Nature-Based Accounting for Urban Real Estate: Traditional Architectural Wisdom and Metrics for Sustainability and Well-Being

Abstract

The loss of urban nature and declining biodiversity pose significant challenges to the sustainability of cities and the well-being of their inhabitants. Existing initiatives such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) have begun to address ecological risks in real estate, but they still address mental health, biodiversity, and social equity only partially as non-financial values. This article adopts an integrative review and conceptual framework approach. It develops a nature-based accounting framework for urban real estate that combines principles of traditional Chinese architecture with contemporary sustainability metrics. The study reviews ecological theory, nature-related accounting, and evidence on biodiversity and mental health, and then undertakes an operational mapping from classical site planning, courtyard design, water management, and community structures to measurable indicators that remain compatible with TNFD-aligned reporting. The framework groups indicators into three main domains: nature-related conditions, ecosystem service pathways, and human well-being outcomes. It also outlines simple procedures for normalising and combining these indicators at the project scale to support assessments of biodiversity, microclimate, mental health, and basic aspects of cost-effectiveness and social accessibility in urban real estate projects. The paper provides a structured, heritage-informed basis for future applications and empirical testing, helping to incorporate biodiversity, mental health, and equity into urban real estate assessment.

1. Introduction

The accelerating loss of nature in urban environments represents a defining challenge for twenty-first-century sustainability [1]. Since the late twentieth century, concepts such as nature’s services and natural capital have gained wide acceptance, making clear that biodiversity and functioning ecosystems underpin long-term human welfare [2,3,4,5].

Rapid urbanization and real estate expansion have generated significant environmental and social externalities. Projections indicate a 70% increase in urban land area by 2050, driving large-scale habitat destruction, rising carbon emissions, and considerable biodiversity loss [6,7,8]. These stresses threaten ecological stability and increase the exposure of city dwellers to climate extremes and disaster risks [9,10].

Although cities are often viewed as artificial constructs, they frequently overlap with biodiversity hotspots and provide essential ecosystem services [11]. However, real estate practices and urban policy rarely reflect the full value of urban nature, and models that prioritise economic development over resilience and well-being remain dominant.

Biodiversity supports ecosystem resilience and sustains key functions such as pollination, water purification, and climate regulation [12]. Emerging research substantiates positive relationships between biodiversity, access to green space, and mental health [13,14]. When urban natural environments degrade, cities face compounded losses in the form of shrinking biodiversity and rising rates of psychological distress [15,16].

Through its influence on urban form, the real estate sector plays a decisive role in determining ecosystem health, access to green space, and the quality of human habitats. Decisions on site selection, massing, and landscape and courtyard design shape local ecosystems, patterns of social interaction, and mental well-being. Efforts to transform real estate practices are therefore crucial for an understanding of urban sustainability that encompasses both ecological and social outcomes.

Despite increased awareness, most development processes continue to emphasise short-term financial gain, and biodiversity and mental health often remain peripheral concerns [17,18,19]. Urban governance and accounting systems still lack standardised procedures for the meaningful incorporation of ecological and psychological benefits [20,21].

Recent advances in nature-related financial disclosure illustrate a growing effort to consider ecological risks and dependencies in real estate finance. TNFD sectoral guidance and the LEAP framework (Locate, Evaluate, Assess, Prepare) provide structured processes for identifying nature-related risks, dependencies, impacts, and opportunities [22]. These initiatives nevertheless focus primarily on risk and financial materiality. Deeper integration of well-being and biodiversity into assessment and reporting remains an open challenge, especially in rapidly transforming cities. At the same time, Chinese architectural traditions, including site-planning principles, courtyard systems, water management, and communal landscapes, offer long-standing strategies for ecological integration, climate adaptation, and psychological benefit that resonate with emerging global priorities.

This research examines how the ecological and philosophical foundations of traditional Chinese architecture can inform nature-based accounting for urban real estate. It adopts an integrative review and conceptual framework design and positions traditional urban and architectural wisdom as a generative source of nature-related indicators for contemporary practice. The study systematically maps key design strategies to contemporary sustainability metrics with the aim of foregrounding biodiversity, mental health, and social equity as fundamental outcomes of urban development. Accordingly, the analysis is guided by two central research questions:

How can principles of traditional Chinese architecture be translated into a nature-based accounting framework for urban real estate that supports sustainability, biodiversity, and urban mental health?

What specific mechanisms, including design features and spatial arrangements, enable these traditional principles to be operationalised as measurable metrics within contemporary sustainability and nature-related disclosure frameworks?

The contribution of this work is threefold. First, it formulates a nature-based accounting framework for urban real estate that links traditional ecological wisdom with global disclosure standards. Second, it provides a synthesis that demonstrates the interconnected roles of green space, biodiversity, and mental health in urban outcomes. Third, it proposes a set of indicator groups and operational guidance intended to equip planners, architects, and policymakers with practical tools for advancing resilient, inclusive, and sustainable urban transformations. To achieve these contributions, the paper first outlines the integrative review methodology used to synthesise the relevant literature and then presents the analytical framework and illustrative application.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Ecological and Urban Theory

Ian McHarg’s seminal work Design with Nature [23] transformed architectural thinking by establishing ecological principles as fundamental to human settlement design. His layer-cake model for site suitability analysis, adapted from Fanger’s [24] thermal comfort research, moved beyond technical optimisation and proposed a planning paradigm in which human habitation is aligned with natural processes. Subsequent work has further developed this ecological approach and integrated climate responsiveness into architectural practice [25,26].

Urban ecology has undergone a related shift in perspective. Early research on ecology in cities focused on how ecological phenomena manifest within urban landscapes. Over time, the field evolved toward ecology of cities, which treats urban areas as complex socio-ecological systems [27,28]. More recently, an approach described as ecology for cities has emerged, emphasising actionable, transdisciplinary solutions to urban sustainability challenges [27]. This evolution reflects increasing recognition that urban ecological research must not only observe urban systems but also inform and guide their transformation.

The Gaian hypothesis provides an additional theoretical lens for rethinking urban environments [29,30,31]. Instead of viewing cities as artificial constructs imposed on nature, Gaian perspectives position urban areas as components of the Earth’s self-regulating system. This view challenges the long-standing separation between nature and culture in Western planning and resonates with the concept of urban metabolism [32], which conceptualises cities as organisms whose material and energy flows must remain in balance. From a Gaian standpoint, urban biodiversity is not only an aesthetic or ethical concern but also a functional requirement for system stability [31]. As in other living systems, diversity underpins resilience to environmental, economic and social disturbances. This systems thinking aligns closely with traditional ecological knowledge, particularly Eastern philosophies that stress the interdependence of human and natural systems. For real estate, the implication is direct: developments that erode biodiversity weaken local ecosystems and the wider urban metabolism on which human well-being depends.

