2.1. What Do We Mean by Tools?
2.2. What Do We Understand as Indicators?
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Characterisation of Tools
- Typology of the tool: Information-based tools, which organise and display information by providing visual and consultative outputs such as catalogues or handbooks, or model-based tools, which provide quantitative estimations of performance and impacts expressed as indicators, models or equations (e.g., estimating yield or water needs).
- Geographical level of policy or regulation: Local or regional, national, European or international.
- Phases of edible NBS’s full cycle implementation assessed by the tool: Planning and Design (e.g., estimating needed resources or aiding design), operation and monitoring (e.g., data collection, operational and maintenance tasks such as harvesting or events), assessment (impact, performance indicators) and communication (e.g., aiding in the dissemination of edible NBS).
- Sustainability dimensions addressed: Social (addressing aspects related to wellbeing and equity, social cohesion, cultural values), economic (dealing with aspects related to job creation or businesses’ potential) or environmental (addressing environmental aspects such as carbon sequestration, air quality, water management or biodiversity).
- Type of provided support or stakeholders’ engagement: Inform (one-way communication from project to citizens, e.g., handbook), consult (two-way communication where stakeholders can provide their opinions, e.g., survey), involve (stakeholders are passively engaged in the project, e.g., focus groups), collaborate (stakeholders are actively engaged in the project, e.g., collecting data) or train (the tool is used to enable skills and capabilities).
3.2. Systematic Selection of Tools
- Accessibility: the tools can be used by the general public (through open access or by using a license).
- Fully operational: the tools are finished and fully working.
3.3. Further Analysis on Model-Based Tools
4.1. Characterisation of Tools
4.2. Systematic Selection of Tools
- Input data provided by the end user to specify their needs, such as geographical location (e.g., city or region), boundaries of the area, (e.g., digital map layer), urban challenge to be addressed, and local population.
- Monitoring data: e.g., honeybee activity, “Lnight” and “Lden” for environmental noise (indicators defined by EU Environmental Noise Directive (END): for the day, evening and night periods (Lden) and for night periods (Lnight)), electrical conductivity, pH, or water infiltration rate.
- External data sources, such as meteorological data from public stations or satellite imagery.
- Calculated impact indicators, e.g., life cycle assessment/analysis, economic evaluation of the edible NBS, urban food production, urban food demand, space availability, carbon footprint, jobs created (full time equivalent), inflow of mass and energy, estimated limit of sustainable energy production and total energy in the reservoir, crop yield indicator, spatial footprint indicator, and cultivated area. The method used by the tools for calculating the impact indicators is usually not provided, except for grassroot tools such as Farming Concrete, allowing local communities to make rough estimates.
4.3. Further Analysis of Model-Based Tools
- FarmAR app: A smartphone application that provides information about soil and crop health by using remote sensing product databases.
- Farming Concrete: A web-based toolkit calculating indicators based on data provided by more than 400 community gardens. Moreover, the toolkit offers a total of 18 very practical data collection methods to support local communities in monitoring their edible NBS. Collected data are organised into five categories: food production data, environmental data, social data, health data and economic data.
- GeoFood: This tool provides innovative concepts illustrating how to increase the economic viability of joining geothermal heat infrastructure and circular food production systems for aquaculture.
- UrbanGreenUP: NBS Selection tool (UGU NBS) recommends NBS for a selected city, based on specified challenges and the capabilities of a particular organisation. It helps cities to select the most appropriate NBS to tackle identified environmental problems and to become more resilient to climate change.
- UNaLab: NBS Simulation and Visualization Tool (UNL—NBS-SVT) can be used to visualise the results of the UNaLab systemic decision support tool for assessing the multiple impacts of NBS. Different scenarios can be simulated and visualised, i.e., a reference scenario, nature-based scenarios, population growth scenarios, climate change scenarios and combined scenarios. Additionally, results can be provided for different time periods.
- Parcels: For the selected area and number of inhabitants, this tool calculates the agricultural land needed to achieve food self-sufficiency. Moreover, it provides information on the agricultural jobs potentially created and the ecological impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, pollution of water resources, and effects on biodiversity) associated with possible changes in food production methods and/or in dietary habits.
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- United Nations. Global Sustainable Development Report 2019: The Future Is Now—Science for Achieving Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA. Available online: https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/1597340283.9765.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2021).
