Knowledge of Urban Ecosystem Services in Central and Eastern Europe and Their Implications for Urban Planning: A Review

Abstract

Overcoming conceptual and institutional barriers demands interdisciplinary collaboration, improved governance, and stronger stakeholder engagement to promote sustainable urban planning and enhance ecosystem resilience. In the transition toward resilient cities, the concept of ecosystem services serves as a critical interface between science, planning, and governance, fostering stakeholder engagement and translating the complex ecosystem functions into indicators for urban planning. This study aims to assess existing knowledge on Urban Ecosystem Services (UESs) and their implications for urban green infrastructure planning across Central and Eastern Europe. A comprehensive, qualitative and quantitative review of the peer-reviewed literature retrieved from Web of Science and SCOPUS, was conducted for 11 former socialist countries that joined the European Union after 2004. The results reveal major barriers to UES integration, including inconsistent terminology, institutional inertia, fragmented governance, and limited stakeholder participation. Although research interest in UESs is increasing, research remains geographically concentrated in a few cities, mainly capitals, thereby constraining the understanding of spatial patterns and drivers of UES supply and demand across the region. Moreover, production services and ecological processes sustaining urban systems are largely underexplored. The study concludes that advancing UES research and practice requires a holistic, multi-scale, and standardized approach that identifies key stressors and context-specific impacts. Overcoming conceptual and institutional barriers demands interdisciplinary collaboration, improved governance, and enhanced stakeholder engagement to promote sustainable urban planning and enhance ecosystem resilience.

1. Introduction

In the European Union (EU), urban areas are home to 80% of the population, highlighting the pressing need to address climate change and urban sustainability [1]. The economic activities and well-being of urban residents rely heavily on the myriad benefits provided by nature, known as ecosystem services (ESs) [2]. These services encompass both direct and indirect contributions from functioning ecosystems, which support human well-being and are valued by society [3].

Within urban environments, the ESs are termed urban ecosystem services (UESs) and are generated by the interplay between ecological processes, built infrastructure, and human activities [1,4]. Green infrastructure (GI), comprising natural and semi-natural areas strategically planned and managed, plays a pivotal role in delivering a wide range of UESs [5]. It can offer integrated, cost-effective, and long-lasting solutions to develop more sustainable and resilient cities [6,7]. GI can reduce air pollution, noise, and the impacts of extreme weather; can provide food, refuge, habitats for species; contribute pollination and seed dispersal services, recreation services, cognitive development, improved physical and mental health; and increase the attractiveness of residential areas [4,8]. Despite their importance, the true value of these services often goes unrecognized, and urban expansion poses significant threats to GI and the ESs it provides.

International commitments to creating inclusive, resilient, and sustainable cities emphasize the potential of the ES concept to inform urban planning and governance (UPG) strategies [5,9]. By recognizing and integrating the benefits of urban ecosystems into decision-making processes, cities can develop policies that support the long-term provision of ESs, fostering biodiversity conservation, and enhancing environmental quality. This necessitates aligning sectoral policies and regulations to support the sustainable management of natural resources and promote the delivery of ESs across various urban functions. Informed by an understanding of UESs, UPG strategies facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration among urban planners, policymakers, scientists, and community stakeholders to co-design and implement nature-based solutions that leverage UESs to address urban challenges effectively. By valuing and investing in UESs, cities build adaptive capacity, reduce vulnerability, and enhance social cohesion, well-being, and resilience to environmental and socio-economic shifts while promoting sustainable development. Moreover, promoting equitable access to UESs contributes to social justice and inclusive urban development. While the significance of ESs in urban planning is increasingly recognized, their incorporation into UPG remains a significant challenge for decision-makers and practitioners [10,11,12].

Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries have unique social, cultural, and economic characteristics stemming from their historical transition from centralized (top-down) to decentralized and frequently incoherent urban planning models that followed the political changes in the late 1980s [13,14]. This transition has resulted in a decreased surface area of green spaces [15,16,17,18,19,20] and limited access to nature for residents [21,22,23,24,25], in contrast to trends observed in Western Europe (e.g., increasing connectivity of UGI and its accessibility to citizens, or designation of urban protected areas) [20,22].

Over the past two decades, research on UESs has evolved into a central framework for understanding the interactions between nature and urban systems. Globally, studies emphasize the crucial role of GBI in providing a wide range of ecosystem services that enhance urban resilience, climate regulation, and human well-being [25,26]. Systematic reviews show that most research focuses on regulating and cultural services, such as temperature regulation, biodiversity enhancement, recreation, and aesthetic value, largely influenced by spatial scale, vegetation structure, and accessibility. These findings highlight the need for multi-level, design-sensitive approaches to improve UES delivery across diverse urban contexts. At the same time, scholars call for a more integrated understanding that also accounts for ecosystem disservices, recognizing that urban ecosystems can produce negative effects such as allergens, pests, or safety risks [27]. This perspective underscores the importance of developing quantitative, evidence-based assessment methods that capture both benefits and drawbacks while incorporating socio-cultural dimensions and the needs of vulnerable groups.

