citizens’ panel that follows the progress of the long-
term urban regeneration process. The group generates goals and ideas for implementation, mobilizes actors to par-
ticipate, informs about citizen agendas, and co-produces communicative initiatives and events. They meet two to four
times a year and are regularly updated between meetings by the city of Genk on the progress of the Stiemer Valley
regeneration (Hölscher et al. 2022)
(d) Reflexive monitoring: The co-production process was supported by a learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning
process based on Reflexive Monitoring (Beers and van Mierlo 2017; Dentoni et al.2016; Frantzeskaki et al 2016). For
3 years (2018–2020) this process was supported by the researchers of the Connecting Nature project, who applied the
scientific method with the city team to organize themselves (see guidebook: https://oppla.eu/product/23324, pp. 70–73).
This process helped the team record and track what they were learning over time and analyze the learning process. This
allowed them to connect short-term actions to the long-term transformative goals of the program. The learning outcomes
were analyzed for their contributions to the establishment of new rules, relations, practices, and discourses based on Beers
and van Mierlo (2017). Having explicit learning outcomes helped the city team communicate project results with project
outsiders. The city team embedded this learning process into the governance structure for the Stiemer Valley program,
linking strategic long-term goals to operational short-term actions, and are using it for other complex projects
Photograph 1: Example of a co-design workshop in October 2022: citizens, architects and employees of the city’s Environmental
department generating ideas on a specific site in the Stiemer Valley, Genk, Belgium. Photo credit: City of Genk
The Stiemer Valley regeneration process, as co-designed and co-produced by urban ecologists, urban planners,
designers, and citizens, demonstrated that different types of institutional settings are required and are possible for
including and empowering multiple actors in the city. Co-production processes tend to be time-intense and demanding,
requiring institutional creativity and flexibility from local administration and skills to develop them, so documenting
their outcomes, value, and impact is critical
The Author(s) 2024

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio 2024, 53:871–889 877
scientists, planners, and citizens in the City of Genk, Bel- urbanized landscapes are racialized and have been struc-
gium, in the context of an urban regeneration project for tured to create and maintain unjust social-ecological rela-
the Stiemer stream and valley. tionships (Hoover and Scarlett 2023). Unpacking and
addressing these legacy and current unjust relationships
Courage to recognize, unpack and remedy social– requires understanding personal experiences and connec-
ecological injustices tions to space and place (meaning understanding place-
making) and prioritizing community-led and community-
Opening the scientific inquiry of urban ecology to planners, engaged civilian science, activism, and planning (Raymond
civilians, and other knowledge holders will create oppor- et al 2023). In this vein, the Bronx River Alliance presents
tunities to address and remedy the legacies of past social a real-world example of how this broadening of the scope
and environmental injustice, making cities and their design, of urban ecology may be realized. This case (Box 2)
management, and futures equitable and just. Grabowski depicts an alliance that unroots injustices while broadening
et al. (2023 p. 3) noted that ‘‘planning is also a contested the focus to an urban ecology with and for people and
arena in which the rules governing urban systems can be nature.
rewritten in collaboration with marginalized communities
Box 2: The Bronx river alliance
The Bronx river alliance (BRA) is one organization that integrates research and activism to address ecological
concerns and environmental injustices. Founded in 2001, the BRA, formally the Bronx River Working Group, grew out
of community activism and engagement efforts with Partnership for Parks. Representing one of the most diverse
boroughs in New York City (NYC), the Working Group consisted of 30 different groups from across the borough, all
focused on the Bronx River as a resource. It brings key communities together to develop a vision for the river (e.g.,
open space, ecological goals, education, connectivity, outreach). Meeting semi-annually, the Working Group is
comprised teams focused on different aspects of the Bronx River and adjacent community needs like housing, arts, or
public services. It is important to note that the Bronx River flows from Westchester County (one of the wealthiest
counties in New York State and the U.S., into the Bronx (the poorest region in the State of New York). Despite being a
community-initiated organization, BRA was a majority-white-led organization by 2005. In response to this and
continued feedback from the BRA teams and community members for staff who reflected the community, Executive
Director Maggie Greenfield spent the next 10–15 years hiring through local recruitment to fill internships, entry-level
organizing positions, and volunteer staffing, promoting internally. A leadership and coordinator team that was once all
white now has a 40% white leadership team and staff that is 90% people of color. As Ms. Greenfield noted, ‘‘The
mission is also felt more deeply by members in the community,’’ which strengthens the organization and ensures
longevity
An important facet of how BRA practices urban social ecology is through its programming and community science,
specifically Project Waste, Project Water Drop, and Ecoteams. These programs engage residents by asking them to
collect and contribute data on the river, including concerns or issues they see in their neighborhoods, experiences, and
priorities. Through these Ecoteams, reports, and presentations on Rivers are drafted with input from teams, the semi-
annual assembly, and public meetings on a watershed plan. An engineering firm then brings together this information
and input to help inform priorities. One example of this process was the 2010 Inter-Municipal Joint Plan, published in
collaboration with the NYC Parks and Westchester County; the plan incorporated biology, engineering, community
perspectives, lived experiences along the river, and various stakeholder engagement. Since its formal founding, BRA
has worked to maintain community leadership and to create visioning and management plans that address the river’s
water quality problems, experiences with the river, and other community needs
to achieve equitable transformations.’’ That further points Pathway #2: Embracing the SETS framework
to the opportunity for restoring justice through collabora- and expanding the spiral into the ‘‘deep future’’
tion and co-production in planning between planners, sci-
entists, and communities. The first efforts in this work can Much of the infrastructure that is designed, constructed and
and should be acknowledgment and acceptance of how our managed to make cities more resilient is highly engineered
The Author(s) 2024

www.kva.se/en 123
878 Ambio 2024, 53:871–889
and technocentric. In this pathway, urban ecology expands Using the SETS framework and approach to develop
its social-ecological focus from ‘‘nature in the city’’ to scenarios by weaving different knowledges and perspec-
explicitly embrace the built environment with a robust tives is one way to expand the knowledge ? ac-
social–ecological–technological systems paradigm that tion ? knowledge spiral in time and into ‘‘deep futures’’.
reconciles and considers historical context and contempo- Cities are spatial entities, and urban ecology has long been
rary conditions, such as politics, to evolve the field (Pickett a science of spatial variation, with considerably less
and Cadenasso 2008). Markolf et al. (2018) argued that this emphasis on temporal variability. The concept of dynamic
single-focused approach to stability in urban systems heterogeneity (Pickett et al. 2017) effectively bridges space
makes cities more vulnerable to infrastructural failures by and time, and Ossola et al. (2021) argued for a stronger
creating a false sense of security (Chester et al. 2023), and emphasis on temporal dynamics in urban systems science.
that urban infrastructure should be viewed as complex and Their concept of an ‘‘urban chronos’’ (chronos in Greek
interconnected social–ecological–technological systems means time, introducing the temporal dimension) is
(SETS; Grimm et al. 2015; McPhearson et al. focused on changes in urban ecosystems over time, which
2016, 2021, 2022). The SETS literature is growing rapidly, is the first bridge to considering the ‘‘deep future’’ of cities
and includes scholarship on the relationship between urban and urban systems. We argue that using scenarios and
SETS and disturbance (Grimm et al. 2017; Lugo future visioning, and their fully inclusive and
2019, 2020), the use of SETS to reduce urban flood risk equitable development, is an excellent forum for thinking
(Chang et al. 2021), enhancing positive SETS feedbacks to about urban systems with a long temporal vision. In their
address heat- and drought-induced stresses on urban review of the recent history of scenario planning, which
ecosystems (Wellmann et al. 2023), the governance and was not explicitly urban-focused, Varum and Mello (2010)
environmental justice implications of urban SETS (Pineda- noted the importance of including both researchers and
Pinto et al. 2021; Krueger et al. 2022), and the multi- practitioners in the scenario planning process. Dixon
functional ecosystem services provided by SETS (McP- (2022) presented a framework for urban science research
hearson et al. 2022). Branny et al. (2022) drew on this that highlights the importance of the built environment—
literature to present a systems approach for ‘‘smarter, the ‘‘T’’ in SETS—when addressing [what he referred to
greener’’ cities that utilizes SETS-based integrated solu- as] urban systems science and sustainable urban futures. In
tions rather than more traditional, single-dimensional, other words, the development of scenarios and future
technology-heavy solutions. Chester et al. (2020) made a visions must, from the start, include planners, designers,
strong case for the vulnerability of exclusively engineered and engineers. Other authors have argued for the impor-
infrastructure in the face of a future of uncertainty. Recent tance of normative approaches to futures visioning exer-
research on nature-based solutions as systemic solutions for cises, particularly when the goal is more sustainable and
building urban climate resilience (Frantzeskaki et al. 2019) resilient urban systems (Pelling et al. 2023). There are
has argued for adoption of a SETS approach to systemat- several recent examples in the literature of this type of
ically understand how implementation of greening or normative, values-based, co-produced future scenarios for
renaturing programs, and urban ecological infrastructure, cities, and an example that is proximal to several of the
may be realized (Wellmann et al. 2023). In the same vein, authors of this paper is Iwaniec et al. (2020). Finally, and
SETS has informed diagnostic studies of urban injustices, perhaps most resonant with the goals of this paper, is the
and has been used to integrate concepts from ecological recent work by Mansur et al. (2022) on nature futures for
justice, urban ecology, and post-humanism (Pineda-Pinto cities. Their approach calls for a melding of fully partici-
et al. 2021). The most robust solutions to urban resilience patory visioning exercises with quantitative models that are
challenges are likely to come from multidimensional SETS focused on urban social–ecological feedback, assessing the
approaches (McPhearson et al. 2016). For this to be real- indirect effects of cities on biodiversity, and the use of
ized, the knowledge ? action ? knowledge spiral will multi-scalar indicators and future scenarios. Components
provide inclusive learning spaces to co-produce SETS of all such approaches should be used by urban ecologists
knowledge and inter- and transdisciplinary research as we strive to extend the knowledge ? ac-
designs and practices. As Feagan et al. (2023) stated: tion ? knowledge spiral into deep urban futures in the
‘‘SETS knowledge co-production requires a context- most inclusive, equitable, and just ways possible, and
specific pedagogical design for interrupting dominant Box 3 is an example of this.
power relations to allow new knowledge-sharing practices
to emerge.’’
The Author(s) 2024

