Urban Greenspace, Climate Adaptation and Health Co-Benefits: Municipal Policy and Practice in London
Abstract
1. Introduction
What is the current practice of urban greenspace adaptation with health co-benefits at the municipal level?
1.1. The Multifunctionality Thesis
1.2. The Greenspace–Climate–Health Nexus
1.3. The Policy–Practice Gap
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area and Policy Context
2.2. Islington
2.3. Research Approach
2.4. Methods
2.5. Data Analysis
2.6. Limitations and Implications for Generalisability
3. Results
3.1. What Is Measured
- current indicators that look at municipal greenspace-related indicators currently in use, mainly describing physical and environmental characteristics of greenspace (e.g., canopy cover and number of trees) but also activities related to greenspace (e.g., community volunteering and green champions).
- desirable indicators that note what other indicators measuring greenspace’s multifunctionality should be measured (e.g., carbon/heat/flooding mitigation, biodiversity enhancement and social) and emphasise the importance of socially relevant greenspace indicators in demonstrating social, political and investment values. Interestingly, health indicators were mentioned but no examples given.
- measurement challenges that identify municipal barriers to measuring the multiple benefits of greenspace, including lack of data or access to data, lack of skills and capacity and also methodological and technical bottlenecks.
3.2. Current Indicators
...with trees, we’re looking at things like canopy cover.... The only data that we’re collecting now is the amount of new greenspace delivered, the ‘per squared meter’…so, in terms of squared meters of highways and land that’s turned into greenspace that’s what we’re calculating and keeping track of, and recording.
I would welcome advice on... better metrics that are more specifically highlighting health benefits or carbon benefits.
3.3. Desirable Indicators
...there’s plenty more work to be done... around the health benefits of greenspace...
and that despite the significant groundwork and readily available reports and evidence available, there is ample opportunity to build on these efforts to make further progress.
3.4. Measurement Challenges
It is so complex to put in a greenspace, dealing with objections, getting public support, getting all of the engineering measures together...doing all of that, that is such a challenge. Then to be there and start monitoring the effects of it afterwards. That’s just like something that is sometimes seen, in short-term thinking, as an opportunity cost to being able to just get on and do some more greenspaces.(RT discussions)
3.5. Evaluation Frameworks
- existing frameworks note the limited and KPI-driven nature of the current municipal greenspace measurement and fail to draw on health data due to use constraints but also poor understanding of the health co/benefits of greenspace at the municipal level
- integrated frameworks need integration across the greenspace, climate and health metrics and, ideally, alignment with KPI, SDG and ESG targets
3.6. Existing Frameworks
We always talk about the fact that there are multiple benefits to greenspace, but then we cannot quantify them or maybe we can quantify them, but it’s really complicated and we [the Borough] don’t have capacity or skills to do it.
It’s sort of saying that...we’ll deliver 30 greening projects next year when we already know that we’re probably going to deliver 30 greening projects in the next year. So, it’s not very rigorous. A lot of the KPIs we’re using are based on the work that we already are doing.
We currently have corporate KPIs for environment and climate change...we have KPIs on our overall carbon emissions reduction, which is measured by government...but it’s not calculated for greenspace interventions which are mainly associated with climate adaptation and not carbon reductions.
3.7. Integrated Frameworks
The ESGs are important but... it’s always difficult... when you’re working with the private sector... how do we square the circle between the two things?...
3.8. Policy Integration
- Current practice finds that policy fragmentation and silo thinking persist, despite proactive efforts to join agendas such as stewardship charters and demonstrator projects.
- Municipal collaboration, between municipal departments but also municipalities, is noted as a main driver of policy integration, with ‘good practice’ examples involving greenspace, transport, education and public health municipal teams.
- Barriers to integration note competing municipal priorities, such as immediate needs versus long-term goals; net zero focus; public acceptability and financial, time and staff/capacity constraints.
3.9. Current Practice
We all do work in silos, and it’s very easy for that to happen. Trying to get people to understand the impacts of climate change on their users and residents, as well as their health, is not easy nor necessarily well understood.
We hold a number of different meetings with officers in the Borough to understand how climate change and public health were affecting their work...what sort of challenges were coming up...what would they be able to do about it within their existing kind of resources, budgets and staff... what they’d like to do about it but perhaps needed a bit more help with...(Interviewee P1)
3.10. Municipal Collaboration
There is also a number of collaborations between the greenspace and natural environment teams and the highways team, which aim to deliver greener and healthier streets through the Active Together strategy...and the early years education team… like Bright Start where we work with schools to improve and encourage kids access to greenspace…discussions have also started with the public health team trying to understand how to use greenspace to tackle health inequalities in the Borough.(Interviewee P5)
We’ve tried to align initiatives across teams by showing how interconnected health and climate policies are, and this approach has begun to resonate with departments...we also try to get different teams together to familiarise with specific and more technical knowledge...(Interviewee P7)
The main challenge is that the policy framework isn’t there right now...developing a London-wide policy framework with clear instructions for boroughs who want to engage in this conversation would be extremely useful.