Effective integration of the ES concept into policy and planning requires a comprehensive understanding of ES flows (including those less visible, yet critically important) [7,9,11]. Contextual factors such as cultural identity, local knowledge, and institutional perceptions shape stakeholder values, influence the evaluation of synergies and trade-offs, and ultimately affect decision-making [28]. The cities’ inherent biophysical and cultural uniqueness limit the transferability of knowledge to other cities, calling for context-specific, tailor-made solutions [7,10].

Although significant progress has been achieved globally [10], research on ES integration remains spatially biased, with limited attention given to CEE countries [29]. To date, no systematic review has specifically addressed UES research within the CEE context, despite the region’s distinct ecological, socio-economic, and governance characteristics. Addressing this gap is essential for advancing a more inclusive understanding of how urban ecosystem services can inform sustainable planning and policy in post-socialist and transitional urban environments.

This study represents the first comprehensive analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on UESs in CEE countries. We aim to (1) elucidate current understanding, emerging trends, and research gaps related to UESs, and (2) identify barriers and challenges hindering their effective integration into UPG. By outlining research priorities and challenges, our review seeks to contribute to guide future research efforts and informs research agendas to address knowledge deficiencies in the field. It provides policymakers and UPG practitioners with insights into the barriers and challenges hindering the effective integration of UESs into planning processes, informing the development of UPG system infrastructure and more effective policies for sustainable urban development.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodological design of this review followed a structured, multi-stage approach aimed at ensuring transparency, reproducibility, and comprehensiveness in the synthesis of existing research on UESs in CEE. The process began with the formulation of research questions and inclusion criteria, followed by a systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature in the Web of Science and Scopus databases (June 2024). It includes 11 former socialist countries that joined the EU after 2004, now termed as post-socialist or post-transitioning countries [19,30]: Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia (Figure 1).

Articles written in English were retrieved from Web of Science and SCOPUS using the query: “urban” AND “South-Eastern Europe” OR “Central Europe” OR “Bulgaria” OR “Croatia” OR “The Czech Republic” OR “Estonia” OR “Hungary” OR “Latvia” OR “Lithuania” OR “Poland” OR “Romania” OR “Slovenia” OR “Slovakia” AND “ecosystem services” OR “provisioning services” OR “regulating services” OR “supporting services” OR “cultural services” OR “maintenance services” AND “assessment” OR “ valuation” OR “policy” OR “planning” OR “governance” OR “stakeholders”.

We identified 293 articles on Scopus and 328 articles on Web of Science, all published before June 2024.

Following the papers’ methods chapter screening (Figure 1), we selected only the papers that focus on urban areas in one or more countries in the CEE and conduct area-explicit case studies (e.g., the geographic area of focus is clearly defined and identified within this study). Then, we screened the papers and kept for the analysis those that either assessed UES (meaning that ES or ES-related keywords—e.g., types or categories of ESs—occurred in the result section and not only in the introduction or discussions sections of the respective article) or evaluated the institutional, governance, or legislative context for integrating ESs in UPG.

A total of 98 papers meeting the criteria were included for analysis (Supplementary Materials, Table S1).

2.1. The Coding Process

The qualitative analysis was conducted using MAXQDA Analytics Pro 24, a software package specifically designed for mixed-methods research. MAXQDA enables the systematic organization, coding, and interpretation of qualitative and quantitative data, including text, tables, and graphical content. In this review, MAXQDA was used to code and categorize information extracted from the selected articles, enabling transparent comparison of methodological approaches, geographical distribution, and governance-related aspects. This process focused on key elements related to the research context, UES evaluation, usefulness of UESs for informing and guiding UPG, barriers faced by UPG in integrating UESs in decision, and stakeholder involvement (

Table 1. Framework for coding key elements in selected articles.

