Nature-oriented cities in Europe: terms, criteria and experiences
الموضوعات : Journal of Radar and Optical Remote Sensing and GIS
Amin Mohammadi DehCheshmeh
1
,
Mohammad Hasan Khamsi meybodi
2
,
Hossein Banaeemanesh
3
1 - PhD student of geography and urban planning, Yazd branch, Islamic Azad University, Yazd ,Iran
2 - Department of Mapping Engineering, Mehrat National University, Tehran, Iran
3 - Islamic Azad University, Yazd Branch, Department of Geography and Urban Planning
الکلمات المفتاحية: naturalist , Europe, terms, criteria, experiences,
ملخص المقالة :
Objective: As urbanization accelerates and environmental pressures increase, this study explores the conceptual foundations, evaluation criteria, and practical experiences of nature-oriented urbanism in Europe. It focuses on three interrelated dimensions environmental, social, and economic and addresses key questions concerning the main concepts shaping nature-oriented urban planning, the essential criteria for its evaluation, and the lessons derived from leading European cities.
Methods: A comprehensive literature-based methodology was employed, synthesizing insights from biophilic urbanism, sustainable development, and urban resilience theories. The study also examines case studies from Vienna, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and Barcelona, which showcase pioneering strategies such as green infrastructure expansion, circular economy models, climate adaptation planning, and inclusive urban governance frameworks.
Results: Findings indicate that nature-oriented principles, while context-dependent, offer scalable and integrative frameworks for guiding urban sustainability transitions. The European cases demonstrate notable achievements in environmental improvement and social innovation, yet persistent challenges remain regarding social equity, green gentrification, and participatory planning practices.
Conclusion: Nature-oriented urbanism provides a comprehensive pathway for aligning ecological integrity with human well-being and economic resilience. Effective implementation requires adaptive policies, cross-sector collaboration, and active citizen engagement. The study concludes with practical policy recommendations and directions for future research to support cities in embedding ecological principles into sustainable urban development strategies worldwide.
1. Introduction
Rapid urbanization, climate change, ecological degradation, and widening social inequalities have intensified the pressure on cities to transition toward more sustainable development pathways. Urban areas currently account for a dominant share of global energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and land-use transformation, while simultaneously serving as hubs of economic growth and population concentration. These dynamics have elevated cities to a critical position in achieving global sustainability goals, including climate adaptation, biodiversity conservation, and social well-being.
In response, the concept of nature-oriented cities has gained increasing attention in urban planning and sustainability research. This paradigm emphasizes the systematic integration of natural systems—such as green and blue infrastructure, ecosystem services, and biodiversity—into urban form, governance, and socio-economic processes. Unlike conventional approaches that treat nature as an aesthetic or supplementary element, nature-oriented urbanism positions ecological processes as essential components of urban resilience, public health, and climate mitigation.
European cities have played a pioneering role in advancing this approach due to strong institutional capacity, supportive policy frameworks, and long-standing environmental planning traditions. Cities such as Vienna, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and Barcelona have implemented diverse strategies ranging from extensive green space preservation and climate-adaptive water management to circular economy initiatives and participatory urban greening programs. Despite this progress, existing research remains fragmented, often addressing environmental, social, or economic dimensions in isolation.
The purpose of this extended abstract is to synthesize key concepts, evaluation criteria, and empirical experiences related to nature-oriented urban development in Europe. The study seeks to clarify how integrated nature-based strategies contribute to environmental performance, social inclusion, and urban resilience, while identifying transferable lessons for broader sustainability transitions.
2. Method
This study adopts a qualitative integrative review approach combined with comparative case analysis. A systematic examination of peer-reviewed journal articles, policy reports, municipal planning documents, and publications from international organizations was conducted to capture both theoretical and practical dimensions of nature-oriented urbanism. Key sources included urban sustainability and ecology journals, European Union policy frameworks, and official city-level sustainability strategies.
The methodological process consisted of three main steps. First, core theoretical concepts related to nature-oriented cities—such as biophilic urbanism, nature-based solutions, green and blue infrastructure, and urban resilience—were identified and categorized. Second, evaluation criteria used across empirical studies and policy frameworks were extracted and synthesized into common thematic dimensions, focusing on environmental integration, governance mechanisms, socio-economic outcomes, and adaptive capacity. Third, selected European cities were analyzed comparatively to illustrate how these concepts and criteria are operationalized in real-world urban contexts.
