Urban socio‑ecosystem renewal: an ecosystem services assessment approach

Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-023-05117-y ORIGINAL PAPER Urban socio‑ecosystem renewal: anecosystem services assessment approach M.LopezDeAsiain1 · J.M.CastroBonaño2 · M.Borrallo‑Jiménez3 · R.MoraEsteban4 Received: 22 December 2022 / Revised: 23 May 2023 / Accepted: 13 July 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract Using a novel approach based on the urban ecosystem services approach, this research explores the relation between socioeconomic, architectonic and ecological factors in urban renewal processes. This deductive conceptual approach is based on the definition of an urban diagnosis and intervention model based on the concept of urban socio-ecosystemic services. This conceptual approach is applied to three research cases in Andalusia (Spain) neighbourhoods linked to participatory urban renewal processes. A model is inductively defined from these analysed case studies: the socio-ecosystemic services model, based on the conceptual frame, the development of particular instruments and the definition of a participatory methodological strategy. The results obtained in these urban workshops show that the socio-ecosystem model better integrates the relationships between the architectural, socio-economic and ecological dimensions in addressing the need for urban services and infrastructure and the quality of life in neighbourhoods. Citizens can formulate their needs and perceptions of the neighbourhood beyond traditional quantitative variables (i.e. number of car parks, average size of dwellings, population density, etc.), incorporating aspects such as urban landscape, air quality, urban noise, shaded rest areas and children’s spaces. All these perceptions are collected and transformed into proposals for neighbourhood improvement, which are assessed and prioritized by the citizens. Together with participatory processes, this approach can be considered as the key to success in urban renewal strategies in neighbourhoods. However, it is necessary to develop indicators and metrics of the relationships between the socio-economic and ecological dimensions that allow a more integrated study of the model at different urban scales. Keywords Ecosystem services· Resilience· Urban regeneration· Sustainability· Socio-ecosystemic services· Socioecosystem Introduction Nowadays, human activity has an unquestionable impact on the planet’s resources and the biodiversity of the world’s ecosystems, reducing both its resilience and its biocapacity. Nature provides humans with the life support system that allows us to organize our way of life, consumption and production in their current conditions. Without nature, the current social and economic system would have no future viability. In the words of Ramón Folch (2003) “We know that all this urban anatomy (urbs) only makes sense when it responds to the activity and needs of its citizens (civitas), Editorial responsibility: Samareh Mirkia. * M. Borrallo-Jiménez bor[email protected] M. LopezDeAsiain [email protected] J. M. Castro Bonaño [email protected] R. Mora Esteban r[email protected] 1 Departamento de Historia, Teoría y Composición Arquitectónicas, Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura, Universidad de Sevilla, Avd. Reina Mercedes no 2, 41012Seville, Spain 2 Departamento de Estadística y Econometría, Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain 3 Departamento de Construcciones Arquitectónicas I, Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura, Universidad de Sevilla, Avd. Reina Mercedes no 2, 41012Sevilla, Spain 4 Postdoctoral researcher Juan de la Cierva. Departamento de Arte y Arquitectura, Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 1 3 and only when it adapts to the greater environmental conditions (oikos) does it serve as a basis for a true city (polis). In this context, the words regain the semantic value which etymologically speaking they always had: ‘urban politics’ is shown as an ‘ecological’ exercise loaded with ‘civic’ meaning”. Considering that more than half of the world’s population lives currently in cities (Haase etal. 2014), and that by 2050 that figure will rise to 68% (Muñoz-Pacheco and Villaseñor 2022; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2019), studying urban ecosystems specifically versus other types of ecosystems is a key issue (Blanco etal. 2021). However, there are few studies of application to the urban environment (Muñoz-Pacheco and Villaseñor 2022). Furthermore, they are mostly partial applications; that is, they do not include the study of all ecosystem services. (Sang etal. 2021; Zaman-Ul-haq etal. 2022). This means that there is a need for a change in paradigm in line with that proposed by the biologist Margulis (2003) which alters the idea of evolution as a continual competition between individuals and species and shows that life conquered the planet thanks to cooperation. She proposed that “the pact is the symbiosis: there are no winners or losers, but rather a recombination. Something new is built”. This new policy can also address what Serres (2004) calls “the Natural Contract” according to which “it is necessary to stop understanding nature as that enormous collection of things reduced to the status of passively appropriated objects, and convert them into legal subjects”. These new non-human agents can therefore be incorporated into the exclusively social contract, establishing a natural contract of symbiosis and reciprocity. For a better understanding of the territory, it is necessary to consider a complex, non-neutral matrix, in which protected areas, land uses, ecological processes and the socio-economic and cultural reality would be inextricably linked, requiring management methods for networks and not individual elements. To achieve this, an integrated territorial plan is necessary. This is an ambiguous concept, which will have to be well defined so as to be able to invent and contemplate formulas to balance human needs and the requirements of the ecological networks, understanding the latter as one more infrastructure. This is a great challenge requiring dynamic evaluation criteria and decision-making, which hang between “needs” and “possibilities”. The development of numerous evaluation and decisionmaking instruments for intervention in the territory and in the city has traditionally been marked by the disciplinary reality of different fields such as architecture, economy and ecology. The three fields are very different from each other and are emphasized often by divergent and contradictory approaches. The integration of the three disciplinary approaches is necessary within this integrated territorial plan framework. Therefore, this research aims to establish both conceptual and instrumental links between them so that the approach to urban analysis and intervention starts from an integrated, innovative and interdisciplinary strategy and instrumentation of study and work in socio-ecosystems (Fovet etal. 2021; Liu and Wu 2022). This new paradigm places the economic system below the social system and this, below the natural system so that the economy becomes less self-centred and acts in the interests of human well-being, guaranteeing a dignified life and considering nature’s resilience and capacity (Morandín-Ahuerma etal. 2019). In other words, human activity should not only appropriate services from nature, but should be responsible and take part in the regeneration and maintenance of ecosystems. Ecosystem services are “the benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions” (Costanza etal. 1997), also described as “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems” (Reid etal. 2005). From this perspective, the ecosystem service economy highlights the value of biodiversity and the services the environment provides. It raises awareness of its importance in the decision-making process of economic actors, be they individuals, homes, for profit or non-profit organizations or in political decision-making at all levels. An ecosystem service is therefore a benefit that humans obtain from nature or from the base of resources that sustain their way of life (Daly and Farley 2011). The objective of this approach is to inform decision-makers whose actions affect the environment about their impact and positive or negative consequences. To this effect, it serves as an appraisal of the current state of these ecosystem services, their evaluation once actions have been implemented, and also offers the possibility to study the consequences of the actions according to assumptions and rigorous projections. The concept of Ecosystem Services was coined in the 1970s in reference to the benefit or contribution of natural systems to human well-being (Daily 1997; De Groot 1992), incorporating the goods and ecosystem services derived from natural capital (ecosystems and natural resources). This conceptual model has been widely used in ecological, socio-cultural and economic assessment