Nature-based solutions, commonly known as NBS, use ecosystems or ecological processes to address social and environmental challenges. Examples include restoring rivers and wetlands to reduce flood risk, planting trees to lower urban temperatures, creating rain gardens to absorb stormwater and replacing sealed surfaces with permeable materials. Unlike conventional infrastructure, such as concrete drainage channels or air-conditioning systems, NBS can provide several functions simultaneously. Vegetation stores carbon, filters pollutants, offers habitat and reduces heat through shading and evapotranspiration—the release of water from plants and soil into the atmosphere. Their benefits, however, depend on location, maintenance, access and governance. A park built in a vulnerable neighborhood may reduce heat exposure, while a similar project in a wealthier district may increase property values and accelerate displacement.

The Belgrade case is significant because it brings together two trends that are often discussed separately: the spread of European environmental policy and the political realities of authoritarian urban governance. Europeanization refers broadly to the process through which European Union standards, funding mechanisms, administrative practices and policy ideas influence countries and cities, including those outside the EU. Nature-based solutions have become increasingly prominent in European climate and urban policy because they align with goals related to climate adaptation, biodiversity, public health and sustainable development. When these ideas enter local planning systems, they do not simply travel unchanged. They are translated into local institutions, funding applications and political narratives, where their meaning can be altered by the priorities of municipal authorities, developers and organized communities.

Pajvančić-Cizelj’s analysis focuses on collaborative NBS, an approach that treats residents, civil society groups, experts and public authorities as partners in designing and managing environmental interventions. Collaboration is often presented as a democratic alternative to top-down planning. In theory, residents contribute local knowledge about flooding, heat, neglected public spaces or access barriers, while planners and engineers provide technical expertise. This exchange can produce projects that are better adapted to everyday conditions than standardized designs. It can also build trust and increase public support. Yet participation is not automatically democratic. Meetings may be held without giving residents real decision-making power, while community input can be selectively accepted, delayed or used to validate plans already made elsewhere.

This tension is captured by the concept of co-optation. In political and social research, co-optation describes the process by which independent groups, critical ideas or participatory practices are absorbed into an existing institutional system and redirected toward its goals. Applied to NBS, the term does not mean that ecological measures are fake or technically ineffective. A rain garden may still capture stormwater, and trees may still cool streets. Rather, co-optation concerns the political conditions surrounding those interventions. A project promoted as community-led may provide authorities with an image of openness without transferring control over land, budgets or implementation. Participation can become a communication tool, a funding requirement or a way to manage dissent instead of a mechanism for shared power.

That possibility becomes especially important in authoritarian or semi-authoritarian urban environments, where formal institutions may exist but political competition, media independence and civic oversight are constrained. In such settings, governments can adopt the language of sustainability, resilience and citizen engagement while limiting the ability of residents to challenge major development decisions. Collaborative NBS may therefore perform a double function. They can deliver genuine ecological improvements and create valuable public spaces, but they can also help authorities demonstrate modernity, European alignment and administrative competence. The environmental project becomes part of a broader political story in which the city presents itself as progressive and internationally connected, even when participation remains tightly managed.

The study’s central contribution is to shift attention from the technical performance of NBS to the politics of their production. Researchers often evaluate green infrastructure through measurable indicators such as stormwater retention, surface temperature, carbon storage, species diversity or the number of residents served. These metrics are essential, but they do not reveal how land was acquired, whose knowledge influenced the design or whether benefits are distributed fairly. A project may achieve a strong ecological result while excluding informal users, displacing lower-income residents or prioritizing highly visible central districts over less politically influential neighborhoods. The research therefore treats NBS as socio-technical systems: arrangements in which ecological processes, engineering choices, public institutions, financial rules and social power operate together.

In Belgrade, this perspective also illuminates the ambiguous role of international policy models. European environmental frameworks can introduce new funding opportunities, technical standards and expectations for public participation. They can help local organizations gain visibility and give residents new language for demanding healthier and more accessible urban environments. At the same time, alignment with European agendas may encourage authorities to adopt selected elements of sustainability without embracing the deeper institutional reforms associated with transparency and accountability. The result is a selective form of Europeanization: ecological vocabulary and project formats travel quickly, while democratic safeguards may remain weak or unevenly applied. The city can appear greener and more participatory on paper than it is in practice.

The implications extend far beyond Belgrade. As climate adaptation accelerates, cities are competing for funds and public approval by promising greener, cooler and more resilient neighborhoods. The research suggests that policymakers should evaluate not only what NBS do for ecosystems, but also what they do to urban power relations. Effective safeguards would include transparent selection of project sites, publicly accessible budgets, independent monitoring, long-term maintenance commitments and clear evidence that residents can alter project decisions. Participation should be judged by influence rather than attendance: who sets the agenda, whose objections are recorded, who controls implementation and who can hold authorities accountable? Without those protections, nature-based solutions risk becoming attractive symbols of sustainable governance—visible, fundable and politically useful, but only partially shared.