Coding Framework	Criteria	Response
Selection of Papers and Data Scoping	Contains area-explicit case studies	Yes/No
	ES-related keywords are present in the results section	Yes/No
	Includes a dedicated section on ES	Yes/No
	Assesses the institutional, governance, or legislative context for integrating ESs in UPG	Yes/No
Research Context	Location	Country and City of Case Study
	Scale of Study	Local/Regional/Cross-Region Comparisons
	Publication Year	Year
	Funding Sources	National/EU/Other International
UES Evaluation	Ecosystem Services	-Provisioning: food production, water provisioning, abiotic renewable energy, and abiotic and biotic materials. -Regulation and Maintenance: air purification, noise attenuation, regulation of river and water flows and extreme events, runoff mitigation, moderation of climate extremes, pollination, seed dispersal, disease control, soil regeneration, water purification, regulation of urban temperature. -Cultural: physical activities, recreation, animal watching, social interactions, social inclusion, cognitive development, aesthetic experiences, spiritual and psychological benefits, sense of identity, sense of place and place attachment, biodiversity, and habitat.
	Use of ES Cascade Model	Yes/No
	Biophysical structures addressed	Coastal areas, Wetlands, Lakes, Rivers, Forests, Meadows, Parks, Gardens, Natural Reserves, Green Roofs, Farmed Areas, Street Trees, Street Verges, Vacant Lots, Abandoned Industrial Sites, Water Channels, Water Reservoir Edges, Street Greenery, Rail Tracks, Cemeteries, or general terms such as Green Areas, Green Zones, Green Spaces, Green Land, Greeneries, Urban Amenities.
	Assessment Methods	Biophysical, Mapping–Modeling, Land-Use Scoring, Participatory Mapping, Socio-Cultural, Monetary, Combined Methods
	Assessment Perspectives	Ecological, Social, Economic, Methodology, Governance, Urban Planning
Assist decision-making and UPG to integrate UES knowledge	Scientific findings on UESs inform UPG	General Recommendations, Detailed Context-Based Recommendations, Results Communication to Stakeholders, Integration into Local Plans and Strategies
	Scientific findings on UESs aid UPG	Establish Goals for Urban Planners, Suggest Actions or Alternative Solutions, Analyze Institutional Infrastructure, Socio-Cultural and Financial Aspects, Analyze Plans, Strategies, Policies, Reports, Regulations, and Institutional Architecture
	Barriers in implementing ES	Yes/No, Examples
Stakeholders	Stakeholder Involvement	Yes/No
	Categories of stakeholders	Civil Servants, Residents, NGOs, Tourists, Firms/Companies, Members of the Government, Local Administration, Scientists/Experts
	Purpose of stakeholder involvement	Data Collection, Methodology Design, Understanding and Debating the Relevance of ES Concept
	Methods of stakeholder involvement	Interviews, Questionnaires, Focus Groups, Participatory Decision-Making Processes, Co-Design Workshops, Collaborative Governance Approaches

ESs = ecosystem services, UPG = urban planning and governance, EU = European Union, NGOs = nongovernmental organizations.

). Such a methodology allowed us for the extraction and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative elements inherent in the research (Supplementary Materials, Tables S1 and S2).

We conducted inter-coder reliability checks by independently coding a subset of articles. Any discrepancies were thoroughly discussed and resolved through consensus-building between the researchers involved. To maintain accuracy and minimize bias, the coding process was initially performed by D.B. and meticulously reviewed by G.R.

2.2. Content Analysis

All mentioned UESs in the reviewed literature were compiled and classified into three categories: provisioning, regulation and maintenance, and cultural service. We also identify the various elements of the “ES cascade” model, central in the debate around the ES concept [31], and compiled the biophysical structures approached in the case studies (Table 1). When authors used various terms to refer to biophysical structures analyzed in their case studies, such as “green space”, “urban green land”, “greeneries”, “urban amenities”, or “urban biodiversity”, we coded them more generally as “green spaces”. For a comprehensive understanding of the complex inter-linkages between the ecosystems and human well-being benefits [32,33], we considered six categories of ES assessment methods [34] and six research perspectives [6] (Table 1). The ecological perspective analyzes biophysical processes sustaining services, while the social and economic perspectives address societal values and monetary valuation. The governance perspective focuses on institutions and stakeholder engagement, and the urban planning perspective applies ecosystem service knowledge to spatial decision-making. The methodological perspective provides the overarching conceptual, analytical, and integrative framework guiding how ecosystem services are identified, classified, and assessed across disciplines. It determines how knowledge from other perspectives is structured and combined, rather than focusing solely on which techniques or data are applied [6]. We aimed to determine how existing knowledge on UESs can assist urban planners in strengthening problem-solving capacity and sustainable management of cities, as well as to identify the barriers and challenges—outlined in the revised literature—of integrating UESs into practice. For this purpose, we analyzed whether each reviewed case study establishes goals for urban planning, defines actions and alternative options for urban development, identifies conditions and means of implementation, and analyzes the urban planning and accountability system. Considering stakeholder involvement as a cross-cutting issue, we examined the extent of stakeholder engagement, types of stakeholders, and engagement purposes and methods.

3. Results

More than half of the articles (60.2%) analyze case studies from single cities. Additionally, 9.2% develop comparative case studies between two or more cities within the same CEE country, and 9.2% provide analyses at the national level. About a quarter (21.4%) of the articles are international comparative analyses, including cities from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) (Figure 2). Notably, 38% of the articles focus on capital cities. A total of 60 studies (61.2%) acknowledge financial support from either the EU (n = 20) or other international research funding institutions (n = 40).