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio 2024, 53:871–889 879
Box 3: New York city’s climate adaptation scenarios
New York City has created a wide range of hazard mitigation, emergency response, and climate adaptation and
mitigation plans over the last decade and more. However, there are no plans that look beyond 2050, or into the ‘‘deep
future,’’ and very few plans that examine the multi-hazard context that is already affecting people, infrastructure, and
ecosystems in the city in the face of climate and weather-related extreme events. As part of a National Science
Foundation-funded Converging SETS for Urban Resilience project, a team at The New School, Barnard College,
Georgie State University, Arizona State University, and the USDA Forest Service developed and facilitated a process
to allow diverse stakeholders across multiple levels of city government to collaborate in a series of workshops designed
to enable the development of visions, scenarios, goals, targets, and strategies for delivering a resilient, equitable, and
sustainable New York City by 2100. This was a truly deep future approach
Approximately 35 government practitioners from 24 of all relevant city, state, and federal agencies gathered
virtually over the course of 5 weeks. Together, participants co-developed six distinct climate adaptation scenarios. The
goal of each future scenario was to radically transform the social, environmental, and physical infrastructure of the
city—including governance, UEI, and water-energy-transit systems—as well as the ability to respond effectively to
extreme events. Participants worked in small groups to envision six scenarios for resilient futures of New York City in
2100. The envisioned future scenarios addressed multiple co-occurring hazards, coastal flooding, extreme heat, winter
extremes, extreme precipitation, and drought and shifting water demand (Cook et al. 2022)
Scenario themes were developed in response to practitioner concerns and existing sustainability and environmental
management plans. Activities included innovative ideation, timelines, visual illustrations, and day-in-the-life narra-
tives, and participants defined long-term goals and strategies for each scenario to develop radical deep future visions
for New York City in 2100. Existing NYC climate governance and strategies were seeded as a starting point to inform
scenario development and build on visionary work already happening in the city. This scenario and future visioning
development exercise used the SETS conceptual framework to guide visioning processes, including ensuring that all
participants considered social, ecological, and technological aspects of both challenges and solutions. Additionally,
taking the systems approach forward meant examining SETS couplings (McPhearson et al. 2021; Branny et al. 2022).
This meant examining the social–ecological (S–E), social–technological (S–T), and ecological–technological (E–T)
dimensions, dynamics, and feedbacks of climate impacts and deep future solutions (Fig. 2)
Pathway #3: Expanding the spiral to include places and understanding of social and place dynamics while co-
that are not yet urban shaping the ideas and solutions attuned to the future of their
localities. The new knowledge that will emerge from these
It is important that urban ecologists think beyond merely transformative solutions should also help guide and inform
places that are urban today and recognize what can be new growth and rehabilitation in existing cities.
learned about and from places that are on their way to A context for this transformative shift in urban ecology,
becoming cities as well as place that are not yet urban. to considering places not yet cities, is the urban–rural
These places may be towns or villages that are likely to be comparison/contrast history of the discipline. Urban–rural
cities in the future; but they may also be places with urban gradient analyses, comparisons, and inter-dependencies
characteristics but that are clearly not what would be have a long history in urban ecology. Researchers such as
classically defined as cities (sensu McHale et al. 2015). Gutierrez-Vélez et al. (2022) have argued that these con-
Smaller or newer cities and towns/villages that are not yet ceptual and empirical approaches have always had a
cities are far less burdened by systemic inertias—infras- strongly urban-centric focus and that a re-centering of
tructural, institutional, and social—than are existing cities urban–rural thinking should be (re)conceptualized. For
(Childers et al 2014). We argue that these new cities, and such a recentering, connectivity and interconnectivity are
places that are urban but are not yet cities, are prime venues key to moving away from a strictly urban-centric approach
to demonstrate that transformation in urban forms is to thinking beyond existing cities. There is clear justifica-
desirable and possible (Childers et al. 2015) and that it tion that we live in an urban century. The majority of
works to enhance resilience (Andersson et al. 2022). people currently live in cities, and in the future many more
Thinking from the urban sandbox perspective, in these people will live in urban areas. Urban systems are simul-
places all actors need to and can contribute their knowledge taneously viewed as either the innovation saviors of
The Author(s) 2024

www.kva.se/en 123
880 Ambio 2024, 53:871–889
Fig. 2 Winter extremes scenario visualization by Artist Ann Armstrong for the NYC Adaptation Scenarios (Cook et al. 2022)
sustainability and resilience, or the source of the largest vulnerability in rural communities. Tools such as this
challenges we are facing (Artmann et al. 2019; Seto et al. framework will help urban systems researchers understand
2012). An example of expanded urban thinking is the multifaceted rural vulnerability and its dependence on the
conceptual framework Jamshed et al. (2020) presented on urban systems to which these rural areas are linked and
how rural–urban dynamics are linked to flooding networked. However, we posit that urban ecologists need to
The Author(s) 2024