The broader message is not that cities should reject nature-based solutions or collaboration. It is that ecological innovation cannot be separated from questions of ownership, representation and justice. Trees, wetlands and permeable landscapes can reduce climate risks, but they cannot by themselves create democratic urbanism. In Belgrade, the study shows how a language associated with environmental progress and European integration may be adapted within an authoritarian political context, producing projects whose ecological benefits coexist with limited public power. For the global urban sustainability movement, that finding is a warning and an opportunity: the next generation of green infrastructure must be designed not only to absorb water, capture carbon or cool streets, but also to distribute decision-making power as widely as the benefits it promises.

Subject of Research: Nature-based solutions, collaborative urban planning, Europeanization, political co-optation and environmental governance in authoritarian Belgrade.

Article Title: Nature-based solutions for whom – Europeanization and co-optation of collaborative NBS in authoritarian Belgrade.

Article References: Pajvančić-Cizelj, A. “Nature-based solutions for whom – Europeanization and co-optation of collaborative NBS in authoritarian Belgrade.” npj Urban Sustainability (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-026-00464-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s42949-026-00464-4

Keywords: Nature-based solutions, urban sustainability, Belgrade, Europeanization, co-optation, authoritarian governance, collaborative planning, climate adaptation, green infrastructure, environmental justice.

To make the guidance operational, the researchers then paired this typology with evidence from a systematic review of 1,613 studies on urban climate mitigation and adaptation. The approach helps move beyond one-size-fits-all recommendations toward strategies that are more likely to work in cities facing similar constraints and opportunities.

The results suggest that rapidly growing cities in Southern and Southeastern Europe—already exposed to heat and often short on urban greenery—should prioritize heat protection and water management while planning upgrades that can handle intensifying extremes. These cities also face a dual challenge: adapting to heat risks now while cutting emissions through long-term investments.

For economically established cities, the study points to interventions that target existing assets. Building retrofits, urban greening, and transitions in urban mobility appear especially suitable, because these cities can leverage mature governance and infrastructure networks.

In major metropolises such as Paris and London, the evidence emphasizes electrification, expanded public transport, and early warning systems for heat and other extremes. High-density areas can reduce emissions quickly when transport shifts away from combustion-based travel.

Shrinking cities in Eastern Europe require a different logic. The study highlights nature-based solutions alongside targeted infrastructure upgrades, framing climate action as both resilience-building and risk reduction, including flood protection.

Lead author Mira Kopp argues that heat impacts are already severe in fast-growing Southern cities, making adaptation essential, while emission cuts remain a responsibility for affluent urban regions. Co-author Felix Creutzig notes that even aggressive efforts like Berlin’s street-tree expansion may only slightly temper heatwaves if policy tools—especially for transport decarbonization—remain insufficient.

Overall, the work provides a template for matching interventions to city typology, improving the chances that climate budgets translate into measurable emissions reductions and stronger resilience. The findings are timely as European cities grapple with hotter summers, stressed water systems, and the urgent need for practical decarbonization pathways.

Subject of Research: Urban climate mitigation and adaptation strategies; city typology for tailored policy (literature review)
Article Title: Climate mitigation and adaptation strategies tailored for different types of European cities: A typology and associated systematic review.
News Publication Date: 14-Jul-2026
Web References: https://us.list-manage.com/EVkH6SFILAr?e=5dc195e909&c2id=7212103ad6efd41dcc6f5a5ff14e3ca2
References: Kopp, M., Montfort, S., Pflieger, G., et al. (2026). Environmental Research Letters. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ae7e97
Image Credits:
Keywords: Urban planning; Urban studies; Climate change; Climate change mitigation; Heat protection; Urban adaptation; City typology; Electrification; Public transport; Nature-based solutions

The research scrutinizes the concept of “adaptation imaginaries,” a term that encapsulates the narratives, visions, and assumptions shaping urban climate responses. These imaginaries dictate policy priorities, investment pathways, and the deployment of technological interventions. The study argues that prevailing imaginaries often adhere to narrow technical or infrastructural solutions, limiting a city’s ability to respond to the multifaceted challenges climate change presents. By broadening these imaginaries, urban planners and policymakers can craft more resilient, equitable, and forward-thinking adaptation strategies.

One of the central technical discussions in the article is the interplay between socio-political dynamics and climate adaptation technologies. Rather than viewing technology as an autonomous solution, the study illustrates how technological adoption is deeply embedded within social contexts, power relations, and institutional frameworks. This insight compels a recalibration towards co-created, participatory approaches where community knowledge complements scientific expertise, thereby enhancing the legitimacy and effectiveness of adaptation measures.