The first study emerged in 2013, with more than 85% (n = 84) published after 2016 (Figure 3). Of the 98 studies reviewed, 83 assess ESs and 15 focus on the legislative, planning, institutional, or participative context of the ES implementation.

3.1. Current Understanding of UESs: Existing Knowledge, Emerging Trends, and Areas with Gaps or Limitations

All three categories of ESs are addressed, though most studies focus on a single category of services (n = 47). Cultural services are examined in the majority of cases (n = 63), followed by regulating services (n = 45), and provisioning services (n = 18). Recreation, air purification, and aesthetic services are the most frequently analyzed (Figure 4). Notably, provisioning services, which include fundamental resources like food and water, receive less attention in the literature, underscoring a potential oversight in UPG frameworks, where the inclusion of such services is vital for ensuring the long-term well-being and resilience of urban communities [35].

Our review reveals a prevailing reliance on simplified models, typically focusing on one component, instead of the ecosystem services cascade model, assumed in only three case studies [36,37,38]. This trend underscores the need for more comprehensive approaches aiming to assess, map, and value UESs while considering the interconnections between biophysical structures, processes, services, benefits, and values for the benefit of the UPG system.

While parks, urban forests, and trees are extensively studied [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47], other biophysical structures, such as coastal areas, natural reserves, farmed areas, informal green spaces, and abandoned industrial sites, are underrepresented (Figure 5), despite their potential contributions to consumer goods and biodiversity maintenance [35,48,49,50]. Many case studies (n = 41, 42%) take a broad approach, focusing on urban green spaces, GI, or urban greenery, which refer to managed and unmanaged green areas and vegetation in cities rather than specific biophysical structures [51,52,53,54,55]. While such studies make an important contribution to the knowledge of ESs, the scope of UES assessment in the CEE region must be broadened to include the full range and diversity of biophysical structures that support urban ecosystems. Understanding the unique characteristics of each structure is crucial for assessing ES provisioning, and this knowledge should be considered by decision-makers and recognized by citizens [56,57,58].

Socio-cultural methods (alone n = 21 or combined with other assessment methods n = 12) are the most frequently employed in the CEE area (Figure 6), emphasizing the significance of understanding local socio-cultural contexts and citizen participation in UES assessment processes [59,60]. Among the socio-cultural methods, surveys and interviews are the most common. Monetary models, participatory mapping, and land use scoring methods occurred less frequently (Figure 6). Integrated approaches (n = 31, 31.6%) that combine multiple assessment methods have proven effective in capturing synergies and trade-offs between cultural (invisible) and regulation (visible) services, providing valuable insights for local planners and decision-makers in UPG [41,59,61,62,63,64,65]. These findings underscore the critical importance of incorporating socio-cultural considerations and meaningful stakeholder engagement for goal-setting in the UPG process to ensure more inclusive and sustainable urban development [62]. The dominance of social (n = 33) and methodological (n = 31) perspectives in UES studies (Figure 7) also supports the growing trend towards integrating socio-cultural considerations into valuation methods and advancing social issues in UES assessments.

The reviewed literature highlights the need for UPG frameworks to incorporate social justice principles and ensure fair access to ESs provided by urban ecosystems, based on citizens’ social and economic status [66,67,68,69,70]. By acknowledging individual preferences and the needs of a more diverse urban population [36,59,71,72] and fostering place attachment through accessible and attractive urban GI, UPG can support the creation of more equitable and resilient cities in the face of urbanization challenges [73]. These spaces also serve as critical alternatives for recreation during periods of social isolation or crises (e.g., COVID-19) [74,75,76].

While half of the reviewed studies (49%) involved stakeholders, primarily as data providers for UES assessment, only 10 articles focused on assessing stakeholders’ perceptions of the ES concept, its relevance for UPG, or the design of UES assessment methodologies [77,78,79,80,81,82]. Only a single case study [83] utilized a “learning lab” approach to engage stakeholders. Among the stakeholders involved, residents, visitors, and scientists were most frequently engaged, with questionnaires being the most common method (Figure 8). These findings indicate a need for more innovative methods to involve diverse categories of stakeholders in the UES assessment, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of urban ecosystems and their services, ultimately leading to better integration into UPG frameworks [84].

3.2. Barriers and Challenges for the Effective Integration of Ecosystems and Their Services into UPG

The reviewed literature reveals a notable emphasis on defining actions and alternative solutions (n = 50). Fewer studies address conditions and means for implementing the concept of UESs within UPG frameworks (n = 28) or assist urban planners in setting priority goals for UPG (n = 24) (Table S2). Additionally, only generic suggestions are provided to urban planners, exacerbating this knowledge gap and posing a significant challenge in effectively planning, allocating resources, and formulating strategies to achieve urban sustainability and resilience objectives [16].

