Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-46n74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T03:24:30.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of a Gender, Inclusion and Diversity Framework for inclusive Nature-based Solutions in cities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2024

A response to the following question: How can we operationalize the promotion and evaluation of nature-related ‘green’ health care within a One Health perspective?

Ben Delbaere Open the ORCID record for Ben Delbaere [Opens in a new window] ,
Evelise Pereira Barboza ,
Evelien Van Rafelghem ,
Kalyn Potter ,
Eilish McCabe ,
Áine McBeth ,
Shreya Utkarsh ,
Kassia Rudd ,
Maria J. Fernandez de Osso Fuentes  and
Adriana Duarte
...Show all authors
Ben Delbaere*
Affiliation:
Chair Care and the Natural Living environment, Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Evelise Pereira Barboza
Affiliation:
Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain
Evelien Van Rafelghem
Affiliation:
Department Knowledge Information and Research, External Service for Prevention and Protection at Work Group IDEWE, Heverlee, Belgium
Kalyn Potter
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science & Engineering, National University of Ireland Maynooth, Maynooth, Ireland
Eilish McCabe
Affiliation:
Connect the Dots, Dublin, Ireland
Áine McBeth
Affiliation:
Connect the Dots, Dublin, Ireland
Shreya Utkarsh
Affiliation:
Nature-Based Solutions and Biodiversity, ICLEI Europe, Freiburg, Germany
Kassia Rudd
Affiliation:
Nature-Based Solutions and Biodiversity, ICLEI Europe, Freiburg, Germany
Maria J. Fernandez de Osso Fuentes
Affiliation:
School of Business, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland
Adriana Duarte
Affiliation:
Nature-Based Solutions and Biodiversity, ICLEI Europe, Freiburg, Germany
Julia Gäckle
Affiliation:
Institute of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
Hans Keune*
Affiliation:
Chair Care and the Natural Living environment, Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
*
Corresponding authors: Ben Delbaere; Email: ben.delbaere@uantwerpen.be and Hans Keune; Email: hans.keune@uantwerpen.be
Corresponding authors: Ben Delbaere; Email: ben.delbaere@uantwerpen.be and Hans Keune; Email: hans.keune@uantwerpen.be
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evidence consistently shows that the benefits Nature-based Solutions generate are determined by several individual characteristics such as gender, age, sexuality, ethnicity and disability. As a result, Nature-based Solutions can perpetuate existing inequalities and even create new inequalities partly because diverse minority and marginalized people are underrepresented in the process of designing and implementing Nature-based Solutions. Therefore, some Nature-based Solutions scholars have highlighted the necessity to actively involve diverse minority and marginalized groups into the co-creation processes of Nature-based Solutions and to investigate who benefits from the Nature-based Solution and why. Within the GoGreenRoutes H2020 project a transdisciplinary gender, inclusion and diversity panel was established in order to map existing challenges within the consortium. Concordantly, relevant scientific resources and policy documents were identified. Both were blended during consensus meetings in order to develop a common understanding leading to a theoretical gender, inclusion and diversity framework. This framework consists of five domains: (1) gender equality; (2) LGBTQI + rights; (3) social, cultural and ethnic background; (4) people with disabilities; (5) integration of refugees and immigrants; and (6) intergenerational perspectives. Further, the framework was operationalized through the development of a checklist for researchers and practitioners.

Keywords

Nature-based Solutionsinclusionenvironmental justiceparticipatory processesframework

Information

Type
Results
Information
Research Directions: One Health , Volume 2 , 2024 , e1
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) involve enhancing and working with nature to address various societal challenges such as biodiversity loss and climate change (Bauduceau et al., Reference Bauduceau, Berry, Cecchi, Elmqvist, Fernandez, Hartig, Krull, Mayerhofer, Sandra and Noring2015). NbS include, but are not limited to the incorporation of green and blue infrastructure in urban and rural areas (Seddon et al., Reference Seddon, Chausson, Berry, Girardin, Smith and Turner2020). Recently, NbS have been embraced within diverse urban contexts as a pathway for improving the environmental conditions, climate-resilience and overall health of urban communities. Therefore, they are often approached as technical, interventions that will deliver equity and justice goals (Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez, Reference Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez2022). Evidence, however, consistently shows that the added value NbS generate is highly differentiated and stratified by geography, ethnic groups and socio-economic status (Curran and Hamilton, Reference Curran and Hamilton2012; Pearsall, Reference Pearsall2012; Anguelovski et al., Reference Anguelovski, Connolly, Masip and Pearsall2018; Kabisch, Reference Kabisch2019). Working-class and minority populations typically bear the brunt of this inequality. Such groups more frequently have housing opportunities in areas with fewer, and lower quality, urban green and blue spaces when compared to upper class populations. Moreover, higher income groups are historically privileged when it comes to access to, and control over urban green and blue spaces (Wolch et al., Reference Wolch, Wilson and Fehrenbach2005; Heynen et al., Reference Heynen, Perkins and Roy2006; Landry and Chakraborty, Reference Landry and Chakraborty2009; Park and Pellow, Reference Park and Pellow2011).

