This article explores how nature-based solutions (NBS) can contribute to achieving a just urban transition. It first reviews literature on the concepts of just urban transition and NBS. It then discusses how NBS can enhance socio-economic and ecosystem aspects of urban areas like public spaces or "urban commons." Specifically, NBS can address issues of climate justice, create resilient communities, and provide environmental benefits if planned and implemented through collaborative governance and by considering distributive, procedural, and recognition aspects of environmental justice. The article argues for holistic approaches to NBS that incorporate social, institutional, and implementation factors to better support just transitions in cities.

1. Achieving Just Urban Transition (JUT) by
adopting Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)
Mohammadreza Movahedi
Executive Summary
This article has been written as part of the assignment for the course “AAR5270 – Globalization and
Urban Development (spring, 2023)”. The focus of the writing is to review the relevant academic literature,
as its methodology surround the concepts “Just Urban Transition, (JUT)” and “Nature-Based Solutions,
(NBS)”. Thus, the main purpose is to understand how the NBS could be planned and implemented in a way
that creates a just urban transition in the cities.
As urban challenges such as climate change, urban degeneration, and aging infrastructures increase,
nature-based solutions have become increasingly popular. However, it is important that they are able to
create sustainable and just transition by considering the complex nature of the global and local challenges.
This paper first explores the concept just urban transition (JUT) by reviewing Hughes’ (2020) article. Then
it reviews two articles about NBS to understand in what ways they are beneficial, and to realize how they
should be implemented. Then, it explores the concept of urban commons, and it argues how NBS could
create green urban commons in the public spaces.
The main discussion of the article is on how NBS could be planned and implemented in a way that they
contribute to the JUT. For this purpose, the paper discusses the linkage of these two concepts in three distinct
sections of socio-economic, ecosystem, and implementation aspects. The paper concludes by highlighting
the importance of socio-economic and institutional aspects of NBS planning. In addition, it accentuates the
importance of using contextual transdisciplinary approach and contextual studies while implementing NBS
for more just urban transition in the urban environments. This article is helpful to planners and practitioners
who wish to implement NBS projects in response to the world environmental challenges.
Keywords:
Just urban transition, Nature-based solution, NBS implementation, Urban commons, Justice

2. 1. Introduction
This article tries to intersect two concepts of Just Urban Transition (JUT) and Nature-Based Solutions
(NBS). So, the main question of this article is “how and in what ways the NBS can contribute to achieve a
just urban transition?” To answer this question, this article tries to understand the relationship between these
two. Also, “Urban Commons”, as a type of public space, is taken as a case for this discussion. This article is
a qualitative descriptive article that uses library studies and literature reviews as its main methodology.
In recent years, nature-based solutions have gained popularity as environmentally-friendly solutions
for recovering environmental functions and benefits in cities. Alongside the ecological benefits, NBS have
societal benefits which can increase communities’ resiliency. Besides, to create transformative changes in the
urban environment scholars now see considering the concept “justice” both in the analysis and in the process
of change as necessary. (See Agyeman, 2008 and Hughes et al, 2020)
In the first step, this article reviews four main papers. The first paper is about the concept of Just Urban
Transition (JUT), and it surveys different strains of justice scholarship (Hughes, 2020). The second paper
tries to extract the best lessons learned from the real-life experiments with NBS in 11 European cities.
The third paper’s focus is on NBS implementation as the long-term success of NBS is highly dependent
on understanding the key elements of the implementation processes. And the last article focuses on the
challenges and benefits of urban commons.
The main purpose of the article is to understand how NBS can contribute to the just urban transition
of spaces, like in urban commons. So, in the second step, the article intersects NBS with JUT and urban
commons from three points of view of ecosystem, socio-economic, and institutional.
Figure 1. Source: Freepik.com