2.2. Biodiversity, Mental Health and Urban Real Estate

The link between biodiversity and mental health has progressed from intuitive insight to a substantial empirical literature. Ulrich’s [33] pioneering research demonstrated measurable therapeutic effects of exposure to natural environments, and later work on attention restoration theory [34] and stress reduction theory [35] provided mechanisms for these benefits. More recent studies have moved beyond generic green space to examine the specific role of biodiversity. Research by [15,36,37,38] shows that environments rich in species diversity offer stronger mental health benefits than monocultural or highly simplified green spaces.

Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain these effects. Biodiverse environments engage multiple sensory modalities, provide dynamic rather than static experiences and may activate deep-seated affiliations with living systems as suggested in Wilson’s biophilia hypothesis [39]. However, most of this work has focused on individual-level outcomes, with relatively little attention to community-wide or systemic effects [40]. The mental health crisis in many cities cannot be addressed solely through individual interventions; it also demands structural changes in the way urban spaces are planned and built. Real estate practices are central here, as they determine the spatial distribution, quality and accessibility of biodiverse environments, and thus shape the mental health landscape of cities [41].

In parallel, the rise in stakeholder capitalism [42,43,44] offers a conceptual bridge between ecological goals and investment decisions. In contrast to shareholder-primacy models that externalise environmental costs, stakeholder perspectives recognise that real estate firms hold responsibilities to investors, residents, surrounding communities, future generations and non-human life. Work on biophilic cities illustrates how development can enhance rather than diminish urban biodiversity [45]. Yet, implementation faces several obstacles. The mismatch between short-term financial reporting cycles and longer ecological timescales tends to bias decisions against biodiversity-supportive projects. In addition, current valuation approaches rarely capture the mental health benefits of biodiverse settings, which leads to systematic underinvestment in ecological design.

A further tension in urban real estate concerns competing models of sustainability [46]. Compact city strategies emphasise density to reduce per capita resource use and protect peripheral ecosystems, whereas biophilic city approaches prioritise the integration of nature throughout the urban fabric, sometimes with lower densities [47,48]. This is not simply a technical trade-off but reflects contrasting views of the human–nature relationship. Density-oriented paradigms often assume a separation between dense human settlements and more pristine natural reserves. Biodiversity-oriented paradigms argue that human well-being depends on frequent, everyday contact with diverse forms of life. These divergent philosophies generate different real estate models, ranging from highly vertical environments with small pocket parks to more horizontally organised cities interwoven with ecological corridors.

Addressing these tensions requires synthesising ecological theory, mental health research and economic perspectives into frameworks that can inform real estate practice. Gaian thinking offers an overarching systems perspective that links urban health with planetary health [31,49]. Stakeholder capitalism provides an economic rationale for internalising biodiversity values [43]. Mental health research supplies evidence for specific design interventions that support psychological well-being [50,51]. Despite this progress, important gaps remain [46,47,50]. There is a lack of robust metrics for assessing how biodiversity contributes to mental health at population scale, and the trade-offs between density and ecological diversity are not yet well quantified. Most importantly, current accounting systems rarely make the mental health and biodiversity value of urban form visible in real estate decision-making.

These gaps point to the need for holistic frameworks that can connect ecological science, mental health evidence and real estate practice. The theoretical foundations outlined above motivate the present study’s focus on traditional architectural wisdom, which has long grappled with the task of harmonising human settlement with natural systems. They also indicate that mental health outcomes are shaped not only by individual behaviour or clinical care but also by structural choices in development and urban form, choices that remain largely invisible in prevailing valuation approaches.

2.3. Accounting for Biodiversity and Extinction in the Real Estate Industry

Despite advances in environmental and biodiversity accounting, existing approaches remain weak at the level of project-scale urban real estate decisions. They tend to focus on aggregate indicators, corporate reporting or national accounts, and pay limited attention to the concrete design and spatial configuration of buildings and open spaces or to mental health and equity outcomes [52,53,54,55].

Nature-related accounting has evolved considerably since the emergence of environmental accounting in the 1970s, when growing awareness of environmental degradation prompted organisations and other entities to recognise environmental costs and liabilities in financial reports [56]. Early efforts focused on pollution control and regulatory compliance. During the 1980s and 1990s the field broadened to include valuation of environmental assets and more systematic integration of environmental data into accounting systems [56]. A major shift occurred with the rise in the ecosystem services concept in the late 1990s, which ultimately contributed to the United Nations System of Environmental Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA). SEEA EA provides globally recognised methodologies for measuring ecosystem assets and their economic contributions [57,58].

Building on this foundation, biodiversity accounting emerged to address the need to identify, measure and report the status and value of biological diversity. Early frameworks proposed by Jones [59,60] highlighted the difficulty of capturing the multidimensional and often intangible qualities of biodiversity within conventional accounting models. This recognition led to the development of more comprehensive approaches incorporating qualitative and quantitative disclosures, risk assessments and expanded reporting requirements [52,53,59,60]. The subsequent emergence of extinction accounting represents a further specialisation, explicitly focusing on corporate responsibilities for species loss and ecosystem degradation [61,62].

Contemporary literature consistently highlights the inadequacies of existing accounting practices in systematically incorporating biodiversity and extinction considerations [52,53,61,62,63,64]. Researchers have proposed various frameworks for assessing biodiversity impacts, including extinction accounting models that emphasise continuous monitoring of wildlife and habitats as performance indicators [65,66]. These approaches range from natural inventories and species lists [60,67,68] to more comprehensive reporting practices designed to prevent species loss [63,64,69].

International standards have responded to these challenges through increasingly sophisticated frameworks. The Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) issued its 2019 global assessment documenting biodiversity decline in all regions. The 2022 Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework established a long-term vision for living in harmony with nature by 2050. The Global Reporting Initiative has evolved from GRI 304: Biodiversity (2016) to GRI 101: Biodiversity (2024), expanding disclosure requirements from direct operations to whole value chains [70,71,72]. Organisations are now expected to report on products and services with significant biodiversity impacts across upstream and downstream activities.

The real estate industry faces particular challenges in implementing biodiversity accounting because of the sector’s profound and multifaceted environmental impacts. Property development and urban expansion drive habitat loss and fragmentation, create urban heat islands that alter local climate patterns and disproportionately affect vulnerable populations [64,73,74]. Construction activities generate substantial carbon emissions, disrupt natural water flows, compact soils and introduce pollutants that degrade ecosystem health [75,76]. Urban infrastructure creates barriers that isolate wildlife populations, while artificial lighting and noise pollution disrupt species behaviour and reduce genetic diversity [77,78]. These impacts reflect deeply embedded anthropocentric practices that prioritise aesthetic and economic considerations over ecological integrity [63,64,79].

