Abstract
One of the goals promoted by the ‘2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ is to make cities more inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, responding to the challenges that cities face today, including the increase of urban temperature because of climate change effects, and the deficit of urban green spaces. Within this context, green urbanism aims to create more sustainable cities in terms of greenness, compactness, energy efficiency, zero emissions, and waste production, having as a result sustainable places, communities, and lifestyles. The approach arises to address some of the challenges mentioned above, through seven features expressed in emerging archetypal cities, where the ‘biophilic city’ is one of them. Biophilic cities are the materialization of the biophilic urbanism approach, which pursues the strategic integration of nature in cities through planning and design to achieve more livable cities in terms of the well-being and health of their inhabitants, as well as the creation of resilient urban environments. Firstly, this research compiled initiatives performed under the biophilic urbanism, defined here as biophilic urbanism initiatives (BUIs), where the main differences in its implementation can be traced back to income differences between countries. Secondly, it presents opportunities, as well as challenges for greening emerging and developing cities, based on one of the five categories of indicators associated with biophilic cities, ‘biophilic institutions and governance.’ The indicators comprising this group aim to describe the extent to which local governments are involved in encouraging green features and biophilic design. Finally, this research draws contributions already implemented by a group of Latin American cities located in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Peru. One of our main findings is that these initiatives have not yet been widely implemented in emerging and developing countries, compared with advanced economies, such as the USA, Germany, and Singapore, among others.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Artmann, M., Kohler, M., Meinel, G., Gan, J., & Ioja, C. (2017). How smart growth and green infrastructure can mutually support each other—A conceptual framework for compact and green cities. Ecological Indicators. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.185
Badiu, D. L., Iojă, C. I., Pătroescu, M., Breuste, J., Artmann, M., Niță, M. R., Grădinaru, S. R., Hossu, C. A., & Onose, D. A. (2016). Is urban green space per capita a valuable target to achieve cities’ sustainability goals? Romania as a case study. Ecological Indicators, 70, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.044
Beatley, T. (2011). Biophilic cities. Island Press. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-59726-986-5
Beatley, T., & Newman, P. (2013). Biophilic cities are sustainable, resilient cities. Sustainability, 5(8), 3328–3345. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5083328
Beatley, T. (2009). Biophilic urbanism: Inviting nature back to our communities and into our lives. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 34, 209–238. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol34/iss1/6
Beatley, T. (2012). Green cities of Europe: Global lessons on green urbanism. In Green cities of Europe: Global lessons on green urbanism. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-175-7
Beatley, T. (2017). Handbook of biophilic city planning and design. Island Press. https://books.google.be/books?id=4V_ECwAAQBAJ
Chen, C., Noble, I., Hellmann, J., Coffee, J., Murillo, M., & Chawla, N. (2015). University of Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index. https://gain.nd.edu/assets/254377/nd_gain_technical_document_2015.pdf
Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Maginnis, S., & Janzen, C. (2016). Nature-based Solutions to address global societal challenges. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en
Concejo Deliberante de la Ciudad de Córdoba. (2016). Ordenanza N°12.548. Incorporar al Código de edificación el marco regulatorio para la incorporación de cubiertas y muros verdes dentro de la Ciudad de Córdoba.
Consejo De Bogotá, D. C. (2009). Acuerdo 418. Por el cual se promueve la implementación de tecnologías arquitectónicas sustentables, como techos o terrazas verdes, entre otras en el D. C. y se dictan otras disposiciones. https://www.alcaldiabogota.gov.co/sisjur/normas/Norma1.jsp?i=38262
Cook, E. (2016). Biophilic urbanism: Making cities sustainable through ecological design. https://doi.org/10.15242/iicbe.dir1216404
Cortinovis, C., & Geneletti, D. (2018). Ecosystem services in urban plans: What is there, and what is still needed for better decisions. Land Use Policy, 70, 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.017
Davies, C., & Lafortezza, R. (2017). Urban green infrastructure in Europe: Is greenspace planning and policy compliant? Land Use Policy, 69, 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.018
Dutt, K. (2009). Governance, institutions and the environment-income relationship: a cross-country study. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11(4), 705–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-007-9138-8
European Commission. (2015). Ecosystem services and biodiversity. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/ecosystem_services_biodiversity_IR11_en.pdf
European Commission. (2014). Building a green infrastructure for Europe. https://doi.org/10.2779/54125
Evans, B., Joas, M., Sundback, S., & Theobald, K. (2005). Governing sustainable cities. In Governing sustainable cities.