3. 2. Summary of the readings
2.1 Understanding the concept, “Just Urban Transition (JUT)” (Hughes, 2020)
According to Hughes (2020), there is a gap regarding the intersection between urban climate action and
justice in academic literature. Considering this gap, she highlights the need to translate justice in theory into
design principles, governance practices, and engagement tactics for a JUT in the urban environment. Thus,
she raises the question “What does it mean programmatically and politically to develop and implement
an agenda for a just urban transition?” Consequently, the article defines JUT as a fusion of urban climate
actions and justice. It focuses on understanding justice and just urban transitions from different viewpoints
first. Then, it tries to find the foundation for considering both scholarly and policy-relevant JUT agendas.
In the first step, the author tries to understand diverse conceptions of justice that are informing and
should inform JUT. According to her, “environmental justice” seeks to overcome any phenomena that
expose marginalized groups or communities of humans or non-humans’ creatures to unequal and unfair
environmental burdens. In this regard, the article explains that the “distributive justice” is often the dominant
frame for explaining environmental justice. However, the author believes that “procedural justice” and
“justice as recognition” are crucial when analyzing environmental justice. Justice as recognition recognizes
historical contexts that caused inequalities and contributed to unequal distributions, and procedural
justice emphasizes engagement and participation in environmental decision-making processes. Justice as
recognition, distributive justice, and procedural justice are elements of environmental justice, which can
be applied to evaluate policies, decisions, and processes. She also notifies the importance of other justice
conceptions, including climate justice, energy justice, and urban justice.
The author concludes with the importance of considering the concept of JUT in two levels: firstly,
notifying justice principles in the distribution of resources, decision-making processes, and recognition of
justice in the historical context. Secondly, the analytical focus of just transitions on change processes.
2.2 Nature-based solutions, as environmentally viable solutions for urban
transition: lessons from Europe. (Frantzezkaki, 2019)
Considering urban challenges like climate change and aging infrastructure, nature-based solutions
have become increasingly prevalent and popular in European cities as adequate alternatives to the cities’
infrastructure development and update (Frantzezkaki, 2019). Using nature itself to solve environmental
challenges is what NBS are all about. (See Frantzezkaki, 2019 and Wickenburg, 2021) So, European
Commission (2016) has clearly defined NBS as “living solutions underpinned by natural processes and
structures that are designed to address various environmental challenges while simultaneously providing
multiple benefits to economy, society and ecological systems.” As a result, the main purpose of the NBS is
to recover the natural heritage and the ecological functions of the urban environment in the cities.
In this regard, Frantzezkaki (2019) extracts useful lessons from the exemplary NBS practices in 11
European cities’ cases. These cases consider both the social and ecological benefits of NBS in the projects.
Also, for upgrading urban infrastructure, all cases reviewed NBS as an alternative to gray infrastructure.
1. Citizens should find nature-based solutions aesthetically pleasing and beautiful.
2. Trust must be established in the local government and in the process of experimenting with nature-
based solutions,
3. Diversity and social innovation are essential for nature-based solutions.
4. Collaborative governance is vital for nature-based solutions implementation.
5. Incorporating nature-based solutions into urban agendas is possible with an inclusive narrative of
mission
6. Learn how to replicate and learn from nature-based solutions in the long run.