Traditional accounting methods struggle to capture these complex and interconnected effects, creating significant gaps in biodiversity risk assessment and disclosure within real estate operations [80]. The sector faces substantial hurdles in valuing ecosystem services, quantifying biodiversity dependencies and transparently reporting extinction risks associated with development activities [54,55]. These shortcomings highlight the need for sector-specific frameworks that can effectively integrate biodiversity considerations into financial reporting and decision-making processes.

In response to these needs, international policy and reporting standards have begun to focus more explicitly on nature-related financial risks. The TNFD has issued comprehensive sector guidance for engineering, construction and real estate, designed to complement its LEAP approach (Locate, Evaluate, Assess, Prepare). This guidance, first released in 2023 and expanded in January 2025, establishes specific metrics addressing the material nature-related impacts of the sector and represents a significant advancement in operationalising biodiversity accounting for real estate [81,82,83]. The TNFD framework provides concrete metrics that bridge the gap between high-level concepts and practical implementation. These standards cover the complete project lifecycle from development through operation and incorporate value chain impacts including material sourcing, construction practices and long-term ecosystem effects.

The TNFD’s additional sector guidance for engineering, construction and real estate identifies a comprehensive set of indicators for nature-related impacts across land-use change, pollution, resource use, circularity and value chains.

Table 1. Summary of TNFD disclosure indicators for the real estate sector (source: authors’ summary based on TNFD Additional Sector Guidance).

Metric Category	Metric Subcategory	Indicator/Metric	Description/Measurement Guidance
Land/Freshwater/Ocean Use Change	Linear infrastructure fragmentation	Length/footprint/number of new or upgraded linear infrastructure (km, km2, number of lanes, by ecosystem/sensitivity)	Report total length, surface material, location (sensitive/other), traffic, and number/type of wildlife crossings.
Land/Freshwater/Ocean Use Change	Wildlife connectivity	Number and structure of wildlife crossing installations per km of linear infrastructure	Include type of crossing, dimension, and verification of wildlife use.
Pollution/Removal	Spill events	Volume of pollutant or wastewater spills above regulatory thresholds, by affected ecosystem type and classification	Track and disclose types/quantity, affected ecosystems, and remediation undertaken.
Resource Use/Replenishment	Manure and compost use	Input of manure and compost on landscaped areas (tonnes)	Report total input mass linked to real estate/landscaped area.
Land Use Change	Green space creation	Amount of green space created (area, type, plant species composition, proportion of native species, connectivity overlap)	Measure area of new green spaces, number/area of trees, share of native species, and overlap with ecological networks.
Pollution/Removal	Light pollution	Number, type, and characteristics of outdoor lighting, luminance, area coverage, and dimming practices	Disclose by BUG rating, color temperature, total lumen, and % lights dimmed or on at night.
Pollution/Removal	Noise pollution	Noise level measurements (dB, Hz) at significant time periods and across the asset life cycle; incident threshold exceedances	Report baseline, construction, and operational noise, as well as the number of regulatory exceedances/incidents.
Invasive Alien Species	Management and remediation	Area (km2) with invasive species present; % area under active management or cleared of invasive species	Quantify and describe management measures and clearance progress.
Circular Economy/Materials	Use of recycled and reused materials	Proportion (%) of major inputs/materials that are recycled, reused, or repurposed	Percentages for significant categories by mass/product type and by project phase (build, refurbish, fit-out, etc.).
Value Chain/Certification	Environmental product declarations	Share (%) of input materials by credible environmental declaration/certification	Disclose by material type and certificate/label.
Water Circularity	Water reuse rate	Total volume of water recycled or reused, metered at the utility level	Report water reuse and recycling in m3 and link to asset or project data.

summarises those indicators that are most directly applicable to real estate assets and projects. Table 1 presents selected TNFD real estate indicators that align most closely with the concerns of this study, particularly habitat connectivity, green space creation, pollution pressures and circular material and water use. In later sections, these categories inform the development of project-scale indicators that draw on traditional Chinese site planning, courtyard and water management practices.

Collectively, environmental accounting, SEEA EA, biodiversity accounting, extinction accounting, IPBES assessments, the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, GRI biodiversity standards and TNFD-aligned disclosure systems have created a rich toolbox for recognising nature-related risks and impacts at national, corporate and sectoral scales [52,53,57,58,59,60,61]. However, they offer limited guidance for project-scale urban real estate decisions that depend on detailed spatial configuration, microclimate performance and everyday human contact with biodiversity, and they seldom incorporate mental health and social equity outcomes as explicit performance dimensions. These limitations underscore the need for complementary, project-level frameworks that can translate high-level accounting principles into indicators grounded in the design of buildings, courtyards and neighbourhood landscapes.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design and Rationale

This study employs an integrative review methodology, which is specifically designed to synthesise diverse theoretical and empirical sources in order to generate new conceptual frameworks, rather than to aggregate effect sizes or test a single hypothesis. Integrative reviews are widely used in fields that cut across disciplinary boundaries because they allow the systematic combination of theoretical, methodological and empirical works into a coherent synthesis that can support theory development and practical guidance [84,85]. In line with established guidance on integrative and conceptual reviews, the present study adopts a theory-driven approach to literature selection in which the goal is to capture conceptual diversity and theoretical richness rather than to exhaustively map all publications on a topic. The primary unit of analysis is therefore the conceptual contribution of a source rather than its frequency of occurrence in the literature [84,86].

3.2. Literature Search and Selection Strategy

To reduce selection bias and ensure transparency, the review combined systematic search procedures with purposive sampling of foundational sources. Three main categories of sources were targeted. The first category consists of seminal works that are widely regarded as foundational in their respective fields, including landmark texts in urban ecology, traditional Chinese architecture and environmental psychology. The second category consists of primary documents from official standard-setting bodies, such as the TNFD, the CBD and the GRI, which define current disclosure requirements and policy frameworks. The third category consists of peer-reviewed empirical studies and authoritative theoretical analyses in urban ecology, environmental accounting, mental health and biodiversity.

Initial searches were conducted in Web of Science and Scopus using combinations of keywords related to five thematic domains: traditional architecture and ecological design; urban ecology and systems thinking; biodiversity and ecosystem services; sustainability accounting and disclosure; and urban mental health and well-being. Searches were supplemented by backward and forward citation tracing from key books, review articles and policy documents.

The search focused primarily on sources published between 2000 and 2024 to capture contemporary developments in sustainability accounting, urban ecology and mental health research. However, seminal works published prior to 2000 were retained where they provide foundational theoretical frameworks that remain central to current debates, such as McHarg’s Design with Nature [23], Wilson’s biophilia hypothesis [39] and early ecosystem services literature [3,4]. This approach ensured that the review captured both historical foundations and recent empirical advances.

