Nature-Positive Cities: Adaptive Spatial Planning in Italy for an Ecological Urban Transition

Only in the last decade has the issue of biodiversity assumed a prominent position within European policy frameworks. Notably, the interconnection between biodiversity and urban environments is explicitly addressed in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, wherein the planning and development of urban green spaces are identified as essential measures to advance nature restoration goals and promote the sustainable management of ecosystems across all sectors. A central component of the EU Biodiversity Strategy is the Nature Restoration Regulation, which entered into force in June 2024. This Regulation designates urban ecosystems as key ecological zones of implementation, mandating that there should be no net loss in the total national area of urban green space and of urban tree canopy cover in urban ecosystem areas by 2030, followed by their progressive increase in subsequent years. Article 14 of the Regulation requires each Member State to develop a National Restoration Plan, which must include detailed provisions outlining the measures to be taken in order to meet the legally binding targets set by the Regulation. In Italy, the still limited but emerging urban greening policies constitute a valuable foundation for supporting the actions outlined in the EU Biodiversity Strategy and, more importantly, for facilitating the implementation of the Regulation. Within this framework, the Urban Greening Plans (in Italian “Piani del Verde”) emerge as a significant area of inquiry for evaluating their potential alignment with the targets established by the legislation. Within this framework, this chapter aims to construct an overview of current greening policies in Italy and to examine the Urban Greening Plan as a strategic planning tool that may contribute to the realization of the objectives and targets set forth by the Regulation in relation to urban ecosystems.

Urban biodiversity conservation has become a priority in policy and academic discussions worldwide. In the specific European political context, several initiatives and regulations for biodiversity conservation have recently been proposed and implemented, including the recent Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. In this framework, Italy faces the urgent challenge of adapting national and local urban policies to ongoing, ever-increasing urbanization. This study addresses the knowledge gap between recognized urban threats to biodiversity and their practical mitigation through spatial planning tools. Thus, the present study aims to (i) identify the main threats to biodiversity in urban environments through a systematic literature review focused on the Italian context, and (ii) propose strategies and interventions for integrating these findings into urban planning, particularly within the framework of the municipal urban plan that regulates land use at a local level under Lombardy Regional Law No. 12 of 2005. The four main threat categories identified through the systematic literature review affect different taxonomic groups, including birds, pollinators, invertebrates, plants and soil biota, and the related urban planning responses include: improving management of existing green spaces in compact cities, prioritizing quality instead of merely quantity of green spaces; the promotion of native vegetation in e.g., afforestation actions; the support for ecological connectivity; and, a reduction of soil sealing. The results of this study will inform practical urban planning decisions and will be particularly useful for policymakers and practitioners aiming to achieve good ecological status and address biodiversity loss.

The rapid expansion of urban areas exacerbates environmental degradation and deepens socioeconomic disparities, putting pressure on marginalised communities. A key manifestation of this imbalance is the unequal distribution of ecosystem services (ES), which are essential benefits that ecosystems provide to human well-being. Access to services like green spaces, cooling effects, and clean air is often concentrated in wealthier neighbourhoods, while lower-income populations face limited availability and greater risks. These differences result from economic stratification, spatial segregation, and urban planning choices shaping development and population distribution. Addressing them requires shifting traditional planning approaches and implementing comprehensive evaluation frameworks. This research proposes a methodology that integrates ES and socio-economic variables into urban planning, tested in several Italian cities, showing high adaptability and replicability. Results define criteria and performance standards that support Nature-Based Solutions, enhancing ecological connectivity and access to green and blue infrastructure. Targeted policies can prioritise investments in underserved areas, steering cities toward more inclusive, resilient, and environmentally just futures.

The climate and ecological crises have elicited a range of narratives regarding the planet’s future. Dramatic mitigation and adaptation actions are needed to ensure liveable futures for humans and non-humans alike. Recently, the term “nature-positive” has emerged signalling the need to shift from extractive to regenerative relationships with nature—going beyond the protection of, and the principle of “do no harm” to, biodiversity and ecosystems. This chapter explores how the vision of “living in harmony with nature” is articulated in two major global frameworks: the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), particularly its SSP1 scenario. It then considers the implications of these visions for planning theory and practice, critically reflecting on these frameworks’ ability to translate high-level goals into spatial strategies and anticipatory imaginaries. The chapter argues that planning must move beyond the operational integration of climate and biodiversity targets into existing systems, embracing a more forward-looking role and imaginative approaches to help shape regenerative and equitable urban futures in a time of planetary change.