Fink, H. S., & Kaltenegger, I. (2016). Integration of mother nature into smart buildings. In Integration of nature and technology for smart cities (pp. 225–261). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25715-0_13
Grinde, B., & Patil, G. (2009). Biophilia: Does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 6(9), 2332–2343. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph6092332
Huang, G. (2017). Indexing the human-nature relationship in cities. Upland Journal of Urban Planning, Landscape and Environmental Design, 2(2), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.6092/2531-9906/5255
International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2019). World economic outlook: Growth slowdown, precarious recovery. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2019/03/28/world-economic-outlook-april-2019
Jennings, V., Browning, M. H. E. M., & Rigolon, A. (2019). Urban green space at the nexus of environmental justice and health equity. In Urban green spaces: public health and sustainability in the United States (pp. 47–69). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10469-6_4
Jones, D. R. (2013). ‘The Biophilic University’: A de-familiarizing organizational metaphor for ecological sustainability? Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.019
Kahn, P. H. (1997). Developmental psychology and the biophilia hypothesis: Children’s affiliation with nature. Developmental Review, 17(1), 1–61. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1996.0430
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
Kellert, S. R. (1993). The biological basis for human values of nature. In E. O. Wilson & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), The Biophilia hypothesis (pp. 42–69). Island Press.
Lee, H.-H., Chung, R., & Mo, C. (2005). On the relationship between economic growth and environmental sustainability. In 5th ministerial conference on environment and development in Asia and the Pacific.
Legislatura de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. (2012). Ley 4428 - Techos o Terrazas Verdes - Implementación. https://www2.cedom.gob.ar/es/legislacion/normas/leyes/ley4428.html
Lehmann, S. (2011). Transforming the city for sustainability: The principles of green urbanism. Journal of Green Building, 6, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.6.1.104
Lehmann, S. (2011b). What is green urbanism? Holistic principles to transform cities for sustainability. In Climate change—Research and technology for adaptation and mitigation. https://doi.org/10.5772/23957
Littke, H. (2016). Becoming biophilic: Challenges and opportunities for biophilic urbanism in urban planning policy. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 5(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-10-2015-0036
Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H. O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P. R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Matthews, J. B., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M. I., Lonnoy, E., Maycock, T., Tignor, M., & Waterfield, T. (2018). Summary for policymakers. In Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to. In Ipcc - Sr15. https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf%0A; www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
Mc Cormick, K., Anderberg, S., Coenen, L., & Neij, L. (2013). Advancing sustainable urban transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.003
Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo (MINVU). (2019). Decreto 58. Modifica Decreto Supremo No 47, de Vivienda y Urbanismo, de 1992, Ordenanza General de Urbanismo y Construcciones, para fomentar la construcción de techos verdes. https://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=1129304&buscar=Modifica+Decreto+Supremo+No+47%2C+de+Vivienda+y+Urbanismo%2C+de+1992%2C+Ordenanza+General+de+Urbanismo+y+Construcciones%2C+para+fomentar+la+construcción+de+techos+verdes
Morar, T., Radoslav, R., Spiridon, L., & Pǎcurar, L. (2014). Assessing pedestrian accessibility to green space using gis. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 10, 116–139. https://rtsa.ro/tras/index.php/tras/article/view/94/90
Mukherjee, S., & Chakraborty, D. (2013). Is environmental sustainability influenced by socioeconomic and sociopolitical factors? Cross-country empirical evidence. Sustainable Development, 21(6), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.502