3.3. Selection Process and Eligibility Criteria

The selection process followed three stages, as illustrated in Figure 1. In the identification stage, a total of 1650 records were retrieved from Web of Science (n = 900), Scopus (n = 600) and other sources including books, monographs and grey literature (n = 150). After removing duplicates, 1100 records remained for screening. In the screening stage, titles and abstracts were assessed for conceptual relevance to the five thematic domains. Studies were retained if they addressed at least one of the following: principles and performance of traditional architecture, particularly in relation to climate responsiveness and ecological integration; ecological and urban systems theory relevant to real estate and urban development; methods and frameworks for biodiversity accounting and disclosure; or empirical evidence linking biodiversity, green space and mental health outcomes.

Full-text assessment was conducted on the remaining studies. Inclusion criteria required that sources be conceptually relevant to traditional architecture, ecology and urban systems, accounting and disclosure practices, or mental health and well-being, and that they contribute theoretical insights or frameworks applicable to the aims of this review. Sources were excluded if they were purely technical studies without broader conceptual implications, case-specific reports that did not offer transferable principles, studies unrelated to the core domains, or works that were inaccessible due to language barriers or availability. Following full-text evaluation, 160 studies met the eligibility criteria. In the final synthesis stage, 92 sources were selected on the basis of their direct contribution to answering the research questions and their capacity to inform the development of a nature-based accounting framework for urban real estate.

3.4. Data Extraction and Synthesis Approach

The review followed a three-stage analytical process. Stage 1 focused on literature identification and domain mapping, in which the selected sources were organised according to the five thematic domains outlined above. For traditional Chinese architecture, the study examined influential texts and peer-reviewed analyses of design forms, spatial organisation and environmental performance. Key ecological and social principles were extracted, including passive climate adaptation, enclosed restorative spaces and integrated water and courtyard systems. For modern sustainability frameworks, primary documents from the TNFD and related bodies were reviewed to identify disclosure requirements, metrics and gaps in existing approaches. This stage established a transparent and non-arbitrary foundation for subsequent analysis.

Stage 2 involved thematic extraction and conceptual synthesis. The aim was to identify clear links between principles found in the traditional architecture literature and the requirements articulated in contemporary sustainability and disclosure frameworks. This stage employed a qualitative, iterative process of comparison and pattern recognition. Recurring themes were grouped into functional clusters such as microclimate regulation, sensory refuge, visual openness and enclosure, spatial hierarchy and the integration of water and vegetation. The synthesis that emerged from this stage forms the basis for answering the first research question and is presented in Section 4.

Stage 3 comprised cross-domain pattern analysis. This stage focused on identifying conceptual bridges between traditional design wisdom and contemporary sustainability metrics. The analysis examined how specific traditional features and their underlying ecological and social functions could be expressed in terms of modern indicators related to biodiversity support, microclimate regulation, mental health benefits and social equity. This stage prepared the conceptual foundation for the framework development presented in Section 5, in which traditional principles are systematically linked to modern disclosure practices and operationalised into a preliminary accounting structure.

3.5. Classification of the Synthesised Literature

The 92 sources included in the final synthesis were classified into five thematic domains: (i) traditional architectural and ecological wisdom, including historical analyses of Chinese architecture and gardens and studies of the microclimatic performance of traditional forms; (ii) foundational ecological and urban theory, covering urban ecology, design with nature, urban metabolism, the Gaian hypothesis and biophilic design; (iii) biodiversity, ecosystems and valuation, including work on ecosystem services, natural capital, urban biodiversity and conservation; (iv) sustainability accounting and disclosure, spanning nature-related and biodiversity accounting, and official frameworks such as CBD, GRI and TNFD; and (v) urban mental health and well-being, bringing together research on restorative effects of nature and socio-ecological determinants of health. Representative sources from each domain are cited throughout Section 2, Section 4 and Section 5, and their conceptual contributions are drawn on in the development of the framework. The indicator structure and the illustrative scoring and aggregation procedures that build on this synthesis are presented in Section 5.

Table 2. Summary of foundational literature domains for the integrative review.

Thematic Domain	Sub-Domain and Research Focus	Representative Sources Cited
I. Traditional architectural and ecological wisdom	History and principles of Chinese architecture and gardens: analyses of design elements, spatial organisation, and philosophical underpinnings.	[87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94]
	Climate-responsive and passive design: studies on the environmental performance and microclimate regulation of traditional forms (e.g., Huizhou architecture).	[12,25,26,95,96,97,98,99]
II. Foundational ecological and urban theory	Urban ecology and systems thinking: theories on urban areas as ecosystems, “design with nature”, urban metabolism, and the Gaian hypothesis.	[23,27,28,29,30,31,40,100,101,102]
	Biophilic design and human–nature connection: foundational theories on humanity’s innate connection to nature (biophilia) and its application in urban design.	[39,45,48,103,104]
III. Biodiversity, ecosystems and valuation	Ecosystem services and natural capital: seminal works on the concept and economic valuation of “nature’s services”.	[3,4,5,105,106,107,108,109,110,111]
	Urban biodiversity and conservation: research on biodiversity within cities and the impact of urbanisation on species and habitats.	[7,79,112,113,114,115,116]
IV. Sustainability accounting and disclosure	Nature-related and biodiversity accounting: development of accounting frameworks to measure and report corporate impacts and dependencies on nature.	[52,53,59,60,61,63,64,66,67,68,69,117,118]
	Official frameworks and standards: primary documents from global standard-setting bodies that define current disclosure requirements.	[1,17,18,70,71,72,82,83,112,119,120,121]
V. Urban mental health and well-being	Restorative effects of nature: foundational theories (stress reduction, attention restoration) and empirical studies linking green space to psychological well-being.	[13,15,16,35,36,37,38]
	Socio-ecological systems and health: analyses of links between urban form, social equity, access to green space, and community health outcomes.	[13,16,37,47,49,50,51,78]

provides a summary of foundational literature domains for the integrative review.

4. Traditional Wisdom for Sustainable Urban Real Estate

4.1. Rationale and Case Selection

This section presents a historical–typological analysis of ecological design wisdom embedded in traditional Chinese architectural practice, focusing on two representative contexts: Huizhou courtyard architecture (predominantly in present-day Anhui, Jiangxi and Zhejiang provinces, 14th–19th centuries) and Jiangnan water-town urbanism in the Yangtze River Delta region (10th–20th centuries) [88,89]. The aim is to systematically extract ecological design mechanisms that can inform the contemporary nature-based accounting framework developed in Section 5.