The case selection was based on geographic diversity, policy leadership, and documented implementation of nature-oriented strategies. Vienna, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and Barcelona were chosen as representative examples reflecting different climatic conditions, governance structures, and urban morphologies within Europe. This comparative framework enabled the identification of convergent patterns and context-specific differences, while avoiding overgeneralization.
Although the study relies on secondary data, triangulation across multiple sources was applied to enhance analytical robustness. The focus was placed on qualitative synthesis rather than quantitative performance metrics, consistent with the exploratory and conceptual nature of the review.
3. Results
The synthesis reveals that effective nature-oriented urban development in European cities is grounded in the integration of ecological, social, and economic objectives rather than isolated environmental interventions. Across the reviewed cases, green and blue infrastructure plays a central role in mitigating urban heat, managing stormwater, improving air quality, and enhancing biodiversity. Vienna’s long-term preservation of extensive green spaces demonstrates how ecological priorities can be institutionalized within land-use planning, while Copenhagen’s climate-adaptive parks and floodable urban landscapes illustrate multifunctional design approaches that combine recreation with risk reduction.
Governance emerges as a decisive factor shaping outcomes. Cities that embed nature-oriented principles into formal planning instruments, supported by cross-sectoral coordination and public participation, show greater consistency and durability in implementation. Amsterdam’s circular economy initiatives and Barcelona’s superblock and urban greening programs highlight how ecological strategies can be aligned with mobility planning, economic innovation, and neighborhood-scale interventions.
However, the results also indicate significant challenges. One of the most prominent risks is green gentrification, where environmental improvements increase property values and lead to the displacement of lower-income residents. This phenomenon underscores the necessity of integrating social equity considerations—such as affordable housing policies and inclusive planning processes—into nature-based strategies. Without such measures, ecological interventions may unintentionally exacerbate existing socio-spatial inequalities.
Overall, the findings demonstrate that nature-oriented cities function most effectively when nature-based solutions are treated as core urban infrastructure supported by participatory governance and long-term policy commitment. Fragmented or project-based approaches, by contrast, tend to yield limited and uneven benefits.
4. Conclusion
This extended abstract highlights nature-oriented urbanism as a comprehensive and transformative approach to sustainable city development. The European experiences reviewed illustrate that integrating natural systems into urban planning can simultaneously enhance environmental performance, climate resilience, and quality of life, provided that governance frameworks address social equity and institutional coordination.
The main contribution of this study lies in consolidating fragmented research into a coherent analytical framework that emphasizes integration across environmental, social, and economic dimensions. By demonstrating how nature-based strategies operate in practice within diverse European contexts, the study offers transferable insights for cities seeking to advance sustainability transitions.
Nevertheless, the findings also reveal limitations, particularly regarding the applicability of European models to cities with weaker institutional capacity or different socio-economic conditions. Future research should extend this framework to cities in the Global South, incorporate quantitative indicators for monitoring impacts, and examine the long-term social implications of nature-oriented interventions.
In conclusion, nature-oriented cities should be understood not as isolated planning experiments but as adaptive socio-ecological systems. As urban challenges intensify under climate change and continued urban growth, embedding nature at the core of urban development emerges as an essential pathway toward resilient, inclusive, and sustainable cities.
References
1. Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: Sustainability and resilience in the new urban world. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 341–343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.021
2. Amin, A. (2002). Social cohesion and resilience in urban environments. Urban Studies, 39(3), 433-444.
3. Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J. J. T., Masip, L., & Pearsall, H. (2016). Assessing green gentrification in historically disenfranchised neighborhoods: A longitudinal and spatial analysis of Barcelona. Urban Geography, 37(8), 1132–1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1249564
4. Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J. J., & Brand, A. (2016). Green gentrification and its impacts on urban equality. Environmental Research Letters, 11(10), 104019.
5. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in urban sustainability. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571.
