Abstract
Cities host an increasing share of the human population and are continuously pressured by global change drivers, namely climate change, land-use alterations, and pollution. Among the most important negative pressures are those related to water management, including excess water (e.g., floods), water scarcity (e.g., droughts) and water quality deterioration (e.g., pollution). Several solutions have been proposed so that cities can continue to support healthy, thriving, and meaningful lives for their inhabitants. These include Nature-based Solutions (NbS), i.e., actions that are inspired and supported by nature, provide ecosystem services with environmental, social, and economic benefits, and enhance biodiversity. Aquatic NbS (in the following aquaNbS), such as retention ponds, constructed wetlands or restored river embarquements, have been presented as one of the tools to deal with some of the problems associated with climate change. These aquaNbS do so by providing critical ecosystem services such as flash flood control, groundwater provision and regulation of water quality. Although aquaNbS are sometimes viewed as ready-to-use units to be implemented in specific locations to address local problems, they are increasingly recognized to be complex systems, with strong interactions with their surroundings, including the social, ecological, and technological dimensions. Specifically, aquaNbS can be designed according to social needs and regulations, can supply ecosystem services, and can be supported by technology. These three dimensions are strongly linked, but we often lack an understanding of their interactions. We propose that a better understanding of these interactions would lead to more effective NbS management. This chapter presents the SETS framework (Social-Ecological-Technological Systems according to (McPhearson et al., BioScience, 2016) as an approach to better understand the complex interactions that influence aquaNbS. To identify and quantify the functioning, success, and outcomes of NbS, we discuss the key scales of analysis and the more important context variables to be considered when using the SETS framework for aquaNbS analysis. Finally, we propose a set of essential variables and respective indicators to analyze and monitor each of the dimensions of NbS. These variables represent different components of SETS and are selected based on previous research and literature. We emphasize their ability to reveal the interactions between social, ecological, and technological dimensions of aquaNbS, adding a new component in the SETS discussion.
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
Andersson E, Borgström S, Haase D, Langemeyer J, Mascarenhas A, McPhearson T, Wolff M, Łaszkiewicz E, Kronenberg J, Barton D, Herreros-Cantis P (2021a) A context sensitive systems approach for understanding and enabling ecosystem service realisation in cities. Ecol Soc 26:35. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12411-260235
Andersson E, Haase D, Anderson P, Cortinovis C, Goodness J, Kendal D, Lausch A, McPhearson T, Sikorska D, Wellmann T (2021b) What are the traits of a social-ecological system? Towards a framework in support of urban sustainability. Urban Sustain 1:14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-020-00008-4
Anguelovski I, Corbera E (2022) Integrating justice in nature-based solutions to avoid nature-enabled dispossession. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01771-7
Barry D, Hoyne S (2021) Sustainable measurement indicators to assess impacts of climate change: implications for the new green deal era. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health 22:100259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2021.100259
Birk S, Bonne W, Borja A, Brucet S, Courrat A, Poikane S, Solimini AG, Bund W, Zampoukas N, Hering D (2012) Three hundred ways to assess Europe’s surface waters: an almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the water framework directive. Ecol Indic 18:31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.10.009
Bixler TS, Houle J, Ballestero T, Mo W (2019) A dynamic life cycle assessment of green infrastructures. Sci Total Environ 692:1146–1154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.345
Boerema A, Schoelynck J, Bal K, Vrebos D, Jacobs S, Staes J, Meire P (2014) Economic valuation of ecosystem services, a case study for aquatic vegetation removal in the Nete catchment (Belgium). Ecosyst Serv 7:46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.08.001
Bours D, McGinn D, Pringle P (2014) Guidance note 2: selecting indicators for climate change adaptation programming. https://www.ukcip.org.uk/wp-content/PDFs/MandE-Guidance-Note2.pdf
Bowen GJ (2010) Isoscapes: spatial pattern in isotopic biogeochemistry. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 38(1):161–187