Municipalidad Distrital de Ate. (2014). Ordenanza Municipal N° 342-MDA. Crean el Programa Techo Verde en el distrito de Ate. https://sinia.minam.gob.pe/normas/crean-programa-techo-verde-distrito-ate
Municipalidad Distrital de Barranco. (2015). Ordenanza Municipal N° 427-MDB. Ordenanza que crea el Programa Techo y Muro Verde en el Distrito de Barranco. https://sinia.minam.gob.pe/normas/ordenanza-que-crea-programa-techo-muro-verde-distrito-barranco
Nesshöver, C., Assmuth, T., Irvine, K. N., Rusch, G. M., Waylen, K. A., Delbaere, B., Haase, D., Jones-Walters, L., Keune, H., Kovacs, E., Krauze, K., Külvik, M., Rey, F., van Dijk, J., Vistad, O. I., Wilkinson, M. E., & Wittmer, H. (2017). The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Science of The Total Environment, 579, 1215–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106
Newman, P., Beatley, T., & Boyer, H. (2017). Resilient cities overcoming fossil fuel dependence. Island Press/center for Resource Economics. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-686-8
Newman, P., & Matan, A. (2013). Green URBANISM in Asia. World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/8596
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013). Urban policy reviews, the Chilean urban system and its challenges. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264191808-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). Latin American economic outlook 2019. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/g2g9ff18-en
Pauchard, A., & Barbosa, O. (2013). Regional assessment of latin America: Rapid urban development and social economic inequity threaten biodiversity hotspots. In T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad, K. C. Seto, & C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities: A global assessment (pp. 589–608). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1_28
Reeve, A., Desha, C., Hargreaves, D., & Hargroves, K. J. (2015). Biophilic urbanism: Contributions to holistic urban greening for urban renewal. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 4(2), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-11-2014-0057
Rigolon, A., Browning, M., Lee, K., & Shin, S. (2018). Access to urban green space in cities of the global South: A systematic literature review. Urban Science, 2(3), 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci2030067
Russo, A., & Cirella, G. T. (2017). Biophilic cities: Planning for sustainable and smart urban environments. In Smart cities movement in BRICS (Vol. 2018, Issue March, pp. 153–159).
Russo, A., Ignatieva, M., Cirella, G., Belelli Marchesini, L., Krestov, P., Korzhov, E., Kalita, V., & Pavlovsky, V. (2017). Biophilia: Nature-based solutions for sustainable cities. In Conference: Three pillars of landscape architecture: Design, planning and management. New visions.
Sachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N., & Rockström, J. (2019). Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0352-9
Sadler, J., Grayson, N., Hale, J., Locret-Collet, M., Hunt, D., Bouch, C., & Rogers, C. (2018). The little book of ecosystem services in the city.
Scott, M., & Lennon, M. (2016). Nature-based solutions for the contemporary city. Planning Theory and Practice, 17(2), 267–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1158907
Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224(4647), 420–421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402
United Nations (UN). (2018a). The world’s cities in 2018—Data booklet. https://www.un.org/en/events/citiesday/assets/pdf/the_worlds_cities_in_2018_data_booklet.pdf
United Nations (UN). (2018b). World economic situation and prospects 2018.
United Nations [UN]. (2015). General assembly resolution A/RES/70/1. Transforming our world, the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
Wheeler, S. (2013). Planning for sustainability: Creating livable Equitable and ecological communities, second edition. Planning for Sustainability Creating Livable Equitable and Ecological Communities, Second Edition, 1–401. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203134559
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
Woodruff, S., & BenDor, T. (2016). Ecosystem services in urban planning: Comparative paradigms and guidelines for high quality plans. Landscape and Urban Planning, 152, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.003
World Bank Group [WBG]. (2020b). Urban population 2018. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true.