of ecosystems, above all as a result of works such as the assessment carried out by Costanza etal. (1997) and the dissemination of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Alcamo etal. 2003) and the TEEB Work Group (2010). Further to these, it has also been used to reinforce the possible and necessary link between governance, planning and resilience (Folke 2006; McPhearson etal. 2015) to improve urban health and quality of life (Gómez-Bagget- hun and Barton 2013; Rodríguez-Rodríguez etal. 2015; Shao etal. 2023). International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 1 3 The most widespread classification of ecosystem services (Alcamo etal. 2003) recognizes four categories: Supporting Services, Provisioning Services, Regulating Services and Cultural Services. Subsequently, the Millennium Ecosystem Service Assessment Report (Reid etal. 2005) defines ecosystem services as “the benefits that human beings obtain from ecosystems” and also identifies four categories: • Supporting services: ecosystem services, which are necessary for the production of all the other services in the ecosystem. These are nutrient cycling and dispersal, seed dispersal and primary production. • Provisioning services: products obtained from ecosystems. These are: food, crops, wild food and species, water, minerals, pharmaceuticals, biochemicals and industrial products, energy. • Regulating services: The benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes. These are: carbon capture and storage, climate regulation, waste decomposition, air and water purification, crop pollination and pest and disease control. • Cultural services: non-material benefits which humans obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences. These are: cultural, intellectual and spiritual inspiration, recreational experiences and scientific discovery. These four categories are the basis for the definition of urban ecosystem services in this research. They provide an opportunity to link planning, management and urban governance (De Luca etal. 2021) with improved urban resilience and subsequently improved sustainability of cities (McP- hearson etal. 2015). Assessing this type of service is a complex task (Heal 2000) if we consider that natural ecosystems interact with socio-economic systems at different levels and scales (Holling 2001; Lapostolle and Challéat 2021). Urban ecosystem services: different approaches according toauthors There is extensive research into ecosystem services and their relationship with and/or application in cities (Chien 2021). Initially, it was developed within the framework of environmental sciences, and they are being increasingly incorporated within the framework of other disciplines. Furthermore, it was initially developed as large-scale research and it changedtowards more focused and small-scale studies (Shao etal. 2023). Some authors (Blanco etal. 2021; Folke 2006; Morandín-Ahuerma etal. 2019) address the anthropological urban relationship with the underpinning biotope, referring to a social ecosystem. This enables a connection between the human dimension and its needs within the ecological environment and the necessities of life of all other species. This can be understood in a broader form as: “Living systems are units of interactions that exist within an environment” (Morandín-Ahuerma etal. 2019). Some propose incorporating the concept of ecosystem services into urban design and planning to improve resilience from a social–ecological approach and for the improvement of human wellbeing (Shao etal. 2023) through the incorporation of its values in urban planning and governance (Elmqvist etal. 2014; Schewenius etal. 2014)). Other authors (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton 2013; Luederitz etal. 2015; McPhearson etal. 2015; Wu 2014) contextualize the term in the city sphere (urban ecosystem services), incorporating aspects linked to urban life related to its biophysical, economic and socio-cul- tural condition (Bertram and Rehdanz 2015). Similarly, the greatest contribution of these latter authors centres around the unequivocal link they define between urban ecosystem services and human well-being (Lapostolle and Challéat 2021; Wu 2014), as well as increased urban resilience through governance processes which include scientists, professionals, designers and planners (De Luca etal. 2021; McPhearson etal. 2015). Finally, some authors go further, referring to the concept of ecosystem services linked to a specific social ecosystem (Gutiérrez González etal. 2016; Totino etal. 2023) to reflect the nature of this interaction in which natural capital goes hand in hand with other forms of capital (human, technical or social capital, etc.) to produce services. At the same time, there are two views related to the condition of ecosystem services and their evaluation in reference to the urban environment. The first considers ecosystem services as such solely linked to urban green spaces (Andersson etal. 2014; Elmqvist etal. 2015; Lovell and Taylor 2013; Luederitz etal. 2015; Muñoz-Pacheco and Villaseñor 2022; Paulin etal. 2020; Pukowiec-Kurda 2022; Rodríguez-Rod- ríguez etal. 2015; Russo and Cirella 2023) either within the city or its immediate surroundings. They are referred to as forming a specific system themselves, different from and complementary to other urban systems, belonging to the city as a whole. A second view considers ecosystem services linked to the whole urban system, including these green spaces, but understanding that the whole city makes up its own supporting ecosystem in which ecosystem services should be assessed as a whole (Chien 2021). In this way, not only humans, but all living beings belonging to the city ecosystem work as a complex and unique ecosystem which takes advantage of mutual synergies and contributions. Ecosystem services are both produced and exploited by and for humans. This research focuses on this second approach, putting it into context and strengthening some aspects. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 1 3 The socio‑ecosystemic services concept As the interaction between society and ecosystem is more clearly observed at urban scale, so is the generation of natural and anthropogenic ecosystem services given the profound transformation of natural ecosystems that is produced when urban ecosystems are generated. Taking advantage of Lapostolle and Challéat’s (2021) approach in “The Integrated Socio-ecosystemic Logic”, where they propose a holistic approach that prioritizes neither the anthropocentric nor the ecocentric approaches, this socio-ecosystemic perspective is taken as a starting point. In this research, the conceptual framework of ecosystem services is applied at local scale, where the urban ecosystem (Alberti 1996; Alberti etal. 2003; Nicoletti 1978) is an anthropogenic biome or ecosystem created and maintained by humans and formed by natural and urbanized elements. As a result, urban services are considered the contribution of the urban socio-ecosystem to human well-being out of the interaction between the physical, biological, anthropogenic and urban systems that they are formed from. This research aims to define the concept of socio-ecosystemic services as an integrated approach of the conceptual approaches previously described and commented, going beyond this fundamentally anthropogenic consideration. This research poses the need to work on the concept of socio-ecosystemic services with the idea that these provide for both human beings and their needs (Max-Neef etal. 1986) and other living things (Morandín-Ahuerma etal. 2019) within the urban framework. We therefore move away from the uniquely anthropogenic approach to adopt a more inclusive approach which incorporates respect for the environment and the need to work in harmony with the ecosystem and existing biotope as a physical support for the city. The city is therefore seen as a community of predominantly human, living things in which a series of services must be provided for its correct functioning. However, beyond the purely quantitative expression of these services, it aims to emphasize the cultural and emotional contribution of human and living beings on the urban environment. The living things which belong to the support ecosystem provide the social–ecological system with a series of emotional and, in general, cultural qualities without which the urban environment would not be the same from a historical, aesthetical, adaptive, bioclimatic or idiosyncratic perspective. In our case, we apply a conceptual framework to identify the existing neighbourhood socio-ecosystemic services. The neighbourhood is considered the minimum spatial scale for intervention and analysis in which collective socio-ecosys- temic services are provided for the citizen and living beings to improve their well-being and quality of life (Hernández 2009) (Shao etal. 2023). This allows us to delimit the analysis of experiences at a specific level, although the neighbourhood is understood as the