Thus, the impacts of NbS are not so straightforward. Ever increasing evidence demonstrates that NbS can perpetuate inequalities and potentially give rise to new forms of exclusion since the process of designing and implementing NbS is embedded within the broader societal context (Tozer et al., Reference Tozer, Hörschelmann, Anguelovski, Bulkeley and Lazova2020). NbS are a product of local social structures and can include underlying inequality and injustice based on gender, class, sexuality, age, ability and ethnicity. Moreover, NbS often occur in public spaces and their design and implementation are shaped by complex power relations. As a result, NbS are inherently political and must be tackled accordingly (Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez, Reference Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez2022). Hence, acknowledgement of such necessitates deeper inquiry into the design and implementation of NbS to address the perpetuation of unanticipated injustices and inequitable power structures.

The above mentioned inequalities are not merely coincidental. On the contrary, they can be seen as symptoms of oppressive political, economic, and institutional forces at all levels of socio ecological systems (Bronfenbrenner, Reference Bronfenbrenner1977; Fornili, Reference Fornili2022). Oppression is defined as “discrimination backed up by systemic or structural power” and involves biased information, stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination (McGibbon, Reference McGibbon2021). Hence, critical consciousness should be raised among these marginalized and oppressed populations (Freire, Reference Freire1978; Jemal, Reference Jemal2018). Critical consciousness involves awareness among marginalized populations about their marginalized status as well as liberating action against forces that limit or promote opportunities for certain groups (Freire, Reference Freire1978; Jemal, Reference Jemal2018). Participatory approaches could be a pathway through which to achieve critical consciousness (Abma et al., Reference Abma, Banks, Cook, Dias, Madsen, Springett and MT2019). However, participatory approaches in NbS have often failed in terms of inclusion, degree of democracy achieved and accessibility (Fainstein, Reference Fainstein2011; Certoma et al., Reference Certoma, Corsini and Rizzi2015). Therefore, it is fundamental to establish a new comprehensive approach to ensure that adequate levels of inclusion are achieved and pave the way for transformative change. Designers and implementers of NbS must ask themselves the following questions: why are NbS being implemented? By, for and with whom are NbS implemented? Who does the monitoring and how? Who reaps the benefits of NbS? These questions are essential if NbS are to work towards and not against justice.

This paper proposes an integrated theoretical framework for incorporating an intersectional understanding of gender, inclusion, and diversity (GID) into the design of future NbS, operationalizing the framework with a checklist that supports enhanced GID considerations in the full cycle of NbS creation. As the need for social, cultural and gender equity and inclusiveness has been defined as one of the nine Network for Ecohealth and One Health updated competencies for One Health (Wallace et al., Reference Wallace, Bergmann, Kock, Gilbert, Hogerwerf, Wallace and Holmberg2015; Garnier et al., Reference Garnier, Savić, Cediel, Barato, Boriani, Bagnol and Kock2022; Laing et al., Reference Laing, Duffy, Anderson, Antoine-Moussiaux, Aragrande, Luiz Beber, Berezowski, Boriani, Canali and Pedro Carmo2023), this framework is rooted in an overall One Health approach that aims to link and understand social and ecological determinants of health through a transdisciplinary approach (Keune et al., Reference Keune, Flandroy and Thys2017, Reference Keune, Kretsch and Oosterbroek2018). Hence, both academic – from several disciplines – and non-academic partners were involved in the creation of the proposed framework. For the development of this framework, we particularly focused on the context of European urban areas.

Methods

General approach

Putting GID on the agenda: creating the panel

Within the Horizon 2020 GoGreenRoutes (GGR) consortium a GID panel was established. GGR is a transdisciplinary consortium of 40 organizations aiming at implementing NbS in six European cities: Burgas (Bulgaria), Lahti (Finland), Limerick (Ireland), Tallinn (Estonia), Umeå (Sweden) and Versailles (France). The GID panel is a transdisciplinary panel consisting of GGR consortium partners possessing professional experience and commitment to the broader concept of diversity. The panel emerged spontaneously among a number of individuals across consortium partners and aimed to put GID on the agenda within the consortium’s activities in the partner cities. Therefore, the purpose of the GID panel was to actively develop a strategy to integrate diverse perspectives into the co-creation and co-evaluation processes of NbS employed by the cities partnering with the consortium. Panel participants mapped existing challenges and shortcomings within the consortium. Subsequently, relevant resources were identified, including both scientific resources and policy documents related to inclusion of minority and marginalized people. Results from the mapping process within the consortium were blended with the identified resources to develop this common theoretical framework. This framework is based on scientific literature, policy documents and consensus meetings among panel members. The development of a common framework was functional to ensure a shared understanding of the justice concept and how it applies within the context of the GGR project (Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez, Reference Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez2022).

Putting GID on the agenda: challenges met

Once a common understanding of GID and the related challenges within the context of GGR was achieved, decisions were made on how to operationalize the framework in order to have a real-life impact. Several approaches were suggested, however the GID panel faced financial and structural limitations that restricted its actions.

Operationalizing the GID framework: development of a GID-checklist

As a result of consensus meetings, and taking in to account the aforementioned restrictions, a GID-checklist was developed in order to operationalize and test the applicability of the framework. Checklists are common tools to guide researchers and practitioners when completing and reporting tasks (Winters et al., Reference Winters, Gurses, Lehmann, Sexton, Rampersad and Pronovost2009) in several fields – for example, Raman et al. (Reference Raman, Leveson, Samost, Dobrilovic, Oldham, Dekker and Finkelstein2016). These tools have the potential to improve safety and quality while reducing costs (Winters et al., Reference Winters, Gurses, Lehmann, Sexton, Rampersad and Pronovost2009), ensure all items relevant to the research task are addressed, and increase transparency (Busetto et al., Reference Busetto, Wick and Gumbinger2020). The GGR approach understands the checklist as a tool for researchers and practitioners to apply when developing their tasks to ensure that gender, inclusion and diversity have thoroughly been taken into consideration.