Planning means addressing the changes that humans induce on the land, and thus the transformative processes that interact with biodiversity and can alter ecological connectivity. This concept has been extended and reversed toward nature by planning areas of high ecological value. Can the mere inclusion of biodiversity in a planning framework truly guarantee its preservation? Ecological connectivity is a necessary condition for maintaining biodiversity and, consequently, for ensuring the provision of essential services for human life, including in urban areas. Three core concepts are fundamental for striving toward sustainable territorial transformations: awareness of the role of biodiversity and ecological connectivity, including an understanding of their components such as ecosystem functions and services that contribute to human well-being, and the need to transfer this awareness from strategies into spatial and urban planning tools; consistency across planning levels and their effectiveness, especially when action is needed at the scale where pressures and threats to nature are most concretely manifested; share responsibility among local governments in managing ecological continuity at regional and interregional scales, since land-use changes can have effects far beyond where they occur. This work proposes a critical reflection on the need to renew and reorient planning toward the regulation of territorial transformations, moving beyond the approach of containing biodiversity and natural services merely for conservation purposes.

A sound coordination between spatial planning instruments at different administrative levels (from regional to local/municipal) is crucial to guarantee the efficient implementation of ecological networks as territorially open systems of relationships between biological and landscape components at several scales, each with a various mix of ecosystem services provided (from biodiversity conservation to climate adaptation). How—and at which administrative level(s)—is ecological network adopted within territorial and urban planning instruments? What is the relationship between the various levels and the transcalarity among them? How can the local level contribute to plan nature-positive cities and eventually inform ecologically-sound policies at higher levels in a bottom-up vertical process? These are some of the questions this contribution intends to address, starting from the results of two recent works carried out by ISPRA: the survey on the state of implementation of ecological networks at the regional level in spatial and landscape planning instruments, and the in-depth analysis of Urban greening plans of 10 Italian municipalities looking at the role of green and blue infrastructures and nature-based solutions within local mandatory planning instruments. Such a crossed analysis is an opportunity to—among others—verify if and how, at the different administrative levels, the indications of the higher levels are translated into the binding and voluntary instruments of the subordinate administrative levels. Main results and findings will be described and the implications for future works discussed.

Protecting biodiversity, as well as cultural and natural heritage, while enhancing the landscape, is a pressing priority in light of global environmental crises and land transformation. These challenges, driven by increased vulnerabilities and ecosystem fragmentation, require integrated solutions that connect conservation efforts with landscape policies. Therefore, a collaborative approach between spatial planning and conservation is crucial, especially when linking area-based values, such as Protected and Conserved Areas, with broader landscape strategies. In this perspective, spatial planning must evolve to prioritize the combined protection and enhancement of nature and culture, promoting sustainability and quality in transformative actions. Since 2003, nature conservation strategies have shifted to address broader landscape and territorial objectives. This evolution supports the active conservation of cultural heritage and identity, serving as a catalyst for economic development (as outlined in the European Landscape Convention). This paper explores an integrated approach that combines knowledge frameworks and regulatory mechanisms to protect and enhance natural, cultural, and landscape heritage. It draws on planning experiences from sensitive contexts such as protected areas, rivers, and rural environments, contributing to the goals of the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 and the advancement of Green Infrastructure. Additionally, the paper examines the practical implementation of ecological connectivity at multiple scales.

In response to the accelerating ecological crises and climate change, cities are being reimagined not only as centers of innovation but also as dynamic socio-ecological systems. The concept of “BioCities” emerges as a transformative model that emulates the principles of natural and social-ecological systems, fostering synergy between urban development and the planet's life-support systems. This chapter explores the critical role of trees, forests, and nature-based solutions (NbS) in adaptive spatial planning for the transition toward BioCities. It elaborates the major issues rising from overall urban governance, the need to negotiate multiple interests and conflicts, and the potential added value and trade off emerging from the adoption of urban forest and trees and NbS as concrete and effective solutions towards nature-positive cities. Grounded in scientific and technical evidence, we present a framework for integrating green infrastructure and urban forestry within the multifunctional urban landscape, providing examples and proposing road maps towards more sustainable and resilient cities. We investigate planning strategies that promote ecosystem connectivity, carbon sequestration, climate adaptation, and social inclusion. The chapter concludes with policy recommendations and a roadmap for embedding forest-based NbS into urban regeneration strategies under the constraints of planetary boundaries.

