Auteur moral

Union mondiale pour la nature

Auteur secondaire

Résumé

"Cette publication de l'UICN souligne l'interdépendance croissante entre espaces urbains et ruraux, dans un contexte d'urbanisation accélérée et de pressions accrues sur les écosystèmes. À partir de plusieurs études de cas, elle montre qu'une gouvernance intégrée, fondée sur l'approche écosystémique, est nécessaire pour concilier développement, restauration des milieux, biodiversité et inclusion des acteurs. Le document plaide ainsi pour des cadres d'action renforcés à l'échelle locale et régionale."

Editeur

UICN

Descripteur Urbamet

Descripteur écoplanete

analyse écologique ;analyse écosystémique ;analyse écologique ;planification environnementale ;planification territoriale

Thème

Aménagement rural ;Aménagement urbain ;Aménagement du territoire ;Administration publique ;Collectivités territoriales ;Ville - Urbanisme ;Risques ;Ressources - Nuisances

Texte intégral

U rban-rural linkage INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE WORLD HEADQUARTERS Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland, Switzerland Tel +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0002 www.iucn.org Credits CC BY-NC 4.0 Attribution 4.0 International. This work is licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/. The user is allowed to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format. The user must give appropriate credit to IUCN as the source of the material and indicate if changes were made to the original content. Only non-commercial uses of the work are permitted. Use of the name and logo of IUCN is not permitted in connection with adaptations, translations, or other derivative works. Adaptations/translations/derivatives should not carry any official logo, unless they have been approved and validated by IUCN. Please contact IUCN (logo@iucn.org) to obtain permission. When copyright of content published by IUCN, such as images, graphics or logos, is held by a third-party, the user of such content is solely responsible for clearing the rights with the right holder(s). The user acknowledges and agrees that any transformation, adaptation, translation or alteration of the Original Content provided by IUCN ?hereinafter referred to as ?Original Content? is done at the user?s own risk. In no event shall IUCN be liable for any damages, losses or consequences arising from the use, modification or adaptation of the Original Content. The User agrees to comply with all applicable laws and regulations when transforming, adapting or redistributing the Original Content. Furthermore, IUCN does not guarantee the quality, accuracy, integrity or legal compliance of the Original Content after its transformation or adaptation. IUCN expressly disclaims all liability for any copyright, trademark, or other legal infringement that may result from the modification or unauthorized use of the Original Content. The designation of geographical entities in this work, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or other participating organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or other participating organisations. IUCN is pleased to acknowledge the support of its Framework Partners who provide core funding: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark; Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Finland; Government of France and the French Development Agency (AFD); Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea; Ministry of the Environment, Climate and Sustainable Development, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). This publication has been made possible in part by funding from IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM). Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Produced by: IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM) Copyright: © 2026 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Recommended citation: Vasseur, L. & Medouar, S. (Eds.) (2026). Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective. IUCN. ISBN: DOI: https://doi.org/10.2305/VXHT9208 Cover photo: Wharf in the Bruce Peninsula on Lake Huron, near the Alvars. © Liette Vasseur 2024 Layout by: Niall O?Laoghaire (niall@guilderdesign.com) Table of contents Chapter 4: Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? ? dependent on ecosystem services from large, diverse and distant catchments....................................................................................................................... 29 Chapter 5: Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe: a case study on the town of Lincoln, Canada....................................................................................................................... 39 Chapter 6: Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature ? our loss of connection with nature in our cities.................................................................................................................................................... 49 Chapter 7: London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages............................................................ 61 Chapter 8: Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia.............................................. 71 Chapter 9: Cordillera Azul National Park: integrated landscape management under a participatory model for the conservation of nature and its benefits................................................................................................ 81 Chapter 10: New energy trends: hydrogen and other clean fuels as tools to strengthen urban-rural linkages ? China case study..................................................................................................................................... 92 Chapter 11: Extracting key elements from the case studies: toward developing principles........................................ 97 iv | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Executive summary It is projected that over 70% of the human populations will live in cities by 2050. As cities expand, tension between urban and rural areas is increasing. This publication focuses on ecosystem governance in the context of urban-rural linkages, analysing nine case studies to develop principles for ecosystem governance. Ecosystem governance utilizes the Ecosystem Approach, adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity, which emphasises the interconnectedness of ecosystems and the importance of integrated management for the analysis of the case studies. The work highlights the importance of local and regional action in reducing conflicts and achieving effective action for the sustainability of both social-ecological systems. Dialogue among stakeholders, the use of an adaptive ecosystem approach and devolution of decision making to the lowest level such as a community are among the possible elements to enhance the sustainability of both systems. The publication emphasises the need for local authorities to balance social, economic, and environmental factors to prevent conflicts and land degradation. The case studies specifically examine issues such as water governance, social and behavioural challenges, energy, planning, and farming within these urban-rural ecosystems. Acknowledgements This publication is edited by Liette Vasseur from Brock University and Chair of the Commission on Ecosystem Management of IUCN and Salima Medouar from Brock University (MSc thesis research), Vice Chair for the Region of North America of the Commission of Ecosystem Management of IUCN; Strategic Policy Lead at Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Climate Change. The publication was copyedited by Scriptoria. IUCN would also like to acknowledge the technical and strategic support of the following persons: Angela Andrade (IUCN CEM). Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 1 Niagara Escarpment © Liette Vasseur Liette Vasseur1 and Salima Medouar2 1 1 ?UNESCO Chair on Community Sustainability: From Local to Global, Department of Biological Sciences, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St Catharines, ON L2S 3A1 Canada 2 ?Lead of the Young Professionals Network and Co-chair of the Region of North America for IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Senior Policy Analyst at Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Climate Change, Canada 2 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Ecosystem governance is increasingly used not only in the scientific spheres but also by practitioners and communities seeking to align local decisions and actions to the protection of their ecosystems to ensure human wellbeing. This approach relates to Nature- based Solutions and aims to promote net gain for both biodiversity and human wellbeing (IUCN, 2020). The inaugural World Forum on Ecosystem Governance (WFEG) was held on October 2015 in Beijing, China. This meeting was organised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), The Commission on Ecosystem Management (CEM) of IUCN, the State Forestry Administration of China (SFA), the Beijing Municipality (BM), and the Asia-Pacific Network for Sustainable Forest Management and Rehabilitation (APFNet) and co-hosted by the China Green Carbon Foundation (CGCF), Eco-Forum Global (EFG), China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation (CBCGDF). The purpose of the first meeting was to examine the role of ecosystem governance in relation to the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and particularly regarding the issue of adaptation and mitigation to Climate Change. The meeting resulted in the development of a global network of professionals who would continue to promote more effective governance of the world?s ecosystems. One of the objectives of the group was to foster more effective local and national policies and promote an international understanding of the needs and requirements for responsible ecosystem governance to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2030 SDGs). From the meeting, two steps were taken to initiate the discussion and start examining diverse aspects of ecosystem governance. The initial step resulted in the development and publication of a perspective piece, which was published in Ambio in 2017 (Vasseur et al., 2017). The second was to compile a set of case studies that examine ecosystem governance from various perspectives in relation to issues of urban-rural linkages. In November of 2018, a second WFEG was organised in Hangzhou City, China. The meeting was hosted by the National Forestry and Grassland Administration (NFGA), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Hangzhou Municipal Government. One of the three focal themes discussed at the meeting was Ecosystem Governance in Urban-Rural Areas. The conclusions from these sessions on urban-rural linkages included several ideas for actions. The following points were the most relevant: 1) ?Reduce the urban-rural divide and strengthen the valuation of natural environments by fostering a better understanding of societal dependence on ecosystems and the importance of urban green spaces for social and human health. 2) Promote integrated urban-rural planning and landscape management to reduce ecosystem degradation, and 3) Strengthen international cooperation with respect to ecosystem governance. This publication is the first attempt to analyse a combination of case studies that address urban-rural issues in relation to ecosystem governance. The goal of this work is to contribute to the development of principles on ecosystem governance and develop an agenda that can help CEM and IUCN support environmental stewardship to achieve the UN 2030 SDGs. With the launch of the Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions (NbS), understanding and defining the principles of ecosystem governance is increasingly important. Indeed, Albert et al. (2019) emphasise that to be successful, NbS implementation and maintenance should be under a viable governance model that allows for the inclusion of all stakeholders. In this chapter, ecosystem governance as a concept is introduced, the importance of analysing conflicts and linkages in urban-rural environments are subsequently presented. Ecosystem governance at the heart of the UN Sustainable Development Goals The UN Sustainable Development Goals have evolved from the lessons learnt from the Millennium Development Goals, but they are going further. First, the SDGs are not limited to developing countries but underline the role that developed countries must play to ensure a sustainable future. The second major addition is the importance of the natural environment and the ecosystem services that all of us benefit from. This ecosystem-based approach, which has been promoted for many years by several organisations including IUCN, represents a major shift that demonstrates the need to reconcile economy-society with the environment. The SDGs, the Paris Agreement, and other international conventions such as CBD Aichi targets and the upcoming post-2020 biodiversity agenda show that business as usual cannot work. The current COVID-19 pandemic has underlined even more the importance of ecosystem health for human health and wellbeing, again demonstrating the intricate linkages between human and nature. This can be translated by the need for humans to rethink how we manage our activities in a way to give space to ecosystems to remain healthy and resilient (Daigle & Vasseur, 2019). Under these considerations, the UN SDGs can only be achieved considering two elements. The first one comes from the IPBES, which released in 2019 its Global Assessment Report that demonstrates the importance to work on biodiversity conservation, restoration and sustainable management of our ecosystems in order to save ecosystem services, which are now often referred to as the Nature?s Contributions to People (NCP). This can be in part achieved at the global level, however, OECD (2020) reports that 105 of the 169 UN SDGs targets can only be achieved at the local or regional level and national governments cannot act alone. As it is predicted that nearly 70% of the global population will live in cities by 2050, there is a need to understand how these urban ecosystems will be able to balance social and economic development whilst protecting the environment. Without a good understanding by the local authorities on how to balance all these factors, conflicts, social injustice, and land degradation can occur. As most cities need space to add more residential, commercial, or industrial areas, the conflict with the rural regions intensifies. All these factors i.e., loss of NCP, inaction to conservation biodiversity, land use change and degradation, and urbanisation, currently contribute to our capacity to ensure 1. Introduction Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 3 a sustainable future. In the case of urban centres, knowing that most SDGs will have to be dealt with at the local level, what will be the options and how to ensure that the populations are going to become engaged in these actions to protect NCP? In the next section, governance is introduced and followed by a section on urban-rural linkage and its delicate balance. What is ecosystem governance? Governance can be considered as a cross-cutting concept when dealing with sustainable development. It is required to ensure that all stakeholders can be involved and ensure social acceptability and public engagement. As Bennett and Satterfield (2018, p.1) mention ?governance is one of the most important factors in enabling or undermining the effectiveness of conservation and environmental management? (p.1). IUCN has defined governance as ?the interactions among structures, processes and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised, how decisions are taken, and how citizens or other stakeholders have their say in the management of natural resources ? including biodiversity conservation? (IUCN RESWCC3.012). Many attributes have been added to governance over time such as environmental governance (e.g., Bennett, 2000), natural resources governance (e.g., Lockwood et al., 2010), adaptive governance (e.g., Folke et al., 2005) or good governance (e.g., Graham et al., 2003). The main challenges have been that they remain theoretical (Bennett & Satterfield, 2018) or focusing on a specific resource management such as water (Bridge & Perreault, 2008) with limited framework or analysis. Bridge and Perreault (2008), for example, argue that environmental governance has many limitations such as issues of scale, commodity chain coordination (bringing mainly the economic market value of resources), collective action (understanding the balance between commons and land rights), political influence, national versus local regulations, and power relation between social and ecological system. These aspects are important to consider when we examine the importance of governance in Nature-based Solutions or any interventions that deal with societal challenges that are complex, at various scales (generally large landscapes), encompassing various jurisdictions, social groups, and ecosystems. Ecosystem governance attempts to reconcile several of these challenges by being based first on the principle of Ecosystem Approach as adopted by the Convention of Biological Diversity in 1995 Conference of the Parties and is based on the twelve principles (CBD, 2004). As stated in Vasseur et al. (2017, p.1), ecosystem governance is ?an approach that integrates the social and ecological components for improved sustainability and includes principles such as adaptive ecosystem co-management, subsidiarity, and telecoupling framework, as well as principles of democracy and accountability? (p.1). Here, subsidiarity principle refers to giving the capacity of people to contribute to the development of solutions that would be socially acceptable and accountable at the lowest appropriate governance level, leading to the importance of devolution of some of the power to the local people. This is where the bottom-up principle of governance can be linked to the top-down regulations where solutions and policies developed at the lower governance level can support and be supported by state level in various ways such as subsidies, policy development, programmes, as well as the capacity for these solutions to be scaled up to other landscapes or communities (Vasseur et al., 2017). Ecosystem governance remains linked in some ways to adaptive governance and adaptive ecosystem management as concepts that acknowledge that social-ecological systems are in constant movement and evolution (Vasseur, 2016). Where ecosystem governance may differ from many other forms of governance is that it is also based on emphasising the importance of NCP, i.e. ecosystem services and functions, in terms of quantity and quality, including the intrinsic values of the ecosystem components as well. It is, therefore, not just a question of managing natural resources or the environment but rather to ensure that the connections between people and ecosystems are essential for survival, thus recognising that without sustainable healthy ecosystems there can be no sustainable healthy communities (Vasseur et al. 2017). In addition, principles of democracy and accountability are integrated to ensure equity and social justice in any decision-making process that considers social classes, races, and abilities of people for human and land rights whilst keeping in mind the protection of the ecosystems for all. How can these principles related to ecosystem governance be implemented in systems that are complex such as urban-rural space where many societal challenges and conflicts can be encountered? The forgotten urban-rural linkages The effects of rapid urbanisation, population growth, and technological advancements have been observed globally. In 2008, it was noted that for the first time the world?s urban populations far exceeded that of rural populations. This is notable as urban centres are perceived to have greater perspectives for employment, services, and socio-cultural activities. The UN projects urban populations to continue to grow by over a billion between 2015 and 2025 whilst rural populations will remain stagnant. At the same time, there is a growing stress on suppliers to satisfy the increasing energy needs and consumer habits of citizens seeking a greater diversity and immediate access to food. In addition to the challenge of maintaining agricultural practices in rural areas that are experiencing population drain towards urban cities, another main challenge remains that feeding them is often related to increase in demand for land for production. This has become a conflict between industrialised agriculture companies and conservationists as to determine how to balance between both. 1. Introduction 4 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Another effect of rapid urbanisation has been the increase of sub-urban divisions. These zones are concentrated around the urban centre and generally are developed as compact low-density housing dwellings and large shopping centres. The design of such centres lay around providing citizens with remote areas in which to live in, distanced from the urban core where they work, leading to the construction of highways to allow people to move faster between their residence and their work. The environmental impacts of these developments are severe and lead to issues such as land fragmentation, water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution and deforestation. Water pollution, for example, comes from the use of fertilizers and pesticides for manicured yards (although many cities are now banning them), and increased paved surfaces for roads and highways that lead to runoff. The development of highways has been linked to an increase in air pollution and land smog generation. Congestion closer to urban centres significantly increase greenhouse gas emission, especially during peak hours of the mornings and evenings. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the percentage of commuters to urban centres significantly decreased and switched to telework, reducing the amount of GHG emissions (Savage & Turcotte, 2020). As it is well known that congestion increases health risk and mortality rate (Requia et al., 2018), having more people teleworking may in fact reduce such health risks and costs. Urban-rural transition zones or suburban areas are increasingly perceived as favourable areas to live as they meet the interest of people seeking the convenience of urban areas whilst also having a greater access to green spaces and natural environments. This new phenomenon in industrialised countries comes from the idea that the rural ecosystems are more ?pristine?, quieter, cleaner, and therefore more enjoyable than the hustle and bustle of urban or suburban centres. In the United States and Canada, like many other industrialised countries, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a significant number of urbanites is buying and moving in these regions, resulting in a surge of bidding wars on the housing market (Dougherty & Casselman, 2021). The main reason was the need to have more space, although it may not always relate to the natural ecosystem. The perception of being in a rural setting often clashes with the realities of rural areas that are mainly composed of agricultural farms. Farmers must tend to their duties in order to maintain their lands which may be noisy and disruptive, such as when applying manure or pesticides, till their fields, activate the cannons to scare birds near harvest time, etc. This leads to conflicts which are often difficult to resolve and can make farmers feel disenfranchised (Gillis, 2004). Municipalities must manage these pressures and ensure that the area is enjoyable to live in to attract new residents in order to increase their tax-base, whilst satisfying the need for farmers to make a living. In most cases, rural communities are ill equipped to deal with planning committees who push the drive of increased demand for tax revenues which results in favouring developers at the expense of farmers (Langille et al., 2008). The abandonment of land and rural settlements has been observed in several countries, mainly in developed nations, where either land is sold to large developers or returned into natural state (Wang & Qiu, 2017). The clash between the need to maintain rural regions and the threat of urbanisation can therefore be quite complex to deal with for policy makers. Understanding the importance of the ecosystem services that rural regions provide has to be enhanced for a more sustainable development planning of this fringe between urban and rural. In southern countries, questions of land tenure, especially in rural areas lead to many people, mainly youth, to migrate to urban areas changing the dynamic between not only regions but also intergenerational conditions. Land rights and tenure security for Indigenous people and women are also issues that can dramatically the ecosystem governance structure in this rural-urban zone where most of them may have no power (UNCCD and UN-Habitat, 2024). The possibility of inequality and accessibility in this linked zone exacerbates conflicts between rural and urban people and reduce the capacity for productive dialogue that can to greater adaptive ecosystem governance that promote resilience and sustainability. In this book, some case studies underline these challenges from the South perspectives. Ecosystem governance can therefore play a crucial role in improving this understanding for policy makers and urban newcomers who do not understand the crucial role those rural regions and farmers are playing in their lives. Under the current planetary crisis, such an approach is essential to be able to find solutions that are going to protect the social-ecological systems, acknowledging the various pressures that they are facing from urbanisation, land degradation, water and air pollution and climate change (Lehmann, 2021; Vargas-Hernández and Vargas-González, 2023). Sustainable development must be looked at the local level considering its specific context with the need to ensure that the environmental pillar (often forgotten) has a central role in decision making. Solutions may have to be devolved at the landscape level that encompasses in most cases both urban and rural components as municipalities or regional municipalities can deal with these issues through better community engagement than at a provincial or state level. It is true that in many cases, this may require drastic changes. Book structure In 2018, a call for case studies was launched to the members of the thematic group on ecosystem governance of the CEM. Over 15 authors responded to the call and prepared their draft case studies. They were subsequently peer reviewed and revised. In this publication, nine case studies are presented (Figure 1). They cover several aspects of ecosystem governance as it related to urban-rural linkages. The aspects examined in this publication include water governance, social and behavioural challenges, energy, planning, and farming. 1. Introduction Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 5 As ecosystem governance remains a new concept, an analysis of the main themes of each chapter was needed. Using the framework and perspective given in Vasseur et al. (2017), the most important elements that can contribute to ecosystem governance were extracted from each chapter and presented in Chapter 11, summarising the results, bringing together some of the first components that can be considered in the development of the principles for ecosystem governance, and discussing future research and policy orientations. Under the current state of the global ecosystem and the need for transformative changes to ensure the survival of humanity, ecosystem governance may be a solution to think about the entire system instead of siloed decisions that do not consider potential consequences on other components of the system. Figure 1. Map representing the locations of the various case studies. 2: Canterbury, New Zealand; 3: Christchurch (Otakaro / Avon River Corridor), New Zealand (overlapping with 2); 4: Nairobi, Kenya; 5: Lincoln, Canada; 7: London, United Kingdom; 8: Penang, Malaysia; 9: Cordillera Azul National Park, Peru; 10: China. Note that Chapter 6 is more general. References Albert, C., Schröter, B., Haase, D., Brillinger, M., Henze, J., Herrmann, S., Gottwald, S., Guerrero, P., Nicolas C. & Matzdorf, B. (2019). Addressing societal challenges through nature-based solutions: How can landscape planning and governance research contribute? Landscape and Urban Planning 182, 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.003 Bennett, P. (2000). Environmental governance and private actors: enrolling insurers in international maritime regulation. Political Geography 19: 875?99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(00)00029-9 Bennett, N. J. & Satterfield, T. (2018). Environmental governance: A practical framework to guide design, evaluation, and analysis. Conservation Letters 11, e12600. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12600 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (2004). The Ecosystem Approach, (CBD Guidelines) Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 50 p. Main Publications (cbd.int) Daigle, C. & Vasseur, L. (2019). Is It Time to Shift Our Environmental Thinking? A Perspective on Barriers and Opportunities to Change. Sustainability 11, 5010. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185010 Dougherty, C. & Casselamn, B. (2021). House hunters want to leave cities, and builders can?t keep up. The New York Times 170 (59074), 1. House Hunters Are Leaving the City, and Builders Can?t Keep Up - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30, 441?473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 1. Introduction 6 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Gillis, C. (2004). The war between town and country. Maclean?s 117 (48), 50-56. Graham, J., B. Amos, T. Plumtree. (2003). Governance principles for protected areas in the 21st century. Ottawa, ON: Institute on Governance, Parks Canada, and CIDA. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/122197/pa_governance2.pdf International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2020). Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. A user-friendly framework for the verification, design and scaling up of NbS (1st edition). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN. CH.2020.08.en Langille, L., Munro, I., Romanow, P., Lyons, R., Bull, A. & Williams, P. (2008). Building collaborative capacity for research and influencing policy: the rural communities impacting policy project. Journal of Rural and Community Development 3, (3): 23?55. Lehmann, S. Growing. (2021). Biodiverse Urban Futures: Renaturalization and Rewilding as Strategies to Strengthen Urban Resilience. Sustainability 13, 2932. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052932 Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E. & Griffith, R. (2010). Governance principles for natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 23, 986-1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802178214 Requia, W. J., Higgins, C. D., Adams, M. D., Mohamed, M. & Koutrakis, P. (2018). The health impacts of weekday traffic: A health risk assessment of PM2.5emissions during congested periods. Environment International 111, 164-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.11.025 Savage, K. & Turcotte, M. (2020). Commuting to work during COVID-19. StatCan COVID-19: Data to insights for a better Canada. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/45-28-0001/2020001/article/00069-eng.htm United Nations (UN). (2015). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development | Department of Economic and Social Affairs (un.org) UNCCD and UN-Habitat. 2024. Primer on Urban-Rural Linkages and Land. Bonn, United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification and Nairobi, UN-Habitat. Vasseur, L. (2016). Looking at ecosystem governance as a way to achieve environmental sustainability and tackling ??wicked?? problems. In S. Kurissery, R. Turvey, and I.F. Pendea (Eds.) Environmental sustainability (pp. 114?125). Chichester: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0918-6 Vasseur, L., Horning, D., Thornbush, M., Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Barrow, E., Edwards, S, Wit, P, & Jones, M. (2017). Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0918-6 Vargas-Hernández, J.G. & Vargas-González, M.C.O.C. (2023). Chapter 3. Analysis of the Implications of Declining Cities, Urban Vacant Land Uses, and Green Infrastructure, and Their Impact on Climate Change Hazards. In. 2023S. Dhiman (ed.) Sustainable Development and Environmental Stewardship, Springer, Switzerland. pp. 53-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28885-2_3 Wang, H. & Qiu, F. (2017). Investigation of the dynamics of agricultural land at the urban fringe: A comparison of two peri-urban areas in Canada. The Canadian Geographer 61(3), 457?470. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12389 1. Introduction Water governance in Canterbury, New Zealand Bryan Jenkins1 Sustainability Strategist, Adjunct Professor University of Adelaide, Adelaide Australia 2 Aerial view of farmland on the edge of Lake Ellesmere © Bryan Jenkins 1 ?Dr Jenkins has recently retired from the position of Professor, Strategic Water Management at the University of Canterbury and Lincoln University in Christchurch, New Zealand. Prior to that he was chief executive of the Canterbury Regional Council and was responsible for introducing collaborative governance to water management in Canterbury. 8 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract With the expansion of dairying on the dry east coast of the South Island, the demand for irrigation led to sustainability limits (i.e., a limit that can be sustained indefinitely without impairing the structure and function of the system) being reached for water availability and for cumulative effects on water quality and freshwater ecosystems. There was conflict between farmers seeking more water for economic growth and those concerned about the effects on ecosystems, fishing, and white-water recreation predominantly from urban communities. With the inability of resource management legislation to provide the basis for managing water at sustainability limits and the increasing adversarial nature of court-based decisions, the regional council began to introduce principles of Ostrom?s ?self-governing communities? for water management issues. One programme focussed on landowner engagement in degraded tributary catchments and another on collaborative catchment management programmes to resolve community water conflicts. The success of collaborative approaches at the tributary/catchment scale led to a collaborative governance framework being adopted for a regional strategy. A programme of stakeholder engagement and region-wide community consultation was developed. Decision- making was led by a multi-stakeholder steering group which was informed by community input and endorsed by the Mayoral Forum. The strategy defined the governance structure for developing implementation programmes with a nested system of a Regional Committee focused on regional issues and ten Zone Committees focused on sub-regional issues. The purpose was to create a cooperative, participatory and a solutions-focused approach. Water quality has been the focus for operational management. The main operational elements are the adoption of good management practices, setting nutrient contaminant limits, linking limits to catchment nutrient loads, and allocating catchment loads among existing users whilst creating headroom for new users. The primary governance element are farmer collectives. The compliance approach is based on audited self-management with an independent audit process of performance assessment and outcomes at the property level. The first experimental stage was small scale. Then there was a trend in collaborative governance arrangements as water management moved from strategy to implementation then operations of: decreasing dominant spatial scale (from region to sub-regional zone to tributary/irrigation district), increasing formality (from non-statutory to statutory), and decreasing scope of decisions (from all issues to ten target areas to selection of management approach). Multiple scales are relevant to all stages. One unresolved issue at the operational scale is how infrastructure beyond the scale of farmer collectives will be managed and funded. There are further issues around infrastructure development, the ability of solutions packages to meet desired outcomes, and the implementation progress. Introduction The Canterbury region (45,346 km²) is on the east coast of the central part of the South Island of New Zealand (Figure 1a). It is in the rain shadow of the Southern Alps with high rainfall in the Southern Alps (2000-5000 mm/year) moderate rainfall in the foothills (1000-2000 mm/year), and low rainfall on the plains (less than 1000 mm/year) (Srinivasan et al., 2011). In Canterbury, there are three main types of river systems (Figure 1b): (1) alpine rivers with their upper reaches in the Southern Alps that have high flow (70 to 380 m³/s mean flow), are snow-fed with summer peak flow; (2) foothill rivers with rain-fed catchments, moderate flows (3 to 15 m³/s mean flow) and winter peaks; and (3) lowland streams which are groundwater-fed and have low flows (less than 3 m³/s mean flow) (Jenkins, 2007). The Canterbury plains (<400m elevation) have been substantially cleared for agriculture with 90% loss of native vegetation (predominantly podocarp forest). Foothill areas (400-800m elevation) have lost around 60-70% of native vegetation (high altitude forests grading to shrublands), whilst alpine and high-country areas (>800m elevation) remain dominated by native vegetation (predominantly tussock grasslands) although degraded by grazing (Environment Canterbury, 2008). Figure 1. a) Map of Canterbury region. b) River types within Canterbury (Source: Environment Canterbury prepared for B. Jenkins) Alpine Rivers with headwaters in the Southern Alps Hill Country Rivers with headwaters in the foothills of the Southern Alps Lowland Rivers that are spring-fed from groundwater on the Canterbury Plains 2. Water governance in Canterbury Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 9 Water management in Canterbury Nearly 90% of consumptive water use in Canterbury is used for irrigation. Canterbury has 64% of New Zealand?s irrigated land with an area of 507,000ha under irrigation. There is capacity to double the area irrigated. However, water availability is a constraint with sustainability limits being reached for the main methods of abstraction ? run-of-river offtakes and groundwater bores. Irrigation has increased significantly in Canterbury, primarily due to the conversion of dryland farms to dairying. From an estimated 100,000ha of irrigation in 1982 (Dommisse, 2005), it has increased to 507,000ha in 2015 (Brown, 2016). This is a five-fold increase in 33 years, and in recent years consented irrigated area has grown at 11% per annum. Water is also a significant environmental resource that sustains braided rivers, high country and coastal lakes, and lowland streams and wetlands. Ecological values include freshwater invertebrates and fish, as well as feeding, breeding, roosting, and over-wintering habitats for native birds and international migratory species. Recreational activities, particularly fishing for trout and salmon (introduced species) and whitewater sports are also significant. Water abstraction for irrigation and water quality degradation from land use intensification dependent on irrigation are contributing to the decline of ecological health and water quality in surface and ground water, especially lowland streams, and coastal lakes. The effects of irrigation expansion and land use intensification have reached sustainability limits for water availability as well as ecological and water quality impairment. Proposals for further irrigation have been highly contentious. The conflict was particularly acute between rural interests seeking increased productivity and urban interests wishing to maintain environmental quality and their recreational activities. Areas of conflict There were two main areas of conflict between agricultural interests and recreational/environmental interests. One was in relation to flow allocations from Canterbury rivers for irrigation use. The second was in relation to the deterioration in water quality in groundwater, rivers and lakes associated with agricultural land use intensification. An example of the conflict with respect to flow allocations was the setting of environmental flows in the Waimakariri River (Environment Canterbury, 2011) where there are competing demands for the use of the water. These include farmers who wish to abstract water for irrigation, fisheries (particularly for salmon), recreational users (whitewater rafting, kayakers, and jet boaters), and those who value its natural character and ecological life- supporting capacity. The critical issues for instream users during the irrigation season (September to April) that constrain abstraction for irrigation were: (1) the flows for riverbed nesting bird breeding to be in the range 55 to 96 m3/s during September and December, and (2) the flows for salmon angling in the range 60 to 100 m3/s during December to April. In addition, there is a need to consider flow variability and maintain the frequency of flushing flows greater than 80 m3/s and preferably greater than 130 m3/s to remove sediment and periphyton from the riverbed (Duncan, 2008). An example in relation to water quality is the Central Plains Water Irrigation Scheme (60,000 ha) where nitrate leaching into groundwater from land use intensification was a significant concern. Groundwater is used for town drinking water supplies, and there are groundwater-fed lowland streams that discharge into a coastal lake that are recreational (mainly brown trout) and cultural (mainly eels) fisheries. Groundwater quality, freshwater fisheries, algal blooms, and lake water quality were concerns raised by recreational, environmental and Maori interest groups during the consent hearings for the project. At the time of the hearings, 3% of the groundwater monitoring wells exceeded the nitrate standard for drinking water (11.3 mg/L). Also nitrate concentrations in the lower reaches of the Selwyn River exceeded the threshold for chronic toxicity of highly disturbed systems in environments that are considered measurably degraded (3.6 mg/L nitrate nitrogen median value). As an indicator for algal blooms, the maximum limit for Chlorophyll a is 200 mg/m2: this value is exceeded 95% of the time in the Selwyn River. The coastal lake was significantly degraded with a Trophic Level Index (TLI) of 7.0: the objective was to achieve a TLI of 6.0. Thus, prior to the project, the catchment already exceeded the sustainability limits for water quality. New Zealand institutional arrangements A major reform of natural resource management was initiated in the late 1980s in New Zealand. A significant innovation was the creation of regional councils whose geographical boundaries were based on natural river catchments and with governance by elected councillors (Wallis & Dollery, 2000). This coincided with the introduction of the Resource Management Act (RMA) in 1991. Its purpose was sustainable management, and it was ?effects-based?. The focus was on allowing resource use whilst managing environmental effects of proposed developments within environmental bottom lines and leaving the pursuit of economic and social goals to proponents (Upton, 1995). The regional council role was as a regulator. Its acting-forcing mechanisms were defining rules for development through regional plans, setting conditions for development through project-specific resource consents, and monitoring compliance with rules and conditions. An Environment Court was also created with powers to hear appeals on regional plan and resource consent decisions. The Court could review the technical merit of decisions which made resource management a highly legalistic process and led to an adversarial style of decision making. 2. Water governance in Canterbury 10 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Failure of institutional arrangements RMA procedures for water extraction, irrigation expansion, and storage to alleviate water availability issues have led to long, drawn- out, and acrimonious processes between different stakeholders. Whilst ?sustainable management? is the purpose of the RMA, the Act provides no elaboration on how decision makers can put this into practice. Court interpretations have led to the basis of an ?overall broad judgement? of whether a proposal will promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources (Skelton & Memon, 2002). Furthermore, the ?overall broad judgement? approach to resolving conflicts between resource use and environmental protection has resulted in resource use being given preference over environmental protection by consent hearing commissioners and Environment Court judges, against the advice of the regional council. This has led to overallocation of surface and ground water as well as further degradation of water quality. In the example of the Central Plains Water Irrigation Scheme noted above, the hearing commissioners acknowledged that the scheme would increase nitrate concentrations in the aquifer, lowland streams, and coastal lake. They also recognised that recent intensification would further increase nitrate levels because of the time lag in groundwater transport. They noted that the Scheme conflicted with water quality objectives but considered the likely adverse effects would be ?minor?. Subsequent cumulative effects analysis estimated the nitrogen load to the lake was 2650 tN/year. Recent intensification would raise this to 4100 tN/year. With the Central Plains Scheme and other gradual intensification, the load would be 5600 tN/year i.e., more than double the nitrogen load where sustainability limits of water quality have already been exceeded. The hearing commissioners were of the view that ?the economic and productive benefits of the proposal both for the region and the nation are sufficient to outweigh these matters? (Milne et al., 2010). It was recognised by the regional council, that there was a need for a paradigm shift in water management in Canterbury. The resource management legislation was unable to provide a basis for managing water at sustainability limits and was generating community conflict because of the adversarial nature of decision making. The introduction of collaborative governance As an alternative to the adversarial RMA processes, the Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury) established programmes consistent with the principles of Ostrom?s ?self-governing communities? (Ostrom, 1990) to address water management issues. ?Living Streams? was a programme directed at tributary catchments with degraded water quality (Jenkins, 2009). Beginning in 2004, the Council initiated community groups of landholders and stakeholders within the catchment. The process involved engaging the community and awareness raising, achieving an understanding with the community, the community taking actions, and monitoring and reviewing success. The work programme was comprised of three stages: (1) an investigation stage of data compilation and stream walks to compile a catchment report on water and land management issues; (2) an involvement stage with landowners and community groups developing an action plan for voluntary projects; and (3) an improvement stage of implementing actions, securing funding, monitoring results, and assessing the need for further action. One example is the Pahau Catchment, where a combination of on-farm projects, riparian management projects, and irrigation management improvements resulted in a 50% reduction in phosphorus concentration in the Pahau River over 5 years (see Figure 2a). The Council also led collaborative catchment management programmes to respond to community conflict around water management issues. The approach involved: (1) engaging stakeholders to define issues and request information; (2) assembling information for stakeholder consideration; (3) developing options with stakeholders, (4) responding to requests for analysis and approaches to resolve differences; (5) facilitating agreements and negotiating compromises; and (6) giving statutory backing to agreements where appropriate. This was achieved through open public meetings and often with a community steering group. One example was a proposal to place a dam for irrigation storage on the Orari River (a foothill river) (Jenkins, 2013a). The proponent, Rangitata South Irrigation Limited (RSIL), had previously applied for run-of-river withdrawal from the nearby Rangitata River (an alpine river) which had been declined. The Orari dam proposal met strong opposition from the community in the Orari Catchment. The regional council in partnership with the New Zealand Landcare Trust organised community meetings. During the initial meetings, technical experts provided information on the Orari Catchment and stakeholders were given the opportunity to express their views. These meetings were quite hostile but eventually led to constructive discussions. The proponent put forward an alternative approach to storage, which involved withdrawing water during high river flows on the Rangitata and diverting this water to an off-river storage (Figure 2b). This option was well received by the Orari community and obtained resource consent. In addition, the community catchment group developed a catchment management strategy for the Orari River. This led to voluntary actions by the community in pest and weed control, and blue duck habitat protection. 2. Water governance in Canterbury Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 11 Figure 2. a) Reduction in annual average diverted from the phosphorus concentration in the Pahau River. b) Off-river storage to receive water Rangitata River at times of high flow. (Source: Environment Canterbury prepared for B. Jenkins) The development of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy Strategic investigations in the form of a technical analysis of future demand and supply (Morgan et al., 2002) had been initiated after the droughts in the late 1990s. The analysis indicated that reliance on run-of-river irrigation schemes based on direct withdrawal of water from rivers could not meet the current peak demand. There was insufficient water available at times of low flow. However, on an annual basis, water could be made available to meet future demand but would involve major storages to provide water during the irrigation season. This led to further technical investigations to identify sites for storages (Dark et al., 2008). This was followed by an evaluation of the potential storage options by a multi-stakeholder group of 20 people selected from farming, environmental, recreational, Maori and water management interests (Whitehouse et al., 2008). This group not only evaluated the storage options but also expressed concerns about broader water management issues. It recommended consideration of the effects of land use intensification and its impacts on water quality, mitigation and management systems for water quality, and methods for maintaining and improving flow variability and low flows in rivers. Neither the statutory processes under the RMA nor the technical investigations on water availability had been successful in adequately addressing the water management issues facing Canterbury. With multiple objectives to achieve and different interests to reconcile, a different approach was needed. The success of collaborative governance approaches at the tributary and catchment scale led to the formulation of a collaborative governance approach at the regional scale. For Canterbury, four spatial scales were considered with different water management issues related to each scale: (1) regional scale with the key issues of water availability and land use intensification; (2) catchment scale where sustainable levels of water use, cumulative impacts of water use, and, reliability of supply for irrigation were the principal issues; (3) subcatchment scale with environmental flow requirements in river reaches, managing riparian margins, and, instream water quality were the relevant issues; and (4) property scale, where land use practices have implications for water quantity and water quality (Jenkins, 2007). Moving to the regional scale from the catchment scale required different forms of governance and community engagement. The approach was based on Ostrom?s self-managed community concept (Ostrom, 1990) and the nested adaptive systems framework for managing natural resources of Gunderson and Holling (2002). Governance was provided by the Canterbury Mayoral Forum which is a non-statutory body comprised of the ten mayors of the district and city councils, the chair of the regional council and their chief executives. A 16-person Steering Group was established under the auspices of the Mayoral Forum to provide oversight of the strategy process managed by the regional council. The Steering Group comprised representatives of local and regional government, Maori, as well as farming, environmental, industry and recreational interests. It was empowered to make recommendations to the Mayoral Forum. As well as being overseen by a multi-stakeholder Steering Group, the development of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) provided significant opportunities for stakeholder engagement in the strategy development and community consultation at key points in the strategy development process (Jenkins & Henley, 2014). The overall process was based on Ostrom?s concept of ?collective choice arrangement? to facilitate agreement amongst stakeholders in decision making. Key elements of stakeholder engagement and community consultation (and their differences with the typical decision-making approach under the RMA in New Zealand) were as follows. (A) Public engagement meetings throughout the region with an open 2. Water governance in Canterbury 12 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective invitation to all people to attend were undertaken to identify stakeholder views on the uses and benefits of water in Canterbury. The input was distilled into ten target areas for water management and put out for public comment (Canterbury Water, 2008). The ten target areas were: (1) Ecosystem health/biodiversity; (2) Natural character of braided rivers; (3) Kaitiakitanga (Maori stewardship); (4) Drinking water; (5) Recreational and amenity opportunities; (6) Water-use efficiency; (7) Irrigated land area; (8) Energy security and efficiency; (9) Regional and national economies; and (10) Environmental limits. Note that this approach differs from the typical RMA processes that are limited to seeking comment on either council-defined objective for regional plans or proponent-defined proposals for projects. (B) The formulation of strategic options by the multi-stakeholder Steering Group where the options were then released for public comment and hearings. Note that this approach is different from RMA processes where public input only occurs after proposed plans or project proposals have already been defined. (C) The use of sustainability appraisal where the Steering Group evaluated the strategic options using economic, social, cultural, and environmental criteria (Jenkins et al., 2014) rather than assessment of adverse environmental effects of proposals under the RMA. Prior to the development of the CWMS, there had been a polarisation of community views between those favouring major water storage and further land use intensification (principally rural stakeholders) and those seeking a moratorium on further development until environmental impacts had been addressed (principally urban stakeholders). The strategy development process led to a shift from a focus on water availability and storage, to identification of community values and the range of uses and benefits associated with water. Furthermore, the sustainability appraisal indicated that the status quo of relying on RMA processes that were focussed on proposed development would not achieve sustainability. Rather, it would be necessary for management improvements by existing users with respect to water use efficiency and better land use practices for reducing impacts on water quality. An agreement was reached on a Strategic Framework (Canterbury Water, 2009) with widespread support for the strategic framework for integrated water management to address the multiple target areas. The acceptance of the strategic framework by the various stakeholders appeared to be related to the ability to be involved in the strategy development process and to influence the outcomes of the process. Implementation of the CWMS Strategic Framework There were three key elements of the implementation component of the CWMS Strategic Framework document. Note that these elements are the elements of a ?commitment package? following the approach of ?Strategic Choice?, a decision-making methodology developed by John Friend (Friend & Hickling, 2005) that was designed to address complex problem situations with multiple objectives, multiple stakeholders, and incomplete information; this methodology was applied in CWMS decision making. They are as follows: (1) a set of proposed immediate actions, including the establishment of nutrient limits for land management and water quality, and an ?Immediate Steps? programme for ecosystem protection and restoration programme; (2) a set of investigations addressing key areas of uncertainty, such as, setting catchment load limits, and, defining land management practices that reduce nutrient contamination of surface and ground water; and (3) the way that deferred choices would be made: this was based on a nested system of collaborative governance. At the local level, this was through Zone Management Committees for ten water management zones in the region. At the regional level this was by a Regional Water Management Committee. The committees were tasked with developing zone and regional implementation programmes. The implementation programmes were based on developing approaches to achieving the multiple targets in the strategic framework document. It was also designed as a nested system with Zone Implementation Programmes (ZIPs) addressing catchment issues such as water quality objectives, land use practice improvements, and biodiversity enhancement projects, and the Regional Implementation Programme (RIP) addressing regional issues such as regional storage and distribution. In terms of governance, Zone Committees were established under the provisions of the Local Government Act as joint committees of the regional council and the district and city councils in the zone. They were comprised of council representatives, members of the runanga [Maori groupings centred on the whanau (family) and hapu (sub-tribe) of marae (tribal meeting place) based communities] in the zone, and 6-7 community members who were locally based or had a special relationship with the area. Community members were appointed based on applications and applicants were assessed not only on their skills, expertise, and experience but also on their ability to work collaboratively. People with a range of backgrounds were sought. The purpose of the Zone Committee was to facilitate community involvement in ZIP preparation (rather than to act as representatives of a stakeholder interest) and to monitor progress of ZIP implementation (Canterbury Water, n.d.). The Zone Committee objectives included developing the ZIP and overseeing its delivery and stakeholder engagement, as well as ensuring community input to the ZIP. Decisions were to be by consensus, and if consensus could not be reached then the committee would be replaced. A code of conduct defined an operational philosophy for a collaborative, cooperative, participatory and solutions-focused approach by all members (Canterbury Water, 2014a). The Regional Committee was established as a committee of the regional council. It has 2 regional council members, a member of Christchurch City Council, 3 district council members (one from a southern, central and northern district council), one representative from Ngai Tahu [Ngai Tahu is the Maori tribe whose rohe (tribal territory) includes the Canterbury region], three runanga representatives (one from South, Mid and North Canterbury), 5 to 7 community representatives with expertise related to fisheries, energy, biodiversity, agriculture, recreation and regional development, and, with observers from central government and Canterbury District Health Board. 