The initial checklist was tested through a pilot workshop with NbS experts in November 2022 during a GGR consortium meeting in Barcelona. Next, based on the data obtained from the pilot workshop, practical recommendations for implementation of each item were added to the checklist during four consensus meetings with the GID panel. To further refine the checklist a feedback workshop targeting transdisciplinary NbS experts was organized in February 2023 (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

In person workshop with NbS experts organized in Maynooth, Ireland (February 2023).

Gender, inclusion and diversity framework

Conceptually NbS differ from other urban greening practices such as ecological infrastructure or ecosystem services because addressing social goals are considered a key aspect instead of concomitant as Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez (Reference Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez2022) pointed out. However, NbS too often rely heavily on a trickle-down perspective that results in minimal benefits for those most vulnerable and can even exacerbate inequalities for disenfranchized communities (Cole et al., Reference Cole, Lamarca, Connolly and Anguelovski2017). Therefore, critical scholars have raised concerns around the distribution of these social co-benefits (Anguelovski et al., Reference Anguelovski, Connolly, Masip and Pearsall2018; Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez, Reference Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez2022). When applying strategies towards climate change mitigation, such as NbS, it is important to understand the dimensions of normativity and justice, beyond pure scientific, techno-managerial, or financial issues (Gardiner, Reference Gardiner2011; Shue, Reference Shue2014). Climate change is interlinked with ethics and equity because it impacts people differently, unevenly, and disproportionately (Shue, Reference Shue2014; Gaillard et al., Reference Gaillard, Gorman-Murray and Fordham2017; Sultana, Reference Sultana2022). Social inequalities tend to co-exist with harmful environmental conditions and disproportional suffering from possible effects of climate change, resulting in greater subsequent inequality and a limited ability to cope and recover (Islam and Winkel, Reference Islam and Winkel2017; Barboza et al., Reference Barboza, Montana, Cirach, Iungman, Khomenko, Gallagher, Thondoo, Mueller, Keune and MacIntyre2023). Hence, a climate justice approach is essential because such an approach focuses on who benefits, who is harmed, in what ways privileges and losses are conferred, as well as where and why. Thus, it is also essential to recognize that climate change involves a common but differentiated responsibility. The aforementioned understanding necessitates justice to be a central entry point for this GID framework.

For justice to be central in NbS, it must be integrated intentionally in the design and implementation process. Furthermore, NbS development must be sensitive to the community in which it is enacted, forming explicit pathways to justice that counter and rectify implicit injustice (Sultana, Reference Sultana2022). Therefore, within the context of this framework, six domains including disadvantaged populations within a European context have been identified by the GID panel, that require specific attention: (1) gender equality; (2) LGBTQI + rights; (3) social, cultural and ethnic background; (4) people with disabilities; (5) integration of refugees and immigrants; (6) intergenerational perspectives. Although these domains are presented as distinct categories here, individuals can be affected by more than one domain or can be confronted with more than one justice issue (e.g., immigrant woman identifying as lesbian). Hence, intersectionality is a key component of the framework (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

The Gender, Inclusion and Diversity framework as developed within the GoGreenRoutes project applies a climate justice perspective while addressing how the nexus of gender equality, age, LGBTQI + rights, social; cultural and ethnic background, inclusion of people with disabilities and, displaced populations and immigrants impacts the use of public spaces and interactions and considers the possible consequences for participating in participatory processes towards NbS development and Implementation.

As mentioned above, the use and planning of public spaces is inherently political because the use of and the interactions in public spheres are resulting from an underlying set of social practices and social structures including the power dynamics at the core of social injustices (Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez, Reference Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez2022). This theoretical framework developed in the context of GGR focusses on ways in which diverse minority and marginalized groups might be underrepresented in participatory processes as a result of a compromised use of public space – for example non-binary individuals might disguise their non-binary identity when navigating through public spheres and/or limit their interactions in the public sphere due to local contextual factors such as transphobic violence or general hostile environments. Below, the five domains identified in this theoretical framework are addressed. A rationale on how minority or marginalized status linked to these domains might negatively impact the use of public spheres and the participation in participatory processes by individuals affiliated to these domains, is provided.

NbS and gender equality

Organizations such as the International Institute for Sustainable Development assert that NbS are powerful tools for women’s empowerment towards climate adaptation (Women Deliver. 2021). Women experience the urban environment differently from men, with variations in daily routines and roles. Furthermore, feelings of safety influence green space usage (Borelli et al., Reference Borelli, Conigliaro and Salbitano2021; UN Habitat, 2008). It is important that NbS projects curate intentional gender equity and not simply gender diverse participation, this in order to be gender transformative with the ultimate aim to change the underlying root causes of gender inequalities (IGWG, 2017). This requires women and gender diverse individuals to be engaged in decision-making roles to account for gender specific outcomes (Bremer et al., Reference Bremer, Keeler, Pascua, Walker and Sterling2021). Spontaneous empowerment will not occur, but rather empowerment within NbS can be cultivated utilizing protocols and tools that are sensitive to gendered perspectives from the outset. This potentially offers a strategy to track and measure the project outputs and gender representation over time, working towards targeted metrics.