3.11. Barriers to Integration
Building a new home is a carbon-intensive thing and it will generate more carbon emissions...but, if it is also important for people’s overall health and wellbeing.
When you’ve got competing policy goals, which one takes precedence? There’s competition for urban land in general, which brings our policy ambitions into conflict most of the times.
A lot of departments in the Council are very stretched because they must deliver certain services, often on limited budgets or within poorly resourced teams… Adding in other considerations, around climate, adaptation or health is always going to be a challenge.
Resources have been focused on Net Zero goals, and now adding in adaptation work is an ongoing challenge.
4. Discussion
4.1. Data-Driven Governance for Greenspace Multifunctionality
4.2. Policy Integration and Spatial Planning
5. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Turcu, C. London’s Pocket Parks: UCL Is Helping Islington Council Create Green Spaces to Improve Urban Health and Climate Resilience. 2024. Available online: https://bartlett-review.ucl.ac.uk/londons-pocket-parks/index.html (accessed on 22 February 2025).
- World Health Organization. Urban Green Spaces and Health; Regional Office for Europe: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Turcu, C.; Crane, M.; Hutchinson, E.; Lloyd, S.; Belesova, K.; Wilkinson, P.; Davies, M. A multi-scalar perspective on health and urban housing: An umbrella review. Build. Cities 2021, 2, 734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Geary, R.S.; Wheeler, B.; Lovell, R.; Jepson, R.; Hunter, R.; Rodgers, S. A call to action: Improving urban green spaces to reduce health inequalities exacerbated by COVID-19. Prev. Med. 2021, 145, 106425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baste, I.A.; Watson, R.T. Tackling the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies by making peace with nature 50 years after the Stockholm Conference. Glob. Environ. Change 2022, 73, 102466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boulton, C.; Dedekorkut-Howes, A.; Byrne, J. Factors shaping urban greenspace provision: A systematic review of the literature. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 178, 82–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerlak, A.K.; Elder, A.; Pavao-Zuckerman, M.; Zuniga-Teran, A.; Sanderford, A.R. Agency and governance in green infrastructure policy adoption and change. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2021, 23, 599–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, C.; Berry, P.; Smith, A. The climate benefits, co-benefits, and trade-offs of green infrastructure: A systematic literature review. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 291, 112583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grafakos, S.; Viero, G.; Reckien, D.; Trigg, K.; Viguie, V.; Sudmant, A.; Graves, C.; Foley, A.; Heidrich, O.; Mirailles, J.; et al. Integration of mitigation and adaptation in urban climate change action plans in Europe: A systematic assessment. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 121, 109623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davies, M.; Belesova, K.; Crane, M.; Hale, J.; Haines, A.; Hutchinson, E.; Kiesewetter, G.; Mberu, B.; Mohajeri, N.; Michie, S.; et al. The CUSSH programme: Supporting cities’ transformational change towards health and sustainability. Wellcome Open Res. 2021, 6, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, G.; Michie, S.; Anderson, J.; Belesova, K.; Crane, M.; Deloly, C.; Dimitroulopoulou, S.; Gitau, H.; Hale, J.; Lloyd, S.J.; et al. Developing a programme theory for a transdisciplinary research collaboration: Complex urban systems for sustainability and health. Wellcome Open Res. 2021, 6, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GLA. The London Health Inequalities Strategy; Greater London Authority (GLA): London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, J.; Simpson, C.; Brousse, O.; Viitanen, A.-K.; Heaviside, C. The potential of urban trees to reduce heat-related mortality in London. Environ. Res. Lett. 2024, 19, 054004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sussams, L.; Sheate, W.; Eales, R. Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation policy intervention: Muddying the waters or clearing a path to a more secure future? J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 147, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taylor, L.; Hochuli, D.F. Defining greenspace: Multiple uses across multiple disciplines. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 158, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, J.; Zingoni de Baro, M.E. Green infrastructure in the urban environment: A systematic quantitative review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramyar, R.; Ackerman, A.; Johnston, D.M. Adapting cities for climate change through urban green infrastructure planning. Cities 2021, 117, 103316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graça, M.; Cruz, S.; Monteiro, A.; Neset, T.-S. Designing urban green spaces for climate adaptation: A critical review of research outputs. Urban Clim. 2022, 42, 101126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quatrini, V.; Tomao, A.; Corona, P.; Ferrari, B.; Masini, E.; Agrimi, M. Is new always better than old? Accessibility and usability of the urban green areas of the municipality of Rome. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 37, 126–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnett, J.; O’Neill, S.J. Minimising the risk of maladaptation: A framework for analysis. In Climate Adaptation Futures; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 87–93. [Google Scholar]