minimum unit unequivocally linked to the city as a whole. Evaluating the provision of this type of services allows us to get closer to assessing the efficiency or usefulness of the urban ecosystem when providing the neighbourhood with well-being. In relation to the concept of social metabolism (Infante-Amate etal. 2017; Pauliuk and Hertwich 2015; Toledo 2013) or urban metabolism (Baccini and Brunner 2012; Elliot etal. 2019; Kennedy etal. 2011, 2007; Wolman 1965), it is considered a measurement of the flows of material, energy and hydrological resources necessary to provide a city’s population with socio-ecosystemic services. These resources are usually imported from nearby or increasingly further ecosystems. This focus makes it possible to objectify and quantify resources, inputs, outputs and storage of energy, water, nutrients, materials and wastes of urban regions (Pincetl 2012). As a quantification instrument, it can therefore be related directly (translating units of magnitude of each resource service) to the ecosystem services assessment and consequently, with the concept of socio-ecosystemic services defined here. This approach stems from the evolution of the research into the concept of urban metabolism which, as Wachsmuth (2012) observes, has passed through three stages: human ecology, industrial ecology and finally political ecology where the city is the product of different social–natural fluxes. Sustainability andurban obsolescence Within urban design, there is room for numerous disciplines. However, when it comes to decision-making, the relationships between design, economy, sociology and ecology are complex, within a framework defined by the need for sustainable development (Borrallo-Jiménez etal. 2020; Luederitz etal. 2015; Morandín-Ahuerma etal. 2019). The concept of social ecosystem sustainability, coined by Morandín- Ahuerma (2019), can be interpreted as “…the process that defines the relationship between cultures and the biosphere” and proposes an approximation and/or symbiosis between humans and other living beings, shifting urban needs from the merely anthropic to the collective needs of the ecological system itself. Habitability of the urban space as a basic need for humans must go hand in hand with the balance of the ecosystem support and its development. The capacity of the urban system as a provider of socio-ecosystemic services implies that urban metabolism be developed in a framework of equilibrium with the ecosystem, based on an urban bioclimatic design, ecological planning and more sustainable urban management (Karis etal. 2020). In other words, it must control and pursue the closing of energy and International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 1 3 materials cycles (Bai 2016) at local, or at least regional, level (Borrallo-Jimenez and LopezDeAsiain 2020). Thus, going back to the reflections of some authors who link increased urban resilience to an approach based on urban ecosystem services (McPhearson etal. 2015), we can also establish a relationship between requirements which imply sustainability (environmental, economic and social) with a city’s greater capacity for resilience via this approach and assessment of ecosystem services. Inspired by this approach, this research focuses on the neighbourhood, as it is considered the place where the majority of people’s lives are carried out and where certain services are provided for its inhabitants (human and living beings). As a reference point, the neighbourhood also gains certain services from other neighbourhoods and from the city as a whole such as the existing commercial system or the infrastructure system (energy, running water, etc.). In other words, it needs other services produced by other zones in the network. Neighbourhood urban systems can also be considered in this ecosystem services rationale in which the surroundings contribute to the maintenance of their defining characteristics. Obsolescence (LopezDeAsiain etal. 2020) can be understood as the inability of this urban environment, or neighbourhood, to provide basic socio-ecosystemic services for its inhabitants (humans and other living beings) to build a dignified, happy life for humans which is balanced and resilient (Shao etal. 2023). The best conditions, therefore, would be those in which a neighbourhood is completely autonomous (Rodríguez- Rodríguez etal. 2015), producing and offering all those services necessary for the provision of quality of life in the broader trans-disciplinary sense, linked to the concept of sustainability as analysed by Morandín-Ahuerma (2019) and which can be observed from a socio-ecosystemic approach. It would therefore be a neighbourhood which covers all the supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural services just as in a natural ecosystem, but in this case considering its social dimension below the natural system and incorporating all living things. In other words, from the urban perspective, a coherent proposal is developed with the necessary change in paradigm that must take place in the way in which we interrelate with our economic, social and natural environment. This conceptual approach allows us to assess and evaluate the state of services at neighbourhood level with a holistic and integrated perspective (McPhearson etal. 2022; Ouyang and Luo 2022; Zaman-Ul-haq etal. 2022) of the city, society, economy and nature, giving decision-makers the means to understand the current state, evaluate projects and proposals and monitor compliance of actions already in progress. Evaluating the sustainability of urban ecosystems and their robustness can be prioritized from this conceptual approach. In addition, due to the lack of effective applied spatial studies (Chien 2021; Romero-Duque etal. 2020; Sang etal. 2021), the study of specific cases applied to real local situations is considered key to discerning the potential of this conceptual approach. Essentially, as this approach, based on the socio-ecosystemic services concept, is directly linked to the physical support and environmental territory ecosystems, its adoption allows us to ensure the basic requirements of sustainability linked to the equilibrium of this ecosystem and take advantage of its capacity for resilience. Three instruments have been developed during the research processes which are considered field studies. The results achieved from the instruments employed give rise to the development inductively of a model which construction, defines the aim of this article. Thus, this article identifies firstly, the opportunity that the socio-ecosystemic approach and the ecosystem services instrument, provide, defining deductively a new concept and secondly, develops inductively a model, which validity is proved thanks to the instruments and results developed in the analysed cases. In short, the aims of this research are two. The first aim is to define deductively a new integrating socio-ecosystemic services concept. The second and subsequent aim is to inductively generate and define an approach model known as “The Socio-ecosystemic Services Approach” based on the development and study of successful prior experiences of the application of the aforementioned socio-ecosystemic services concept, which differs from the conceptual models outlined in the introduction due to its broader and more integrating focus. This research has been developed from 2014 to 2021 at different stages in Andalusia Region, mainly in Málaga, Granada and Sevilla. Materials andmethods This research proposes the review of three case studies where the socio-ecosystemic model is used to address the intervention in the city from an interdisciplinary perspective, since the city and the urban environment are understood as an environment of great complexity and interaction. To this end, it is initially necessary to develop a theoretical framework that allows us to interrelate three disciplinary fields: architecture, ecology and economics. At the same time, it is necessary to incorporate the social dimension from the methodological approach, through citizen participation, using tools that are suitable for this purpose. A review is carried out on approaches and tools for action in the city related to a interdisciplinary approach in order to define the theoretical framework concept. Since it was not possible to find a conceptual theoretical framework that International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 1 3 meets this requirement as described and explained in the introduction, it is necessary to deductively define the socioecosystemic services concept. There are numerous tools from the three disciplinary fields for intervention in the city and/or territory; however, these tools are developed from a sectoral or partial approach, not an integral one. According to the analysis of the state of the art carried out in terms of tools for intervention in the city to improve urban resilience and sustainability, it can be seen that these tools have an eminently technical character and are