NbS and LGBTQI+ rights

Individuals identifying as LGBTQI+ face significant legal and societal challenges in EU countries and around the globe, often including criminalization and medicalization. As such, LGBTQI+ individuals are in marginalized positions from a social, legal and physical perspective (Whitley and Bowers, Reference Whitley and Bowers2023). Moreover, structural inequalities like poverty and stigma (e.g., transphobia) are also prevalent and might limit their active participation in participatory processes (Moazen-Zadeh et al., Reference Moazen-Zadeh, Karamouzian, Kia, Salway, Ferlatte and Knight2019). Furthermore, climate change is expected to exacerbate the inequalities faced by LGBTQI+ people (Dietz and Whitley, Reference Dietz and Whitley2018; Cappelli et al., Reference Cappelli, Costantini and Consoli2021). Nonetheless, LGBTQI+ people have largely been excluded from conversations and policy responses with climate mitigating potentials such as NbS, reflecting heteronormative and cisnormative practices (Gaillard et al., Reference Gaillard, Gorman-Murray and Fordham2017). Moreover, the United Nations expresses the need to advance and prioritize LGBTQI+ health in all policies and research strategies (United Nations. 2015).

NbS and social, cultural and ethnic background

Apart from the fact that investments in greening initiatives such as NbS often overlaps with wealthy areas of the cities (Dai, Reference Dai2011; Wen et al., Reference Wen, Zhang, Harris, Holt and Croft2013; Borelli et al., Reference Borelli, Conigliaro and Salbitano2021), it is important to acknowledge that even if NbS are planned in areas where people occupying lower social positions (also) reside, there are two additional risks: a) participation might be skewed in favor of people occupying higher social positions (Dalton, Reference Dalton2017), and b) a process of gentrification might occur. Green gentrification is a complex issue that can lead to displacement and alienation of socio-economic vulnerable residents (Borelli et al., Reference Borelli, Conigliaro and Salbitano2021; Sax et al., Reference Sax, Nesbitt and Quinton2022). Participatory processes should integrate different actors from the public sector in order to minimize the risk of gentrification. Moreover, people that occupy higher social positions often possess what Bourdieu has called “symbolic capital”, that is, a form of capital that is not recognized as such. For example, prestige can operate as symbolic capital because it means nothing in itself, but rather depends on crowds believing that certain people hold this attribute (Webb et al., Reference Webb, Schirato and Danaher2002). We argue that in the context of participatory processes this could result in specific groups dominating the narrative and, ultimately, the NbS reflecting the needs of those groups. When considering cultural and ethnic backgrounds the fear of experiencing racism and feelings of unsafety can lead to the exclusion of some groups (Borelli et al., Reference Borelli, Conigliaro and Salbitano2021). Moreover, diverse spaces need to be provided to meet the needs of diverse communities.

NbS and people with disabilities

People with disabilities are negatively impacted by a range of factors relating to attitudes and the environment that affect their access to NbS. This includes barriers relating to a lack of awareness surrounding persons with disabilities, access to participating and leading NbS, and discriminatory attitudes or lack of consideration for this group (Martin and Hossain, Reference Martin and Hossain2022). Additional barriers are also related to inaccessibility of infrastructure, information, equipment and training (Martin and Hossain, Reference Martin and Hossain2022). Also, at an institutional level, lack of consideration for including persons with disabilities in the creation of programs negatively impacts people with disabilities’ access to NbS. In addition, lack of thought toward their unique needs, through insufficient participation as well as discriminatory policies negatively impact this population’s access to NbS (Martin and Hossain, Reference Martin and Hossain2022). The four main factors which compound these barriers are 1) lack of inclusion of the capabilities and needs of this population especially within laws, mandates and funding, 2) lack of data on persons with disabilities especially relating to NbS and climate change, 3) lack of meaningful consultation and engagement with persons with disabilities (NIRAS, 2021; Jodoin et al., Reference Jodoin, Lofts, Bowie-Edwards, Leblanc and Rourke2022; Martin and Hossain, Reference Martin and Hossain2022), 4) lack of additional funding and resources to increase outreach, activities and accommodations for disability inclusion (Grant, Reference Grant2022).

NbS and integration of refugees and immigrants

Immigrants and refugees in Europe generally live in densely populated areas with less access to green spaces (Sekulova and Anguelovski, Reference Sekulova and Anguelovski2017). Research shows that immigrants living in these urban areas have less access to green areas and parks in comparison to nonimmigrants (Kabisch et al., Reference Kabisch, van den Bosch and Lafortezza2017). These limitations can have significant long term impacts on immigrant communities through health, loss of culture and social integration to their new community (Gentin et al., Reference Gentin, Pitkänen, Chondromatidou, Præstholm, Dolling and Palsdottir2019). Integration policies on an European level emphasize the health of immigrant communities and suggest that NbS can help bridge the gap on these impacts (Gentin et al., Reference Gentin, Pitkänen, Chondromatidou, Præstholm, Dolling and Palsdottir2019).

NbS and intergenerational perspectives

Youth

Involving youth in the decision-making process of developing NbS is important as this builds a sense of empowerment to make changes and decisions in their communities. This has been shown to be beneficial in combating external pressures of climate change through involvement in NbS and fighting for the future they want (MacKinnon et al., Reference MacKinnon, van Ham, Reilly and Hopkins2019). Young people see the world from their own unique perspective and have their own wants and needs related to play (Dushkova and Haase, Reference Dushkova and Haase2020). NbS can have a positive impact on the current and future health of this population. It has been shown that children are more vulnerable to the health impacts of living in urban environments, especially during their developmental years (Kabisch et al., Reference Kabisch, van den Bosch and Lafortezza2017). This because activity within green spaces improves the mental health and social well-being of young people during challenging times of their lives (MacKinnon et al., Reference MacKinnon, van Ham, Reilly and Hopkins2019).