World Bank Group [WBG]. (2020a). GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 2018. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD
World Health Organization (WHO). (2016). Urban green spaces and health. https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/urban-health/publications/2016/urban-green-spaces-and-health-a-review-of-evidence-2016
Xue, F., Lau, S., Gou, Z., Song, Y., & Jiang, B. (2019). Incorporating biophilia into green building rating tools for promoting health and wellbeing. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 76, 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.02.004
Acknowledgements
This paper was supported by the FONDECYT Regular Project No. 1180268, ANID/Chile.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Cities implementing biophilic urbanism initiatives (BUIs) by group
BUI groups | Cities implementing BUI | Total of BUI |
|---|---|---|
Biodiversity enhancement | Adelaide, Amherst, Amsterdam, Athens, Atlanta, Auckland, Austin, Baltimore, Bangalore, Bedford, Beijing, Bekasi, Berlin, Birmingham, Bogota, Boston, Brisbane, Buenos Aires, Cambridge, Cape Town, Changwon, Charlottesville, Chicago, Chóngqìng, Cleveland, Columbus, Copenhagen, Cornwall, Curitiba, Curridabat, Davis, De Ronde Venen, Denver, Dhaka, Dunedin, Durham, Edinburgh, Edmonton, Fremantle, Fukuoka, Gainesville, Garden Grove, Gothenburg, Greensboro, Guangzhou, Haifa, Hamilton, Harbin, Harmony, Hashtgerd, Hong Kong, Honolulu, Houston, Ikeja, Iowa, Kagoshima, Kalamaria, Karlsruhe, Kaunas, Key Biscayne, Klaipėda, Kolding, Kristianstad, Kuala Lumpur, Leipzig, Lisbon, Livorno, Łodz, London, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Luton, Maastricht, Malmö, Mashhad, Melbourne, Menglun, Milton Keynes, Milwaukee, Monterey, Muncie, Nanchung, Napoli, New York, Norfolk, North Charleston, Nottingham, Oberlin, Oregon City, Oslo, Oxford, Palmares do Sul, Paris, Perth, Pezinok, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Plovdiv, Plymouth, Portland, Potosi, Pune, Randwick, Reston, Richmond, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, Rotterdam, Saint Louis, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Potosí, San Nicolás de los Garza, Santa Cruz, Sao Paulo, Scheemda, Scottsdale, Seattle, Shanghai, Sheffield, Singapore, Stockholm, Surabaya, Surakarta, Sydney, Tabriz, Tainan, Taipei, Tampa, Tehran, The Hague, Tianjin, Timisoara, Tochigi, Tokyo, Toronto, Toruń, Uppsala, Utrecht, Vancouver, Vienna, Vilnius, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Vladivostok, Vösendorf, Washington DC, Wellington, Winschoten, Wollongong, Wulai, Yogyakarta, Yokohama, Zürich | 344 |
Biophilic schools | Albertslund, Auckland, Badung, Charlottesville, Copenhagen, Denver, Freiburg, Helsinki, Kolding, Milwaukee, New York, Norfolk, Perth, San Francisco, Singapore, Washington DC, Zürich | 18 |
Buildings with green design elements | Abu Dhabi, Adelaide, Alphen, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Austin, Berlin, Birmingham, Blumau, Boston, Bremen, Brighton, Brisbane, Charlottesville, Chicago, Delft, Dordrecht, Drachten, Dublin, Dunkerque, Enschede, Frankfurt, Frederikshavn, Fukuoka, Graz, Haarlem, Harare, Ho Chi Minh, Honolulu, Katowice, Leiden, Leusden, Lisbon, Liuzhou, London, Madrid, Malmö, Melbourne, Mexico City, Milan, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Mississauga, Montreal, Munich, Nanjing, Neemrana, New York, Norwich, Oostmalle, Oslo, Paris, Perth, Pittsburgh, Portland, Saarbrücken, San Bruno, San Francisco, Seattle, Singapore, Stockholm, Stuttgart, Sydney, Tarragona, The Hague, Toronto, Utrecht, Vienna, Washington DC, Wollongong, Zevenaar, Zürich | 142 |
Community activities | Adelaide, Amsterdam, Auckland, Baltimore, Berlin, Birmingham, Bogor, Boston, Boulder, Bristol, Canberra, Charlottesville, Chicago, Copenhagen, Curitiba, Davis, Dunedin, Freiburg, Gothenburg, Hamilton, Harmony, Helsinki, Houston, Kansas City, Leiden, Lincolnshire, London, Madison, Melbourne, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Montreal, Mumbai, Nairobi, Neemrana, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Pune, Richmond, Rotterdam, Sacramento, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Seattle, Singapore, Skövde, Sukabumi, Sydney, The Hague, Tucson, Utrecht, Vancouver, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Wellington | 102 |
Former infrastructure supporting nature insertion within the city | Austin, Berlin, New York, Paris, Vitoria-Gasteiz | 7 |