123 www.kva.se/en
Box 4: Places that are not yet urban
One of the hallmarks of the transformative shift is to focus beyond areas that are currently identified as cities in particular or as urban in general. This expansion
of the focus on the nature of urban places and life beyond the official limits, or the familiar human density, infrastructural intensity, and concentration of
resources and economical consumption, was highlighted by Henri Lefebvre (originally 1968, trans-2003). He spoke of how the urban, including its influence on
industrial agriculture, eroded, and subsumed rural livelihoods and village life. Many scholars have documented the increasingly regional and global reach of
urban characteristics and processes. City limits and municipal boundaries are no longer an adequate focus of attention on urban phenomena. For example, rural
Ambio 2024, 53:871–889
areas of the Amazon now experience connections of demand and influence from urban centers (Brondizio et al. 2016). Similarly, large discount stores and online
shopping insert urban aesthetics and amenities into small towns and homes distant even from villages and hamlets (Güneralp et al. 2013). And tourist rentals and
vacation homes insert urban lifestyles, leisure habits, new service jobs, and capital into formerly agricultural or pastoral landscapes, displacing employment and
populations tied to the land (Hof and Blázquez-Salom 2013)
The Yanqi Valley example we present here is based on collaborative research among co-authors Childers and Pickett and Weiqi Zhou, from the Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Beijing. We focus on the transformation of this rural valley on the fringe of Beijing, China, from a formerly agricultural and orchard
landscape embedded in a forest matrix into a tourist destination. With better connectivity to the increasingly well-off population of Beijing and connection via
the internet to vacationers from other countries, a tourist-based economy is rapidly supplanting the past dominance of farming. The figure here shows the 94 km2
watershed of the Yanqi Valley, with hypotheses of some variables that index the increasing urban influences on this once and seemingly rural watershed.
Notably, these hypotheses are framed using the Continuum of Urbanity, mentioned earlier
www.kva.se/en
The Author(s) 2024
123
881
882 Ambio 2024, 53:871–889
think about rural systems from the standpoint of places that
influx of regional and international consumers of ‘‘rural’’ experiences. This is an excellent example of urbanity beyond the boundaries of a city. Indeed, in
These hypotheses emphasize that with the increasing pressure and influence from leisure-seeking urbanites, the following changes have been taking place: (1)
consumption rather than agricultural production; and (3) the local ecosystem or place becomes biotically and biogeochemically altered and likely degraded. All
these changes flow from the increasing ease of (4) connectivity, including information, resources, and actual travel, that the Yanqi Valley experiences with the
illustrates the kind of pervasive influence that Lefebvre envisioned for the urban over the rural (Lefebvre 2003). See the paper by Pickett et al. (2024) on the
livelihoods of valley residents shift from farming and orcharding to service in a tourism industry; (2) lifestyles of local residents become more oriented around
response to these pressures, the Yanqi Valley is likely transforming to be more conspicuously urban in structure and influence. At the least, this example
Relational Shift in Urban Ecology: From Place and Structure to Multiple Modes of Coproduction for Positive Urban Futures, in this Special Feature, for more
are not yet cities. Boone et al. (2014) presented a theoret-
ical and conceptual construct called the ‘‘continuum of
urbanity’’ that helps bridge this rural–urban divide. In
Box 4 we present an example of how this continuum of
urbanity concept can be expanded to think beyond places
that are merely rural today, and to include places that may
[or may not] be currently urban but that are clearly not yet
cities.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

OF THE TRANSFORMATIVE SHIFT IN URBAN
ECOLOGY
Challenges
Co-production incorporating urban ecological knowledge

comes with challenges (Pathway #1). Safeguarding insti-
tutional spaces for this mode of knowledge enterprise
requires time, effort, and governance capacity that are
typically only standard practice in some cities, especially in
medium-sized and small cities (Patel 2022). Scoggins et al.
(2022) pointed to the power and trust differentials among
planners, experts, and citizens in restoration projects, and
noted that institutional settings often restrict a shift to more
equitable participation and engagement approaches.
Another challenge is that of language and vernacular (i.e.,
terms and jargon used by participants are not always
aligned nor common) and speed difference among scien-
tists, planners, residents, and others in terms of syn-
chronicity between policy cycles and scientific discovery
(also mentioned in Frantzeskaki et al 2019). This requires
time to adjust to each other’s worlds, to truly connect, and
to ensure that everyone is talking about the same topics and
issues. To overcome these challenges, urban ecology must
continue building from knowledge and experience of other
disciplines, mainly those with longstanding expertise with
collaborative research (such as Participatory Action
Research) and innovating transdisciplinary inquiry, such as
discussion of urbanity beyond the city
sustainability science (Pereira et al. 2019). Such cross-over

with other disciplines will continue strengthening urban
ecology research as it adopts community-based approaches
and collaborative research (Gordon et al 2019; Boone et al
2020). This ‘‘ecology for and with cities’’ push is mainly
directed at urban planning and urban landscape architec-
Box 4: (Continued)
ture, with recent research efforts to integrate other disci-

plines, such as design thinking to inform transdisciplinary
inquiry of urban ecology with cities (Marshall et al. 2020).
Knowledge and thinking from disciplines that are focused
on social and environmental justice and equity also needs
to be firmly embedded in the
The Author(s) 2024

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio 2024, 53:871–889 883
knowledge ? action ? knowledge spiral (Schell et al based solutions that is centered on collaborative research
2020; Pickett and Grove 2020; Roberts et al 2022). designs and open science principles. This will open the
Another key challenge pertains to integrating SETS process to new knowledges, experiences, and solutions to
thinking and approaches into urban planning (Pathway #2). co-produce sustainable and resilient urban pathways based
In most planning processes, social, ecological, and tech- on nature-based solutions, expanding toward nature-based
nological components have traditionally been pursued urbanism futures. This will not only enhance inclusivity in
separately (Mehvar et al. 2021) and their integration has the planning and governance of nature-based solutions
not received enough attention. What role should urban (Kabisch et al 2022) but it will also strengthen the place-
ecologists play in promoting these integrative and systemic suitability of selected nature-based solutions (Croeser et al
SETS approaches? The arguments have been made that 2021). In a real sense, this is a call to decolonialize the
urban ecologists need to become more informed about and traditional Western approaches to and ways of thinking
involved in practices such as design (Pickett et al. 2022; about science, including urban ecology.
Childers et al. 2015) and planning (Grove et al. To be part of this transformation shift, urban ecologists
2017, 2018), that design and planning need to consider will need to transform themselves from scientist-re-
multiple ecosystem services (Andersson et al. 2015; searchers into researcher-practitioners and play a stronger
Meerow and Newell 2017), and that planning should role in initiating dialog with designers, planners, and
include ecological performance evaluation (Cortinovis and decision-makers. Co-production contributes to the moti-
Geneletti 2020). Urban ecologists have now started to vation of citizens but also practitioners in the planning,
engage with engineering (Markolf et al 2018; Chester et al design, and stewardship of urban ecosystems and thus
2023), which is fundamentally responsible for most urban helps to strengthen the initiatives and their impact on
built infrastructure. Many engineered and built solutions society. This will require a more reflexive practitioner
are becoming less reliable and more vulnerable to systemic stance in the knowledge enterprise that can center on
failures and collapse precisely because they are based on internalizing different ways of generating knowledge. This
concepts of rigidity, inflexibility, and experience from the will require moving beyond recognizing the positionality
past. These built solutions were designed and built based of urban ecologists as well as their contribution to co-
on past conditions and are often unprepared for the production that incorporates urban ecological knowledge
uncertainties of current and future climate change pres- with other knowledges. The inverse is also needed: An
sures. Their prevalence is an effect of institutional lock-in education and training of urban planners and other co-
that posits them as the preferred options for urban infras- production practitioners on how to work with scientists,
tructure development, with seemingly little consideration raising awareness of what is needed and what can be
of urban sustainability or urban resilience goals (Buzási gained from it.
and Csizovszky 2023). An additional opportunity to accelerate this transfor-
mation shift comes from the increasing advances in infor-
Opportunities mation and communication technologies that intersect with
urban ecology. These advances, including the widespread
In order to advance and accelerate this transformative shift use of sensors and wearable devices, have facilitated the
of urban ecology, we need to educate future urban ecolo- development of urban tools and platforms that streamline
gists to be inter- and transdisciplinary thinkers and pro- interactions across social, ecological, and technological
fessionals using new pedagogical and mentoring practices domains. Among other things, such tools and platforms can
and paradigms that go far beyond the traditional paradigms enhance the efficacy and efficiency of urban operations,
of linear connections from knowledge to policy/planning increase adaptive capacity to unpredictable climate-in-
and society. This will require changes in scientific prac- duced stressors, enable real-time response to emerging
tices, including long-held beliefs about scientific objectiv- needs, facilitate enhanced visioning and scenario planning,
ity, in relations between scientists and communities and and foster bottom-up engagement of stakeholders in plan-
planners, and in assumptions about science-society ning and environmental stewardship initiatives (Ward et al.
boundaries, epistemological inclusivity, and exclusivity. 2019; Li and Nassauer 2021; Wellmann et al., 2023). These
This is also relevant to research and practice of nature- new technologies can also benefit urban ecologists by
based solutions in cities, where the need for more inclusive connecting them with various actors—members of the
and open science approaches have been advocated as urban sandbox—and incorporating the knowledges of
needed to deal with their design and implementation for previously marginalized actors. Achieving these benefits,
more just urban futures (Raymond et al 2023; Tozer et al however, hinges on ensuring that smart systems and tech-
2020; Wickenberg 2023). Specifically, the urban sandbox nological solutions are inclusive and do not create new
in Fig. 1 is the venue for transdisciplinary design of nature- forms of inequalities in society.
The Author(s) 2024