The analysis synthesises findings from architectural history scholarship, heritage conservation studies and existing ecological assessments of traditional built environments, including work on Jiangnan gardens and water towns [95,122,123,124,125,126,127] and on Huizhou residential architecture and village layouts [96,97,98,122,128]. For each architectural tradition, we identify: (i) characteristic spatial-material configurations; (ii) their ecological and social functions, including microclimate regulation, water management, biodiversity support and social cohesion; and (iii) the underlying design principles that generate these functions.

Huizhou and Jiangnan were selected for four reasons. First, they offer geographical and climatic complementarity, juxtaposing mountainous inland settlements with lowland riverine towns and moderate with high water availability [95,122]. Second, both are extensively documented in architectural history and conservation literature, allowing a robust synthesis of spatial, material and environmental characteristics [87,89,122,129]. Third, they have been recognised through heritage designation and regeneration efforts, which has stimulated detailed analyses of their environmental performance [99,122,129]. Fourth, core principles from these traditions appear transferable to contemporary urban contexts facing analogous challenges such as thermal stress, biodiversity loss and social fragmentation [95,96,97,125,126].

Both traditions are rooted in long-standing Chinese philosophies of human–nature relations, often summarised as the “unity of man with nature” [40,92,102]. As Chen and Wu [91] emphasise, this eco-philosophical underpinning, developed since the onset of agricultural civilisation, entails a normative commitment to harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. Foundational texts such as the Book of Changes (Yi Jing) and the Tao Te Ching articulate principles that have historically informed practical aspects of site selection, settlement layout and architectural composition [91,93,130]. Rather than revisiting these philosophies in detail, the following subsections focus on how they are concretely expressed in the spatial organisation, material choices and water–land interfaces of Jiangnan water-town gardens and Huizhou courtyard dwellings.

4.2. Jiangnan Garden Architecture

The Jiangnan region, strategically located south of the lower reaches of the Yangtze River, is renowned for its distinctive water-village landscapes [131]. The area, primarily comprising parts of Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces, is celebrated for its rich cultural heritage, diverse landscapes and pronounced seasonal variations [87]. Jiangnan garden architecture captures the essence of the natural environment, historical culture and local water-town character [126]. Strategic site and orientation selection in traditional Jiangnan garden architecture exemplifies an intimate engagement with the natural topography, emphasising environmental harmony and enhancing comfort and climate adaptability [95].

Known for its integration with garden landscapes, Jiangnan garden architecture harmoniously blends residential structures with adjoining gardens. Buildings are often constructed along rivers and lakes, making water features a central element of the design [124,127]. Sustainability practices in the Jiangnan region highlight long-term adaptation to aquatic environments. These include the utilisation of abundant water resources to support waterfront residences and walkways, emblematic of the region’s architectural response to its natural setting [122]. Water functions as a crucial element for microclimate regulation—modifying temperature and humidity levels—and as a facilitator of residents’ daily activities [96,126]. Local craftsmen strategically employ water to enhance the aesthetic and functional aspects of gardens, courtyards and corridors, enriching the overall quality of life for inhabitants [123,132,133]. Architectural designs incorporate pitched roofs to direct rainwater into centrally located courtyards equipped with water storage facilities, maximising rainwater retention [122].

Permeable spatial arrangements allow natural light and efficient ventilation while prioritising privacy and tranquillity in verdant garden spaces [134]. The ethos of the “unity of heaven and humanity” is intricately interwoven into the aesthetics and spatial sequences of Jiangnan garden architecture [90], with an emphasis on water elements that harmonise with the surrounding environment. The technique of “borrowing views” is employed with exceptional artistry to expand visual vistas and achieve a sophisticated symbiosis with nature [87,126]. These settlements optimise terrain and craft water networks to enhance climate regulation and embellish natural settings.

Table 3. Nature considerations of Jiangnan garden architecture sector (Source: the authors).

Feature	Description	Impact on Human–Nature Coexistence
Site selection and orientation	Siting and orienting buildings in relation to rivers, lakes, canals, prevailing winds and solar exposure to enhance environmental harmony and climatic comfort.	Aligns settlement patterns with local hydrology and climate, reducing energy demand for heating and cooling and embedding habitation within existing landscape structures.
Integration of buildings, water and landscape	Residential buildings, gardens, canals, ponds and walkways form a continuous spatial system with frequent interfaces between built edges and water.	Enhances microclimate regulation through evaporative cooling, supports aquatic and riparian habitats, and integrates everyday activities with water-based ecological processes.
Courtyards and vegetated spaces	Internal courtyards, gardens and planted edges use trees, shrubs and groundcover to structure space and experience.	Create shaded, ventilated microclimates, provide habitats and food resources for urban biodiversity and offer restorative environments for residents.
Water management and storage	Pitched roofs and paved surfaces channel rainwater into internal courtyards, ponds and canals for temporary storage and reuse.	Supports local water cycling, attenuates stormwater peaks and contributes to thermal comfort, while reducing pressure on external supply and drainage infrastructure.
Light, views and circulation	Permeable layouts, framed views, bridges and paths maximise visual and physical contact with water and vegetation.	Maintain continuous sensory engagement with nature, supporting mental well-being, place attachment and environmental stewardship.
Vegetation composition	Preference for hardy, often indigenous plant species arranged to provide shade, shelter and seasonal variety.	Reinforces local biodiversity, stabilises soils and moderates microclimate, while expressing cultural meanings associated with particular species.
Materials and construction	Use of locally available stone, timber and tiles compatible with humid conditions and repeated maintenance.	Limits embodied energy and transport distances, supports local material cycles and contributes to long-term adaptability and repair of the built fabric.

summarizes the nature considerations of Jiangnan garden architecture sector.

4.3. Huizhou Architectural Style

Huizhou architecture, originating in Anhui, Jiangxi and Zhejiang provinces, is a key example of traditional Chinese architectural diversity [125,135]. It includes various structures such as residential buildings, ancestral halls and memorial archways, reflecting the societal norms and cultural beliefs of the Huizhou region. This architectural style developed during the late Song dynasty and flourished through the Ming and Qing dynasties, fuelled by the region’s trade and scholarly prominence [99].

A hallmark of Huizhou architecture is its integration with natural surroundings such as hills, streams and ponds, often employing a black-and-white colour scheme [127,129]. Using local stone and wood, these structures showcase a palette of black, white and grey [136,137]. Whitewashed walls from local limestone contrast sharply with dark tiles, embodying the Daoist yin–yang principle of balance and harmony. This approach aligns with Daoist and Confucian ideals that urge minimal ecological disruption and optimal integration with nature [63].