Authors of the reviewed papers provide methodological frameworks, guidelines, and regulations (n = 21) to aid urban planners in defining specific actions and alternative options for implementing the UES concept, underscoring the importance of ecosystem-sensitive conceptualization and the assessment of the bundle of urban ESs in UPG processes [85,86,87,88]. Additionally, context-based solutions for mitigating effects such as urban sprawl, micro-climate changes, stormwater runoff, and flooding are offered, along with indicators and thresholds to measure progress toward identified goals (n = 10).

Practical solutions, such as greening initiatives along children’s school routes, planning UGI considering its multifunctional role, expanding park sizes or collective gardens, and considering user needs, are suggested to enhance the accessibility, quality and connectivity of urban parks, and biodiversity conservation [36,37,67,89,90] (Table S2). Despite these solutions, various barriers impede their practical implementation and hinder the fulfillment of national and EU goals regarding the integration of the ES concept into urban plans and development strategies in the region. Critical challenges include building trust, strengthening local capacity, activating and training stakeholders, raising awareness, mobilizing data, and utilizing objective environmental data for UES assessment (Table S2).

Few studies (n = 10) analyze the institutional infrastructure and the presence of ESs in urban planning, public policy, and development strategies, highlighting the need to harmonize sectorial policies, build stakeholder networks, and utilize NGOs to educate about the importance of UGI [16,83,91]. Additionally, criteria for urban planning and designing local adaptation strategies are identified [80,92,93] alongside the recognition of nature-based solutions and their influence on economic development potential [69,94,95,96].

Across the region, inadequate institutional infrastructure, lack of awareness, funding, and social support, and limited mobilization of different actors are common issues hindering effective integration of UESs into UPG [19,91,97,98,99]. These challenges are exacerbated by factors such as insufficient access to existing data, the inadequate legal status of urban green spaces (e.g., the informal green areas), limited recognition in the legislation of services provided by ecosystems, limited cooperation between institutions, and conflicts between sectoral urban policies [16,19,94,99,100]. Without proper data, clear legislative support, and cooperation between different institutions and sectors, UPG efforts may lack coherence and effectiveness. Moreover, conflicts between local and central urban policies are associated with low environmental awareness, unconsidered sustainable development principles, and limited stakeholder involvement [16,97] (Table S2). These conflicts can lead to disjointed and inconsistent approaches to urban planning, hindering progress toward sustainable and resilient urban development goals.

The involvement of stakeholders yielded valuable insights. For example, ref. [19] uncovered institutional and social empowerment failures in Polish cities with over 100,000 inhabitants. Similarly, ref. [36] demonstrated similarities and mismatches in park users’ needs for cultural UESs across Salzburg, Bucharest, and Poznan, underscoring the importance of considering diverse stakeholder perspectives and the local socio-cultural and environmental context in UPG processes. Implementing the SE concept is impossible without the involvement of all stakeholders, which is a true democratization of nature and access to nature [98].

The reviewed literature identifies multiple barriers hindering the implementation of the UES concept in UPG across CEE (

Table 2. Barriers for the implementation of UES concept in UPG revealed by the reviewed literature in Central and Eastern European countries in relation with four clusters of issues.

A.  Establish goals for urban planners	B.  Define actions and alternative options
-The concept of UES is abstract and difficult to understand by local actors and practitioners [80,99,101]. -Poor understanding of the ES concept [19,80,97]	-Insufficient discussion about trade-offs between UES [97] -Lack of consideration of trade-offs in urban GI [102] - Lack of evidence including case studies, standardized methods, and criteria to evaluate nature and its benefits [80].
C.  Conditions and means of implementations	D.  Planning and accountability
-Institutional inertia; lack of horizontal integration between local and central agencies [98]. -Lack of proper data regarding UGS and improper access to those existing, lack of communication strategies, lack of proper evaluation methodologies to promote the ES concept [19,80,98]. -Lack or insufficient funding [19] -Failure to include the benefits of trees in economic analysis [19] - Insufficient social support for the existence of UGS [19,97] -Lack of awareness of the significance of trees and greeneries among decision makers and of UESs among local public servants [19,80]. -Traditional way of working, resistance of decision-makers to improve their planning procedures, institutional inertia—reluctance toward new ideas and practices, appreciation of the trees’ value [80,98,99,101].	-Poor legal status of UGS in the city regulations (i.e., brown land and informal green); low recognition of the allotment gardens as nature-based solutions in plans and legislations, unprofessional or lack of spatial management plans; low level of inclusion and recognition of UGS in the strategic documents and landscape planning tools; contradictory urban planning regulation [16,19,69,80,97]. -Lack or limited mobilization of community/society; lack of cooperation between authorities and NGOs, between research and practical institutions, lack of bottom-up approaches in nature protection [19,101,103] -Often changes in political representation in the city which has different priorities [80] -Less or even no consideration of NbS in construction and transportation sectors and for supporting the citizens’ health; the economic potential of NbS is disregarded [94]. -Inappropriate planning, design and management of UGS towards building and strengthen social cohesion [16,19,80]. - Post-socialist urban plans do not efficiently consider cultural ecosystem services [91]. -Contradictions between sectors; limited inter- and intra-institutional cooperation [16,19] -A gap between the scientific literature and urban actors concerning the development and importance of urban ecological structures; limited capacity and reluctance to apply ESs in planning practice [19,60]. A lack of regulation services (pollination, pest control, and disease from the planning) [101].