Elderly

The elderly population interacts with NbS and environments differently than others. It is shown that they are more sensitive to heat/cold, subject to loss of cognitive functions and reflexes, higher rate of urinary incontinence, cardiovascular and respiratory issues, as well as feelings of insecurity in public places (Higueras et al., Reference Higueras, Román and Fariña2021). Thus, it is important to offer the aging population a seat at the table to share their experiences and give them a sense of ownership over their community. Urban green space has been proven to improve mood, reduce stress, prevent cardiovascular disease, and decrease risk factors associated with air pollution or urban heat (Kabisch et al., Reference Kabisch, van den Bosch and Lafortezza2017). Those are all important factors to an aging population. Also, green space provides an opportunity for physical activity and social interaction both of which can have a positive impact on overall health and well-being (Kabisch et al., Reference Kabisch, van den Bosch and Lafortezza2017).This is particularly important for isolated aging populations. Thus, it is important to ensure that these groups have an opportunity for their voices to be heard and needs to be met, to provide them with equal opportunities and access to NbS.

Checklist

The checklist was co-created by transdisciplinary experts keeping in mind the concrete moments of interaction between municipalities and citizens for co-designing and co-implementing NbS. It includes three main aspects namely, (1) when preparing for activities engaging with the public, (2) when communicating with the public and, (3) when reflecting on engagement with the public. These are interrelated parts given that there should be proactive communication in advance of public invitation to engage in activities as well as post activity communication and reflection. Therefore, it is important that these parts are seen as interlinked and should be considered in relation to interactions with the public by the municipalities. The aim of the checklist is to ensure the fundamental elements for inclusivity are taken into account when communicating with the public or engaging them in any activities. The checklist is published as supplementary material.

Recommendations for further application of the framework

This framework provides some theoretical understanding of how the participation of diverse minority and marginalized groups might be compromised. However, it often remains unclear how groups experience different barriers and how far the full width of this impact extends. It is therefore essential to investigate the lived experiences of these groups in order to gain insights into how historically rooted injustices can be eradicated and rectified. The authors acknowledge that the framework was created considering the dynamics of European urban settlements and also suggest that further research is needed to explore how the proposed framework could be adapted for further applications in more rural environments and other regions.

Moreover, little is known on the level of inclusion NbS achieve during both planning and implementation processes as Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez (Reference Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez2022) has previously stated. This framework demonstrates in a theoretical sense the necessity of assessing the level of inclusion throughout the entire NbS lifecycle as there are empirical arguments to contest that NbS will, by default, deliver on equity and justice goals (Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez, Reference Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez2022). In addition, there are normative arguments to urge the NbS community to make explicit who was involved throughout the NbS lifecycle and at which level of participation (Biermann and Kalfagianni, Reference Biermann and Kalfagianni2020; Cousins, Reference Cousins2021; Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez, Reference Wijsman and Berbes-Blazquez2022). The checklist as developed in the context of GGR can aid in making these factors explicit, however further research should seek to implement and refine this checklist in different contexts, as well as thoroughly evaluate its impact on the participation of marginalized and minority people.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/one.2023.14.

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratefulness to all GoGreenRoutes consortium partners who participated in the Barcelona pilot workshop in November 2022 and/or the Maynooth feedback workshop in February 2023.

Author contributions

BD coordinated the development of the framework and wrote the original draft of the manuscript. EPB and HK critically reviewed the manuscript and finetuned the framework. EVR coordinated the panel meetings. KP, EMC, AMB, SU, KR, MJFOF, AD, and JG contributed to the framework based on their expertise. All authors contributed to the development of the checklist.

Financial support

This work was supported by GoGreenRoutes through the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under grant agreement No 869764.

Competing interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest of any kind.

References

Connections references

Keune, H. (2023). How can we operationalize the promotion and evaluation of nature-related ‘green’ health care within a One Health perspective? Research Directions: One Health, 1, E7. https://doi.org/10.1017/one.2022.8.Google Scholar

