Search

Research and practice during the last 20 years has shown that urban agriculture can contribute to minimising the effects of climate change by, at the same time, improving quality of life in urban areas. In order to do so most effectively, land use and spatial planning are crucial so as to obtain and maintain a supportive green infrastructure and to secure citizens' healthy living conditions. As people today trend more towards living in green and sustainable city centres that can offer fresh and locally produced food, cities become again places for growing food. The scope of urban agriculture thereby is to establish food production sites within the city's sphere; for example, through building-integrated agriculture including concepts such as aquaponics, indoor agriculture, vertical farming, rooftop production, edible walls, as well as through urban farms, edible landscapes, school gardens and community gardens. Embedded in changing urban food systems, the contribution of urban agriculture to creating sustainable and climate-friendly cities is pivotal as it has the capacity to integrate other resource streams such as water, waste and energy. This article describes some of the current aspects of the circular city debate where urban agriculture is pushing forward the development of material and resource cycling in cities.

Research and practice during the last 20 years has shown that urban agriculture can contribute to minimising the effects of climate change by, at the same time, improving quality of life in urban areas. In order to do so most effectively, land use and spatial planning are crucial so as to obtain and maintain a supportive green infrastructure and to secure citizens' healthy living conditions. As people today trend more towards living in green and sustainable city centres that can offer fresh and locally produced food, cities become again places for growing food. The scope of urban agriculture thereby is to establish food production sites within the city's sphere; for example, through building-integrated agriculture including concepts such as aquaponics, indoor agriculture, vertical farming, rooftop production, edible walls, as well as through urban farms, edible landscapes, school gardens and community gardens. Embedded in changing urban food systems, the contribution of urban agriculture to creating sustainable and climate-friendly cities is pivotal as it has the capacity to integrate other resource streams such as water, waste and energy. This article describes some of the current aspects of the circular city debate where urban agriculture is pushing forward the development of material and resource cycling in cities.

In this paper, we reflect on the implications for science, policy and practice of the recently introduced concept of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), with a focus on the European context. First, we analyse NBS in relation to similar concepts, and reflect on its relationship to sustainability as an overarching framework. From this, we derive a set of questions to be addressed and propose a general framework for how these might be addressed in NBS projects by funders, researchers, policy-makers and practitioners. We conclude that:(1)NBS need to be developed and discussed in relation to existing concepts to clarify their added value;(2)When considering and implementing NBS, the ‘relabelling’ of related concepts and the misuse of the concept have to be prevented in order to avoid misunderstanding, duplication and unintended consequences;(3)NBS as currently framed by the European Commission provides an opportunity for: a) transdisciplinary research into the design and implementation of solutions based on nature; and b) overcoming a bias towards development alternatives with narrow perspectives that focus on short-term economic gains and effectiveness;(4)The strength of the NBS concept is its integrative, systemic approach which prevents it from becoming just another “green communication tool” that provides justification for a classical model of natural resource exploitation and management measures.To realise their full potential, NBS must be developed by including the experience of all relevant stakeholders such that ‘solutions’ contribute to achieving all dimensions of sustainability. As NBS are developed, we must also moderate the expectations placed on them since the precedent provided by other initiatives whose aim was to manage nature sustainably demonstrates that we should not expect NBS to be cheap and easy, at least not in the short-term.

The number of collaborative initiatives between scientists and volunteers (i.e., citizen science) is increasing across many research fields. The promise of societal transformation together with scientific breakthroughs contributes to the current popularity of citizen science (CS) in the policy domain. We examined the transformative capacity of citizen science in particular learning through environmental CS as conservation tool. We reviewed the CS and social-learning literature and examined 14 conservation projects across Europe that involved collaborative CS. We also developed a template that can be used to explore learning arrangements (i.e., learning events and materials) in CS projects and to explain how the desired outcomes can be achieved through CS learning. We found that recent studies aiming to define CS for analytical purposes often fail to improve the conceptual clarity of CS; CS programs may have transformative potential, especially for the development of individual skills, but such transformation is not necessarily occurring at the organizational and institutional levels; empirical evidence on simple learning outcomes, but the assertion of transformative effects of CS learning is often based on assumptions rather than empirical observation; and it is unanimous that learning in CS is considered important, but in practice it often goes unreported or unevaluated. In conclusion, we point to the need for reliable and transparent measurement of transformative effects for democratization of knowledge production.

Trends and status of species and habitats need to be measured to assess whether global biodiversity policy targets have been achieved. However, it is impossible to monitor all species and habitats with a justifiable effort. Therefore, it is critical to prioritize the monitoring of specific biodiversity components. Priorities must be linked to key nature conservation policies to ensure that monitoring efforts are relevant to policy needs, achieve maximum impact, and obtain governmental support. Here we discuss priority setting in biodiversity monitoring in view of monitoring obligations and priorities in supranational biodiversity legislation and policies in Europe and assess overlaps in priorities among policies. While most supranational biodiversity regulations require monitoring of biodiversity, obligations are legally enforceable only for the Nature Directives, the Water Framework Directive, and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive of the European Union. Of the assessed international conventions and other relevant policy instruments about 50% explicitly designate priority species and most focus on vertebrates. Lower emphasis is given to habitats and geographical priorities are even less pronounced. Also, an overarching system for monitoring prioritization is still missing. Our prioritization system is based on three main criteria: (1) legal requirement for reporting, (2) wording used to define priority or importance, and (3) inclusion in lists that indicate importance of monitoring due to e.g. threats or relevance of a region for a species. Our system contains five main priority levels, within which an additional division differentiates priorities according to national/European responsibility criteria. Based on this system, we provide recommendations for allocating species and habitats enlisted by the reviewed policy tools to explicit non-overlapping priority levels. Our approach will facilitate synergies between monitoring activities for different policy need

The main aim of this report is to assess which biodiversity indicators should be selected as the basis for developing new EBONE methodologies for assessing biodiversity. These methodologies will combine different types and scales of biodiversity relevant observations and form the basis of recommendations on the design and implementation of the European Biodiversity Observation Network. 2. The development of EBONE and the choice of these test indicators is set in the context of the emerging goal to develop a GEO (global) Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) and its implementation within an institutional framework operating at the European level. One of the main requirements from EBONE will be to provide continued access to data for CBD reporting against the 2010 target at national and European levels. Hence, the indicator selection process began with a brief overview of biodiversity indicators used (or proposed) in large scale (national, continental or global ) programmes. It covered indicators in the GEO Global Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), the European CBD indicators (SEBI), composite indicators and indicator taxa. It also made use of results and ongoing efforts of European research projects. 3. The lack of data is probably the biggest constraint on the development and use of indicators for large-scale (national, European and global) biodiversity assessments. Two of the key questions EBONE is addressing are: (i) can we make better use of the existing biodiversity observation data (e.g. to produce indicators) by combining them in novel ways and making better use of remote sensing technologies; and (ii) are there some simple observations that could be used across Europe within existing programmes that would give added value to existing data? The types of data we are looking to combine in this process are collected at different scales and with different methodologies and levels of sampling intensity. They include: (i) in-situ biodiversity survey an