www.kva.se/en 123
884 Ambio 2024, 53:871–889
CONCLUSION Ecological Research program which has been supported by the U.S.
National Science Foundation for 26 years (current grant: DEB-
2224662). STAP acknowledges support via the Baltimore Ecosystem
We began with a brief review of the expansion of urban Study, NSF DEB 1855277; DLC acknowledges support from the
ecology from an ecology in cities to an ecology of cities, and Central Arizona-Phoenix LTER Program, NSF DEB-1832016 and
to what is now an ecology for or with cities. In this trans- DEB-2224662. TME acknowledges support from the SETS Conver-
disciplinary phase, urban ecology is continuing to transform gence project, NSF ENG-1934933. TM acknowledges support from
NSF grants 1444755, 1927167, and 193493. The work in Puerto Rico
as a boundless field. We see urban ecology growing and by the USDA Forest Service was done in collaboration with the
maturing as the transformative shift we present here opens University of Puerto Rico. The findings and conclusions in this article
scientific inquiry to other experts, to planners, and to citizens are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any
and communities—to an all-inclusive urban sandbox of official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.
willing actors. We see this transformative shift through the Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
three pathways, and we present a framework for how these Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
pathways intertwine. The first pathway builds on existing adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as
good practices in urban ecology that are centered collabo- long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
ration and co-production and growing them into a knowl- if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
edge ? action ? knowledge spiral that is constantly article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
iterating in response to new problems and challenges, and is indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
constantly producing sustainable and resilient solutions. To included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
demonstrate the efficacy of this spiral, we presented two case use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
studies on the co-production of transformative solutions in holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.
the Stiemervalley, Belgium, and on inclusive, just co-pro- org/licenses/by/4.0/.
duction of solutions for the Bronx, New York. The second
pathway positions interdisciplinary SETS approaches as
central to the knowledge ? action ? knowledge spiral. REFERENCES
The second pathway will strengthen the resilience of urban
Alonso-Yanez, G., L. House-Peters, M. Garcia-Cartagena, S. Bonelli,
infrastructures and decision-making processes as it spirals I. Lorenzo-Arana, and M. Ohira. 2019. Mobilizing transdisci-
into the realm of deep futures in a temporal extension that plinary collaborations: Collective reflections on decentering
acknowledges both the uncertainties and the opportunities academia in knowledge production. Global Sustainability 2: E5.
that the future holds. We demonstrate the value of this focus https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.2.
Andersson, E., D. Haase, J. Kronenberg, J. Langemeyer, A.
on SETS approaches and on the deep future with a case study Mascarenhas, M. Wolff, and T. Elmqvist. 2022. Based on
of the development of future urban climate resilient sce- nature, enabled by social-ecological-technological context:
narios for New York City. The third pathway in our trans- Deriving benefit from urban green and blue infrastructure.
formative shift framework expands urban ecology with a Ecology and Society 27: 18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13580-
270418.
renewed focus on rural areas and places that are not yet Andersson, E., T. McPhearson, P. Kremer, E. Gomez-Baggethun, D.
urban, acknowledging that roughly half of the places that Haase, M. Tuvendal, D. Wurster. 2015. Scale and context
will be cities in 2050 are not yet urban. Our fourth case dependence of ecosystem service providing units. Ecosystem
study, from the Yanqi Valley in China, demonstrates the Services (Special Issue) 12: 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoser.2014.08.001.
opportunities for transformative urban change beyond pla- Artmann, M., L. Inostroza, and P. Fan. 2019. Urban sprawl, compact
ces that are currently cities, with their embedded systemic urban development and green cities. How much do we know,
inertias that often fight real change. Finally, we recognize how much do we agree? Ecological Indicators 96: 3–9. https://
the importance of weaving equity and justice throughout the doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.10.059.
Barau, A.S., K.M. Kafi, A.B. Sodangi, and S.G. Usman. 2020.
entire transformative shift framework as we continually Recreating African biophilic urbanism, the roles of millennials,
work to undo the legacies of discrimination in our cities and native trees, and innovation labs in Nigeria. Cities Health 2020:
of colonialist thinking in the science of urban ecology. 1–11.
Barau, A.S., A.N.M. Ludin, and I. Said. 2013. Socio-ecological
Acknowledgements This paper emerged from ‘‘Preparing Urban systems and biodiversity conservation in African city: Insights
Ecology to Contribute to Positive Urban Futures:’’ A Workshop in the from Kano Emir’s Palace gardens. Urban Ecosyst 16: 783–800.
Cary Conference Series. This virtual meeting held in 2021 was sup- Beckstedde, E., M. Correa Ramirez, C. Rafael, J. Vanschoenwinkel,
ported by the Science Innovation Fund of Cary Institute of Ecosystem and L. Meeus. 2023. Regulatory sandboxes: Do they speep up
Studies and has allowed the diverse author team to begin and continue innovation in energy? Energy Policy 180: 113656. https://doi.
dialog since that time to plan and write this paper jointly. NF, ML, SS, org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113656.
KS, MQ acknowledge that the research presented in the paper is from Beers, P.J., and B. van Mierlo. 2017. Reflexivity and learning in
the European Horizon 2020 research project on nature-based solutions system innovation processes. Sociologia Ruralis 57: 415–436.
for urban transitions CONNECTING NATURE (Grant #730222). https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12179.
DLC was supported by the Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term
The Author(s) 2024