always linked to a single disciplinary field, for example, urban planning, architectural design or circular economy. The tools that work on more specifically ecological aspects, even from an economic point of view, are always applied to certain non-urban or partially urban territorial areas, such as green spaces. There are few experiences of their application in the city, and they are always partial. For this reason, it is necessary to develop new tools that incorporate the interdisciplinary approach globally, since the city and the urban environment are understood as a great complexity environment where said interdisciplinary approach is absolutely necessary. Mixed qualitative and quantitative as well as deductive and inductive research methods were used. An initial deductive approach carried out through research undertaken in a number of research articles, and previous developed research, led to a theoretical new concept. In the introduction, an explanation is given as to how and from where the so-called socio-ecosystemic services concept arises, and how it differs from the traditional concepts based either on the assessment of ecosystem services linked to green urban spaces or on the simple contribution of anthropogenic services on an urban socio-ecosystem environment. Below, the results of different researches in which the aforementioned concept is strategically applied are studied and explained. Instruments used are studied, and it is implemented at different urban scales. All of the case studies are carried out via participatory dynamics, which involve different types of residents, depending on the case. This participatory strategy is considered a key link to the real implementation of the so-called socio-ecosystemic services concept due its relation to social sustainability and resilience through governance (De Luca etal. 2021). Finally, a conceptual and strategic approach model is defined inductively from this studied practical cases: the socio-ecosystemic services model approach. This approach, using the aforementioned instruments and certain participatory methodological dynamics, leads to urban improvement in terms of capacity building for sustainability. The research followed the following phases (Fig.1): • Conceptualization of socio-ecosystemic services. Deductively, based on the different approaches to the problems of the city in relation to its support ecosystem and how it is approached, valued and evaluated from different disciplines, the need for a new conceptual and theoretical perspective approach arises. This approach should provide greater strength and breadth in its ability to assess the greater or lesser sustainability of cities the “socioecosystemic services concept”. • Study of the application of the concept in various case studies at different scales (neighbourhood, city, region), always maintaining the “neighbourhood” study unit as the minimum reference. Development of different useful instruments for each case and participatory work dynamics. Fig. 1 Research method used. Source: the authors International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 1 3 • Verifying the success of the application of the conceptual approach, instruments and participatory methodologies. • Inductive definition of the model (conceptual approach, instruments, methodology), which implies an action participative regeneration process. Pilot studies andscales ofwork Three case studies were selected from the various studies carried out in different researches based on the new concept defined. These were chosen in view of the qualitative results obtained and the potential effect that the instruments have on these when applied to future research. These were chosen in view of the qualitative results obtained and the potential for future research. The selection of different scales of action is relevant to cover all scales of urban planning work in the city. Nevertheless, the study reference unit is unified in order to adequately develop this research. The reference study unit for the three case studies is the neighbourhood, considered the minimum unit of day-to-day human activity. The first is Huelin (LopezDeAsiain etal. 2020), a neighbourhood in the city of Málaga (Spain) with more than 8100 inhabitants. In this case, two operational instruments are developed to support the participatory process: the matrix of needs and the index of obsolescence. The second case study is Seville (Borrallo-Jiménez etal. 2020), at city scale, maintaining the neighbourhood unit of study as a reference while working at urban design scale as well as at smaller scales such as multifamily buildings, apartments or singlefamily dwellings. A sustainable construction guide (GAUS) was developed for decision-making related to improving bioclimatic design solutions and more efficient construction systems. The third case study focuses on the region of Andalusia (Osuna-Pérez etal. 2017), using the neighbourhood once again as the unit of study but from different cities and Andalusian towns. The cases studied and assessed can be extrapolated in terms of analysis and proposals for similar improvements for cases with similar characteristics and problems linked to a similar urban obsolescence in Andalusia. The three case studies incorporate participatory strategies which include urban actors. Urban renewal atneighbourhood scale: Huelin, city ofMálaga (Spain) This research was carried out in the form of a seminar and workshop to which both urban regeneration and neighbourhood improvement experts as well as local residents, associations, local council workers and professionals were invited. A total of thirty-three people participated in the global seminar. A total of eleven experts, seven local professionals, two local council workers, two association representants and six local residents participated in the URBANA-TE Workshop, focused on the Huelin neighbourhood. A survey of local residents (177 surveys) was also carried out and the data subsequently analysed (LopezDeAsiain etal. 2020). This enabled an approach and consolidation of the theme of neighbourhood specifically involving the local residents and neighbourhood associations as well as local council technicians and government bodies. During the seminar, four educational activities centred on the analysis and work in the Huelin neighbourhood, Malaga were carried out (Table1). This research also enabled the development of the matrix of needs instrument and the definition of the obsolescence index (LopezDeAsiain etal. 2020). The process of collaborative work and development of tools during the URBANA-TE workshop follows the scheme of Fig.2. Researchers carry out a preliminary work of interviews with the social actors and technical detection of deficiencies in the neighbourhood. The workshop is developed in parallel with associations, local council workers, professionals and local residents. It begins with sensitization and information sessions on the socio-ecosystemic services approach, its objective and benefits, collaboratively developing the matrix of needs. Then, an approximation survey of neighbourhood residents’ needs is designed. This survey allows to refine and correct the initial matrix of needs and define priorities. These results are collaboratively discussed among all participants, thus extracting the neighbourhood’s obsolescence index. Finally, this index, which, together with the matrix of needs, allows to prioritize neighbourhood needs, is used to propose potential improvements in terms of neighbourhood renewal. The obsolescence index obtained for Huelin (Table2) shows people’s perception of obsolescence and priorities in the neighbourhood. Provision services (economy, water, energy) and regulation services (accessibility, traffic, urban space) are the main areas where people identify deficiencies. In contrast, cultural and recreational services are those with the highest scores. Urban renewal atcity scale: Seville (Spain) This research focuses specifically on the creation of a “best practices in the framework of sustainability” handbook for the general public. Working in specific contexts is essential for the contemplation of a close and clear approach and for the proposal of solutions or concrete strategies that can be applied by all professionals and understood by the public. For this reason, the city of Seville was chosen. “Delimiting the climate, geographical and territorial parameters makes it possible to produce a simplified document with specific recommendations regarding not only the bioclimatic strategies to implement, but also the specific bioclimatic systems International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 1 3 recommended for each local situation” (Borrallo-Jiménez etal. 2020). From this research stemmed the “guide for a more sustainable Architecture and Urbanism in Seville” (GAUS) instrument (Fig.3). It is divided into several parts according to the scale of action (Table3). Table 1 Huelin seminar: main outcomes Source: The authors Educational