2. Water governance in Canterbury Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 13 The purpose of the Regional Committee is to monitor progress of CWMS implementation and provide advice on regional issues. It has a similar decision making and operating philosophy as the Zone Committees. The dominant component of the implementation programme development stage has been at the zone level. ZIPs have been progressively generated by Zone Committees within 12 to 18 months of being established and the Regional Committee produced a RIP. More recently a number of Zone Committees have prepared Addenda to their ZIPs. These documents have been focused on ?solution packages? for some of the more difficult issues (primarily water quality issues for lakes) that had not been addressed in detail in the initial ZIPs. Operational management of implementation programmes Operational management of the implementation programmes is now commencing. This discussion is based on the Hurunui-Waiau Zone (Environment Canterbury, 2013) which is the most advanced in terms of operational implementation. The focus has been on water quality in rivers and lakes. It is a nested system based on the achievement of water quality targets in rivers and lakes which lead to catchment contaminant load limits defined as a collective responsibility of land users. Each farmer must develop a farm environment plan to describe specific on-farm actions to meet farm management objectives and targets within an environmental management system for the collective. The main operational elements are having farmers adopt good management practice, setting nutrient contaminant limits with respect to rivers and lakes, linking these river and lake limits to catchment nutrient loads, and allocating the catchment loads among existing users whilst trying to create headroom for new users. The primary governance element is the establishment of farmer collectives based on irrigation districts, tributary catchments (or stream allocation zones), or farm enterprises. Collectives need an approved Environmental Management System (EMS) that defines water quality outcomes for the collective consistent with regional plan requirements based on recommendations in the ZIPs. The EMS also requires an inventory of nutrient loss rates, identification of the nutrient risks and how those risks will be managed including a statement of best nutrient management practices. The EMS also defines the contractual arrangements with members including a Farm Environmental Plan (FEP) consistent with the EMS, and how the FEPs will be audited, and compliance achieved. The FEP has to address irrigation management, soils management, nutrient management, effluent management as well as wetland and riparian management. The compliance approach is based on audited self-management rather the RMA approach of the regulator setting consent conditions that are inspected for compliance by the regulator. Audited self-management involves (1) The environmental performance requirements being set by the regulator but industry being able to determine how to meet the requirements; (2) Industry being required to have an environmental management system (EMS) with independent certification (by either the regulator or independent certifier); (3) Industry being required to undertake measurements to demonstrate environmental performance requirements had been met with the measurements audited by an independent auditor (either the regulator or an independent auditor); and (4) The results of the measurements being publicly reported (Jenkins, 1996). Each farmer is responsible for monitoring the actions undertaken and achievement of the targets which are audited by a certified farm plan auditor. This includes an audit process of assessing performance against management actions and outcomes at the individual property level. The EMS sets out the record keeping requirements, how audit results will be fed back to members and shared with the wider community, and, how issues of poor performance are to be managed. Current status of implementation The operational implementation of the Canterbury Water Management is a work in progress. Implementation is now occurring at four spatial scales (Figure 3). These are: (1) the regional scale through the work of the regional council and the Regional Committee, (2) the zone scale through the work of the Zone Committees, (3) the tributary/catchment scale through farmer collectives, and (4) the property scale through landowners. The different stages of collaborative governance are set out in Table 1 showing the progression from experimental at the tributary/ catchment scale commencing in 2004, the regional scale commencing in 2007, the development of implementation programmes at the zone scale commencing in 2010, and the operational scale with farmer collectives? Environment Management Systems and farmers? Farm Environment Plans commencing in 2016. 2. Water governance in Canterbury 14 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Figure 3: Four spatial scales for implementing the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (Jenkins, 2017; (Source: Environment Canterbury prepared for B. Jenkins)) Table 1: Stages of Collaborative Governance in Canterbury (Jenkins, 2017) Experimental Regional strategy Zone Zone Implementation Programme Farmer Collective Outcomes and results There have been significant changes to water management in Canterbury as a result of the CWMS development and implementation. The CWMS identified that improvements in water use efficiency was more effective in improving water availability than through major storage alone. There has been private sector investment in more efficient irrigation systems (principally replacing border-dyke flood irrigation with spray systems like centre pivots) and reducing leakage in irrigation water distribution systems (by replacing open earthen channels with piped distribution) (Jenkins, 2013b). New forms of storage have been identified rather than dams on alpine rivers which have high adverse impacts. These include managed aquifer recharge, off-river storage, and diversion to tributary storage. Short-term reliability of supply is also being addressed through on-farm storage and irrigation scheme storage. The identification of changes in land management practices to reduce nutrient concentrations has been undertaken (Foundation for Arable Research et al., 2015) and adoption through farm environment plans is in progress. Solution packages for addressing the degradation of vulnerable lakes and rivers have been prepared in Addenda to ZIPs (e.g., Canterbury Water, 2014b). Environmental flow requirements in rivers are progressively being reviewed with agreements being reached to reduce extractions at low flows (e.g., Environment Canterbury, 2010). The Immediate Steps programme (Environment Canterbury, 2018) is delivering biodiversity enhancements with implementation of projects aligned with the Canterbury Biodiversity Strategy (Environment Canterbury, 2008). 2. Water governance in Canterbury Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 15 Maori involvement in the management and governance of water has increased significantly with runanga representation on regional and zone committees, a relationship agreement (Tuia) between runanga and the regional council, an iwi management plan covering most of the region (Ngai Tuahuriri Runanga et al., 2013) and a restoration programme (Wakaora Te Waihora) is underway for Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere, a lake of high cultural significance to Maori (Ngai Tahu and Environment Canterbury, 2016). Unresolved issues Whilst there has been a paradigm shift in water management through a framework based on collaborative governance and nested adaptive systems there are still unresolved issues with respect to delivering sustainability outcomes (Jenkins, 2018). One key issue is the scale of the task and its associated costs. The solution packages to address water quality developed by Zone Committees will improve water quality or at least reduce the rate of degradation. However, it is stated in all the ZIPs that the levels of intervention proposed are not sufficient to achieve the desired water quality targets. The costs of these initial interventions are orders of magnitude greater than current expenditure. Furthermore, the cost to farmers of implementing land management changes to achieve lower contaminant discharges is a constraint. Even though more advanced mitigation approaches are available, the Zone Committees (many of whom are farmers) have been reluctant to recommend measures greater than what was considered ?affordable? to farmers. Whilst improving water use efficiency has been identified as a means of increasing water availability and reducing contamination of surface runoff and groundwater, measurement of water use efficiency and setting benchmarks for best practice are yet to be achieved. Although effects of climate change and the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were identified as issues in the CWMS, measures for adaptation and emission reduction have yet to be addressed. From a collaborative governance perspective, a key factor in the acceptance of the CWMS was the commitment to targets that incorporated the breadth of uses and benefits for water sought by the community. However, there has been differential progress in the achievement of targets, particularly targets for recreational and amenity opportunities, ecosystem health and biodiversity, and economic externalities have not been achieved. This has led to some stakeholders to withdraw from collaborative processes. From a broader governance perspective, current institutional arrangements do not provide specifically for public good infrastructure and environmental management. The role of regional councils was designed as a regulator of environmental effects under the RMA and there is no central government agency responsible for water management and infrastructure. Furthermore, the RMA provides for the regulation of activities and is not well suited to managing water scarcity and the cumulative effects of diffuse sources from land use intensification. The concepts of sustainable development have evolved since the framing of the RMA in the late 1980s. The role of government has also changed. It is appropriate to change the institutional and legislative framework to incorporate the evolving concepts of sustainability and the role of government. References Canterbury Water. (2008). Milestone 4: Stakeholder & Public Consultation Guide on Uses and Benefits of Water in Canterbury. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. Canterbury Water. (2009). Canterbury Water Management Strategy Strategic Framework. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. Canterbury Water. (2014a). Canterbury Water Management Strategy Zone Committees: Code of Conduct. Retrieved from About the water zone committees | Environment Canterbury (ecan.govt.nz) Canterbury Water. (2014b). Ashburton ZIP Addendum: Hinds Plains Area. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch, Ashburton District Council, Ashburton. Canterbury Water. (n.d.). Selwyn-Waihora Zone Management Committee: Terms of Reference. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. Dark, A., Bright, J., Sigle, S. (2008). Canterbury Strategic Water Study (Stage 2). Aqualinc, Christchurch. Dommisse, J. (2005). A review of surface water irrigation schemes in Canterbury. Their development, changes with time & impacts on the groundwater resource. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. Duncan, M. (2008). Waimakariri River: B/C Block allocation review. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. Environment Canterbury. (2008). A Biodiversity Strategy for the Canterbury Region. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. Environment Canterbury. (2010). Proposed Pareora Catchment Environmental Flow and Water Allocation Plan. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. Environment Canterbury. (2011). Waimakariri Regional Plan ? Incorporating Change 1 to the Waimakariri Regional Plan. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. 2. Water governance in Canterbury Environment Canterbury. (2013). Hurunui and Waiau River Regional Plan Operative December 2013. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. Environment Canterbury. (2018). Biodiversity funding. https://www.ecan.govt.nz/your-region/your-environment/our-natural- environment/biodiversity-funding/. Accessed June 7, 2018. Foundation for Arable Research, New Zealand Pork, DairyNZ, Beef+Lamb New Zealand, Horticulture New Zealand, Deer Industry New Zealand. (2015). Industry-agreed Good Management Practices relating to water quality. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. Friend, J., & Hickling, A. (2005). Planning under pressure: the strategic choice approach (3rd Ed.). Elsevier, Oxford. Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington. Jenkins, B. (1996). Best Practice Environmental Regulation ? The Western Australian Approach. Paper presented at the Environmental Management Beyond 2000 Conference, Griffith University, Brisbane, December 5-6, 1996. Jenkins, B. (2007). Water Allocation in Canterbury. Paper presented at the NZ Planning Institute Conference 2007, Palmerston North, March 27-30, 2007. Jenkins, B. (2009). Best Practice Partnerships at the Local Government Level for the Environment. Paper presented at the Community Boards? Conference, Christchurch, March 19-21, 2009. Jenkins, B. (2013a). The Development of Sustainable Alternatives to Applicant?s Proposals using Collaborative Approaches. Paper presented at the New Zealand Planning Institute 2013 Annual Conference, Hamilton, April 30-May 3, 2013. Jenkins, B. (2013b). Progress of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and Some merging Issues. Paper presented at the New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Conference Lincoln University, August 28-30, 2013. Jenkins, B. (2017). Evolution of Collaborative Governance in Canterbury Water Management. Paper presented at the XVI Biennial IASC Conference Practicing the Commons: Self-Governance, Cooperation and Institutional Change, Utrecht, July 10-14, 2017. Jenkins, B. (2018). Water Management in New Zealand?s Canterbury Region: A Sustainability Framework. Global Issues in Water Policy Vol. 19. Springer, Dordrecht: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1213-0 Jenkins, B., Russell, S., Sadler, B., Ward, M. (2014). Application of sustainability appraisal to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 21(1), 83-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2014.880383 Jenkins, B., Henley, G. (2014). Collaborative Management: Community Engagement as the Decision-Making Process. The Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy, 17(2), 135-153. Milne, P., Fenemor, A., O?Callaghan, R., Nixon, B. (2010). Joint Decision of the Hearing Commissioners in the matter of the various applications by Central Plains Water Trust. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. Ministry of Culture and Heritage. (2016). Te Ara - Encyclopaedia of New Zealand. https://teara.govt.nz/en/canterbury-region/page- 5. Accessed May 30, 2018. Morgan, M., Bidwell, V., Bright, J., McIndoe, I., Robb, C. (2002). Canterbury Strategic Water Study. Lincoln Environmental, Lincoln. Ngai Tahu and Environment Canterbury. (2016). Whakaora Te Waihora. http://tewaihora.org/the-plan-2/. Accessed December 31, 2016. Ngai Tuahuriri Runanga, Te Hapu o Ngati Wheke, Te Runanga o Koukourarata, Onuku Runanga, Wairewa Runanga and Te Taumutu Runanga. (2013). Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan. Mahaanui Kurataiao, Christchurch. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763 Skelton, P., Memon, A. (2002). Adopting Sustainability as an overarching Environmental Policy: A Review of section 5 of the RMA. Resource Management Law Journal 10(1). 1-10. Srinivasan, M., Schmidt, J., Poyck, S., Hreinsan, E. (2011). Irrigation Reliability Under Climate Change Scenarios: a Modelling Investigation in a River-Based Irrigation Scheme in New Zealand. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 47(6), 1261-1274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00568.x Upton, S. (1995). Purpose and Principle in the Resource Management Act. Waikato Law Review, 3, 17-55. Wallis, J., Dollery, B. (2000). Local Government Reform in New Zealand. Working Paper Series in Economics. University of New England, Armadale. Whitehouse, I., Pearce, A., McFadden, G. (2008). Final Report - Canterbury Strategic Water Study Stage 3. Environment Canterbury, Christchurch. 2. Water governance in Canterbury Ecosystem governance in post- disaster settings: peri-urban floodplain management and a river corridor recovery following a major earthquake Shane Orchard1,2 and Ed Challies1 3 Tidal flooding of local roads on a spring high tide in the Otakaro Avon River Corridor ?red zone? in the city of Christchurch. This lagre area of former residential land experienced subsidence in the Canterbury earthquakes leading to increasing flood risk. © Shane Orchard 1School of Earth & Environment, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand 2School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand 18 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract Peri-urban environments are critical to the connections between urban and rural ecosystems and their respective communities. Lowland rivers and floodplains are important examples due to their attraction as sites for urban development at the expense of the rural environments and ecosystems they support. In Christchurch, New Zealand, subsidence from the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquakes led to a large-scale managed retreat of urban residential properties creating a rare opportunity to reverse these trends and re-imagine the future of an extensive tract of floodplain land. The post-disaster setting presented a unique governance context that included the need to reassess existing land-uses in response to land damage and hydrology and renewed attention to future hazard risk and climate change. Societal aspects of the recovery process include an improved awareness of landscape dynamics in relation to the appropriateness and resilience of land-use decisions and first-hand experience with the typically controversial topic of managed retreat. Tensions between urban and rural preferences were prominent in the initial decisions around the rationale and extent of managed retreat and in subsequent decisions on future uses of the land. Ecosystem governance principles offer a useful perspective that promotes a more purposeful focus on the benefits of natural ecosystems and changes affecting them in relation to human development. Some of the key aspects for its implementation that are highlighted in this case include the scope of information needed to support holistic decision making, the role of flexible and adaptive governance arrangements as may be needed to respond to unexpected changes, and mechanisms to ensure that institutional memory is retained within governance structures over time. Potential benefits include an unprecedented opportunity to restore degraded traditional values for indigenous Maori that are often reliant on natural environments and frequently degraded by modern development. Introduction The Canterbury region of New Zealand experienced a sequence of strong earthquakes during 2010 - 2011 that included four earthquakes exceeding magnitude MW 6.0, and many thousands of aftershocks, all on previously unrecognised faults (Beavan et al., 2012). The city of Christchurch was severely affected with 185 lives lost and widespread damage to property, infrastructure, and the natural environment (Potter et al., 2015). As part of the recovery process, several thousands of homes were acquired by the government in the Otakaro / Avon River catchment on land that is now more flood prone or was badly damaged y ground displacement. This area of 602 ha is the Otakaro / Avon River Corridor (OARC) ?Red Zone? (Figure 1). Land use planning for this relatively large example of a managed retreat is the subject of this case study. Globally, managed retreat and community relocation is increasing in prominence as a nature-based climate solution, yet its implementation is typically complex and controversial (Albert et al. 2018; Hino et al. 2017). Post-disaster settings offer, arguably, some of the best opportunities for initiating managed retreat from natural hazards and these community contexts are an important area of focus for ecosystem governance and planning. Figure 1. Location of ?red-zoned? land in the Otakaro / Avon River Corridor (OARC) in the City of Christchurch on the east coast of the South Island of New Zealand. Source data: Land Information New Zealand, Regenerate Christchurch. 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 19 Study site Overview The study area is located at 43.5oS, 172.7oE in the city of Christchurch on the east coast of New Zealand (Figure 1). It is situated within the catchment of the Avon Heathcote Estuary (Ihutai), a low-lying tidal lagoon system at the southern end of a large embayment known as Pegasus Bay (Kirk 1979). The Avon River, known by Maori as Otakaro, is one of two spring-fed river systems entering the estuary with the other being the Heathcote or Opawaho (Figures 2 and 3). Both are meandering lowland rivers with average base flows of approximately 2 and 1cumecs, respectively (White et al., 2007). Impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes included land subsidence, lateral spreading, liquefaction, and hydrological changes associated with new water levels on the landscape (Hughes et al., 2015; Quigley et al., 2016) (Figure 4). Long term changes in ground levels were in the order of ± 0.5 m with a trend towards subsidence in the study area (Orchard et al., 2020a). Figure 2. Aerial view of the study area taken in 2016 shortly after the demolition and removal of thousands of homes on earthquake-damaged lands. Source data: Land Information New Zealand, Regenerate Christchurch. Figure 3. Coastal wetland and floodplain environment at Lake Kate Sheppard in the lower Otakaro / Avon River Corridor, as is typical of the area. Photo: S. Orchard. 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings 20 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Figure 4. Ground deformation and subsidence caused by the Canterbury earthquakes near the Otakaro / Avon River. Lateral spreading was pronounced in the vicinity of major waterways. Photo: S. Orchard. History of land-use and development Historically, most of the OARC was an extensive floodplain environment supporting a rich mosaic of indigenous ecosystems that are relatively well documented in the ?Black Maps? of 1856 (Figure 5). These maps, digitised from early surveys, highlight the extensive network of waterways and floodplain landforms that characterise the area and provide a baseline for considering the impacts of land-use change through time. In the historical period of European settlement, this was originally a rural area characterised by swampland and dune remnants situated east of the city centre towards Pegasus Bay (White et al., 2007). Since the 1850s it has been progressively developed through floodplain drainage, channelization of waterways, and steady urban encroachment (Watts, 2011). However, Ihutai is also highly valued by Maori (Tau et al., 1990). The catchment was traditionally a sparsely populated natural resource and food-gathering area for the main Maori population centre located at Kaiapoi, further north (Figure 1). The rivers, floodplain and wetland areas were managed according to the traditional values of mahinga kai, kaitiakitanga, and rangatiratanga, by manawhenua - the Maori locus of authority for natural resource governance and use (Roberts et al., 1995; Tau et al., 1990). Contemporary values of Ihutai are addressed by a specific chapter in the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan (IMP) alongside aspirations for its future use (Jolly & Nga Papatipu Runanga Working Group, 2013). Figure 5. Excerpt from the ?Black Maps? of 1856 with the location of the Otakaro / Avon River Corridor ?red zoned? area shown as an overlay. Note changes in the position of shorelines and landforms in relation to modern-day roads. Source data: Land Information New Zealand, Regenerate Christchurch. Black Map courtesy of Christchurch City Council. 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 21 Community participation in managed retreat Following the initial formulation and specification of a managed retreat strategy which was largely government-led, there has been a high level of community interest in future uses of the land. Many community groups were formed to champion and address different aspects of the recovery process and future opportunities it afforded. Some of these have acted as networks to support a community- led process whilst others represent specific land-use proposals many of which have been formulated by former residents of the area i(Figure 6). However, the stakeholders involved include a wide range of charitable trusts and societies, Maori interests, government agencies, businesses, sporting organisations, and social enterprises. Tensions are apparent between many of the community-led proposals, especially where different land uses have been proposed for particular locations. Important considerations for future land uses include the impacts of previous development patterns that adversely affected Maori values and aspirations and have been generally associated with the progressive urbanisation of this once rural land. These impacts include impaired access to traditional resources (Tau et al., 1990), the degradation of waterways (Lang et al., 2012; Pauling et al., 2007), and reduced opportunities to influence decisions on future development patterns (Jolly & Nga Papatipu Runanga Working Group, 2013). Part of the unique governance context that has emerged relates to an unprecedented opportunity to restore cultural and ecological values, whilst simultaneously managing future hazard risk (Orchard, 2017a). At the national level, these aspects are guided and supported by the Treaty of Waitangi, a founding document signed in 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and Maori chiefs. Treaty principles are incorporated within key environment legislation such as the Resource Management Act 1991 and Conservation Act 1987. However, the bulk of decision making occurs under subsidiary policies and plans prepared by regional and local authorities (Memon & Perkins, 2000). The degree of engagement with Maori and other stakeholders in these processes is crucial to their success (Harmsworth, 1995; Tipa et al., 2016). Figure 6. Examples of community-led proposals for future land uses in the Otakaro / Avon River Corridor. a) Avon-Otakaro Forest Park, and b) Eden Project New Zealand. Images courtesy of Avon-Otakaro Forest Park and Eden Project New Zealand. 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings 22 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Post-disaster governance Following the earthquakes, urgent decisions were required to address threats to property and life (Potter et al., 2015). As the recovery process has progressed, other land-use decisions have had the benefit of more time. They present opportunities for innovative governance and strategic thinking to identify and secure potential benefits and address longer term socio-ecological resilience through planning and design. During this process, bespoke legislation has been created to address the magnitude of the community relocation and the opportunities it affords. Examples include the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010 (amended 2011) that was designed to assist reconstruction and permitted government ministers to suspend or make exemptions to almost any New Zealand law (New Zealand Government, 2011). This prompted concerns around the transfer of power away from the legislature, allowing those exercising powers under the new Act to substantially define their own boundaries and reach (New Zealand Law Society, 2010). More recently, the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 and amendments were introduced to support the ongoing process of earthquake recovery and resilience-building (New Zealand Government, 2016). This shifted the focus towards the role of local and regional councils, alongside Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (a Maori tribal authority), in progressing recovery activities. It also established a new planning entity, Regenerate Christchurch, whose role included the development of a ?regeneration plan? through collaborative work with stakeholders and extensive community engagement (Regenerate Christchurch, 2019). However, the lifespan of Regenerate Christchurch was finite from the outset, and the organisation was dissolved soon after completion of the OARC Regeneration Plan. Additionally, this plan and several other recovery and regeneration plans were established under earthquake recovery legislation that has since been revoked or no longer has statutory effect. To address this, much of the planning and strategy work done under those powers took the approach of recommending amendments to existing statutory tools such as regional policy statements and plans prepared under the country?s principle environmental legislation, the Resource Management Act. In the most recent round of developments, amendments have been incorporated into the Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan (Environment Canterbury 2020), and Christchurch District Plan (Christchurch City Council 2023). The latter are particularly significant since they establish a new planning zone for the OARC in the District Plan, together with policies and objectives that are specific to this area. The process to date provides an example of evolving governance over a lengthy timeline that has provided considerable opportunity for community input and the formulation of innovative ideas. Its mechanisms can be traced to a combination of bespoke recovery initiatives established by central government, considerable inputs from community-led initiatives, and the eventual return of power to local government agencies and pre-existing statutory tools. Innovative governance arrangements have continued to evolve throughout this time. They have included the establishment of Te Tira Kahikuhiku, a community-based consultative group that provided advice to central government on transformative uses of red-zoned land prior to their transfer to local government control (Land Information New Zealand 2021). This was followed by the establishment of a new co-governance advisory entity in 2022 that embodies a partnership with manawhenua (the locus of traditional Maori governance), and provides advice to the city council on governance of the OARC. Dimensions of ecosystem governance Ecosystem governance provides a conceptual framework that integrates diverse disciplines to support sustainable development whilst achieving environmental protection goals (Vasseur et al., 2017). This section highlights three dimensions of ecosystem governance that are prominent in this case and are widely transferable to other disaster recovery and hazard management contexts. Ecosystems focus The global move towards an ?ecosystems approach? in governance contributes to sustainable development objectives by assisting the integration of natural environment and human well-being objectives (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; UNEP/GPA, 2006). The spatial aspects of ecosystems offer a lens for planning and management that can support the reduction of human impacts on biodiversity and natural resources (Hoekstra et al., 2005; McLeod & Leslie, 2009). In practice, however, this approach requires the collection and synthesis of multiple strands of information that includes different forms of knowledge and perspectives on ecosystems (Tengö et al., 2014). In New Zealand, a purposeful focus on ecosystems has yet to be fully embraced, and a consistent approach to their classification has yet to emerge (Park, 2000, Singers & Rogers, 2014). However, these nuances do not undermine the validity of a focus on local ecosystems and their services within a particular area (Carpenter et al., 2009). To this end, selected ecosystems are often identified in statutory documents and non-statutory strategies or management plans (e.g., Canterbury Biodiversity Strategy Partners, 2008; Department of Conservation, 2016), and several recognised ecosystem types that occur in the OARC are the subject of statutory protection (Table 1). Although others may also be identified, attention to these ecosystem types is a cornerstone of ecosystem governance in practice. Measures of success, therefore, include the degree to which these ecosystems are protected in the future arrangements for human land use and re-development. 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 23 Table 1. Examples of ecosystem types with statutory protection that occur in the study area. Ecosystem types Protection mechanisms References Estuaries, wetlands, saltmarsh ecosystem, lowland forest remnants, active and stable dune remnants Resource Management Act 1991 Canterbury Regional Policy Statement Christchurch District Plan Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan Christchurch District Plan Environment Canterbury (2019) Resource Management Act 1991 New Zealand Government (1987) New Zealand Government (1991) Department of Conservation (2010) Social-ecological resilience Resilience is an integral concept for the maintenance of biophysical and human values in the pursuit of sustainable development (Gunderson et al., 2010; Holling, 1973). From the perspective of ecosystem governance, it requires simultaneous attention to different aspects of social-ecological systems as they experience changes (Folke 2006). It is supported by management paradigms such as disaster risk reduction (DRR), which involves a focus on building resilience to ?extreme? events, and the related field of eco- DRR which considers ecosystem-based management as a key activity in effective DRR approaches (Estrella & Saalismaa, 2013; Partnership for Environment & Disaster Risk Reduction, 2010). In this case, changes in exposure to future hazards were evident across many aspects of the social-ecological system. Specific concerns included the implications of land subsidence (Figure 7), with large areas becoming more vulnerable to flooding from rainfall and coastal inundation (Figure 8). Information needs included the reassessment of risk exposure to future hazards as required under legislation (Department of Conservation, 2010; Bell et al. 2017), and the identification of potential impacts on natural ecosystems as an essential aspect of this process (Orchard et al., 2018, 2020b). In many respects, the government land acquisition has created a multitude of options for implementing eco-DRR and building resilience to flooding and erosion. Opportunities include ecological engineering to accommodate nature within future land-uses, and the use of natural ecosystems as soft defences to reduce the potential impacts of extreme events whilst improving biodiversity and cultural values (Orchard, 2014; Spalding et al., 2014). This case also highlights the potential role of post-disaster settings as a context for the initiation and implementation of more holistic approaches such as ecosystem governance and nature-based solutions. Somewhat ironically, many of these ?new? paradigms have much in common with the traditional resource management practices of indigenous peoples (Romero Manrique et al. 2018; Tengö et al. 2014). Ecosystem-based adaptation Climate change is a critical issue for ecosystem governance since it is expected to progressively alter the spatial configuration of ecosystems (and other levels of biodiversity) at many different scales (Bellard et al., 2012). These dynamics pose major challenges for the achievement of sustainable development that include the need to accommodate ecosystem movement (IPCC 2023; McMullen & Jabbour, 2009; Yohe et al., 2007). In this case, scenario models of sea level rise under climate change indicate that much of the OARC may be exposed to inundation within a relatively short period of time (Figure 9). Additionally, saltwater intrusion simulations show marked changes in the position of mixing zones (Figure 10). These effects can be expected to drive shifts in the distribution of characteristic ecosystems such as saltmarsh, with severe implications for biodiversity values, carbon sequestration, and other ecosystem services. Since many of the same effects were observed in connection with earthquake-induced subsidence, this case also demonstrates the potential for interactions between natural disaster events and the incremental effects of climatic changes. 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings 24 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Figure 7. Elevation difference map showing pre-2010 to post-2011 ground level changes derived from LiDAR data. Small areas of uplift (in blue) are the result of landfill activities during earthquake recovery works between the LiDAR acquisition dates. Source data: Land Information New Zealand. Figure 8. Post-earthquake ground elevations in the study area showing its low-lying nature. The ?Red Zone? is the area of government property acquisition. The Otakaro Avon River Corridor (OARC) planning area includes the Red Zone and adjacent waterways. Source data: Land Information New Zealand, Regenerate Christchurch. Ecosystem-based adaptation has been defined as ?adaptation that integrates ecosystem services and biodiversity into a strategy to limit the adverse impacts of climate change? (UNEP, 2010). It recognises that climate change adaptation must include managing effects on natural ecosystems (Betts et al., 2009). In addition, their functions and services may assist communities to respond to climate change, and there is considerable potential to harness these nature-based climate solutions (Chan et al., 2006; Griscom et al., 2017). In this case, the potential benefits of future land-uses were initially explored using scenarios of broad scale options (e.g., Orchard, 2017b; Regenerate Christchurch 2019), but there remains a need to secure climate change benefits through more specific planning arrangements. Governance models that embrace transitional land uses and adaptive management provide tangible support for the implmentation of ecosystem-based adaptation and have been a prominent feature of the approach taken in the OARC. 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 25 Figure 9. Sea level rise scenarios simulated in 0.25 m increments from the current Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) assuming a continuation of current topography. Source data: Land Information New Zealand. Figure 10. An example of salt water intrusion effects on peak bed salinity in the Avon River mainstem under sea level rise. This simulation is for a river flow of 2.07 m3/s corresponding to the flow exceeded 20% of the time under current conditions. Source data: Orchard & Measures (2017). Conclusions and transferable learning This contemporary example of a managed retreat with community relocation illustrates an important context and opportunities for applying the principles of ecosystems governance, eco-DRR, and ecosystem-based adaptation. Many aspects of this case are broadly transferable to other natural hazard management and environmental recovery contexts (Box 1). In particular, the earthquake recovery context has many similarities with other post-disaster settings that present opportunities for rethinking and addressing historical land-use trends and engaging with indigenous people and traditional knowledge that may have been marginalised in the past. There is also an important role for raising the wider community awareness of landscape dynamics and natural hazard risk in relation to the appropriateness and resilience of land-use decisions. In many cases, modern development has encroached on 024681012 0 1.0m SLR 0.5m SLR 26 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective previously dynamic natural environments at the expense of the processes and values they supported. These social learning aspects can be nurtured by ongoing commitments to re-engage people with nature and through the development of innovative governance models that support community engagement and participation. This combination has immense potential to support more sustainable forms of development and may be applied to reactive settings such as the disaster recovery context presented here, or in proactive planning for climate change. Key considerations for ecosystem governance include recognising the scope of information needed to support holistic decision making, the need for a purposeful focus on ecosystems and changes affecting them, the role of flexible and adaptive governance arrangements in responding to those changes, and mechanisms to ensure that institutional memory is retained within governance structures over time. Acknowledgements This case study has evolved over several years of research with the support of the Ngai Tahu Research Centre at the University of Canterbury / Te Whare Wananga o Waitaha and several community organisations including Avon Otakaro Network. The authors also acknowledge the high level of community input from a wide range of organisations and volunteers in progressing the recovery and regeneration of this land. References Albert, S., Bronen, R., Tooler, N., Leon, J., Yee, D., Ash, J., . . . Grinham, A. (2018). Heading for the hills: climate-driven community relocations in the Solomon Islands and Alaska provide insight for a 1.5 °C future. Regional Environmental Change, 18(8), 2261- 2272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1256-8 Beavan, J., Motagh, M., Fielding, E. J., Donnelly, N., & Collett, D. (2012). Fault slip models of the 2010-2011 Canterbury, New Zealand, earthquakes from geodetic data and observations of postseismic ground deformation. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 55(3), 207-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2012.697472 Bell, R., Lawrence, J., Allan, S., Blackett, P., & Stephens, S. (2017). Coastal hazards and climate change: Guidance for local government. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W., & Courchamp, F. (2012). Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 15(4), 365-377. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01736.x Betts, R., Lowe, J., Liddicoat, S., & Jones, C. (2009). Committed terrestrial ecosystem changes due to climate change. Nature Geoscience, 2(7), 484-487. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo555 Canterbury Biodiversity Strategy Partners. (2008). A biodiversity strategy for the Canterbury Region. Environment Canterbury Report Number: R08/13. Christchurch: Environment Canterbury. Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R. S., Díaz, S., . . . Clark, W. C. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(5), 1305-1312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106 Chan, K. M. A., Shaw, M. R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E. C., & Daily, G. C. (2006). Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biology, 4(11), e379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379 Christchurch City Council. (2023). Christchurch District Plan. Updated 17 January 2023. Christchurch City Council. Available at https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/plans/christchurch-district-plan/. Department of Conservation. (2010). New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010. Wellington: Department of Conservation. Department of Conservation. (2016). Canterbury (Waitaha) Conservation Management Strategy 2016. New Zealand Government: Department of Conservation. Dudley, N., Stolton, S., Belokurov, A. K., L., Lopoukhine, N., MacKinnon, K., Sandwith, T., & Sekhran, N. e. (2010). Natural Solutions: Protected areas helping people cope with climate change. Gland, Switzerland; Washington DC; New York, USA: IUCN- WCPA, TNC, UNDP, WCS, The World Bank and WWF. Environment Canterbury. (2020). Canterbury Regional Policy Statement 2013. Updated October 2020. Christchurch: Environment Canterbury. Environment Canterbury. (2019). Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan. Volume 1. Updated September 2019. Christchurch: Canterbury Regional Council. Estrella, M., & Saalismaa, N. (2013). Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR): An Overview. In F. Renaud, K. Sudmeier-Rieux, & M. Estrella (Eds.), The role of ecosystem management in disaster risk reduction (pp. 26-54). Tokyo: UNU Press. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social?ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 27 Gunderson, L. H., Allen, C. R., & Holling, C. S. (2010). Foundations of ecological resilience. Washington, DC: Island Press. Harmsworth, G. R. (1995). Maori values for land-use planning. Discussion report. Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research. Hino, M., Field, C. B., & Mach, K. J. (2017). Managed retreat as a response to natural hazard risk. Nature Climate Change, 7(5), 364-370. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3252 Hoekstra, J. M., Boucher, T. M., Ricketts, T. H., & Roberts, C. (2005). Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters, 8(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245 Hughes, M. W., Quigley, M. C., van Ballegooy, S., Deam, B. L., Bradley, B. A., Hart, D. E., & Measures, R. (2015). The sinking city: earthquakes increase flood hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand. GSA Today, 25(3-4), 4-10. IPCC. (2023). Synthesis report of the IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6). Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). Jolly, D., & Nga Papatipu Runanga Working Group. (2013). Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013. Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd. Otautahi Christchurch. Kirk, R. M. (1979). Dynamics and management of sand beaches in southern Pegasus Bay. Morris and Wilson Consulting Engineers Limited, Christchurch. Land Information New Zealand. (2021). Transitional land use in the Residential Red Zones. Guide for applicants and Te Tira Kahikuhiku - The Red Zones transformative land use group. Land Information New Zealand. 12pp. Lang, M., Orchard, S., Falwasser, T., Rupene, M., Williams, C., Tirikatene-Nash, N., & Couch, R. (2012). State of the Takiwa 2012 -Te Ähuatanga o Te Ihutai. Cultural Health Assessment of the Avon-Heathcote Estuary and its Catchment. Christchurch: Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd. McLeod, K. L., & Leslie, H. M. (2009). Ecosystem-based management for the oceans. Washington DC: Island Press. McMullen, C. P., & Jabbour, J. (2009). Climate change science compendium 2009. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. 68pp. Memon, P. A., & Perkins, H. C. (2000). Environmental planning and management in New Zealand. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Washington DC: Island Press. Ministry for the Environment. (2017). National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (amended 2017). Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. New Zealand Government. (1987). Conservation Act 1987. Reprint as at 16 December 2017. Wellington: New Zealand Government. New Zealand Government. (1991). Resource Management Act 1991. Wellington: New Zealand Government. New Zealand Government. (2011). Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2011. Wellington, New Zealand Government. New Zealand Government. (2016). Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016. Wellington: New Zealand Government. New Zealand Law Society. (2010). Law Society comments on Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act. Accessed 29 March 2018 from http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/. New Zealand Law Society, September 2010. Orchard, S. (2014). Potential roles for coastal protected areas in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: a case study of dune management in Christchurch, New Zealand. In R. Murti & C. Buyck (Eds.), Safe Havens: Protected Areas for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. (pp. 83-93). Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Orchard, S. (2017a). Floodplain restoration principles for the Avon-Otakaro Red Zone. Case studies and recommendations. Report prepared for Avon Otakaro Network, Christchurch, N.Z. Orchard, S. (2017b). Integrated assessment frameworks for evaluating large scale river corridor restoration. Report prepared for the Avon Otakaro Network. Christchurch, New Zealand. Orchard, S., Hickford, M. J. H., & Schiel, D. R. (2018). Earthquake-induced habitat migration in a riparian spawning fish has implications for conservation management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 2018, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2898 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings Orchard, S., Hughey, K. F. D., Measures, R., & Schiel, D. R. (2020). Coastal tectonics and habitat squeeze: response of a tidal lagoon to co-seismic sea-level change. Natural Hazards, 103(3), 3609-3631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04147-w Orchard, S., Hughey, K. F. D., & Schiel, D. R. (2020). Risk factors for the conservation of saltmarsh vegetation and blue carbon revealed by earthquake-induced sea-level rise. Science of the Total Environment, 746, 141241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141241 Orchard, S., & Measures, R. (2017). Sea level rise impacts in the Avon Heathcote Estuary Ihutai. Salinity intrusion and inanga spawning scenarios. Report prepared for Christchurch City Council. Park, G. (2000). New Zealand as ecosystems: the ecosystem concept as a tool for environmental management and conservation. Wellington: Department of Conservation. Partnership for Environment & Disaster Risk Reduction. (2010). Demonstrating the role of ecosystems based management for Disaster Risk Reduction. Accessed 28 March 2018 from http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/bgdocs/ PEDRR_2010.pdf. Pauling, C., Lenihan, T. M., Rupene, M., Tirikatene-Nash, N., & Couch, R. (2007). State of the Takiwa -Te Ähuatanga o Te Ihutai. Cultural Health Assessment of the Avon-Heathcote Estuary and its Catchment. Christchurch, NZ: Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu. Potter, S. H., Becker, J. S., Johnston, D. M., & Rossiter, K. P. (2015). An overview of the impacts of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14(Part 1), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.01.014 Quigley, M. C., Hughes, M. W., Bradley, B. A., van Ballegooy, S., Reid, C., Morgenroth, J., . . . Pettinga, J. R. (2016). The 2010? 2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence: Environmental effects, seismic triggering thresholds and geologic legacy. Tectonophysics, 672-673, 228-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2016.01.044 Regenerate Christchurch. (2019). Otakaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan. Christchurch: Regenerate Christchurch. Roberts, M., Norman, W., Minhinnick, N., Wihongi, D., & Kirkwood, C. (1995). Kaitiakitanga: Maori perspectives on conservation. Pacific conservation biology, 2(1), 7-20. Romero Manrique, D., Corral, S., & Guimarães Pereira, Â. (2018). Climate-related displacements of coastal communities in the Arctic: Engaging traditional knowledge in adaptation strategies and policies. Environmental Science and Policy, 85, 90-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.04.007 Singers, N. J. D., & Rogers, G. M. (2014). A classification of New Zealand?s terrestrial ecosystems. Science for Conservation 325. Wellington: Department of Conservation. Spalding, M. D., Ruffo, S., Lacambra, C., Meliane, I., Hale, L. Z., Shepard, C. C., & Beck, M. W. (2014). The role of ecosystems in coastal protection: Adapting to climate change and coastal hazards. Ocean and Coastal Management, 90, 50-57. Tau, T. M., Goodall, A., Palmer, D., & Tau, R. (1990). Te Whakatau Kaupapa ? the Ngai Tahu Resource Management Strategy for the Canterbury Region. Aoraki Press. Otautahi Christchurch. Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., Spierenburg, M., Stockholms, u., . . . Stockholm Resilience, C. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio, 43(5), 579-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3 Tipa, G., Harmsworth, G. R., Williams, E., & Kitson, J. C. (2016). Integrating matauranga Maori into freshwater management, planning and decision making. In P. G. Jellyman, T. J. A. Davie, C. P. Pearson, & J. S. Harding (Eds.), Advances in New Zealand Freshwater Science: New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society & New Zealand Hydrological Society. UNEP. (2010). Ecosystem-based Adaptation Programme Paris, France: United Nations Environment Programme. UNEP/GPA. (2006). Ecosystem-based management: Markers for assessing progress. Report commissioned by the Coordination Office of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The Hague, Netherlands. Vasseur, L., Horning, D., Thornbush, M., Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Barrow, E., . . . Jones, M. (2017). Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: Bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN sustainable development goals. Ambio, 46(7), 731-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0918-6 Watts, R. H. (2011). The Christchurch waterways story. Lincoln, N.Z.: Manaaki Whenua Press, Landcare Research. 51pp. White, P. A., Goodrich, K., Cave, S., & Minni, G. (2007). Waterways, swamps and vegetation of Christchurch in 1856 and baseflow discharge in Christchurch city streams. GNS Science Consultancy Report 2007/103. Taupo. Yohe, G. W., Lasco, R. D., Ahmad, Q. K., Arnell, N. W., Cohen, S. J., Hope, C., . . . Perez, R. T. (2007). Perspectives on climate change and sustainability. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 811-841. 