| dc.description.abstract | As the global population expands, and an increasing proportion of humanity is projected to reside
in urban areas, reimagining how nature is incorporated into the built environment is imperative to
ensure resilient, healthy, and future-proof cities. The biophilic cities concept offers a solution. The
potential benefits of biophilic cities are abundant. Yet, they are not widely recognized by relevant
stakeholders, hindering implementation. To help overcome this problem, the reported benefits of
biophilic cities in the current literature are analyzed through the lens of the well-known and
commonly used ecosystem services framework. The results show that the ecosystem services
framework is rarely used, and often incorrectly or incompletely. More frequently, general,
overarching terms are used to describe the benefits of biophilic cities. When categorizing the
specific reported benefits according to the ecosystem services framework, a clear preference
towards cultural services was found, although regional differences occur. Additionally, when the
ecosystem services framework is used, fewer gaps are found in the type of services that are
reported compared to those articles that do not use the framework. The results indicate that the
ecosystem services framework might serve as a common language, thereby acting as a bridge
between both academia and implementation, and different research disciplines. Therefore, it is
recommended that the ecosystem services framework is widely adopted when discussing the
benefits of the biophilic city with two additional comments: care must be taken that nature is not
treated as monetary capital inferior to humans, and the biophilic city should be seen as an
ecosystem by itself delivering benefits to humans and its environment. | |