NbS = Nature-based solutions; ESs = ecosystem services; UGS = urban green space, GI = green infrastructure, NGOs = non-governmental organizations, UESs = urban ecosystem services, UPG = urban planning and governance.

). These barriers reveal persistent conceptual, methodological, institutional, and regulatory limitations. The UES framework remains difficult for local practitioners to interpret and apply, while trade-offs between services and standardized evaluation methods are rarely considered. Institutional inertia, weak inter-agency coordination, poor data accessibility, limited funding, and low awareness among decision-makers further constrain implementation. In addition, urban green spaces often lack clear legal recognition, and planning regulations remain fragmented and inconsistent. Limited public engagement, insufficient collaboration between research and practice, and frequent political shifts also disrupt policy continuity. Overall, these findings point to structural and cognitive gaps that continue to impede the integration of UESs into urban planning in the CEE region (Table 2).

4. Discussion

Our study is the first to synthesize existing knowledge about UESs in the CEE region and to examine the key challenges for their integration into UPG. Through a literature review, we identify the main barriers preventing effective UES integration and assess the extent to which stakeholder participation is considered in the ES assessment process. We find that while there is a growing interest in UESs in the region, several conceptual, methodological, and institutional challenges persist that hinder the practical application of ecosystem services in urban planning. We present key findings, interpret their implications, and suggest directions for future research and policy action.

4.1. UES Assessment: Despite Growing Interest, Significant Knowledge Gaps Remain Regarding the Provision and Distribution of UESs in CEE

The interest in ESs, the knowledge base, and the experience in mainstreaming ecosystems and their services in decision-making is rapidly developing worldwide. However, while each ecosystem or region necessitates tailored solutions due to its unique social, economic, and cultural context [7], except for the USA and China, most of the research in this domain originates from Western Europe [28,80,104,105]. Our review underscores a recent surge of interest in the CEE region regarding the study of UESs and a transition from single-service assessments under local conditions to exploring multiple services, contexts, scales, methods, and stakeholder profiles and behavior [33,36,37,70,73,102,106,107,108,109,110,111]. Generally, it was catalyzed by EU strategies on biodiversity and green infrastructure [1] alongside participation in regional or EU-financed initiatives and research projects [112].

Nevertheless, research efforts in the CEE region remain unevenly distributed, and despite recent progress, the understanding of UESs and their distribution remains limited, with substantial gaps both across and within countries. Of a total of 22 UESs identified in the revised literature, over half of the studies (n = 59, 60.2%) were conducted in a small number of cities (ranging from one to seven, excluding [8]) (Figure 2), with a clear focus on capital cities (38%), highlighting the need for broader exploration. The small number of cities studied in the revised literature, combined with the predominance of single-city study approaches (frequently justified by the unique historical and geographical contexts) and short time frames, poses challenges in comprehending the overarching drivers controlling UESs across the region (e.g., typologies) and local patterns in UES supply and demand [22,72,113]. It also means that much of the variation in UES provisioning in the region remains unexplored. Addressing these gaps entails scaling research efforts beyond individual cities, replicating studies in diverse urban settings, and conducting comparative analyses across different scales and levels of decision-making. Despite the inherent complexities, such endeavors present invaluable opportunities to advance knowledge and validate the applicability of results in various local contexts.

In the Western literature, there is a strong emphasis on designing urban landscapes that support ecological principles to address various urban challenges, including food security and poverty alleviation [21,114]. However, in CEE countries, there is a notable lack of attention to production services in urban landscapes and the fundamental ecological processes that underpin them. The ecosystem processes and functions that describe biophysical relationships that exist, regardless of whether humans benefit, also remain largely unstudied. This knowledge gap extends to understanding how UESs respond to different environmental conditions and stressors, highlighting the need for further empirical research.

To address these research gaps, future investigations should prioritize comprehensive assessments of the bundle of UESs across urban landscapes. This entails identifying key stressors affecting their provisioning, highlighting the threshold for each stressor, and simulating their context-specific potential impacts under different scenarios. Moreover, changes in the probabilities of desirable UES conditions relative to the status should be examined. These efforts are crucial for informing evidence-based urban planning strategies aimed at enhancing ecosystem resilience and mitigating the impacts of climate change.