6. Banister, D. (2008). Energy-efficient urban infrastructure. Transport Policy, 15(1), 1-10.
7. Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005
8. Barbier, C., Laville, A., & Petit, S. (2021). Cooling Paris: Urban strategies for climate adaptation. Urban Climate, 37, 100825.
9. Bateman, I. J., Day, B. H., & Lake, I. (2011). Environmental taxation and incentives for sustainable cities. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 2012-2022.
10. Baumgartner, R. J., & Korhonen, J. (2016). Strategic thinking for sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 24(6), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1657
11. Baumgartner, R. J., Bausch, T., & König, S. (2016). Waste-to-energy technologies and sustainable cities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 111, 125-137.
12. Beatley, T. (2011). Biophilic cities: Integrating nature into urban design and planning. Island Press.
13. Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2002). Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. Renewable Resources Journal, 20(3), 12–17.
14. Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D., & Gordon, L. J. (2015). Eco-districts and sustainable urban planning. Ecology and Society, 20(3), 47.
15. Boeri, S., Citterio, C., & Marras, P. (2015). The Bosco Verticale: A new paradigm for urban forestry. Sustainable Cities and Society, 14, 107-116.
16. Boogaard, F., van den Broek, A., & Smit, L. (2017). Sustainable resource management in nature-oriented cities: Water and energy strategies. Sustainability, 9(6), 973.
17. Bovaird, T. (2004). Public-private partnerships in urban sustainability. Public Administration Review, 64(2), 235-250.
18. Buehler, R., & Pucher, J. (2011). Sustainable transport in Freiburg: Lessons from Germany's environmental capital. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 5(1), 43-70.
19. Bulkeley, H., & Newell, P. (2015). Governing climate change. Routledge.
20. Bullard, R. D. (2000). Environmental justice and sustainable urban planning. Urban Affairs Review, 35(4), 559-580.
21. Cervero, R. (2013). Low-carbon transportation strategies in nature-oriented cities. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 6(1), 1-12.
22. City of Copenhagen. (2012). Cloudburst management plan 2012. City of Copenhagen.
23. City of Copenhagen. (2012). Copenhagen Cloudburst Management Plan. Copenhagen: City of Copenhagen.
24. City of Paris. (2018). Paris Climate Action Plan. Paris: City of Paris.
25. Davis, A. P. (2005). Green engineering principles promote low-impact development. Environmental Science & Technology, 39(16), 338A–344A. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0533849
26. Davis, A. P. (2005). Stormwater management systems in urban settings. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 131(2), 67-74.
27. de Boer, J., Schermer, M., & Bos, E. (2020). Urban farming and renewable energy integration: The De Ceuvel case. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 35(4), 374-383.
28. Dinnie, E., Macmillan, R., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2013). Community-driven environmental initiatives in urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(7), 1013-1030.
29. Dunnett, N., & Kingsbury, N. (2008). Green roofs and their role in urban adaptation strategies. Urban Green Infrastructure, 15(3), 305-312.
30. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2015). The circular economy and urban sustainability: Reducing waste and improving resource efficiency. Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
31. Elmqvist, T., Setälä, H., Handel, S. N., et al. (2015). Biodiversity preservation in urban areas. Urban Ecology, 85(2), 237-247.
32. Elmqvist, T., Tengö, M., & Dalgren, A. (2015). Mixed-use zoning in sustainable urban development. Sustainable Cities and Society, 19, 141-148.
33. European Commission. (2016). Green economy: Opportunities for job creation in sustainable urban environments. Brussels: European Commission.
34. Flammer, C. (2021). Green bonds: A financial tool for sustainable urban development. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 11(3), 211-226.
35. Francis, J., Giles-Corti, B., & Knuiman, M. (2012). Social cohesion and community well-being in green spaces. Journal of Social and Environmental Studies, 33(4), 233-245.
36. Frey, M., Bühler, R., & Steiner, R. (2019). Innovations in urban water management: Zurich’s approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 243, 163-173.
37. Gawel, E., Weber, E., & Hempel, E. (2019). Economic growth through green job creation in urban settings. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 21(3), 273-290.