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio 2024, 53:871–889 885
Bonney, R. 2021. Expanding the impact of citizen science. BioS- Change 10: 488–490. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0741-
cience 71: 448–451. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab041. 0.
Bonney, R., C.B. Cooper, J. Dickinson, S. Kelling, T. Phillips, K.V. Childers, D.L., P. Bois, H.E. Hartnett, T. McPhearson, G.S. Metson,
Rosenberg, and J. Shirk. 2009. Citizen science: A developing and C.A. Sanchez. 2019. Urban ecological infrastructure: An
tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. inclusive concept for the non-built urban environment. Ele-
BioScience 59: 977–984. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11. menta: Science of the Anthropocene 7: 46. https://doi.org/10.
9. 1525/elementa.385.
Boone, C. 2014. Property and political order in Africa: Land rights Childers, D.L., M.L. Cadenasso, J.M. Grove, V. Marshall, B.
and the structure of politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University McGrath, and S.T.A. Pickett. 2015. An ecology for cities: A
Press. transformational nexus of design and ecology to advance climate
Boone, C.G., S.T.A. Pickett, G. Bammer, K. Bawa, J.A. Dunne, I.J. change resilience and urban sustainability. Sustainability 7:
Gordon, D. Hart, J. Hellmann, et al. 2020. Preparing interdis- 3774–3791. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7043774.
ciplinary leadership for a sustainable future. Sustainability Childers, D.L., S.T.A. Pickett, J.M. Grove, L. Ogden, and A.
Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00823-9. Whitmer. 2014. Advancing urban sustainability theory and
Boone, C.G., C.L. Redman, H. Blanco, D. Haase, J. Koch, S. Lwasa, action: Challenges and opportunities. Landscape and Urban
H. Nagendra, S. Pauleit, et al. 2014. Reconceptualizing land for Planning 125: 320–328.
sustainable urbanity. In Rethinking urban land use in a global Collier, M., N. Frantzeskaki, S. Connop, G. Dick, A. Dumitru, A.
era, ed. K.C. Seto and A. Reenberg, 313–330. Cambridge: MIT Dziubała, I. Fletcher, P. Georgiou, et al. 2023. An integrated
Press. process for planning, delivery, and stewardship of urban nature-
Branny, A., M.S. Møller, S. Korpilo, T. McPhearson, N. Gulsrud, based solutions: The connecting nature framework. Nature-
A.S. Olafsson, C.M. Raymond, and E. Andersson. 2022. Smarter Based Solutions 3: 100060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2023.
greener cities through a social-ecological-technological systems 100060.
approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 55: Connop, S., P. Vandergert, B. Eisenberg, M.J. Collier, C. Nash, J.
101168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101168. Clough, and S. Newport. 2016. Renaturing cities using a
Breed, C.A., T. Du Plessis, K. Engemann, S. Pauleit, and M. regionally-focused biodiversity-led multifunctional benefits
Pasgaard. 2023. Moving green infrastructure planning from approach to urban green infrastructure. Environmental Science
theory to practice in sub-Saharan African cities requires and Policy 62: 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.
collaborative operationalization. Urban Forestry and Urban 013.
Greening 89: 128085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023. Conte, A., P. Brunetti, E. Allevato, S.R. Stazi, M.L. Antenozio, L.
128085. Passatore, and M. Cardarelli. 2023. Nature based solutions on the
Brink, E., C. Wamsler, M. Adolfsson, M. Axelsson, T. Beery, H. river environment: An example of cross-disciplinary sustainable
Björn, T. Bramryd, N. Ekelund, et al. 2018. On the road to management, with local community active participation and
‘research municipalities’: Analysing transdisciplinarity in visual art as science transfer tool. Journal of Environmental
municipal ecosystem services and adaptation planning. Sustain- Planning and Management 66: 2388–2405. https://doi.org/10.
ability Science 13: 765–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625- 1080/09640568.2020.1822306.
017-0499-0. Cook, E.M., M. Berbes-Blazquez, L.M. Mannetti, N.B. Grimm, D.M.
Brondizio, E.S., N.D. Vogt, A.V. Mansur, E.J. Anthony, S. Costa, and Iwaniec, and T.A. Munoz-Erickson. 2021. Setting the stage for
S. Hetrick. 2016. A conceptual framework for analyzing deltas co-production. In Resilient urban futures. The urban book series,
as coupled social–ecological systems: An example from the ed. Z.A. Hamstead, et al. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.
Amazon River Delta. Sustainability Science 11: 591–609. https:// 1007/978-3-030-63131-4_7.
doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0368-2. Cook, E., J. Ventrella, T. McPhearson, A. Parris, M. Tier, T. Muñoz-
Bruckermann, T., M. Stillfried, T.M. Straka, and U. Harms. 2022. Erickson, D. Iwaniec, L. Mannetti, et al. 2022. NYC Climate
Citizen science projects require agreement: A Delphi study to Adaptation Scenarios for 2100: Exploring alternative, positive
identify which knowledge on urban ecology is considered visions for a resilient future. Urban Systems Lab, The New
relevant from scientists’ and citizens’ perspectives. International School. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7319637.
Journal of Science Education, Part b: Communication and Cortinovis, C., and D. Geneletti. 2020. A performance-based planning
Public Engagement 12: 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/ approach integrating supply and demand of urban ecosystem
21548455.2022.2028925. services. Landscape and Urban Planning 201: 103842. https://
Buzási, A., and A. Csizovszky. 2023. Urban sustainability and doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103842.
resilience: What the literature tells us about ‘‘lock-ins’’? Ambio Croeser, T., G. Garrard, R. Sharma, A. Ossola, and S. Bekessy. 2021.
52: 616–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01817-w. Choosing the right nature-based solutions to meet diverse urban
Cadenasso, M.L., and S.T.A. Pickett. 2018. Situating sustainability challenges. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. https://doi.org/
from an ecological science perspective. In Sustainability: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127337.
Approaches to environmental justice and social power, ed. De Luca, C., J. Langemeyer, S. Vaňo, F. Baró, and E. Andersson.
J. Sze, 29–52. New York: New York University Press. 2021. Adaptive resilience of and through urban ecosystem
Chang, H., A. Pallathadka, J. Sauer, N.B. Grimm, R. Zimmerman, C. services: A transdisciplinary approach to sustainability in
Cheng, D.M. Iwaniec, Y. Kim, et al. 2021. Assessment of urban Barcelona. Ecology and Society 26: 38. https://doi.org/10.5751/
flood vulnerability using the social-ecological-technological ES-12535-260438.
systems framework in six US cities. Sustainable Cities and Dentoni, D., V. Bitzer, and S. Pascucci. 2016. Cross-sector partner-
Society 68: 102786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102786. ships and the co-creation of dynamic capabilities for stakeholder
Chester, M., T. Muñoz-Erickson, A. Helmrich, D. Iwaniec, T. orientation. Journal of Business Ethics 135: 35–53. https://doi.
McPhearson, E. Cook, N. Grimm, and S. Markolf. 2023. Urban org/10.1007/s10551-015-2728-8.
systems as entangement: RElinquishing control to engage with Dixon, T.J. 2022. Sustainable urban futures and sustainable urban
complexity. Nature Urban Sustainability 3: 39. systems in the built environment: Toward an integrated urban
Chester, M.V., B.S. Underwood, and C. Samaras. 2020. Keeping science research agenda. Journal of Sustainability Research.
infrastructure reliable under climate uncertainty. Nature Climate https://doi.org/10.20900/jsr20220015.
The Author(s) 2024