The favoured “hill-nestled, water-surrounded, and screen-faced” layout of Huizhou architecture protects from harsh winter conditions and retains moist southern winds, facilitating rainfall and regulating the microclimate [63,95,99]. Integrated water systems serve both domestic and agricultural needs [99]. Spatial organisation in Huizhou architecture centres around the courtyard, pivotal for light, ventilation and as the heart of the home, around which functional spaces are arranged. This arrangement, whether concentric or longitudinal, highlights a blend of aesthetic elegance and utility [128]. Courtyards enhance residential experience by managing rainwater, with rooftops channelling water into ponds, contributing to both architectural integrity and practical use [122]. The skywell is another critical component, designed to maximise natural light and facilitate cross-ventilation, reducing reliance on energy-intensive artificial systems [98]. It helps modulate building temperature, promoting cooling in warmer seasons and trapping heat in cooler months [137]. By incorporating natural elements like sunlight, rain and breezes, the skywell enhances functional aspects while reconnecting residents with nature.

In conceptual terms, the mechanisms identified in Jiangnan water-town and Huizhou courtyard architecture show how site selection, water systems, courtyards and skywells, vegetation patterns, materials and light–ventilation strategies can embed nature-related performance in everyday urban form. Section 5 draws on these mechanisms to structure a preliminary project-scale nature-based accounting framework for urban real estate.

Table 4. Nature considerations of Huizhou architecture (Source: the authors).

Feature	Description	Impact on Human–Nature Coexistence
Site selection and village layout	Villages and building groups located at the foot of hills and along streams and ponds, with enclosing landforms and planted shelterbelts.	Uses topography and vegetation for wind protection, moisture retention and flood safety; aligns built form with local climatic and hydrological conditions.
Landscape integration	Building masses, walls and street networks follow natural contours and frame views of surrounding hills and water bodies.	Minimises earthworks and ecological disturbance, preserves visual and ecological continuity between settlement and landscape and supports habitat connectivity.
Courtyards as microclimate systems	Internal courtyards organise rooms and circulation and host planting and small water features.	Provide shaded, ventilated microclimates, support small-scale biodiversity and offer semi-private restorative outdoor spaces.
Water channels and ponds	Water channels and ponds are integrated into village and compound layouts for domestic use, irrigation, drainage and fire protection.	Enable local water storage and recycling, moderate humidity and temperature and provide habitats for aquatic species.
Materials and construction	Extensive use of local timber, bamboo, stone and lime-based plasters in thick walls and tiled roofs.	Reduces embodied energy and transport impacts, enhances thermal mass and durability and supports local resource economies.
Light and ventilation management	Openings, courtyards and skywells (tianjing) calibrated to admit daylight and drive natural ventilation.	Reduces reliance on artificial lighting and mechanical cooling, improves indoor environmental quality and maintains continuous sensory contact with natural cycles.

summarizes the nature considerations of Huizhou architecture.

5. Discussion: From Traditional Principles to Project-Scale Nature-Based Accounting

This section discusses what can be learned from the traditional cases and how the proposed project-scale framework relates to existing nature-related assessment and reporting approaches.

5.1. Conceptual Implications of Jiangnan and Huizhou Traditions

A careful evaluation of Jiangnan garden and Huizhou courtyard traditions reveals a high degree of ecological sophistication that is directly relevant to contemporary sustainable real estate practice [90,91,95,99,122,126]. In both cases, performance does not result from single technical measures but from ensembles of reinforcing choices. Site selection, water networks, native planting, natural ventilation and spatial layouts develop together to optimise environmental conditions, support biodiversity and sustain everyday well-being [95,96,98,122]. This systemic way of working contrasts with many current approaches in the built environment, where ecological performance is often monitored through a fragmented set of metrics [25,53,83]

One implication of this comparison is that contemporary disclosure and assessment frameworks such as the TNFD need to pay attention to ecological functionality at the level of systems. The Jiangnan and Huizhou examples suggest that standards are likely to be more effective when they encourage projects and portfolios to demonstrate linked patterns of performance and co-benefits, rather than compliance with isolated indicators in narrow domains [22,83,90,91].

A second implication concerns the way ecological design is anchored in local conditions. Jiangnan and Huizhou traditions are closely tuned to climate, hydrology, available materials and cultural routines [95,99,122,126]. Contemporary standards necessarily work with a degree of standardisation in order to support comparison. At the same time, excessive uniformity can obscure important differences between places. Recent guidance therefore moves towards location-based approaches which ask preparers to define baselines, targets and disclosures that reflect specific landscapes and communities, as in the TNFD’s LEAP process [81,82].

A further lesson is the lasting effectiveness of low-tech passive strategies. Comfort and resilience in traditional architecture rely on courtyards, water elements, building orientation and indigenous materials that together provide microclimate regulation and resource efficiency through design rather than through mechanical systems [95,97,98,122]. Many current sustainability frameworks are beginning to incorporate these forms of intervention into indicators for rainwater retention, access to daylight, native species use and embodied carbon, using them as reference points for both minimum performance and innovation [81,82]

The long life of these traditional systems is also linked to their role in communal life. Gardens and courtyards are not only technical devices but also spaces of ritual, care and everyday interaction, so that ecological qualities are woven into cultural meaning and social maintenance [91,94]. This perspective suggests that sustainable real estate should not be understood only as a set of technologies and metrics, but also as a question of stewardship. Management and reporting practices can reflect this by giving more explicit attention to social engagement, cultural values and long-term custodianship alongside technical performance [19,95,99,138].

Traditional systems also show how continuous adjustment and learning support resilience over time. Their forms have been maintained and adapted through cycles of feedback and incremental change, building on observation, experience and negotiated adjustment within communities [91,122]. By analogy, modern sustainable real estate practice can make use of rolling targets, scenario analysis, ongoing monitoring and open dialogue with stakeholders, so that standards such as the TNFD become tools for learning and adaptation rather than static checklists [81,82]

At the same time, there are clear limits to direct transfer. High land values, rapid development cycles, long ecological timescales, fragmented supply chains and prevailing market incentives constrain the extent to which historic forms can simply be repeated. Large courtyards and expansive water bodies may not be feasible in many high-density, capital-intensive settings. Strengthening ecological connectivity, securing traceable material supply and sustaining community stewardship also remain demanding in current development and regulatory environments

For these reasons, the use of traditional architectural wisdom in contemporary practice is better understood as a structured process of interpretation and adaptation than as imitation. The following subsections and Figure 2 outline this process.

Table 5. Indicative mapping of traditional architectural features to contemporary real-estate sustainability practice (Source: the author).

