Search

Scholarship on Nature-based Solutions (NbS) primarily focuses on the potential for NbS to deliver multiple benefits to humans and biodiversity from networked natural systems. These approaches, if enacted without sensitivity to local contexts and histories, can deepen long standing injustices resulting from the destruction of complex self-organizing ecological systems, the usurpation of Indigenous governance and knowledge, and the prioritization of technical managerial approaches transforming nature into infrastructure. Here we review, synthesize, and critically reflect on existing scholarship on the rise of NbS in New York City, USA, to inform environmental policy in support of just transformations of complex urban systems. To do so, we examine NbS within the context of the social-ecological-technological system (SETS) of NYC. We organize our review and synthesis around three interrelated concepts of justice: Ecological, Indigenous Environmental, and Infrastructural Justice. Ecological Justice entails addressing the harms, needs, and desired futures of ecological actors while identifying synergies with human focused environmental justice concerns and movements. Indigenous Environmental Justice requires restoring Indigenous systems of governance and knowledge while making space for a diversity of social-ecological practices of marginalized communities. Infrastructural Justice addresses the historical and ongoing injustices perpetuated through mainstream infrastructure policy and design practice – including Environmental Justice concerns – which have increasingly turned towards NbS. Without embedding these principles within emergent NbS focused environmental policy agendas seeking just transformations, they will likely recreate utilitarian, anthropocentric, and colonial modes of managing nature as infrastructure. We conclude with a research-to-action agenda for meeting the interdependent needs of urban ecosystems and humans. • Dominant NbS approaches do not consider social or ecological justice. • NbS can be made more just by integrating concepts of Ecological, Indigenous Environmental, and Infrastructure Justice. • Applying these concepts within case study of NYC, USA, we identify opportunities for improving research and practice. • Explicitly including justice goals in NbS reorients policy at multiple levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Automated decision making and predictive analytics through artificial intelligence, in combination with rapid progress in technologies such as sensor technology and robotics are likely to change the way individuals, communities, governments and private actors perceive and respond to climate and ecological change. Methods based on various forms of artificial intelligence are already today being applied in a number of research fields related to climate change and environmental monitoring. Investments into applications of these technologies in agriculture, forestry and the extraction of marine resources also seem to be increasing rapidly. Despite a growing interest in, and deployment of AI-technologies in domains critical for sustainability, few have explored possible systemic risks in depth. This article offers a global overview of the progress of such technologies in sectors with high impact potential for sustainability like farming, forestry and the extraction of marine resources. We also identify possible systemic risks in these domains including a) algorithmic bias and allocative harms; b) unequal access and benefits; c) cascading failures and external disruptions, and d) trade-offs between efficiency and resilience. We explore these emerging risks, identify critical questions, and discuss the limitations of current governance mechanisms in addressing AI sustainability risks in these sectors. • There is a growing interest in AI-technologies for sustainability. • Increased uses of these technologies could create new types of systemic risks. • We show a global uptake of AI-technologies in farming, forestry and marine management. • We explore gaps in principles and governance of AI from a sustainability perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Preferences and concerns about UGS varied across communities during COVID-19. • Concerns about lack of social distancing and green space access discouraged UGS visits. • UGS are increasingly important for mental and physical health during crises. Urban green spaces (UGS) provide health benefits to city dwellers, which may be even more important during times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, lack of access to UGS or important features of UGS, in addition to concerns about UGS safety or maintenance, could prevent people from receiving these benefits. We designed an online survey to understand how people were using and perceiving UGS during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City during the spring of 2020. The survey included questions about how people's visits to UGS and perceptions of the importance of UGS for their health had changed since the start of the pandemic, as well as the concerns people had and features of UGS they considered important. Of the 1372 people who took the survey, most respondents were concerned about a lack of social distancing and crowded UGS, and respondents with these concerns were less likely to visit UGS and had visited UGS less often during than before the pandemic. In addition, generalized linear models showed differences in some concerns and important features of UGS across gender, race and ethnicity, demonstrating the importance of considering specific community needs in UGS design and management. Although concerns about lack of access were not common in our study population, these also appeared to prevent people from using UGS, and were more common in certain areas of the city that were also hard-hit by COVID-19 in the beginning of the pandemic. To ensure that people can get health benefits from UGS during times of crisis, cities must eliminate barriers by providing equitable access to UGS, considering what amenities communities need from UGS, and provide consistent communication about public health policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Afforestation urban restoration sites had increased soil carbon storage compared to degraded urban soils. • High success afforestation sites had significantly larger carbon pools than low success afforestation and degraded sites. • Diversity treatments (6 versus 2 planted species) had no effect on soil carbon levels. • Inherent site characteristics had a strong influence on the success or failure of urban afforestation sites. There is great interest in the ability of afforestation programs to sequester carbon, improve soil health, and provide other ecological benefits to urban areas. However, the capacity of urban soils to support successful afforestation and sequester carbon is poorly understood. This study quantified soil carbon in a series of experimental restoration sites established between 2009 and 2011 as part of the MillionTreesNYC Afforestation Project in New York City. Soil cores (0–100 cm) were collected at 10 sites and analyzed for total carbon content. Data were analyzed with respect to depth (0–10, 10–30, 30–70, 70–90, 90–100 cm), high (six species) versus low (two species) diversity planting palettes, and afforestation success (high or low). Results were compared with data from regional reference forest, degraded urban sites in New York City, and disturbed and undisturbed sites in other cities. High success afforestation sites had significantly larger carbon pools than low success afforestation sites and degraded NYC sites. We suggest that these differences were created by interactions between initial site conditions that facilitated plant community establishment and growth, which in turn increased soil carbon accumulation. These initial site conditions include land use history that influences soil physical and chemical factors, as well as proximity to existing forest stands. Diversity treatments had no effect on soil carbon levels, but these may need a longer time period to emerge. These results suggest that afforestation may enhance the capacity of urban soils to store carbon compared to urban degraded soils, but that urban soil properties and site characteristics constrain this capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In New York City (NYC), the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020 induced a significant shift in the use and accessibility of urban green spaces (UGS). To understand the impact of COVID-19 on the access to UGS, we conducted a spatial analysis of geographic access to UGS and perceived access based on data collected from a social survey deployed from May 13 to June 15, 2020. We examine geographical accessibility to UGS and how this compares to perceived accessibility, or the ease which residents feel they can access a UGS. We further explored the correlation between spatial access to UGS and fifteen social vulnerability variables including economic status, household composition, minority status, and housing type for different zip codes. The results show that geographical proximity variables can predict a number of the perceived access variables, particularly those related to COVID-19 measures. Although lower-income communities were found to have higher spatial access to UGS, many of the same communities, including people living in crowded and multi-unit buildings, on average only have access to smaller green spaces, suggesting an uneven distribution of larger quality parks. This observation is further confirmed by survey results. These findings have implications for policies surrounding the distribution of UGS and whether equitable access is provided to NYC residents, with implications for similar patterns that may exist in other cities. • We compare geographical access to urban green spaces (UGS) with perceived access. • Geographical accessibility can predict perceived concerns regarding social distancing. • UGS environmental justice implications are related to perceptions of UGS qualities. • We overlap COVID-19 vulnerabilities with the availability of UGS at the zip code level. • Many working-class neighborhoods are highly impacted by COVID-19 and have smaller UGS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]