4.2. Conceptual Challenges and General Recommendations for UPG

Although the concept of ESs holds promise as a common language for researchers and practitioners in urban planning [31], our review findings indicate that in the CEE region, it is considered too abstract and difficult to understand by local actors and practitioners [19,99] (Table 2). Furthermore, we observed that the concept of ESs and its associated terminology still lacks a common consensus. In our review, most studies did not focus on a specific biophysical structure. Instead, generic terms such as green space, urban green land, greenery, urban amenities, or urban biodiversity were often used interchangeably with the well-defined concept of GI.

Except for [115,116,117] in other articles that conduct monetary and valuation assessments, the concept of UESs is rarely used. Notably, no case study addressed the economic or monetary value of UESs in the region. Instead, assessments focused on the value of “nature,” “green spaces,” or “green amenities.” This issue is widespread in the ES literature [20,118].

As noted by [80], promoting concepts such as GI or nature-based solutions may resonate better with stakeholders. Seeking linkages and synergies between terms and concepts could prove more valuable than dedicating excessive effort to single-concept approaches in urban planning. However, from a planning perspective, such conceptual mismatches can have serious consequences. They obscure the complexity of interactions, trade-offs, and synergies among individual biophysical structures and UESs (Table 2). Additionally, they can lead to confusion and situations where the development of such important urban features is seen as unnecessary investment or where “revitalization” efforts in central urban areas involve tree removal and concrete paving without public opposition [19,85].

Further research is warranted to identify terms that are most effective in specific contexts and to support planning for sustainability transitions within and beyond cities. Addressing these challenges will require interdisciplinary collaboration, stakeholder engagement, and a concerted effort to develop standardized methodologies and terminology that resonate with local contexts and priorities.

While researchers acknowledge the potential relevance of UES findings for UPG, their recommendations often remain too general, offering broad guidance rather than concrete or detailed advice. This limits their direct applicability to urban planning contexts. This gap presents opportunities for scientific advancement through the replication of studies conducted elsewhere, facilitating methodological refinement and contextual adaptation to better align with local imperatives [77].

4.3. Challenges in Translating ES Research into UPG

The identified barriers (Table 2) illustrate that integrating UESs into CEE urban planning remains constrained by interconnected institutional, cognitive, and regulatory challenges. The legacy of centralized governance, limited stakeholder participation, and fragmented institutional structures continues to hinder systemic adoption of ecosystem-based approaches. The inherent heterogeneity of methodologies, spatial scales, and contextual factors complicates the interpretation and application of UES assessment outcomes in a sound and replicable way within local decision-making frameworks [80]. Although CEE countries demonstrate an increasing trend toward adopting multiple research perspectives and assessment methods, the region still lacks standardized metrics and tools (for different problems, scales, and contexts) accessible to stakeholders, thereby impeding effective decision-making processes [80]. This challenge is further exacerbated by a lack of a priori identification and definition of the UES beneficiaries.

Socio-ecological processes are highly context-dependent. Effective management interventions aimed at enhancing the supply and flow of UESs are feasible at local and mesoscale levels and require robust knowledge frameworks and spatially explicit models of service provision in addition to institutionalized mechanisms for collective decision-making and action ([19,113,119,120,121]). While the number of reviewed papers exploring the challenges hindering the mainstreaming of ESs into UPG in CEE countries is limited, our analysis reveals several key insights.

In CEE countries, the implementation of the ES concept in urban planning is notably influenced by historical factors such as the legacy of centralized economies and entrenched top-down policy traditions and varying degrees of market-led, neo-performative (with limited emphasis on social and environmental considerations in planning decisions) and confirmative (seeking to balance environmental protection with socio-economic development objectives) spatial governance and planning systems [122]. Despite nuanced spatial governance approaches, reflecting each country’s unique context and evolving challenges in urban development, similarities could be identified.

Our review highlights that in the region, UES governance encounters barriers arising from institutional failures, bureaucratic hurdles, a lack of spatial plans, and institutionalized mechanisms for collective decision-making, compounded by inadequate funding and limited engagement of stakeholders (Table 2). The transition from hierarchical to multilevel governance structures resulted in institutional inertia, overlapping responsibilities, limited cooperation both within and between institutions, a lack of horizontal integration between local and central agencies, contradictions between sectors, and, generally, a governance system that remains not yet adapted to the contemporary realities [16,19,91,94,101,123] (Table 2). These barriers pose significant obstacles to the practical implementation of the ecosystem concept in UPG.