- Haberman, D.; Gillies, L.; Canter, A.; Rinner, V.; Pancrazi, L.; Martellozzo, F. The Potential of Urban Agriculture in Montréal: A Quantitative Assessment. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2014, 3, 1101–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Firehock, K. A Short History of the Term Green Infrastructure and Selected Literature; Green Infrastructure Center: ScottsVille, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Naumann, S.; Davis, M.; Kaphengst, T.; Pieterse, M. Design, Implementation and Cost Elements of Green Infrastructure Projects; Ecologic institute and GHK Consulting: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Parker, J.; Zingoni de Baro, M.E. Green infrastructure in the urban environment: A systematic quantitative review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kato, S.; Ahern, J. Multifunctional Landscapes as a Basis for Sustainable Landscape Development. J. Jpn. Inst. Landsc. Archit. 2009, 72, 799–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CIFOR Governing Multifunctional Landscapes. Available online: https://www.cifor.org/gml/about (accessed on 1 August 2021).
- Castellar, J.A.C.; Popartan, L.A.; Pueyo-Ros, J.; Atanasova, N.; Langergraber, G.; Sämuel, I.; Corominas, L.; Comas, J.; Acuña, V. Nature-Based Solutions in the Urban Context: Terminology, Classification and Scoring for Urban Challenges and ecosystem Services. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 779, 146237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bohn, K.; Chu, D. Food-productive infrastructure: Enabling agroecological transitions from an urban design perspective. In Proceedings of the AESOP Sustainable Food Planning Group, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 7–8 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes (CPULs): Designing Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Cities; Viljoen, A. (Ed.) Architectural Press: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Steel, C. Hungry City: How Food Shapes Our Lives; Chatto & Windus: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- De La Salle, J.; Holland, M. Agricultural Urbanism: Handbook for Building Sustainable Food & Agriculture Systems in 21st Century Cities; Green Frigate Books: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Verzone Woods Arquitects. Food Urbanism Typologies. Available online: http://www.foodurbanism.org/typologies/ (accessed on 1 August 2021).
- Gorgolewski, M.; Komisar, J.; Nasr, J. Carrot City: Creating Places for Urban Agriculture; Monacelli Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Second Nature Urban Agriculture: Designing Productive Cities; Viljoen, A.; Bohn, K. (Eds.) Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Urban Agriculture Europe; Lohrberg, F.; Lička, L.; Scazzosi, L.; Timpe, A. (Eds.) JOVIS Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Russo, A.; Escobedo, F.J.; Cirella, G.T.; Zerbe, S. Edible green infrastructure: An approach and review of provisioning ecosystem services and disservices in urban environments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 242, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- TCPA Town and Country Planning Association; Parham, S. Practical Guides for Creating Successful New Communities: Guide 10: Edible Garden Cities; TCPA: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- European Commision. Towards EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-Based Solutions & Re-Naturing Cities; European Commision: Luxembrug, 2015.
- Piezer, K.; Petit-Boix, A.; Sanjuan-Delmás, D.; Briese, E.; Celik, I.; Rieradevall, J.; Gabarrell, X.; Josa, A.; Apul, D. Ecological network analysis of growing tomatoes in an urban rooftop greenhouse. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 1495–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katsou, E.; Nika, C.-E.; Buehler, D.; Marić, B.; Megyesi, B.; Mino, E.; Almenar, J.B.; Bas, B.; Bećirović, D.; Bokal, S.; et al. Transformation Tools Enabling the Implementation of Nature-based Solutions for Creating a Resourceful Circular City. Gree-Blue Syst. 2020, 2, 186–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. Environmental Indicators—Development, Measurement and Use; OECD: Paris, France, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Casullo, L.; Durand, A.; Cavassini, F. The 2018 Indicators on the Governance of Sector Regulators—Part of the Product Market Regulation (PMR) Survey; OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1564; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L.Y.; Jorge Ochoa, J.; Shah, M.N.; Zhang, X. The application of urban sustainability indicators—A comparison between various practices. Habitat Int. 2011, 35, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Leeuwen, C.J.; Frijns, J.; van Wezel, A.; van de Ven, F.H. City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26, 2177–2197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minx, J.C.; Creutzig, F.; Medinger, V.; Ziegler, T.; Owen, A.; Baiocchi, G. Developing a Pragmatic Approach to Assess Urban Metabolism in Europe Final Report to the European Environment Agency Developing a Prgamatic Approach to Assess Urban Metabolism in Europe; Department of Climate Change Economics: Berlin, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Economist Intelligence Unit. European Green City Index; Publisher: Economist Intelligence Unit: Munich, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Lönnqvist, A. Benchmarking knowledge-based urban development performance: Results from the international comparison of Helsinki. Cities 2013, 31, 357–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawson, B.R. Cognitive Strategies in Architectural Design. Ergonomics 1979, 22, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cross, N. Designerly Ways of Knowing; Springer: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Langemeyer, J.; Madrid-Lopez, C.; Mendoza Beltran, A.; Villalba Mendez, G. Urban agriculture—A necessary pathway towards urban resilience and global sustainability? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 210, 104055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, P.D.; Orfila, C. Mapping the production-consumption gap of an urban food system: An empirical case study of food security and resilience. Food Secur. 2021, 13, 551–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Budding-Polo, M. Tools to Up—Take NBS and Enhance Climate Resilience in Cities 2020. Available online: https://naturebasedcity.climate-kic.org/events/nbs-tools-lightning-lab (accessed on 1 August 2021).