4. 7. Nature-based solutions potentially can generate green urban commons.
Finally, the author highlights the importance of the multidisciplinary approach while planning the NBS.
So, she emphasizes that a “diversity of settings” is crucial for the co-creation of place-based solutions that
have the potential to be transformative and ‘superior’ to gray infrastructure.
A collaborative governance approach to nature-based solutions allows us to learn about new appealing
designs, perceptions, and images of nature from multiple urban actors and to create new institutions to
manage and maintain nature-based solutions that are inclusive, livable, and resilient. (Frantzezkaki, 2019)
2.3 Implementing nature-based solutions to contribute to the environmental
transition of the cities. (Wickenburg, 2021)
NBS implementation typically sits within the context of urban planning and policy. In other words, it
is a process by which goals are set and actions are taken toward their achievement. (Wickenburg, 2021).
However, Wickenburg (2021) mentions many NBS implementation obstacles as the main identified
problems in NBS implementation. They include the lack of methods to involve different stakeholder
participation in the process, the lack of action-oriented frameworks that help mainstreaming NBS, and the
lack of concrete planning recommendations, etc.
So, this article has two specific goals to address these difficulties. Firstly, it tries to understand how
different NBS frameworks address the NBS implementation. For this purpose, the author did an extensive
literature review by using the hermeneutic approach to review different NBS frameworks. Secondly, the
author tries to understand what are the key prerequisite elements and conditions that are necessary for
NBS implementation. As a result of the second goal, it proposes a synthetic framework to contribute to this
Figure 2. A picture from a participatory session from one of the case studies (Frantzezkaki, 2019) : Dream session of Antwerp’s experiment for the linear
park in Sint Andries showing the format of the co-creation in action (Photo credits: Stadslab 20150, Antwerp, 17.06.2017).

5. operational understanding.
For the first purpose of the article, the author clusters different frameworks according to the four phases
of the urban planning cycle: strategic planning, implementation, maintenance, and evaluation.
Figure 3. Different types of NBS frameworks according and how they relate to the cyclic planning process (Source: author based on Wickenburg, 2021
created by miro)
Considering the second purpose of the article, the author highlights the importance of NBS adaptation to
site-specific societal challenges. Thus, he introduces two factors of multi-stakeholder collaboration and co-
creation of knowledge as essential requirements in the implementation process. Furthermore, he illustrates
several of the identified key elements and steps to overcome NBS implementation barriers.
Figure 4. A summary of key elements and steps of the analyzed frameworks that can inform the NBS implementation (Source: author based on
Wickenburg, 2021 created by miro)
The diagram (figure 4) illustrates two main elements of the implementation process. Firstly, collaboration.
Secondly, the co-creation of knowledge, which includes three sub-elements: analysis of NBS options and
benefits, identification of key policies and actors, and exploration of financial options. As a conclusion, the
author deposits that the academic research can engage more critically in how NBS can be implemented and
upscaled in a systematic and strategic manner by acknowledging the local conditions required for these
processes, both in experimentation and formal planning. So, the article introduces a new synthesis diagram
to apply the perspective of urban planning as cyclic and iterative to the implementation process.

6. 3. Summary of the reading on public space (Feinberg, 2021)
The public space reading is a comprehensive review article titled “Diversity and Challenges of Urban
Commons” (Feinberg, 2021) which focuses on the urban commons and their diversity. Since Frantzezkaki
(2019) (see section 2.2) mentions the potentiality of the NBS to create urban green commons as public
spaces in the cities, we decided to focus on this article which reviews the literature comprehensively on the
matter. Basically, places, people, machinery, and institutions form a complex ecosystem in the cities. So,
Feinberg (2021) defines commons as “a system consisting of resources, its users, the institutions binding
them, and the associated processes.” From this point of view, he mentions that urban commons are produced
and reproduced through the encounter of elements of the city ecosystem. As a result of these encounters,
shared understandings are created through repeated interactions and practices, which induce social learning
and activity.
The author (Feinberg, 2021) believes that urban commons have been addressed in different fields, but
its diversity hasn’t been examined comprehensively. In addition, its internal and external characteristics
have not been investigated. Thus, as well as presenting a state-of-the-art review of the diversity of urban
commons currently observed and studied, the author discusses the benefits of urban commons to cities
and the challenges facing the field that demand future research agendas. The authors surveyed benefits,
challenges, and supports of three categories of their reviewed articles as follows in the table. He believes that
this table and review could be helpful both to researchers and practitioners for further research and planning.
As the author points out, urban commons are not new, but they are extensions of an old commoning
tradition among people on agriculture and natural lands or the urban systems. So, he discusses why this
might be necessary in the neighborhoods to allow local communities to socialize, and it can generate goods
and services for them.
As a major contributor to livelihood, the urban commons provide major ecosystem services. As well as
shaping a collective identity, it generates local value through products, jobs, or geographic added-value,
and it helps sustain important ecological services. Moreover, urban commons can help communities cope
with social and environmental crises better by fostering collective identity, values, adaptive capacities, and
capacity building. Diversity of views and interests is also capable of contributing to social resilience under
certain conditions. This requires an understanding of the urban commons, which is becoming a commons in
and of itself, increasing participation opportunities. The author mentions land accessibility issues, exclusion
of specific users, lack of formal recognition, autonomy, and rigid institutions as some of the main challenges
of urban commons. These challenges hinder social resilience and their sustainability.
In conclusion, the writer points out that academic literature needs further study of urban commons’
institutional aspects. Also, the author stresses the need to gain a deeper understanding of the individual and
collective behavior mechanisms at stages in the emergence and management of commons. Further, more
attention needs to be paid to property rules relevant to urban commons, emphasizing access rather than
ownership.
4. Own reflections of the relationship of the readings
Throughout the reflection, we suggest that urban practitioners and researchers develop a holistic approach
to NBS that incorporates not only the environmental aspect but also social, institutional, and implementation
factors. As a result, NBS could help improve justified transitions of urban spaces (JUT) (see Hughes, 2020).
So, we build our reflection in three parts considering the urban commons article about the public spaces
(Feinberg, 2021). We argue that NBS contribute to our understanding of just urban transition (JUT) and are
relevant to develop urban commons.