Climate change has become a new reality to which societies are adapting. However, its impact on Nature and biodiversity loss remains largely underestimated (IPCC 2021). In urban and productive landscapes, Nature has often been seen as an ornamental element or a resource for exploitation, rather than as an essential component of ecological infrastructure. This perception is no longer viable. The Nature-Positive strategy, promoted by the United Nations (UN 2021), calls for a radical shift in urban development approaches, aiming to rebalance the relationship between human activity and natural systems. Within this framework, LAND, an international landscape consultancy active since 1990, advances Nature-based solutions to strengthen territorial resilience. LAND’s Nature-Positive approach (LAND, The Nature-Factory Manifesto, 2025) is based on four pillars: landscape condition assessment, engagement of local stakeholders, site-specific Nature-based interventions, and the promotion of projects as legacies for future development (TNFD 2024). The first phase involves evaluating Natural Capital (MASE 2023) and Ecosystem Services (EEA, Strategia Nazionale per la Biodiversità 2030, 2022), to recognize the essential value of Nature in urban areas. LAND then guides public and private stakeholders toward investment in local, replicable solutions that can scale to generate global impact. Ultimately, each intervention described in the paper exemplifies an opportunity to redefine spaces, relationships, and behaviors through a science-based and data-driven approach. Landscape design and science-based consulting are fully integrated into a single process aimed at improving quality of life and fostering environmentally responsible development (LAND, The Nature-Factory Manifesto, 2025).

The removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and its long-term storage in natural systems represents a critical ecosystem service (ES) in the context of climate change mitigation. This process, referred to as carbon sequestration, consists of the removal of carbon by vegetation and its storage in reservoirs, termed “carbon sinks”, such as soils, rocks, and water bodies. Despite their importance, the complex interactions between carbon sequestration and other ESs remain under investigated, especially in urban areas, where urbanization-driven land cover changes, usually resulting in land take and soil sealing, lead to a reduction in vegetated areas capable of removing and storing atmospheric carbon. This study presents an integrated methodological framework that combines a spatially explicit assessment of ESs with inferential modeling to explore the interdependence between carbon sequestration and other four ESs: regulation of local temperatures, regulation of pluvial runoff, habitat quality, and opportunities for nature-based recreation. Applied to the Functional Urban Area of Cagliari (Italy), the approach reveals a robust and positive association between carbon sequestration and the three regulating ESs. In contrast, a weak and inverse relationship with the availability of green areas as potential suppliers of nature-based recreational opportunities is highlighted. These results offer valuable insights for urban planning, thus demonstrating the utility of the proposed framework in supporting evidence-based decision-making.

Recent European strategies emphasise the need to “bring nature back into our lives” by promoting ecological restoration, enhancing urban resilience, and improving human well-being. Urban areas, expected to host most of the population in the coming decades, are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. In this context, restoring natural capital, increasing urban biodiversity through Nature-based Solutions (NbS), and implementing Green and Blue Infrastructure (GBI) are identified as strategic planning priorities. Varese, Italy, offers a practical example of integrating biodiversity goals into the urban planning process by avoiding sectoral add-ons. Varese has an ecological and landscape legacy which is under pressure from urbanisation (e.g., soil sealing and land take). For this reason, this study proposes a GBI design that supports downzoning and ecological restoration. The GBI is based on an analysis of Ecosystem Services (ES) that provides knowledge of the qualities of open spaces. Two main components of the GBI are defined: a structural component that aims to preserve natural qualities and a strategic component that focuses on enhancing ES for climate adaptation. These two components regulate interventions through specific planning rules and guidelines that govern practical implementation, also making use of NbS. Specifically, this contribution presents a downzoning strategy for areas allocated for development under the previous urban plan. The case study demonstrates how mainstreaming urban biodiversity in planning tools can significantly support the shift to more resilient and nature-positive cities.

In urban contexts, the objective of climate change resilience permeates strategies, plans, and programmes related to different sectors and scales. Addressing this objective through ecological approaches, therefore, requires mainstreaming them into multiple policies and plans at different levels, ensuring coherence between the broader ecological planning strategies and the specific nature-based solutions (NBS) proposed. This chapter examines recent experiences in Trento, Italy, where two EU-funded projects addressed climate resilience through different but complementary planning initiatives: the drafting of an Urban Greening Plan and the preparation of a Masterplan for river restoration. The Urban Greening Plan identified urban heat island and flood risk as key challenges to address through ecological planning. The river restoration project, initially focused on biodiversity and ecosystem health, progressively incorporated NBS aimed at climate change adaptation. We illustrate how ecosystem service knowledge was generated by combining spatially-explicit models at multiple scales. At the urban scale, critical areas were identified by simulating runoff generation during an extreme rainfall event and mapping exposure to extreme heat. At the local scale, a detailed analysis of soil cover and vegetation structure supported the development of detailed models for urban flooding dynamics and heat stress, thereby highlighting priority interventions and their potential benefits. The case study illustrates how the assessment of ecosystem services can support the coordination of ecological planning strategies and NBS across multiple scales and planning processes, thus enhancing climate resilience in urban contexts.