References

Abma, T, Banks, S, Cook, T, Dias, S, Madsen, W, Springett, J and MT, Wright (2019) Participatory Research for Health and Social Eell-being. Springer. Chaim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anguelovski, I, Connolly, JJ, Masip, L and Pearsall, H (2018) Assessing green gentrification in historically disenfranchised neighborhoods: a longitudinal and spatial analysis of Barcelona. Urban Geography 39, 3, 458–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2017.1349987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barboza, EP, Montana, F, Cirach, M, Iungman, T, Khomenko, S, Gallagher, J, Thondoo, M, Mueller, N, Keune, H and MacIntyre, T (2023) Environmental health impacts and inequalities in green space and air pollution in six medium-sized European cities. Environmental Research 237, 116891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.116891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauduceau, N, Berry, P, Cecchi, C, Elmqvist, T, Fernandez, M, Hartig, T, Krull, W, Mayerhofer, E, Sandra, N and Noring, L (2015) Towards an EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-based Solutions & Re-naturing Cities: Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on ‘Nature-based Solutions and Re-naturing Cities’. Publications Office of the European Union. Brussels.Google Scholar
Biermann, F and Kalfagianni, A (2020) Planetary justice: a research framework. Earth System Governance 6, 100049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borelli, S, Conigliaro, M and Salbitano, F (2021) The social impacts of NBS: Access to and accessibility of green spaces as a measure of social inclusiveness and environmental justice. In Nature-Based Solutions for More Sustainable Cities–A Framework Approach for Planning and Evaluation. Emerald Publishing Limited, 211–224. Leeds CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremer, LL, Keeler, B, Pascua, P, Walker, R and Sterling, E (2021) Nature-based solutions, sustainable development, and equity. In Nature-based Solutions and Water Security. Elsevier, pp. 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U (1977) Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist 32, 7, 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busetto, L, Wick, W and Gumbinger, C (2020) How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological Research and Practice 2, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cappelli, F, Costantini, V and Consoli, D (2021) The trap of climate change-induced “natural” disasters and inequality. Global Environmental Change 70, 102329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Certoma, C, Corsini, F and Rizzi, F (2015) Crowdsourcing urban sustainability. Data, people and technologies in participatory governance. Futures 74, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, HV, Lamarca, MG, Connolly, JJ and Anguelovski, I (2017) Are green cities healthy and equitable? Unpacking the relationship between health, green space and gentrification. J Epidemiol Community Health 71, 11, 1118–1121.Google ScholarPubMed
Cousins, JJ (2021) Justice in nature-based solutions: research and pathways. Ecological Economics 180, 106874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, W and Hamilton, T (2012) Just green enough: contesting environmental gentrification in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Local Environment 17, 9, 1027–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D (2011) Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: where to intervene? Landscape and Urban Planning 102, 4, 234–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, RJ (2017) The Participation Gap: Social Status and Political Inequality. Oxford University Press. Oxford CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietz, T and Whitley, CT (2018) Environmentalism, norms, and identity. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America 115, 49, 12334–12336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dushkova, D and Haase, D (2020) Not simply green: nature-based solutions as a concept and practical approach for sustainability studies and planning agendas in cities. Land 9, 1, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fainstein, SS (2011) The Just City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Fornili, KS (2022) Expanded conceptual framework for ethical action by nurses on the “further upstream and farther downstream” determinants of health equity. Journal of Addictions Nursing 33, 3, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freire, P (1978) Pedagogy of the oppressed. In Toward a Sociology of Education. Routledge, pp. 374–386. Oxfordshire. Google Scholar
Gaillard, J-C, Gorman-Murray, A and Fordham, M (2017) Sexual and Gender Minorities in Disaster. Gender, Place & Culture 24, 1, 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2016.1263438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, SM (2011) Climate Justice. In: The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, 309–322.Oxford University Press. Oxford. Google Scholar
Garnier, J, Savić, S, Cediel, N, Barato, P, Boriani, E, Bagnol, B and Kock, RA (2022) Mainstreaming gender-responsive one health: now is the time. Frontiers in Public Health 10, 845866. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.845866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentin, S, Pitkänen, K, Chondromatidou, AM, Præstholm, S, Dolling, A and Palsdottir, AM (2019) Nature-based integration of immigrants in Europe: a review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 43, 126379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, U (2022) Locating Disability Inclusion in Action On Climate Change. UK: CBM.Google Scholar
Heynen, N, Perkins, HA and Roy, P (2006) The political ecology of uneven urban green space: the impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmental inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Affairs Review 42, 1, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087406290729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higueras, E, Román, E and Fariña, J (2021) Guidelines for healthier public spaces for the elderly population: recommendations in the Spanish context. In Handbook of Quality of Life and Sustainability, pp. 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IGWG (2017) The gender integration continuum. Available at https://www.igwg.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/17-418-GenderContTraining-2017-12-12-1633_FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
Islam, N and Winkel, J (2017) Climate Change and Social Inequality. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affiars. New York. Google Scholar
Jemal, A (2018) Transformative consciousness of health inequities: oppression is a virus and critical consciousness is the antidote. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work 3, 4, 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-018-0061-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jodoin, S, Lofts, K, Bowie-Edwards, A, Leblanc, L and Rourke, C (2022) Disability rights in national climate policies: status report. In Centre for Human Rights & Legal Pluralism and the International Disability. Google Scholar
Kabisch, N (2019) The influence of socio-economic and socio-demographic factors in the association between urban green space and health. In Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change. Cham: Springer, 91–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabisch, N, van den Bosch, M and Lafortezza, R (2017) The health benefits of nature-based solutions to urbanization challenges for children and the elderly-a systematic review. Environmental Research 159, 362–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keune, H, Flandroy, L and Thys, S (2017) European OneHealth/EcoHealth Workshop Report. Brussels.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keune, H, Kretsch, C and Oosterbroek, B (2018) Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Appendix 2.8. Bonn: IPBES.Google Scholar
Laing, G, Duffy, E, Anderson, N, Antoine-Moussiaux, N, Aragrande, M, Luiz Beber, C, Berezowski, J, Boriani, E, Canali, M and Pedro Carmo, L (2023) Advancing One Health: Updated core competencies. CABI One Health ohcs20230002. https://doi.org/10.1079/cabionehealth.2023.0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landry, SM and Chakraborty, J (2009) Street trees and equity: evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 41, 11, 2651–2670. https://doi.org/10.1068/a41236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, K, van Ham, C, Reilly, K and Hopkins, J (2019) Nature-based solutions and protected areas to improve urban biodiversity and health, Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change. Cham: Springer, pp. 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R and Hossain, M (2022) Disability Inclusion and Nature-Based Solutions Programming. London, UK: Disability Inclusion Helpdesk.Google Scholar
McGibbon, E (2021) Oppression: A Social Determinant of Health. Fernwood Publishing. Black Point. Google Scholar
Moazen-Zadeh, E, Karamouzian, M, Kia, H, Salway, T, Ferlatte, O and Knight, R (2019) A call for action on overdose among LGBTQ people in North America. The Lancet Psychiatry 6, 9, 725–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30279-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NIRAS (2021) Climate Smart Agriculture Thematic Review: Evaluation Report.Google Scholar
Park, LS-H and Pellow, DN (2011) The slums of aspen: immigrants vs. the environment in America’s Eden. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews 42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306113491549jj.Google Scholar
Pearsall, H (2012) Moving out or moving in? Resilience to environmental gentrification in New York City. Local Environment 17, 9, 1013–1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.714762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raman, J, Leveson, N, Samost, AL, Dobrilovic, N, Oldham, M, Dekker, S and Finkelstein, S (2016) When a checklist is not enough: how to improve them and what else is needed. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 152, 2, 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.01.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sax, DL, Nesbitt, L and Quinton, J (2022) Improvement, not displacement: a framework for urban green gentrification research and practice. Environmental Science & Policy 137, 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.09.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seddon, N, Chausson, A, Berry, P, Girardin, CA, Smith, A and Turner, B (2020) Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 375, 1794, 20190120. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sekulova, F and Anguelovski, I (2017) The governance and politics of nature-based solutions. Naturvation Deliverable 1.Google Scholar
Shue, H (2014) Climate Justice: Vulnerability and Protection. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sultana, F (2022) Critical climate justice. The Geographical Journal 188, 1, 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.v188.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tozer, L, Hörschelmann, K, Anguelovski, I, Bulkeley, H and Lazova, Y (2020) Whose city? Whose nature? Towards inclusive nature-based solution governance. Cities 107, 102892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UN Habitat (2008) Women’s Safety Audits: What Works and Where. Nairobi, Kenya: UN Habitat. Available at https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/download-manager-files/1404462831wpdm_Women%27s%20Safety%20Audit.pdf.Google Scholar
United Nations (2015) Ending Violence and Discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex People.Google Scholar
Wallace, RG, Bergmann, L, Kock, R, Gilbert, M, Hogerwerf, L, Wallace, R and Holmberg, M (2015) The dawn of Structural One Health: a new science tracking disease emergence along circuits of capital. Social Science & Medicine 129, 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.047.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webb, J, Schirato, T and Danaher, G (2002) Understanding Bourdieu. SAGE. London. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wen, M, Zhang, X, Harris, CD, Holt, JB and Croft, JB (2013) Spatial disparities in the distribution of parks and green spaces in the USA. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 45, suppl_1, S18–S27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-012-9426-x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitley, CT and Bowers, MM (2023) Queering climate change: exploring the influence of LGBTQ+ identity on climate change belief and risk perceptions. Sociological Inquiry 93, 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wijsman, K and Berbes-Blazquez, M (2022) What do we mean by justice in sustainability pathways? Commitments, dilemmas, and translations from theory to practice in nature-based solutions. Environmental Science & Policy 136, 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.06.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, BD, Gurses, AP, Lehmann, H, Sexton, JB, Rampersad, CJ and Pronovost, PJ (2009) Clinical review: checklists-translating evidence into practice. Critical Care 13, 6, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc7792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolch, J, Wilson, JP and Fehrenbach, J (2005) Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: an equity-mapping analysis. Urban Geography 26, 1, 4–35. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.26.1.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Women Deliver (2021) The Link Between Climate Change and Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights-an Evidence Review. Women Deliver.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. In person workshop with NbS experts organized in Maynooth, Ireland (February 2023).