activity Interviews with experts Introductory meeting URBANA-TE workshop Round table Phases Search for experts interview approach interviews, editing Presentation, debate, conclusions Introduction and diagnosis, Field work Surveys, proposal and presentation Presentation of experts Critical debate, conclusions Dynamics Specialist interviews Debate among experts Explanation of the workshop, Analysis information on the Huelin neighbourhood Surveys among local residents Interviews with representatives from local neighbourhood associations Documentation and information on areas of conflict highlighted by local residents Proposals for strategies and potential improvements to be carried out Presentation of results and debate about conclusions Public debate with experts Instruments Video recording Brainstorming Diagnosis and SWOT analysis, Development of matrix of needs, Determination of obsolescence index Exhibitions, moderated debate, open to the public Results Documentaries on urban intervention Confirmation of the Huelin case study and methodology to be carried out Neighbourhood obsolescence index Prioritized action strategies in the neighbourhood, defined by participatory methods. Definition of a strategic, participatory methodology for the development of future actions in neighbourhoods Assessment of results obtained Conclusions Fig. 2 Huelin URBANA-TE workshop process. Source: the authors International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 1 3 Urban renewal atregional scale: Andalusia (Spain) This research identifies obsolescence processes in selected Andalusian neighbourhoods (López de Asiain and Cano Ruano 2015). This includes (Fig.4) the definition of indicators and their intensity rates in relation to social metabolism in those neighbourhoods; measures applicable in relation to such indicators (rehabilitation, regeneration, etc.); choices of location and case studies; and application to a representative case study which can be extrapolated to other situations in Andalusia (López etal. 2015). First of all, a definition of what a neighbourhood is, as a scale reference, was established. The correct approach to include all Andalusian neighbourhoods was defined. This approach has been carried out through the analysis of statistics databases although some nearby case studies were also selected for experimental purposes. This research enables the verification and effectiveness of the matrix of needs as a strategic instrument for the development of surveys to identify deficiencies in different Andalusian neighbourhoods. It is a fundamental initial phase before decision-making related to solutions or strategies for change (Fernández-Valderrama etal. 2016a, 2016b; Rodríguez Estévez etal. 2015). In this case study, different families of neighbourhoods were defined. These families are characterized by their similarity in terms of seven basic themes linked to urban sustainability at neighbourhood scale. As a result of the analysis of the urban sustainability measurement instruments which exist nationally and internationally at this scale, the following themes were chosen: 1. resources, 2. mobility, 3. society, 4. economy, 5. geography, 6. urban design and 7. innovation. Each family of neighbourhoods is represented by a specific neighbourhood on which work is carried out. The results are then extrapolated to the rest of the family. In order to describe each individual neighbourhood, a set of attributes and indicators is designed which draws on three basic sources: data and information Table 2 Obsolescence index. Socio-ecosystemic services global assessment at Huelin Discrete scorecard index using values from 1 (Bad performance) to 5 (Good performance). Source: The authors Socio-ecosystemic service Score Support Urban land 3 Public space 3 Buildings 4 Facilities 3 Institutions 4 Housing 4 Mobility 3 Provision Materials/water/energy and information 2 Economy 2 Social metabolism 3 Urban land 2 Urban climate 1 Regulation Mobility and accessibility 2 Materials/water/energy and information 3 Cultural Quality of life 4 Urban landscape 3 Identity and cultural heritage 5 Education 4 Health and security 3 Social relationships and leisure activities 5 Obsolescence index 3 Fig. 3 GAUS approaching conceptualscheme Source: the authors Table 3 Structure of the “Guide for a more Sustainable Architecture and Urbanism” (GAUS) in Seville Source: The authors Guide for a more Sustainable Architecture and Urbanism in Seville Improving local resilience Guide for a more Sustainable Construction in Seville Guide for a more Sustainable Architecture in Seville Guide for a more Sustainable Urban Design in Seville Guide for a more Sustainable Urban Planning in Seville Guide for a more Sustainable Regional Planning in Seville International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 1 3 sociological frameworks than specifically architectural ones, and widely studied, has been initially enunciated. However, it is not detailed since is does not concern this article. In addition, this protocol should be further evaluated regarding its possible extrapolation to other situations, since this investigation has not been able to demonstrate its validity yet. Going deeper specifically regarding the variables selected y/o included by the model, we can make the following reflection. The model based on a socio-ecosystemic approach defined by this research enables the incorporation of anthropogenic and natural aspects into the analysis of services which can provision a city from the neighbourhood to the residents and other living beings within it, increasing even further the doctrine (Chien 2021) on social ecosystem services applied to the urban environment. There is, therefore, a coherence in the developed approach in relation to the need to broaden the concept of ecosystem services. Up until now, this had been linked by numerous authors solely to the existing natural environment of cities, in isolation, and constituted by their green spaces (Andersson etal. 2014; Elmqvist etal. 2015; Lovell and Taylor 2013; Luederitz etal. 2015; Paulin etal. 2020; Pukowiec-Kurda 2022; Rodríguez- Rodríguez etal. 2015), and socio-ecosystems (Folke 2006; Morandín-Ahuerma etal. 2019) with the implication of both human and other living beings (Chien 2021) defining the concept of socio-ecosystemic services. In this way, the model enables the effective incorporation of the inclusive approach which recognizes the needs in terms of services of all the living beings in a city and in order to improve their quality of life (Shao etal. 2023). Furthermore, the model defined responds to the social and/or urban metabolism needs of cities, following the evolution of the three-stage concept according to Wachsmuth (2012), guaranteeing the incorporation of necessary services for urban life in the framework of the requirements of the concept of sustainability (Shao etal. 2023) linked to the correct management of the flow of material and energy resources and closing their cycles (Bai etal. 2016; Borrallo- Jiménez etal. 2020). It also supports the rapprochement between disciplines that must be similar in their relationship with the intervention in the city and the territory and until now are divergent in many cases: architecture, economy and ecology. The model allows the use of tools and instruments from the three disciplines in an integrated way (McPhearson etal. 2022; Ouyang and Luo 2022; Zaman-Ul-haq etal. 2022), with the aim of achieving the well-being of living beings defined by the concept of sustainable development (Shao etal. 2023). The defined model selected variables are based on the most widespread classification of ecosystem services (Alcamo etal. 2003) and its later materialization as four categories in the Millennium Ecosystem Services Assessment Table 5 Scheme of analysis of cases in terms of scope, achievements and limits Source: The authors Case study Scale Instruments Scope Achievements Limits Region: Andalusia Matrix of needs Definition of the grade of obsolescence of different types of neighbourhoods in Andalusia and study of the possible improvements to carry out regarding sustainability Development of a robust analysis instrument to assess sustainability obsolescence in all types of neighbourhoods and its link to potential urban improvement therapies Need to define participatory processes in addition to the analysis carried out for each neighbourhood, including actors involved in each specific case in order to prioritize the improvement actions that will be carried out City: Seville Sustainable construction guide (GAUS) Awareness and training for citizen autonomy in environment and sustainability for urban and building design Development of an informative and educational instrument. Validity of the instrument and its development method Partial local environment of the developed instrument. Its usefulness will depend on its dissemination, and it has not been verified statistically Neighbourhood: Huelin Matrix of needs and obsolescence index Definition of