- Van den Berg, M.; Wendel-Vos, W.; van Poppel, M.; Kemper, H.; van Mechelen, W.; Maas, J. Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 806–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharifi, A.; Pathak, M.; Joshi, C.; He, B.-J. A systematic review of the health co-benefits of urban climate change adaptation. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 74, 103190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coutts, C.; Hahn, M. Green infrastructure, ecosystem services, and human health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9768–9798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kingsley, M.; Ontario, E. Commentary Climate change, health and green space co-benefits. Health Promot. Chronic Dis. Prev. Can. Res. Policy Pract. 2019, 39, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.-S.; Kim, J.W. Assessing strategies for urban climate change adaptation: The case of six metropolitan cities in South Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthews, T.; Lo, A.Y.; Byrne, J.A. Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 138, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dumenu, W.K. What are we missing? Economic value of an urban forest in Ghana. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabisch, N. Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space planning—The case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 557–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mell, I. The impact of austerity on funding green infrastructure: A DPSIR evaluation of the Liverpool Green & Open Space Review (LG&OSR), UK. Land Use Policy 2020, 91, 104284. [Google Scholar]
- Hagemann, F.A.; Randrup, T.B.; Sang, Å.O. Challenges to implementing the urban ecosystem service concept in green infrastructure planning: A view from practitioners in Swedish municipalities. Socio-Ecol. Pract. Res. 2020, 2, 283–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowen, K.J.; Lynch, Y. The public health benefits of green infrastructure: The potential of economic framing for enhanced decision-making. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 25, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matsler, A.M.; Meerow, S.; Mell, I.C.; Pavao-Zuckerman, M.A. A ‘green’ chameleon: Exploring the many disciplinary definitions, goals, and forms of “green infrastructure”. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 214, 104145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greig, B.; Faichney, D. Water-resilient places—Developing a policy framework for surface water management and blue-green infrastructure. In Water Security Under Climate Change; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 137–164. [Google Scholar]
- Berbés-Blázquez, M.; Schoon, M.; Benessaiah, K.; Bennett, E.M.; Peterson, G.D.; Ghimire, R. Resilience in the times of COVID: What the response to the COVID pandemic teaches us about resilience principles. Ecol. Soc. 2022, 27, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willems, J.J.; Kenyon, A.V.; Sharp, L.; Molenveld, A. How actors are (dis) integrating policy agendas for multi-functional blue and green infrastructure projects on the ground. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2021, 23, 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berbés-Blázquez, M.; Grimm, N.B.; Cook, E.M.; Iwaniec, D.M.; Muñoz-Erickson, T.A.; Hobbins, V.; Wahl, D. Assessing future resilience, equity, and sustainability in scenario planning. In Resilient Urban Futures; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 113–127. [Google Scholar]
- City University. Climate Emergency Declaration Research, London; City University: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- GLA. The London Climate Resilience Review; Greater London Authority (GLA): London, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- LBI. Vision 2030: Building a Net Zero Carbon Islington by 2030; London Borough of Islington (LBI): London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Oliver, K.; Hopkins, A.; Boaz, A.; Guillot-Wright, S.; Cairney, P. What works to promote research-policy engagement? Evid. Policy 2022, 18, 691–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevenson, O. Making Space for New Models of Academic-Policy Engagement; Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN) Blog.: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qual. Psychol. 2022, 9, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGowan, V.J.; Buckner, S.; Mead, R.; McGill, E.; Ronzi, S.; Beyer, F.; Bambra, C. Examining the effectiveness of place-based interventions to improve public health and reduce health inequalities: An umbrella review. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemm, J. The limitations of ‘evidence-based’ public health. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2006, 12, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. Urban Green Space Interventions and Health: A Review of Impacts and Effectiveness; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bush, J. The role of local government greening policies in the transition towards nature-based cities. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2020, 35, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mattijssen, T.J.; Hennen, W.; Buijs, A.E.; De Dooij, P.; Van Lammeren, R.; Walet, L. Urban greening co-creation: Participatory spatial modelling to bridge data-driven and citizen-centred approaches. Urban For. Urban Green. 2024, 94, 128257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bixby, H.; Hodgson, S.; Fortunato, L.; Hansell, A.; Fecht, D. Associations between green space and health in English cities: An ecological, cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0119495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kaźmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, D. Urban Informatics for Smart City: A Case Study of Amsterdam. OAJRC Soc. Sci. 2022, 3, 32–39. [Google Scholar]
- Møller, M.S.; Olafsson, A.S.; Vierikko, K.; Sehested, K.; Elands, B.; Buijs, A.; van den Bosch, C.K. Participation through place-based e-tools: A valuable resource for urban green infrastructure governance? Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 40, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molnar-Tanaka, K.; Surminski, S. Nature-Based Solutions for Flood-Management in Asia and the Pacific; OECD Development Centre Working Papers; OECD Development Centre: Paris, France, 2024; pp. 1–50. [Google Scholar]
