Paving the way for nature-positive cities using tools for urban renaturing.

For a long time, urban development has largely separated human populations from nature, with only a few specialist (non-human) species able to persist in urban areas. Recently, there has been increasing recognition of the impact of the loss of nature on our communities and the cost of trying to replace these lost benefits. Renaturing approaches are now gaining more popularity, with green roofs and walls appearing across our cities, and biodiverse areas like wildflower meadows being designed back into our parks [1]. The approach concept extends beyond reducing harm to actively regenerate and improve nature within our built environments [2]. The Biurbs project was led by the University of Manchester, the University of East London, the University of the West of England, and Stolon Studio. The project has been exploring the cost and value of restoring nature into urban developments. The research engaged with decision makers and stakeholders to help inform practical, well-grounded tools and guidance. The study included findings that show that for nature-positive solutions to be implemented effectively, built environment practitioners, such as spatial planners and developers, are increasingly reliant on a range of Sustainable Spatial Development Tools (SSDTs) [3]. These tools are intended to help evaluate the impacts of renaturing during planning and development [4] and are essential in transitioning from aspiration to action.  However, there are challenges in the application of these tools. Issues, including comprehensive assessment and aligning with the practical needs and capacities of needs and capacities of practitioner

practitioners, persist [5]. When SSDTs fall short, there is a risk that development projects will continue to degrade nature rather than enhance it.

To address these challenges, our research took a practitioner-led approach, focusing on the tools most commonly used in the UK [3]. By critically comparing UK-used SSDTs against key factors, including their ability to address societal challenges, manage trade-offs, and align with planning requirements, we found that:

1. Diverse evidence produces diverse outcomes - we found that the various evidence requirements and multiple considerations within different tools can lead to widely diverse outcomes for nature. Practitioners must carefully select tools based on the specific results they aim to achieve through renaturing

2. The socio-economic gap - while most SSDTs effectively calculate the broad nature - based solution benefits, they often fail to estimate the socio-economic outcomes of renaturing in urban planning. The socio-economic gap makes it more challenging to develop effective business cases, which are necessary for successful development [6].

3. Holistic decision-making - the analysis of our research aids practitioners in understanding the advantages and obstacles of different SSDTs through a Decision Map. This map could be a key resource for selecting the most suitable tool(s) for different planning situations. It encourages a strategic combination of tools to achieve a holistic and comprehensive assessment. The map is applicable for other geographical locations to directly support the global mandate to reverse nature loss [7].
   

   

   Figure 1: SSDT Decision Map for renaturing in urban development (Osei et al., 2025)

There are multiple practical outputs of the Biurbs project, including investigating the social and financial values of renaturing in development and applying the outcomes to multiple case studies. The team also investigated practitioners’ experiences with tools to provide evidence for tools’ actual strengths, limitations, and opportunities in real-world strategies and projects. Understanding the practical applications of tools is vital to ensuring that urban development initiatives are genuinely beneficial for nature.

By Gloria Osei, Caroline Nash and Stuart Connop.

References

[1] Burgess, N. A. (2008). Combining Field Data and Computer Modeling to Improve Designs for Two Wet Detention Ponds in James City County, VA. https://core.ac.uk/download/235416653.pdf

[2] IUCN. (2020). Nature-based Solutions: A Global Standard for the 21st Century. [Insert relevant URL or retrieval information for a general IUCN nature-based solutions reference if specific one is unavailable].

[3] Osei, G., Connop, S., Nash, C. and Sinnett, D., 2025. Supporting decision-making for nature recovery through urban development–a map of Sustainable Spatial Development Tools. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, p.129075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.129075

[4] Ahern, J. (2013). Urban resilience and the role of design, planning and governance. Cities, 31, S43-S52.

[5] Ghofrani, Z., Sposito, V., & Faggian, R. (2017). A comprehensive analysis of tools and techniques used for sustainability assessment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(11), 1983-2002.

[6] Raymond, C. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., de Kool, M. P., McPhearson, T., & van der Jagt, A. P. (2017). A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environmental Science & Policy, 77, 15-25.

[5] United Nations. (2022). Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. [Insert relevant URL or retrieval information].