- Grewal, S.S.; Grewal, P.S. Can cities become self-reliant in food? Cities 2012, 29, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, F.; Zhang, X.; Xu, J.; Bing, J.; Pan, G. Simulation of water resource allocation for sustainable urban development: An integrated optimization approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 273, 122537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Säumel, I.; Reddy, S.E.; Wachtel, T. Edible city solutions-one step further to foster social resilience through enhanced socio-cultural ecosystem services in cities. Sustainability 2019, 11, 972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, J.O.; Alaimo, K.; Elam, D.; Perry, E. Growing vegetables and values: Benefits of neighborhood-based community gardens for youth development and nutrition. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 2008, 3, 418–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dobernig, K.; Stagl, S. Growing a lifestyle movement? Exploring identity-work and lifestyle politics in urban food cultivation. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2015, 39, 452–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evaluating the Impact of Nature-Based Solutions: A Handbook for Practitioners; Dumitru, A.; Wendling, L. (Eds.) European Commission—Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; ISBN 978-92-76-22821-9. [Google Scholar]
- Woelfle, M.; Olliaro, P.; Todd, M.H. Open science is a research accelerator. Nat. Chem. 2011, 3, 745–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKiernan, E.C.; Bourne, P.E.; Brown, C.T.; Buck, S.; Kenall, A.; Lin, J.; McDougall, D.; Nosek, B.A.; Ram, K.; Soderberg, C.K.; et al. How open science helps researchers succeed. Elife 2016, 5, e16800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mons, B.; Neylon, C.; Velterop, J.; Dumontier, M.; Da Silva Santos, L.O.B.; Wilkinson, M.D. Cloudy, increasingly FAIR.; Revisiting the FAIR Data guiding principles for the European Open Science Cloud. Inf. Serv. Use 2017, 37, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, J.S.; Krumholz, H.M. Ushering in a new era of open science through data sharing: The wall must come down. JAMA—J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2013, 309, 1355–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
|KNOWLEDGE DOMAINS||Environment||Tools covering the conceptual role of edible NBS in terms of enhancing environmental sustainability, e.g., preserving and enhancing biodiversity, promoting a sustainable drainage, or reducing diffuse pollution.|
|Water||Tools dealing with water needs and/or water management in edible NBS.|
|Social||Tools that relate to demographic aspects, groups or personal relationships and number of jobs created for a certain type of edible NBS.|
|Economic||Tools dealing with economic values of edible NBS and economic mechanisms (nonprofitable, business-focused).|
|Systems||Tools providing insights about interrelations between urban metabolism, circular systems and edible NBS.|
|Policy||Tools providing examples and guidance in terms of urban planning and wellbeing policies related to implementation and functioning of edible NBS.|
|Production||Tools providing information on production and processing of edible goods in edible NBS.|
|Spatial||Tools dealing with information regarding size, arrangements, sites and locations of edible NBS.|
|Design||Tools showcasing case studies of landscape, architectural and urban design processes of edible NBS.|
|Social media||Tools including an informal space for user interaction and knowledge exchange, such as blogs or forums.|
|Guidance||Tools providing step by step guides in terms of, for example, gaining finance or improving yields.|
|Metrics||Tools providing numeric evidence (raw data or indicators) in terms of, for example, biodiversity, number of users or yield.|
|Narrative||Tools providing a narrative evidence of edible NBS (e.g., factsheets, case studies) in terms of, for example, biodiversity, number of users or yield.|
|Impact||Tools providing an impact assessment (qualitative or quantitative) of edible NBS in terms of environmental and socio-economic effects and benefits.|
|Bottom-up||Tools that include processes led by individuals or community groups.|
|Top-down||Tools that include processes led by institutions, municipalities, governments, etc.|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2021 by the authors. 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/).