Figure 1

Figure 2. The Gender, Inclusion and Diversity framework as developed within the GoGreenRoutes project applies a climate justice perspective while addressing how the nexus of gender equality, age, LGBTQI + rights, social; cultural and ethnic background, inclusion of people with disabilities and, displaced populations and immigrants impacts the use of public spaces and interactions and considers the possible consequences for participating in participatory processes towards NbS development and Implementation.

Supplementary material: PDF

Delbaere et al. supplementary material

Delbaere et al. supplementary material

Download Delbaere et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 88.5 KB

Author comment: The development of a Gender, Inclusion and Diversity Framework for inclusive Nature-based Solutions in cities. — R0/PR1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/one.2023.14.pr1 [Opens in a new window]
Ben Delbaere [Opens in a new window] University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium
Revision round: 0
Role: author

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: The development of a Gender, Inclusion and Diversity Framework for inclusive Nature-based Solutions in cities. — R0/PR2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/one.2023.14.pr2 [Opens in a new window]
Andrew Peters Australia
Date of review:  08 November 2023
Revision round: 0
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: minor-revision

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The paper addresses a perceived need to reframe planning around Nature Based Solutions, to be more inclusive and sensitive to members of communities marginalised socially, economically, physically and for reasons of gender, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity and origins in the context of migration and disabilities. This involves more attention being given to or integration of these groups into processes, leading to Nbs. The desired outcome is greater equity in access to Nbs across these groups with the associated benefits realised. The paper is well written and organised with a a couple of difficult sentences to comprehend, notably l135-138 which is very long and with cumbersome language e.g. the word "complementary" is hanging. Please rephrase this sentence to make your meaning clear. The second is l 326-327 which has a format error in referencing. Otherwise in general the paper achieves its objectives even if it is narrowly focused to urban systems it could quite easily be adapted to more rural communities, who even if they are perceived to be more embedded in nature, this is often not the reality, especially in highly agriculturally developed and owner occupied landscapes. Here the exclusion can be even more threatening and acute than in urban landscapes with little or no political motive to address imbalance as populations are more isolated and less connected politically. It might be helpful to consider whether the framework is truly exclusive to urban planning or could be modified for wider societal use.