Buijs A, Elands B, Gilles E, Železnikar Špel, et al. (2016) Innovative governance of urban green spaces – learning from 18 innovative examples across Europe. Deliverable 6.2. Green Surge EUU FP7 project. https://ign.ku.dk/english/green-surge/rapporter/D6_2_Innovative_Governance_of_Urban_Green_Spaces_-_18_examples.pdf
Calderón-Argelich A, Benetti S, Anguelovski I, Connolly JJT, Langemeyer J, Baró F (2021) Tracing and building up environmental justice considerations in the urban ecosystem service literature: a systematic review. Landsc Urban Plan 104130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104130
Cariñanos P, Grilo F, Pinho P, Casares-Porcel M, Branquinho C, Acil N, Andreucci MB, Anjos A, Bianco PM, Brini S, Calaza-Martínez P, Calvo E, Carrari E, Castro J, Chiesura A, Correia O, Gonçalves A, Gonçalves P, Mexia T, Mirabiles M, Paoletti E, Santos-Reis M, Semenzato P, Vilhar U (2019) Estimation of the allergenic potential of urban trees and urban parks: towards the healthy design of urban green spaces of the future. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16:1357. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16081357
Carter JL, Resh VH, Morgan RV (2017) Macroinvertebrates as biotic indicators of environmental quality. In: Lamberti GA, Hauer FR (eds) Methods in stream ecology, 3rd edn. Academic, pp 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813047-6.00016-4
CBD (1992) The convention on biological diversity, Secretary-General of the United Nations
de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
Depietri Y, McPhearson T (2017) Integrating the grey, green, and blue in cities: nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation and risk reduction. In: Kabisch N, Korn H, Stadler J, Bonn A (eds) Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas. Theory and practice of urban sustainability transitions. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_6
EC (2000) European Commission Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Eur Comm Off J Eur Commun
EEA (2021) European Environmental Agency Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). https://cices.eu/
Egerer M, Haase D, McPhearson T, Frantzeskaki N, Andersson E, Nagendra H, Ossola A (2021) Urban change as an untapped opportunity for climate adaptation. Urban Sustain 1:22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00024-y
Ershad S, Han S, Romme AGL, de Vries B, Wendling L (2019) Key enablers of and barriers to the uptake and implementation of nature-based solutions in urban settings: a review. Resources 8:121. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030121
Faehnle M, Tyrväinen L (2013) A framework for evaluating and designing collaborative planning. Land Use Policy 34:332–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.04.006
Frantzeskaki N, McPhearson T, Collier MJ, Kendal D, Bulkeley H, Dumitru A, Walsh C, Noble K, van Wyk E, Ordóñez C, Oke C, Pintér L (2019) Nature-based solutions for urban climate change adaptation: linking science, policy, and practice communities for evidence-based decision-making. Bioscience 69:455–466. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz042
Gonçalves P, Vierikko K, Birgit E, Haase D, Luz AC, Santos-Reis M (2021) Biocultural diversity in an urban context: an indicator-based decision support tool to guide the planning and management of green infrastructure. Environ Sustain Indic 11:100131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2021.100131
Grilo F, Pinho P, Aleixo C, Catita C, Silva P, Lopes N, Freitas C, Santos-Reis M, McPhearson T, Branquinho C (2020) Using green to cool the grey: modelling the cooling effect of green spaces with a high spatial resolution. Sci Total Environ 724:138182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138182
Haase D (2009) Effects of urbanization on the water balance – a long-term trajectory. Environ Impact Assess Rev 29:211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.01.002
Haase D (2014) The nature of urban land use and why it is a special case. In: Seto K, Reenberg A (eds) Rethinking global land use in an urban era. Strüngmann forum reports, vol. 14. Julia Lupp, series ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Haase D (2021) The effects of greening cities on climate change mitigation and adaptation. In: Lackner M, Sajjadi B, Chen WY (eds) Handbook of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6431-0_120-1
Haase D, Nuissl H (2007) Does urban sprawl drive changes in the water balance and policy? The case of Leipzig (Germany) 1870-2003. Landsc Urban Plan 80:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.011
Haase D, Jänicke C, Wellmann T (2019) Delineating private greenspaces in cities based on subpixel vegetation fractions from earth observation data using spectral unmixing. Landsc Urban Plan 182:44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.010