www.kva.se/en 123
886 Ambio 2024, 53:871–889
Elliot, R.M., A.E. Motzny, S. Majd, F.J.V. Chavez, D. Laimer, B.S. challenges of built, natural, or hybrid system function. In The
Orlove, and P.J. Culligan. 2020. Identifying linkages between routledge handbook of urbanization and global environmental
urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services using an change, ed. K.C. Seto, W.D. Solecki, and C.A. Griffith,
expert opinion methodology. Ambio 49: 569–583. https://doi.org/ 203–212. New York: Routledge.
10.1007/s13280-019-01223-9. Grove, M., L. Ogden, S. Pickett, C. Boone, G. Buckley, D.H. Locke,
Elmqvist, T., E. Andersson, N. Frantzeskaki, T. McPhearson, C. C. Lord, and B. Hall. 2017. The legacy effect: Understanding
Folke, P. Olsson, O. Gaffney, and K. Takeuchi. 2019. Sustain- how segregation and environmental injustice unfold over time in
ability, resilience and transformation in the urban century. Baltimore. Annals of the American Association of Geographers
Nature Sustainability, Nature Sustainability 2: 267–273. https:// 108: 524–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1365585.
doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1. Grove, M., L. Ogden, S. Pickett, C. Boone, G. Buckley, D.H. Locke,
Feagan, M., M. Fork, G. Gray, M. Hamann, J.K. Hawes, E.H. C. Lord, and B. Hall. 2018. The legacy effect: Understanding
Hiroyasu, and B. Wilkerson. 2023. Critical pedagogical designs how segregation and environmental injustice unfold over time in
for SETS knowledge co-production: Online peer- and problem- Baltimore. Annals of the American Association of Geographers
based learning by and for early career green infrastructure 108: 524–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1365585.
experts. Urban Transform 5: 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854- Güneralp, B., K.C. Seto, and M. Ramachandran. 2013. Evidence of
023-00051-1. urban land teleconnections and impacts on hinterlands. Current
Frantzeskaki, N. 2019. Seven lessons for planning nature-based Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5: 445–451. https://doi.
solutions in cities. Environmental Science and Policy 93: org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.08.003.
101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.033. Gutierrez-Velez, V.H., M.R. Gilbert, D. Kinsey, and J.E. Behm. 2022.
Frantzeskaki, N., and N. Kabisch. 2016. Designing a knowledge co- Beyond the ‘urban’a and the ‘rural’: Conceptualizing a new
production operating space for urban environmental governance generation of infrastructure systems to enable rural-urban
– Lessons from Rotterdam, the Netherlands and Berlin, sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Germany. Environmental Science and Policy 62: 90–98. 56: 101177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101177.
Frantzeskaki, N., N. Kabisch, and T. McPhearson. 2016. Advancing Hill, A.V., ed. 2022. Process design: An explorer’s guide. Amster-
urban environmental governance: Understanding theories, prac- dam: Osmos Foundation.
tices and processes shaping urban sustainability and resilience. Hill, R., S. Diaz, U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, Z. Molnar, and J.V.
Environmental Science and Policy 62: 1–6. https://doi.org/10. Velden. 2021. Nature’s contributions to people: Weaving plural
1016/j.envsci.2016.05.008. perspectives. One Earth 4: 910–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Frantzeskaki, N., T. McPhearson, M. Collier, D. Kendal, H. Bulkeley, oneear.2021.06.009.
A. Dumitru, C. Walsh, K. Noble, et al. 2019. Nature-based Hölscher, K., N. Frantzeskaki, D. Kindlon, M. Collier, G. Dick, A.
solutions for urban climate change adaptation: Linking the Dziubala, M. Lodder, A. Osipiuk, et al.. 2022. Capacities for co-
science, policy and practice communities for evidence-based production as a mode of collaborative governance of nature-
decision-making. BioScience 69: 455–566. https://doi.org/10. based solutions in European cities. Environmental Science and
1093/biosci/biz042. Policy 152: 103652.
Gagné, S.A., K. Bryan-Scaggs, R.H.W. Boyer, and W.N. Xiang. Hölscher, K., N. Frantzeskaki, M. Lodder, K. Allaert and I.
2019. Conserving biodiversity takes a plan: How planners Notermans. 2020. Co-producing nature-based solutions in cities:
implement ecological information for biodiversity conservation. Collaborating with and mobilising diverse urban actors. Con-
Ambio 49: 1490–1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019- necting Nature, Grant Agreement No 730222, ISBN Number:
01281-z. 978-1-9161451-2-2.
Gordon, I.J., K. Bawa, G. Bammer, C. Boone, J. Dunne, D. Hart, J. Hof, A., and M. Blázquez-Salom. 2013. The linkages between real
Hellmann, A. Miller, et al. 2019. Forging future organizational estate tourism and urban Sprawl in Majorca (Balearic Islands,
leaders for sustainability science. Nature Sustainability 2: Spain). Land 2: 252–277. https://doi.org/10.3390/land2020252.
647–649. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0357-4. Hoover, F.-A., and R. Scarlett. 2023. Ch. 2 escaping exclusion;
Grabowski, Z., T. McPhearson, and S.T.A. Pickett. 2023. Transform- conservation, greenspace and urban planning in the age of
ing US urban green infrastructure planning to address equity. environmental justice. In Conservation with cities, and the
Landscape and Urban Planning 229: 104591. https://doi.org/10. central role of equity in addressing the biodiversity crisis, ed.
1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104591. C. Schell and M. Lambert. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greving, H., T. Bruckermann, A. Schumann, M. Stillfried, K. Borner, Iwaniec, D.M., E.M. Cook, M.J. Davidson, M. Berbés-Blázquez, M.
R. Hagen, S.E. Kimming, M. Brandt, et al. 2023. Attitudes Georgescu, E.S. Krayenhoff, and N.B. Grimm. 2020. The co-
toward engagement in citizen science increase self-related, production of sustainable future scenarios. Landscape and Urban
ecology-related, and motivation-related outcomes in an urban Planning 197: 103744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.
wildlife project. BioScience 73: 206–219. https://doi.org/10. 2020.103744.
1093/biosci/biad003. Jamshed, A., J. Birkmann, I.A. Rana, and J.M. McMillan. 2020. The
Grey, T., D. Xidous, D. O’Neill, and M. Collier. 2023. Growing older relevance of city size to the vulnerability of surrounding rural
urbanism: Exploring the nexus between ageing, the built areas: An empirical study of flooding in Pakistan. International
environment, and urban ecosystems. Urban Transformations 5: Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 48: 101601. https://doi.org/
8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-023-00053-z. 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101601.
Grimm, N.B., J.M. Grove, S.T. Pickett, and C.L. Redman. 2000. The Kabisch, N. 2019. Transformation of urban brownfields through co-
conceptual basis for studying urban ecological systems. BioS- creation: The multi-functional Lene-Voigt Park in Leipzig as a
cience 50: 7. case in point. Urban Transformations. https://doi.org/10.1186/
Grimm, N.B., S.T.A. Pickett, R.L. Hale, and M.L. Cadenasso. 2017. s42854-019-0002-6.
Does the ecological concept of disturbance have utility in urban Kabisch, N., N. Frantzeskaki, and R. Hansen. 2022. Principles for
social–ecological–technological systems? Ecosystem Health and urban nature-based solutions. Ambio 51:1388–1401. https://doi.
Sustainability 3: 1. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1255. org/10.1007/s13280-021-01685-w.
Grimm, N.B., E.M. Cook, R.L. Hale, and D.M. Iwaniec. 2016. A Krueger, E.H., T. McPhearson, and S.A. Levin. 2022. Integrated
broader framing of ecosystem services in cities: Benefits and assessment of urban water supply security and resilience:
The Author(s) 2024

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio 2024, 53:871–889 887
Towards a streamlined approach. Environmental Research changes for transformations to a good Anthropocene. NPJ Urban
Letters 17: 075006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac78f4. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00017-x.
Lefebvre, H. 2003. The urban revolution. Translated by Robert Meerow, S., and J.P. Newell. 2017. Spatial planning for multifunc-
Bononno. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. tional green infrastructure: Growing resilience in Detroit.
Li, J.Y., and J.I. Nassauer. 2021. Technology in support of nature- Landscape and Urban Planning 159: 62–75. https://doi.org/10.
based solutions requires understanding everyday experiences. 1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.005.
Ecology and Society. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-12838-260435. Mehvar, S., K. Wijnberg, B. Borsje, N. Kerle, J.M. Schraagen, J.
Lin, T., and N.B. Grimm. 2015. Comparative study of urban ecology Vinke-de Kruijf, K. Geurs, A. Hartmann, et al. 2021. Review
development in the U.S. and China: Opportunity and Challenge. article: Towards resilient vital infrastructure systems—Chal-
Urban Ecosystem 18: 599–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252- lenges, opportunities, and future research agenda. Natural
014-0413-9. Hazards and Earth System Sciences 21: 1383–1407. https://doi.
Lugo, A.E. 2018. Social-ecological-technological effects of hurricane org/10.5194/nhess-21-1383-2021.
marı´a on puerto rico: Planning for resilience under extreme McHale, M.R., S.T.A. Pickett, O. Barbosa, D.N. Bunn, M.L.
events. Berlin: Springer. Cadenasso, D.L. Childers, M. Gartin, G. Hess, et al. 2015. The
Lugo, A.E. 2019. Social-ecological-technological effects of hurricane new global urban realm: Complex, connected, diffuse, and
Marı´a on Puerto Rico. Planning for resilience under extreme diverse social-ecological systems. Sustainability (special Issue)
events, 1–112. Springer briefs in energy. Berlin: Springer. 2015: 5211–5240. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055211.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02387-4. Muñoz-Erickson, T.A., C.A. Miller, and T.R. Miller. 2017. How cities
Lugo, A.E. 2020. Effects of extreme disturbance events: From ecesis think: Knowledge co-production for urban sustainability and
to social-ecological-technological systems. Ecosystems 23: resilience. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 8: 203.
1726–1747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-020-00491-x. Nesshöver, C., T. Assmuth, K.N. Irvine, G.M. Rusch, K.A. Waylen, B.
Lwasa, S., K.C. Seto, X. Bai, H. Blanco, K.R. Gurney, S. Kilkiş, and Delbaere, D. Haase, L. Jones-Walters, et al. 2017. The science,
Y. Yamagata. 2022. Urban systems and other settlements. policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary
Geneva: IPCC. perspective. Science of the Total Environment 579: 1215–1227.
Mabrouk, M., H. Haoying, F. Chao, K. Abdrabo, G. Shen, M. Saber, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106.
S.A. Kantoush, and T. Sumi. 2023. Assessing the effectiveness Ossola, A., M.L. Cadenasso, and E.K. Meineke. 2021. Valuing the
of nature-based solutions-strengthened urban planning mecha- role of time in urban ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and
nisms in forming flood-resilient cities. Journal of Environmental Evolution. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.620620.
Management 344: 118260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman. Patel, Z. 2022. The potential and pitfalls of co-producing urban
2023.118260. knowledge: Rethinking spaces of engagement. Methodological
Mahmoud, I.H., E. Morello, D. Ludlow, and G. Salvia. 2021. Co- Innovations 15: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/
creation pathways to inform shared governance of urban living 20597991221129779.
labs in practice: Lessons from three European projects. Frontiers Pelling, M., T. Comelli, M. Cordova, S. Kalaycioğlu, J. Menoscal, R.
in Sustainable Cities 3: 690458. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc. Upadhyaya, and M. Garschagen. 2023. Normative future
2021.690458. visioning for city resilience and development. Climate and
Mansur, A.V., R.I. McDonald, B. Güneralp, H. Kim, J.A. Puppim de Devel. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2023.2223564.
Oliveira, C.T. Callaghan, P. Hamel, J.J. Kuiper, et al. 2022. Pereira, L., N. Frantzeskaki, A. Hebinck, L. Charli-Joseph, S.
Nature futures for the urban century: Integrating multiple values Drimiel, M. Dyer, H. Eakin, D. Galafassi, et al. 2019.
into urban management. Environmental Science and Policy 131: Transformative spaces in the making: Key lessons from eight
46–56. cases in the Global South. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/
Markolf, S.A., M.V. Chester, D.A. Eisenberg, D.M. Iwaniec, C.I. 10.1007/s11625-019-00749-x.
Davidson, R. Zimmerman, T.R. Miller, B.L. Ruddell, et al. 2018. Pickett, S.T., and J.M. Grove. 2020. An ecology of segregation.
Interdependent infrastructure as linked social, ecological, and Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 18: 535–535. https://
technological systems (SETSs) to address lock-in and enhance doi.org/10.1002/fee.2279.
resilience. Earth’s Future 6: 1638–1659. https://doi.org/10.1029/ Pickett, S.T.A., W.R. Burch, S.E. Dalton, T.W. Foresman, J.M.
2018EF000926. Grove, and R. Rowntree. 1997. A conceptual framework for the
Marshall, V., M. L. Cadenasso, B. McGrath, and S. T. A. Pickett. study of human ecosystems in urban areas. Urban Ecosystems 1:
2020. Patch Atlas: Integrating design practices and ecological 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018531712889.
knowledge for cities as complex systems. London: Yale Univer- Pickett, S.T.A., and M.L. Cadenasso. 2008. Linking ecological and
sity Press. built components of urban mosaics: An open cycle of ecological
McHale, M.R., S.M. Beck, S.T.A. Pickett, D.N. Bunn, D.L. Childers, design. Journal of Ecology 96: 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
M.L. Cadenasso, L. Ebersohn, L. Rivers, et al. 2018. Democ- 1365-2745.2007.01310.x.
ratization of ecosystem services: A radical approach for assess- Pickett, S.T.A., M.L. Cadenasso, and A.M. Rademacher. 2021.
ing nature’s benefits in the face of urbanization. Ecosystem Coproduction of place and knowledge for ecology with the city.
Health and Sustainability 4: 115–131. Urban Ecosystems. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-021-01190-8.
McPhearson, T., E. Cook, M. Berbés-Blázquez, C. Cheng, N.B. Pickett, S.T.A., M.L. Cadenasso, and A.M. Rademacher. 2022.
Grimm, E. Andersson, O. Barbosa, D.G. Chandler, et al. 2022. A Toward Pluralizing Ecology: Finding Common Ground across
social-ecological-technological systems approach to urban Sociocultural and Scientific Perspectives. Ecosphere 13: e4231.
ecosystem services. One Earth. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Pickett, S.T.A., M.L. Cadenasso, E.J. Rosi-Marshall, K.T. Belt, P.M.
oneear.2022.04.007. Groffman, J.M. Grove, E.G. Irwin, S.S. Kaushal, et al. 2017.
McPhearson, T., S.T.A. Pickett, N.B. Grimm, J. Niemelä, M. Alberti, Dynamic heterogeneity: A framework to promote ecological
T. Elmqvist, C. Weber, D. Haase, et al. 2016. Advancing urban integration and hypothesis generation in urban systems. Urban
ecology toward a science of cities. BioScience 66: 198–212. Ecosystems 20: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0574-9.
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw002. Pickett, S.T.A., A.T. Simone, P. Anderson, A. Sharifi, A. Barau, F.-A.
McPhearson, T., C.M. Raymond, N. Gulsrud, C. Albert, N. Coles, N. Hoover, D.L. Childers, T. McPhearson, et al. 2024. The
Fagerholm, M. Nagatsu, A.S. Olafsson, et al. 2021. Radical relational shift in urban ecology: From place and structures to
The Author(s) 2024