Traditional Feature	Functional Principle	Contemporary Sustainability Metric	Implementation Approach	Reporting & Disclosure
Site selection and orientation	Climate adaptation, landscape harmony	Proportion of sites optimized for passive comfort; landscape linkage index	Context-sensitive siting and EIA integration	TNFD/sustainability disclosures
Landscape integration	Ecological corridors, visual/functional integration	Green space ratio; length and connectivity of corridors	Designation of ecological/visual corridors	Annual green space and connectivity reporting
Courtyard system	Microclimate, biodiversity, social well-being	Courtyard density; species richness index	Courtyard-linked biodiversity monitoring	Operations & biodiversity reporting
Water management	Rainwater retention, cooling, habitat	% runoff managed via NBS; water retention ratio	Ponds, rainwater systems, seasonal audits	Water management metrics in reports
Vegetation strategy	Native flora, ecosystem resilience	Native species ratio; biodiversity score	Indigenous planting, regular diversity surveys	Planting and biodiversity metrics
Sustainable materials	Carbon reduction, local economic support	Local/renewable material ratio; embodied carbon	Local procurement; LCA integration	Materials/carbon reporting
Daylighting/ventilation	Passive climate control, comfort, health	Area with passive light/vent; daylight index	Natural ventilation/daylight design, QA	Passive feature impact disclosure
Cost–benefit and social inclusion	Economic feasibility; social equity; well-being outcomes for vulnerable groups	Projected lifecycle cost savings (energy, health); share of low-income beneficiaries; accessibility/per capita green space; community engagement index	Prioritization of nature-based solutions in affordable housing; local sourcing; targeted subsidies or incentives; participatory planning	Cost–benefit analysis and inclusion metrics in sustainability, social responsibility, or impact finance reporting

Note: Contemporary metrics are primarily drawn from or adapted to the TNFD (Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures) sectoral guidance for real estate (see Table 1 for detailed definitions) and are intended as indicative examples that can be refined or expanded for specific contexts. Abbreviations: QA = Quality Assurance; LCA = Life Cycle Assessment. Key terms align with indicators in Table 2 (TNFD), Table 3 (Jiangnan gardens), and Table 4 (Huizhou architecture), for direct comparison and sectoral integration.

then presents specific correspondences between traditional features, their functional principles and contemporary sustainability metrics, showing how principle-based adaptation and careful metric mapping can support integration in the real estate sector [52,122].

5.2. Comparison with International Natural Capital Metrics and Accounting Frameworks

International work on ecosystem services, natural capital, and biodiversity accounting has produced several influential approaches. A major strand frames ecological functions as service flows that support human welfare and can be described in biophysical terms and, in some cases, monetary terms [3,4,5,105,106,107,108,109]. In parallel, Natural Capital Accounting (NCA) has developed as an accounting-oriented family of approaches that aligns environmental information with national accounting logic and supports macro decision-making. In practice, this work is often operationalised through SEEA EA, which provides formal structures for recording environmental assets and flows and, specifically, ecosystem extent, condition, and ecosystem services [119,120]. A further strand focuses on biodiversity and extinction accounting, extending environmental accounting to species loss, habitat degradation, and related accountability and disclosure questions [52,53,59,60,62,67,68]. At the policy and reporting level, CBD and IPBES assessments, together with biodiversity reporting standards such as the GRI biodiversity standards, have strengthened expectations for monitoring and disclosure [1,17,18,70,71,72,112,116]. At the city scale, indicator sets such as the City Biodiversity Index (also known as the Singapore Index, and sometimes referred to as an urban biodiversity index) support monitoring and management across whole urban areas (IUCN Urban Nature Indexes, n.d.).

These approaches have clarified key concepts and improved transparency at national, corporate, and city scales. However, their main units of analysis and reporting often differ from the unit that matters in design practice: the individual real-estate project. Ecosystem accounting and related natural capital accounting approaches provide account structures, but they do not prescribe how project spatial configuration should be translated into consistent, design-relevant indicators [119,120]. Ecosystem services valuation and landscape approaches often aggregate information at the level of regions or portfolios. This can weaken the link between specific design mechanisms and measured outcomes [8,21,54,55]. Biodiversity reporting standards and city-level indicator sets highlight the importance of nature in the built environment, yet they typically remain high level with respect to project design choices and everyday management practices [17,18,70,71,72,112].

The framework developed in this paper is intended as a project-scale complement to these established methodologies. It translates ecological design mechanisms from Jiangnan and Huizhou traditions into measurable indicators that can be used in project appraisal, design briefs, and operational management (Section 5.1 and Section 5.3; Table 5). The mapping focuses on features that project teams can directly shape, including climate-responsive siting, courtyard form, water systems, vegetation structure, material choices, and passive daylighting and ventilation. The indicators are designed to remain compatible with current disclosure practice in the real-estate sector, particularly TNFD-aligned metrics and guidance [81,82]. In this sense, the framework is not presented as a replacement for SEEA-based accounting, ecosystem services valuation, or city-level biodiversity indices. Rather, it provides a practical project-level layer that makes design choices legible within existing reporting and assessment practices and, where appropriate, can generate structured inputs that can be aligned with higher-level accounts and indicators. Its main contribution is to operationalise these international accounting and indicator agendas at the project scale through a design-to-indicator mapping that can be used in real-estate decision processes and disclosures.

5.3. Translating Traditional Principles into Contemporary Sustainability Metrics

The historical and typological analysis in Section 3 and Section 4 identified a set of ecological design principles embedded in traditional Chinese architectural practice. In this section, these principles are related to contemporary sustainability metrics and disclosure requirements, with the aim of developing a project-scale nature-based accounting structure for urban real estate. In translating these principles, three elements can be distinguished. First, conceptual correspondences are drawn between traditional design ideas, such as geo-ecological attunement and water-based spatial organisation, and contemporary sustainability dimensions including biodiversity support, microclimate regulation, mental health and social equity. Second, these dimensions are expressed through measurable indicators that are compatible with current real-estate guidance and reporting practices. Third, an illustrative example shows how such indicators can be combined and interpreted at the scale of a project.

This translation is not conceived as a preservation exercise that seeks to reproduce historic forms. The intention is to work with the ecological logic of traditional strategies and to reinterpret it for contemporary conditions in which densities, regulatory requirements, material supply chains and stakeholder constellations differ from those of historical settlements. The framework is therefore proposed as a bridge between traditional design wisdom and present performance standards for biodiversity, climate resilience and social equity in real estate.

Figure 2 summarises this pathway from principle extraction, through metric mapping and integrative design, to disclosure and reporting for the real-estate sector. Building on this pathway, Table 5 sets out indicative correspondences between selected traditional features, their functional principles, contemporary real-estate sustainability metrics, and possible implementation and reporting practices. The metrics listed are drawn from, or compatible with, sectoral guidance such as the TNFD’s real estate recommendations and related disclosure frameworks [22] (see also Table 1).