Government plans, policies, programs, strategies, or visions | Aarhus, Abu Dhabi, Adelaide, Amsterdam, Anchorage, Arcata, Arnhem, Auckland, Austin, Barcelona, Berlin, Birmingham, Bologna, Boston, Boulder, Brisbane, Buenos Aires, Cape Town, Charleston, Chattanooga, Chengdu, Chicago, Christchurch, Copenhagen, Danang, Delft, Denver, Dongtan, Dublin, Edmonton, Erlangen, Frankfurt, Freiburg, Fremantle, Hamilton, Hannover, Heidelberg, Helsinki, Houston, Kaohsiung, Kassel, Laguna Beach, Leicester, Leiden, Linz, London, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Malmö, Melbourne, Mexico City, Milwaukee, Montreal, Munich, Münster, Nagoya, Nairobi, New York, Oregon City, Oslo, Paris, Penrith, Perth, Philadelphia, Portland, Richmond, Rio de Janeiro, Rotterdam, Sacramento, Saint Louis, San Francisco, Sao Paulo, Scottsdale, Seattle, Seoul, Singapore, Stockholm, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Utrecht, Vancouver, Vaxjo, Vienna, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Washington DC, Wellington, Zürich | 233 |
Government regulations | Auckland, Austin, Baltimore, Basel, Berlin, Chicago, Copenhagen, Davis, Dunkerque, Freiburg, Graz, Greensboro, London, Malmö, Port Coquitlam, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, Singapore, Stockholm, Stuttgart, Toronto, Washington DC | 46 |
Government support | Arlington, Chicago, Cologne, Faenza, London, Mexico City, New York, Philadelphia, Portland, Saarbrücken, Seattle, Singapore, Vienna | 21 |
Green belts, greenways, or networks | Almere, Amersfoort, Anchorage, Arnhem, Atlanta, Birmingham, Bologna, Boulder, Brisbane, Cape Town, Chengdu, Christchurch, Curitiba, Davis, De Bilt, Hannover, Helsinki, Leusden, London, Milan, Milwaukee, Newark, Oslo, Rijnwoude, Saint Louis, San Francisco, Soest, Stockholm, Sydney, Utrecht, Vancouver, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Waddinxveen, Wellington, Zeist, Zoetermeer, Zürich | 52 |
Green infrastructure | Amsterdam, Anchorage, Arnhem, Barcelona, Berlin, Birmingham, Brisbane, Buenos Aires, Canberra, Chicago, Christchurch, Curitiba, Duisburg-Nord, Fremantle, Fukuoka, George Town, Hamburg, Hamilton, Key Biscayne, Leiden, Lingewaard, London, Merseyside, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Montreal, Nairobi, New York, Odense, Overbetuwe, Paris, Philadelphia, Portland, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, Rotterdam, Saarbrücken, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Seville, Singapore, Songdo, Stockholm, Sydney, Tianjin, Toronto, Vancouver, Venice, Vienna, Wellington, Zaragoza | 108 |
Pedestrian preference zone | Barcelona, Bologna, Boulder, Brisbane, Copenhagen, Dublin, Freiburg, Groningen, Heidelberg, Houten, Leicester, Leiden, Minneapolis, Münster, New York, Paris, Portland, Pune, Sacramento, Stockholm, Utrecht, Vienna | 23 |
Restoration | Adelaide, Albufeira, Asheville, Auckland, Berkeley, Boston, Brisbane, Cape Town, Charlottesville, Chicago, Christchurch, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Dortmund, Freiburg, Fremantle, Graz, Groningen, Guimarães, Heidelberg, Houston, Johor Bahru, Leicester, London, Los Angeles, Madrid, Malmö, Melbourne, Milwaukee, Montcada i Reixac, New York, Newark, Nice, Norfolk, North Charleston, Oslo, Perth, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Port-au-Prince, Portland, Richmond, Rotterdam, San Francisco, San Jose, San Luis Obispo, Seattle, Seoul, Singapore, Slochteren, Stockholm, Tallinn, Tartu, Todmorden, Tokyo, Toronto, Vancouver, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Washington DC, Wellington, Zürich | 104 |
Wildlife enhancement | Anchorage, Asheville, Austin, Bangalore, Birmingham, Brisbane, Bristol, Buenos Aires, Chengdu, Chicago, Edmonton, Fremantle, Hong Kong, Houston, London, New Orleans, New York, Oslo, Philadelphia, Portland, Richmond, Saint Louis, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Singapore, Toronto, Vancouver, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Wellington | 52 |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Carter, V., Henríquez, C. (2021). Biophilic Institutions and Governance: Biophilic Urbanism Initiatives (BUIs) Fostering Green Urban Features in Emerging and Developing Cities. In: Trapani, F., Mohareb, N., Rosso, F., Kolokotsa, D., Maruthaveeran, S., Ghoneem, M. (eds) Advanced Studies in Efficient Environmental Design and City Planning. Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65181-7_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65181-7_29
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-65180-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-65181-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)