- Anguelovski, I.; Connolly, J.J.; Garcia-Lamarca, M.; Cole, H.; Pearsall, H. New scholarly pathways on green gentrification: What does the urban ‘green turn’ mean and where is it going? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2019, 43, 1064–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UKMBA. UK Municipal Bonds Agency (UKMBA) Sustainable Finance Framework; UK Municipal Bonds Agency (UKMBA): London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Bai, X.; Dawson, R.J.; Ürge-Vorsatz, D.; Delgado, G.C.; Barau, A.S.; Dhakal, S.; Dodman, D.; Leonardsen, L.; Masson-Delmotte, V.; Roberts, D.C.; et al. Six research priorities for cities and climate change. Nature 2018, 555, 23–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lowe, M.; Whitzman, C.; Giles-Corti, B. Health-promoting spatial planning: Approaches for strengthening urban policy integration. Plan. Theory Pract. 2018, 19, 180–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albrechts, L.; Balducci, A.; Hillier, J. Situated Practices of Strategic Planning. An International Perspective; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Healey, P. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Korkou, M.; Tarigan, A.K.; Hanslin, H.M. The multifunctionality concept in urban green infrastructure planning: A systematic literature review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 85, 127975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galler, C.; von Haaren, C.; Albert, C. Optimizing environmental measures for landscape multifunctionality: Effectiveness, efficiency and recommendations for agri-environmental programs. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 151, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, R.; Olafsson, A.S.; Van Der Jagt, A.P.; Rall, E.; Pauleit, S. Planning multifunctional green infrastructure for compact cities: What is the state of practice? Ecol. Indic. 2019, 96, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juhola, S. Planning for a green city: The Green Factor tool. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 34, 254–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crane, M.; Lloyd, S.; Haines, A.; Ding, D.; Hutchinson, E.; Belesova, K.; Davies, M.; Osrin, D.; Zimmermann, N.; Capon, A.; et al. Transforming cities for sustainability: A health perspective. Environ. Int. 2021, 147, 106366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Depietri, Y. Planning for urban green infrastructure: Addressing tradeoffs and synergies. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2022, 54, 101148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
What Is Measured | Findings |
---|---|
Current indicators | The main focus is on a limited number of physical and environmental indicators, e.g., canopy cover, area of new greenspace and number of planted trees |
Some other relevant indicators include number of greenspace community volunteering hours and number of green champions | |
Desirable indicators | What else should be measured:
|
Social indicators should be measured:
| |
Measurement challenges | Lack of municipal data and/or access to data |
Lack of in-house capacity and skills to process/work with data | |
Methodological, e.g., ‘what’ data and ‘how’ data are/should be collected and ‘by whom’ |
Evaluation Frameworks | Findings |
---|---|
Existing frameworks | Limited, with monitoring based on a few measures, e.g., number of new trees, new greenspace area, etc. |
Currently driven by municipal and national KPIs. | |
Health data are difficult to incorporate due to data use restrictions and lack of understanding of health benefits/co-benefits of greenspace. | |
Potential integrated frameworks | No integrated frameworks measuring the multiple benefits of greenspace exist in London. |
Frameworks that integrate KPI, SDG and ESG indicators are promising but challenging. |
Policy Integration | Findings |
---|---|
Current Practice | Dominated by ‘silo’ thinking and various degrees of policy alignment |
Joining efforts across municipal silos can be achieved via stewardship charters and demonstrator projects | |
Municipal collaboration | A main driver of integration; both intra- and intermunicipal collaboration are important |
Good practice exists, with collaboration between greenspace teams and transport/highways, early years education and public health services | |
Barriers to integration | Competing municipal priorities, e.g., balancing immediate needs (i.e., housing shortage and homelessness) with long-term goals (climate); predominant focus on net zero; land use pressures; public acceptance |
Resource constraints, e.g., financial/budgetary limitations, staff shortages and lack of skills and time pressures, i.e., short-term timeframes |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Turcu, C. Urban Greenspace, Climate Adaptation and Health Co-Benefits: Municipal Policy and Practice in London. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22, 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22030409
Turcu C. Urban Greenspace, Climate Adaptation and Health Co-Benefits: Municipal Policy and Practice in London. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2025; 22(3):409. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22030409
Chicago/Turabian StyleTurcu, Catalina. 2025. "Urban Greenspace, Climate Adaptation and Health Co-Benefits: Municipal Policy and Practice in London" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 22, no. 3: 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22030409
APA StyleTurcu, C. (2025). Urban Greenspace, Climate Adaptation and Health Co-Benefits: Municipal Policy and Practice in London. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(3), 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22030409