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings 4 Kabete Dam, which was built in the 1950?s and joins the Mathare and then Nairobi river. © Edmund Barrow 1Member of IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Nairobi; Fellow, Rights & Resources Initiative 2Director Planning Systems, Nairobi 3Senior Urban Planner, Planning Systems, Nairobi 4Foundation Manager, Community Cooker Foundation, Nairobi 5Volunteer Adviser, Community Cooker Foundation, Nairobi 6Director, Cookswell Jikos Ltd., Nairobi 7Kenya Green Building Society, Nairobi, Kenya Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? ? dependent on ecosystem services from large, diverse and distant catchments Edmund Barrow1, Jim Archer2, Louise Groth3, Wakina Mutembei4, Linda Archer5, Teddy Kinyanjui6, Amrish Shah7 30 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract This chapter explores the dependencies Nairobi has with its rural hinterlands with a focus on water, which is sourced from some of the main water towers of Kenya, and charcoal which is still the main source of household energy in many parts of the city. Nairobi, a city of more than 4 million people, lies south of the equator at 1,795 metres above sea level. It is the heart of Kenya?s economy and development yet is dependent on its rural hinterland for its goods and services, such as water, fuel (especially charcoal), and much of its food. There are strong labour and cultural attachments between Nairobi residents and their rural home areas to which remittances are important. The Nairobi rivers are heavily polluted by human and industrial waste. Encroachment into the riparian zone, discharge of raw sewage and illegal dumping of waste has led to a reduced capacity of these waterways. The rivers originate in the mountains west of Nairobi, flow through the city, join the Athi river and passes through Tsavo National Park before discharging into the Indian Ocean. The river corridors in the city are vital as part of the lungs of the city. Nairobi is unique?the world-famous Nairobi National Park borders the city. Other important green areas are Uhuru Park and Nairobi Arboretum close to the city centre, City Park, and Karura Forest. Karura Forest is one of the largest forests within any city. Nobel Peace Laureate the late Wangari Maathai fought to change Karura Forest from being a robbers? den to a nature reserve with footpaths, bike paths and an educational centre. There have been previous initiatives and there are current programmes to restore the Nairobi rivers, but unified public backing and commitment is still lacking. This chapter analyses some of the positive environmental actions that Nairobi is implementing, and shows how Nairobi can learn from other cities, as well as lessons Nairobi has to offer. Introduction Nairobi is the capital and largest city of Kenya. The name comes from the Maasai ?Enkare Nyrobi?, which means ?place of cool water?, a reference to the Nairobi River which flows through the city. According to the last official census, the city has a population of 4 million, up from 3.1 million in 2009 (Wikipedia, 2020a). Nairobi was founded in 1899 as a rail depot on the Uganda Railway, and quickly grew to replace Mombasa as the capital of the British East Africa Protectorate in 1905 (Greenway & Monsma, 1989). After independence in 1963, Nairobi remained the capital (Cities of the World, 2007). The city lies on the Athi river plains 1,795 metres above sea level. Home to thousands of Kenyan businesses and over 100 major international companies and organisations such as the United Nations, Nairobi is an important business hub. The Nairobi Securities Exchange is one of the largest in Africa and the second-oldest exchange on the continent, and the city is a major financial centre for Africa (Millennium Information Technologies, 2007). Nairobi has one of the highest growth rates in Africa, currently 4.1% a year (World Factbook-Kenya, 2018), and its population will likely reach 5.8 to 6.2 million by 2025 (Hoornweg & Pope, 2014; Responsible Business, 2018). Given the high population growth, due to rural?urban migration and birth rates, the economy has yet to catch up. Unemployment is estimated at 40%, mainly in the high- density, low-income areas (Oyugi & K?Akumu, 2017). The Kenya National Bureau of Statistics estimate that, by 2014, the informal sector represented over 80% of employment in Kenya (World Bank Group, 2016). An estimated 26% of people live-in urban areas in Kenya (Oyugi & K?Akumu, 2017). Most urban people have strong links to their rural home areas through family and land. There are cash and commodity flow from urban to rural, which is matched by similar flows of food and other products from rural to urban. Such remittances, though important and large, are difficult to quantify. However, Kenya?s main mobile money providers have made remittances easier, quicker and safer, and helps to further cement the strong ties between Nairobi and its rural hinterland. This chapter explores how linked and dependent Nairobi is on its rural catchments with respect to people, water, wood-based fuel and food (Map 1, where distances are approximate as is the thickness of the coloured arrows which denote the scale of the flows). We explore how Nairobi is improving its environmental efficiency through various forms of energy saving, the adoption of green building standards, and the sustainability of the green areas that are in and border the city. At the same time, we explain how more could be done. Nairobi depends on the water towers of the Aberdares and Mt Kenya Nairobi obtains 94% of its water from the Tana River and the Aberdare-Mt Kenya water towers north of the city. The sustainability of these sources is contingent on good catchment management. The Nairobi Dam, constructed as a freshwater lake, is no longer a water reservoir due to sprawling human settlements, pollution, drainage of raw sewage and dumping of garbage (University of Nairobi, 2013). The remaining water comes from the Kikuyu Springs and Ruiru Dam. In the 1970s, the Thika Dam, with a capacity of 225,000 m3/day, was built to meet growing demands (African Development Bank, 1998). Groundwater supplies 85,000 m3 per day from about 3,000 boreholes. But the groundwater table has declined, and the average depth of new wells in 2001 was 238 meters (Wikipedia, 2020b). Most wells are operated by industry, hotels, farms for flower production, and private houses in parts of the city that receive intermittent supplies. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 31 Map 1: Catchments, Green Spaces of Nairobi City and Its Rural Linkages (Note: distances are approximate) here. (Source of base map: Planning Systems Services, Kenya) Water availability increased from 165 litres per person per day in 1976 to 200 in 1995 (Skytta & Jean-Francois, 1996). However, by 1998 water losses, including physical losses due to old piping, illegal water use and under-metering, reduced the water supply by up to 30% (African Development Bank, 1998). Since the 1970s, slum residents, with communal water connections, built water kiosks (small shops) to resell water. The number of water kiosks increased from about 150 in 1978 to nearly 1,500 in 1994. A particular challenge for Nairobi is to provide affordable water to its population living in slum areas. Insufficient urban planning, especially the implementation of existing plans combined with poor governance and management, and lack of enforcement has led to urban development with little or no correlation between land use planning and the provision of urban functions and systems. In addition, land grabbing and growing informal settlements encroach on wetlands and riparian zones. Nairobi depends on its rural catchment for most of its water supply, yet few or no Payments for Environmental Services (PES) are paid to those living in these catchments for conserving the land and water sources, nor have land users been encouraged to adopt water conservation strategies. In 2009, the dry season was longer than usual, and the Thika Dam reservoir was less than half full at the height of the drought. These low levels are due to failed rains and destruction of key catchment forests in the Aberdares, due to poor landscape governance (BBC, 2009; K24TV, 2009). Erosion reduced the reservoir capacity, and water quality reduced due to agricultural pesticide runoff and pollution (Moriasi et al., 2007). Improved water and land use governance would enhance both landscape management and water supply?a win: win for all. PES could go a long way to better assure the conservation of the catchments, its water supply services and a reduction in degradation. For example, Beijing a city with over 21 million people, relies on the Miyun Catchment for about 70% of its water. Beijing supports conservation friendly land use in the catchment and makes payments for the water services provided (Jia & Emerton, 2012). And New York City supports the water provisioning services from the Catskill Mountains (Munson et.al., 2019; UNDRR, 2016). Nairobi could learn from such examples as to how this is done, why it is successful together with the governance arrangements so as to secure its fresh water supply for the future. Map 1: Catchments, Green Spaces of Nairobi City and Its Rural Linkages (Note: distances are approximate) Nairobi National Park The polluted Nairobi River joins Athi river & flows to Indian Ocean Karura Forest (370 km) Charcoal from Kajiado (106 km), Narok (142 km) Charcoal from Machakos (66 km), Kitui (175 km), & Tana River (544 km) Charcoal from Baringo (530 km) Narok (142 km) Kitui (175 km), Food, Fruit from Aberdares (145 km), & Mt. Kenya (138 km)) 94% Nairobi?s water from Aberdares & Mount Kenya Source of base map: Planning Systems Services, Kenya Nairobi rivers catchment in Kikuyu & Kiambu Counties, & Ngong hills - reasonably clean 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? 32 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Fuel sources and enhanced efficiencies Nairobi?s main cooking fuel is charcoal, especially for lower income areas, whilst higher-end residential and commercial areas use gas or electricity.Charcoal is used in restaurants and for traditional grilling. For most businesses and mid-upper income residents a hybrid energy supply of gas, charcoal, and electricity is typically used. Charcoal demand is based on population and per capita charcoal demand. Nairobi County has the highest demand at 3.4 million cubic meters per annum whilst Lamu County has the lowest at 0.11 million cubic meters (Wanleys Consultancy Services, 2013). Approximately 10% of all Kenya?s charcoal production goes to Nairobi. The National Study on Charcoal by Energy for Sustainable Development Africa (ESDA, 2005) estimated the annual national production of charcoal as 1.6 million tons in 2005 (Ministry of Environment and Forestry Republic of Kenya, 2018). But production rose to 2.5 million tons in 2013, an increase of 156%. The economic value of charcoal over the same period grew from about USD $320 million to USD $1.35 billion per annum?a staggering 422% growth and much of that is driven by Nairobi. Increasingly charcoal is sustainably produced, for example,farm forestry around the tea and coffee farms ofMount Kenya, or the removal of invasive species such as Prosopis juliflora for charcoal. These sources increasingly provide Nairobiperi-urban demand. But much charcoal still comes from unsustainable indigenous wood sources, from illegal logging or as a by-product ofland clearance for agriculture. Charcoal that is unsustainably and inefficiently produced contributes to deforestation and the degradation of natural woodlands in the hinterlands of Kenya. The charcoal supply for Nairobi comes from distant rural counties, such as Kitui, Makueni, Tana River, Kwale, Narok, Baringo, Kajiado and Garissa, and recently even from Uganda and South Sudan?often in excess of 400 km from Nairobi. For Nairobi, this trade was worth over USD $160 million in 2013 (Kenya Forestry Services, Camco Advisory Services Kenya, 2013) and together with firewood it supplies about 80% of Nairobi?s domestic energy.Charcoal is a looming issue. In spite of the importance accorded to County Governments for the sustainable management of forests, counties have not really implemented appropriate plans. This is essential if sustainable charcoal production is to be achieved and is exacerbated by a lack of clarity between County and Central Government as to management responsibilities. In February 2018, the national government imposed a 3-month ban (and in effect to November 2020) on logging in all public and community forests, and on charcoal production. In some places this led to budding Charcoal Producing Associations becoming irrelevant with cartels taking over charcoal production. The reasons given for the ban are for the government to have time to train more Kenya Forest Service rangers, implement better forest protection, and replant plantations with indigenous trees. Yet, improved forest governance combined with incentives for sustainable charcoal production will help reduce degradation and enhance sustainable use. There have been multiple, often donor led attempts to regulate the charcoal market, but most charcoal is marketed through the informal market, and governance is poor. Key challenges to the sustainable charcoal trade include unregulated land use change, illegal trade and corruption. For example, a typical mid-distance lorry might have to pay $230 in ?rents? to traffic police to transport charcoal from its source to the market and small-scale farmers may get up to a 30% ?charcoal subsidy? for land clearing and planting when clearing forested land for farming. But overall, illegal rents are, perhaps, the main reason keeping the trade unsustainable, informal and underground. There are two strategies to create greater efficiency, both of which require the enhanced and more equitable governance of the charcoal industry in rural and urban areas. Firstly, there should be a focus on increasing sustainable and more efficient charcoal production at the supply end. At present many farmers around Mount Kenya and some dryland counties grow trees for fuelwood and charcoal on a sustainable basis. Then the removal of invasive species like Prosopis can help offset pressures on old growth forests. Assuming charcoal will remain an important cooking fuel, this will help reduce environmental degradation. Secondly, on the demand side, greater efficiencies can be achieved in cooking, so less charcoal is burnt for the same or greater energy output. Two examples highlight this. The late Dr. Maxwell Kinyanjui was part of a team who pioneered the improved clay and ceramic lined Charcoal Jiko (cooker) in the 1970?s that has since been replicated across Africa and the Caribbean.Now Cookswell Jikos Ltd. provides a variety of high-quality charcoal and wood fuel stoves, and improved charcoal making kilns?all based on the original designs and concept of Maxwell Kinyanjui. This reduces demand on traditional charcoal sources. Cookswell Jikos Ltd. includes a free packet ofseed-balls(recycled charcoal dust used to coat a tree seed for ground or aerial low- cost direct seeding)with every stove purchased to encourage more sustainable charcoal production and establish more trees. Along with the Tamarind Group, they established The Woodlands 2000 Trust to promote dryland tree growing in Kenya and East Africa for enhanced wood-fuel security. In this way, Cookswell contributes to more efficient charcoal burning and production from tree branches (not tree trunks), which further reduces pressures on natural forests and woodlands. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 33 The other example is the Community Cooker Foundation, a charity based in Nairobi, which promotes the Community Cooker, a waste-to-energy technology that burns rubbish for cooking in an environmentally correct manner (Community Cooker Foundation, 2016). Having five large cooking plates and two ovens, it is suitable for a range of organisations and institutions (it costs about USD $25,000) as an alternative to charcoal and firewood. Rubbish is collected and sorted to remove rubber, glass and metal. The remaining rubbish is burnt at over 880 °C to generate clean heat that can be used for cooking, baking, heating and, soon, for generating electricity. The Community Cooker was tested by Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS) for dry gas analysis. These tests showed the cooker is within European, American, and Kenyan standards for emissions of Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Carbon Monoxide, Furans, and Dioxins. If one Cooker is used continuously every day, it saves 7,500 m3 of wood per year (approximately 3,000 trees) from being made into charcoal or used as fuelwood. The Cooker can burn 500 kg of rubbish per day (or about 200 tons per annum) and provides at least five jobs, as well as earning income from selling meals. The Mirema School Community Cooker saves 93% of its previous charcoal and fuelwood costs whilst preparing meals for over 1,000 students and staff each day. The cooker not only saves trees but reduces rubbish, provides jobs and promotes a sense of community. The catchment for Nairobi?s fruit, vegetables and meat Up to 50% of Nairobi?s vegetables and root crops are grown along the Nairobi, Ngong and Mathare rivers and their tributaries that flow through Nairobi. Most of the vegetables are sold through informal markets and account for about 25% of Nairobi households? food expenditure. Given the heavily polluted rivers used for irrigation, there is concern about pollution affecting the quality of the vegetables, which could be solved by ?re-greening Nairobi?s rivers?. The rest of Nairobi?s vegetables comes from 50-100 km from the city, to the north in the highland areas of the Rift Valley escarpment to the Aberdares and around Mount Kenya, and to the east in Kitui and Machakos. The majority of these vegetables come from small-scale farmers. Likewise, most of Nairobi?s milk comes from within 100 Km of the city (IGAD, 2013; Behnke & Muthami, 2011). Over 50% of Nairobi?s meat comes from pastoralist lands in the dry areas, especially Kajiado and Narok (south and south-west of Nairobi) and from northern Kenya, travelling sometimes over 400 Km. Under the Urban Areas and Cities Act of 2011, Nairobi should have an urban agriculture plan. In 2015, Nairobi City County passed the Urban Agriculture Promotion and Regulation Act to regulate urban agriculture. As a pilot site for a project (FAO, 2020; Lee-Smith & Knaepen, 2017), Nairobi is developing a strategy for food security and the urban-rural food linkages were being mapped. However, to date nothing has been publicized. Nairobi sources most of its food from distant areas of Kenya, though urban cultivation is increasing and offers increased economic opportunities for the future provided quality can be assured, especially from pollutants. There are reasonably well-developed value chains from the producer (farmer or pastoralist) to the market. This is made more transparent as farmers and pastoralists better understand the value of their products due to mobile phone services. But still farmers and pastoralists are in a weak bargaining position. Greening the buildings Rapid building development, population growth and over consumption of resources has placed significant pressures on urban and rural environments, for example, sources of sand and stone for construction. There is now an increasing focus on green construction. Developers want buildings that are more energy and water efficient to reduce costs and reliance and pressure on municipal utilities. This will reduce land use impacts (cutting fewer trees, managing storm water runoff, reduce urban heat effects), by selecting locally sourced materials which have a lower energy signature and be less harmful to people?s health. Although the Government started to review the building code is 2009, there is still no official change either at national or Nairobi levels, and here the private sector is leading the way. There are currently 32 registered green building projects in Kenya?mostly in Nairobi. Companies such as Urban Green Consultants Ltd (UGC, 2020), a Kenyan-owned sustainability firm, specializes in ?green? buildings and seeks to create more sustainable and low impact buildings. UGC are accredited to rate and certify local building developments using LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design), Green Star and EDGE (Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies) ratings. All rating systems are internationally recognised green building certification systems. EDGE is a low-cost tool developed by the World Bank to encourage developing nations to build green. UGC assists building projects to be ?green? and fulfil sustainability objectives by reducing operating costs and increasing the life span of buildings. Through modelling (energy, daylight, ventilation, facade) they can reduce building operation costs, reduce environmental impacts and the pressures on energy and water utilities. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? 34 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Cleaning and rehabilitating the river systems of Nairobi The Nairobi River and its tributaries traverse Nairobi County. These include the Mathare, Ngong and Nairobi rivers?with tributaries and seasonal streams. They rise in the Rift Valley escarpment between the Ngong Hills and the Aberdares, about 30 Km west of Nairobi and flow into the Athi River. The Athi-Galana River is one of the main rivers of Kenya which flows into the Indian Ocean?with much of the waste and pollution from Nairobi. Where the rivers rise and as they flow into Nairobi, they are relatively clean. Once in Nairobi, they become heavily polluted, and are contaminated with biological and chemical wastes and refuse. The rivers in Nairobi are breeding grounds for disease; poor conveyors of flood flows resulting in frequent flooding; and associated with illegal and/or informal waste dumping and sewage discharge. The lack of robust sanitation infrastructure is partly the cause of the heavy deterioration of the rivers? water quality, and it is estimated that the Nairobi Water and Sewage Company only collects about 40% of the city?s sewage. The polluted rivers have major negative impacts especially on the urban poor and downstream as the rivers join the Athi river and flow to the Indian ocean. Since the river corridors, wetlands and riparian reserves are sources of open land and are rarely controlled by the authorities, they have become locations for uncontrolled settlements. Many of Nairobi?s informal settlements (the ?slums?) are located along these river corridors, among them Kibera?often called the largest slum in Africa (University of Nairobi, 2013). These settlements lack basic services whilst being exposed to flooding during the rainy season. It is important to clean and restore the rivers for the residents of the city, to provide clean water flowing into the Athi River, and improve the hydraulic capacity of the waterways. There is also a need to support catchment conservation at the rivers? sources and as they flow through Nairobi. Links are needed between the counties where these rivers have their sources, Nairobi, and the counties where the Athi River flows as it makes it way to the Indian Ocean. The story of the clean-up of the Thames River which flows through London is analogous. In 1957 the Thames was considered biologically dead and classified as a badly managed open sewer (Hardach, 2015). A concerted effort was made to clean the river. Though much has been done, and the river is cleaner, plastics have emerged as the new threat to the Thames. The Nairobi rivers are not as big, but a similar type of integrated clean-up is needed?in terms of water cleanliness, flood plain management, and waste and sewage treatment. Kenya has the necessary legislative framework and policies for such work, but lack of implementation and enforcement, coordination between authorities, cross-sectoral disagreement on responsibilities, and corruption have stalled implementation ? all summarised as a lack of responsible governance. Previous attempts to clean the rivers, or parts thereof, were not successful as they did not address underlying causes. In 2016 a Nairobi River Rehabilitation and Restoration Master Plan was developed by the Government, but without much implementation. The ?Nairobi Rivers Regeneration project?, a private urban planning initiative by a Kenyan architectural practice, provides for an integrated approach to rehabilitate the Nairobi rivers and promote sustainable urban development (Planning Systems, 2018; Burohappold Engineering, 2018). This project is gaining interest in Government, the Private Sector and among the people of Nairobi, and could become a flagship project to boost the ?Re-Greening of the Green City in the Sun? and be a show piece for Nairobi as it participates in the 100 Resilient Cities (UNDRR, 2016) programme. The Nairobi Rivers Regeneration project could catalyse the wider regeneration of the city, and has the following objectives to: a) clean the rivers and secure water supplies; b) support the regreening of Nairobi with new public parks and green open spaces; c) relieve traffic congestion by improving connectivity; d) identify land along riparian areas for mixed use development; e) enable Nairobi?s central business district to expand; and f) develop a network of walk and cycle ways to improve connectivity through a ?non-motorized movement network? that will also connect urban with rural. The rivers and riparian areas are the responsibility of diverse sectors, ?owners? and groups which makes such a project complicated. Therefore, an integrated approach is needed without sectoral conflicts, yet ensuring a sound business case. This public-private partnership (PPP) had early support from the then- President Mwai Kibaki and is starting to be re-invigorated at local and national levels. The green areas ? the lungs of Nairobi Nobel Laureate Wangari Maathai fought to save the indigenous Karura Forest which was under threat of being converted to housing and other infrastructure (Nyaga, 1998). This brought into focus the plight of Nairobi?s parks and gardens. The 1948 Nairobi Master Plan was designed for 250,000 residents and allocated 28% of Nairobi?s land to public space. Because of rapid population growth, lack of adequate urban planning, implementation and unplanned development, these spaces are increasingly threatened (Makworo & Mireri, 2011). This is characteristic of all the green areas in Nairobi?they have all been or are threatened, usually by unscrupulous developers and greedy individuals. However, the people of Nairobi and civil society want to ensure these green spaces are conserved. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 35 Nairobi National Park (117 sq.km.), established in 1946, was Kenya?s first national park. Located about seven km south of the city centre, it has an electric fence separating the park?s wildlife from the city. Open grass plains and scattered Acacia bush, with the backdrop of the city skyline, plays host to a wide variety of wildlife. Nairobi is one of the few cities in the world with a national park within its boundaries, making it a prime tourist destination (KWS, 2020). Despite its fame, the Park is threatened. Part was excised for the Southern-Bypass road. More damage is likely to be done as the extension of the Standard Gauge Railway has been constructed dividing the park into two. What the effect the railway will have on the wildlife in the park, and the park itself, is yet to be established. In 2009, the Kenya Forest Service and the Friends of Karura Community Forest Association, embarked on a programme to secure Karura Forest Reserve (Nyaga, 1998; Friends of Karura, 2020), an urban upland forest north of the city centre. Karua is one of the largest gazetted forests in the world within a city. It is 1,041 ha and shows how corporate social responsibility and philanthropy can secure a forest. The forest offers eco-friendly opportunities for visitors to walk, jog, bike, and experience the tranquillity of nature. The 2005 Forest Act was,in part, inspired by the rescue of Karura Forest, reflecting a broader recognition of the importance of urban forest restoration. The Nairobi Arboretum (Kenya Forest Services, 2020) occupies 30.4 ha and is 3 km north-east of the city centre. It was established in 1907 for exotic tree species trials, as foresters were concerned that the indigenous trees which the railway relied on were being depleted faster than they were being regenerated. The Arboretum was gazetted as a Forest Reserve in 1932 and is managed by Kenya Forest Service and the Friends of Nairobi Arboretum.It hosts over 300 species of exotic and indigenous tree species and over 100 bird species. Jeevanjee Gardens (Nairobi News, 2016), an open garden in the central business district, was founded by Mr. A.M. Jeevanjee, an Asian-born entrepreneur in Kenya. It is the only park directly owned by the people, having been donated to the poor people of Nairobi as a resting area. Open for free to the public, Jeevanjee Gardens is a recreational park and attracts people from all walks of life. There have been attempts to develop it for the construction of multi-storey buildings, which has been met with resistance by the people of Nairobi. City Park (Nature Kenya, 2020), managed by Nairobi City County, is one of the few remaining areas of the indigenous forest that once covered most of Nairobi. The Park is rich in biodiversity and natural vegetation and has one of Nairobi rivers? shorter tributaries, the Kibagare, flowing through it. Friends of City Park help protect, maintain and enhance the park amenities. This group came together in response to challenges faced by the Park including land grabbing, cutting of trees and garbage dumping. It was originally 61 ha but 20 ha were lost to private development through squatting and illegal alienation in the 1980s. The most popular park in Nairobi is Uhuru Park (Wikipedia, 2020c), which was opened by the first president of Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta, in 1969. The Park,12.9 ha, borders the central business district and is a centre for outdoor speeches, services and rallies. It contains an artificial lake, several national monuments, and an assembly ground for political and religious gatherings. It is infamous as the site where protests against illegal land grabbing were violently broken up in 1989, as Wangari Maathai and many of her followers held a protest to stop the construction of the 60-storey Kenya Times Media Trust business complex within its boundaries. She was vilified in parliament, but her protests and the government?s response led investors to cancel the project. Ngong Forest (Kenya Forest Service, 2020b) was gazetted in 1932 and covered about 2,900 ha of indigenous forest. By 1978, the area had been reduced after excisions, land grabbing and portions of the forest being allocated to private developers. In the early 1990s, the Trustees of Ngong Road Forest Sanctuary learnt that the core of forest had been divided into 35 land parcels to be given to developers. However, the sell-off was cancelled after intense lobbying. By 2005, the area of the Ngong Road Forest was 1,224 ha. Ngong Forest is divided by Ngong Road and the recently constructed Southern Bypass. Since 2005, the Ngong Road Forestis managed by the Kenya Forest Service. All these green areas in the city provide the means for people to be in and re-connect with nature, especially City Park, Uhuru Park and Jivanjee Gardens as there are no entry charges. Karura, Nairobi National Park and the Arboretum are largely inaccessible for most of Nairobi?s population, as they charge entrance fees. Being able to visit such green spaces is especially important for the children and youth for education to create awareness about the importance of nature. Yet they are all under threat due to illegal appropriation and greed. Many of these green areas are connected to the rural hinterlands through the rivers and streams in Nairobi and serve to promote nature connectivity within Nairobi and the rural catchments. Urban dwellers need easy access to ?green spaces? as everyone should maintain their emotional and cultural connections to nature. So being green has to mean usable and accessible green space. Discussion and lessons Nairobi used to be the ?Green City in the Sun?. That ?greenness? needs to be restored. This chapter highlights some ways to achieve this, together with some of the challenges. A common challenge is the lack of good governance at all levels. Nairobi (like Kenya) has the necessary legal framework and policies in place. However, implementation and adherence are lacking whether in the charcoal trade or in allocating public green space for buildings. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? 36 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Like many cities in Africa, Nairobi has strong urban-rural linkages as many city residents have land and relatives in their rural home areas and remittances are an important flow from Nairobi to the rural areas. This attribute can help better inform and strengthen the linkages of urban to rural and back. Supplying and securing water is key to maintaining Nairobi yet is its Achilles tendon. Nairobi?s water comes from the Aberdare and Mount Kenya catchments. Yet there appears to be little support for improved catchment land and water management, so that landowners have incentives to conserve for water provisioning to Nairobi. This can be combined with improvements in farming practice to promote conservation. The example of Beijing is something Nairobi could learn from. At present landowners in the catchment do not receive any incentives or PES for water provisioning. Within Nairobi it is clear that much is needed from replacing and repairing old water piping infrastructure to enhanced water provisioning for all residents of the city. Whilst city residents need water to drink, they also need sources of fuel to cook and access to affordable food. Although logging and charcoal production are banned except on private land, Nairobi?s main fuel source is still charcoal. Charcoal production is inefficient as most of the trees come from natural woodlands and forests, and the charcoal trade is mired in corruption and cartels. Thus, Nairobi contributes to deforestation, degradation and unsustainable land use. Good governance is required in the charcoal value chain, from its source, its transport and to its selling, but this is not yet in evidence. Greater efficiencies in the charcoal trade can be made by using smaller branches in production, and in terms of the more efficient charcoal stoves, as the Cookswell Jikos demonstrate. And the Community Cooker has demonstrated a tremendous potential to use ?rubbish? as a source of energy for institutions, thereby saving on trees and helping clean up the city. Whilst some food, especially vegetables and fruit, is grown in urban areas, most of Nairobi?s food is sourced from rural areas 5-100 Km from Nairobi. These value chains for food from source to market could be improved so rural farmers earn a larger share of the income. If farmers have a better understanding of pricing (for example, through mobile phones) at the Nairobi market end, this will support fairer pricing and improve equity at the grower end. The deteriorating health of the Nairobi rivers is acknowledged at all levels of government and by stakeholders. However, fragmented legislation, lack of coordination, a sense of ownership, and enforcement by the authorities obstructs efficient and long-term environmental and urban governance. For example, the deterioration of Nairobi Dam is largely blamed on over 77 sectoral laws and many bodies responsible for regulating and conserving the dam. There has been conflict and duplication of roles leading to ineffective modes of cleaning, conserving, and rehabilitating the dam (University of Nairobi, 2013). Whilst efforts to clean the rivers, provide sewage infrastructure and regenerate the riparian areas have been supported at national, regional, and local levels, these initiatives have largely been carried out in isolation, without sufficient cross-organisational support and funding to create lasting change on a scale that matters. Kenya has a devolved system of governance which consists of the national government and 47 county governments. Under the 2010 Kenyan Constitution, the state is responsible for ensuring sustainable exploitation, utilisation, management and conservation of the environment and natural resources. This is the basis for a durable and sustainable system of development, including, in particular water protection. County governments are mandated to enact legislation relating to solid waste disposal, to plan, develop and implement for the sustainable use of natural resources, and for environmental conservation including water conservation. The Nairobi River and its tributaries are polluted and degraded. As many slum areas are located close to rivers, dumping is uncontrolled. Other cities have cleaned up their rivers and made them attractive. Nairobi can do the same, and there are detailed plans to do this: regenerate the rivers, restore the flood plains, and make land close to the rivers attractive for investment, which will result in clean water flowing out of Nairobi to the Athi river and the Indian ocean. This re-greening and regenerating of Nairobi can be combined with green building technology to make developments energy and water efficient, as well as being cost effective in terms of building costs. Political and government support is key for such re-greening, and this can only be achieved by public-private partnerships and responsible governance. Nairobi used to be well endowed with green areas, but too many parts of these green areas have been grabbed and converted. Public spaces now represent only 12% (which includes streets, parks, squares) of the land in Nairobi. In Barcelona and New York, the figure is close to 50%. Most of these spaces are in danger of being converted in Nairobi. Only Uhuru Park, Jivanjee Gardens and City Park are open to the public free of charge, whilst Nairobi National Park, Arboretum and Karura Forest are less available due to entry fees. The people of Nairobi also need a more comprehensive network of sidewalks to benefit the many. Yet road development is mainly for the few who have vehicles. The great work Nobel Laureate Wangari Maathai did to raise awareness of these green spaces, how she combated corruption and supported improved and more equitable governance are salutary lessons for us all. These green spaces are of central importance for the people of Nairobi: they are the lungs of the city. They are vital for the future of the city and its links with the rural hinterlands. Such green spaces could be termed the ?consciousness? of the city. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 37 For the re-greening of Nairobi to happen and have any real chance of success, awareness and education about waste, nature, urban cleanliness, and sustainability combined with action is needed. Whilst political support for the future of a sustainable and green Nairobi is a requisite, massive private-public efforts are also needed. Corruption needs to be reeled in and transparency be the norm. Unless there is consistent and equitable enforcement of regulations and good governance, any re-greening attempts will be just ?blowing in the wind?. References African Development Bank (1998). Project Completion Report: Third Nairobi Water Supply Project. https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/projects-operations BBC (2009, July 15). Nairobi water ?stolen for farms?. BBC news. Retrieved April 1, 2018 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8144415.stm Behnke R., and D. Muthami (2011). The Contribution of Livestock to the Kenya Economy. IGAD LPI Working Paper no. 03-11. Djibouti. Burohappold Engineering (2018). Inception report for Pre-Analysis Study. Burohappold Engineering, 28p. Cities of the World-Nairobi (2008). Retrieved 25 August 2008 from http://www.city-data.com/world-cities/Nairobi-History.html Community Cooker Foundation (2016). The Community Cooker ? Waste into Clean Energy for Cooking. Planning Systems Nairobi. www.communitycooker.or.ke FAO (2020). The NADHALI project Retrieved April 1, 2018 from http://www.fao.org/in-action/nadhali/en/ Friends of Karura Forest (2020). The Karura Forest Reserve. Retrieved April 5, 2018 from https://www.friendsofkarura.org/the- karura-forest-researve/ Greenway, R. and T. Monsma (1989).Cities: Missions? new frontier. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Hardach, S. (2015). How the River Thames was brought back from the dead. BBC. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151111- how-the-river-thames-was-brought-back-from-the-dead Hoornweg, D. and K. Pope (2014). Socioeconomic Pathways and Regional Distribution of the World?s 101 Largest Cities. Global Cities Institute Working Paper No. 4. Ontario 143p. IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (2013). The Contribution of Livestock to the Kenyan Economy. Policy Brief ICPALD/CLE/8/2013 Jia, L., and L. Emerton (2012). Moving closer to Nature: Lessons for Landscapes and Livelihoods from the Miyun Landscape, China. Gland: IUCN, 2012. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/10156. K24TV (2009). Nairobi water shortage deepens. [video]. Youtube. Retrieved November 11, 2013 from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=DXIj44GAUiM&feature=related Kenya Forestry Services and Camco Advisory Services Kenya (2013): Analysis of Charcoal Value Chain in Kenya, Final Report. Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Nairobi. Kenya Forest Services (2020a). Nairobi Arboretum. Retrieved June 12, 2021 from http://www.kenyaforestservice.org/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=541&Itemid=726 Kenya Forest Services (2020b). Ngong Road Forest. Retrieved June 12, 2021 from http://www.kenyaforestservice.org/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=696:ngong-forest&catid=184:nairobi-forest-stations&Itemid=574 KWS (2020). Nairobi National Park ? the World?s only Wildlife Capital. http://www.kws.go.ke/parks/nairobi-national-park Lee-Smith, D., and H. Knaepen (2017). Food challenges and opportunities in Nairobi. GREAT Insights Magazine, 6(4). https:// ecdpm.org/great-insights/sustainable-food-systems/food-challenges-opportunities-nairobi/ Makworo, M., and C. Mireri (2011). Public open spaces in Nairobi City, Kenya, under threat. J. Environmental Planning and Management, 54(8), 1107?1123. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.549631 Millennium Information Technologies (2020). Retrieved June 12, 2021 from https://web.archive.org/web/20061103152926/http:/ www.millenniumit.com/esp/news_7.php Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Republic of Kenya. (2018). Taskforce Report on Forest Resource Management and Logging Activities in Kenya. Retrieved August 2, 2019 from http://www.environment.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Task-Force- Report.pdf 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Moriasi, D., Steiner, J., Arnold, J., Allen, P., Dunbar, J., Shisanya, C., Gathenya, J., Nyaoro, J., Sang, J. (2007). Fort Cobb Reservoir Watershed, Oklahoma and Thika River Watershed, Kenya twinning pilot project. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, California. 88(52), H21F-0810. Munson, C., Main S., and L. Ritchie (2019). Trip to the Catskills Teaches Students About New York City?s Water Supply. Retrieved January 30, 2020 from https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/11/22/student-trip-nyc-water-supply/ Njaga, N. W. (1998). Karura: Are We Missing the Trees for the Forest? The East African (2nd November). ?Karura: Are We Missing the Trees for the Forest?? Nairobi News (2016). Jeevanjee Gardens: People?s Park gives rest to weary poor. https://nairobinews.nation.co.ke/news/jeevanjee- gardens-peoples-park-gives-rest-weary-poor/ Nature Kenya (2020). Friends of City Park. Retrieved June 10, 2021 from http://naturekenya.org/about/friends-of-city-park/ Oyugi, M., and O. K?Akumu (2007). Land use management challenges for the city of Nairobi.Urban Forum,18(1), 94-113. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF02681232 Planning Systems Services Ltd. (2018). Concept Note and Executive Summary ? Nairobi Rivers Regeneration Project. Nairobi. Responsible Business (2018). Top 6 fastest growing cities in Africa in 2018. http://www.responsiblebusiness.com/news/africas- news/top-6-fastest-growing-cities-africa/ Skytta T., and L. Jean-Francois (1996). Kenya: Development of Housing, Water Supply, and Sanitation in Nairobi World Bank Operations Evaluation Department. Report No. 15586. Urban Green Consultants Africa (2020). Retrieved June 12, 2021 from https://www.ugcafrica.com/ UNDRR (2016). 100 Resilient Cities Project. UNDRR, https://www.undrr.org/publication/100-resilient-cities-project University of Nairobi, Department of Urban and Regional Planning (2013). Effects of Land Use Encroachment on Wetlands: Case Study Nairobi Dam Area. WANLEYS Consultancy Services (2013). Analysis of Demand and Supply of Wood Products in Kenya. Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. http://www.kenyaforestservice.org/documents/redd/Analysis%20of%20Demand%20and%20 Supply%20of%20Wood%20Products%20in%20Kenya.pdf and https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/news/Kenyan-charcoal- sector-finally-gets-the-attention/539546-1187244-y2nw2o/index.html World Factbook: Kenya (2018). https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html Wikipedia (2020a). Nairobi. Retrieved June 12, 2021 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nairobi and http://worldpopulationreview. com/world-cities/nairobi-population/ Wikipedia (2020b). Water Supply and Sanitation in Nairobi. Retrieved June 12, 2021 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_ supply_and_sanitation_in_Nairobi Wikipedia (2020c). Uhuru Park. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhuru_Park World Bank Group (2016). Informal Enterprises in Kenya. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/262361468914023771/ pdf/106986-WP-P151793-PUBLIC-Box.pdf . 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 39 Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe: a case study on the town of Lincoln, Canada Salima Medouar1 and Liette Vasseur2 5 Lincoln, Canada © Liette Vasseur 1 Lead of the Young Professionals Network and Co-chair of the Region of North America for IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Senior Policy Analyst at Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Climate Change, Canada 2 UNESCO Chair on Community Sustainability: From Local to Global, Brock University, Dept. Biological Sciences, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St Catharines, ON L2S3A1 Canada 40 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract Urban-rural fringe planners must often undertake the challenging task of managing growth and development in a way that meets the needs of various local actors and maintains the ecological integrity of the region. This research paper employs a scoping review of the literature and relevant policy plans and news articles to understand the challenges to urban-rural fringe planning for ecosystem governance. This is done through a case study of the Town of Lincoln an urban-rural community facing expansion pressures in Southern Ontario. The aim of this paper is to underline urban-rural fringe conflicts and how municipalities have mediated for these. Central governments benefit from partnerships that aim at improving environmental stewardship and the livelihoods of local people. Ecosystem governance is proposed as a means for achieving sustainability within these often described as entrenched spaces. Introduction The urban-rural fringe is often described as an area of transition located at the edge of an urban centre or a residential division, where conflicts over land-use change may occur depending on the needs and development prospects of the urban area (Cash, 2014; Hiner, 2015; Weaver & Lawton, 2001). The urban-rural fringe concept made its earliest appearance in the United Kingdom during the 1930s in planning as concerns over protecting agricultural land grew (Cash, 2014; Gant, Robinson, & Fazal, 2011; Lloyd & Peel, 2007; Tang, Wong, & Lee, 2007). These concerns stem from an often-unanticipated rapid population growth, which in turn creates increasing demands for housing development and services essential for thriving urban centres (Tang et al., 2007). Limiting urban sprawl and protecting natural resources have since been important components of urban-rural fringe planning. This can become a challenge and lead to conflicts when there also are needs to protect rural areas for agricultural production and maintain the biodiversity of the area. Within the rural side, there can be varying interests, ?farmers traditionally value the agricultural way of life whilst non-farming rural country residents seem more likely to establish their place attachments and community expectations based on natural amenities? (Mason- Renton et al., 2016, p. 23). This creates clashing viewpoints on how to use the land in an urban-rural fringe as well as the desirable qualities to maintain in land use planning. Urban-rural fringe planning is an important subject of research for achieving sustainability by improving the health of both rural and urban communities in a municipality, its environment and fostering green growth. In this major research paper, I explore the main issues that are considered in residential development at the urban-rural fringe and examine the potential strategies that can be used to reduce conflicts and enhance the sustainability of the social-ecological system through an ecosystem governance lens. Issues related to growth in urban rural fringe The Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (OMMAH) in the 2017 growth plan has expressed concern over loss of biodiversity and contamination of natural resources as a result of population growth. The Ontario provincial government has provided planning documents and policies that give direction for municipalities to guide development in the region and to protect sensitive areas. Municipal governments have over the years gained greater responsibility over managing development in their communities (Fullerton, 2015). This is exceptionally challenging for predominantly rural communities who ?have often also reduced the number of staff whose mandate is to serve as rural development facilitators? (Fullerton, 2015, p. 57). Municipalities must consider managing land-use changes such that it meets the needs of local actors without harming the environment. Ecosystem degradation is often the result of ?social and economic forces, for instance, population pressure, urbanisation and over exploitation of natural resources? (Pirot, Meynell, & Elder, 2000, p. 43). Pirot, Meynell, & Elder (2000) explain that ?people have dramatically changed ecosystems, usually by transforming the patterns of vegetation and fauna across landscapes? through industrialisation, pollution, intensive agriculture, dam construction, and the canalization of river systems? (p. 31). For instance, in Boundary Bay, British Columbia, run-off from agriculture and sewage lead to the ?closure of oyster harvesting in 1962? as it had affected water quality (Boyle & Nichol, 2018, p. 46). Biodiversity conservation efforts contribute to maintaining ecosystem health, which preserves valuable processes that societies depend on and assist cities in adapting to climate and environmental changes (Díaz, Fargione, Chapin, & Tilman, 2006). This helps protect populations from natural dangers such as flooding, drought, storms, and landslides (Díaz et al., 2006). Moreover, the natural environment is important for contributing to the sense of place in communities and are an important part in making them unique spaces to visit (Andersson et al., 2014; Daniels & Lapping, 2005). For example, green spaces can be used for recreational and cultural practices. To protect and maintain natural habitats, conservation efforts are necessary in these urban-rural fringe areas. Another concern is protecting the lifestyle of the community in the face of increased land-use changes for development needs. Varying interests in the urban-rural fringe can create conflicts among constituents as municipalities comprising of both rural and urban areas debate how to spend their limited budget. Lyon (1983) posits that the urban rural fringe ?features competitive urban and rural land uses: agriculture, rural non-farm residences, hobby farms, recreation sites, mobile-home parks, aggregate and quarry mineral operations, towns and villages, and other land uses? (Lyon, 1983, p. 8). Development pressures in the area may also create resentment within the community from what Weaver & Lawton (2001) describe as an ?urban invasion? (p. 411). Residents may fear losing their culture and way of life that make their community unique due to some of the development pressures. Development often 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 41 attracts more tourism and increases the number of parking lots, malls, and other infrastructures. This may bring noise pollution, congestion, and more compact building designs. As a result, predominantly rural communities have shown political will and action against external forces that impact their livelihoods (Mason-Renton et al., 2016; Walker et al., 2018). Concepts of growth management Pressures for development have the potential to cause significant changes in the way of life of local people as well as the environment they rely on. Planners have over the years developed various growth management strategies to help prevent degradation, direct growth and preserve the environment. Growth management for sustainability refers to any proactive rather than reactive method of managing growth (Perveen, Kamruzzaman, & Yigitcanlar, 2017). Growth management is defined by Hare (2001) as ?a dynamic process for anticipating and accommodating development needs that balances competing community building goals and coordinates local with regional-scale interests? (p. ii). Sustainability science and urban planning have researched strategies to tackle the complex systems of growth management in the face of environmental, political, and social challenges for sustainable development. ?Traditionally, master plans, land use allocation, and functional zoning were used as the main tools for urban growth management? (Perveen, Kamruzzaman, & Yigitcanlar, 2017, p. 2). For instance, planners have developed a combination of scenario-based planning and ?urban growth models to simulate alternative urban growth scenarios and to assess their impacts? (Perveen et al., 2017, p. 2). These models help explore possible outcomes from development processes by evaluating the extent to which natural areas will be affected by development and possible growth prospects whilst also identifying areas of uncertainty (Perveen et al., 2017). Careful planning strategies like scenario-based planning are valuable methods in monitoring the potential environmental impacts. When investigating urban-rural fringe planning, ecosystem governance should be strongly considered in order to reduce conflicts between both social-ecological systems as it promotes a collaborative framework and knowledge sharing (Altinbilek et al., 2007). Ecosystem governance is defined by the International Union for Conservation and Nature as ?the means by which society determines and acts on goals and priorities related to the management of natural resources, ... [including] ? the rules, both formal and informal, that govern human behaviour in decision-making processes as well as the decisions themselves? (IUCN, 2018). Whilst growth management and ecosystem governance have been subject of some studies across the globe, there is still a need to examine how these concepts can be used when looking at urban expansion and rural protection at the urban-rural fringe. The case study of the Town of Lincoln is interesting as it relates to how Ontario observes its population growth, especially in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Growth in southern Ontario and the town of Lincoln According to the 2017 Growth Outlook report, forecast show a drastic population growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe to 13.5 million people by the year 2041, which will greatly affect municipalities, land use and infrastructure (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2017). Currently approximately 25% of Canada?s population resides in the Greater Golden Horseshoe and is projected to increase in the upcoming years (Greenbelt, 2017b). This will put more pressure on municipalities like the Town of Lincoln in southern Ontario to expand their urban boundaries into rural areas to accommodate this increase. The Town of Lincoln is a young municipality in Southern Ontario established in 1970 from the amalgamation of the former municipalities of the Town of Beamsville, Township of Clinton, and part of the Township of Louth (Town of Lincoln, 2018a). Settled in the heart of the Niagara region and Greenbelt, it produces a variety of goods, services, cultural and heritage sites. As expressed in the Town of Lincoln (2017) official plan, the town ?is comprised of rural lands, the majority of which are under agricultural production, surrounding small towns with fixed urban boundaries? (p. 10). Being located within the Greenbelt, the Town of Lincoln cannot expand its current urban boundaries (Town of Lincoln, 2018b). The municipality?s vision ?is to be a centre of Excellence for Agriculture? and their focus is on managing and protecting agricultural development as part of ?the natural heritage system? (Town of Lincoln, 2017, p.1). The mild climate allows for agriculture to produce specialty crops such as orchards, vineyards, wineries, fresh fruit and vegetables which also contributes to maintaining a ?healthy hydrological function, air quality and wildlife habitat? (Town of Lincoln, 2017, p.1). In consulting with its citizens, the Town of Lincoln Official plan (2017) states that qualities valued in the community tend to be related to the environmental landscape and ?the small-town character, diversity in choices of housing, employment and services, the vibrant culture and being part of a regional community that has tremendous social and economic opportunity? (p.1). In addition, the municipality is near a large urban centre (Toronto) and some famous attractions, such as Niagara Falls which brings millions of tourists year-round (Niagara Falls, 2018). Being one of the ?fourth fastest growing? townships in the Niagara region, the town faces great development pressures (Town of Lincoln, 2018c). The town currently has a population of almost 24,000 residents (Town of Lincoln, 2017). Its regional growth plan forecasts a population growth of approximately 4,783 in the next 20 years (Town of Lincoln, 2017). Maps of the Town show pockets of urban development within a web of agricultural and natural lands. There is a need to accommodate future residents, necessitating strategies for attaining a sustainable vision. Indeed, the Town of Lincoln?s vision is to create a ?vibrant Greenbelt community?, managing urban and rural land use for the betterment of the community and the environment they depend on (Town of Lincoln, 2017). 