www.kva.se/en 123
888 Ambio 2024, 53:871–889
multiple modes of coproduction for positive urban futures. Wang, Z., L. Huang, M. Xu, and S. Wang. 2021. Bridging the
Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02001-y. science-practice gaps in nature-based solutions: A riverfront
Pineda-Pinto, M., P. Herreros-Cantis, T. McPhearson, N. Frantzes- planning in China. Ambio 50: 1532–1550. https://doi.org/10.
kaki, J. Wang, and W. Zhou. 2021. Examining ecological justice 1007/s13280-020-01445-2.
within the social-ecological-technological system of New York Ward, S., C. Staddon, L. De Vito, A. Zuniga-Teran, A.K. Gerlak, Y.
City, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 215: 104228. https:// Schoeman, A. Hart, and G. Booth. 2019. Embedding social
doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104228. inclusiveness and appropriateness in engineering assessment of
Rademacher, A., M.L. Cadenasso, and S.T.A. Pickett. 2018. From green infrastructure to enhance urban resilience. Urban Water
feedbacks to coproduction: Toward an integrated conceptual Journal 16: 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062x.2019.
framework for urban ecosystems. Urban Ecosystems. https://doi. 1633674.
org/10.1007/s11252-018-0751-0. Wellmann, T., E. Andersson, S. Knapp, A. Lausch, J. Palliwoda, J.
Raska, P., N. Bezak, C.S. Ferreira, Z. Kalantari, K. Banasik, M. Priess, S. Scheuer, and D. Haase. 2022. Reinforcing nature-based
Bertola, M. Bourke, A. Cerdà, et al. 2022. Identifying barriers solutions through tools providing social-ecological-technological
for nature-based solutions in flood risk management: An integration. Ambio 52: 489–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-
interdisciplinary overview using expert community approach. 022-01801-4.
Journal of Environmental Management 310: 114725. https://doi. Wickenberg, B. 2023. Collaborating for nature-based solutions:
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114725. Brining research and practice together. Local Environment.
Raymond, C., R. Stedman, and N. Frantzeskaki. 2023. The role of https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2023.2254797.
nature-based solutions and senses of place in enabling just city Woroniecki, S., H. Wendo, E. Brink, M. Islar, T. Krause, A.-M.
transitions. Environmental Science and Policy 144: 10–19. Vargas, and Y. Mahmoud. 2020. Nature unsettled: How
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.02.021. knowledge and power shape ‘nature-based’ approaches to
Roberts, J.D., K.L. Dickinson, M.D. Hendricks, and V. Jennings. societal challenges. Global Environmental Change 65: 102132.
2022. ‘‘I Can’t Breathe’’: Examining the legacy of American https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102132.
racism on determinants of health and the ongoing pursuit of Zhou, W., S.T.A. Pickett, and T. McPhearson. 2021. Conceptual
environmental justice. Current Environmental Health Reports. frameworks facilitate integration for transdisciplinary urban
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-022-00343-x. science. Urban Sustainability 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/
Schaefer, M. 2022. Between vision and action: The predicted effects s42949-020-00011-9.
of co-designed green infrastructure solutions on environmental
burdens. Urban Ecosystems 25: 1805–1824. https://doi.org/10. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
1007/s11252-022-01268-x. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Schell, C.J., K. Dyson, T.L. Fuentes, S.D. Roches, N.C. Harris, D.S.
Miller, C.A. Woelfle-Erskine, and M.R. Lambert. 2020. The
ecological and evolutionary consequences of systemic racism in
urban environments. Science. American Association for the AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Advancement of Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay4497. Niki Frantzeskaki (&) is a Chair Professor of Urban and
Schepers, S., J. Schoffelen, B. Zaman, and K. Dreessen. 2019. Metropolitan Planning and Governance at the Faculty of Geosciences,
Children’s roles in participatory design processes: Making the Utrecht University, The Netherlands. Her research focuses on urban
role of process designer ‘work.’ Interaction Design and Archi- experimentation, urban and metropolitan governance and the gover-
tecture (s) 41: 87–108. nance of urban sustainability transformations including the gover-
Seto, K.C., A. Reenberg, C.G. Boone, M. Fragkias, D. Haase, T. nance of and with nature-based solutions.
Langanke, P. Marcotullio, D.K. Munroe, et al. 2012. Urban land Address: Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning,
teleconnections and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Vening Meinesz Building
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109: A, Princetonlaan 8a, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
7687–7692. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117622109. e-mail: [email protected]
Tozer, L., K. Hörschelmann, I. Anguelovski, H. Bulkeley, and Y.
Lazova. 2020. Whose city? Whose nature? Towards inclusive Daniel L. Childers is a Professor in the School of Sustainability at
nature-based solution governance. Cities. https://doi.org/10. Arizona State University. His research focuses on wetland ecosystem
1016/j.cities.2020.102892. ecology, urban ecology, and sustainability science.
Tractebel, ADR architectes/George Descombes, IMDC. (2019). Address: School of Sustainability, WCPH 442, Arizona State
Stiemervallei Masterplan_Tractebel. https://www.genk.be/ University, POB 877904, Tempe, AZ 85287-7904, USA.
masterplan-stiemervallei. e-mail: [email protected]
Scoggins, M., D.B. Booth, T. Fletcher, M. Fork, A. Gonzalez, R.L.
Hale, R.J. Hawley, A.H. Roy, et al. 2022. Community-powered Steward Pickett is a Distinguished Senior Scientist at Cary Institute
urban stream restoration: A vision for sustainable and resilient of Ecosystem Studies. His research interests include urban ecology,
urban ecosystems. Freshwater Science 41: 404–419. https://doi. ecology of racialized segregation, landscape ecology, and ecology of
org/10.1086/721150. disturbance and disaster.
Vano, S., A.S. Olafsson, and P. Mederly. 2021. Advancing urban Address: Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Box AB, Millbrook,
green infrastructure through participatory integrated planning: A NY 12545, USA.
case from Slovakia. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. e-mail: [email protected]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126957.
Varum, C.A., and C. Melo. 2010. Directions in scenario planning Fushcia-Ann Hoover is an Assistant Professor at the University of
literature: A review of the past decades. Futures 42: 355–369. North Carolina, Charlotte. Her research interests include socio-eco-
Visconti, C. 2023. Co-production of knowledge for climate-resilient logical systems, green infrastructure performance, urban planning,
design and planning in Naples. Italy. Habitat International 135: and environmental justice.
102748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2023.102748. Address: Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of
The Author(s) 2024