sustainability indicators which make up the obsolescence index through the application of the matrix of needs. Development of participatory dynamic with local actors Verification of the validity of the two instruments in each case study through the carrying out of surveys on citizens and local residents and associations. Posterior statistical analysis for the consolidation of the obsolescence index Necessity to generate participatory dynamics with greater implication of all local actors. Lack of representation of some collectives such as women, children and youths as well as surrounding ecosystem validators International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 1 3 report (Reid etal. 2005) and add to it with those items necessary, according to the focus of the research and thus consolidating the inclusive capacity as an instrument for the analysis and intervention in the improvement of cities and urban or natural environment in general. The case studies have shown that the methodological dimension proposed from the socio-ecosystemic approach and in relation to the defined model, which is based on participatory dynamics, is adequate for its effective use in practical terms. This strategy, named el “protocolo socio-ecosis- temico”, allows a direct relation to be established between the urban ecosystems and their governance, called for by some authors (Elmqvist etal. 2014; McPhearson etal. 2015; Schewenius etal. 2014), exploiting links between planning, urban design, governance and citizen involvement with concrete instruments and contributing to the improvement of natural and urban resilience and well-being (De Luca etal. 2021; Shao etal. 2023). In relation to the analysed case studies and the experiences at different scales, we can extract the following conclusions relative to the scope of the research, achievements and limits of the practical cases. The cases are presented from region to neighbourhood trying to frame how specific community-based decisions are made at different scales (Table5). Since the model has been extracted inductively from the three cases analysed, it can be said that in terms of scope, the model responds adequately to the strategy developed for the instruments employed in the different cases. It also gives rise to the definition of sustainability indicators to analyse the obsolescence of different neighbourhoods, by the obsolescence index, defining possible improvements to carry out. Furthermore, in its participatory approach, “the socio-ecosystemic protocol”, the model foments citizen awareness and information regarding sustainability of urban ecosystems (Shao etal. 2023). This is done in a potentially independent manner, which leads to robust advances in citizens’ assimilation of sustainability, beyond the involvement of technicians or government bodies. Furthermore, the research has made it possible to check and subsequently validate the instruments developed in each case study for the definition of the model. The case studies themselves validate these instruments and confirm the link with the developed model. This way, a rapprochement is produced from research to practice and vice versa, which makes it possible to reduce the gap between both (Shao etal. 2023). The scientific validation of the different instruments has been carried out through the systematic qualitative analysis of the results in relation to the objectives proposed for each case study. In order to do this, a group of experts made up of architects, economists, biologists and ecologists has systematically reviewed these results according to previously established criteria. These criteria evaluate the achievements obtained from 1 to 5, with 1 being defined as an objective not met and 5 as an objective achieved according to the priorities of the citizens. Nevertheless, it is necessary to determine the limits of the present research in regard to the case studies and the analysed instruments. The need has been defined to use strategies based on citizen participation (De Luca etal. 2021; Stanganelli etal. 2020) for the approach of the city in the framework of the socio-ecosystemic model developed. This implies a further need for the study of possible participatory strategies which help determine greater success, in practical terms, of the models’ application. This gives rise to a robust and permanent, inclusive involvement of different social collectives, including those which could represent non-human living things in the ecosystem. Similarly, it would be necessary to extrapolate the model to other situations and confirm its usefulness at the different work scales (Shao etal. 2023) carried out in other experiences and thus guarantee its capacity for adaptation and real usefulness as an instrument for urban regeneration (Blanco etal. 2021). Conclusion The socio-ecosystemic services concept and approach allows a dimension of environmental, economic and social sustainability to be introduced into the study and improve the urban environment for a perspective based on the metabolism of cities and not solely on the management of urban green spaces. At the same time, an integrated model of socioecosystemic services can be defined, with all its theoretical and practical apparatus, and whose practical application in the analysis of the city detects urban obsolescence via indicators, sets out and develops processes for participatory approximation in decision-making for urban improvement and defines potential solutions for improvements establishing priorities in each case study, agreed by citizens for their management and application. The approach poses, and also nurtures, the development of certain instruments and methods for urban intervention in line with the concept of sustainability of urban ecosystems and their robustness by fomenting urban governance through participatory dynamics. These instruments and methods could be extrapolated, adapting to very diverse situations through the development of city analysis processes. The practical case studies carried out and analysed make up the reference cases to follow in order to check the potential extrapolation of the socio-ecosystemic services model to other situations, which must be checked further. In addition, it is necessary to test the “socio-ecosystemic protocol” proposal for the citizen participatory processes International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 1 3 which complements the socio-ecosystemic services model in its application dynamics for the different cases and action scales. Moreover, it is necessary to develop indicators which permit a wider study of the model’s behaviour at different urban scales, as well as develop other instruments which allow its scope to be assessed. Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the work and contribution to all the team members that made up the EUObs project (Ecobarrios versus Rehabilitation of Neighbourhoods; A Research Project for the improvement of obsolete neighbourhoods from a sustainability approach), funded by the Ministry of Economy, Innovation, Science and Employment of the Junta de Andalucía in 2014-2016 and whose achievements, partly, support this research.In addition, the authors would like to thank the work and contribution to all the researchers involved in the GAUS research (Guide for a more Sustainable Architecture and Urbanism in Seville), which is also the basis of the present investigation. Our gratitude also to Seville City Council for promoting this research by signing the Framework Agreement for Collaboration between the University and the Seville City Council’s Energy and Sustainability Agency. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Alberti M (1996) Measuring urban sustainability. Environ Impact Assess Rev 16(4–6):381–424. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0195- 9255(96) 00083-2 Alberti M, Marzluff JM, Shulenberger E, Bradley G, Ryan C, Zumbrunnen C (2003) Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. Bioscience 53(12):1169–1179 Alcamo J, Ash NJ, Butler CD, Callicott JB, Capistrano D, Carpenter SR, Castilla JC, Chambers R, Chopra K, Cropper A, Daily GC, Dasgupta P, de Groot R, Dietz T, Gadgil AK, Madhav D, Hamilton K, Hassan R, Lambin EF, Zurek MB (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press Andersson E, Barthel S, Borgström S, Colding J, Elmqvist T, Folke C, Gren Å (2014) Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services. Ambio 43(4):445–453. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13280- 014- 0506-y Baccini P, Brunner PH (2012) Metabolism of the anthroposphere: analysis, evaluation. MIT Press, Design Bai X (2016) Eight energy and material flow characteristics of urban ecosystems. Ambio 45(7):819–830. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13280- 016- 0785-6 Bai X, Surveyer A, Elmqvist T, Gatzweiler FW, Güneralp B, Parnell S, Prieur-Richard AH, Shrivastava P, Siri JG, Stafford-Smith M, Toussaint JP, Webb R (2016) Defining and advancing a systems approach for sustainable cities. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 23:69– 78. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cosust. 2016. 11. 010 Bednarska-Olejniczak D, Olejniczak J, Svobodová L (2019) Towards a smart and sustainable city with the involvement of public participation—the case of Wroclaw. Sustainability 11(2):332. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su110 20332 Bertram C, Rehdanz K (2015) Preferences for cultural urban ecosystem services: comparing attitudes, perception, and use. Ecosyst Serv 12:187–199. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecoser. 2014. 12. 011 Bialski P, Derwanz H, Otto B, Vollmer H (2015) ‘Saving’ the city : collective low - budget organising and urban practice. ephemera, 15(1):1–19 Blanco E, Pedersen Zari M, Raskin K, Clergeau P (2021) Urban ecosystem-level biomimicry and regenerative design: linking ecosystem functioning and urban built environments. Sustainability 13(1):404. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su130 10404 Borrallo-Jimenez M, LopezDeAsiain M (2020) Confort y sostenibilidad en la arquitectura habitada. Aplicación del conocimiento a la sociedad para la toma de decisiones. En De forma et vita La arquitectura en la relación de lo vivo con lo no vivo. Athenaica Borrallo-Jiménez M, LopezDeAsiain M, Herrera-Limones R, Lumbreras Arcos M (2020) Towards a circular economy for the city of seville: the method for developing a guide for a more sustainable architecture and urbanism (GAUS). Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(18). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ SU121 87421 Chien H (2021) Evaluating impacts of researchers to enable sustainability transition: using urban ecosystem service literature as an exemplary field. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 0123456789. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10668- 021- 01536-4 Costanza R, D’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260 Daily GC (1997) Nature’s services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press Daly HE, Farley J (2011) Ecological economics: principles and applications. Island Press De Groot RS (1992) Functions of nature, evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision making. Wolters-Noordhoff BV De Luca C, Langemeyer J, Vaňo S, Baró F, Andersson E (2021) Adaptive resilience of and through urban ecosystem services: a transdisciplinary approach to sustainability in Barcelona. Ecol Soc 26(4):art38. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5751/ ES- 12535- 260438 Elliot T, Almenar JB, Niza S, Proença V, Rugani B (2019) Pathways to modelling ecosystem services within an urban metabolism framework. Sustainability (switzerland) 11(10):1–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su111 02766 Elmqvist T, Barnett G, Wilkinson C (2014) Exploring urban sustainability and resilience. In: Pearson L, Newton P, Roberts P (eds) Resilient sustainable cities: a future. Taylor and Francis, pp 19–29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97802 03593 066 Elmqvist T, Setälä H, Handel SN, van der Ploeg S, Aronson J, Blignaut JN, Gómez-Baggethun E, Nowak DJ, Kronenberg J, de Groot R (2015) Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:101–108. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cosust. 2015. 05. 001 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 1 3 Fernández-Valderrama L, Rovira Caballero I, Mendoza Muro S, Rodríguez Estévez S, Carolina U, Amanda M-M, Casado Martínez R (2016a) El diseño de herramientas analítico-prospectivas para la regeneración integrada de barrios: atlas potencial de terapias urbanas. In: Idpa 02, 2016a (1.a ed., pp. 163–186) Fernández-Valderrama L, Rovira I, Mendoza MS, Rodríguez S, Ureta C, Duarte J, Fernández M, Martín-Mariscal A, Casado R, Galleguillos X, Aranda G, Puente R, López D, Pazos F (2016b) El diseño de herramientas analítico-prospectivas para la regeneración integrada de barrios: atlas potencial de terapias urbanas. In: Coordinación: Pablo Diañez Rubio (Ed.), Investigaciones Departamento De Proyectos Arquitectónicos 2016b (IdPA_02 2016b) (Departamen, pp. 163–185). RU BOOKS Folch i Guillén R (2003) El territorio como sistema: conceptos y herramientas de ordenación. Diputación de Barcelona, Xarxa de Municipis Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social– ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Chang 16(3):253–267. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gloen vcha. 2006. 04. 002 Fovet O, Belemtougri A, Boithias L, Braud I, Charlier J, Cottet M, Daudin K, Dramais G, Ducharne A, Folton N, Grippa M, Hector B, Kuppel S, Le Coz J, Legal L, Martin P, Moatar F, Molénat J, Probst A, Datry T (2021) Intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams: perspectives for critical zone science and research on socio‐ecosystems. WIREs Water 8(4):1–33. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ wat2. 1523 Gómez-Baggethun E, Barton DN (2013) Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol Econ 86:235–245. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2012. 08. 019 Gutiérrez González P, Alonso MLS, Gutiérrez MRV-A (2016) Analyzing ecosystem services from the socio-ecological history: the case of the huerta de murcia. Cuadernos Geograficos 55(1):198–220 Haase D, Larondelle N, Andersson E, Artmann M, Borgström S, Breuste J., Gomez-Baggethun E, Gren Å, Hamstead Z, Hansen R, Kabisch N, Kremer P, Langemeyer J, Rall EL, McPhearson T, Pauleit S, Qureshi S, Schwarz N, Voigt A, Elmqvist T (2014) A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation. Ambio 43(4):413–433. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13280- 014- 0504-0 Heal G (2000) Valuing ecosystem services. Ecosystems 3(1):24–30 Hernández A (2009) Calidad de vida y medio ambiente urbano. Indicadores locales de sostenibilidad y calidad de vida urbana/quality of life and urban environment. Local Sustainability Indicators and Quality of Urban Life . Revista Invi, 24(65):79–111 Holling CS (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4(5):390–405. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10021- 001- 0101-5 Infante-Amate J, González de Molina M, Toledo VM (2017) El Metabolismo social. Historia, métodos y principales aportaciones. Rev Iberoamericana De Econ Ecol 27:130–152 Karis CM, Mujica CM, Ferraro R (2020). Indicadores Ambientales Y Gestión Urbana. Relaciones Entre Servicios Ecosistémicos Urbanos Y Sustentabilidad. Cuaderno Urbano, 27(27), 9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 30972/ crn. 27274 117 Kennedy C, Cuddihy J, Engel-Yan J (2007) The changing metabolism of cities. J Ind Ecol 11(2):43–59. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1162/ jie. 2007. 1107 Kennedy C, Pincetl S, Bunje P (2011) The study of urban metabolism and its applications to urban planning and design. Environ Pollut 159(8–9):1965–1973. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. envpol. 2010. 10. 022 Kochan D (2018) The prospects and challenges of socially engaged urban planning and architecture in contemporary China. J Plan Educ Res. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07394 56X18 796635 Lapostolle D, Challéat S (2021) Making darkness a place-based resource: how the fight against light pollution reconfigures rural areas in France. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 111(1):196–215. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 24694 452. 2020. 17479 72 Liu L, Wu J (2022) Scenario analysis in urban ecosystem services research: progress, prospects, and implications for urban planning and management. Landsc Urban Plan 224(October 2021), 104433. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. landu rbplan. 2022. 104433 López de Asiain Alberich M, Castro JM, Cansino Pozo D, Pimentel Calle Á, Calle Rosales P, Reinoso Bellido R, Osuna-Pérez F, Abarca-Alvarez FJ, Cano Ruano B, Campos-Sánchez S, Cabrera- Manzano D, Fernández Valderrama L, Mendoza Muro MS, Ureta C, Rodríguez S, Rovira I, Duarte JA, Alcántara Valero AF, Salazar MC (2015) Indicadores de sostenibilidad urbana para la mejora de barriadas obsoletas. In: Proceedings del Congreso Internacional Greencities & Sostenibilidad. Inteligencia Aplicada a la Sostenibilidad Urbana, Edición, 393–410 López de Asiain M, Cano Ruano B (2015) Methodology and tools for improving neighbourhoods with problems of obsolescence. case of andalusia. In: PLEA. Architecture in (R) Evolution. Post Carbon Cities López de Asiain M, Latapié Sére M (2014) Propuestas para el empoderamiento de los ciudadanos; Participación social ante el cambio climático desde un enfoque arquitectónico y urbano. In: Valladares Anguiano R, Chávez González ME (eds) Memoria del XXXVI Encuentro de la Red Nacional de Investigación Urbana, AC. Cambio climático y expansión territorial. Programa Editorial de la Red de Investigación Urbana, pp 281–301 López M, Alberich A, Cano B, Fundación R, Salas Mendoza H, López de Asiain Alberich M, Cano Ruano B, Mendoza S, López M, Alberich A, Cano B, Fundación R, Salas Mendoza H (2015) Proyecto EUOBs. Mejorando la calidad de vida de los ciudadanos desde la sostenibilidad EUOBs Project. Trying to Improve the Quality of Life of Citizens by Working in terms of Sustainability. In: WPS Review International on Sustainable Housing and Urban Renewal (RI-SHUR), 1 no 2, 1768–2387 LopezDeAsiain M, Castro-Bonaño M, Mora-Esteban R, Lumbreras- Arcos M (2020) Participatory processes impelling urban socioecosystem renewal social sustainability from an environmental approach. In: Rodríguez Álvarez J, Soares Gonçalves JC (eds) 35th PLEA conference on passive and low energy architecture. PLEA 2020 A CORUÑA Planning Post Carbon Cities (vol 1, pp 558–563). University of A Coruña; Asoc. PLEA2020 Planning Post Carbon Cities. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17979/ spudc. 97884 97497 947 LopezDeAsiain M, Díaz-García V (2020) The importance of the participatory dimension in urban resilience improvement processes. Sustainability 12(18):12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su121 87305 Lovell ST, Taylor JR (2013) Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States. Landscape Ecol 28(8):1447–1463. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10980- 013- 9912-y Luederitz C, Brink E, Gralla F, Hermelingmeier V, Meyer M, Niven L, Panzer L, Partelow S, Rau AL, Sasaki R, Abson DJ, Lang DJ, Wamsler C, von Wehrden H (2015) A review of urban ecosystem services: Six key challenges for future research. Ecosyst Serv 14:98–112. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecoser. 2015. 05. 001 Margulis L (2003) Una revolución en la evolución Max-Neef M, Elizalde A, Hopenhayn M (1986) Desarrollo a escala humana. Opciones para el futuro. Centro de Alternativas al Desarrollo CEPAUR International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 1 3 McPhearson T, Andersson E, Elmqvist T, Frantzeskaki N (2015) Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 12:152–156. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecoser. 2014. 07. 012 McPhearson T, Cook EM, Berbés-Blázquez M, Cheng C, Grimm NB, Andersson E, Barbosa O, Chandler DG, Chang H, Chester MV, Childers DL, Elser SR, Frantzeskaki N, Grabowski Z, Groffman P, Hale RL, Iwaniec DM, Kabisch N, Kennedy C, Troxler TG (2022) A social-ecological-technological systems framework for urban ecosystem services. One Earth 5(5):505– 518. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. oneear. 2022. 04. 007 Morandín-Ahuerma I, Contreras-Hernández A, Ayala-Ortiz DA, Pérez-Maqueo O (2019) Socio-ecosystemic sustainability. Sustainability 11(12):3354. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su111 23354 Moreno Mata A (2018) Smart Society and Urban Governance. In: Smart and sustainable ciities for innovative urban planning in Mexico (Número July, pp. 120–230). https:// doi. org/ 10. 13140/ RG.2. 2. 12141. 28647 Muñoz-Pacheco CB, Villaseñor NR (2022) Urban ecosystem services in South America: a systematic review. Sustainability 14(17):10751. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su141 710751 Nicoletti M (1978) L’Ecosistema Urbano. Dedalo Bari Osuna-Pérez F, Abarca-Alvarez FJ, Campos-Sánchez FS, Palacios Ortiz AJ, Reinoso Bellido R (2017) Neighborhood profiles in Andalusia. Tuning relevant information for the urban sustainability of its lifestyles | Perfiles de barrios de Andalucía. Sintonizando informaciánte para la sostenibilidad urbana de sus modos de vida. I J de Periferias Urbanas, 112–135 Ouyang X, Luo X (2022) Models for assessing urban ecosystem services: status and outlooks. Sustainability 14(8):4725. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su140 84725 Paulin MJ, Remme RP, van der Hoek DCJ, de Knegt B, Koopman KR, Breure AM, Rutgers M, de Nijs T (2020) Towards nationally harmonized mapping and quantification of ecosystem services. Sci Total Environ 703:134973. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scit o tenv. 2019. 134973 Pauliuk S, Hertwich EG (2015) Socioeconomic metabolism as paradigm for studying the biophysical basis of human societies. Ecol Econ 119:83–93. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2015. 08. 012 Pincetl S (2012) Nature, urban development and sustainability: what new elements are needed for a more comprehensive understanding? Cities 29(Suppl.2):S32–S37. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cities. 2012. 06. 009 Pukowiec-Kurda K (2022) The urban ecosystem services index as a new indicator for sustainable urban planning and human wellbeing in cities. Ecol Indic 144(October):109532. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecoli nd. 2022. 109532 Reid WV, Mooney HA, Cropper A, Capistrano D, Carpenter SR, Chopra K, Dasgupta, P, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Hassan R, Kasperson R, Leemans R, May RM, McMichael T, Pingali P, Samper C, Scholes R, Watson RT, Zakri AH, Zurek MB (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (José Sarukhán and Anne Whyte (co-chairs) and MA Board of Review Editors (ed.); 2005.a ed.). Island Press Rodríguez-Rodríguez D, Kain JH, Haase D, Baró F, Kaczorowska A (2015) Urban self-sufficiency through optimised ecosystem service demand: a utopian perspective from European cities. Futures 70:13–23. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. futur es. 2015. 03. 007 Rodríguez Estévez S, Mendoza Muro S, Fernández-Valderrama L, Carolina U, Rovira Caballero I, Duarte JA, Aranda-Corral G, Pazos-García F, Fernández M, López D, Martín-Mariscal A (2015) Atlas de terapias urbanas basado en casos reales. In: Obsolescence and Renovation – 20th century housing in the new millennium, December, 11 Romero-Duque LP, Trilleras JM, Castellarini F, Quijas S (2020) Ecosystem services in urban ecological infrastructure of Latin America and the Caribbean: how do they contribute to urban planning? Sci Total Environ 728:138780. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scit o tenv. 2020. 138780 Russo A, Cirella GT (2023) Urban ecosystem services: advancements in urban green development. Land 12(3):522. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ land1 20305 22 Sang ÅO, Hagemann FA, Ekelund N, Svännel J (2021) Urban ecosystem services in strategic planning in Swedish municipalities. Urban Ecosyst 24(6):1343–1357. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11252- 021- 01113-7 Schewenius M, McPhearson T, Elmqvist T (2014) Opportunities for increasing resilience and sustainability of urban social-ecological systems: insights from the URBES and the cities and biodiversity outlook projects. Ambio 43(4):434–444. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13280- 014- 0505-z Serres M (2004) El contrato natural. In: T. . (J. Vázquez y U. Larraceleta (ed), España: Pretextos ((Original) Shao Q, Peng L, Liu Y, Li Y (2023) A bibliometric analysis of urban ecosystem services: structure, evolution, and prospects. Land 12(2):337. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ land1 20203 37 Squizzato A (2019) Urban regeneration: understanding and evaluating bottom-up projects. Urbanities 9(2):19–35 Stanganelli M, Torrieri F, Gerundo C, Rossitti M (2020) An integrated strategic-performative planning methodology towards enhancing the sustainable decisional regeneration of fragile territories. Sustain Cities Soc 53(June 2019): 101920. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scs. 2019. 101920 TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundation. Earthscan Toledo VM (2013) El metabolismo social: una nueva teoría socioecológica. Relaciones Estudios de Historia y Sociedad, 34(136):41– 71. https:// doi. org/ 10. 24901/ rehs. v34i1 36. 163 Totino M, Urdampilleta CM, Ithuralde RE, Giono LA, Cabrera AE, Lanzarotti E, Quintana RD (2023) A methodological approach for the analysis of ecosystem services from the local communities’ perspective. Ambio 52(4):786–801. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13280- 022- 01807-y United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2019) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision. UN. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18356/ b9e99 5fe- en Wachsmuth D (2012) Three ecologies: urban metabolism and the society-nature opposition. Sociol Q 53(4):506–523. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1533- 8525. 2012. 01247.x Wolman A (1965) The metabolism of cities. Sci Am 213(3):178–190. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ scien tific ameri can09 65- 178 Wu J (2014) Urban ecology and sustainability: the state-of-the-science and future directions. Landsc Urban Plan 125:209–221. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. landu rbplan. 2014. 01. 018 Zaman-Ul-haq, M., Saqib, Z., Kanwal, A., Naseer, S., Shafiq, M., Akhtar, N., Bokhari, S. A., Irshad, A., & Hamam, H. (2022). The trajectories, trends, and opportunities for assessing urban ecosystem services: a systematic review of geospatial methods. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(3). https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su140 31471