Table 5 does not prescribe a fixed checklist. Rather, it organises recurring design features identified in Section 3 and Section 4, such as climate-adaptive site selection, landscape integration, courtyard and water systems, vegetation strategies, material choices and daylighting and ventilation, and links them to quantifiable metrics already recognised in sector practice. The “Implementation approach” column sketches ways in which these principles can be incorporated into project governance, design briefs and operational procedures. The “Reporting and disclosure” column indicates how they can be made visible in existing sustainability, risk or impact reporting, including TNFD-aligned disclosures. The final row highlights cost, accessibility and social inclusion, signalling that nature-based solutions need to be evaluated not only in ecological and technical terms but also with respect to economic feasibility and distributional outcomes.

As a final step, the cross-domain synthesis is translated into a preliminary project-scale accounting structure. Traditional design mechanisms that support biodiversity, microclimate regulation and social well-being are grouped into indicator sets that correspond to nature-related conditions, ecosystem service pathways and human outcomes. In the present paper, this structure is introduced in an exploratory way, with indicators outlined on ordinal or normalised scales to enable comparison between project scenarios and to guide further methodological development.

5.4. A Preliminary Project-Scale Nature-Based Accounting Structure

The indicator mappings in Table 5 provide the building blocks for a preliminary project-scale, nature-based accounting structure. Within this structure, traditional design mechanisms that support biodiversity, microclimate regulation and social well-being are organised into indicator sets that correspond to nature-related conditions, ecosystem service pathways and human outcomes. For practical use, each indicator needs to be specified in terms of its definition, unit of measurement and data source (for example, site surveys, design drawings, monitoring records or administrative statistics), so that project designs or scenarios can be compared on a consistent basis. In the context of this study, this would typically involve combining information from architectural drawings for spatial configuration and surface ratios, ecological surveys for species-related indicators, and social or demographic data for access and inclusion metrics.

To enable comparison across indicators with different units and scales, the accounting structure requires some form of normalisation. Depending on the data and the evaluation context, this may involve simple linear scaling to a 0–1 range, threshold-based classes, or other standardisation procedures commonly used in indicator systems. The choice of normalisation method should reflect the distribution and reliability of the underlying data, as well as the way in which decision-makers interpret changes in indicator values. In all cases, the aim is to obtain values that are comparable across indicators within each category, without masking important qualitative differences.

A further step concerns weighting and aggregation. In principle, indicators within and across the three categories can be combined to obtain summary measures of performance. Equal weighting can serve as a neutral starting point for exploratory analysis, but in applied settings the relative importance of indicators is likely to depend on local priorities, policy objectives and stakeholder perspectives. Weights may therefore be defined through expert judgement, participatory processes or existing policy targets, and can be subjected to sensitivity analysis to examine how different weighting schemes influence the resulting assessments.

The scope of the accounting structure developed in this paper is limited to project-scale urban real estate, such as individual developments, estates or neighbourhood-scale regeneration schemes. It is conceived primarily as a decision-support and learning tool for public authorities, planners and design teams, helping them to visualise how different design options perform across nature-related and well-being dimensions, rather than as a binding regulatory standard. Its indicator categories are derived from Chinese traditional urban and architectural practices and therefore require contextual adaptation before being applied in other climatic, geographical or institutional settings.

In operational planning contexts, the indicator structure outlined here could be embedded within more formal multi-criteria decision-analysis procedures. In such applications, the measurement choices, normalisation rules and weighting schemes would be explicitly specified and co-developed with local authorities and stakeholders, so that the resulting model reflects both the ecological logic of the indicators and the purposes of the evaluation. Future applications in specific Chinese cities could, for example, test the framework within existing planning appraisal or impact-assessment procedures, using real project data and established decision protocols. In this sense, the present framework is intended as a conceptual and methodological basis for future applications of nature-based indicators in project-scale assessment, rather than as a fully elaborated decision model.

6. Concluding Remarks

This study set out to explore whether principles from traditional Chinese garden and courtyard architecture can inform a nature-based accounting framework for contemporary urban real estate. The analysis shows that long-standing design practices such as climate-responsive siting, integrated water and landscape systems, layered spatial hierarchies and the provision of everyday restorative green spaces are not only culturally significant but also functionally aligned with priorities in biodiversity support, microclimate regulation and mental health. When interpreted through the lenses of urban ecology, environmental accounting and public health, these traditions provide a structured set of mechanisms that can be expressed as indicators and management strategies for the built environment.

The framework developed in this paper links traditional spatial features to modern sustainability metrics and emerging disclosure requirements. It translates courtyard orientation, shading structures, water bodies, planting patterns and communal open spaces into indicative measures for habitat quality, thermal comfort, sensory refuge and equitable access to nature. These elements can be incorporated into real-estate appraisal, project feasibility assessments and portfolio-level risk disclosures alongside conventional financial indicators. If adopted, such an approach would allow investors, developers and regulators to recognise how specific design decisions contribute to or undermine ecological integrity and human well-being.

The study also underscores several implications for practice. Nature-based accounting should be applied across the project life cycle, from site selection and early design through to operation and retrofit, so that biodiversity, psychological health and social equity are assessed together with cost and return. Design teams can operationalise the framework by favouring context-sensitive strategies: working with local climate and hydrology, using planting and water to moderate microclimate, and creating a legible hierarchy of shared and semi-private green spaces that are open to diverse users. Public authorities can reinforce these shifts by aligning planning approvals, incentive schemes and reporting rules with indicators that capture ecological and mental-health outcomes rather than only energy or emissions metrics.

From a societal and policy perspective, the findings suggest that real estate can either deepen or reduce nature-related risks in cities. If environmental degradation and psychological strain remain outside formal accounting systems, they are likely to continue as unpriced externalities borne by residents and ecosystems. Embedding nature-based metrics that draw on both scientific evidence and traditional eco-architectural insight offers a way to redirect capital toward projects that regenerate local ecologies, support everyday mental restoration and distribute benefits more fairly across neighbourhoods. This has direct relevance for urban planning, implementation of nature-related financial disclosure and strategies for climate adaptation and public health.

There are, however, important limitations. The framework is conceptual and is illustrated through qualitative material from Chinese traditions rather than through a large sample of quantitative project data. The paper sets out domains and example indicators, but it does not test how these perform in real development processes, nor does it provide evidence on cost, uptake or behavioural responses from firms and residents. Future research should apply the framework in specific urban districts or portfolios, combining ecological surveys, microclimate monitoring and mental-health outcomes with financial performance to evaluate its practical value.

In addition, the study does not prescribe detailed measurement protocols, weighting schemes or aggregation procedures for the proposed indicators. Decisions on data sources, spatial and temporal resolution and the use of multi-criteria methods will depend on regulatory context, investment horizon and local ecological conditions. Subsequent work could co-develop context-specific indicator sets and decision rules with city authorities, investors and community groups, and compare implementations in different cultural settings. Such efforts would help to move nature-based accounting for urban real estate from the conceptual stage toward robust tools that can guide investment, design and policy in practice.