7. 4.1. Socio-economic aspects
It seems that the NBS concept extends beyond merely providing initiatives inspired by nature that enable
natural ecosystems to provide valuable ecosystem services. In fact, they need to address societal challenges
through social participation projects, like urban commons initiatives. Strengthening the socio-economic
aspects of local communities is one of the key functions of NBS for JUT. The author believes that NBS can
contribute to “climate justice” on a global scale. As Hughes (2019) discusses, climate change vulnerability is
not equally distributed in the world; so, climate change impacts raise questions about justice. NBS can create
a more robust and resilient social context that deal with it with more power.
It is clear from the studies conducted in Europe (Frantzezkaki, 2019) that NBS can provide beneficial
services for communities like agriculture, fishing, irrigation, etc. Further, green spaces by NBS reduce
pollution and deliver recreational benefits to people’s physical and mental health. By enhancing livelihoods,
NBS can benefit societies by providing pleasant urban commons to enjoy. Since spaces that are created by
NBS contribute to communities’ resilience in times of disasters as their main functions, they can contribute
to the climate justice and JUT while servicing the societies.
Some of the main functions of NBS that are developed by considering social aspects include creating a
knowledge sharing system, as well as raising community consciousness about future climate change-related
risks. As a result, NBS can offer spaces for social interactions that contribute to people’s awareness and
sense of belonging to the space. People with a strong sense of community are better equipped to deal with
harsh situations.
Through the provision of goods and services, NBS can benefit residents financially and increase or create
economic value in the region if they are utilized by the public as urban commons. The public will appreciate
a NBS project in soil stabilization, for example, if its benefits are promoted to the public. It’s just another
way that NBS can contribute to justice for local citizens.
As Hughes (2020) also mentions, there has been relatively less attention paid to applicable criteria or
operationalizing climate justice scholarship, which has been largely normative and theoretical. However,
NBS can be recognized as adequate solutions that mitigate climate change’s detrimental effects. Seeing NBS
from a social sustainability perspective can create more resilient communities and contribute to just and
equitable cities.
4.2. Ecosystem aspects
The author believes that if planners and practitioners consider “environmental justice” while
implementing NBS in cities, they can contribute to the just transition of urban spaces. In this way, NBS
can reduce environmental injustice in cities through its ecosystem benefits. As Hughes (2020) discusses
environmental justice’s three components are distributive justice, procedural justice, and justice as
recognition. When planning and implementing NBS, all three components of environmental justice must be
considered from the very beginning.
As procedural justice is based on participation in environmental decision-making process (Hughes, 2020),
Natural initiatives such as NBS should be created based on the local communities’ engagement. It is true
that NBS are providing various ecosystem services (See Frantzezkaki, 2019 and Feinberg, 2021) such as
regulating cities’ pollution and the risk of natural hazards, and support the preservation of biodiversity and
soil fertility. Still, the nearby residents should be totally aware and supportive of these benefits.
4.3. Implementation aspects
Since nature needs time to recover and do its functions in time of hazards, it’s crucial that NBS are
adopted in long-term policies, planning and governance to respond to the impacts of climate change
effectively. However, Feinberg (2021) explains that they have not been fully adopted in planning processes.
While facing institutional challenges of NBS implementation, we believe two main steps of NBS
implementation process (See Wickenberg, 2021) are necessary to be considered for creating “urban