123 www.kva.se/en
Ambio 2024, 53:871–889 889
North Carolina Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, NC Fl., New York, NY 10003, USA.
28223, USA. Address: Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University,
e-mail: [email protected] Stockholm, Sweden.
e-mail: [email protected]
Pippin Anderson is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Environmental and Geographical Science at the University of Cape Tischa A. Muñoz-Erickson is a Research Social Scientist at the
Town. Her research interests include urban ecology, landscape ecol- International Institute of Tropical Forestry, USDA Forest Service. Her
ogy, and restoration ecology. research interests include urban sustainability and resilience, trans-
Address: Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, formative governance, and knowledge coproduction.
University of Cape Town, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch, Cape Town Address: International Urban Field Station, International Institute of
7707, South Africa. Tropical Forestry, USDA Forest Service, 1201 Calle Ceiba, Jardı́n
e-mail: [email protected] Botánico Sur, Rı́o Piedras, PR 00926-1115, USA.
Aliyu Barau is a Professor of Urban Development and Management
at Bayero University Kano, Nigeria. His research interests are not Mien Quartier is a project leader social innovation for the
limited to human dimensions of climate change, socio ecological Stiemervalley at the City of Genk. She is responsible for the com-
systems of African cities, and urban informality. Joshua Ginsberg is munication and participation processes in the Stiemerprogramme.
President of Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. His research and Mien holds a Master in Social Pedagogy from KU Leuven. Together
practical interests span international conservation issues, including with the Stiemerteam she developed the Stiemerdeals and experi-
matters relating to the Convention on International Trade in Endan- mented with the concept to set up the first Stiemerdeals.
gered Species and African biodiversity. Address: Department of Environment and Sustainable Development,
Address: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Bayero Stadsplein 1, 3600 Genk City, Belgium.
University Kano, PMB 3011, Kano, Nigeria. e-mail: [email protected]
Selina Schepers is a project manager social innovation at the City of
Joshua Ginsberg is President of Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. Genk. Since 2021, she has been involved in the Stiemerprogramme
His research and practical interests span international conservation and related climate programmes. She is mainly working on partici-
issues, including matters relating to the Convention on International pation and implementing a learning process aimed at accelerating
Trade in Endangered Species and African biodiversity. transitions. Selina holds a PhD in Social Sciences from KU Leuven.
Address: Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Box AB, Millbrook, Her research focused on children’s participation, participatory design
NY 12545, USA. and methods, tools and techniques for co-creation.
e-mail: [email protected] Address: Department of Environment and Sustainable Development,
Stadsplein 1, 3600 Genk City, Belgium.
Morgan Grove is a Research Scientist at the USDA Forest Service. e-mail: [email protected]
His research interests include the long-term, social-ecological
dynamics of urban systems. Ayyoob Sharifi is Professor at the IDEC Institute, Hiroshima
Address: Baltimore Urban Field Station, USDA Forest Service, 5523 University. His research is mainly focused on urban planning and
Research Park Drive, Suite 350, Baltimore, MD 21228, USA. climate change mitigation and adaptation. Ayyoob actively con-
e-mail: [email protected] tributes to global change research programs such as the Future Earth
and has served as a lead author for the Sixth Assessment Report
Marleen Lodder is senior researcher/advisor at the Dutch Research (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Institute for Transitions, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The The ultimate goal of his education and research activities is to inform
Netherlands. Her research focuses on transition management, reflex- actions toward building resilient and sustainable cities.
ive monitoring, urban experimentation, and co-creation for sustain- Address: The IDEC Institute, Hiroshima University, 1-5-1 Kaga-
ability including nature-based solutions, circular economy, and spatial miyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima 739-8529, Japan.
development. e-mail: [email protected]
Address: Dutch Research Institute for Transitions, Erasmus Univer-
sity Rotterdam, Burg. Oudlaan 50, Mandeville Building, T16-42, Katrien van de Sijpe is the head of the environmental department at
3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands. the City of Genk. Educated as a biologist and environmental scientist,
e-mail: [email protected] she is responsible for policy making on climate and biodiversity,
strategic bluegreen projects and for climate/biodiversity education
Ariel E. Lugo is an emeritus scientist with the USDA Forest Service. and awareness-raising in Genk. More specifically she is also pro-
His research is focused on the ecology of tropical forests and cities. gramme manager of the strategic city programma ‘valley of the
With emphasis on their functioning. Stiemerbeek’, the development of a blue/green urban artery
Address: International Urban Field Station, International Institute of throughout the city of Genk. Previously she worked as a cross-border
Tropical Forestry, USDA Forest Service, 1201 Calle Ceiba, Jardı́n sustainability consultant at former Fortis bank where she was
Botánico Sur, Rı́o Piedras, PR 00926-1115, USA. involved in implementing the climate change strategy focusing on
environmental management, communication and awareness raising.
Timon McPhearson is Professor of Urban Ecology and Director of In the beginning of her career, she was an assistant project coordinator
the Urban Systems Lab at The New School, and a Senior Research in the European project ‘capacity building to implement scientific
Fellow at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and Stockholm instruments for port’s environmental management in Vietnam and
Resilience Centre at Stockholm University He studies the ecology Cambodia’.
inof, and with cities to advance resilience, sustainability, and justice. Address: Department of Environment and Sustainable Development,
Address: Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Box AB, Millbrook, Stadsplein 1, 3600 Genk City, Belgium.
NY 12545, USA. e-mail: [email protected]
Address: Urban Systems Lab, The New School, 79 Fifth Avenue, 16
The Author(s) 2024

www.kva.se/en 123

A Transformative Shift in Urban Ecology Toward A More Active and Relevant Future For The Field and For Cities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Transformative Shift in Urban Ecology Toward A More Active and Relevant Future For The Field and For Cities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ambio 2024, 53:871–889

SHIFTS IN URBAN ECOLOGY

A transformative shift in urban ecology toward a more active

The Author(s) 2024

The Author(s) 2024

The Author(s) 2024

The Author(s) 2024

Box 1: Re-connecting people–nature through co-production in the City of Genk, Belgium

The Author(s) 2024

The Author(s) 2024

Box 2: The Bronx river alliance

The Author(s) 2024

The Author(s) 2024

Box 3: New York city’s climate adaptation scenarios

The Author(s) 2024

The Author(s) 2024

think about rural systems from the standpoint of places that

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Co-production incorporating urban ecological knowledge

sustainability science (Pereira et al. 2019). Such cross-over

ture, with recent research efforts to integrate other disci-

The Author(s) 2024

The Author(s) 2024

The Author(s) 2024

The Author(s) 2024

The Author(s) 2024

The Author(s) 2024

The Author(s) 2024

The Author(s) 2024

You might also like