38. Getter, K. L., & Rowe, D. B. (2006). Green roofs and walls for urban sustainability. HortTechnology, 16(4), 485-490.
39. Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & De Angelis, R. (2016). Circular economy in urban contexts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 220-231.
40. Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007
41. Girod, B., Luderer, G., & Goss, M. (2014). Carbon neutrality and sustainable cities. Global Environmental Change, 24, 27-35.
42. Girod, B., van Vuuren, D. P., & Hertwich, E. G. (2014). Climate policy through changing consumption patterns: Impacts on carbon emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 9(3), 034015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/034015
43. Glaeser, E. L. (2011). Triumph of the city: How our greatest invention makes us richer, smarter, greener, healthier, and happier. Penguin Books.
44. Goddard, M. A., Dougill, A. J., & Benton, T. G. (2010). Scaling up the benefits of nature-based solutions in cities. Urban Ecology, 12(2), 102-113.
45. González, M. T., & Kirkevold, M. (2010). Benefits of sensory garden and horticultural activities in dementia care: A modified scoping review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24(17–18), 2698–2715. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12776
46. González, M., García, M., & Delgado, J. (2010). Public green spaces and mental health outcomes. Journal of Urban Health, 87(5), 775-783.
47. Grewal, S. S., & Grewal, P. S. (2012). Urban farming and food security in cities. Urban Agriculture Magazine, 28, 27-30.
48. Haase, D., Kabisch, N., & Haase, A. (2014). Green infrastructure for urban resilience in cities. Urban Studies, 51(9), 1868-1887.
49. Hall, P. (2016). Sustainable urban living: The Vauban model. Journal of Urban Development, 22(4), 312-329.
50. Hansen, K., Nielsen, L., & Lund, T. (2019). Strategies for carbon neutrality in Copenhagen. Environmental Research Letters, 14(8), 084003.
51. Harrison, C., & Donnelly, I. A. (2010). A theory of smart cities. Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences.
52. Harrison, C., Donnelly, I. A., & Pruitt, T. (2010). Smart cities and the use of IoT technologies. International Journal of Information Management, 30(5), 428-439.
53. Hernández, E., & Velázquez, E. (2007). Community engagement in urban sustainability. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(3), 491-504.
54. Horner, R. R., Kromer, S. L., & Schroeder, P. M. (2015). Low-impact development in urban planning. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 141(4), 0515001.
55. Horner, R. R., Skupien, J. J., & Livingston, E. H. (2015). Low-impact development: Hydrologic analysis and design. John Wiley & Sons.
56. James, P., Tzoulas, K., & White, M. (2017). Cost-benefit analysis of green infrastructure in urban areas. Environmental Management, 59(5), 810-818.
57. Jones, L., Milner, J., & Ritchie, D. (2014). Energy-efficient urban planning and building systems. Building and Environment, 74, 146-157.
58. Kabisch, N., Qureshi, S., & Haase, D. (2017). Green infrastructure and its economic benefits in cities. Ecological Economics, 122, 85-94.
59. Kazmierczak, A., & Carter, J. (2010). Adaptation to climate change using green and blue infrastructure. Environment Agency.
60. Keesstra, S. D., de Graaff, J., & Dimoudi, A. (2018). Evaluating the long-term economic benefits of green infrastructure in urban stormwater management. Environmental Research Letters, 13(7), 074001.
61. Križan, F., Bilková, K., & Novotný, L. (2014). Zero carbon buildings: Trends and strategies for sustainability. Energy and Buildings, 80, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.04.037
62. Križan, F., Golja, T., & Lütkemeier, M. (2014). Zero-carbon buildings and energy-efficient infrastructure. Energy and Buildings, 76, 232-240.
63. Kroposki, B., Margolis, R., & Lynn, K. (2015). Renewable systems integration. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, 13(6), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPE.2015.2476979
64. Litman, T. (2013). Evaluating transportation land use impacts: Considering the impacts, benefits, and costs of different land use development patterns. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
65. Litman, T. (2013). Sustainable urban mobility and transportation systems. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 47, 58-69.
66. Lundie, S., Peters, G., & Lenzen, M. (2007). Eco-friendly waste management in urban environments. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(13), 4686-4693.
67. Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Green spaces, urbanity, and health: The impact of nature on physical health in cities. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(10), 1184-1191.