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe 42 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective The town of Lincoln consultation and expression of conflicts The town of Lincoln is expecting a large population growth in the coming years which ?will precipitate the need for approximately 2,110 new dwelling units? (Town of Lincoln, 2017, p. 9). Moreover, development trends evaluated in the Development Charges Background study reveal that residential housing units will be mixed of ?approximately 29% low density (single detached and semi-detached), 38% medium density (multiples except apartments) and 33% high density (bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2+ bedroom apartments)? (Watson & Associates Economists LTD., 2018, p. 21). Most of these housing needs is anticipated to be developed in ?Beamsville urban area (65%), the remaining urban area (26%) and rural (9%)? (Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2018, p.21). The official plan also states that in terms of employment, ?the agricultural sector experienced considerable growth between 2001 and 2012? (Town of Lincoln, 2017, p. 10). The town of Lincoln census data show that it currently has mostly single-detached housing types (Statistics Canada, 2017). The Town of Lincoln (2017) official plan states that they will be able to meet their target for accommodating ?approximately 900 new units? within built up areas in the next 15 years (p. 13). In addition, the Town of Lincoln as shown in the Development Charges Background Study ?maintains 309km of urban and rural roads? and will likely increase in the coming years (Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2018, p. 51). A list of concepts such as fixed ?urban area boundaries?, ?built-up areas?, ?greenfield areas?, and the intensification and redevelopment of existing urban areas are shared in the official plan to improve land use management based on provincial and regional plans (Town of Lincoln, 2017). To avoid aggravating sprawl and growth conflicts, the official plan outlines their goal to direct residential development in ?areas where full municipal services and other community facilities exist? as well as employing intensification strategies near their ?central business districts? (Town of Lincoln, 2017, p. 6). In line with this strategy for directing growth and economic development, the town has instilled a Community Improvement Plan aimed at revitalizing ?private sector investment and building rehabilitation and development? (Town of Lincoln, 2018d). Three spots were approved under this plan: ?the CIP for the Vineland Central Business District, the CIP for the Beamsville Central Business District and the Ontario Street Commercial Area, and the Mixed Use and Residential Intensification CIP? (Town of Lincoln, 2018d). Further attempts to encourage economic growth and invigorate development in designated areas are directed by six economic growth guiding principles that support business and other related endeavours (Town of Lincoln, 2018e). In terms of preserving the community values and its agricultural character, the municipality expresses its intent to avoid fragmentation, degradation, and improper land use of prime agricultural areas through proactive land use policies supported by regional and provincial policy plans (Town of Lincoln, 2017). These documents acknowledge that the land is a finite resource of significant value to the character of the town for its benefits to economic development, the cultural and natural heritage. As an urban-rural town with budget constraints and fixed boundaries, supplying necessary services and maintaining existing infrastructure will be challenging. The type of infrastructures includes those ?for waste disposal, aggregate extraction, cemeteries, power corridors and community services? (Horner, 2014, p. 4). One problem will be the heightened congestion of roads and stress put on existing infrastructure due to increased population growth. For instance, Lincoln (2018b) posits that ?the Wine Route alone is in need of repair? and that investment in these infrastructures ?is critical, but unaffordable for the Town and its residents?. Likewise, the Golden Horseshoe Agriculture and Agri-Food Strategy Food & Farming: An Action Plan 2021 shares a similar concern for congestion and the impact this will have on ?efficient movement of goods and the cost of transportation? (Walton, 2012, p. 2). Because the Town is located in the Greenbelt and has fixed urban boundaries, this also restricts the potential tax-base for supplying such infrastructure and service needs, making high development residential areas an attractive endeavour (Town of Lincoln, 2018b). As expressed in the Development Charges Background Study ?Town capital funding sources need to be obtained in order to help ensure that the necessary infrastructure and amenities are installed? (Watson & Associates Economists LTD., 2018, p. 81). This will be important to maintain services and accommodate for growth in the area. The town of Lincoln relies on provincial and regional policies and recommendations to be more sustainable and maintain a healthy agricultural community. Rural urban fringe challenges in the media As development pressures increase in previously predominantly rural areas moving towards urban-rural fringe, there can be opposition to land-use changes and practices. Some of the complaints from urban residents may come from agricultural practices which sometimes release unpleasant odours and noises. For example, farmers have to ?install noise makers? meant to scare off birds from their crops which can cause a disturbance to neighbours, whilst agricultural run-off is another concern (Jayasinghe-Mudalige et al., 2005). With the various needs and worries of the community, municipalities must understand how to balance these interests to provide services appropriate to different groups of people. Walker et al. (2018) report that respondents feel that ?rural areas are being used to absorb the demands and problems of urban centres? as they protest techno-industrial developments in their neighbourhoods (p. 117). These sentiments are aggravated by recent school closures in rural areas across Canada. In the Niagara Region, the District School Board of Niagara has begun closing schools in predominantly rural areas due to ?low enrolment figures? and limited budget and source of funding (Gollom, 2017). Likewise, in Prince Edward Island local people have been distraught by plans to remove rural schools (Yarr, 2017). Whilst recommendations 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 43 are underway to close the selected primarily rural schools, many people show concerns over maintaining the lifestyle of rural communities and their interests (Yarr, 2017). CBC News reports the sentiments of the president of Georgetown Elementary Home and School Association, ?It kind of feels as though the rural areas are being attacked, and we?re being closed down so that the urban schools can prosper which really isn?t fair to our children?s education? (Yarr, 2017). Closing schools has not only an impact on the sense of place felt by the residents but also the economic viability of the area. Potential homeowners will give precedence to an area closer to a school and will thus be less likely to reside in these rural areas (Yarr, 2017). Mason-Renton et al. (2016) find that members? attachment to sense of place play a role in the varying responses towards development and land use changes, reflecting the multiple divergent expectations and concerns within the community that create conflicts. The varying interests and conflicts that emerge can be seen as exceptionally detrimental to the community as concerns are heightened and groups are felt their needs are left out of land use changes. Some residents can feel the effect of such social conflicts to be ?so bad as to stigmatize the community, whether imagined as harmoniously pastoral or agricultural? (Mason-Renton et al., 2016, p. 37). For example, Walker et al. (2018) report residents? reactions to development pressures in the rural communities of Southgate township, Port Burwell and Clear Creek that are close to operational wind turbines and a biosolids fertilizer processing facility. Walker et al. (2018) argue that ?differing priorities lead to community conflict and strife? reflecting what respondents had described as ?changing the socio-cultural nature of their community? (p. 117). Attachment sentiments to the area and varying expectations for land use plays a role in the intra-conflicts that one may find in urban-rural contexts. These concerns reflect the importance of understanding the clashing sentiments of urban and rural communities in municipal planning as predominantly rural areas face land use pressures and look to collaborative solutions to socio-economic and environmental problems. Policy review Governments have the potential to shape a community by developing strategies to support the health and livelihoods of people and nature. Supporting conservation and development must be balanced to ensure the viability of the natural area and secures economic prosperity to meet the needs of the community. The Province of Ontario acknowledges that with increasing economic activities in the Greater Toronto Area, there is a need to continue supporting housing and community development whilst at the same time protecting lands for biodiversity and agricultural practices. Certainly, ?Ontario?s agricultural industry remains the most diverse and productive in Canada? ranking 4th in total area of farmland by province? which makes agricultural protection an important factor in planning (Lauzon et al., 2015, p. 41). The province has adopted a number of land use planning policies for this purpose. Major policies include the ?2005 provincial policy statement regarding land use planning, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Greenbelt, the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Greater Golden Horseshoe Plan? (Donnan, 2008, p. 2). The majority of these planning policies have been developed through public consultations and reflect the ability of a ?multi-actor network, including government, the environmental movement, and the private sector? to work towards providing ?significant environmental protection through collaborative efforts? (Whitelaw, 2007, p. 682). The following paragraphs discuss these policies further, their implementation and relation to the town of Lincoln for urban-rural fringe areas as the municipality employs regional and provincial strategies. The provincial policy statement for land-use planning provides direction for how development should be planned and was made to better mirror the condition of various communities in rural Ontario (OMMAH, 2014). Relevant to this study is the particular interest of the policy statement to undertake a preventative method in planning to reduce or avoid some of the negative impacts of development on land such as ?odour, noise and other contaminants? (OMMAH, 2014, p. 13). The overall aim is to protect ?resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment? (OMMAH, 2014, p.1). In terms of suburban development, the OMMAH (2014) encourages recurrently throughout this policy statement ?efficient development patterns?, mixed housing and land-use in appropriate growth areas as well as conservation (p. 4). The policy statement asks of municipalities to ?accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 10 years through residential intensification and redevelopment? ensuring that such land can sustain ?at least a three-year supply of residential units available through lands suitably zoned? (OMMAH, 2014, p. 14). The main focus is on developing already existing residential areas and improving their infrastructure. As for the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan initiated in 2002, it validates the escarpment and moraine covering 160 km of Southern Ontario?s natural heritage as an important structure unique to the region which contributes to its health and liveability (OMMAH, 2002). This plan comes at a time when people advocated for more stringent planning to protect the moraine natural heritage and biodiversity conservation (Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007). The plan recognises that the Moraine faces strong development pressures for various touristic, recreational and economic uses necessitating a preventative strategy to protect the valuable ecosystems and resources from such effects (OMMAH, 2002). As part of the plan?s land management strategies, four types of land use designations are presented: natural core areas, natural linkage areas, countryside areas, and settlement areas representing the smallest portion (8%) of designated land use (OMMAH, 2002; Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007). Niagara?s Escarpment plan in conjunction with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation plan and Greenbelt plan offer greater conservation in terms of land use planning following the Growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, to direct how development will accommodate growth trends and secure prime agricultural land and natural resources (Niagara Escarpment Commission, 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe 44 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective 2017). In 1990, the Niagara escarpment was recognised for being an ?internationally significant landform? when it was designated as a Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (Niagara Escarpment Commission, 2017, p. 1). The plan covers 725km of land providing a breadth of ecological and natural resources, cultural heritage, and contribute to providing the Niagara region population health and quality of life benefits (Niagara Escarpment Commission, 2017). The Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) provides seven land use designations: ?Escarpment Natural Area, Escarpment Protection Area, Escarpment Rural Area, Minor Urban Centre, Urban Area, Escarpment Recreation Area, Mineral Resource Extraction Area? (p. 11). In 2005, the province decided to adopt the Greenbelt concept (OMMAH, 2017). The Greenbelt has often been used to deal with land- use challenges caused by development pressures. They must reconcile demands for recreational activities, development needs, and safeguard the area?s biodiversity (Fung & Conway, 2007; Lloyd & Peel, 2007; Pond, 2009; Siedentop, Fina, & Krehl, 2016; Lloyd & Peel, 2007). The Greenbelt plan in southern Ontario assumes such an endeavor, covering approximately 8,000 square kilometres of land making it one of the largest of its kind (Greenbelt, 2017a). The Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (2017) explains how the Greenbelt Plan along with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan, work together with the Growth Plan to deal with urban sprawl and protect the environment. Among other benefits are the protection of natural resources such as ensuring clean water, and other critically important ecosystem services (Greenbelt, 2017a). The Greater Golden Horseshoe plan was initiated in 2006 as an addition to other land use management strategies that tackle development and conservation needs in Ontario (OMMAH, 2017). It explains the desired trajectory of the GGH to safeguard the natural heritage whilst striving for economic development (OMMAH, 2017). The plan describes some foreseeable challenges from growth trends that justify the need for greater planning strategies such as ?increased demand for infrastructure investments?, the need for community designs offering a ?mix of housing options? and amenities, ?increased traffic congestion?, degradation of natural and ?cultural heritage resources?, the need to protect the ?finite supply of quality agricultural lands that feed the region?, climate change impact on communities and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (OMMAH, 2017, p. 3). The plan along with other acting land use management plans has for aim to foster ?complete communities, a thriving economy, a clean and healthy environment, and social equity? (OMMAH, 2017, p. 3). Over the course of the implementation of these regional and provincial land use planning policies, researchers and various stakeholders have presented a number of appraisals, benefits and criticisms for how the plans deal with conflicts faced by communities in Ontario as well as their ability to maintain the ecological viability of the area. Plans such as the Moraine and Greenbelt were unique at the time for protecting land and limiting development on private land whilst also being important for expressing the value of such areas to different groups of people (Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007). This type of planning for ?ecological corridors? was an important policy to prevent further degradation of ecosystems and ?fragmented pockets of natural habitat, which are isolated from each other and can no longer function together as an ecosystem? (Pirot, Meynell, & Elder, 2000, p. 26). However, Fung & Conway (2007) describe the Oak Ridges Moraine plan and Greenbelt plan to be limited in having fixed boundaries as they could benefit from ?future modifications of the boundary due to new findings on the geographical extent of the moraine? and Greenbelt that may further improve conservation efforts (p. 107). In addition, there is a concern that development can still occur on these lands due to ?inconsistent policies? (Fung & Conway, 2007, p. 107). Some areas of the plan are ?flexible? in permitting some forms of development if shown to be necessary through a ?comprehensive growth management study? (Fung & Conway, 2007, p. 107). For instance, Fung & Conway (2007) assert that municipalities near Toronto with ?developers who are seeking to build new subdivisions in the eastern section will increasingly be able to ?demonstrate? the need for new residential development? as growth needs place more pressure on municipalities to extend development (p. 107). Another concern voiced by Fung & Conway (2017) is ?that it encourages developers to ?leapfrog? the moraine to the north, where there is more land and potentially lower prices? (p. 109). Protecting and restricting development on privately owned land may be an important planning tool employed by the province to preserve prime agricultural and sensitive lands, but it also creates issues for farmers and other residents who are unhappy with the restriction to develop on these lands (Pond, 2009). In addition to this sentiment is the feeling shared by the ?Golden Horseshoe Agriculture and Agri-Food Strategy Food & Farming: An Action Plan 2021? that these provincial policy plans neglect the interests of farmers (Walton, 2012). In reaction to this a group of actors and stakeholders have collaboratively worked to conceptualize shared concerns and challenges faced by farmers in the region and identify opportunities to not only protect agricultural land but ensure that this is supported and continues to grow (Walton, 2012). This effort has resulted in ?a strategy and action plan to support food and farming across the Golden Horseshoe and in the Holland Marsh? (Walton, 2012, p. 3). Growth development strategies in Lincoln Provincial planning policies provide direction on where to allow development as well as some guidance for improving the quality of life, equity, and sustainability of various areas. Some of the main and recurrent strategies provided through these documents 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 45 are: smart growth principles, intensification, compact community design, and slow urban expansion. The plans acknowledge that municipalities will have challenges due to limited budget for achieving the goals set out by the region and province. Smart growth and new urbanism principles have emerged as a way to manage growth, limit sprawl and deal with some of the urban-rural planning conflicts (Daniels & Lapping, 2005; Emerine, Shenot, Bailey, Sobel, & Susman, 2006; Godschalk, 2004; Hare, 2001; Jepson & Edwards, 2010; Kim & Larsen, 2017; Tomalty & Alexander, 2005). The wish to balance sustainability, economic development and protection of natural areas can consider among many things the notion of livable communities. Godschalk (2004) explains that this notion often falls under two concepts: New Urbanism and Smart Growth. As recommended by the province, the Town of Lincoln is considering smart growth principles to deal with land use conflicts and development pressures (Town of Lincoln, 2017). Smart Growth has been advocated for tackling issues of social sustainability as well as environmental protection through a set of guiding principles: ?mix land uses; take advantage of compact building design; create a range of housing opportunities and choices; create walkable neighbourhoods; foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place; preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas; strengthen and direct development towards existing communities; provide a variety of transportation choices; make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective; encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions? (Emerine et al., 2006, p. 1). Moreover, New Urbanism employs a ?citizen-based participatory planning and design? to address the social and economic implications of design decisions? (Godschalk, 2004, p. 6). The focus of such a concept is on equity and quality of life through improved ?housing affordability and social equity, two frequently cited expected outcomes of new urbanism projects? (Kim & Larsen, 2017, p. 2844). Whilst the concept has been valued for its concern for social aspects of sustainability, Godschalk (2004) criticizes it for not considering environmental implications and ignoring ?some important internal value conflicts? in land use planning (p. 7). Moreover, Kim & Larzen (2017) through an evaluation of the New Urbanism concept applied in an Orlando city neighbourhood named Parramore, explain that in order to achieve the social sustainability promoted by the charter, ?public sector intervention and support? as well as publicly funded affordable housing and community development programs? are more effective (p. 3,859). Principles voiced by Sustainability, New urbanism and Smart Growth proponents are all beneficial in that they aim at directing growth in a way that fosters responsible management of natural resources, land, and improving the quality of life of people. These methods will likely continue to be used and bring benefits to community planning efforts, however ?metropolitan development plans require continuous conflict resolution and consensus building to maintain the problematic relationships within the ecology of plans? (Godschalk, 2004, p. 12). Continuous research and evaluations of the implementation of such concepts will greatly help in understanding the gaps in achieving the objectives of the municipal and provincial plans who utilize these strategies. Open dialogue to discuss future projects is also encouraged to achieve sustainability and can be done using ecosystem governance as a framework. Discussion The term urban-rural fringe has had ?negative connotations? as a result of the complexity of challenges and actors that engage in urban-rural fringe planning (Cash, 2014, p. 128). In this case ?decision-makers need to be multi-tasking the coordination of local preferences, contexts and stakeholder initiatives horizontally across sectors whilst concurrently addressing vertical integration of decision making across spatial scales? (Scott et al., 2013, p. 40). Due to the complexity of social-ecological systems (SES), communities? benefit from taking an ecosystem governance approach for the following reasons. To begin, environmental management has taken precedence in planning as there is a greater acknowledgement that ecosystems are an invaluable component of SES for sustaining life and mitigating for climate change (Boyle & Nichol, 2018). Ecosystems are important to human populations and are directly in line with the concept of social-ecological system where humans and all other components of the environment are intricately connected. Investing in the protection and maintenance of ecosystems is thus good planning as it is beneficial for the long-term health benefits these offer (Adhikari & Baral, 2018; Boyle & Nichol, 2018). However, the importance of maintaining ecosystem health has been hard to conceptualize and communicate in local governance as municipalities try to justify spending on ?green infrastructure? for the benefit of ecosystem health which is often ?difficult to quantify compared to manmade infrastructure such as pipes and seawalls? (Boyle & Nichol, 2018, p. 18). Moreover, although human populations are ?an integral part of ecosystems? many find it difficult to identify with concepts of ecosystem processes? (Pirot et al., 2000, p. 29). Seeing people as separate from such processes adds to the challenge of expressing the importance of ecosystem governance and contributes to this ?development conflict? whereby different needs are competing. Quantifying the value of ecosystem services through policy design is a recent endeavor to assist in communicating their benefits in a way that can be measured and appraised (Frantzeskaki & Tilie, 2014). Properly communicating how protecting ecosystems function in local governance is important for community cohesion as well as encouraging greater involvement in environmental stewardship. Additionally, management practices have often taken a ?reductionist approach?? in looking at preserving a few facets of the environment without considering the full extent and ?interconnections? of such ecosystems (Vasseur et al., 2017, p. 734). Ecosystem governance provides a more holistic approach by looking to promote innovative solutions to socioeconomic, cultural and environmental problems 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe 46 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective faced by various communities through greater integration and collaboration. This is important in the context of urban-rural fringe planning as development needs put pressure on land which can be deemed a finite resource requiring careful management strategies. Ecosystem governance encapsulates a participatory framework that would benefit communities by enticing greater collaboration and integration whilst also highlighting the importance of ecosystems for preserving human and other life (Vasseur et al., 2017). In such a perspective, ecosystems are valued as the foundation of the system rather than an aspect of planning that requires being balanced along with social and economic development (Vasseur et al., 2017). Ecosystem governance is also beneficial in being flexible and promoting a collaborative participatory approach, which has been favoured by many researchers in urban-rural fringe and environmental planning (Altinbilek et al., 2007; Cash, 2014; Frantzeskaki & Tilie, 2014; Gulsrud, Hertzog, & Shears, 2018; Haysom, 2015; Hiner, 2015; Pirot et al., 2000; Vasseur et al., 2017; Wamsler, 2015). It especially encourages a bottom-up approach in managing resources (Pirot et al., 2000). This serves multiple functions by sharing knowledge among a wider audience and expressing the importance of such frameworks for better governance. Everyone collectively holds a shared responsibility in the proper governance of ecosystems as they are an essential part of them, and as such have the potential to make such endeavors a great success or failure (Pirot et al., 2000). Fostering local community participation ensures interest in environmental planning and encourages stewardship such that these practices can be maintained long-term. The Town of Lincoln followed such principles for the recent development of what is called ?The Prud?homme Development? where a series of citizen-based participatory planning was completed and where environmental considerations are seriously being taken, especially along the shore of Lake Ontario. Conclusion This paper demonstrates the complexity of urban rural fringe planning and the need for further strategies that foster collaboration and environmental planning and encourage foresight to limit unsustainable development practices. It is likely that the clashing sentiments felt by residents in the urban-rural fringe will continue as conflicts over land-use is unavoidable when there are many groups holding different interests and complex social dynamics. Decisions over land use changes will often favour one groups interests and thus create conflicts. However, Mason-Renton et al. (2016) explain how these sentiments and conflicts can be detrimental to community cohesion as people feel annexed in their community. Collaborative participatory frameworks under ecosystem governance fosters greater community involvement which can help in mediating conflicts. Moreover, opportunities exist for collaboration in environmental management whilst engaging some of the social conflicts expressed in this report. Communities have assets in the form of organisations and people such as universities that can contribute greatly to environmental management efforts. Involving local organisations and people provides opportunities for knowledge sharing and partnerships that are both beneficial to the community and the university that wishes to put into practice their skills (Fullerton, 2015). This sort of endeavor is undertaken in the Town of Lincoln through the Brock-Lincoln Living Lab initiative which is both an opportunity for experiential education and a way to operationalize this experience for the benefit of the municipality of Lincoln by providing research specific to their needs and challenges (Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, 2018). Place-based approaches should help in identifying collaborations that will benefit communities under the ecosystem governance approach and assist the municipality of Lincoln reach their goals as well as some objectives provided by the provincial government. References Altinbilek, D., Gopalakrishnan, C., Lundqvist, J., Pres, A., Turton, A., Varis, O., ? Ashton, P. J. (2007). Towards a Model for Ecosystem Governance: An Integrated Water Resource Management Example. In Governance as a Trialogue: Government- Society-Science in Transition (pp. 1?28). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-46266-8 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 Boyle, C., & Nichol, E. (2018). Low Carbon Resilience and Transboundary Municipal Ecosystem Governance: A case study of Still Creek. Cash, C. (2014). Towards Achieving Resilience at the Rural-Urban Fringe: The Case of Jamestown, South Africa. Urban Forum, 25(1), 125?141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-013-9204-2 Daniels, T., & Lapping, M. (2005). Land preservation: An essential ingredient in smart growth. Journal of Planning Literature, 19(3), 316?329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412204271379 Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin, F. S., & Tilman, D. (2006). Biodiversity loss threatens human wellbeing. PLoS Biology, 4(8), 1300? 1305. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Donnan, J. a. (2008). Economic Implications and Consequences of Population Growth, Land Use Trends and Urban Sprawl in Southern Ontario. Services, Environmental Economics Hill, West, (June). Retrieved from Index of /en/content/reporttopics/envreports/env08 (auditor.on.ca) Emerine, D., Shenot, C., Bailey, M. K., Sobel, L., & Susman, M. (2006). This Is Smart Growth, 32. Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=792715 Environmental Sustainability Research Center. (2018). Brock Lincoln Living Lab. Retrieved from Brock University: https://brocku.ca/esrc/brock-lincoln-living-lab/ Frantzeskaki, N., & Tilie, N. (2014). The dynamics of Urban ecosystem governance in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ambio, 43(4), 542?555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0512-0 Fullerton, C. (2015). University-Community Partnerships as a Pathway to Rural Development : Benefits of an Ontario Land Use Planning Project. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 10(1), 56?71. Fung, F., & Conway, T. (2007). Greenbelts as an Environmental Planning Tool : A Case Study of Southern Ontario , Canada. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(2), 101?117. Gant, R. L., Robinson, G. M., & Fazal, S. (2011). Land-use change in the ?edgelands?: Policies and pressures in London?s rural- urban fringe. Land Use Policy, 28(1), 266?279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.007 Godschalk, D. R. (2004). Land Use Planning Challenges. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 5?13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360408976334 Gollom, M. (2017). How rural school closures are ?ripping the heart out of the community?. Retrieved from CBC News: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rural-school-closures-1.4157059 Greenbelt. (2017a). The GreenBelt EST 2005. Retrieved from http://www.greenbelt.ca/about_the_greenbelt. Greenbelt. (2017b). Global Cities: Housing Prices in Major Urban Centres, one in a series. Housing Affordability in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Retrieved from: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/greenbelt/pages/3064/attachments/ original/1488831799/Housing_Reports_1_Final.pdf?1488831799 Gulsrud, N. M., Hertzog, K., & Shears, I. (2018). Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne?: Investigating ?green placemaking? as a nature-based solution. Environmental Research, 161(November 2017), 158158?167167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.005 Hare, M. (2001). Exploring growth management roles in Ontario: learning from ?who does what? elsewhere. Haysom, G. (2015). Food and the City: Urban Scale Food System Governance. Urban Forum, 26(3), 263?281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-015-9255-7 Hiner, C. C. (2015). (False) Dichotomies, political ideologies, and preferences for environmental management along the rural-urban interface in Calaveras County, California. Applied Geography, 65, 13?27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.10.001 IUCN. (2018). Ecosystem Governance. Retrieved from https://www.iucn.org/commissions/commission-ecosystem-management/ ourwork/cems-thematic-groups/ecosystem-governance Jayasinghe-mudalige, B. U., Weersink, A., Deaton, B., Beaulieu, M., & Trant, M. (2005). The urban-rural clash: Environmental management systems on Canadian farms, (21). Jepson, E. J., & Edwards, M. M. (2010). How possible is sustainable urban development? An analysis of planners? perceptions about new urbanism, smart growth and the ecological city. Planning Practice and Research, 25(4), 417?437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010.511016 Kim, J., & Larsen, K. (2017). Can new urbanism infill development contribute to social sustainability? The case of Orlando, Florida. Urban Studies, 54(16), 3843?3862. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016670557 Lauzon, A., Ragetlie, N., Caldwell, W., & Douglas, D. (2015). State of rural Canada report: Ontario. Lloyd, M. G., & Peel, D. (2007). Green belts in Scotland: Towards the modernisation of a traditional concept? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(5), 639?656. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560701475220 Lyon, D. (1983). The Development of the Urban-Rural Fringe: A Literature Review, (3). Mason-renton, S. A., Luginaah, I., & Baxter, J. (2016). The Community Divide is more Detrimental than the Plant Itself: Confrontational Stigma and Community Responses to Rural Facility Siting. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 11(2), 22?44. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2002). Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 73. 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2014). Provincial Policy Statement, 56. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2017). Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017), 1?120. Niagara Escarpment Commission. (2017). Niagara Escarpment Plan. Niagara Falls. (2018). Niagara Falls Facts. Retrieved from Niagara Falls: https://niagarafalls.ca/living/about-niagara-falls/facts.aspx Perveen, S., Kamruzzaman, M., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2017). Developing policy scenarios for sustainable urban growth management: A Delphi approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101787 Pirot, J. -y., Meynell, P. J., & Elder, D. (2000). Ecosystem Management: Lessons from around the World. A guide for Development and Conservation Practitioners. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Pond, D. (2009). Ontario?s Greenbelt: Growth Management, Farmland Protection, and Regime Change in Southern Ontario, 35(4). Scott, A. J., Carter, C., Reed, M. R., Larkham, P., Adams, D., Morton, N., ? Coles, R. (2013). Disintegrated development at the rural ? urban fringe: Re-connecting spatial planning theory and practice. Progress in Planning, 83, 1?52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2012.09.001 Siedentop, S., Fina, S., & Krehl, A. (2016). Greenbelts in Germany?s regional plans ? An effective growth management policy? Landscape and Urban Planning, 145, 71?82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.09.002 Statistics Canada. (2017). Census Profile, 2016 Census. Retrieved from Statistics Canada: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E Tang, B. sin, Wong, S. wai, & Lee, A. K. wah. (2007). Green belt in a compact city: A zone for conservation or transition? Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(3?4), 358?373. Tomalty, R., & Alexander, D. (2005). Smart Growth in Canada: implementation of a planning concept, 226. https://doi. org/10.1177/1524839908331273 Town of Lincoln. (2018a). About Lincoln. Retrieved from Town of Lincoln: https://lincoln.ca/about Town of Lincoln. (2018b). Greenbelt Position Paper. Retrieved from Town of Lincoln: https://lincoln.ca/key-corporate-documents/greenbelt-position-paper Town of Lincoln. (2018c). Economic Development. Retrieved from Town of Lincoln: https://lincoln.ca/economic-development Town of Lincoln. (2018d). Community Improvement Plans. Retrieved from Town of Lincoln: https://lincoln.ca/community-improvement-plans Town of Lincoln. (2018e). Focus of Lincoln. Retrieved from Town of Lincoln: https://lincoln.ca/economic-development/focus-lincoln Town of Lincoln. (2017). Lincoln - OFFICIAL PLAN. Vasseur, L., Horning, D., Thornbush, M., Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Barrow, E., and Jones, M. (2017). Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: Bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN sustainable development goals. Ambio, 46(7), 731?742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0918-6 Walker, C., Mason, S., & Bednar, D. (2018). Sustainable Development and Environmental Injustice in Rural Ontario, Canada: Cases of Wind Energy and Biosolid Processing. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 13(2), 110?129. Walton, M. (2012). Golden Horseshoe Agriculture and Agri-Food Strategy Food & Farming: An Action Plan 2021. Wamsler, C. (2015). Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation: Transformation toward sustainability in urban governance and planning. Ecology and Society, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07489-200230 Watson & Associates Economists LTD. (2018). Town of Lincoln Development Charges Background Study. Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2001). Resident perceptions in the urban-rural fringe. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 439?458. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00052-951 Whitelaw, G. S., & Eagles, P. F. J. (2007). Planning for Long, Wide Conservation Corridors on Private Lands in the Oak Ridges Moraine, Ontario, 21(3), 675?683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00708.x Yarr, K. (2017, January 11). Urban-rural divide highlighted over school closure proposals. Retrieved from CBC News: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/peischool-closure-reaction-1.3930391 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 49 Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature ? our loss of connection with nature in our cities Edmund Barrow, CEM 6 Riverine Acacia tree forest along the Turkwell river in Turkana, Kenya © Edmund Barrow 50 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract Many of us have lost our sense of belonging and connectedness with nature. One reason is that about 55% of the world?s population reside in urban areas with little access to nature. Yet, we still assume that water will flow from our taps, food will be available, with little thought for where these services originate. This loss of connection with nature impacts people in various ways. It is evident that there are detriments to human functioning from a lack of nature exposure. How can we re-connect and respect nature?s limits? How can we re-achieve a sense of place, community, and what does this mean? What will it take to position nature, so it is not a slave to economic growth? This chapter provides analyses on the importance of reconnecting with nature in education, health, and our daily lives; the relevance of nature to industry and cities; and awareness on the importance of nature. The chapter highlights practical ways to achieve greater urban-rural connectivity, so that nature is an important part of urban planning and life in cities and rural areas. Impacts are felt on various sectors, e.g., education, land, water, and urban use, urban agriculture, health, industry and the private sector, in our spiritual domains, and in conservation. Forests, lakes, rivers, mountains can all be powerful healers and educators. The practical examples and lessons suggested can be used and adapted by people, families, communities, private sector and business. We can then become the change we want to be for a more sustainable world that recognises its dependence on nature and integrates this recognition in our actions. Introduction ? our cities need nature Humankind is increasingly alienated from nature. We need to reconnect with nature, respect and understand the wisdom and peace that it emanates, and bring nature ?back to? centre stage in our lives (Berry & Clarke, 1991). Prior to the industrial era we had a conscious awareness of our dependency on nature. Yet such experiences are being lost as we spend less time in nature. Since the mid-19th century, humankind has become increasingly urbanised (Pyle, 2003). As such our increased lack of experience with nature is a growing issue in urban areas. Urbanisation has increased over the past 50 years, and over 55% of the global population is urban ? a percentage that is increasing daily. This disconnect from natural environments and the importance of learning in and from nature has serious impacts on life in terms of attention disorders, our ability to learn, various health conditions, and conflict. Its effects are felt most in cities, especially amongst children and youth, where over 50% of children live and go to school, a figure that will increase to 65% by 2030 (Malone & Waite, 2016). There are factors that have led to our lack of connection with nature, for example: a). human exemptionism (Catton and Dunlap, 1978) which refers to the belief that the relationship between humans and the natural environment is unimportant because humans are ?exempt? from environmental forces and capable of adapting via cultural change ? this has led to the belief that human-kind is separate from nature rather than a part of it; b). The increasing urbanisation of the world has contributed to the lack of meaningful nature experience (Pyle, 2003); c). Since the start of the COVID pandemic, restrictions on freedoms around the world became a crisis. It caused nature deficit and accelerated our separation from nature. But the pandemic also increased people?s motivation to return to nature, which provided an opportunity to seek experiences and health recovery in nature (Syamsi et.al, 2022). Human- kind was closely connected with and depended on nature. This changed with the agrarian and industrial revolutions. These are some reasons why nature connection is becoming and increasingly important issue that needs to be addressed for sustainable environment management and the social and cultural well-being of people. We can learn from nature and being in nature. Because of their age, for example, trees are places of sacredness, provide materials and inspiration, are places of silence, awareness, and peace; and they are powerful educators. There are similar examples of how sacred natural places, such as rivers, mountains, waterfalls?are all powerful educators and healers. Nature is good for us and being in nature can give us an emotional lift. A walk in the park or garden restores you. But we take this for granted. Research shows that walking in nature and spending time under trees causes electrochemical changes that relax and calm us. There is increasing evidence for why we need to relate and connect more with nature, in terms of our health, state of mind and as a vehicle for restoration and education (Bird, 2010; Bouchardon, 1998; UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, 2011; Hanh, 1987; Li, 2010; Morris, 2003). These are restorative experiences (Dolesh, 2014). Yet the cost of mental illness in the UK, for example, is £12.5 billion to the National Health Service (NHS) and £23.1 billion to the economy (Bird, 2007). Drugs are prescribed, not a walk in the forest. The wellbeing benefits of nature help us relate to and experience nature. Yet we still do not know enough about the detriments to our wellbeing from a lack of time in nature (Maller et al., 2009). The growing literature on the benefits nature provides as to how this relates to our functioning (Richardson & McEwan, 2018); and. the increasing numbers of reviews on our exposure to nature and wellbeing (Capaldi et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2013; Staats et al., 2010). There is increasing concern that people?s more urbanised lifestyles have fewer and lower quality interactions with nature. As a result, they have limited access to the associated health and well-being benefits (Ying et.al., 2021). These all point to the growing importance of nature exposure and connection that can lead to health and wellbeing benefits. With most of humanity living in cities, urban people are often not able to care or understand as to, for example, what trees are cut down to build their homes, or where food comes from, nor do they experience such things. Yet, for many indigenous and rural people, the destruction of trees is like killing children, as the connection with nature is deep (Randall, 2007). This lack of experience 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 51 with nature is serious, as the author George Monbiot points out in a poignant story Randall (2007) spent two days with a group of 10-year-old children from a deprived London borough exploring rock pools and roaming the woods in mid-Wales, a rural area. Many had never ever been to the countryside before, nor had they ever seen the sea. A staggering example of how city youth are not exposed to nature. In the woods, the children paddled in streams, rolled down a hill, ate blackberries, and tasted mushrooms. Most had never done these things before, yet the exhilaration they showed in exploring nature seemed instinctive and natural. George Monbiot (2013) realized just how little contact they had with nature ? not one of them had seen a nettle or knew what happens if you touch it! This summarises how separate we have become. Many children are not exposed to nature and want to stay indoors. They become the next generation of adults who are then more ?nature and ecology ignorant?. There is a growing disparity between the time children spend indoors and in nature. The majority of children now use a computer, watch TV, or play video games. Only about 10% spend time in nature. Lack of access to natural areas and discomfort with the outdoors are two factors identified by a Nature Conservancy?s survey in the USA. This lack of connection is becoming increasingly serious as health and wellbeing benefits are lost which in turn means we are less exposed to the various benefits of nature. This chapter provides some examples on reconnecting with nature ? wherever we are and whatever we are doing. Loss of connectivity with nature needs to be seen in the context of the challenges we face ? a subject that has been neatly described as ?Nature Deficit Disorder? (Louv, 2008) which is being increasingly supported by research, for example with respect to stress or cancer, or education. This may be the cause of many disorders, such as a lack of peace, especially in cities. The insidious and increasing effects of our loss of connection with nature We will hand our children what we have done to the world. Our children could live amidst ruined infrastructure and cities, and the ruins of nature (Berry & Clarke, 1991). For many, we have lost direct contact with our food and water sources. But we can learn from those closely connected with Mother Earth ? the indigenous peoples and others living close to the land (Berry & Clarke, 1991). So, what have we done to raise a generation of mainly urban children and youth who fear the outdoors? Children have numerous excuses: getting muddy, being cold and wet. One in 10 children said they would rather stay inside to avoid ?touching germs,? and 11% felt ?too scared to go outside?. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in the UK identified that a large percentage of UK children are not connected to nature (Richardson et al., 2015). Children are conditioned to fear the outdoors, whether it is from repeated orders to ?be careful!? or ?stay out of the mud!?, or from sensationalized news stories (Martinko, 2018). The worrying thing is that each generation will pass on less nature experience with a poorer understanding. Nature Deficit Disorder means that people, especially urban children, spend less time outdoors, which results in various behavioural problems (Louv, 2008; 2009), including reduced use of senses, attention difficulties, stress, high blood pressure, various health conditions, higher rates of physical and emotional illnesses, and violence ? all characteristics of today?s fast moving mainly urban lives. These disorders and problems are now receiving increased research emphasis (Richardson et al., 2015). We can integrate nature in the classroom, and nature therapy into healthcare. But this often does not happen because of restrictive education curricula, or health care that does not embrace natural remedies. If children play in nature, they have less obesity, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), depression, suicide, alcohol, and drug abuse, and bullying (Atwood, 2011), which all contribute to less violence and greater peace. In 2017, DiversEarth, Peace Pals International, World Peace Prayer Society and IUCN organised the 20th anniversary celebrations of Peace Pals. This was an international art competition for children (over 6,000 entries from 60 countries). The theme was Loving the Earth?Nature, and it helped children think about peace in relation to nature. Many of us were lucky enough to grow up in nature and even take nature?s gifts for granted. I grew up on an organic farm in Ireland in the 1950?s where we were able to walk in our small wood, lie amongst the blue bells, fish in the river, make straw houses after the harvest, climb trees ? memories I have treasured since. Our children grew up in nature in the 1980?s when we worked in a very dry rural part of northwest Kenya and did similar things. We have been able to learn from nature and take that learning into our daily lives. But increasingly, urban people are connected to the internet and cities, not to nature. An adult?s attitude to the environment and time spent in green space is influenced by their experience as a child. A UK National Trust survey found 90% of parents prefer children to spend time connecting with nature, as children today spend half the time their parents did playing outside in nature. Whilst over 80% of parents thought it was important for children to learn to use technology. On average, children play outside for about 4 hours per week, compared to 8.2 hours a week when the adults questioned were children (The Guardian, 2016). ?Nature serves as a blank slate and inspires creativity in a child by demanding visualization and full use of the senses. Given a chance, a child will bring the confusion of the world into the woods, wash it in the creek, and turn it over to see what lies on the unseen side of that confusion? (Louv, 2010). There are risks to learning and playing in nature, but there are also risks of staying indoors too long, including to our judgement and value of place, our ability to feel awe and a lost sense of stewardship. There are more immediate threats to our psychological and physical health and there is a lot of local variation in the interactions between people and nature. (Ying et.al, 2021). 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature 52 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Reduced exposure to nature is due to parental fears, restricted access, and electronic devices. People can, but often do not spend time outdoors, e.g., outdoor education, forest kindergartens or forest schools. Solutions to Nature Deficit Disorder lie in how urban areas, planners, and policy makers (especially for education and health) embrace the role of nature in cities and the natural hinterlands. The causes of Nature Deficit Disorder include (Louv, 2008): a) Parents keep children indoors for safety and over-protect them which disrupts their ability to connect to nature; b) Loss of natural surroundings in a child?s neighbourhood make it difficult to access nature, as many nature parks have restricted access type signs. Then environmentalists and educators tell children ?look but don?t touch?. This comes at a cost to a child?s relationship with nature, as experiential learning requires touching and doing; c) Children spend more time, and have more reasons to stay inside, due to computers, video games, social media and television. The average American child spends 44 hours a week with electronic media; and d) This lack of exposure to nature in childhood is perpetuated into adulthood, which creates a vicious cycle resulting in a further increased alienation from nature. As a result, children and adults have changed their interactions with nature. This contributes to a variety of effects ? either partly or directly attributable to a lack of exposure to nature. Such effects include (Louv, 2008; 2017): a) Children have less respect for nature, due to the increasing pace of the last three decades, of a rapid disengagement between children and direct experiences in nature. This has implications for the health of future generations and for the health of the Earth itself?; b) Stress and depression may develop or be exacerbated, as people who do not get adequate time in nature are more prone to depression, and stress; c) With a greater understanding of ADD, lower grades in school seem to be related, in part, to Nature Deficit Disorder. Children as young as 5 showed up to 30% reduction in ADD when they engage with nature compared to urban outdoor activities. ADD affects 5-10% of school children in the UK, and they may benefit from more time in nature, greener routes to school and better views from their windows (Bird, 2007); d) There is now a stronger link between time spent in nature and future engagement in nature as adults. Nature connection can predict engagement with nature and childhood experiences being important in adulthood (Hinds & Sparks, 2009; Nisbet et al., 2009). Outdoor experiential education results in children having better self-esteem, are better able to solve problems and ask questions, and are more motivated to learn. Whilst the lack of access to green space is very unfortunate for city residents, this can also severely affect their resilience to climate change. If there are few trees and most of the built environment is paved, temperatures can be up to 10° higher than if there were ample green space. So small steps could add up to a cooler, more disaster-hardy, and more equitable city. Physical activity and exposure to nature are good for health, have positive impacts on mental health and wellbeing, and reduce sadness and negativity. Children who spend time in woodlands with friends or alone without parental supervision are more likely to visit and enjoy woodlands as adults, are more likely to describe woodlands as ?magical? and are less anxious when visiting woodlands (Bird, 2007). Education engaging with nature ? children, youth, adults We have much to learn from nature, yet our education systems have ?unconditioned? us to think that working the land, and with nature is not good. It will not make us millionaires! Rather we should be in offices in front of computer screens ? in short be urban. This calls for retooling our education systems. As Paulo Freire said, ?Education is suffering from narration sickness? (Freire, 1968). He criticizes education for its passivity. Education should be experiential, where students and teachers are co-learners, problems jointly solved, and solutions provide avenues for learning (Giracca, 2016). Such experiential approaches bring people into nature and may attract more policy support, especially in view of current ?environmental crises?, e.g., plastics, climate change, and forest destruction. Children of the ?Plant for the Planet? movement have a simple rationale for tree planting and respecting nature: ?We do it because trees are the lungs of the world. There is no life without trees? (Felix and Friends, 2011). This helps children and adults understand the importance of learning together, knowing that ?it all counts, every tree planted counts?. Children who spend time learning in nature do better academically, as exploring nature makes subjects richer and more relevant (Kings College London, 2011). Schools should have access to nature (e.g., a school garden), a city park nearby, or incorporate visits to nature (c.f. Monbiot?s experience in this chapter) in a rural hinterland. This is an essential part of education, not an add-on. 