Moreover, the traditional way of working, resistance to change among decision-makers, their reluctance toward new ideas and practices, inadequate social support, and traditional modes of operation make the process even more difficult in the region (Table 2). A couple of sine qua non conditions that are not fulfilled in the region (e.g., bottom-up approach, flexible institutional environment, funding, legislation, public awareness) demonstrate serious limitations for the practical implementation of the ES approach and its operationalization (Table 2 and Table S2). To overcome such barriers, the authors call for institutional reform of the governance and planning system, entailing strong regulations, integration of public participation, and investments in the cities’ governance process [16,19,66,79]. These initiatives can foster co-benefits, cost-effective solutions, and limited or no urban sprawl, akin to successful case studies outside the CEE region, e.g., [10,23]. Our results confirm previous statements in the literature, according to which reworking the institutions of central planning into structures appropriate for addressing the needs of multilevel governance is a slow, complex, and dynamic process that requires evolution, co-adaptation, and learning [124].

4.4. Stakeholders’ Perceptions and Views Are Not Fully Recognized in the Decision-Making Process

The UESs are co-produced by nature and communities in a socio-ecological synergy [125]. Learning how users relate to a specific ES is vital for planners and decision-makers to effectively manage GI and prevent potential conflicts that may arise from dissatisfied stakeholders [126]. Moreover, recognizing the benefits derived from an ecosystem can foster a sense of responsibility among individuals towards supporting its good ecological conditions.

While the global literature emphasizes stakeholders’ integration as an integral part of environmental policy development and decision-making, the CEE context often adopts top-down approaches, primarily viewing stakeholders as data providers for ES assessment rather than active contributors to methodological development and public agenda [127]. This approach toward stakeholders as a data reservoir tends to prioritize ES assessment over the formulation of strategies to support decision-making processes, a trend also observed in the broader ES literature [28]. However, different ways to engage stakeholders could provide different values for UGI. The situation will unlikely improve without improved engagement and coordination at the municipal and regional levels.

To enhance UPG effective communication and knowledge sharing among various actors, encompassing local planners, decision-makers, environmental groups, and citizens, is paramount. Communication facilitates negotiation, co-creation, and refinement of urban plans, which is pivotal in successful planning endeavors [12]. In the CEE, there is a discernible shift towards broadening the scope of participation, embracing new engagement strategies, stakeholder categories, methods, and research topics, mirroring developments in the Western literature [114,128].

Fostering trust among different levels, sectors, and actors, coupled with raising awareness about UES provisioning patterns and facilitating the co-creation of nature-based solutions, emerges as a critical priority in the region. Drawing upon Western experiences, CEE countries can leverage a diverse array of tools to improve information exchange and communication in urban planning processes, including civic initiatives and e-governance platforms [83,100,101,102,111,129,130,131]. Embracing citizen science and enhancing interactions with the public can enrich the urban agenda with novel perspectives and approaches that capture the multifaceted benefits of urban ecosystems. Nonetheless, further research is needed to assess the level of stakeholders’ awareness regarding the ES concept and their engagement in decision-making processes.

5. Conclusions

This study synthesizes existing knowledge on UESs and their implications for UGI planning in the CEE region. Despite growing interest, driven by EU strategies, research remains uneven across and within countries, hindering decision-making and delaying UES integration. The scarcity of spatially explicit data and standardized tools risks assumptions of uniformity across scales, from site-specific biophysical structures to municipalities and larger regional systems, thereby limiting progress toward sustainable urban governance. Persistent conceptual misunderstandings, inconsistent terminology, the absence of standardized assessment tools, and insufficient stakeholder engagement further hinder UES implementation within CEE cities and reflect challenges encountered globally. These issues are compounded by institutional inertia, fragmented governance, and limited public participation. The weak legal status of green spaces, insufficient inclusion of nature-based solutions in policy frameworks, and the gap between science and practice are challenges shared by many urban contexts beyond the region. Thus, the findings from CEE cities offer valuable insights into common governance and implementation barriers that can inform international efforts to mainstream UESs.

Overcoming these challenges requires stronger governance frameworks, inclusive and participatory planning, and interdisciplinary collaboration supported by reliable data and standardized assessment approaches. The issues identified in CEE cities (e.g., conceptual ambiguity, weak legal recognition of green spaces, gaps between science and practice, and the involvement of stockholders mainly as data providers) mirror global difficulties in translating ecosystem knowledge into actionable planning tools. Consequently, the findings from this study offer insights relevant beyond the CEE context, contributing to international discussions on mainstreaming UESs and advancing ecosystem-based urban transformation. Ultimately, improving stakeholder engagement, coordination, and institutional capacity at municipal and regional levels is essential to harness the full potential of UESs for resilient and sustainable cities.

6. Study Limits

The authors adopted a rigorous and selective approach, with a focus on the peer-reviewed literature, and did not aim for exhaustiveness. Specialized reports, the literature in the languages of the analyzed countries, or legislative and popularization materials were excluded. The study articles were selected exclusively from two major bibliographic databases: Scopus and Web of Science. This decision was made to ensure the inclusion of high-quality, peer-reviewed sources, as both databases index only articles of proven academic rigor and validity.