68. Moroni, S., del Valle, A., & Cavallo, F. (2020). Urban food systems and sustainability: Lessons from Milan. Agriculture and Human Values, 37(3), 529-540.
69. Mueller, N., Rojas-Rueda, D., Basagaña, X., Cirach, M., Cole-Hunter, T., Dadvand, P., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2020). The health benefits of the Superblocks model in Barcelona. Environment International, 145, 106126.
70. Municipality of Amsterdam. (2020). Amsterdam Circular 2025: Towards a sustainable future. Amsterdam: Municipality of Amsterdam.
71. Municipality of Amsterdam. (2020). Circular Amsterdam: A vision and action agenda for the city and metropolitan area. Municipality of Amsterdam.
72. Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1999). Eco-city models and sustainable urban living. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 125(1), 43-56.
73. Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability and cities: Overcoming automobile dependence. Island Press.
74. Nowak, D. J., Hoehn, R. E., & Crane, D. E. (2014). Urban forestry and its effects on human health. Journal of Urban Health, 91(6), 1069-1077.
75. Oke, T. R. (1987). Urban heat island effect and climate resilience. Geographical Review, 77(4), 235-245.
76. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). Sustainable water management in urban settings. Water Resources Research, 43(2), W02405.
77. Pandis Iverot, S., & Brandt, N. (2011). Carbon-neutral urban development: The Hammarby Sjöstad model. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 137(4), 316-324.
78. Papageorgiou, M., Carapetos, J., & Georgiou, A. (2018). Waste management strategies for sustainable cities: Circular economy perspectives. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(12), 7000-7012.
79. Paredes-Sánchez, M. A., Rodríguez-Castro, L., & Ramírez-Gutiérrez, M. (2019). Public-private partnerships for funding sustainable infrastructure. International Journal of Project Management, 37(2), 239-251.
80. Pérez, R., Lázaro, R., & Pérez-López, M. (2014). Energy efficiency in sustainable urban design and planning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30, 37-47.
81. Pfeiffer, S., Altieri, M., & Rojas, A. (2021). Urban biodiversity strategies: Berlin’s brownfield redevelopment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 214, 104174.
82. Roberts, D., & Sykes, L. (2000). Sustainable urban development and resilience. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(2), 161-175.
83. Roberts, P., & Sykes, H. (2000). Urban regeneration: A handbook. SAGE Publications.
84. Rosenberg, N., Meyer, E., & Arnold, M. (2018). Daylighting streams for biodiversity and recreation: Zurich’s Seebach project. Water Policy, 20(6), 1220-1234.
85. Rydin, Y. (2013). Green architecture and energy-efficient building design. Environmental Politics, 22(4), 669-690.
86. Rydin, Y. (2013). The future of planning: Beyond growth dependence. Policy Press.
87. Sachs, J. D. (2015). Sustainable urban planning and ecological health. Global Environmental Politics, 15(2), 56-74.
88. Sanyé-Mengual, E., Pérez-Morales, S., & Sánchez-Sánchez, A. (2015). Urban agriculture and its contribution to local economies and food security. Sustainability, 7(11), 15437-15453.
89. Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Decentralized governance in sustainable urban planning. Governance, 12(3), 377-398.
90. Sovacool, B. K. (2017). Energy transition and sustainable urban systems. Energy Policy, 101, 110-118.
91. Stern, N. (2007). Climate mitigation strategies for sustainable cities. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.
92. Suk-Joon, K., & Han, J. (2017). Sustainable water management in urban areas: Techniques and applications. Water Science & Technology, 74(7), 1871-1885.
93. Talen, E. (2000). Social equity in urban planning and sustainability. Urban Affairs Review, 36(6), 870-890.
94. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., et al. (2007). Urban green spaces and ecological health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(8), 1213-1223.
95. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemelä, J., & James, P. (2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001
96. United Nations. (2018). World urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
97. Urban Ecology Agency of Vienna. (2020). Urban ecology and green spaces in Vienna. Vienna: Urban Ecology Agency.
98. Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space and social health: Improving access to nature for all communities. Urban Studies, 51(14), 2967-2985.
