Urban climate infrastructure does not automatically become biodiversity infrastructure
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS
The authors develop a biodiversity-benefit typology and use literature plus expert judgement to estimate the performance of 14 urban nature-based solutions commonly selected for climate adaptation. Their central finding is a design gap: interventions optimized for heat or water functions may miss habitat, species and human–nature benefits unless biodiversity is an explicit objective.
WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ
For cities as landscapes, multifunctionality has to be designed rather than assumed. A bioswale, tree system or water feature can be climate infrastructure without necessarily functioning as good habitat.
CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY
This is a perspective and expert-judgement framework for the Dutch context, not post-occupancy ecological monitoring of the 14 interventions. The scores should guide questions and design criteria, not be treated as measured universal performance rankings.
SOURCE
Frontiers in Sustainability
View original evidence ↗
A Dutch perspective scores 14 common nature-based solutions against biodiversity functions and argues that climate-adaptation design routinely leaves ecological value on the table.
Read the Wild Lands assessment →