Presentation

Overall score 4 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
3 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context and indicate the relevance of the results to the question or hypothesis under consideration? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Results

Overall score 4.2 out of 5
Is sufficient detail provided to allow replication of the study? (50%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the results clearly outlined? (50%)
3 out of 5

Review: The development of a Gender, Inclusion and Diversity Framework for inclusive Nature-based Solutions in cities. — R0/PR3

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/one.2023.14.pr3 [Opens in a new window]
Date of review:  26 September 2023
Revision round: 0
Role: reviewer
Recommendation/decision: minor-revision

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewers declare none.

Comments

The topic addressed by this paper is of real importance and very much needed in light of the great momentum generated by nature-based solutions recently and the paradoxical impacts the use of this approach can generate through the creation of more discrimination and social inequities. The proposed framework includes most topics relevant to GID however there is no consideration of ethnic and cultural background other than with the “Integration of refugees and immigrants” which then excludes ethnic and cultural minorities which are neither refugees nor immigrants. This should be adjusted or clarified to make the framework truly inclusive.

There are also a number of weaknesses that would need to be addressed in order to strengthen the framework and make a more compelling case. More specifically there is a need for more:

- precision: The paper solely focuses on NbS in urban places but this is not reflected by the title and sub-titles (2.2) which refer to NbS in a broad context. This is really important to specify as NbS in other contexts involve other challenges such as land and human rights of indigenous people with the whole issue of environmental justice being paramount in such contexts.

- clarification:

l.18-19. The paper would benefit from including the definition of NbS and key ref in this field (Seddon et al 2020) as well as the main NbS implemented in urban centres

- elaboration:

l.40-43. The concept of oppression and critical consciousness bring new insights to the usual issues addressed by GDI frameworks. The main reference cited being 45 yrs old it would be interesting to cite more recent work explaining how this concept has been built upon more recently.

l.51. It would be relevant to also ask the following questions: By whom are NbS implemented? Who does the impact monitoring and how?

l.111-113. The relationship between climate change and social inequalities is not mono-directional as it can be characterized by a vicious cycle in whereby initial inequality causes the disadvantaged group to suffer disproportionately from the adverse effects of CC, resulting in greater subsequent inequality and limit their ability to cope and recover from the impacts of CC (Islam & Winkel 2017)

l.126-127. important to mention that Intersectionality is also recognized as being central to gender equality (EIGE 2023)

Para 2.2.1. on Gender equality

l.144. It would be interesting to add that city parks are recognized as hot spots for sexual harassment

l.145-146. NbS could actually aim at being “gender transformative “ which is an established terminology used according a now well-established continuum of gender approaches. The gender integration continuum tool shows how programs or policies can range from being “gender blind” to being “gender aware” with the ultimate aim to be “gender transformative “ which recognizes and seeks to change the underlying root causes of gender inequalities (IGWG 2017).

- improving sentence flow:

l.30 , l.32: Repeat of “perpetuate inequalities “ in two sentences that could be merged in one

l.49. sentence would be more fluid with: to ensure that adequate levels of inclusion are achieved and pave the way for transformative change

l.107 until l.120: avoid repeated use of “therefore” and “furthermore”

l.118: place “intentionally” after “integrated”

l.198: There seems to be a phrase missing after “While”

Overall this is a worthwhile and important contribution to the field of NbS.

Presentation

Overall score 4.1 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
3 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.25 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
3 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context and indicate the relevance of the results to the question or hypothesis under consideration? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Results

Overall score 4.4 out of 5
Is sufficient detail provided to allow replication of the study? (50%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the results clearly outlined? (50%)
5 out of 5

Recommendation: The development of a Gender, Inclusion and Diversity Framework for inclusive Nature-based Solutions in cities. — R0/PR4

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/one.2023.14.pr4 [Opens in a new window]
Richard A. Kock [Opens in a new window] Independent Scholar, Kent, ME17 1NF United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date of review:  25 November 2023
Revision round: 0
Role: Editor in Chief
Recommendation/decision: minor-revision

Comments

This paper is a relatively straightforward approach to achieving improvements in Nature Based Solutions processes and after minor revision will be a useful framework of other workers in this area. It is well written but comments should be addressed before publication. The Handling editor can check this is addressed.

Author comment: The development of a Gender, Inclusion and Diversity Framework for inclusive Nature-based Solutions in cities. — R1/PR5

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/one.2023.14.pr5 [Opens in a new window]
Ben Delbaere [Opens in a new window] University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium
Revision round: 1
Role: author

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: The development of a Gender, Inclusion and Diversity Framework for inclusive Nature-based Solutions in cities. — R1/PR6

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/one.2023.14.pr6 [Opens in a new window]
Richard A. Kock [Opens in a new window] Independent Scholar, Kent, ME17 1NF United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Revision round: 1
Role: Editor in Chief
Recommendation/decision: accept

Comments

This paper has been accepted because it contributes significantly to the question posed, is a novel finding, is scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology, and is statistically valid.