Haury J, Peltre M-C, Trémolières M, Barbe J, Thiébaut G, Bernez I, Daniel H, Chatenet P, Haan-Archipof G, Muller S, Dutartre A, Laplace-Treyture C, Cazaubon A, Lambert-Servien E, Caffrey JM, Dutartre A, Haury J, Murphy KJ (2006) Wade macrophytes in aquatic ecosystems: from biology to management. A new method to assess water trophy and organic pollution — the Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers (IBMR): its application to different types of river and pollution. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 153–158
Hering D, Johnson RK, Kramm S, Schmutz S, Szoszkiewicz K, Verdonschot PFM (2006) Assessment of European rivers with diatoms, macrophytes, invertebrates and fish: a comparative metric-based analysis of organism response to stress. Freshw Biol 51:1757–1785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01610.x
Holmes NTH, Newman JR, Chadd S, Rouen KJ, Saint L, Dawson FH (1999) Mean trophic rank: a user’s manual. R&D technical report E38. Environment Agency of England & Wales, Bristol
Jameel Y, Brewer S, Good SP, Tipple BJ, Ehleringer JR, Bowen GJ (2016) Tap water isotope ratios reflect urban water system structure and dynamics across a semiarid metropolitan area. Water Resour Res 52:5891–5910. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019104
Kabisch N, Kraemer R, Brenck ME, Haase D, Lausch A, Luttkus ML, Mueller T, Remmler P, von Döhren P, Voigtländer J, Bumberger J (2021a) A methodological framework for the assessment of regulating and recreational ecosystem services in urban parks under heat and drought conditions. Ecosyst People 17(1):464–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1958062
Kabisch N, Kraemer R, Masztalerz O, Hemmerling J, Pueffel C, Haase D (2021b) Impact of summer heat on urban park visitation, perceived health and ecosystem service appreciation. Urban For Urban Green 60:127058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127058
Kenward RE, Whittingham MJ, Arampatzis S, Manos BD et al (2011) Identifying governance strategies that effectively support ecosystem services, resource sustainability, and biodiversity. PNAS 108:5308–5312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007933108
Kremer P, Larondelle N, Zhang Y, Pasles E, Haase D (2018) Within-class and neighborhood effects on the relationship between composite urban classes and surface temperature. Sustainability 10:645. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030645
Kumar M, Kumar P (2008) Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ 64:808–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.008
Lavorel S (2013) Plant functional effects on ecosystem services. J Ecol 101:4–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12031
Lele S, Springate-Baginski O, Lakerveld R, Deb D, Dash P (2013) Ecosystem services: origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conserv Soc 11:343–358. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.125752
Luz AC, Buijs M, Aleixo C, Metelo I, Grilo F, Branquinho C, Santos-Reis M, Pinho P (2019) Should I stay or should I go? Modelling the fluxes of urban residents to visit green spaces. Urban For Urban Green 40:195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.01.009
Mander U, Hayakawa Y, Kuusemets V (2005) Purification processes, ecological functions, planning and design of riparian buffer zones in agricultural watersheds. Ecol Eng 24:421–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.01.015
Markolf SA, Chester MV, Eisenberg DA, Iwaniec DM, Davidson CI, Zimmerman R et al (2018) Interdependent infrastructure as linked social, ecological, and technological systems (SETSs) to address lock-in and enhance resilience. Earth’s Future 6:1638–1659. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000926
McGuire K, McDonnell J (2006) A review and evaluation of catchment transit time modeling. J Hydrol 330:543–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.04.020
McPhearson TPS, Grimm N, Niemelä J, Elmqvist T, Weber C, Breuste J, Haase D, Qureshi S (2016) Ecology for an urban planet: advancing research and practice towards a science of cities. Bioscience. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw002
Mexia T, Vieira J, Príncipe A, Anjos A, Silva P, Lopes N, Freitas C, Santos-Reis M, Correia O, Branquinho C, Pinho P (2018) Ecosystem services: urban parks under a magnifying glass. Environ Res 160:469–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.10.023
Miler M, Brauns M (2020) Hierarchical response of littoral macroinvertebrates to altered hydromorphology and eutrophication. Sci Total Environ 743:140582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140582
More T, Averill JR, Stevens TH (1996) Values and economics in environmental management: a perspective and critique. J Environ Manag 48:397–340. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1996.0086
Mutinova PT, Kahlert M, Kupilas B, McKie BG, Friberg N, Burdon FJ (2020) Benthic diatom communities in urban streams and the role of riparian buffers. Water 12:2799. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102799