8. environmental planning justice”, as one of the justice scholarships as Hughes (2020) describes in her JUT
article. Firstly, collaboration to increase knowledge is essential for NBS implementation. Secondly, the co-
creation of knowledge in the NBS implementation is necessary for JUT.
For contribution of NBS to the idea of “just city” from the institutional perspective, three main elements
of Fainstein’s framework (Fainstein, 2010) should be considered: democracy, diversity, and equity. The NBS
policies should be open and democratic that let people get involved in the decision-making process. It should
be diverse that notifies the needs of different groups of people. And NBS should be equitable to let different
people have good access to the amenities and services that it provides. In these ways, NBS can contribute to
create just city from the implementation and institutional point of view.
5. Conclusion
In this article, we surveyed two concepts of JUT (Just Urban Transition) and NBS (Nature-Based
Solutions) by doing a literature review( see figure 5) . Additionally, we reviewed the concept “Urban
Commons” as a type of approach to plan and manage the urban spaces in the public domain, and we stated
that NBS can act as a green urban common that can contribute to just urban transitions in the cities. In the
reflection part, we discussed how NBS can contribute to create JUT in three parts: socio-economic aspect,
ecosystem aspects, implementation aspects. In each section, we discussed how NBS can contribute to each
of the justice scholarships as Hughes (2020) introduced.
Figure 5. The mind map of this article that shows how we develop our discussion surrounds JUT and NBS (Source: author created by miro)
As the conclusion, we believe there are two critical points that should be mentioned while planning
a NBS project if we wish they can contribute to the JUT and have their functions as the long-term
practices. Firstly, considering the socio-economic and implementational aspects of the NBS projects is
necessary during all the steps of the process. Since NBS are knowledge-based initiatives, the importance of
collaboration and cocreation of knowledge is highlighted in its implementation process. As a result, adopting
community need assessment and participatory approach have a key role in this regard.

9. Secondly, understanding the context from different perspectives is crucial for the success of NBS
projects. Hughes (2020) introduces “justice as recognition” as the third component of environmental justice
and she acknowledges the historical contexts that contributed to inequalities. So, it is crucial to consider the
historical background of the area in which the NBS are being implemented to contribute to the just urban
transition. Also, global challenges, like climate change, must be translated into the local contexts so that
NBS fit local contexts.
Contribution
Figure 1: Image by <a href=”https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/people-planting-tree-
countryside_26203278.htm”>Freepik</a>
Resources
Agyeman, J., 2008. Toward a ‘just’sustainability?. Continuum, 22(6), pp.751-756.
Feinberg, A., Ghorbani, A. and Herder, P., 2021. Diversity and challenges of the urban commons: A
comprehensive review. International Journal of the Commons, 15(1).
Frantzeskaki, N., 2019. Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities. Environmental
science & policy, 93, pp.101-111.
Hughes, S. and Hoffmann, M., 2020. Just urban transitions: Toward a research agenda. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11(3), p.e640.
Wickenberg, B., McCormick, K. and Olsson, J.A., 2021. Advancing the implementation of nature-based
solutions in cities: A review of frameworks. Environmental science & policy, 125, pp.44-53.