The study draws upon case analyses from major metropolitan regions around the world, revealing significant disparities in how adaptation imaginaries are constructed and operationalized. In some cities, adaptation is framed predominantly through engineering feats like sea walls and flood barriers, while others employ ecosystem-based approaches that integrate natural processes such as urban wetlands and green corridors. The contrast demonstrates how imaginaries influence not only what adaptation means but also who is involved in decision-making processes and who benefits or is marginalized.

A technical dimension elaborated upon concerns the integration of climate modeling data with urban planning tools. The authors highlight advancements in high-resolution climate projections and geospatial analytics, which when coupled with participatory GIS (Geographic Information Systems), enable more precise identification of climate vulnerabilities at the neighborhood scale. Such granularity allows for tailored adaptation interventions that respond to specific socio-environmental contexts—a leap beyond one-size-fits-all strategies.

Moreover, the article identifies barriers to transformation rooted in entrenched institutional path dependencies and regulatory frameworks. Adaptation imaginaries, the study posits, are partly shaped by administrative silos and legacy governance models that impede cross-sectoral collaboration. Overcoming these barriers requires innovative policy instruments capable of fostering integrative governance, such as adaptive management platforms and real-time data feedback loops that inform iterative policy adjustments.

The authors also detail how digital technologies, including smart sensors and Internet of Things (IoT) devices, can inform urban climate adaptation but caution against techno-optimism. The data streams generated by these tools are potent but necessitate robust data governance protocols to avoid exacerbating existing socio-economic inequalities. Equitable access to technology and data literacy become paramount to democratizing adaptation knowledge and fostering inclusive resilience ecosystems.

Importantly, the study underscores the need to embed climate justice principles within urban adaptation imaginaries. Climate vulnerability is unevenly distributed, and without explicit attention to equity, adaptation risks reinforcing marginalization. Integrating justice-oriented frameworks requires expanding imaginaries to account for diverse lived experiences, especially those of marginalized communities who face disproportionate risks and often have limited adaptive capacities.

The role of narratives and storytelling emerges as a potent mechanism to unlock transformational imaginaries. By crafting compelling, community-driven stories of resilient futures, cities can galvanize collective action and cultivate visionary leadership. The study highlights how experimental urban labs and co-design workshops serve as incubators for such narratives, linking abstract climate data with tangible, culturally resonant visions.

Technically, the article elaborates on how scenario planning exercises can broaden adaptation imaginaries by facilitating the exploration of alternative futures. This foresight practice allows urban stakeholders to visualize the implications of different policy choices under varying climate conditions. By democratizing access to scenario tools, cities can enhance adaptive learning processes and build consensus around ambitious yet feasible climate pathways.

In addition to scenario planning, the rigorous assessment of ecosystem services is emphasized as a critical component of expansive imaginaries. Urban ecosystems play multifaceted roles in buffering climate impacts, sequestering carbon, and enhancing human well-being. The study promotes integrated ecosystem service assessments that quantify benefits and trade-offs, informing more sustainable urban land-use decisions and infrastructure investments.

The article also bridges theoretical insights with practical applications by showcasing pilot projects that exemplify unlocked imaginaries in action. These initiatives leverage multi-stakeholder collaboration, blending scientific modeling with indigenous and local knowledge systems. Such hybridity embodies the study’s advocated adaptation paradigm—one where knowledge co-production nurtures innovation and trust among diverse urban constituencies.

Reflecting on future research agendas, the study calls for longitudinal analyses that track how adaptation imaginaries evolve over time and impact urban climate outcomes. Understanding these temporal dynamics is vital for designing policies that remain flexible and responsive amidst the inherent uncertainties of climate change. Further, it advocates for experimental governance frameworks capable of accommodating rapid social and technological transitions.

The implications of this study extend beyond academic discourse. Urban authorities, planners, and climate policy advocates are urged to critically examine their underlying assumptions and to intentionally cultivate expansive imaginaries that integrate technical rigor with social inclusivity. The unlocking of these imaginaries could catalyze the emergence of adaptive cities that are not only resilient to climate-induced shocks but also equitable and thriving across diverse populations.

Ultimately, “Unlocking Urban Climate Adaptation Imaginaries” serves as a clarion call for reimagining urban resilience. By embracing plurality, fostering co-creation, and leveraging cutting-edge technological tools within just governance frameworks, cities can transform adaptation from a set of reactive measures into visionary, transformative processes. This conceptual and practical unlocking holds the potential to redefine urban futures amidst the climate emergency.

Subject of Research: Urban climate adaptation strategies and the role of adaptation imaginaries in shaping resilient and equitable urban futures.

Article Title: Unlocking Urban Climate Adaptation Imaginaries

Article References:
Loroño-Leturiondo, M., Olazabal, M., Lewis, W. et al. Unlocking urban climate adaptation imaginaries. Nat Cities (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-025-00354-3

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-025-00354-3