Nina S, Moretti M, Bugalho M, Davies Z, Haase D, Hack J, Hof A, Melero Y, Pett T, Knapp S (2017) Understanding biodiversity-ecosystem service relationships in urban areas: a comprehensive literature review. Ecosyst Serv 27:161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.014
Olmo C, Ángel A, Maria BR, Fabián B, Constanza V, Andreu CE, Berenice MDE, Juan R, Mahmood S, Rodrigo RJ, Juan MS, Xavier A, Francesc MJ (2022) The environmental framework of temporary ponds: a tropical-mediterranean comparison. Catena 210:105845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105845
Pandey LK, Lavoie I, Morin S, Park J, Lyu J, Choi S, Lee H, Han T (2018) River water quality assessment based on a multi-descriptor approach including chemistry, diatom assemblage structure, and non-taxonomical diatom metrics. Ecol Indic 84:140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.043
Parkinson S (2021) Guiding urban water management towards 1.5 °C. Clean Water 4:34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-021-00126-1
Premke et al. (2022) Large-scale sampling of the freshwater microbiome suggests pollution-driven ecosystem changes. Environ Pollut 308119627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119627
Randrup T, McPherson E, Costello L (2001) A review of tree root conflicts with sidewalks, curbs, and roads. Urban Ecosyst 5:209–225. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024046004731
Reitsema RE, Preiner S, Meire P (2020) Implications of climate change for submerged macrophytes: effects of CO2, flow velocity and nutrient concentration on Berula erecta. Aquat Ecol 54:775–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-020-09776-8
Revi A, de Satterthwaite F, Aragón Durand J, Corfee Morlot RBR, Kiunsi M, Pelling DC, Roberts S, Solecki W (2014) Urban areas. In: Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN, Mac Cracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL (eds) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part a: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York, pp 535–612
Rocha B, Paço TA, Luz AC, Palha P, Milliken S, Kotzen B, Branquinho C, Pinho P, de Carvalho RC (2021) Are biocrusts and xerophytic vegetation a viable green roof typology in a Mediterranean climate? A comparison between differently vegetated green roofs in water runoff and water quality. Water 13:94. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010094
Schlosberg D (2013) Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a discourse. Environ Politics 22:37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.755387
Schoelynck J, De Groote T, Bal K, Vandenbruwaene W, Meire P, Temmerman S (2012) Self-organised patchiness and scale-dependent biogeomorphic feedbacks in aquatic river vegetation. Ecography 35:760–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.07177.x
Schwarz et al. (2017) Understanding biodiversity-ecosystem service relationships in urban areas: a comprehensive literature review. Ecosyst Serv 27:161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.014
Seddon N, Chausson A, Berry P, Girardin CAJ, Smith A, Turner B (2020) Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos Trans R Soc B3752019012020190120. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120
Stevenson J (2014) Ecological assessments with algae: a review and synthesis. J Phycol 50:437–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.12189
Sumudumali RGI, Jayawardana JMCK (2021) A review of biological monitoring of aquatic ecosystems approaches: with special reference to macroinvertebrates and pesticide pollution. Environ Manag 67:263–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01423-0
Symmank L, Natho S, Scholz M, Schröder U, Raupach K, Schulz-Zunkel C (2020) The impact of bioengineering techniques for riverbank protection on ecosystem services of riparian zones. Ecol Eng 158:106040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.106040
Szoszkiewicz K, Jusik S, Pietruczuk K, Gebler D (2020) The Macrophyte Index for Rivers (MIR) as an advantageous approach to running water assessment in local geographical conditions. Water 12:108. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010108
Tremp H, Kohler A (1995) The usefulness of macrophyte monitoring-systems, exemplified on eutrophication and acidification of running waters. Acta Botanica Gallica 142(6):541–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/12538078.1995.10515277
Tzoulas K, Galan J, Pauleit S, Dennis M, Haase D, Niemela J, Venn S, James P, Pedroli B, Mishra H (2020) A dynamic and adaptive framework for implementing nature-based solutions in sustainable urban development and healthy cities. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01380-2
UNESCO (2018) The United Nations world water development report 2018: nature-based solutions for water. World Water Assess Programme, p 139
UNESCO (2020) World Water Assessment Programme, The United Nations world water development report 2020: water and climate change, p 219
UN-Habitat (2020) United nations human settlements programme 2020 world cities report: the value of sustainable urbanization
Vasselon V, Rimet F, Tapolczai K, Bouchez A (2017) Assessing ecological status with diatoms DNA metabarcoding: scaling-up on a WFD monitoring network (Mayotte Island, France). Ecol Indic 82:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.024
Vierikko K, Niemela J (2016) Bottom-up thinking identifying socio-cultural values of ecosystem services in local blue-green infrastructure planning in Helsinki, Finland. Land Use Policy 50:537–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.031
Vierikko K, Lähde E, Nyberg E, Korpilo S, Raymond C (2022) Shifting concepts of urban landscape in Helsinki: from primary forests to high tech nature-based solutions. In: Rastandeh A, Jarchow M (eds) Creating resilient landscapes in an era of climate change – global case studies and real-world solutions. https://www.routledge.com/Creating-Resilient-Landscapes-in-an-Era-of-Climate-Change-Global-Case-Studies/Rastandeh-Jarchow/p/book/9781032210384
Wallace EE, McShane G, Tych W, Kretzschmar A, McCann T, Chappell NA (2021) The effect of hedgerow wild-margins on topsoil hydraulic properties, and overland-flow incidence, magnitude and water-quality. Hydrol Process 35:e14098. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14098
Wellmann C, Barrett AI, Johnson JS, Kunz M, Vogel B, Carslaw KS, Hoose C (2020) Comparing the impact of environmental conditions and microphysics on the forecast uncertainty of deep convective clouds and hail. Atmos Chem Phys 20:2201–2219. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2201-2020
Winfree R, Fox JW, Williams NM, Reilly JR, Cariveau DP (2015) Abundance of common species, not species richness, drives delivery of a real-world ecosystem service. Ecol Lett 18:626–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12424
World Bank (2021) A catalogue of nature-based solutions for urban resilience. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/36507
Yang L, van Dam KH, Zhang L (2020) Developing goals and indicators for the design of sustainable and integrated transport infrastructure and urban spaces. Sustainability 16(11):2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229677
Zhou J, Liu G, Meng Y, Zhou J, Liu G, Meng Y (2021) Using stable isotopes as tracer to investigate hydrological condition and estimate water residence time in a plain region, Chengdu, China. Sci Rep 11:2812. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82349-3
Zimmermann J, Glöckner G, Jahn R, Enke N, Gemeinholzer B (2015) Metabarcoding vs. morphological identification to assess diatom diversity in environmental studies. Mol Ecol Resour 15:526–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12336
Zingraff-Hamed A, Greulich S, Wantzen KM, Pauleit S (2017) Societal drivers of European water governance: a comparison of urban river restoration practices in France and Germany. Water 9:206. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030206
Zingraff-Hamed A, Hüesker F, Albert C, Brillinger M, Huang J, Lupp G, Scheuer S, Schlätel M, Schröter B (2021) Governance models for nature-based solutions: seventeen cases from Germany. Ambio 50:1610–1627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01412-x
Acknowledgments
This research was developed within the project BiNatUr: Bringing nature back – biodiversity-friendly nature-based solutions in cities and funded through the 2020–2021 Biodiversa and Water JPI joint call for research projects, under the BiodivRestore ERA-NET Cofund (GA N°101003777), with the EU and the funding organisations Academy of Finland (Finland), Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF, Germany), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany), National Science Centre (Poland), Research Foundation Flanders (fwo, Belgium) and Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (Portugal).
Authors Funding
PP (FCT: CEECIND/03415/2020, DivRestore/001/2020, BiodivERsA32015104), JM and DG (FCT:PTDC/CTA-AMB/29105/2017, PTDC/BIA-ECO/29261/2017). KS (National Science Centre 021/03/Y/NZ8/00100.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pinho, P. et al. (2023). Urban Aquatic Nature-Based Solutions in the Context of Global Change: Uncovering the Social-ecological-technological Framework. In: Hensel, M.U., Sunguroğlu Hensel, D., Binder, C.R., Ludwig, F. (eds) Introduction to Designing Environments. Designing Environments. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34378-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34378-0_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-34377-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-34378-0
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)