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 53 About 76% of youth today believe issues like climate change can be solved if action is taken now. There is a growing disparity between the time children spend indoors with their social media and the time they spend enjoying nature. The vast majority of today?s children use a computer, watch TV, or play video games on a daily basis, but only about 10% say they spend time outdoors every day, according to a poll in the USA from The Nature Conservancy. Lack of access to natural areas and discomfort with the outdoors are two factors identified by the Conservancy?s poll. Eighty per cent said it was uncomfortable to be outdoors due bugs and heat, whilst 62% said they did not have transport to natural areas, and 61% said there were no natural areas near their homes. A child today can likely tell you about the Amazon rainforest (classroom knowledge), but not about the last time he or she explored the woods (experiential knowledge). Young people in urban schools can recognise over 50 logos of business corporations. But take them into the woods, few will be able to name 10 trees (Kumar, 2005). Yet, many indigenous peoples have a deep knowledge of nature. For example, 8?12-year-old Mayan girls in Central America know the names and uses of nearly 1,000 different plants (Stowe, 2003)! How many in cities of the developed world could name 50? It is clear younger people are more likely to form strong nature connections, which can continue into adulthood (Lumber et al., 2017). Nature connection accounts for around 69% of ecological behaviour as measured in studies (Otto & Pensini, 2017). Schools using outdoor classrooms and experiential learning produce students with enhanced skills in problem solving, critical thinking and decision-making. They are more engaged in class and more open to conflict resolutions. Time in nature stimulates children?s creativity, whilst separation causes a failure to bond properly and establish a caring relationship with nature (Sigman, 2009). Caring for nature is important, and can be supported by experiential environmental education. For example, Parents of children in Switzerland watch TV and play video games for less than half the amount of time each week that British children do. It seems Swiss families do a better job at balancing relationships and technology, without letting the addictiveness of the latter overtake every aspect of their lives. The survey found 90% of Swiss children play outside at least once a week, 84% play sports, and 80% meet with friends. When asked what people feel when they are in nature, the feelings are similar ? peace, silence, stillness, and connectedness (Maira, 2010). Yet children can no longer, so easily, roam the countryside, experience nature and learn life lessons. How can we expect children to grow up being environmentally conscious? We can sit under a tree, go into a deep silence, and become aware of the sounds of silence. This helps us become aware of the aliveness of the natural world around us (Tolle, 2005). We can all do this in areas such as woodland, river, mountain, city park, but it can also be done in a garden, or with a potted plant. Education, especially the early years, is the foundation for reversing the destruction of the planet and our pursuit of economic growth (Thinley, 2010). Bhutan infuses education with human and ecological values of their policy of Gross National Happiness (GNH). Thinley, the Prime Minister of Bhutan noted a) we should separate true happiness from fleeting feel good moods; b) GNH is a development path embracing sustainable and economic development with environmental conservation, good governance, and the wisdom of Bhutan?s ancient culture; and c) Education is the glue that holds this together (Thinley, 2010). This requires teachers to be facilitators and sources of knowledge, providing a climate for ?learning by doing?. In this way, we bring the class out of the classroom into nature. If young people graduate with a sense of care for nature and each other, this will help us live in harmony (Thinley, 2010). Putting this into practice in education systems and changing how teachers are trained are challenges for experiential learning. Sadly, experiential learning is restricted by more and more rules (Sobel, 2012), exams, and disadvantaged by the fact that most of the world?s population are alienated from nature in cities. Education systems have to foster environmental responsibility, so we care for creation as an imperative. The seeds of environmental stewardship are sown when we are young and most receptive. This will support a move, as Pope Francis says, to ?ecological conversion, ... and the ecological conversion needed to bring about lasting change is also a community conversion? (Pope Francis, 2015). Children, between 6 and 12, have a strong desire to explore woods and climb trees, dig tunnels, collect earthworms etc. All the great environmentalists had first-hand experience with nature (Sobel, 2012). My wife used to take her school class into nature in the outskirts of Nairobi, Kenya, so they could experience nature ? the soil, the leaves, the earthworms (and other insects), and plant trees. The parents used to ask why their children came back so muddy, yet so happy, and full of what they had learnt about nature. Many of those children, now adults, still remember those experiences. Many schools, with or without government support, are starting to use natural spaces as part of learning experience. Such learning in nature has undergone a renaissance. Some countries are more advanced, for example the concept of open-air living and learning is established in Scandinavia, whilst Germany has the Kindergarten movement (Gilchrist et al., 2016). 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature 54 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Education systems need to be enquiry driven ? so students experience nature (Clarke, 2015). Some schools are enquiry driven, for example, the International School in Geneva where environmental concerns are a central aspect. The example from Germany of champions who are school children who took steps to create environmental awareness in schools in Germany is illustrative. They felt that adults should stop talking and do something (Felix and Friends, 2011). As a result, there are now 10,000 climate justice ambassadors who are children from over 100 countries working with ?plant the planet?, and over 15 billion trees have (2017) been planted across the globe in urban and rural areas. Rural and urban students ?can do it? (Simon, 2012). The following questions might help us experience nature ? whether at home, in school, a city park, or the countryside (Bouchardon,1998; Giracca, 2016; Sobel, 2012; Stowe, 2003): ? What is this place we live in and how does it sustain life? ? What might we grow and nurture? ? Where does our food come from? ? What feelings does this natural place arouse? ? Would you come here to do something in particular? What? Why? ? What do you want to do in the presence of this tree, this woodland or natural place? ? Which plants and trees make the strongest impression on you? ? What parts of the natural world are you really grateful for? Why? The UK government agrees on the need for outdoor learning and published a white paper proposing that children should do more learning outdoors (DEFRA, 2011). But what actually happened was the opposite ? there were massive cuts for outdoor education centres, and children continue to be confined to the classroom, stuffed with rules and facts, and doing endless tests ? a recipe for boredom (Monbiot, 2013). This exacerbates the already serious issue that over 50% of children have never visited the countryside in the UK according to WideHorizons. Children should spend at least a week in the countryside every term and have real experience with nature. Experiential nature learning ought to be mainstreamed in curricula and adequately resourced ? not relegated to clubs, or additional activities. Three quarters of respondents in a survey of children and youth in the USA reported they had little if any access to nature through their schools. The Nature Conservancy is pioneering ways to support environmental education. The LEAF Program (Leaders in Environmental Action for the Future, now called Nature Lab) is one such program that works with a network of schools to engage urban youth in conservation and environmental stewardship. There are a growing number of such programs. Those with personal, positive nature experiences are twice as likely to view themselves as environmentalists and more likely to express concern about water issues, air pollution, climate change, and the state of the environment (Elks, 2014). This offers ways to work with urban schools and communities for children of all ages to experience nature in urban and rural areas. In New York, for example, the Mashokack Preserve?s Summer Children?s Environmental Education Program is very popular, and involves hiking, muddling in a marsh, a canoe and kayak trip and nature art. The survival of humanity and our urban lives will depend on our ecological and nature literacy. Ecological literacy is a critical skill for politicians, business leaders and professionals in all spheres ? not just in conservation but needs to be embedded from an early age. So, ecological literacy should be a very important part of education ? from primary and secondary schools to universities and continuing education (Capra, 2012) and in all spheres of life. Nature and urban health benefits Nature is good for our health, stress management, and helps us concentrate (Pretty, 2006). We are happier in nature than in urban areas. This evidence between nature and wellbeing includes that nature: a) affects the nervous system by reducing stress and improving attention; b) is lower in environmental ?bads? such as noise and air pollution in urban areas which can cause sleep disturbance, hearing impairment, tinnitus, and raised stress, leading to high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, stroke (Passchier- Vermeer & Passchier, 2000); and c) increases happiness with behaviours that are physically and mentally beneficial, e.g. exercise, and recreation (Barton Pretty, 2010; MacKeeron & Mourato, 2013; Morris, 2003). Having a close relationship with nature is like having a close relationship with friends and family. Or nature may be more of an acquaintance, as we may like it well enough, but there is little intimacy or attention paid to it. We may spend time in nature, but it serves as a backdrop to the things we do, and we pay it little attention, have little interest in what it does, and get little back from it. In some cases, nature may even be a nuisance (Richardson and Butler, 2022). Children and young people lead increasingly indoor-based, sedentary, urban lives, with no direct nature experience. There are health issues related to this in terms of physical health, for example obesity, which has doubled worldwide since 1980, and 42 million children under the age of five were overweight in 2013, most of whom reside in urban areas. This is partially due to physical inactivity, changing modes of transportation and urbanisation. This can then lead to breathing difficulties, hypertension, increased 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 55 risk of cardio-vascular disease and diabetes (World Health Organization, 2015), vitamin D deficiency and short-sightedness (Charles & Louv, 2009; Moss, 2012). Yet time spent in nature enhances physical and wellbeing benefits (Gilchrist et al., 2016). Urban areas are starting to recognise the importance of green spaces in cities, not just for recreation but for health and educational reasons. This includes parks, rivers and riverbank areas, foot paths, treelined streets. This can create green connectivity in an urban landscape, and green connectivity to rural catchment areas ? important for people and wildlife, which in turn contributes to the UN international standard for access to green space in urban areas. The United Nations (2020) uses 400 m as a maximum distance to reach an open space and UN-Habitat (2021) advocates for open spaces to be reachable within a five minute walk so that the benefits can be enjoyed equitably. Exposure to nature is associated with various mental health benefits. Nature connectedness (NC, a psychological construct that measures individuals? sense of connection to nature) can influence the relationship between nature exposure and mental health. NC is stronger than nature exposure in predicting mental well-being, whilst greenspace visitation frequency and duration are stronger than NC in predicting ill-being (Liu et.al. 2022). Being in nature encourages us to be more active, less stressed and calmer. Children become less hyper-active, concentrate better and play more creatively and independently. Children can develop life-long connections with nature. They need to play regularly in streams and woods (Bird, 2010) ? experientially, and not by ?look but don?t touch? doctrines. Regular contact with nature promotes concentration and reduces stress ? especially with direct experience of nature, e.g., walking in a forest or park, gardening, being with potted plants at home. Already there are health centres and hospitals that have green spaces, or are close to a park, or have access to gardens and allotments. A study demonstrated that the COVID-19 pandemic changed people?s perceptions by enhancing their preference for natural recreational activities and health. It accelerated people?s return to nature and fostered a positive perception of nature?s ability to promote good health (Syamsi et.al. 2022). Green care farms Green Care evolved as a means to treat ailments including dementia, stress, attention disorders. There are a total of 1,935 Green Care farms who receive payments for taking in patients (Pretty, 2006), and most of these patients come from cities, further strengthening urban-rural connections. Patients are prescribed Green Care treatment. By 2006 there were 500 Green Care farms in Norway, 430 in the Netherlands, 300 in Italy and Germany, 250 in Austria, 140 in Belgium and 15 in Slovenia. The numbers are increasing, as there are (by 2015) 1,100 Green Care Farms in the Netherlands ? one of the most densely populated countries. This can be extended to other countries, and other aspects of nature, e.g., indigenous tree planting, walking in nature, countryside management. Forest bathing in Japan Forest bathing in Japan (?Shinrinyoku?) is a leisurely mindful visit to a forest. The forest environment provides a quiet atmosphere, beautiful scenery, mild climate, and clean fresh air. A forest bathing trip involves visiting a forest for relaxation and recreation whilst breathing in volatile substances, called phytoncides (wood essential oils), which are antimicrobial organic compounds derived from trees. We now know that forest bathing lowers levels of cortisol ? a stress hormone, blood pressure and heart rates. Forest bathing increases vigour and decreases anxiety, depression, and anger. Walking in the woods boosts the body?s immune system by increasing anti-cancer proteins, or human Natural Killer (NK) cells. In Japan forest bathing or walking in woods is prescribed by doctors to reduce stress, blood pressure and heart rate. This has long been regarded as natural aromatherapy (Atwood, 2011). Natural forest environments enhance human NK cell activity. The key substance that forests emit are phytoncides, which help plants and trees protect themselves. Phytoncide exposure and decreased stress hormone levels contribute to increased NK activity (Li et al., 2009). The increased NK activity lasts for more than 30 days after a forest bathing trip, whilst a visit to the city made no difference (Li, 2010). NK cells kill tumour cells by releasing anticancer proteins, and forest bathing trips increase NK activity and the levels of anti- cancer proteins. As such forest bathing trips may have a preventive effect on cancer (Li, 2010). This reflects the positive clinical benefits of nature on our health, whilst the mechanisms of the central nervous system facilitate this (Kuo, 2015; Selhub & Logan, 2012). Forest therapy is a good example of how our health is dependent on the health of nature. Forest bathing results in less depression and hostility. The greater the stress levels, the greater the positive effects of forest bathing. Forests are ?therapeutic landscapes? and forest bathing decreases risks of stress-related diseases. Even for children diagnosed with ADD, after 20-minute walks in a city park, they experienced improved concentration compared to 20-minute walks in downtown and residential settings (Forest Therapy Association of the Americas, 2013). Incorporating forest bathing into our lifestyles was first proposed in 1982 by the Forest Agency of Japan and is a recognised relaxation and stress management activity. Because forests occupy 67% of the land in Japan, forest bathing is easily accessible from cities. Over a quarter of Japan has participated in forest bathing. Such forest bathing is possible in similar environments throughout 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature 56 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective the world in rural areas or in urban woodlands. Other forest therapy activities include wild edible plant identification, herbal medicines, planting trees, walking or running, and natural food cooking. There are positive effects from contact with nature on our mental health and well-being. Such findings should be acted upon by policy, as the health benefits could have enormous implications, e.g., reductions in national healthcare expenditures. Contact with nature may be effective for treating children with poor self-discipline, hyperactivity and ADD; coping with anxiety and stress; strategies to reduce crime and aggression; benefiting care for the elderly and treatment for dementia; improving concentration levels in children and office workers and the healthy cognitive development of children; and as a means to improve hospital environments, strengthen communities, and an increased sense of wellbeing and mental health (Bird, 2007). Role of nature as one tool to resolve urban conflict ?If we are peaceful, if we are happy, we can blossom like a flower and everyone in our family, our entire society will benefit from our peace? (Hanh, 1987). But there can be no real peace whilst millions live in poverty, and nature is being destroyed by economic growth. Sustainability, social justice, and equitable governance are prerequisites for peace (Mathai, 2007). Yet much conflict boils down to scarcity, or lack of access to resources, and is one reason why we see so much inner-city violence ? people are too confined to concrete and tarmac, and do not have access to trees and flowers. Violence expresses itself directly, structurally, and culturally, and these three forms of violence need to be tackled directly and together (Basterfield, 2006). Experiencing nature is one approach through fostering access to nature in cities and rural areas and facilitate experiential learning for all ? especially urban populations. Crime and poor school achievement are associated with low levels of self-discipline, impulsive behaviour, immediate gratification, and inattention. Increasing accessibility to nature is an innovative and equitable method of increasing overall performance and ability for inner city children (Bird, 2007). Who has not experienced the calming effect of a few minutes in the garden after a stressful phone call, or a walk in the park at lunchtime? Contact with nature has a positive effect on anxiety and stress, on elderly people and those with dementia, concentration in children and office workers, and reducing crime and aggression (Aitkens, 2015). In a study on a Chicago housing estate, people knew more of the neighbours when there were more trees where they lived. In areas dominated by concrete, people interacted less. There is also less violence in areas with more trees (Juniper, 2014). Pope Francis asks us to focus on nature and bring peace to our troubled world saying ?An integral ecology is also made up of simple daily gestures which break the logic of violence, exploitation and selfishness. In the end, a world of exacerbated consumption is at the same time a world which mistreats life in all its forms? (Pope Francis, 2015). Nature can reduce aggressive behaviour, possibly due to its restorative effects on the brain. This can range from domestic violence to aggressive behaviours. If nature in inner city areas can reduce some violence, this is good for public health, and has large social implications (Bird, 2007). We desperately need mechanisms for peace, and nature can be a central aspect. Major security threats come from issues that do not relate only to power and weapons. Such threats also include climate change, water and natural resource scarcity, disaffected people and societies in urban areas, and the growing rich-poor gap (Elworthy, 2017). Nature can be a locus for understanding the importance of inner peace which in turn creates positivity for both dialogue and as a vehicle for preventing conflict. Nature is a potent locus for peace building and conflict resolution. This is particularly so for low-level conflicts (e.g., over water access or access to critical natural resources). If not addressed early, such conflicts can escalate. For example, there is 50% less crime and domestic violence in families with views of vegetation in a poor housing estate compared to identical blocks with no vegetation. If this is true then the presence of nature in inner city residential areas should be an essential part of design (Bird, 2007). Whatever our relationship with nature is, we can get closer by noticing more, listening more, feeling more, enjoying more, and caring more. The closer we get to nature, the happier we are and the more we are willing to take action to support conservation and the environment. Closer relationships with nature are more necessary now than ever. (Richardson & Butler, 2022). Conclusion ? plan nature into urban, and urban into nature The benefits of being in nature are clear and there is increasing empirical evidence (Priest, 2006). Such restorative environments offer opportunities to be in nature and receive nature?s benefits for our well-being. Identifying with nature, for example, a tree or a woodland, helps us become part of that landscape, which in turn reduces stress. We can all have, make, or gain access to our piece of nature, trees, or forests to re-connect and bring peace; and be able to go to that place within, pause and witness nature. Urban landscapes have lost much of their ?nature? and need to reconnect, especially amongst children and the youth. We need to create ways for urban people to better connect with nature, whether it relates to restored urban river systems, woodlands, being able to visit the countryside. And this all has important health benefits that nature can bring. 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 57 A walk in the park, in the forest can be a spiritual experience. We should not walk-through nature ?deaf, blind and senseless?. Practice such walks in silence, as a walking meditation so that you are present to and mindful of the experience. This enables us to offer gratitude to the Earth and be exposed to the healing powers of nature. Be present for a tree, in a forest ? just simply be silent and witness the tree and its surroundings (Stowe, 2003). You can do the same in your garden and have a ?corner? of the garden where you can be still. You can have potted plants or trees in a corner of, or on a table in your home. Urbanisation raises concern about chronic human health along with less frequent interaction with the natural world. All nature-related measures?exposure, knowledge, skills, willingness to lead, perceived safety, sense of place, and nature connection?significantly increased in a mixed Methods Pilot Study of Young Adults Attending a Wilderness Camp in the USA. Well-being outcomes improved, including perceived stress, relaxation, positive and negative emotions, and the sense of wholeness. The findings illustrated the change in nature relations and well-being that wilderness camp experiences can provide (Warber et.al. 2015). The climate emergency and biodiversity crisis show that the human?nature relationship is failing. The ?pathways to nature connectedness? (sensory contact, emotion, meaning, beauty and compassion) is a framework to improve the human?nature relationship. Evidence illustrates how the pathways provide a novel approach for improving human?nature relationships, and the importance of cultural programmes and urban design to increase sensory, meaningful and emotional engagement with nature. The pathways to nature have societal relevance and provide solutions to foster human?nature relationships (Richardson et. al., 2020) Educational policy and practice have to integrate experiential learning in nature, rather than condition our children not to connect with nature. Many schools now bring students to experience nature as part of school activities. Whilst there are risks in learning and playing in nature, there are also risks of not doing so. Nature experience and therapy are growing in importance, especially as we become increasingly urbanised. Outdoor education is an important part of education and health, fostering a greater interest in nature, and perhaps less on electronics. All schools should try and have access to a small garden or some trees. Many schools are close to green areas, for example a park, stream, woodland, field. Teachers can facilitate experiential learning. Governments and policy makers have to recognise and value learning from nature, and the opportunities that it provides to overcome contemporary challenges to children?s education, health, wellbeing and future success in life (Malone & Waite, 2016). The London National Park City initiative is another example of where green spaces are promoted for education, health, wellbeing, high quality local produce, and biodiversity. In the past, and still so with many indigenous societies, the ways to resolve conflict were the elders (men and women) who would sit, listen, and reach consensus. This still works in areas where indigenous institutions are strong. But in many cases, it is being replaced ? often at great cost and maybe less effectively ? by formal systems. Maybe it is time to re-invigorate local community level conflict resolution in all walks of life, in all countries, in rural and urban areas, and with all religious and spiritual groups. That way most conflict would be resolved before it gets out of hand. ?A degraded habitat will produce degraded humans. If there is to be any true progress, then the entire life community must progress? (Berry, 1988). ?We are inextricably linked to nature, so we must take action, and stop the talk about the importance of nature? (Wangari Mathai). All children, urban and rural, require access to nature, and to real experiential learning. This is no longer a luxury and is at the heart of our and nature?s well-being, and on which the future of Mother Earth depends. References Aitkens, A. (2015). Only Connect: Joining the Dots for the Future We Want. Resurgence & Ecologist 289, 30-33. Atwood, M. (2011). New Frontiers. Resurgence 268, 8-12. Barton, J., & Pretty, J. (2010). Urban Ecology and Human Health and Wellbeing, in: Gaston, J. (Ed.), Urban Ecology. (pp. 202- 229). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778483.010 Basterfield, D. (2006). Make Violence History. Resurgence. 234, 30-31. Berry, T. (1988). The Dream of the Earth. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. Berry, T., & Clarke, T. (1991). Befriending the Earth: A Theology of Reconciliation between Human and the Earth. Twenty-Third Publications, Connecticut. Bird, W. (2007). Natural Thinking: Investigating the Links Between the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Mental Health. (p. 116). Royal Society of the Protection of Birds, London. Bird, W. (2010). NHS - A Natural Health Service. Resurgence. 258, 10-12. Bouchardon, P. (1998). The Healing energies of Trees. Gaia Books, London. 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature 58 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Capaldi, C., Passmore, H.-A., Nisbet, E., Zelenski, J., & Dopko, R. (2015). Flourishing in nature: A review of the benefits of connecting with nature and its applicateion as a Wellbing Intervention. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v5i4.449 Capra, F. (2012). Ecological Literacy. Resurgence. 272, 42-43. Catton, W. & R. Dunlap (1978). Environmental Sociology: A new Paradigm. American Sociology, Vol 13, 41-49. Charles, C., & Louv, R. (2009). Children?s Nature Deficit: What We Know - and Don?t Know. Children and Nature Network Report. Clarke, P. (2015). A Beetle?s View of the Cosmos Might Suit our Schools. Resurgence & Ecologist 293, 34-35. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DEFRA. (2011). The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature. TSO. Dolesh, R. (2014). A Walk in the Park. Resurgence & Ecologist. 284, 16-17. Elks, J. (2014). Survey Reveals Shocking Truth: Kids Don?t Spend Enough Time Outside. Sustainable Brands. https://sustainablebrands.com/read/behavior-change/survey-reveals-shocking-truth-kids-don-t-spend-enough-time-outside Elworthy, S. (2017). Working for a World Without War. Resurgence & Ecologist. 302, 34-36. Felix and Friends. (2011). Tree by Tree: Now We Children Save the World. Plant for the Planet, Germany. Forest Therapy Association of the Americas. (2013). Health Benefits. Retrieved from http://forest-therapy.net/healthbenefits.html Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum International Publishing Group, New York. Gilchrist, M., Passy, R., Waite, S., & Cook, R. (2016). Exploring Schools? use of Natural spaces, in: Freeman, C., Tranter, P.E. (Eds.), Risk, Protection, Provision and Policy (Vol. 12, pp. 103-124). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-035-3_18 Giracca, A. (2016). Into the Field. Orion Nature and Culture. https://orionmagazine.org/article/into-the-field/ accessed 2016, 7. Hanh, T.N. (1987). Being Peace. Rider Ltd., London. Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2009). Investigating Environmental Identity, Well-being and Meaning. Ecopsychology, 1(4), 181-186. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2009.0026 Juniper, T. (2014). Healthy Nature, Healthy People. Resurgence & Ecologist, 283, 36-37. Kings College London. (2011). Understanding the Diverse Benefits of Learning in Natural Environments, London. Kumar, S. (2005). Nature Knows us - do We Know Nature? Resurgence, 232, 3. Kuo, M. (2015). How Might Contact with Nature Promote Human Health? Promising Mechanisms and a Possible Central Pathway. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093 Li, Q. (2010). Effect of Forest Bathing Trips on Human Immune Function. J. Environmental Health and Preventative Medicine, 15(1), 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12199-008-0068-3 Li, Q., Kobayashi, M., Wakayama, Y., Inagaki, H., Katsumata, M., Hirata, Y., Hirata K., Shimizu, T., Kawada, T., Park, J., Ohira, T., Kagawa, T., & Miyazakp, Y. (2009). Effect of Phytoncides from Trees on Human Natural Killer Cell Function. International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology, 22(4), 951-959. https://doi.org/10.1177/039463200902200410 Liu, H., Nong, H., Ren, H., & Liu, K. (2022). The effect of nature exposure, nature connectedness on mental well-being and ill-being in a general Chinese population. Landscape and Urban Planning, 222, 104397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2022.104397 Louv, R. (2008). Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Workman Publishing, New York. Louv, R. (2009). Narture-Deficit Disorder. Resurgence, 254, 14-15. Louv, R. (2010). Nature Deficit Disorder. Resurgence, 260, 16-17. Louv, R. (2017). Leave No Child Inside. Orion Nature and Culture, 6. https://orionmagazine.org/article/leave-no-child-inside/ Lumber, R., Richardson, M., & Sheffield, D. (2017). Beyond Knowing Nature: Contact, Emotion, Compassion, Meaning, and Beauty are Pathways to Nature Connection. PLOS ONE, 12(5), e0177186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177186 MacKeeron, G., & Mourato, S. (2013). Happiness is Greater in Natural Environments. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.010 Maira, S. (2009). A Master Key. Resurgence, 253, 40-42. Maira, S. (2010). Eternal Beauty. Resurgence, 261, 24-27. 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 59 Maller, C., St Leger, L., Townsend, M., & Henderson-Wilson, C. (2009). Healthy Parks Healthy People: The Health Benefits of Contact with Nature in a Park Context. The George Wright Forum, 26, 51-83. Malone, K., & Waite, S. (2016). Student Outcomes and Natural Schooling. Plymouth University, Plymouth. Martinko, K. (2018). British Kids Don?t Want to Get Muddy or Wet, So They Stay Inside. Retrieved from https://www.treehugger.com/british-kids-dont-want-get-muddy-or-wet-so-they-stay-inside-4849568 Mathai, W. (2007). Poverty and Empowerment. Resurgence, 245, 27-29. Monbiot, G. (2013). Rewild the Child. The Guardian. http://www.monbiot.com/2013/10/07/rewild-the-child/ Morris, N. (2003). Health, Wellbeing and Open Space Literature Review, Edinburgh Openspace. Moss, S. (2012). Natural Childhoood Report. National Trust. Nisbet, E., Zelenski, J., & Murphy, S. (2009). The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking individuals? connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behaviour, 41, 715-740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748 Otto, S., & Pensini, P. (2017). Nature-based Environmental Education of Children: Environmental Knowledge and Connectedness to Nature, Together, are Related to Ecological behaviour. Global Environmnental Change, 47, 88-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.09.009 Passchier-Vermeer, W., & Passchier, W. (2000). Noise Exposure and Public Health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108, 123- 131. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.00108s1123 Pope Francis. (2015). Encyclical on Climate Change and Inequality: On Care for our Common Home. Melville House Publishing. Pretty, J.N. (2006). Green Care - Working the Land is Good for Your Health. Resurgence, 234, 9. Priest, P. (2006). Walking Testimonies. Resurgence, 234, 26-27. Pyle, M. (2003). Nature Matrix: Reconnecting People and Nature. Oryx, 37(2), 206-214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000383 Randall, B. (2007). Kanyini - the Four Dimensions of Aboriginal Life. Resurgence, 243, 26-27. Richardson, M., & McEwan, K. (2018). 30 Days Wild and the Relationships Between Engagement with Nature?s Beauty, Nature Connectedness and Well-Being. Frontiers in Psychology. 9, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01500 Richardson, M., Sheffield, D., Harvey, C., & Petronzi, D. (2015). The Impact of Children?s Connection to Nature: A Report for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). (pp. 25). University of Derby, Derby. Richardson, M., J. Dobson , D. J. Abson , R. Lumber , A. Hunt , R. Young & B. Moorhouse (2020) Applying the pathways to nature connectedness at a societal scale: a leveragepoints perspective, Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 387-401. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1844296 Richardson, M., & Butler, C.W. (2022). The nature connection handbook: A guide for increasing people?s connection with nature. (pp. 39). Univ. Derby, United Kingdom. Russell, R., Guerry, A., Balvaner, P., Gouold, R., Basurto, X., Chan, K., Klain, S., Levine, J., & Tam, J. (2013). Humans and Nature: How Knowing and Experiencing Nature Affect Well-Being. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 38, 473-502. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012312-110838 Selhub, E., & Logan, A. (2012). Your Brain on Nature: The Science of Nature?s Influence on Your Health, Happiness and Vitality. John Wily, London. Sigman, A. (2009). Videophilia. Resurgence, 254, 16-17. Simon, B. (2012). Tales, traditions and folklore of Ireland?s trees. The Forest of Belfast. Sobel, D. (2012). Look, Don?t Touch. Orion Magazine, 8. https://orionmagazine.org/article/look-dont-touch1/ Staats, H., Van-Gemerden, E., & Hartig, T. (2010). Preference for Restorative Situations: Interactive Effects of Attentional State, Activity-in-Environment, and Social Sciences. Leisure Sciences, 32(5), 401-417. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2010.510990 Stowe, J. (2003). The Findhorn Book of Connecting with Nature. Findhorn Press, Forres Scotland. Syamsi, M., Lee, K., Aung, T., & R. Burns: 2022: Accelerating the Nature Deficit or Enhancing the Nature-Based Human Health during the Pandemic Era: An International Study in Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, and Myanmar, following the Start of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Forests, 13, 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13010057 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature The Guardian. (2016). Children spend only half as much time playing outside as their parents did. The Guardian. https://www. theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/27/children-spend-only-half-the-time-playing-outside-as-their-parents-did Thinley, J.Y. (2010). Exploring How Bhutan Might Now Implement Its Unique Concept of Gross National Happiness into Its Education Systems. Resurgence 260, 20-23. Tolle, E. (2005). A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life?s Purpose. Plume, New York. Warber, S., Ashley, A., DeHudy, M. Bialko, M. Marselle, & K. Irvine (2015): Addressing Nature-Deficit Disorder: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study of Young Adults Attending a Wilderness Camp. Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2015, 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/651827 World Health Organization. (2015). Obesity and Overweight. In: WHO (Ed.), Geneva. Ying, R., Kelly, S., Thi P., Chia-Chen, C., Shanahan, D., Gaston, K., Carrasco, R., R. Fuller. (2021) Factors influencing nature interactions vary between cities and types of nature interactions. People and Nature, 3(2), 405-417. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10181 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Judy Ling Wong1, and Carolyn Roberts2 7 London from the air © Luke Massey & the Greater London National Park City Initiative 1CBE Co-Founder, National Park City Foundation 2Emeritus Professor of Environment, Gresham College, London 62 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract London was declared the world?s first National Park City in July 2019. London National Park City aims to transform the relationship residents have with the ecosystems and natural assets of their cities so that they see it as a living landscape to value and to share stewardship of its ecology and natural assets; and to then extend this value and stewardship to environments beyond the city limits. Learning includes recognising what works and championing it; mapping challenge and opportunities in accessible ways; disrupting traditional top-down and bottom-up thinking; demonstrating how individuals can influence landscapes; recognising nature as a cultural choice; assessing the economic value of ecosystem services; and using imagery to help people visualize alternative futures. These align with the recognition of the crucial role of people embodied in key policy documents including AICHI Biodiversity Target 1, The Promise of Sydney, and the Defra 25 Year Environment Plan. Introduction The vision of a National Park City offers a rich cultural life anchored in nature, and action for nature, motivating citizens by putting the benefits to their lives at the top of the list. London National Park City draws from the values of the United Kingdom?s rural National Parks and sets it into an urban context. The defining element of London National Park City is that it will pay equal attention to outstanding nature and the potential for increasing the presence of nature within the built environment. This means facilitating the relationship between urban people and nature where they live and beyond the city so that the full spectrum of natural spaces is experienced by a population in danger of losing a vital connection to nature. It is grassroots, bottom-up campaign encouraging and facilitating citizens, who are part of the ecosystem, to be agents of change in their own communities and areas, via neighbourhood and community groups, new initiatives, local political structures, a network of organisations and a Bank of Good Ideas inspiring best practice. Its strapline is ?Greener, Wilder, Healthier.? The campaign promotes understanding of how important ecosystems are; raises awareness of all the social, economic, community and health benefits that better connections to nature provide; and incentivizes citizens to actively engage in shaping the urban areas in which they live, work and relax whilst playing a key role in the care and protection of ecosystems further afield. The London National Park City initiative addresses the issue of urban-rural ecosystem linkages head-on by encouraging residents of a major world city to harness and enhance existing ecosystems and natural assets. The initiative has learning points to offer about initiating and sustaining a successful campaign. Political successes include gaining the support of the Mayor of London and over 50% of London?s Wards, its smallest political unit. Large cities, urgent problems Cities internationally are evolving at an unprecedented rate. In many parts of the world, growing populations are putting huge pressure on housing, roads, water, food, power supplies and other infrastructure. Some services are at risk of grinding to a halt, putting vulnerable populations at risk. Concurrently, open spaces are disappearing under concrete, and whilst a majority of residents inhabit smaller and smaller living spaces, polarisation in wealth is increasing, and a small number of wealthy individuals have been able to annexe far more than their fair share of the good things of life, the natural assets, including access to parks, gardens and other open space, and fresh air. UN Habitat (2016) notes that, ?the prosperity generated by cities has not been equitably shared, and a sizeable proportion of the urban population remains without access to the benefits that cities produce?. Technology is also changing everyday life for city populations, as attempts have been made by governments and the private sector to understand what could actually make cities ?smarter? and more efficient: reducing the congestion, the rubbish in the streets, the air pollution, and the power outages. Digital technology offers new ways of approaching complex urban problems, by providing an opportunity for instantaneous adjustments to the flows of information, goods and services, at all levels from the individual to the conurbation. However, local and national administrations have struggled to match the promise of smarter cities with the crowded, chaotic reality of urban life; digital technology is not proving to be a universal panacea for urban ills. What has become apparent is that in order for a city genuinely to plan a sustainable future, and for the physical and mental wellbeing of all of its inhabitants, broader aspects of city living such as governance, education, social inclusion and, crucially, access to the natural environment need to be considered alongside more material considerations. Moreover, citizens need choice about their own community?s future, and cannot be regarded merely as passive recipients of the ambitions of technologists, planners, architects and local politicians. Consequently, ambitious world city leaders who agree that narrowly focussed technology-driven approaches to development cannot generate major improvements in the quality of residents? lives, have begun to involve themselves in social and environmental initiatives linking citizens with the natural environment. This paper explores the emergence of an ambitious movement to engage the citizens of one world city, London, with their natural surroundings. In particular, it will examine the London National Park City initiative, formally launched in Islington, Central London in October 2017 following more than three years of preparatory work. London National Park City draws part of its inspiration from the United Kingdom?s world-class National Parks programme, which had its roots in the early twentieth century when statutory 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 63 environmental protection criteria were established for a group of rural and predominantly upland areas. The National Parks? mission was twofold: to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of selected countryside areas, and to promote the public?s understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities. London National Park City is intended to be a metropolitan parallel, supporting and protecting London?s environment and landscapes for the enjoyment of the city?s residents. Whilst initially surprising and challenging to romantic preconceptions of what a National Park might look like (perhaps a pristine wilderness, largely shaped by geology and climate, rather than a landscape largely created by human activity), the idea has been gaining momentum. Growing interest from other cities wishing to follow suit has led to the formation of an international working group with a Universal Charter for a National Park City in place. London National Park City, not a designation as a National Park City, is a new model. The initial Steering Group proposed that London would be declared a National Park City through the mandate of its citizens. In 2017, London National Park City was formally endorsed by the Mayor of London. March 2018 saw over 50% of London?s Local Councillors sign up to support London National Park City. With this support London has been declared the world?s first National Park City in July 2019. Figure 1. People enjoying a sunny day in a London park. © Judy Ling Wong City challenges London National Park City is not the first city initiative with environmental and citizen engagement objectives. For example, recognising the acute underrepresentation of black and ethnic minority people amongst National Park visitors, the explicitly multicultural Mosaic Project was led by the Campaign for National Parks, in partnership with the Youth Hostels Association and the Black Environment Network voluntary organisation (Gilfinnian Partnership, 2012; Ling Wong, 2015). The project facilitated more than 28,000 people from deprived minority groups to access rural areas beyond the city boundaries, through building relationships between city communities and their nearest National Park. More than two hundred local ?Community Champions? were trained, funded mainly by the national Big Lottery; most were still active at the end of the three year programme in 2012 and the independent evaluation suggested that the project had been highly successful. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages 64 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective The six underlying principles of Mosaic were concerned with: ? Empowerment: giving key individuals the skills and confidence to engage. ? Sustainability: ensuring that the impact of the project endures beyond the period of core funding, by training local volunteers, and by helping statutory authorities to make organisational changes better to engage new audiences in the longer term. ? Relationships: building personal relationships and networks between and across all stakeholder groups. ? Choice: recognising that community participation is about choice, not compulsion. ? Enjoyment: maintaining the objective relating to public benefit and enjoyment. ? Flexibility: making sure that volunteers and staff in the National Parks can undertake activities in which they are interested, by being flexible and adaptable to local and individual circumstances. Although reductions in public funding have threatened the Mosaic legacy, the underlying principles proved robust, and it offers a valuable, tried and tested model for London National Park City?s future engagement with various community and local authority stakeholders. London as a model for other cities London is one of Europe?s largest cities. With a population approaching nine million, at current rates of growth it will become a megacity by 2026. It supports a globally focused economy dependent upon trade and finance, manufacturing and services, and a mobile international population. National and international tourism, largely founded on the city?s extraordinary history, vibrant culture and high-profile events, is crucial to the enterprise. London is an active member of the C40 group of cities, and although it is not the largest or the fastest-growing global metropolis, the similar characteristics of other world cities have prompted consideration of whether the United Kingdom?s capital could act as a model, test bed or beacon for others considering environmental engagement programs. Comparisons with Dhaka or Dar es Salaam may nevertheless prove more challenging than those with Paris or New York. In some ways London is unique. As the capital city of a former global empire, some of the wealth of previous centuries was invested in striking and sometimes extraordinary buildings that continue to draw admirers today. Beyond the architecture, early expropriation by English royalty, several centuries of philanthropy, and active intervention by various local administrations has preserved an exceptional amount of outdoor space, supporting a substantial set of semi-natural or ?fusion? ecosystems. The proportion of open space in London is variously estimated at between a third and two thirds depending on whether private gardens are included, or whether all open space or only ?green and blue? space (vegetated spaces or open water ? rivers, reservoirs and canals), is encompassed. London?s environmental records centre, (Green Information for Greater London CIC, 2013) estimates that 49.5% of London?s surface area is green and blue space, making London the greenest major city in Europe and the third greenest city of its size in the world according to a 2013 report commissioned by the City of London Corporation. Nevertheless, this legacy of parks, gardens and water bodies is not always recognised as an asset, and in the current political and economic climate, all levels of London?s government are under pressure to provide more space for housing and business use, and to reduce maintenance costs. London?s governance is a bewildering mixture of overlapping territories and responsibilities. It has three basic layers of government: a Cabinet Minister of State with responsibility for the whole city (a role created in January 2018); an elected Mayor of London with an environmental team; and Local Authority government comprising 32 London Boroughs, with elected Councillors representing 653 wards. The London Boroughs have environmental responsibilities as well. In total, the urban area contains some 14,000 hectares of public parks, woodlands and gardens, which means that some 40% of the ground is publicly accessible green space. The City of London Corporation is the authority with responsibility for managing almost 4,400 hectares of green spaces in and around the capital, including many of the largest open spaces - Epping Forest, Hampstead Heath, and more than two hundred gardens, churchyards, parks and plazas within the historic ?Square Mile? itself. Its principal mission is to promote London as a leading centre for finance and business. The Corporation?s report ?Green Spaces: The Benefits for London? (2013) credited these spaces with climate change prevention and mitigation, absorbing pollution, reducing flooding, and improving air quality. The report also suggested that London?s green spaces contribute direct economic benefits to society, citing research, which found that people are more likely to be physically active if they have access to green spaces, hence making significant savings for the United Kingdom?s National Health Service.In addition, the analysis found that London?s parks and woodlands were a major draw for tourists and a boost to the local economy, with some 23 million visits to the Corporation?s green spaces in 2012/13. Beyond this, the increasing use of natural capital accounting is starting to demonstrate the monetary value of the ecosystem services provided by green space, increasing the pressure for better management by all the owners. However, like all large cities, the issue of universal access to these areas is fundamental. Many traditional approaches to environmental access are about provision, ?greening? the city and maintaining parks in an ecologically sympathetic manner but failing to put people at the heart of the ecosystem. For less well-off people in London, expensive transport means that poorer communities in the east of the city may never experience the joy of seeing freely roaming deer in Richmond Park or observe fish in local rivers and streams. They may not dream of visiting beautiful semi-wild spaces, and can feel excluded from city parks, wrongly fearing they should not be there. London National Park City has been concerned to address this by fostering the appropriate collaborations to ensure that citizens are encouraged not only to visit, but also to engage as innovators, thus harnessing a bigger pool of intellectual capital. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 65 Figure 2. Percentage of green and blue spaces in Greater London in 2013. Source: Judy Ling Wong The National Park City initiative The London National Park City initiative began with a campaign to achieve ?National Park City? status, unlocking the vast missing contribution of its residents. Echoing the sentiments behind the UK?s existing National Parks, the Advisory Board summarised the definition of any National Park City as ?A large urban area managed and semi-protected through both formal and informal means to enhance the natural capital of its living landscape. A defining feature is the widespread and significant commitment of residents, visitors and decision-makers to allow natural processes to provide a foundation for a better quality of life for wildlife and people.? The aim of transforming the relationship between citizens and the London landscape, encouraging them to value it as a living landscape, to share stewardship of its ecology and natural assets, and to transform personal behaviours that damage the environment, is challenging. The intention is to address many of London?s key challenges, including natural environmental issues such as improving air and water quality, increasing the amount of architectural greenery, enhancing wildlife habitats, and increasing biodiversity. Human-centred issues include improving mental and emotional health, reducing obesity, improving community cohesion and a sense of place, and promoting inclusivity and higher quality of life for everyone, particularly children and residents in deprived neighbourhoods. Specific attention is being paid to producing high quality green spaces where people choose to walk and cycle. National Park City Foundation was registered as a charity in 2017, with twelve volunteer trustees. Its published aims are for: ? Better enjoyment: Connect more people to nature and the outdoors, improving their health, wellbeing and social cohesion; ? Better environment: Create more high-quality green and blue spaces to better support and maintain wildlife alongside a sustainable and attractive environment for people; ? Greater economy: Promote the identity of London as the world?s first National Park City, helping residents and visitors to appreciate the potential for a rich cultural life anchored in its outdoor heritage. London National Park City?s vision of access is city-based but not city-bound. Experiences of nature are envisaged as concentric circles of contact starting at home, rippling outwards into the nearby community?s green spaces and parks, then further afield to 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages 66 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective urban nature reserves, woodlands, forests, rivers and canals throughout London, and beyond London into rural nature reserves, Areas of Outstanding Beauty and the National Parks. It is the reflection back and forth of these experiences that is intended to embed a sense and ownership of nature into individual and community consciousness. In years to come, communities will be guardians of nature, because it is inherent in their way of life. To achieve this, the London National Park City approach envisages a leadership of many leaders, working in partnership at all levels from the individual, through community and Borough, to City Government, enabling common understanding, fuelling commitment and driving contributions to the care and protection of ecosystems. Many examples of good practice already exist, which may be replicated and scaled up to bring about a significant impact and broad awareness and enjoyment of London?s natural assets. London, like all urban areas, is beset with a range of problems. The positioning of LNPC is to focus on the power of the positive to pull us out of the negative. LNPC is about the creation of a movement around the concept of a National Park City rather than being an organisation that takes on all issues as its agenda. Many organisations are already at work ? social, economic, cultural, environmental. The concept releases new cohesive actions through buy in to a coordinated vision, with the assertion of a heightened awareness that enjoyment and celebration give impetus and harness energy to act. Joy and celebration importantly underpin the struggles on various fronts that the agenda of many organisations address ? from air pollution to social cohesion, from access to nature to releasing a vast missing contribution from those who are left behind through opening up experience and enabling knowledge, choices and skills. The strapline ?Greener, Wilder, Healthier? keys into the possible everyday actions of individuals as well as the rising policy concerns about mental and physical health and well-being linked to the quality of the urban environment. Delivering London National Park City The initiative is primarily a volunteer grassroots movement, encouraging Londoners themselves to generate solutions. In its first phase, campaigning focused on gaining a political mandate to identify London as a National Park City. Activists have engaged with Borough representatives to gain explicit support for the idea, with support from the Mayor and 50% of wards by early 2018, culminating in the declaration of London as the world?s first National Park City in July 2019. This has both raised grassroots awareness among citizens and brought some bottom-up pressure on policymakers for a greener, more sustainable future that offers rich opportunities for everyone to collaborate and engage with nature. Simultaneously, the London National Park City Network, a platform to facilitate cooperation and partnerships to enhance London?s ecosystem and the activities that will support it, is being formed. A ?Bank of Good Ideas? website will provide a platform for sharing and showcasing good practice, allowing replication of successful nature- based ideas that are within the power of ordinary citizens to progress. There have always been policy frameworks, and focused environmental organisations addressing themes such as biodiversity or habitat degradation. For LNPC the gap is an expansion of individual citizen action and cohesive overall actions so that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. At the level of City Hall, London National Park City is written into the London Plan and is cited as an instrument in the context of Green Infrastructure. The Mayor has recognised the role of citizens and has put a £12million fund to facilitate the role of communities in greening London. With additional donations, the London National Park City is the art of the possible moving at an organic pace, with people, organisations and government at city level stimulated to move together. Examples of activities that could theoretically support London as a National Park City include: ? outdoor school ?classrooms?; ? increased use of city parks for sports, yoga, art classes, meditation, guided walks, wildlife watching; ? community and other organisations offering ways to engage with waterways, for example river-keeping, bird-watching, watersports; ? active participation in conservation groups; ? neighbourhood tree planting; ? Local Authorities planning ?green? commuting corridors; ? developers and housebuilders building green play spaces and wild areas. Drawing on the Mosaic project experience, London National Park City is establishing a Park Ranger Scheme, with two sets of rangers providing a core around which wider participation can be built. Space-based Rangers with specialist knowledge will be located in a range of green spaces from local urban nature reserves to woodlands, canals, rivers and forests. Community-based, urban Neighbourhood Rangers will coordinate volunteers caring for ecosystems in local green and blue spaces and organise trips further afield. This arrangement will potentially benefit communities in many ways, including promoting informal education, play, creativity, social interaction, encouragement to take ownership of and transform natural assets in local neighbourhoods, and stimulating uptake of a wider range of outdoors activities. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 67 A wide range of existing community engagement activities could be brought within the London National Park City framework. Dragonfly Detectives with London Wildlife Trust Between May and September some of London?s peripheral streams, rivers and ponds light up with dazzling, darting, dragonflies and damselflies. These fascinating insectsthrive around clean water and are an excellent indicator of healthy aquatic ecosystems. Even novices can learn how to evaluate the quality of freshwater habitats by surveying their presence and abundance. The Living Landscapes Initiative with London Wildlife Trust Living Landscapes applies the principles widely adopted by rural Wildlife Trusts to London?s unique setting. London Wildlife Trust?s initiative (2014) draws on familiar animals and plants, such as birds, hedgehogs, squirrels, and park or street trees, to prompt residents? experiences of habitats from woodland and chalk grasslands to rivers and wetlands. The key aims are to generate understanding of the needs of individual species, protect existing environmental assets and enhance biodiversity, fostering greater ecological resilience in green spaces across the capital. Healthy High Street, with Incredible Edible Lambeth Interest in growing food in cities is increasing. Astute food growing networks such as Incredible Edible Lambeth have been highlighting city challenges such as health and well-being, sustainability, food security, food waste, food miles, soil quality, recycling and composting, enterprise and the social capital that can be engendered by bringing local people together. The ?Healthy High Street? is mapping the local area to identify beautiful small spaces where food is grown, and children?s play areas. They also champion local restaurants serving healthy and vegetarian meals, or which buy local allotment produce. Parkrun Many Londoners have already taken up the international Parkrun idea of free, weekly, 5 km timed runs in pleasant parkland surroundings (Marshall, 2017). They are safe and open to everyone. Green Gym London, with the Conservation Volunteers Green Gym London is run by TCV, the largest nature conservation organisation in Europe. They have an innovative way of capitalising on the desire of Londoners to get fit, offering structured sessions of nature conservation designed to promote health and well-being. The atmosphere is social, and ecological skills are learnt whilst engendering the sense of being part of a team. Green Gyms are offered to both local communities and schools. London as an urban forest Greater London is heavily wooded. The National Tree Count in 2016 surprised everyone by revealing that London and Surrey were the United Kingdom?s most densely covered areas. London had previously been officially recognised by the Forestry Commission as the UK?s newest forest, its 8.5 million trees covering just under 20% of the City in 2002, making it the largest urban forest in the world; there are some 65,000 woodlands and stands of trees. Two-thirds is registered ancient woodland, suggesting links with the original forest that once covered the majority of the country. This reality invites a shift of vision in terms of the dominant trope that the rural is where nature resides. Beyond this, the Ealing Forest i-tree Survey (Forestry Commission, 2016) pointed out that problems caused by poor air quality are well known, ranging from smog and adverse effects on human health, to damaged buildings. Trees can make a significant contribution to mitigating the urban heat island and various aspects of climate change, and potentially to improving air quality. With 2015 total canopy cover at 21.9%, the goal is 30%. This could be achieved using volunteer tree planters. Trout in the Classroom with The Wandle Trust The headwaters of London?s River Wandle emerge in the Surrey countryside. The Wandle Trust (2012) took London schoolchildren on a journey of discovery into native fish species. Schoolchildren were given fish eggs in tanks to watch them grow from egg to fry, later releasing them back into the Wandle and creating a tremendous sense of ownership. Children have since also brought their families to enjoy previously unknown riversides. However, there have been failures created by subsequent low river flows killing the fish. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages 68 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Lost Effra Project, partnership for sustainable water management in London The Lost Effra Project involves people in sustainable water management in areas that periodically flood. The original Effra River is now encased in sewers beneath London?s concrete and tarmac. DEFRA and the Carnegie Trust commissioned the project in 2013, relying on the motivation of local people to address their vulnerability to flooding, and equipping them with practical mechanisms to improve resilience whilst supporting biodiversity and creating green spaces. New features such as green roofs and rain gardens have been built, and hard paving removed to make the city more resilient to climate and environmental change. The project evolved into a partnership between local people, Thames Water, the Greater London Authority, Lambeth Council and voluntary organisation Groundwork (London Wildlife Trust, 2018). With valuable input from various community groups and private sector partners, it has spread into other areas of London. Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) Citizen science projects can be crucial to connecting people to nature, because they prompt the first steps of discovery. The OPAL concept (Imperial College, 2018) puts experts alongside local people to investigate the natural world, exchanging knowledge, experience and skills whilst learning about local wildlife and their habitats. Citizens who participate can contribute data on topics including environmental degradation, biodiversity loss and climate change, through OPAL?s national surveys. OPAL has designed field and desk-based activities suitable for all ages, abilities and backgrounds, and in particular, has launched a series of national biological surveys. By bringing scientists, amateur-experts, local interest groups, policy makers and the public closer together, OPAL works towards lasting relationships. Community Scientists have already brought over a million enthusiastic volunteers into research on matters of scientific concern. Getting beyond the city Various environmental organisations including Conservation Trust Volunteers offer working holidays in beautiful settings beyond the city, and as part of the recently published 25 Year Plan for the Environment (2018) funds are available from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs for schoolchildren to visit more distant National Parks. Specific opportunities London has several advantages when considering how to enhance environmental quality and engage its citizens with nature. Firstly, the country has a well-established voluntary sector, with over 120,000 non-governmental and charitable organisations working across a range of social, cultural, economic, and environmental themes. There is nevertheless work to be done to enable them to build environmental engagement into their objectives. London is also home to powerful private interests, from the headquarters of international banks and corporations to major developers and manufacturing industry. A better urban environment with a healthy ecology provides a more attractive investment environment for business, hence identifying common aims across public and private sectors, and recognising the importance of a beautiful green city as an asset and a setting for prosperity, is potentially rewarding. Secondly, London has some three million private gardens, all of which could be miniature nature reserves. In the face of climate change and habitat fragmentation, this massive expanse of green space has enormous untapped potential for both people and wildlife. As in many other major cities, the amount of time children spend outside has declined dramatically with a concomitant decline in their physical and emotional health, hence increasing the attractiveness of outdoor play would be valuable. In some of the London Boroughs, the area of green space within social housing areas exceeds that in public parks and gardens, but it is often of poor ecological and environmental quality, mainly closely mown grass. The opportunity to transform areas outside the windows of some of London?s most disadvantaged social groups, working with their landlords, would be advantageous for people and nature, and might tap into social sector funding alongside nature sector support. Finally, the agency of people as a force for change, is not yet captured. The London National Park City Rangers element and other accessible grassroots projects such as the ?9 Million Wildflowers for 9 Million People? project, are intended to turn people into citizens of action, sowing the seeds of what could become a world of pleasurable engagement with nature. Their aspirations to transform grey land into green, and their power to care for and protect nature, are crucial to the overall project. Intrinsic to most of environmental activity is the creation of beauty and the betterment of the quality of life. At the centre of the concept of a National Park City is the promotion of an identity. If one identifies with living in a National Park City, it implies a way of being ? a way of thinking, feeling and therefore acting. This a creative dynamic position. It is a frame that charges a situation with energy. Everyone is inspired to do more and to work together within the vision of a National Park City. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 69 Specific challenges Some environmental problems remain very difficult to address at community level, without wider political action from higher echelons of city or national government. For example, after an improvement from the coal burning-derived smog of the 1950s, London?s air quality has deteriorated recently, contributing to some 10,000 deaths a year; EU standards are frequently breached, largely as a result of diesel vehicle use across the city. Traffic gridlock, public transport under pressure and long commuting times also contribute to the stresses Londoners feel. Whilst as a result of smart technologies available on mobile phones, people may now be aware of the presence of polluting levels of nitrogen compounds and particulates in the air in their Boroughs and understand that they particularly affect asthmatic and young residents, it is difficult for local communities to take direct ameliorative action. Similarly, although local authorities, developers, and others have seen the potential for pleasant waterside living and working, water quality in many of London?s rivers and canals is very poor, with the River Lea, a major tributary to the Thames, being one of the dirtiest rivers in the country. The reasons for the pollution are widespread, and include local discharges, overflows from surcharged sewers and incorrect connections, but the science and the solution are multifaceted. Whilst local ?greening? might be achieved by home-grown action, people can feel powerless to change these broader aspects of the environment. The deterioration in quality has occurred because of economic pressures beyond community level, and solutions are technically complex and expensive. Wider awareness may only be the first step along a tortuous pathway to better air and water quality. This raises questions about holistic and realistic measures of success for London National Park City, as it addresses a complex and integrated set of human and environmental systems. Enjoyment as the key to contribution to the care and protection of ecosystems Targets for specific, quantifiable features of the natural environment, and for measurable levels of citizen engagement, may not capture all, or indeed any, of the intended outcomes of London National Park City. The initiative is predicated on inspiring citizens through contact with nature, which complements traditional environmental approaches. Proponents of the project believe that the fundamental process for engaging people is remarkably simple: people love what they enjoy, and they protect what they love. This love for nature grows as people make nature part of their lives. Hence, when citizens have information suggesting that their environment is being threatened, or that their help is needed, a normal human response would be to volunteer effort to care and protect what they love, and to fight for it. Indeed, this is how the contemporary environmental movement was formed. At present, nature is marginal to the lives of many Londoners, so if they are to play their part in contributing to the future of local ecosystems, London National Park City must start by promoting universal access to beautiful open spaces. The initiative will put the opportunity in place for residents to love nature. It will engage them and supply information to support the growth of knowledge and skills, nurturing the inevitable blossoming of respect and pride in London?s quasi-natural environment. Other agencies, including statutory bodies, measure more specific parameters such as air and water quality, on occasion assisted by local residents engaging in citizen science. The targets for the National Park City will therefore relate mainly to numbers of people engaged in, participating in and enjoying their natural environment, and to other more subtle dimensions of sustainability as defined by programs such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Conclusion Despite the definitions captured in legislation, the rural environments of United Kingdom?s National Parks are far from being ?natural?; they reflect thousands of years of human occupancy, ecological and environmental change. Efforts have nevertheless coalesced around protection of, and access to, ?nature?, and the Parks have become jewels in the crown in the imaginations of many people, and the destinations of choice for growing numbers. Whilst there are urban national parks elsewhere in the developed world, they are rarely inside major cities, and none properly value and recognise the special qualities and potential of an entire urban landscape, including its natural and built environment, and its surrounding rural areas. The London National Park City model not only challenges traditional conservation boundaries that exclude cities and alienate urban dwellers from ?nature? but recognises the potential of residents to be agents for change, within and beyond the city. Knowledgeable and passionate citizens can clamor for improvement, demanding new forms of collaboration and cooperation, planning, governance, finance and learning that can sustain positive change. Moreover, if governments, organisations and citizens connect with and value ecosystems on their doorstep, they are more likely to understand the importance of ecosystems everywhere. Pioneering National Park Cities will help inspire urban leaders to better protect not just their own habitats, but those they influence too. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages 70 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective There are already conclusions to be drawn from the London National Park City initiative, as there were from the earlier Mosaic project. These include the importance of ? recognising what works and championing it, ? recognising what does not work and remembering it, ? mapping challenges and opportunities in accessible ways, ? disrupting traditional top-down and bottom-up thinking, ? demonstrating how individuals can influence landscapes, ? recognising nature as a cultural choice, ? unlocking people?s potential and desire to create a better life, ? assessing the economic value of ecosystem services, ? using imagery to help people visualize alternative futures. These messages will need to be remembered as the movement progresses. Habitat III, in the preamble to the New Urban Agenda, states that ?The battle for sustainable development will be won or lost in cities?.80% of the United Kingdom?s population already lives in urban areas. The model of a National Park City ensuring the importance of nature through active citizenship is momentous. The last seventy years saw the birth and development of National Parks. The coming decades could see the era of a family of National Parks and National Park Cities, playing a fundamental role to protect people and nature. This simple idea of a journey that increases activity focused on a better life for people in the context of the presence of nature in a city is now embodied in a Universal Charter. It has fired the imagination and desire of other cities in the UK and abroad to follow in our footsteps. As the first National Park City, London is very aware that its methodology is based on its particular circumstances and issues. An international working group has produced a Universal Charter, distilling the essence of the concept in a manner that enables other cities to find their own way forward. The movement is growing! References City of London Corporation. (2013). Green Spaces: The Benefits for London Report. Supporting businesses - City of London Forestry Commission. (2016). Valuing London?s Urban Forest ? results of the London i-Tree Eco Project. Valuing London?s Urban Forest (itreetools.org) Gilfillian Partnership. (2012). Mosaic Final Evaluation. https://heritagehindusamaj.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/mosaic-legacy-18-final-evaluation-exec-summary.pdf The Conservation Volunteers. (n.d). Green Gym London. https://www.tcv.org.uk/london/green-gym-london Greenspace Information for Greater London. (2013). Dragonfly Detectives: Citizen science survey. http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/dragonfly-detectives HM Government. (2018). A Green Future ? Our 25 year Plan to Improve the Environment. www.gov.uk/government/publications. Imperial College London. (2018). OPAL:Citizen Science for Everyone.http://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/about/ Incredible Edible Lambeth. (n.d). Retrieved from http://www.incredibleediblelambeth.org/ Ling Wong, J. (2015). The Mosaic Model ? Engaging BME communities in National Parks. Campaign for National Parks. Natural England Access to Evidence Marshall, G. (2017). What we learnt running every single London Parkrun. Londonist. https://londonist.com/london/sport/london-parkrun London Wildlife Trust. (2014). Living Landscapes initiative and All London Green Grid. Research and Reports | London Wildlife Trust (wildlondon.org.uk) London Wildlife Trust and DEFRA. (2018). Lost Effra Project. http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/lost-effra UN Habitat. (2016). Urbanisation and Development: Emerging Futures. World Cities Report 2016. United Nations Human Settlements Program. World Cities Report 2016:Urbanization and Development - Emerging Futures | UN-Habitat (unhabitat.org) UN Habitat. (2017). New Urban Agenda. Documents & Archive - Habitat III (habitat3.org) Wandle Trust London. (2012). Trout in the classroom. https://www.wandletrust.org/tag/trout-in-the-classroom/ 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Creighton Connolly, Department of Urban Planning and Design, The University of Hong Kong 8 Entrance of The Habitat at Penang Hill, Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve (photo by author, 2024) 72 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract This chapter offers an empirical analysis of ecosystem governance on Penang Hill, which is a culturally and ecologically significant area in the centre of Penang Island, Malaysia. Penang is one of the most rapidly urbanising regions in Malaysia, which is putting increasing pressure on the island?s forested hills. Penang Hill, in particular, is important for its swaths of tropical rainforest, a variety of endemic flora and fauna, the jungle trails and funicular tram, as well as its historic bungalows reflecting the island?s colonial history. In order to conserve these features, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve has been established on Penang Hill in 2021 which aims to balance sustainable ecotourism with biodiversity conservation. This chapter aims to evaluate the usefulness of Biosphere Reserves for conserving heritage that transgresses traditional categories of cultural/natural and urban/rural, and the role of local communities in preparing for the nomination of sites. Whilst it was anticipated that Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve would enable conservation of cultural and natural heritage through promoting biodiversity research, cultural revitalisation and nature education, the success has been limited as yet. The chapter is based on analysis of both primary and secondary data and utilizes a landscape approach to conceptualize the layering of cultural and natural values embedded in the urban landscape and thereby enable a more holistic view of urban heritage. Introduction Over the past few decades, there have been numerous studies examining the interface between cultural heritage conservation and urban (re)development, particularly in rapidly urbanising regions (Bandarin & Van Oers, 2012; Barber, 2013; Cartier, 1998; Jenkins & King, 2003; Logan, 2002). On the other hand, scholars have also examined nature conservation movements in the context of encroaching (urban) development, which have primarily sought to conserve the biophysical characteristics of place such as coastlines, topographic landmarks, flora and fauna (Bengston & Youn, 2006; Jim, 2005; Lorimer, 2008; Neo, 2007). However, this body of research has, with a few exceptions (e.g., Daly & Winter, 2012; Ishizawa, 2014, 2017), not considered the importance of the interplay of both natural and cultural heritage in urban settings, and the myriad connections between the two. In illustrating these interconnections, this chapter offers a case study of Penang Hill, which is a culturally and ecologically significant area in the centre of Penang Island, Malaysia. Penang Hill is important for both natural and cultural features including its swaths of tropical rainforest, a variety of endemic flora and fauna, jungle trails and funicular tram, as well as its historic bungalows reflecting the island?s colonial history. Specifically, the Penang Hill ecosystem has 550 animal species; 2456 species of plants from 206 families, including 20 on the IUCN Red List, and four that are listed as Critically Endangered (Habitat Foundation, 2018). However, Penang Hill has been the target of repeated development plans over the past few decades, which has resulted in various grassroots movements to protect the Hill. One initiative has been the designation of Penang Hill as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (BR) in order to work towards a more sustainable form of urban development. Whilst the ultimate success of the BR in meeting this goal is still uncertain, it is anticipated that the designation will enable conservation of Penang Hill?s rich cultural and natural heritage, whilst also supporting biodiversity research and nature education. This chapter will discuss the background of this initiative, including how it has been influenced by both local cultural attachments to the Hill and resistance to ongoing development projects threatening. In analysing this case, I assert that Penang Hill must be viewed as an integral part of the city, rather than a separate ?natural? landscape. The material presented in this chapter is based on a mixed methods approach, using documentary analysis of a variety of sources; planning documents and personal observations spanning over a decade of research in Penang on different, related projects, including natural & cultural heritage conservation. This has allowed for understanding the discursive attachment of Penangites to the Hill, in addition to the history of development and conservation initiatives on Penang Hill. Documents analysed included newspaper articles, government reports, websites, and social media sources for the period 1990 to the time of writing. Positioning Penang Hill: context, history and heritage George Town is the capital of the Malaysian state of Penang, in the northwestern part of peninsular Malaysia. George Town is the historic centre of Penang, located in the northeastern corner of Penang Island, and designated as a UNESCO (cultural) World Heritage Site, jointly listed with Malacca as the ?Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca?. The city is often referred to as Penang, as the metropolitan area extends across the entire island, with a population of approximately 700,000 people. The level of urbanisation in Penang is 90.8%, which is among the highest in Malaysia, after Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Selangor (Mok, 2016a). Penang?s rapid and intensive urban transition has put considerable pressure on the natural environment, including its forested hills. It is largely this development pressure which has caused many Penangites to become increasingly alarmed by the loss of these valuable heritage assets, causing the impetus to push for enhanced protection of Penang?s hills and associated flora and fauna (Dermawan, 2016, 2017; Looi, 2017). This speaks to the importance of community-led heritage movements, in which locals take seriously the value of their city?s existing natural resources and heritage. Despite its name, Penang Hill (or Bukit Bendera) does not actually refer to a single hill, but rather an agglomeration of hills within the north-central part of Penang Island. These hills are connected by a ridge (with a paved road) which is the area commonly referred to as 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 73 Penang Hill. The primary peaks encompassed in this area are Government Hill, Tiger Hill, Flagstaff Hill (Hilltop Station), and Western Hill, which is the highest peak on the island (830m). The Hill is famous for its swaths of primary tropical rainforest, the wide variety of flora and fauna found within them, the jungle trails and funicular tram leading up the hill, as well as its historic bungalows reflecting the island?s colonial history (see Figure 1). The historical significance of Penang Hill relates to its history as the first hill station built in Asia during the British colonial period, which is the origin of many of the heritage buildings remaining on the hill today (Aiken, 1987). Figure 1: A view from Penang Hill. (Photo by author, 2017) Due to its accessibility and visibility from George Town, many Penangites have a strong cultural attachment to the hill, related to childhoods spent visiting its peaks, or merely the aesthetic charm that it offers (Chan, 2018). Penang Hill is thus understood by many Penangites to be central to the ?unique atmosphere, heritage and cultural value? of Penang (Khor et al., 1991, p. 36), and a symbol of the island?s identity (Gibby, 2017, p. 203). Through such statements, we can see how the intrinsic value of Penang?s forested hillsides are central to the identity and well-being of many local people, which have generated wider awareness about the need for greater protection from the threat of development. Whilst Penang Hill is not included in the UNESCO World Heritage designation for George Town as a cultural heritage site, various architectural, historical, cultural and biophysical qualities of the Hill do correspond to many of the ten selection criteria, or ?outstanding universal values? (OUVs) used by UNESCO in evaluating and designating World Heritage Sites (UNESCO, 2005). For example, Criterion (ii) specifically refers to the ?interchange of human values over a span of time within a cultural area of the world on developments in architecture, town-planning or landscape design? (UNESCO, 2017). Others include criterion (v): ?an outstanding example of traditional human settlement?which is representative of?human interaction with the environment?. The omission of Penang Hill from the George Town World Heritage Site is arguably one reason why the Hill has been the focus of so many (re) development plans over the years. As such, various stakeholders in Penang have sought to secure UNESCO Biosphere listing for the Hill, which can conserve the conjoined cultural and natural heritage components of the site and limit future large-scale development. Penang Hill does, however, have stringent legislation regulating development on the site, which goes beyond the forest reserve designation for Penang?s other hills. In addition to designated Permanent Forest Reserve and Water Catchment Areas; the Hill is specifically mentioned in the Structure Plan for Penang Island (PSP), dating back to 1988. The section notes that ?Penang Hill should be designated as an area of special characteristics. Its natural vegetation, topography and character as a hill resort must be maintained and conserved and any development shall conform to, and not destroy these special characteristics? (Khor et al., 1991, p. 19). It goes on to note that the hill may be ?enhanced? by improving and increasing the various look-out points and the provision and maintenance of additional walkways, gardens and ?other facilities?. Moreover, a Local Plan for Penang Hill was gazetted in 1991, which seeks to promote the hill as a ?green, heritage destination? for ?nature and heritage tourism?, whilst taking into account the carrying capacity of the site, and development constraints (Netto, 2013). What Khor et al. (1991) find most significant about the built landscape of the Hill is the sensitive manner in which it was developed over the years. This refers not only to the limited number of bungalows and hotels on the Hill, but also the way in which these buildings were designed to blend in with the natural landscape as much as possible, and the absence of vehicular traffic (Gibby, 2017). This sensitive and slow-pace of development over the years has been recognised by locals as one of the major attractions of George Town as a whole - in that ?it has not really changed over the decades. Yet, as the next section will discuss, this valorisation of slow-paced development is not shared by local politicians who have been labelled ?development obsessed? (Nambiar, 2018; Netto, 2018; Ng, 2016), and have continued to promote large development projects on Penang Hill, despite seeking to promote its cultural and natural heritage attributes. 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia 74 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Penang Hill?s (re)development trajectories: from hill resort to transport hub, and back again In 1990, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the Penang State Government and Berjaya Corporation, announcing their intention to develop Penang Hill into an ?international tourist resort?, which caused unprecedented public controversy (Khor et al., 1991). This plan would have not only affected Penang Hill itself, but also the Municipal Youth Park and the Botanic Gardens at its foothills. The Youth Park was to be developed into a ?water world complex?, whilst a cable-car would be constructed to link Penang Hill with the Botanic Gardens (see Gibby, 2017). On the hill itself, the plan included an ?Acropolis? complex (consisting of a dome, planetarium, theatre, shopping, and sports centre); two large hotels; a condominium; forest lodge (with 300 units); and an ?Adventure Park? on Tiger Hill (consisting of a golf course, ?moon walk?, ?space shuttle?, ?haunted mansion? and ?shipwreck?) which would cover nearly the entire developable surface of the Hill (Khor et al., 1991). Given that Penang Island was completely forested upon the arrival of European settlers in 1786; two-thirds forested by 1900, and one-fifth forested in 1991, the Berjaya Plan was, as Mike Gibby (2017, p. 183) has remarked: ?the next logical step towards deforesting the Hill completely? (p. 183). Indeed, at the time of writing, only seven per cent of Penang State?s forests remain intact. This plan was eventually defeated by a campaign to ?Save Penang Hill?, which was ultimately successful due to the unprecedented levels of public engagement and support that it attracted (nearly 30,000 signatures) (Connolly, 2020). Nonetheless, redevelopment plans continued to be pursued by the State Government, including a cable car that was proposed to connect Penang Hill with the adjacent Youth Park and Botanical Gardens as a way of improving the efficiency of transport on the island. Whilst this plan was dismissed as ?unnecessary? in a 2001 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report commissioned for the Prime Minister?s Office, the plan again re-emerged in 2013 with an additional connection to the northwestern tip of Penang Island (WWF Malaysia, 2001). The cable car was declared by the Malaysia Tourism and Culture Minister as, ?not only a top priority in Penang but also for the country? and was included in the 11th Malaysia Plan (Hilmy, 2015). Whilst the cable car plan has been pursued to increase tourism revenues and improve transportation on the island, it has been consistently resisted due to its incompatibility with the Hill?s natural environment, and limited carrying capacity (Dermawan, 2017; Netto, 2013; Tan, 2013). Penang Hill is now managed by Penang Hill Corporation (PHC), formed in 2009, is a state-owned corporation directed largely by politicians. Penang Hill is touted by the Penang state government as a ?green, heritage destination?, and the recommended tourism theme for the hill as ?nature and heritage tourism?(Netto, 2013a). Penang Hill has thus become central to the Penang 2030 agenda in promoting Penang as a ?green and smart? state (Dermawan, 2021). Whilst the PHC has actively promoted conservation initiatives on the hill, it has also pursued large-scale development projects that seemingly threaten the cultural and ecological integrity of the area. For instance, the PHC?s website claims that the organisation was formed ?with the primary objectives of managing the funicular train system and the development of Penang Hill? (PHC, 2019). The website also describes the PHC?s success with attracting ?more and more tourists? up to Penang Hill, whilst many NGOs have argued that the government should be limiting the number of tourists. In February 2017, the PHC raised the idea of a cable car again, in a bid to increase tourism revenues and improve transportation on the island. In response to this announcement, Friends of Penang Hill representatives announced that they would embark on a ?Save Penang Hill 2.0? campaign if the state government continued to push the project (Dermawan, 2017). The group has consistently rejected the proposal due to its incompatibility with the hill?s natural environment and limited carrying capacity. For instance, the Penang advisor for the Malaysian Nature Society, Dr Kanda Kumar, argued that the construction of additional infrastructure on the hill would be unfeasible in light of the numerous landslides that occurred in 2017 (Loh et al, 2019). The project was then shelved, only to re-emerge again in 2019, with RM100m of funding awarded by then national Finance Minister (and former Chief Minister of Penang) Lim Guan Eng, which was later cancelled in early 2020. Nonetheless, in June 2020 a new plan for a RM300 million cable car line connecting Penang Hill to Teluk Bahang on Penang?s northwest coast was proposed. The project has been pursued by the Singapore listed resort developer Sim Leisure Group, which has been involved in discussions with the state government since 2015. The CEO of Sim Leisure, Sim Choo Kheng, claimed that his firm is against further development on the hill, and suggested that the hill could thrive as an attraction without the need for additional infrastructure. He implied that this is because the main selling point of the cable car ride would be ?the sense of riding through the air over untouched forests? (Loh, 2020). However, the project would involve the construction of two cable car stations, 20 pylons and a 10km-long maintenance road ? all of which would have significant impacts on the hill?s forest ecology. Regardless of Sim?s claim that ?the footprints of the pylons will be unbelievably small?, and that they would carefully preserve the forest floor, PHW argued that the project would inevitably fragment the forest and lead to soil erosion due to excavation and terracing (Penang Hills Watch, 2020b). This risk is particularly high given the steep terrain over which the cable car route would be constructed. Moreover, the Penang Forum, a coalition of NGOs in Penang, pointed out that the route would pass through two forest reserves and three important water catchments for Penang Island, threatening their ability to ensure sustained water yields. Finally, Penang civil society groups also asked for more public consultation in the planning procedures for the hill, rather than simply announcing plans after contracts have been signed with developers (Netto, 2013; Tan, 2013). For instance, when the Botanic Gardens?Penang Hill cable car plan was announced in June 2019, the budget allocation was provided by the federal government before a full technical and feasibility study was completed (Loh et al., 2019). 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 75 In addition to the cable car, the PHC in 2018 announced plans for two new hotels to be built on Penang Hill, claiming that these would ?blend in well with the environment?, and ?be compatible with the history and heritage of Penang Hill? (Tan, 2018). This announcement, however, was heavily criticized by NGOs, pointing out that the largest hotel on Penang Hill has only 12 rooms, whilst one of the proposed hotels will contain 200 (Tan, 2018). This would mean an additional 500?600 overnight guests (an increase of roughly 60 per cent) of its current population, which would immensely strain the hill?s already stretched resources. Consequently, an online petition to protest against the state government?s proposed hotel projects on Penang Hill surpassed 22,000 signatures within just six days of its launch (Mok, 2018). Whilst the Penang Forum would support the idea of refurbishing and repurposing some of the old government bungalows on Penang Hill, they stressed that the construction of new hotels there would ?mar the historic cultural landscape and turn Penang Hill into a warmer, over-developed and overcrowded resort? (Mok, 2018). Subsequently, the state government shelved the hotel idea, in order to achieve ?sustainable development? on the hill, and to preserve the hill as ?the state?s iconic heritage? (Mok, 2020). However, it is hard to see how this vision for the hill is reconciled with the simultaneous push to construct the cable car project. As Thompson et al. (2017) caution, eco-tourism strategies can thus result in serious failings with regards to heritage conservation if the local governance regimes are ineffective. Whilst there is strong legislation protecting the integrity of Penang?s hills (the PSP), this is largely not enforced by the government. This emphasises the need for the active role of local residents in co-directing the planning process and preserving important heritage landscapes (Caballero, 2016). Civil society members have pointed out that forested hills are Penang?s natural heritage and function as water catchments to provide water supply, prevent soil erosion, flooding and landslides (Mizrah, 2013). They also host a rich diversity of plant and animal species, and act as ?green lungs? for CO2 buffering, nature appreciation and outdoor recreation activities, which significantly influences the well-being of urban dwellers (Dwyer et al., 1992; Penang Forum, 2016). Thus, whilst Penang civil society members and many residents are not against development, they maintain that any future development on the Hill should be done in a sensitive manner which compliments its natural and cultural attributes (Gibby, 2017; Mok, 2016b). The Penang Hill Man and Biosphere Reserve In order to better protect and promote the natural and cultural heritage of Penang Hill, the Penang state government announced in October 2016 that it would seek UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Reserve designation for Penang Hill, which would grant the same level of protection as the George Town World Heritage Site (Ngui, 2016; The Star, 2016). Man and the Biosphere Reserves are described by UNESCO (2017) as ?learning sites for sustainable development?, which ?promote solutions reconciling the conservation of biodiversity with its sustainable use?. In this way, Biosphere Reserves recognise the coexistence and even interdependencies of rich biodiversity and distinct social landscapes (Cockrell and Cockrell, 2021). The Biosphere Reserve nomination was a joint effort initiated by the private sector and local biodiversity researchers, but also involved the PHC, State and federal governments. Some of the main characteristics of Biosphere Reserves include the integration of conservation and development, focusing on a multi- stakeholder approach that emphasises the involvement of local communities (Reed and Price, 2019). Importantly, they also seek to integrate cultural and biological diversity through sound sustainable development practices and policies and acting as sites of excellence for education and training. Penang Hill was awarded UNESCO Biosphere Reserve status on 15 September 2021, becoming the third site in Malaysia to receive the designation. In addition to Penang Hill, the Biosphere Reserve also encompasses the Botanical Gardens and Penang National Park to the northeast and northwest, respectively. Together, the area spans 12,481ha, with 7,285ha of this inland, and 5,196 ha marine (Lim, 2021; see Figure 2). The site is divided into three zones: a core, buffer and transition zone, and three ecosystems: forest, coastal and marine. The core zone measures 5,757ha, which consists of permanent forest reserves and water catchment areas and is where biodiversity conservation works, research and educational activities are carried out. The buffer zone covers 2,176ha and the transition zone spans 4,548ha (Habitat Foundation, 2018). The designation is expected to promote and support biodiversity research to be conducted on the hill, which will help to document and conserve the hill?s unique flora and fauna. Penang Hill is an ideal site for a Man and Biosphere Reserve, because the area integrates cultural and biological diversity at the landscape scale, and has the potential to develop and promote sustainable development practices and policies through the involvement of local communities, education and training. The Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve (PHBR) seeks to instil a deeper sense of appreciation to Penang?s natural environment and to generate awareness of the importance of conserving it (Lim, 2021). As Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow stated, the aim is for the PHBR is to ?become a world-class learning site to explore and illustrate methods of conservation and sustainable development? (Lim, 2021). This is part of the ?innovative and green approaches? that the state government is using to achieve the Penang 2030 vision, in order to balance conservation with sustainable economic development (Lim, 2021). This will also help Penang in its long-term goal to become an international centre for research on sustainability, biodiversity and conservation (Free Malaysia Today, 2021). 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia 76 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Figure 2: A map of the Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve. Penang Hill is the area in yellow; Penang National Park is the area in white; the Botanic Gardens the area in red; blue areas are Water Catchments and dams; green areas are Permanent Forest Reserves. The map bottom left shows the situation within Penang State (source: adapted from Habitat Foundation, 2018). One of the key stakeholders involved in initiating and securing the Biosphere designation is the Habitat at Penang Hill, which is a private sector, eco-tourism based operation located near the hill?s Upper Station. The Habitat opened in 2016, and is involved in sustainable tourism, research, conservation and education, promoting the exploration of the hill?s intrinsic identity, unique features and attributes. The Habitat features a wide walking path, canopy walkway and zip line, which allow visitors to experience the natural environment of the summit area. It is also working with the state government to restore some of the heritage bungalows on the hill for community and scientific use. As such, the Habitat Foundation director Allen Tan noted, the Biosphere Reserve could create a new economic sector for the state, rather than concentrating on mass tourism and property investment. He also noted that the state government could also organise more scientific conferences and research programmes to help attract scientists to Penang (Mok, 2020). Various stakeholders have noted that this would also be a more sustainable form of development, whereby ?sustainable economic activities facilitate conservation efforts, and vice versa? whilst also requiring minimal capital investment (Chan, 2018; Gibby, 2017). As Head and Muir (2016) have noted, such forms of community action help to identify possibilities for transformative potential with regards to sustainable urban development. In particular, the Biosphere Reserve can help to promote a more sustainable development model based on the conservation of cultural and natural heritage rather than infrastructure and property development. However, civil society groups are cautiously optimistic, noting the challenges that George Town has faced in managing rampant gentrification and development following the UNESCO World Heritage designation in 2008, and the degradation of the Tasik Chini Biosphere Reserve in Pahang, Malaysia (Yeoh, 2021). There is also the threat posed by the cable car project, which is likely to go ahead. The Penang State Government justified the cable car project, noting that ?many nature reserves and even UNESCO World Heritage Sites? had successfully implemented them, labelling it an ?environmentally sustainable transport? system (Dermawan, 2021). This is seen to be integral to redistributing traffic during peak seasons and facilitating increased tourism on the hill. Indeed, the Penang Hill Special Area Plan (2020) targets an increased capacity for Penang Hill of more than three times the average number of visitors at any one time recorded in 2019. Furthermore, the state government proposed in the 2020 Special Area Plan for Penang Hill to redevelop the summit area of the hill, with a new four-storey hillside café, and a large concrete helipad jutting off the side of the cliff, all of which would harm the ambiance and ?heritage views? of the summit area (Penang Forum, 2021). Of even more concern is the PIL1 highway project planned as part of the PTMP, which would tunnel through 10km of Penang?s hills, with the addition of a bridge over the Penang Hill Railway. As a former 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 77 senior UNESCO advisor familiar with Penang has claimed, this would be ?clearly incompatible? with the Biosphere designation, and ?in fact, seemed purposely designed to undermine and scuttle this conservation initiative? (quoted in Netto, 2018). Yet, it is unclear whether the cable car or PIL1 projects were included in the nomination documents for the PHBR or how these were viewed by UNESCO. As such, whilst the state government has played an important role in securing the Biosphere Reserve nomination, it can be argued that this is being done largely for the purposes of promoting Penang and Penang Hill internationally, and enhancing the state?s ?green and smart? agenda. For instance, the general manager of PHC was quoted as saying that the Biosphere Reserve project would help to attract up to 13,000 people up to Penang Hill simultaneously, which is far beyond the 4,000 deemed feasible by the WWF Report on Penang Hill and the 6,463 stated in the Penang Hill Special Area Plan (Chern, 2018). The PHC?s promotion of Penang Hill as a ?green, heritage designation?, and a place where visitors can ?see the nature, feel the history? is therefore little more than a green- washing strategy intended to promote ecotourism and perhaps appease civil society groups (PHC, 2019). Conclusion The controversies over the future of Penang Hill have shed light on the challenges - but also the potentials - at stake in the conservation of urban heritage. Whilst heritage conservation in the past has been hampered by rigid binaries of cultural/natural, tangible/intangible and urban/rural, the case of Penang illustrates how such binaries might be overcome. This is seen in the way in which heritage NGOs and activists in Penang have become increasingly concerned with emerging threats to the natural environment, and how these are negatively impacting Penang?s rich heritage assets, which are seen as central to Penangites? sense of place and well-being (see Connolly, 2022). In conceptualizing these relationships, it is important to understand urban heritage landscapes as simultaneously cultural and natural, urban, and rural. This is especially important in order to develop and maintain landscapes that foster progressive relations with the natural world, which can only be achieved through conservation approaches and forms of urban development which take seriously the integrated cultural and natural character of urban ecosystems (DeSilvey, 2017). In this way, as Matthew Gandy (2018: 102) has observed, cities can play a dual role in the protection of bio-diversity: ?first, through the provision of a kind of ecological sanctuary for flora and fauna; and second, by enabling the exploration of different socio-ecological interactions that might ultimately be ?scaled up? towards new forms of global environmental politics?. Yet, as Wilson (1991) has argued, constructing forms of urban heritage conservation that are able to connect cultural and natural aspects of the landscape ?must begin with understanding the process of contemporary land development? and everyday experiences of it (p.16). This can help to identify the pressures on particular ecosystems - such as the Penang Hill cable car and highway developments - and how the various (urban, cultural and natural) components can be integrated in a sustainable manner. The Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve is one outcome of this process, which has been developed through the joint efforts of various stakeholders. However, the ultimate success of the Biosphere nomination for Penang Hill and adjacent areas will require active support and management of government agencies, including the (government-led) Penang Hill Corporation. Given the commercial and mass-tourism focused means by which the PHC has promoted the hill and - to some extent - the Biosphere Reserve, there seems to be an incompatibility between the motivation of the local government and the aims of the Man and the Biosphere Programme and other stakeholders. As such, the future of Penang Hill will depend on greater synergies between stakeholders and genuine commitment to the preservation of the natural environment and the livelihoods and well-being of those who depend upon it. It will also require a more sustainable approach to urban development in Penang that respects the conjoined natural and cultural heritages of Penang Hill and surrounding landscapes. As Matthew Gandy (2018: 104) has observed, ?if the future of the biosphere is to be deliberated over in an increasingly urban context the question of what is worth protecting, on what grounds, and over what scale ...will be an inescapable dimension to public culture?. References Aiken, S. R. (1987). Early Penang Hill Station. Geographical Review, 77(4), 421?439. https://doi.org/10.2307/214282 Bandarin, F., & van Oers, R. (2012). The historic urban landscape: managing heritage in an urban century. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119968115 Barber, L. B. (2013). Making meaning of heritage landscapes: The politics of redevelopment in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 57, 90?112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00452.x Bengston, D. N., & Youn, Y.-C. (2006). Urban Containment Policies and the Protection of Natural Areas: The Case of Seoul?s Greenbelt. Ecology & Society, 11, 3?18.https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01504-110103 Berger, A. A. (1997). Narratives in popular culture, media and everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243344 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Biosphere Reserve pitch for Penang Hill. The Star. (October 6, 2016). https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/10/06/biosphere-reserve-pitch-for-penang-hill/ Caballero, G. V. A. (2016). The role of natural resources in the historic urban landscape approach. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 6, 2?13. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-11-2014-0037 Cartier, C. (1998). Megadevelopment in Malaysia: From Heritage Landscapes to ?Leisurescapes? in Melaka?s Tourism Sector. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 19(2), 151?176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.1998.tb00257.x Chacko RP (2021) What you need to know about the Replacement Penang Hill Special Area Plan 2020. In: Aliran. Available at: https://m.aliran.com/web-specials/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-replacement-penang-hill-special-area-plan-2020/ (accessed 20 September 2021). Chan, T. (2018). Penang Hill?s 2018 bid for Unesco status boosted by findings of world?s first whole-forest biodiversity survey. South China Morning Post.https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/travel-leisure/article/2124782/penang-hills-2018-bid-unesco-status- boosted-findings-worlds. Accessed May 20, 2019. Chern, L.T. (2018). Out to maintain island?s beauty: Penang Hill and surrounding areas inchtowards Unesco reserve status. The Star.https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/07/22/out-to-maintain-islands-beauty-penang-hill-and-surrounding-areas- inch-towards-unesco-reserve-status/. Accessed May20, 2019. Chow, M. D. (2018a.). Final stage reached for Penang Hill Unesco listing attempt. Free Malaysia Today. https://www. freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/08/03/final-stage-reached-for-penang-hill-unesco-listing-attempt. Accessed February 10, 2020. Chow, M. D. (2018b). Rushing to get Penang Hill listed as a Unesco Biosphere Reserve. Free Malaysia Today. https://www. freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/07/21/rushing-to-get-penang-hill-listed-as-a-unesco-biosphere-reserve/. Accessed May 20, 2019. Cloke, P., & Jones, O. (2001). Dwelling, Place, and Landscape: An Orchard in Somerset. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 33(4), 649?666. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3383 Cockrell HA and Cockrell RA (2021) Designation of the Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO: a fitting recognition of the unique natural and cultural heritage of Penang Island and its people. Available at: https://www.tourism.gov.my/news/trade/view/ designation-of-the-penang-hill-biosphere-reserve-by-unesco-a-fitting-recognition-of-the-unique-natural-and-cultural-heritage-of- penang-island-and-its-people (accessed 19 September 2021). Connolly, C. (2019). From resilience to multi-species flourishing: (Re)imagining urban-environmental governance in Penang, Malaysia. Urban Studies.https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018807573 Connolly, C. (2020). Urban Political Ecologies of Heritage: Integrating Cultural and Natural Landscapes in Penang, Malaysia. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 45(1): 168-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12335 Connolly C (2022) Political Ecologies of Landscape Governing Urban Transformations in Penang. Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press. Daly, P. & Winter, T. (Eds.). (2012). Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203156001 Dermawan, A. (2016). Group launches Penang Hills Watch site to monitor hill clearing activities. New Straits Times. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2016/10/184600/group-launches-penang-hills-watch-site-monitor-hill-clearing-activities Dermawan, A. (2017). People will ?Save Penang Hill, again?. New Straits Times. http://www.nst.com.my/news/2017/02/209515/people-will-save-penang-hill-again Dermawan A (2021b) RFP for Penang Hill cable car project open from Wednesday till May 24. Available at: https://www.nst.com. my/news/nation/2021/01/656413/rfp-penang-hill-cable-car-project-open-wednesday-till-may-24 (accessed 20 September 2021). DeSilvey, C. (2017). Curated Decay: Heritage Beyond Saving. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Dwyer, J. F., McPherson, G., Schroeder, H. W., et al. (1992). Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Aboriculture, 18(5), 227?235. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1992.045 Free Malaysia Today (FMT) (2021) Penang Hill?s Unesco recognition boosts our green efforts, says CM. 16 September. Available at: https://bit.ly/3lVmC4F (accessed 19 September 2021). Gandy M (2018) Cities in deep time: Bio-diversity, metabolic rift, and the urban question. City, 22(1): 96?105. Gibby, M. (2017). Penang Hill - A Journey Through Time. Penang: Entrepot Publishing. Habitat Foundation T. (2018). The proposed Penang Hill UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve ? The Habitat Foundation. Accessed February 10, 2020. 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 79 Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw25q Head, L. & Muir, P. (2006). Suburban life and the boundaries of nature: resilience and rupture in Australian backyard gardens. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(4), 505?524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00228.x Heynen, N., Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (2006). Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism. In N. Heynen, M. Kaika, & Swyngedouw, E. (Eds.), In the Nature of Cities. (pp. 1?21). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203027523 Hilmy, I. (2015). Proposed cable car project will benefit Penang. The Sun Daily. http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1405592 International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (2016). ICOMOS & IUCN Partner on Nature-Culture Journey at the World Conservation Congress 2016. http://www.icomos.org/en/178-english-categories/news/5760-icomos-iucn-partner-on- nature-culture-journey-at-the-world-conservation-congress-2016 Ishizawa, M. (2014). About the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes: Sustainability or Unviability? Unpublished PhD Thesis. Brandemburg University of Technology, Cottbus. Ishizawa, M. (2017). Landscape change in the terraces of Ollantaytambo, Peru: an emergent mountain landscape between the urban, rural and protected area. Landscape Research, 42(3), 321?333. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1267132 Jenkins, G., & King, V. T. (2003). Heritage and development in a Malaysian city: George Town under threat? Indonesia and the Malay World, 31(89), 44?57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639810304441 Jim, C. Y. (2005). Monitoring the performance and decline of heritage trees in urban Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management, 74(2), 161?172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.08.014 Jones, O., & Cloke, P. J. (2002). Tree cultures: the place of trees and trees in their place. Oxford; New York: Berg. Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (2011). The Urbanization of Nature: Great Promises, Impasse, and New Beginnings. In G. Bridge & S. Watson (Eds.), The New Blackwell Companion to the City (pp. 106?117). Malden, MA: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444395105.ch9 Khor, M., & Friends of Penang Hill (Eds.). (1991). Penang Hill: the need to save our natural heritage: critique of the proposed development and alternative plan. Penang, Malaysia: Friends of Penang Hill. King, V. T. (Ed.). (2016). World Heritage in Southeast Asia: Issues, Prospects and Problems. In UNESCO in Southeast Asia: World Heritage sites in comparative perspective (pp. 1?30). Copenhagen: NIAS Press. https://doi.org/10.26721/spafajournal.v1i0.165 Lim R (2021) Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve is nation?s latest on Unesco conservation list. Available at: https://www.thestar.com. my/news/nation/2021/09/16/penang-hill-biosphere-reserve-is-nations-latest-on-unesco-conservation-list (accessed 19 September 2021). Logan, W. (2012). The disappearing ?Asian? city: protecting Asia?s urban heritage in a globalizing world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Looi, S.-C. (2017, October 23). We?ll kick you out, groups warn Penang govt over hillside development. The Malaysian Insight. October 23, 2017. https://www.themalaysianinsight.com/s/19639/ Lorimer, J. (2008). Living roofs and brownfield wildlife: towards a fluid biogeography of UK nature conservation. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 40(9), 2042?2060. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39261 Mizrah, R. (2013, December 11). Rexy?s thoughts: Penang Hill Special Area Plan (SAP). RexyMizra. https://rexymizrah.wordpress.com/tag/teluk-bahang/ Mok, O. (2016a, October 26). Massive projects in place to alleviate urbanisation in Penang. The Malay Mail. http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/massive-projects-in-place-to-alleviate-urbanisation-in-penang Mok, O. (2016b, November 17). State Opposition leader questions planned development for Penang Hill. The Malay Mail. http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/state-opposition-leader-questions-planned-development-for-penang-hill Mok O (2018, November 21) Online petition to Save Penang Hill tops 22,000 backers. Malay Mail. Available at: https://www. malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2018/11/21/online-petition-to-save-penang-hill-tops-22000-backers/1695606 Mok O (2020, October 5) Penang applies to Unesco for Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve recognition. Malay Mail Available at: https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2020/10/05/penang-applies-to-unesco-for-penang-hill-biosphere-reserve- recognition/1909566. Nambiar, P. (2018, November 16). Chow: If HK Had to take advice of Penang NGOs, it would still be backward. FMT News. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/11/16/chow-if-hk-had-to-take-advice-of-penang-ngos-it-will-still-be- backward/ 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Netto, A. (2013, November 14). Cable cars will push Penang Hill visitors beyond 10,000/day threshold. Anilnetto.com. http://anilnetto.com/economy/development-issues/cable-car-proposal-added-on-to-penang-hill-draft-special-area-plan/. Netto, A. (2018, September 18). Penang?s monster highway: Yeo Bee Yin?s biggest test. Anilnetto.com. https://anilnetto.com/ economy/development-issues/penangs-monster-highway-yeo-bee-yins-biggest-test/. Accessed September 22, 2018. Neo, H. (2007). Challenging the developmental state: Nature conservation in Singapore. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 48(2), 186?199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2007.00340.x. Ngui, A. (2016, October 5). Efforts to get Penang Hill listed as a Unesco Biosphere Reserve. The Sun Daily. http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1992843. Penang Forum. (2016). Penang Forum launches Penang Hills Watch online crowd-sourcing, mapping initiative. https://penangforum.net/2016/10/31/penang-forum-launches-penang-hills-watch-online-crowd-sourcing-mapping-initiative/ Penang Forum (2021) The Draft Penang Hill Special Area Plan: What you need to know. Penang, Malaysia. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/events/451335555873895/ (accessed 20 September 2021). Penang Hill Corporation (PHC). (2019). About Us. https://corporate.penanghill.gov.my/index.php/en/. Reed, M. G., & Price, M. F. (2019). Introducing UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. In Reed, M.G. & Price M.F. (Eds.) Unesco biosphere reserves: Supporting biocultural diversity, sustainability and society. (pp. 1-10). Taylor & Francis Group. Pp. 1-10. Speechley, S.-T. (2014). Penang?s Heritage Wealth Goes Way Beyond the UNESCO Site. Penang Monthly, January. http://penangmonthly.com/penangs-heritage-wealth-goes-way-beyond-the-unesco-site/. Tan, S. C. (2018, November 21). Penang Hill Projects to go ahead. The Star. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/ nation/2018/11/21/penang-hill-hotel-projects-to-go-ahead-phc-two-lodging-facilities-to-be-built-on-dilapidated-buildin/. Tan, S. H. (2013, October 7). So where is the Penang Local Plan? ? Letters. The Star. http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2013/10/07/so-where-is-the-penang-local-plan/ Thompson, B. S., Gillen, J., & Friess, D. A. (2018). Challenging the principles of ecotourism: insights from entrepreneurs on environmental and economic sustainability in Langkawi, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(2), 257?276. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1343338 UNESCO, W. H. C. (2005). The Criteria for Selection. http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/. UNESCO, W.H.C. (2017). Biosphere Reserves. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/ Wilson, A. (1991). The culture of nature North American landscape from Disney to the Exxon Valdez. Toronto: Between the Lines. Winter, T., & Daly, P. (2012). Heritage in Asia: Converging forces, conflicting values. In P. Daly & T. Winter (Eds.), Routledge handbook of heritage in Asia. New York: Routledge. WWF Malaysia. (2001). Study on the Development of Hill Stations (pp. 1?168). Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister?s Department. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/26736923/wwfm-hill-stations-study-vol2-2001pdf-sdn-bhd-wwf-malaysia. Yeoh R (2021) Unesco listing great, but don?t let Penang Hill devolve like Tasik Chini: experts. Available at: https://www.thevibes. com/articles/news/41794/unesco-listing-is-great-but-dont-let-penang-hill-devolve-like-tasik-chini-experts (accessed 19 September 2021). 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Cordillera Azul National Park: integrated landscape management under a participatory model for the conservation of nature and its benefits Tatiana Z. Pequeño Saco and Patricia I. Fernández ? Dávila Messum and Lily O. Rodriguez, Centro de Conservación, Investigación y Manejo de Áreas Naturales ? Cordillera Azul CIMA ? Cordillera Azul 9 Laguna del mundo perdido, foto Alvaro Del Camp 82 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract The integrated management of Cordillera Azul National Park presents a great challenge for CIMA, as it is a 20-year administration contract with SERNANP, the Peruvian park authority. The situation is further aggravated in the context of climate change where its ecosystems -mainly those with great anthropic influence in the park?s buffer zone- face a tendency to become increasingly dryer due to water stress. Cordillera Azul shelters intact montane forests is a key biodiversity area, where new species are discovered every year, acting also as an important carbon reservoir, generating a REDD megaproject that has managed to reduce emissions by more than 36.6 million tons of CO2 from 2008-2020. The buffer zone is a mosaic of landscapes with different degrees of use and historically one of the most threatened by forests? loss due to constant migration. CIMA works on processes that promote participatory land-use planning and strengthening of local governance to reduce and mitigate the drivers of biodiversity loss. Processes include mapping territory uses and potentialities for sustainable management, conservation commitments to support park conservation, mitigation of threats and ecological landscape restoration, in order to contribute to improving rural quality of life. By bridging distant villages and rural areas with municipal and regional governments, CIMA is promoting environmental sensitivity, integrated governance, and participatory engagement in an urban ? rural context. Introduction Geographical location, scale of the project and types of ecosystems The Cordillera Azul National Park (PNCAZ) is located in the heart of the Amazon Andes, with 1,351,190.85 hectares making it the largest protected area in Peruvian Amazonian mountains; covering from cloud forests to the Amazon plain (2,650 to 200 masl), with a wealth of endemic and threatened species, it hosts healthy populations of large mammals included in Red Lists (IUCN/CITES) (Alverson et al, 2001), and new species adding every year (O?Neill et al., 2000; Weber & Montoya-Burgos, 2002; Lujan et al., 2010; Cusi et al., 2017; Lane et al., 2017; Moncrief et al., 2018; Castillo-Urbina et al, 2021; Vasquez & Valenzuela, 2022; Gonzales et al, 2023). It is protecting a wide range of unique habitats and important headwaters securing the provision to thousands of people. The integrated management of the Cordillera Azul is carried out following UNESCO?s concept of biosphere reserve1. The core area corresponds to the PNCAZ, whilst its buffer zone consists of a large mosaic of different degrees of land uses. The buffer zone has as natural limits the Huallaga and Ucayali rivers, distributed in part of San Martín, Loreto, Huánuco and Ucayali departments. The Park and CIMA offices are located in the main urban cities of Tarapoto, Tocache, Contamana and Aguaytía all of them outside the buffer zone (Figure 1). The PNCAZ and its buffer zone comprise 21 unique structural habitats (INRENA, 2006) distinguished by differences in underlying geology, soils, hydrology and vegetation; and grouped into five types of forests (CIMA, 2012) for a simpler description: ? Alluvial Forests, with typical successional species (Gynerium, Cecropia, Guazuma, Triplaris, Acacia), Ficus and Cedrela, as well as a palm-dominated understory; swampy habitats dominate open areas; large number of fruiting species in alluvial and terrace forests attract ungulates. ? Hill Forests, includes low, medium, and high hill forests and eroded red hills, from 400 to 800 masl. Cedar (Cedrelinga) forests, up-hills with morning mists and regular cloud cover, maintains high diversity of epiphytes, ferns; also palm dominated understory. Eroded red and white hills have steep slopes and exposed rocks as a result of landslides. ? Mountain Forests, (from 800 to 2300masl or more) include mountain, stunted and cloud forests with arborescent ferns (Metaxya), trees and palms. Highest elevations with superficial root systems form spongy, humid carpets on acidic soils, poor in woody species but rich in epiphytes, palms, and herbs. Tall mountain forests in Cushabatay headwaters are a rare habitat sheltering several endemic species. ? Wetlands, with Mauritia palm stands and species associated like Eritrina poeppigiana, Ficus insipida, Ficus maxima, and Acacia loretensis. ? Huallaga Dry Forest, in the buffer zone, with 700-1600mm of annual rainfall; this isolated forest with high endemism is strongly threatened by its proximity to Marginal highway. It is the only place in Peru for Erythoxylum lucidum, E. shatona (?Coca? genus), Mosannona raymondi, Croton glabellus. Important trees are Manilkara bidentate and Schinopsis peruviana. Context The Park was established by the Peruvian government in 2001 to protect a unique assemblage of species, biological communities and geological formations from the Cordillera Azul complex, intact headwaters and basins, and to support an integrated and balanced management of the natural resources of adjacent areas (DS-2001-AG). 1 https://www.unesco.org/en/mab/wnbr/about Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 83 Figure 1. Altitudinal map and location of Cordillera Azul N.P. (Source: CIMA) There are no human settlements within the park, but its 23,034.14 sq Kms of buffer zone (995Km perimeter) houses more than 330K people (510 villages), doubling the number since the park establishment, and including indigenous communities (Kichwas, Yine, Shipibo and Kacataibo) and isolated Kacataibo groups between park and buffer zone. Most of the villages closest to the park have fewer than 300 people, and less than a dozen, within the buffer zone, attaining 5000 people. CIMA works since 2002 supporting the Peruvian authority in managing the PNCAZ, currently Servicio Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado Peruano-SERNANP; since 2008, the PNCAZ?s management is carried out under a public-private co- management scheme, through an Administration Contract that CIMA has with the Peruvian State over 20 years (Figure 2). The main financial mechanism for the contract is a REDD+ project that has generated the largest amount of carbon credits-VCU in protected areas in Peru. With the sales of the VCUs, a financial sustainability fund for the park has been established. Other ecosystem services provided by Cordillera Azul forests are: provision of water in quantity and quality by protecting the headwaters of some 45 watersheds (INRENA, 2006), supply of non-timber forest resources as a source of protein and non-timber plant resources (Gavin, 2004, 2006; Klebelsberg, 2005; Sánchez, 2006; Sánchez & Vásquez, 2007; Meyer, 2006; La Torre-Cuadros, 2011), breeding and nesting areas for several aquatic species (Martinez, 2007), control of erosion, contribution to the pollination of crops such as cocoa and coffee (Howe, 2017). 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park 84 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Figure 2. Complexity of PNCAZ co-management, including threats management and complementary roles. (Source: Cordillera Azul National Park (CIMA 2012)) CIMA coordinates with rural communities located closer to the park, with participative (Martínez, 2009) and adaptive management (Pequeño, 2007); striving to implement conservation processes and sustainable land-use management. Community?s conservation agreements, and not only with organisations, strengths the relationship and cooperation with CIMA and the park (Arenas et al, 2019). Linking these areas with urban areas is made by coordinating with municipal and regional governments, including the national level, ensuring the application of ecosystem approach principles (Pequeño & Fernández-Dávila, 2014) incorporating a gradient of spatial scales, from rural to urban scope also, CIMA applies its intervention model with the aim to Strengthen Local Capabilities for Conservation-FOCAL, linking participatory diagnostic processes with the generation of communal norms and strategic planning. CIMA?s efforts seek to ensure the conservation of PNCAZ and contribute to improving the quality of life of its neighbouring peoples. Reason for action The buffer zone is a mosaic of landscapes under different degrees of use and is historically one of the most threatened areas due to constant migration, land trafficking, road construction, disordered expansion of agriculture by waves of licit and illicit crops and scarce authority present in the area (Holland et al. 2016, Rojas et al. 2019). The occidental valleys outside the park, the Huallaga valley, have endured deforestation since the 70?s, affecting also quality and quantity of water supply (Shanee & Shanee, 2016). Ther is also a risk of adverse impacts to local crops, as well as the loss of productive capacity of soils, reducing opportunities for sustainable development but increasing conflicts over the space occupation and natural resources (Holland et al, 2016). Methods, governance context and process In the buffer zone, as part of the FOCAL model of intervention (CIMA, 2013a), CIMA has been implementing with local communities, sequential strategic planning processes (Figure 3): a) Formal and non-formal environmental education for environmental awareness, based on total participation, inclusion, logical sequencing, and updated knowledge; carried out from the beginning, in continuous and transversal ways to the subsequent moments of the FOCAL; applied at the rural and urban level; b) Socio-economic and physical-environmental diagnosis applying Mapping of Uses and Strengths-MUF for social diagnosis, and Communal Participatory Zoning- ZPC for land use zoning (Llactayo, 2008); c) Building rules of coexistence that favours harmonious coexistence, ordered occupation and use of the territory, promotion of communal identity, respect for agreements and full exercise of rights and duties of the inhabitants of a village (CIMA, 2014b); d) Communal strategic planning by Quality-of-Life Plans (QLP), based on the construction of a long-term communal vision with a lens on political, economic, social, cultural and natural aspects that will allow rural populations to improve their quality of life (CIMA, 2014c). Complementary Roles P Participatory Management (Conservation Agreements) Neighbors PNCAZ Local authorities Private sector Diagnosis of actors, mapping of uses and potentials in prioritized sectors (in areas with > vulnerability) Population, entrepreneurs, etc. Local authorities Economic Deforestation Park & buffer zone Overuse of Resources (effects per activity) Unsustainable harvesting 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 85 Figure 3. Graphical description of CIMA?s intervention strategy, FOCAL. Each number corresponds to different tools: (1) formal and non-formal environmental education, (2) mapping resources and people strengths (MUF); (3) participatory land-use planning (ZPC); (4) community coexistence rules; (5) life quality plans and implementation; (6) monitoring. (Source: CIMA, 2013a) Up to this point of the FOCAL process, activities of CIMA provide the conditions for figure orderly, sustainable and compatible development with environmental conservation, as well as contributing to achieve results with SERNANP (CIMA, 2017). FOCAL is consolidated with: a) Implementation of QLP where CIMA has a promoter and articulator role with municipal and regional authorities, whilst also providing technical support to rural areas. b) Blue agreements are communal conservation agreements that aim to consolidate the joint work between CIMA, municipal authorities and rural populations around Cordillera Azul. (Arenas et al. 2019). c) Impact monitoring considering the progress to the improvement of the quality of life of the populations and the protection of the park (Pequeño, 2007). Other processes developed with the neighbouring populations to the park and that may occur outside the framework of FOCAL are: ? Organisational Technical-Productive Strengthening (FOTP), with local grassroot organisations (cooperatives, committees, associations, producers, etc.) to generate strategic alliances. ? Communal support for PNCAZ?s protection with communal park guards, rondas campesinas and self-defence committees. ? Technical and legal support to Local Conservation Initiatives evaluating/enabling feasibility and strengthening their management. ? All these actions strengthen the environmental governance that underpins the orderly use of the territory and other natural resources. Outcomes and results Strengthening environmental processes: natural capital Effective control and surveillance system have been consolidated around the park, thanks to the joint work between CIMA and SERNANP including local organisations, authorities, and communities. The rangers and CIMA?s team jointly control and monitor the PNCAZ on the ground with the support of local communities and in buffer zone with the rondas campesinas. CIMA contributes to generate conditions for PNCAZ to remain free of activities such as logging or agriculture, that would degrade its ecological integrity. Surveillance and control of the park boundaries, monitoring and control strategies; hiring and training of 67 SERNANP?s rangers, communal rangers, well-connected 22 control posts, and concentrated operations in areas with heightened conservation threat risks. CIMA also facilitates constant satellite monitoring SERNANP legal actions in major cities where authorities are located (i.e., prosecutor?s office, police, etc.) to prevent and act timely against any illegal activities. E N V IR O N M E N TA L E D U C A T IO N A N D J O IN T R E FL E C T IO N 3 Institutional strengthening of 86 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Compatible and traditional use of resources (hunting and fishing) are allowed within the park; this was ensured according to the PNCAZ-zoning and rules of use since the first Master Plan (2004), established by consensus with neighbouring communities. CIMA facilitates processes of participatory land-use zoning among the closest villages to the park, which enables conflict resolution (i.e. boundaries definition between villages, forestry concessions, etc.), prevent and reduce environmental risks (i.e. avoid settlements in areas of landslides or floods) and avoid the degradation of areas defined for protection (Rodriguez et al., 2018). In the buffer zone, 24 villages and native communities (117,066 ha), grouped in nine landscapes, developed participative ZPC processes, with CIMA?s technical support and backed by Municipalities and the Ministry of the Environment-MINAM. Part of the buffer zone of 81,123 hectares is a conservation concession from CIMA to protect the park on its narrower area. And at least 8 small local forest on the Huallaga side (~ 2,200 has) protect remnant communal forest. Furthermore, since 2018 CIMA develops landscape ecological restoration pilot projects in four degraded areas of the buffer zone (Secretariat CBD, 2021). To date, PNCAZ continues to maintain the lowest rate of deforestation within the National System of Natural Protected Areas. It has benefited from the support of neighbouring towns who recognise the benefits the forest has to offer. Respect and consideration for ancestral and indigenous culture: cultural capital The internal zoning of PNCAZ contains a Strict Protection Zone, on sites with references to presence and displacement of uncontacted Kakataibo indigenous people, consistent with precautionary principle, applied to prevent any violation of human rights. CIMA generated a Contingency Plan for possible encounters with these vulnerable populations, developing technical and popular versions for local dissemination. This document was based on work developed jointly with native communities, and participation of indigenous federations; it has served as a base for the Ministry of Culture-MINCU with whom the strategy was shared. CIMA continues to coordinate with MINCU, helping to establish the Kacataibo Territorial Reserve next to the Park (~90,000 has) and is currently a member of its governance body. Strengthening processes in community decision-making: socio-political and economic capital CIMA has been fundamental in connecting distant rural populations to local authorities in the urban areas. Projects of infrastructure (drinking water and sanitation, river defense, road improvement, electricity, signaling and interpretation, schools, etc.) and the mechanisms (public or private inversion) for its upkeeping have been implemented. These projects were part of the development of Action Plans of their QLP, applying new technical skills in resource and project management and governance, to implement their communal priorities. Around 5,942 families -from associations or communal institutions in 70 villages or indigenous communities- have benefited from CIMA support to acmber harvesting. More than 250 women are actively participating in formal associations, strengthened and supported by CIMA: Handicraft Association Kari Isa Xanu, several Mother?s Club (Virgen de las Mercedes, Virgen del Carmen, Las Samaritanas, Sarita Colonia), and several Education Institutions. Economic valuation of PNCAZ?s ecosystem services: conservation insertion in market CIMA worked tirelessly to promote the development and implementation of the Cordillera Azul Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) project, in order to contribute to the financial sustainability of the park (CIMA, 2012, 2013b, 2018; SERNANP?WWF?GIZ-IT, 2014). A milestone occurred at the end of 2014, when CIMA achieved consolidation of the Cordillera Azul REDD Project, creating an alliance with the Althelia Climate Fund (ACF). Bringing along renowned international financial institutions, by committing an investment of almost 11M USD for the period 2015-2018 through a loan contract, this was a substantive new figure for financing conservation. This operation committed more than 8M carbon credits as collateral, to finance park operations and to promote and implement sustainable economic activities in the buffer zone. The agreement between CIMA and Althelia was recognised as historic, being the largest transaction of its type in the region. However, until 2019, demand and prices were very low (Michaelowa et al, 2019); it is only from 2019 that large quantities could be marketed to international companies, mainly in the oil industry. These sells generated surpluses for the establishment of the fund for the PNCAZ. The PNCAZ REDD+ project prevents the deforestation in average of 6,800 hectares per year and has generated the largest amount of carbon credits-VCU in protected areas in Peru, with a total of 36,612,043 tCO2 verified with carbon standards VCS and CCB, within 2008-2020 (CIMA, 2023). Around 31M VCUs were successfully traded in the voluntary market up to 2023. With the revenues, owned by the park, a under the management of the Fondo de promoción de las áreas naturales protegidas (PROFONANPE). Before 2014, partners such as USAID, Moore Foundation, MacArthur Foundation and others have secured the conservation and protection of the park (see figure 4). 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 87 Figure 4. Evolution of the financing sources of PNCAZ 2001-2022 (source: CIMA). Application of highest quality standards The PNCAZ REDD+ project went through a long process of design and accreditation according to two of the highest international standards under VERRA (https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/985): ? Verified Carbon Standard-VCS: assures the quality of projects, quantifies emissions of greenhouse gases reduced and the attributes of the conservation project. http://www.v-c-s.org ? Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard-CCB: ensures that projects mitigate climate change, and contribute to sustainable development of rural populations, highlighting biodiversity conservation; PNCAZ have the Gold Level. http://www.climate-standards.org Furthermore, PNCAZ was recognised by IUCN Green List, as an area-based conservation effectively managed and fairly governed https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/our-work/iucn-green-list-protected-and-conserved-areas/iucn-green-list-areas Discussion Urban and rural linkages Two main relationships exist between the communities and the urban areas: education and the market economy. Many villages do not have high-schools and need to send students to bigger villages or cities ? for universities or for technical studies. This migration to the city from the youth, does not help to stabilize agricultural frontier and may pose challenges in the future. CIMA has promoted environmental responsibility from urban and rural population. By bridging distant populations to public responsibilities, but also by awareness communication and environmental education tools in the neighbouring cities. This enables urban citizens to value conservation and sustainable use of natural landscapes provided by adequate territory management. For instance, by recognising the benefits produced by headwater protection transcend rural sites in the buffer zone, since it feeds main rivers (Ucayali and Huallaga) of the Amazon basin. The conservation of natural landscapes represents a potential for research, recreation, and tourism. Moreover, it constitutes an element of proud as natural heritage of nation and global importance (KBI). Conservation of forests ensures regional climatic stability (CIMA, 2013b, 2017), contributing to national and global reduction of GHG and mitigation of global climate change. Strengthening processes in community decision-making achievements: socio-political capital People from 145 villages have improved planning processes and received environmental education and 57 villages and native communities developed the complete FOCAL process, applying their QLP based on their land-use zoning and coexistence rules, and have exchanged their experiences with neighbours. 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Fuentes de Financiamiento PNCAZ en US$ CIMA SERNANP Cooperacion Española MacArthur Foundation Moore Foundation 88 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Nevertheless, even when CIMA based its approach on the full scope of community life quality, deforestation has occurred in one side of the buffer zone, attesting for the need to much larger efforts to combat the diversity of indirect causes acting in the territory for deforestation and account for the socio-ecological complexity involved (Rodríguez et al., 2018; Ravikumar, 2017). These processes are long-term and require strong commitment from rural communities as well as authorities at various levels (local and regional) where the fundamental role of CIMA is to ensure this territorial participation. Lesson learnt Integral approach CIMA?s PNCAZ management bases its success on its integrated approach, taking the park as core for protection, with an intense work with the populations and corresponding local, municipal, and regional authorities from the buffer zone. Greater emphasis is placed on villages and communities closer to the park, simulating a series of concentric rings, as in a biosphere reserve approach. CIMA?s approach guarantees to concentrate work efforts in areas where accumulates the greatest threats to the Park?s integrity, especially when they are extensive and present diverse problems. But in addition to land use-zoning, additional policies for improving agricultural production without deforestation, risk reduction, the formalization and distribution of legal land ? uses rights (through ownership or long-term permits) should be a commitment of national, regional and municipal authorities. In addition, CIMA aims to generate, manage and share information to understand and have a holistic vision of physical, ecological, socio-economic and cultural processes that are essential for the site?s management, providing sustainable socio-economic alternatives to population. Scientific and technical research in the park and its buffer zone allows obtaining relevant information for decision-making. Research continues to be promoted by CIMA and contributes to PNCAZ?s management, but the dissemination of results and exchange is still a growing process. Cordillera Azul has shifted from being totally financed by international cooperation during almost 12 years to being financed by the voluntary carbon market, gradually consolidating the sale of its carbon credits to national and foreign companies with social and environmental responsibility. This demonstrated the effectiveness of REDD+ for conservation and that biodiversity conservation in protected areas can be self-sustaining. Participation, local involvement and decision making In order to involve rural and urban stakeholders in Cordillera Azul?s management, it was necessary to promote knowledge and pride of the area. Awareness was important at all levels. Institutional support to local and regional decision-making authorities was essential to avoid counter actions in the planning processes. The results were to have park neighbours participating actively in patrolling and surveillance, for a small economic compensation, add communal and PNCAZ delimitations, and land-use zoning with regional authority?s support. To align rural and urban visions among different actors and at different levels, CIMA promotes and facilitates crucial spaces like the park?s Master Plan process or during the formulation of communal QLPs, for such exchanges. CIMA strengthens local self- management capacities so that in the future, local people can lead their own processes to improve their quality of life in harmony with their communal vision and nature. Share information and experiences CIMA has abundant biological, environmental, social, and geographic information generated during its 23 years of work experience in Cordillera Azul. This information has supported important park management processes and has been shared with allies, and the local population, and can be reached through its web page. It provides support to processes led by Regional Governments, such as REDD and carbon issues, co-management experience, environmental education, zoning processes, conservation initiatives and participatory processes (QLP, blue agreements), that have been formalized as public tools. Challenges and prospects for PNCAZ CIMA?s efforts are focussed on reducing threats from the buffer zone and at the same time contribute to improving the quality of life of its neighbouring communities. One of the main challenges is mainstreaming with public sectors participating in Cordillera Azul?s management, from Park to buffer zone (3,6M ha); complexity has increased in buffer zone where diverse land-uses and rights are overlapping. Thus, CIMA needs to coordinate multisectoral (Environment, Agriculture, Forestry, Transportation, fisheries, Tourism, among others), with a multilevel scope 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 89 from rural/local to regional and national and, requiring greater incidence in different levels of government for a better understanding of the ecosystem approach. To better support sustainable economies where nature conservation becomes an important asset, CIMA?s approach with rural populations and authorities is not enough; it is necessary to strengthen also the link with the private sector and regional and local government initiatives, which are the main drivers of deforestation (Suarez et al, 2023). Working in such scenarios requires working with alliances/agreements, creating more linkages between rural and urban people. The buffer zone size (23,000 sk km) has made it challenging for CIMA to attend to each community individually with great dedication, specially as the number of villages has doubled since 2001. A new approach, for a larger attainment of villages, by basins is being applied ? for instance, by grouping initiatives of community conservation areas, scaling-up strategies to better contribute to the KM 30x30 target and stop deforestation. In the last 3 years, to make the park?s benefits more participatory and equitable, in addition to seed funds for start-ups, CIMA and SERNANP have opened-up annual competitions for associations, for small grants to projects for sustainable economic activities, under the principle of investments. Tourism and recreation towards the park and neighbouring villages is still incipient, but is growing slowly, as accessibility improves and reduces time to access the zone, which in any case remains remote, at least in the eastern side of the park Recently, since large sums and surpluses were generated by the sale of carbon credits and the establishment of a fund for park management, there has been a complaint from a native community that has taken the case to court, which is still in dispute. Financing integrated management is a permanent challenge. REDD+ has proved efficient for the park, but other carbon mechanisms, such as ARR projects could be better for areas with land-use intensity. References Alverson, W.S., L.O. Rodríguez, and D.K. Moskovits (eds.). (2001). Perú: Biabo Cordillera Azul. Rapid Biological Inventories: No.2. The Field Museum. Arenas Aspilcueta, M. Rubio Torgler, H and Huamán Mendoza, D. 2019. Acuerdos de Conservación. Base conceptual de acuerdos de conservación, propuesta de directiva para su implementación en el marco del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado (SINANPE) y formatos estándar. Documento.trabajo 3. SERNANP. 41 p. Castillo-Urbina, E., Glaw, F, Aguilar-Puntriano, C., Vences, M., & Köhler, J. (2021). Genetic and morphological evidence reveal another new toad of the Rhinella festae species group (Anura: Bufonidae) from the Cordillera Azul in central Peru. SALAMANDRA, 57(2), 181-195. Centro de Conservación, Investigación y Manejo de Areas Naturales (CIMA). (2012). Cordillera Azul National Park REDD Project. Lima-Perú.198pp. CIMA. (2013a). FOCAL. Modelo para el fortalecimiento de capacidades locales para la gestión del territorio y la mejora de la calidad de vida. CIMA. Lima-Perú. 68pp. CIMA. (2013b). Experiencia del proyecto REDD+ PNCAZ. Cordillera Azul: Legado natural del Perú para el mundo. Lima-Perú. 78 pp. CIMA. (2014a). Guía MUF. Mapeo de Usos y Fortalezas. CIMA. Lima- Perú. 80pp. CIMA. (2014b). Guía para la elaboración de Normas de Convivencia. CIMA. Lima-Perú. 51pp. CIMA. (2014c). Guía para la elaboración de Planes de Calidad de Vida. CIMA. Lima-Perú. 55pp. CIMA. (2017). Ucayali. Sinergias por el Clima. Proyecto red Climática Ucayali. CIMA, FONDAM, SENAMHI y SERNANP. Lima-Perú. 27pp. CIMA. (2023). Monitoring Report PNCAZ REDD Project. Lima-Peru. 151 pp. Cusi J. C., Moravec, J., Lehr, E., Gvozdík, V. (2017). A new species of semiarboreal toad of the Rhinella festae group (Anura, Bufonidae) from the Cordillera Azul National Park, Peru. ZooKeys, 673, 21?47. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.673.13050 Gavin, M. (2004). Changes in forest use value through ecological succession and their implications for land management in the Peruvian Amazon. Conservation Biology, 18(6), 1562?1570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00241.x Gavin, M. (2006). Foraging in the fallows: Hunting patterns across a successional continuum in the Peruvian Amazon. Biological Conservation, 134(7), 64-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.07.011 González, F., Valenzuela, L., & Pabón-Mora, N. (2023). Aristolochia brachylimba (Aristolochiaceae; Piperales), a new species from the Peruvian Amazonia with an unusually short perianth limb. Darwiniana, 11(1), 347?356. https://doi.org/10.14522/darwiniana.2023.111.1139 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park 90 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Holland T. G., Coomes, O. T., & Robinson, B. E. (2016) Evolving frontier land markets and the opportunity cost of sparing forests in western Amazonia. Land Use Policy, 58, 456?471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.015 Howe, C. (2017). Oportunidades para la restauración del paisaje forestal. CIMA. Tarapoto-Perú. 51pp. INRENA. (2006). Plan Maestro del Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul. Lima?Perú. 273pp. INRENA, CIMA, Field Museum, & GTZ/PDRS. (2008). Caja de Herramientas para la Gestión de Áreas de Conservación. Fasc.4: ¿Cómo determinar las características socioeconómicas y culturales del área de conservación? El MUF. Lima-Perú. 138pp. Klebelsberg, E. (2005). Auswirkungen der jads in der pufferzone des Parque NacionalCordillera Azul in Perú. DIPLOMARBEIT Zum Erwerb des akademischen Grades DIPLOM-BIOLOGIN. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. BERLIN und LIMA. La Torre-Cuadros, M. A. (2011). Catálogo Comunidades Nativas Yamino y Mariscal Cáceres. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Lima. 52 pp. Lane, D. F., Kratter, A. W., & O?Neill, J. P. (2017). A new species of manakin (Aves: Pipridae; Machaeropterus) from Peru with a taxonomic reassessment of the Striped Manakin (M. regulus) complex. Zootaxa, 4320(2), 379-390. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4320.2.11 Llactayo, W., Reategui, A., & Ozambela, M. (2008). Mechanisms of Territorial Management with Communities? Neighboring Cordillera Azul National Park. In Implementation of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas: Progress and Perspectives (pp. 63?67). Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Technical Series no. 35. Montreal. Lujan, N. K., Hidalgo, M., & Stewart, D. J. (2010). Revision of Panaque (Panaque), with Descriptions of Three New Species from the Amazon Basin (Siluriformes, Loricariidae). Copeia, 2010(4), 676?704. https://doi:10.1643/ci-09-185 Martínez, J. L. (2007). De vuelta al río: crónicas del manejo de tortugas en el sur de Loreto. CIMA. Lima-Perú. 91pp. Martínez, J. L. (2009). Gestión Participativa del Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul. En: Elloit, J. Conservación y Desarrollo Sostenible Corredor Abiseo?Cóndor?Kutukú. Soluciones Prácticas: 91?115. Lima-Perú. Meyer, W. (2006). The Piassaba Palm: Conservation and Development in the Buffer Zone of Peru?s Cordillera Azul National Park. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Duke University. Durham, NC, USA. 144pp. Michaelowa, A., Shishlov, I., & D. Brescia, 2019. Evolution of international carbon markets: lessons for the Paris Agreement. WIREs Climate Change. Vol 10(6). E613. Moncrieff, A. E., Johnson, O., Lane, D. F., Beck, J. R., Angulo, F., & Fagan, J. (2018). A new species of antbird (Passeriformes: Thamnophilidae) from the Cordillera Azul, San Martín, Peru. The Auk, 135(1), 114-126. https://doi.org/10.1642/AUK-17-97.1 O?Neill, J. P., Lane D. F., Kratter, A. W., Capparella, A. P., & Fox, J. C. (2000). A striking new species of barbet (Capitoninae: Capito) from the eastern Andes of Peru. The Auk, 117, 569-577. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/117.3.569 Pequeño,T. (2007). Camino a un monitoreo integral en el Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul y su zona de amortiguamiento. CIMA. Lima-Perú. 91pp. Pequeño, T., Fernández-Dávila, P. (2014). Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul: Construyendo un Modelo de Gestión Integral en Áreas Protegidas. En: Planificación y Gestión de Áreas Protegidas en América del Sur: Avances en la Aplicación del Enfoque Ecosistémico. Casavecchia, C., Lobo, A., Arguedas, S. (Eds). UICN, Quito, Ecuador. Ravikumar, A., R. R. Sears, P. Cronkleton, M. Menton, and M.P.-O. del Arco. 2017. Is small-scale agriculture really the main driver of deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon? Moving beyond the prevailing narrative. Conservation Letters, 10(2), 170?177. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12264 Rodríguez, L. O., Cisneros, E., Pequeño, T., Fuentes, M. T., & Zinngrebe, Y. (2018). Building Adaptive Capacity in Changing Social- Ecological Systems: Integrating Knowledge in Communal Land-Use Planning in the Peruvian Amazon. Sustainability, 10(2), 511; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020511 Rojas Briceño, N. B., Barboza Castillo, E., Maicelo Quintana, J. L., Oliva Cruz, S. M., & Salas López, R. (2019). Deforestación en la Amazonía peruana: Índices de cambios de cobertura y uso del suelo basado en SIG. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, (81), 2538, 1?34. http://dx.doi.org/10.21138/bage.2538a Sánchez, A., & Vásquez, P. (2007). Presión de Caza de la Comunidad Nativa MushuckLlacta de Chipaota, Zona de Amortiguamiento del Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul, Perú. Ecología Aplicada, 6(1,2), 131?138. https://doi.org/10.21704/rea.v6i1-2.349 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2021). The Forest Ecosystem Restoration Initiative on the Ground: Case Studies from Twelve Small-scale, Innovative Ecosystem Restoration Projects around the World. Montreal, 33 pages. SERNANP?WWF?GIZ-IT. (2014). Análisis de la Vulnerabilidad de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas frente al Cambio Climático al 2030, 2050 y 2080. Documento de Trabajo No.12. 82pp. SERNANP (2017). Plan Maestro del Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul. Lima?Perú. Shanee, N., & Shanee, S. (2016). Land trafficking, migration, and conservation in the ?no-man?s land? of northeastern Peru. Tropical Conservation Science, 9(4), 1?16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082916682957 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 91 Suárez de Freitas C., G.; L. Briceño, M. Laos-Llanos, P. Luna del Pozo 2023. Estrategia Regional de Desarrollo Rural Bajo en Emisiones. Gobierno Regional de Huánuco. Earth Innovation, UK Pact. 33 p. Vásquez, R. I., & Valenzuela, L. (2022). Virola parvusligna, a New Species of Myristicaceae from the Cordillera Azul National Park, Peru. Journal of Plant Sciences, 10(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jps.20221001.14 Tasker, K. (2016). Informing the Carbon Frontier: Economics and Landscape in the Western Amazon. University of Texas. Austin. 96 p. UN-HABITAT-CBD 2022. Managing urban-rural linkages for biodiversity: an integrated territorial approach. Nairobi. 50 p. Weber, C. & Montoya- Burgos, J. I. (2002). Hypostomus fonchii sp.n. (Silurifromes: Loricariidae) de Perú, una especie clave que sugiere la sinonimia de Cochliodon con Hypostomus. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 109(2), 355-368. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.79595 Zúñiga, J. (2010). Monitoreo Hidrometeorológico en el Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul y su zona de amortiguamiento para propósito de conservación. 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park 92 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective New energy trends: hydrogen and other clean fuels as tools to strengthen urban- rural linkages ? China case study Bartlomiej Kolodziejczyk, University of Gothenburg 10 Wind Farm in Guangling County, Shanxi - Renewable energy in China © Creative Commons CC Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 93 Abstract The socio-economic landscape is rapidly changing. Linkages between rural and urban communities are quickly disappearing. Growing migration from rural to urban areas makes rural communities weaker and vulnerable. One linkage that remains strong is food production and food security. However, shifting energy trends gives great hope to rebuild the linkages and cooperation between rural and urban areas. Technologies like solar fuels, where large-scale solar installations are utilized to produce green, or carbon neutral fuels of the future provide enormous opportunities to rural communities. Fuels like hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, etc. can be produced efficiently and sustainably with minimal damage to the environment and biodiversity. These new energy trends simplify the energy production and conversion processes by utilizing solar and wind energy, as well as water, atmospheric nitrogen, and carbon dioxide as a feedstock rendering fuels pollution-free. For the first time, farmers have gained a new opportunity to rebrand themselves and instead of producing food, they are able to join the new industry of clean fuel production from solar or wind energy. Large scale-solar installations already play a significant role in countries like China, where the government is trying to reduce fossil emissions and preserve the environment and biodiversity. Electrification of rural areas via electricity transmission lines and other related energy infrastructure is still an issue, mainly because of the high costs. Many solar and wind farms in China are not utilized completely because energy demand is often lower than the generation capacity, this gives the opportunity for green hydrogen production which can be then transported and utilized in the urban areas, i.e. clean fuel for transportation, or power-to-gas applications. The Chinese Government is strongly pushing towards this scenario, giving a number of subsidies for both solar farms and hydrogen fuel cell cars. Moreover, the 2017 announcement by the Central Government committing to ban internal combustion engine cars will only make this transition quicker. China is becoming a green fuel pioneer. The scale of green hydrogen generation projects in China cannot be compared to any other place. This new industry gives many opportunities and hopes to rural communities. Introduction Since economic reform policies were implemented in 1978, the Chinese economy has experienced remarkable economic growth. Over the thirty-year period (1978-2007), the growth rate of GDP per capita averaged 8.6 per cent per annum and this trend continues. Over the years 2000 ? 2007 there was no sign of deceleration in growth, whilst the equivalent GDP figure was 9.2 per cent. China accounted for about 35 per cent of the growth in the world GDP at PPP prices (Abramovitz, 1986; Acemoglu et al., 2005).China?s real GDP growth rate peaked at 14.2 per cent in 2007 and has since been trending downward, however, China?s real GDP growth remains one of the strongest globally (Acemoglu et al., 2001). China accounts for more than one-fifth of the world?s population, such rapid economic and population growth are unprecedented. This remarkable progress has occurred amidst China?s poverty, allowing over 300 million Chinese citizens to be lifted out of one-dollar-a-day poverty since 1978 (Hedrick-Wong, 2018). Within only decades China transitioned its? centrally planned and closed economy towards a market economy and regional leader. Whilst the recent years show China?s economy slowdown (Eichengreen et al., 2011; Dinda, 2017), some believe that it might be of benefit to the country and its citizens as it allows for a transition to slower but sustainable growth (Diepp, 2018). China aspires to greater sustainable development. For decades economic growth, poverty alleviation and establishing the position ofinternationalleader were on top of the agenda for China?s Central Government. Everything else, including the environment, was of less importance. China?s rise as an economic power has no clear parallel in history, but its pollution problem has also shattered all precedents. According to a study performed by Chinese Ministry of Health, cancer became China?s leading cause of death due to pollution. Ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Whilst hundreds of millions of people lack access to safe drinking water (Spengler, 1983; Yu, 2011).What in many countries may be seen as an environmental catastrophe, in China, it seems to be a commonplace. People rarely see the sun in China?s industrial cities, deforestation and land degradation have become a massive issue threatening biodiversity and food security, whilst lead poisoning is among the highest in the world, and large sections of the ocean no longer sustain marine life (Yu, 2011).Hygiene and sanitation are also becoming an issue. In 2011, a study published by Chinese researchers estimated that more than 94 million people in China become ill annually, and about 8,500 people die due to bacterial foodborne diseases (Mao, 2011). The last three decades of continuous economic growth triggered rapid and ongoingurbanisation. Large industrial centres attracted millions of rural workers and farmers providing better work prospects, higher wages, and better lifestyles. In addition, many rural centres have been urbanised due to growing economic demand. In 2011,urbanisationreached 51 per cent, meaning that for the first time in history, more Chinese citizens lived in towns and cities than in rural villages (Hillman, 2013).China?surbanisation is accelerating. Due to the belief thaturbanisationholds the key to the country?s ongoing social and economic development,China?s leaders recently announced anurbanisationtarget of 70 per cent by 2025 (Woetzel et al., 2009; Kamal-Chaoui et al., 2009).However, it may seem that the government is realizing the value of rural areas. Some of the most common issues describes as a result of rapid urbanisation is the increased waste and exhaustion of resources, the declining standards of living and environmental capacity, the imbalance between urban and rural development, as well as sociocultural challenges (Zhang, 2012).Rapid urbanisation in China often overlooks urban-rural linkages and focuses on cities whilst underestimating urban-rural regions. The approaches applied in China have to switch from technical planning to communicative planning, and from extensive growth to intensive growth. The ecosystem governance approach is rarely applied or integrated into urban-rural social-ecological systems in China. China?s growing demand for clean fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol produced using renewable energy has the opportunity to address the growing urbanisation, whilst also strengthening urban-rural linkages. The hydrogen projects strongly pushed 10. ?New energy trends 94 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective for by China?s Central Government will provide specialized work opportunities for rural and undeveloped regions whilst addressing the transportation sector?s fossil fuel emissions. China?s strategy for clean fuels will contribute largely to good environmental and ecosystem governance practices and can potentially lead to reverse migration, from urban to rural areas. Hydrogen can be produced on a large scale in rural areas using solar or wind resources and water can be transported to urban areas to be supplied for transportation and other industry sectors. China?s demand for a hydrogen economy Large-scale exploitation of fossil fuels has resulted in severe health, environmental, ecosystem and climate change challenges throughout China, significantly affecting a variety of ecosystems and threatening biodiversity as well as China?s healthy economic growth. Since the year 2000, China?s energy strategy has been consequently reformed and adapted to concentrate on providing new opportunities for the safe supply of reliable, cost-effective and environmentally friendly energy (Yuan & Lin, 2009; ICCT, 2017).China?s government had to adopt a new strategy to promote sustainable development and meet present energy demands (Hydrogen Council, 2017). Table 1. China?s development goal for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Reproduced from SAE China (2018). Year Hydrogen refuelling stations Fuel cell vehicles 2020 Over 100 stations 5,000 fuel cell vehicles in demonstration, among which 60 per cent are fuel cell commercial vehicles and 40 per cent are fuel cell passenger cars 2025 Over 300 stations 50,000 fuel cell vehicles in service, among which 10,000 units are fuel cell commercial vehicles, and 40,000 units are fuel cell passenger cars 2030 Over 1,000 stations, and over 50 per cent hydrogen production from renewable resources Over one million fuel cell vehicles in service China?s central government has renewed interest in Clean and renewable hydrogen for a number of reasons. Hydrogen can be harvested from water using any type of renewable energy, effectively making it a clean energy storage medium. Hydrogen when combined with atmospheric oxygen forms water vapor and generates heat; it is also capable of efficiently generating high quality electricity when combined in a fuel cell. In standard conditions, hydrogen is present in a gas form, but for energy storage purposes can be compressed to provide better energy density. Hydrogen can also be liquefied to store more energy within the same volume; this is especially important for the transportation of energy over large distances. Finally, to some extent current gas infrastructure can be adapted to meet working requirements for hydrogen (Hydrogen Council, 2017; Government of South Australia, 2017; IEA, 2015). Since 2000, a number of hydrogen related projects were supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MOST), as well as China?s National Natural Science Foundation. In 2015, a first workshop was held to develop China?s Hydrogen Economy Roadmap. A year later, in 2016, Hydrogen was included as one of the seven priority areas in China?s National Mid-to-Long Term Sci-Tech Plan 2006 ? 2020. China?s government vision states that by 2050 China will have developed a mature hydrogen market infrastructure and that by this stage the hydrogen economy in China will be prevalent (Yuan & Lin, 2009).In 2017, the Chinese government announced their intention to ban petrol and diesel vehicles. The effective date of the ban was not mentioned in the announcement. The ban is expected to have a positive impact on hydrogen infrastructure development (Burch, 2018). China has committed to promoting electric vehicles since 2009, with the goal of having 5 million electric vehicles in operation by 2020. To support this target, the Chinese government offers generous fiscal subsidies, for both battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (ICCT, 2017).China has clearly expressed its? commitment to decarbonize the transportation industry using clean hydrogen. This commitment is shown by substantial investment, subsidies and policies that support the hydrogen technology industry. By the end of 2015, China?s central government had spent approximately $4.8 billion on electric vehicle subsidies (ICCT, 2017).As of 2017, the subsidies given to battery electric vehicles (~$7,500 per passenger car) were over four times lower than subsidies for hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (~$31,000 per passenger car), resulting in a strong uptake in the new subsidized electric cars and a good response by the automotive industry in China. The subsidies also attracted significant interest in hydrogen infrastructure development and investment. The urban-rural linkage in terms of hydrogen developments in China may not be obvious at this point, but the projects mentioned previously are mainly small-scale demonstration projects. China has demonstrated over the last couple of years, the potential for hydrogen development to provide positive environmental and health benefits which has reinvigorated China?s appetite for hydrogen technology. China?s hydrogen economy is feasible only if applied on a large scale. Centralized large-scale green hydrogen generation farms using solar, or wind energy also make more sense economically. This is beneficial to rural communities through new job opportunities, whilst electrification will further lead to greater local infrastructure development and more benefits. China is already attempting to build numerous large-scale hydrogen generation facilities in rural areas where land is still accessible or more cost-effective than in urban areas and where renewable energy conditions are suitable to generate clean electricity which then will be converted into hydrogen (Siqi, 2018).In return rural communities will benefit from investment and infrastructure, job creation, access to energy which currently is not always present in rural China and new revenue streams which may allow to alleviate local poverty. Zhang Weidong, a Programme Manager at UNDP China believes that rural communities could also benefit by generating hydrogen from biofuels produced locally (Siqi, 2018). Zhang (2012) said 10. ?New Energy Trends Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 95 that ?promoting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles could also help rural areas get rid of poverty as green hydrogen could also be generated from reforming ethanol that can be extracted from farm crop residues such as sugar-rich straws.? Hydrogen being a value-added chemical can help address the growing income disparity between cities and rural areas by providing significant revenue streams to rural communities. Generation of green hydrogen in rural areas is not that different from previous solar or wind energy projects implemented throughout the globe, and which provided numerous new opportunities to rural communities where these projects are often implemented. Existing large- scale solar or wind energy farms in China are outside of the metropolitan areas, whilst transmission lines and other relevant infrastructure is expensive. The environmental conditions, which are a driving force for renewable power generation, and electricity demand are very unpredictable. According to Reuters (2017) over 30 per cent of solar and 47 per cent of wind electricity in China in 2016 was wasted.This electricity could be converted into hydrogen, supplying new jobs, and bringing additional revenue streams to local rural communities. For example, a large-scale hydrogen generation project was recently announced. The 4 MW power-to-gas project is delivered by French hydrogen technology manufacturer McPhy together with Chinese Jiantou Yanshan (Guyuan) Wind Energy in Hebei Province. The project aims at converting the surplus energy generated by a 200 MW wind farm into hydrogen and supplying it as a replacement for natural gas (Barrett, 2017). The communities which already benefit from wind energy projects developed in rural areas will further benefit from extended opportunities provided by hydrogen generation and supply. Although, project evaluation and real measurable benefits of this project to rural communities will be known only in the next couple years. China?s reliance and demand for the hydrogen economy is already slowly closing the urban-rural gaps whilst rebuilding linkages between these two worlds. In the past, urban communities relied on rural communities mainly for food supply. China?s market is shifting, and rural farmers are slowly becoming energy generators and suppliers. Urban communities have to understand the role rural communities will play in their future energy security. At this stage, most of the hydrogen projects in China focus on reducing fossil fuel emissions in transportation by developing hydrogen refuelling infrastructure and introducing new types of vehicles. This is mainly due to the system size requirements. China has been demonstrating the feasibility of hydrogen economy on a small scale since 2000 from a couple to hundreds of kilowatts. Currently, the development stage of the hydrogen economy in China has reached a scale of a couple of megawatts per system, the size of this system meets the requirements of hydrogen refuelling stations. China is entering the next stage where hundreds of megawatts or even gigawatts of hydrogen will be required for applications such as energy storage in the form of hydrogen, or power-to-gas (P2G) applications where electricity is converted to gas (hydrogen) and supplied as a clean replacement for natural gas, which can be used for heating and cooking. Reaching this scale of hydrogen generation will have a tremendous effect on rural communities and will form new linkages and a stronger reliance on rural communities. Once the hydrogen economy has reached maturity, studies show that hydrogen can be combined with atmospheric nitrogen or carbon dioxide to form ammonia and renewable methanol, respectively. Ammonia is a precursor for numerous fertilizers, whilst renewable methanol provides an effective way for carbon recycling. There is also potential to produce other sustainable chemicals and longer carbon chains using similar technology (Montoya et al., 2017; Grinberg et al., 2016; Nocera, 2017). This new way of utilizing solar and wind resources will allow rural communities to produce sustainable products and at the same time diversify their role and customer markets. Finally, it will further enhance the links and role that rural communities play. Most of these hydrogen developments in China are not well documented or promoted in the media. Chinese market tends to be competitive, preventing companies from openly advertising their projects in fear of competition. However, generous hydrogen subsidies introduced by the Chinese government attract Chinese companies to join the hydrogen ?race?. Conclusion It is clearly demonstrated that China?s government has an ongoing interest in shifting to a hydrogen economy. China has made significant progress and is a leader in developing a hydrogen economy. The current transition phase passed small-scale demonstration and feasibility studies and reached a phase where megawatt-scale hydrogen generation systems are utilized mainly for hydrogen refuelling and transportation. Whilst rural communities in China have already started benefiting from this energy paradigm shift, the next phase of the development will allow for large-scale centralized renewable hydrogen generation, which will benefit rural communities: providing new specialized job opportunities, new revenue streams whilst at the same time strengthening the position of rural communities in the supply chain for urban communities. Whilst preserving and building new urban-rural linkages is of high importance for ecosystem governance, in this case, renewable hydrogen will help reduce fossil fuel emissions and environmental pollution whilstpreservingthe ecosystems and biodiversity of China. At this stage, it is difficult to talk about measurable outcomes for rural communities as these projects are still being developed. References Abramovitz, M. (1986). Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind. Journal of Economic History, 46 (2), 385-406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700046209 Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2005). Institutions as a Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth. In P. Aghion & S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth, 1A, 386-472. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3 10. ?New Energy Trends Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369-1401. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.5.1369 Barrett, S. (2017). McPhy Delivers 4 MW of Hydrogen Production to China for P2G Application with Wind Farm. Fuel Cells Bulletin, 2017(6), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1464-2859(17)30206-7 Burch, I. (2018). Survey of Global Activity to Phase Out Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles. Center for Climate Protection. Chang, L., Li, Z., Gao, D., Huang, H., & Ni, W. (2007). Pathways for Hydrogen Infrastructure Development in China: Integrated Assessment for Vehicle Fuels and a Case Study of Beijing. Energy, 32(11), 2023-2037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2007.04.003 Dinda, S. (2017). Impact of the People?s Republic of China?s Slowdown on the Global Economy. ADBI Working Paper Series No. 784. Dieppe, A., Gilhooly, R., Han, J., Korhonen, I., & Lodge, D. (2018). The Transition of China to Sustainable Growth ? Implications for the Global Economy and the Euro Area. Occasional Paper Series No. 206, European Central Bank. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3113109 Eichengreen, B., Park, D., & Shin, K. (2011). When Fast Growing Economies Slow Down: International Evidence and Implications for the People?s Republic of China. ADP Economics Working Paper Series No. 262. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1883962 Government of South Australia. (2017). A Hydrogen Roadmap for South Australia Grinberg Dana, A., Elishav, O., Bardow, A., Shter, G. E., & Grader, G. S. (2016). Nitrogen-Based Fuels: A Power-to-Fuel-to-Power Analysis. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl, 55(31), 8798?8805. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201510618 Hedrick-Wong, Y. (2018). The Myths About China?s Economic Slowdown. Forbes. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/yuwahedrickwong/2018/08/15/the-myths-about-chinas-economic-slowdown/#28c776985d55 Hillman, B., & Unger, J. (2013). Editorial. China Perspectives No. 2013/3, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. https://doi.org/10.4000/chinaperspectives.6235 Hydrogen Council. (2017). Hydrogen Scaling up: A Sustainable Pathway for the Global Energy Transition. Retrieved from https://hydrogencouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Hydrogen-scaling-up-Hydrogen-Council.pdf ICCT (2017). Adjustment to Subsidies for New Energy Vehicles in China. Policy Update, International Council on Clean Transportation. IEA (2015). Technology Roadmap: Hydrogen and Fuel Cells. International Energy Agency. Kamal-Chaoui, L., Leman, E., & Rufei, Z. (2009). Urban Trends and Policy in China. OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2009/1. Mao, X., Hu, J., & Liu, X. (2011). Epidemiological burden of bacterial foodborne diseases in China-Preliminary study. Chinese Journal of Food Hygiene, R151.31, 132-136. Montoya, J. H., Seitz, L. C., Chakthranont, P., Vojvodic, A., Jaramillo, T. F., & Norskov, J. K. (2017). Materials for Solar Fuels and Chemicals. Nature Materials, 16, 70?81. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4778 Nocera, D. G. (2017). Solar Fuels and Solar Chemicals Industry. Accounts of Chemical Research, 50(3), 616?619. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00615 Reuters (2017). China renewable power waste worsens in 2016 ? Greenpeace. Retrieved from: https://www.reuters.com/article/china-renewables-waste/china-renewable Siqi, C. (2018). China mulls use of hydrogen-powered cars to beat smog. Global Times. Retrieved from: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1125457.shtml Strategy Advisory Committee of the Technology Roadmap for Energy Saving and New Energy Vehicles (SAE China). (2018). Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Technology Roadmap - English version. Spengler, J. D., & Sexton, K. A. (1983). Indoor Air Pollution: A Public Health Perspective. Science, 221(4605), 9?17. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6857273 Woetzel, J., Mendoca, L., Devan, J., Negri, S., Hu, Y., Jordan, L., Li, X., Maasry, A., Tsen, G., & Yu, F. (2009). Preparing for China?s Urban Billion. McKinsey Global Institute. Yu, M-H., Tsunoda, H., & Tsunoda, M. (2011). Environmental Toxicology: Biological and Health Effects of Pollutants, Third Edition. CRC Press. Yuan, K., & Lin, W. (2009). Hydrogen in China: Policy, Program and Progress. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 35(2010), 3110? 3113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.08.042 Zhang, J. (2012). Several Problems in the Course of Urbanization in China and Planning Responses. . In X. Qu & Y. Yang (Eds.), Information and Business Intelligence. IBI 2011. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 268. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29087-9_76 Extracting key elements from the case studies: toward developing principles Liette Vasseur 11 Alvars (on the red list of Ecosystems) in the Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve © Liette Vasseur 98 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective This book has focused on how ecosystem governance can be applied in understanding and supporting rural-urban linkage. Ecosystem governance, as defined by the Commission on Ecosystem Management of IUCN, is based on the ecosystem approach (CBD, 1995) and its twelve principles (Shepherd, 2004). Through case studies, various aspects of ecosystem governance have been examined and demonstrate that rural-urban integration can be quite complex and context dependent. In this chapter, the case studies are analysed according to the principles of ecosystem approach as it is the basis on which the Ecosystem Governance concept has been developed (Vasseur et al., 2017). Governance systems, as stated by Bennett and Satterfield (2018) are characterized by its institutions, structures, and processes. As outcomes, governance should include features such as capacity, functioning, and performance. Ecosystem governance may encompass all these elements but using the lens of the ecosystem approach, the process promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable manner (Shepherd, 2004). Therefore, this analysis integrates the 12 principles (Table 1) and the five steps (Table 2) set by the ecosystem approach to assess whether the decisions and actions effectively are derived from an ecosystem governance process. Combining the various concepts of ecosystem approach and governance systems, from these case studies, commonalities are identified as well as limitations and gaps in linking rural and urban ecosystems. Table 1. The 12 principles of the ecosystem approach (Shepherd, 2004, p. 2) 1. The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choice. 2. Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level. 3. ?Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems. 4. ?Recognising potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programme should: (i) reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity; (ii) align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; and (iii) internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible. 5. ?Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach. 6. Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning. 7. The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales. 8. ?Recognising the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term. 9. Management must recognise that change is inevitable. 10. ?The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity. 11. ?The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices. 12. The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines Table 2. Five steps to the implementation of the ecosystem approach as defined by Shepherd (2004). Step Description Related principles A Determining the main stakeholders, defining the ecosystem area, and developing the relationship between them 1, 7, 11, 12 B Characterizing the structure and function of the ecosystem, and setting in place mechanisms to manage and monitor it 2, 5, 6, 10 C Identifying the important economic issues that will affect the ecosystem and its inhabitants 4 D Determining the likely impact of the ecosystem on adjacent ecosystems 3, 7 E Deciding on long-term goals, and flexible ways of reaching them 7, 8, 9 11. ?Extracting key elements from the case studies Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 99 Governance system and ecosystem approach Conservation and sustainable use of the ecosystems require that governance is effective, equitable and inclusive, and allows for participation of all actors. It is at the basis of fair decisions that can lead to the implementation of sustainable solutions. The first characteristic of governance is to understand the institutions, formal and informal, that are engaged in the process. Formal institutions include, for example, laws or rules established by government from the local to the national, whilst informal institutions are based on cultural or religious systems, social norms and other interactions that influence decisions. In these case studies, institutions can greatly vary but most have in common either state legislation and policies (formal) that are either at the national or more local level (Table 3). In some cases, Indigenous knowledge and values are considered such as in the case studies of New Zealand (Chapters 3 and 4) and Cordillera Azul National Park (Chapter 10) (informal governance). The second characteristic of governance system is the structures or the entities that are involved in the process (Bennett & Satterfield, 2018). The structures of these case studies also vary but at the basic level, citizens are often involved as either for their involvement or as the target audience of the governance system. In several cases, the structures include NGOs (Chapters 8, 9, 10), which generally lead to greater involvement of the communities. In a few cases, the structure is mainly led by state government or governmental agencies (Chapters 2 and 11), limiting the governance system. This is also reflected in the processes used to engage people in governance. Cases where governments are directly involved as a top-down system, citizens are generally not participating except as beneficiaries or as the audience (Chapters 2 and 11). The analysis of the various case studies was based on these characteristics and considered whether these was a formal or informal system and structure of involvement. The analysis shows quite a range from very poor (e.g., formal versus informal and weak structure) to high (e.g., strong community engagement). Table 3. Identification of the three components of governance according to Bennett &Satterfield (2018) for each chapter. Chapter Institutions Structures Processes Governance 2 Regional planning policies, environmental versus development plans, cultural issues Canterbury regional council, rural and Indigenous communities Development of a community group and forum, code of conduct, public and Indigenous engagement, transparency, cooperation High 3 Land use planning, legislations for environmental protection, cultural issues, Treaty of Waitangi Local and regional councils, Maori tribe Extensive community engagement, integration of cultural and environmental values into decisions as well as resilience and climate change adaptation, inclusive process High 4 Lack of regulations, land grabbing, illegal trade, legal framework, and policies Rural communities versus urban agriculture plans; urban family members linked to rural families but great dependence of Nairobi on its rural catchments for water, food and fuel Individual projects and companies; slow governmental decisions and revisions of policies with 47 county governments unable to enact legislations, corruption, lack of engagement, individualistic approach Very poor Municipality, citizens, pressure from developers for urban residential and commercial zoning Consultations, open houses, reliance on the Greenbelt for rural protection, participatory approach for citizen engagement (although remains limited) Medium 7 National Parks programme, municipal bylaws, London Plan, City of London Corporation, National Park City Foundation, citizens (of all classes) Citizen engagement, activism, bottom-up pressure on policymakers for a greener, more sustainable future, several volunteer organisations with initiatives Medium to high 100 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Chapter Institutions Structures Processes Governance 8 Municipal planning, legislations, stringent legislation regulating development, cultural/ ecological heritage, Georgetown as a UNESCO world heritage site Citizens, local NGOs, Habitat Foundation, developers, municipality, Penang Hill Corporation (PHC) Strong citizen engagement, meetings, interviews, management through PHC, bottom-up meeting top-down, local residents in co- directing the planning process, limited transparency in decisions Medium 9 State government legislation, system like a biosphere reserve, Indigenous cultural values and traditional knowledge (especially by women) CIMA (NGO for management of the National Park), farmers, state government, municipal authorities, Education, Communal Strategic Planning, Blue agreements with municipalities for conservation, local conservation initiatives, highly participative and inclusive with all stakeholders Medium to high China?s central government, French hydrogen technology manufacturer McPhy together with Chinese Jiantou Yanshan (Guyuan) Wind Energy, rural communities Top-down approach with involvement of corporations to implement projects Poor Limited and poor governance can lead to additional challenges as it is the case in Chapter 5 where people are involved in illegal trade, land grabbing, unregulated land use change, deforestation, and land degradation. In this case, conservation action and the capacity of government are limited in what can be done. It is clear that good governance relates to the engagement and inclusion of the communities resulting in the devolution of the decisions at the lowest level and enhancing mobilization and social capacity to engage in conservation and sustainable ecosystem management. Whilst in conservation and ecosystem management, grassroots actions are often promoted, the cases studies described in this book suggest that this may not be always the case. Table 4 describes the results of the ecosystem approach through the five-step guideline proposed by Shepherd (2004). Interestingly, low governance generally leads to limited focus on the ecosystem and therefore limited conservation and ecosystem management actions. Case studies in chapters (e.g., 3, 4, 10) where communities are engaged, data are available, and actions are based on these components, conservation and ecosystem management can be implemented with a long-term vision in mind, leading to conditions that are favourable for the sustainability of the solutions that are being proposed. In Chapter 10, for example, engaging the communities through discussions and agreements can lead to greater conservation and even restoration of lands in the buffer zone, thus enhancing the protection of the National Park. There may be new challenges, however, as seen in Chapter 9, where governance may be good, and the ecosystem approach is adopted leading to the establishment of the Biosphere Reserve but perceptions of the authorities versus the communities differ, possibly causing conflicts in the future. 11. ?Extracting key elements from the case studies Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 101 Table 4. Analysis of the case studies according to the five steps of the ecosystem approach (see Table 2 for the steps). For each step, each case study was content analysed to define the major elements and then considering the principles, a score from low to high was allocated. Chapter Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E AE 2 Stakeholders: community of Canterbury Ecosystem at the catchment level with farmlands, recreational areas, water bodies Data collection of the basin with community involvement, mechanisms in place to ensure management and implementation Issues are related to water use for agriculture versus recreational/ environmental protection Regional components identified and integrated approach to the larger ecosystem Short-, medium- and long-term goals developed and in a governance structure that is participative, inclusive, and devolved to the community High 3 Stakeholders: community leaders, community, and Maori tribe. Floodplains and river corridor in peri-urban system Very detailed data sets to better understand environmental issues and linkages among the various ecosystems including impact of sea level rise on the land Issues related to land use and importance of ecosystem protection as natural system for resilience Impacts of earthquakes and climate change identified on the ecosystems leading to importance to restore ecological and cultural values Long-term planning considering the potential impacts of climate change and earthquakes High 4 Stakeholders: rural versus urban people Nairobi large catchment with urban centre, parks, rivers that link to the rural areas Characterization of the issues and current situation show degradation of the environment due to pollution, illegal settlements, etc. Unsustainable use of the natural resources from water to land leading to economic burden on both urban and rural people Due to population growth, impact increasing in rural areas, especially along the rivers for illegal settlements and agriculture No long-term goals, actions are individual and piecemeal Low 5 Stakeholders: urban vs. rural citizens, developers Town of Lincoln includes agricultural lands, urban centres and protected zones through the Greenbelt Detailed profile of the town with an official municipal plan limiting possible land changes Economic pressures come from urban development due to its proximity to Toronto Potential reduction in rural lands, greater stress on protected areas and waterbodies including Lake Ontario Long-term goal is included in the official municipal plan with specific location for urban growth to protect rural areas but limited in conservation Medium 7 Stakeholders: citizens of all classes City of London as the integrated rural within urban ecosystem Several projects that accumulated data with many organisations working on conservation and protection as well as monitoring Economic issues are more related to health consequence of air and water pollution River Lea, a major tributary to the Thames, is the dirtiest river in UK. No analysis of impact to other ecosystems Long-term goal of a healthy ecosystem through the National Park City charter Medium 102 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Chapter Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E AE 8 Stakeholders: citizens, local NGOs, state government, developers, PHC Ecosystem that encompasses a botanical garden, urban centre, protected area Data are available that allowed for submission of Penang Hill as a biosphere reserve, including species at risk in the area Economic pressure is coming from the State pushing for development of tourism with hotels, facilities Potential impacts will come from increased tourism on the natural ecosystems and adjacent systems Long-term goal would be included in the biosphere reserve plan which should include ecosystem conservation Medium 9 Stakeholders: municipalities, farmers, local communities, state government. Ecosystem includes the National Park as well as a buffer zone where conservation is to be done and the communities Data include status of the national park, the importance of buffer zones to increase conservation and restoration Economic pressure from the farming communities to expand as well as migration Potential impact on the national park reduced by adding the buffer zone and with participatory land-use zoning in villages Long-term goal of increased conservation and reduced pressure on the national park High 10 Stakeholders: state government, energy companies, rural communities as recipient Ecosystem not really defined. Data are related to energy consumption and push for renewable, including hydrogen production Hydrogen economy to reduce environmental pollution and increase job in rural communities Not really defined since it is in rural communities at the country level Long-term goal is to reduce use of fossil fuel Low Ecosystem governance: lessons learnt from the case studies As seen in these case studies, ecosystem governance to sustainably manage rural-urban linkages can be quite complex. This may be in part due to the assumption often made that the rural component is not as important, less economically interesting than the urban centres. At the same time, people tend to believe that rural ecosystems are more natural, quiet, accessible, and therefore for their use for leisure, tourism, or to acquire a residence where it will be quiet and fresh. These misconceptions originate in some respects to the ?tragedy of the commons? where rural ecosystems have been there for grab and exploitation, as seen in Chapter 5, assuming that land is ?free? to be used. The rural-urban linkage underlines the importance of considering both components as part of the same complex system. As stated by Mitchell et al. (2015, p. 1903), ?Complexity can be conceptualised in terms of the multiple interactions that can occur within and between different system components, at different scales? (p. 1903). While Mitchell et al. (2015) are describing social-ecological systems through this, rural-urban linked ecosystem can be viewed as the same where the different feedback between the urban and the rural can co-evolve over time. This also means that to have both urban and rural systems sustainable, planners, decision makers and citizens must view the connections between them as essential. In some cases, the rural can even be integrated within the urban, as seen in Chapter 8. Considering both rural and urban components as part of the landscape/ecosystem, ecosystem governance would have to combine several variables as illustrated in Figure 1. First, it is important to understand that both urban and rural systems are affected by their own environmental and social-economic conditions as well as those coming from the other component. 11. ?Extracting key elements from the case studies Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 103 Figure 1. Rural-urban ecosystem and how ecosystem governance can be integrated relies on considering both the governance system and the various factors that make a community both rural and urban. The activities (from planning and decision making to implementation) must then consider both environmental and socio-economic conditions on both sides (urban and rural) and the attributes that can lead to greater social acceptability and ecosystem governance. The arrows show the connections and interactions among the elements of the diagram. (Source: L. Vasseur, drawing) Any activity or management would have to consider all these interactions to ensure that ecosystem governance includes the following attributes: accessibility and equity; inclusion; engagement; social learning; transparency and accountability; and flexibility and adaptive management. Accessibility, equity, and inclusion are essential to ensure that all people are included from the start in the planning and implementation of any intervention. This includes marginalized or vulnerable peoples, women, youth, and elders, and from both rural and urban components. Community engagement is going further than just participation as it brings the sense of ownership of the intervention and brings trust and greater sustainability of the actions. To reach such a level of engagement, social learning is also needed so that every actor involved has the same understanding and knowledge about the issue at stake. Any governance system to be sustainable must include continuous learning to generate innovations and new knowledge (Folke et al., 2005). ?Trust-building dialogues, mobilization of social networks with actors and teams across scales, coordination of ongoing activities, sense making, collaborative learning, and creating public awareness? (Folke et al., 2005, p. 457) are potential strategies to enhance the possibility of successful interventions. Ecosystem governance should also be based on decision making that is transparent and through consensus. At the same time, decisions must be flexible and supported by an adaptive management system. It is important to consider the multi-level dynamic representation of ecosystem governance in a rural-urban ecosystem. Without such an understanding, conflicts, inequalities, and mistrust may arise. One of the first variables that can be extracted from the case studies is the decision-making process where the top-down approach most likely will limit acceptance of the community members, as well as their involvement. In some cases (e.g., Chapter 5), this can lead to illegal activities. In such conditions, as we have seen, ecosystem governance is weak. One of the first initial steps to avoid such issues is to develop the profile of the community first to better understand its components at both community and governance system levels. A profile allows to define all the potential issues as well as the demographic and the environmental conditions of the system (Vasseur et al. 2022). As illustrated in Figure 1, community and governance system are both influencing the types of decision or management activities and the process that is supporting it. Mitchell et al. (2015) suggest some of the characteristics that the governance system should consider such as supportive political will, coordination, effectiveness in engagement, and open and innovative organisational culture (p. 1913). On the Environment Socio-Economic Attributes ? acessibility / equity ? inclusion ? engagement ? social learning ? transparency ? adaptive management Community ? cultures ? traditions ? education ? wealth 11. ?Extracting key elements from the case studies 104 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective other side, the profile of the community helps identify the influencers such as cultural diversity, traditions, education levels, and wealth inequity among groups. The profile should be able to identify the most vulnerable or marginalized people to ensure their inclusion, especially if it is linked to a social network analysis. A social network analysis allows to also determine the most connected people or organisations and where potential conflicts or collaborations may occur (Vasseur et al. 2022). A main result of this approach is building trust and implementation of decisions that are sustainable. Reconsidering the 12 principles and the five steps for Ecosystem Approach, several aspects relate to ecosystem governance. However, the idea of developing a profile with potentially a social network analysis in Step A can help ensure that no one if left behind and that the dynamics between rural-urban are well understood. The attributes suggested in Figure 1 can also be explicitly used in the principles to contribute to a more integrated social ecological system that can serve as the basis for ecosystem governance. Ecosystem governance emphasises the importance to not consider the urban and rural systems as separated but rather understand their interdependency in which both citizens interact in a dynamic manner. The intricate connections are cultural, social, economic and even environmental. Ecosystem governance can effectively support the ecosystem approach. In conclusion, ?Changes in governance are needed to deal with rapid directional change, adapt to it, shape it, and create opportunities for positive transformations of social?ecological systems? (Folke et al., 2009, p. 103). As seen in these case studies, ecosystem governance varies from very weak to strong, depending on how the various attributes developed in Figure 1 are supported or not. There is effectively a need for changes in ways governance is looked at. The complexity of the rural-urban ecosystem requires an integrated approach that is based on attributes that once combined can enhance the likelihood of finding sustainable solutions where no one loses. From this analysis, challenges and limitations have also been obvious such as defining priorities, financial resource limitation, capacities of groups, tensions among groups, and lack of commitment and champions. Finally, monitoring and evaluation is generally the poor child of any intervention leading to limited flexibility and adaptive management. Understanding all the components of the ecosystem from an environmental and socio-economic perspective can help support long term decision making through an ecosystem governance system that considers the balance between both rural and urban communities and their respective ecosystems. As van Zeijl-Rozema et al. (2008, p. 411) state, ?Wicked problems, social complexity and weak institutionalization undermine the rationale of ?traditional? governing with governments as institutions with hierarchical power, and support the idea of governance as a shared responsibility of representatives from the state, the market and civil society dealing with societal problems? (p. 411). One observation made by one of the reviewers is the bias toward the global north. Whilst it is true that the number from the global south is low, it demonstrates the need to find and analyse ecosystem governance from the global south. More needs to be done to better understand how effectively ecosystem governance can better support the Ecosystem Approach. References Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (1995). Decision II/8 [Conference session]. United Nations Conference of the Parties, Jakarta. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441?473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 Folke, C., Chapin, F. S., & Olsson, P. (2009). Transformations in Ecosystem Stewardship. In C. Folke, G. P. Kofinas, & F. S. Chapin (Eds.), Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship (pp. 103?125). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73033-2_5 Mitchell, M., Lockwood, M., Moore, S.A., & Clement, S. (2015). Incorporating governance influences into social-ecological system models: A case study involving biodiversity conservation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(11), 1903-1922. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.967387 Shepherd, G. (Ed.). (2004). The Ecosystem Approach: Five Steps to Implementation. World Conservation Union (IUCN). Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. vi + 30 pp. Van Zeijl-Rozema, A., Corvers, R., Kemp, R., & Martens, P. (2008). Governance for sustainable development: A framework. Sustainable Development, 16(6), 410-421. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.367 Vasseur, L., Horning, D., Thornbush, M., Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Barrow, E., Edwards, S., Wit, P., & Jones, M. (2017). Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ambio, 46(7), 731?742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0918-6 Vasseur, L., B. May, M. Caspell, A. Marino, P. Garg, J. Baker and S. Gauthier. 2022. Using an inverted funnel analogy to develop a theory of change supporting resilient ecosystem-based adaptation in the Great Lakes Basin: a case study of Lincoln, Ontario, Canada. Facets, 7, 1348?1366 (accepted without revision). https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2022-0121 11. ?Extracting key elements from the case studies U rban-rural linkage INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE WORLD HEADQUARTERS Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland, Switzerland Tel +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0002 www.iucn.org 2. Water governance in Canterbury, New Zealand 3. Ecosystem governance in postdisastersettings: peri-urban floodplain management and a river corridor recoveryfollowing a major earthquake 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? ?dependent on ecosystem services from large, diverse and distant catchments 5. Ecosystem governance and planning at theurban rural fringe: a case study on the town of Lincoln, Canada 6. Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature ? our loss of connection with nature in our cities 7. London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages 8. Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia 9. Cordillera Azul National Park: integrated landscape management under a participatory model for the conservation of nature and its benefits 10. New energy trends: hydrogen and other clean fuels as tools to strengthen urban-rural linkages ? China case study (ATTENTION: OPTION Donnelly, N., & Collett, D. (2012). Fault slip models of the 2010-2011 Canterbury, New Zealand, earthquakes from geodetic data and observations of postseismic ground deformation. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 55(3), 207-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2012.697472 Bell, R., Lawrence, J., Allan, S., Blackett, P., & Stephens, S. (2017). Coastal hazards and climate change: Guidance for local government. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W., & Courchamp, F. (2012). Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 15(4), 365-377. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01736.x Betts, R., Lowe, J., Liddicoat, S., & Jones, C. (2009). Committed terrestrial ecosystem changes due to climate change. Nature Geoscience, 2(7), 484-487. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo555 Canterbury Biodiversity Strategy Partners. (2008). A biodiversity strategy for the Canterbury Region. Environment Canterbury Report Number: R08/13. Christchurch: Environment Canterbury. Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R. S., Díaz, S., . . . Clark, W. C. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(5), 1305-1312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106 Chan, K. M. A., Shaw, M. R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E. C., & Daily, G. C. (2006). Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biology, 4(11), e379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379 Christchurch City Council. (2023). Christchurch District Plan. Updated 17 January 2023. Christchurch City Council. Available at https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/plans/christchurch-district-plan/. Department of Conservation. (2010). New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010. Wellington: Department of Conservation. Department of Conservation. (2016). Canterbury (Waitaha) Conservation Management Strategy 2016. New Zealand Government: Department of Conservation. Dudley, N., Stolton, S., Belokurov, A. K., L., Lopoukhine, N., MacKinnon, K., Sandwith, T., & Sekhran, N. e. (2010). Natural Solutions: Protected areas helping people cope with climate change. Gland, Switzerland; Washington DC; New York, USA: IUCN- WCPA, TNC, UNDP, WCS, The World Bank and WWF. Environment Canterbury. (2020). Canterbury Regional Policy Statement 2013. Updated October 2020. Christchurch: Environment Canterbury. Environment Canterbury. (2019). Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan. Volume 1. Updated September 2019. Christchurch: Canterbury Regional Council. Estrella, M., & Saalismaa, N. (2013). Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR): An Overview. In F. Renaud, K. Sudmeier-Rieux, & M. Estrella (Eds.), The role of ecosystem management in disaster risk reduction (pp. 26-54). Tokyo: UNU Press. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social?ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 27 Gunderson, L. H., Allen, C. R., & Holling, C. S. (2010). Foundations of ecological resilience. Washington, DC: Island Press. Harmsworth, G. R. (1995). Maori values for land-use planning. Discussion report. Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research. Hino, M., Field, C. B., & Mach, K. J. (2017). Managed retreat as a response to natural hazard risk. Nature Climate Change, 7(5), 364-370. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3252 Hoekstra, J. M., Boucher, T. M., Ricketts, T. H., & Roberts, C. (2005). Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters, 8(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245 Hughes, M. W., Quigley, M. C., van Ballegooy, S., Deam, B. L., Bradley, B. A., Hart, D. E., & Measures, R. (2015). The sinking city: earthquakes increase flood hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand. GSA Today, 25(3-4), 4-10. IPCC. (2023). Synthesis report of the IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6). Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). Jolly, D., & Nga Papatipu Runanga Working Group. (2013). Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013. Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd. Otautahi Christchurch. Kirk, R. M. (1979). Dynamics and management of sand beaches in southern Pegasus Bay. Morris and Wilson Consulting Engineers Limited, Christchurch. Land Information New Zealand. (2021). Transitional land use in the Residential Red Zones. Guide for applicants and Te Tira Kahikuhiku - The Red Zones transformative land use group. Land Information New Zealand. 12pp. Lang, M., Orchard, S., Falwasser, T., Rupene, M., Williams, C., Tirikatene-Nash, N., & Couch, R. (2012). State of the Takiwa 2012 -Te Ähuatanga o Te Ihutai. Cultural Health Assessment of the Avon-Heathcote Estuary and its Catchment. Christchurch: Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd. McLeod, K. L., & Leslie, H. M. (2009). Ecosystem-based management for the oceans. Washington DC: Island Press. McMullen, C. P., & Jabbour, J. (2009). Climate change science compendium 2009. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. 68pp. Memon, P. A., & Perkins, H. C. (2000). Environmental planning and management in New Zealand. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Washington DC: Island Press. Ministry for the Environment. (2017). National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (amended 2017). Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. New Zealand Government. (1987). Conservation Act 1987. Reprint as at 16 December 2017. Wellington: New Zealand Government. New Zealand Government. (1991). Resource Management Act 1991. Wellington: New Zealand Government. New Zealand Government. (2011). Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2011. Wellington, New Zealand Government. New Zealand Government. (2016). Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016. Wellington: New Zealand Government. New Zealand Law Society. (2010). Law Society comments on Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act. Accessed 29 March 2018 from http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/. New Zealand Law Society, September 2010. Orchard, S. (2014). Potential roles for coastal protected areas in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: a case study of dune management in Christchurch, New Zealand. In R. Murti & C. Buyck (Eds.), Safe Havens: Protected Areas for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. (pp. 83-93). Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Orchard, S. (2017a). Floodplain restoration principles for the Avon-Otakaro Red Zone. Case studies and recommendations. Report prepared for Avon Otakaro Network, Christchurch, N.Z. Orchard, S. (2017b). Integrated assessment frameworks for evaluating large scale river corridor restoration. Report prepared for the Avon Otakaro Network. Christchurch, New Zealand. Orchard, S., Hickford, M. J. H., & Schiel, D. R. (2018). Earthquake-induced habitat migration in a riparian spawning fish has implications for conservation management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 2018, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2898 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings Orchard, S., Hughey, K. F. D., Measures, R., & Schiel, D. R. (2020). Coastal tectonics and habitat squeeze: response of a tidal lagoon to co-seismic sea-level change. Natural Hazards, 103(3), 3609-3631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04147-w Orchard, S., Hughey, K. F. D., & Schiel, D. R. (2020). Risk factors for the conservation of saltmarsh vegetation and blue carbon revealed by earthquake-induced sea-level rise. Science of the Total Environment, 746, 141241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141241 Orchard, S., & Measures, R. (2017). Sea level rise impacts in the Avon Heathcote Estuary Ihutai. Salinity intrusion and inanga spawning scenarios. Report prepared for Christchurch City Council. Park, G. (2000). New Zealand as ecosystems: the ecosystem concept as a tool for environmental management and conservation. Wellington: Department of Conservation. Partnership for Environment & Disaster Risk Reduction. (2010). Demonstrating the role of ecosystems based management for Disaster Risk Reduction. Accessed 28 March 2018 from http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/bgdocs/ PEDRR_2010.pdf. Pauling, C., Lenihan, T. M., Rupene, M., Tirikatene-Nash, N., & Couch, R. (2007). State of the Takiwa -Te Ähuatanga o Te Ihutai. Cultural Health Assessment of the Avon-Heathcote Estuary and its Catchment. Christchurch, NZ: Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu. Potter, S. H., Becker, J. S., Johnston, D. M., & Rossiter, K. P. (2015). An overview of the impacts of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14(Part 1), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.01.014 Quigley, M. C., Hughes, M. W., Bradley, B. A., van Ballegooy, S., Reid, C., Morgenroth, J., . . . Pettinga, J. R. (2016). The 2010? 2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence: Environmental effects, seismic triggering thresholds and geologic legacy. Tectonophysics, 672-673, 228-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2016.01.044 Regenerate Christchurch. (2019). Otakaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan. Christchurch: Regenerate Christchurch. Roberts, M., Norman, W., Minhinnick, N., Wihongi, D., & Kirkwood, C. (1995). Kaitiakitanga: Maori perspectives on conservation. Pacific conservation biology, 2(1), 7-20. Romero Manrique, D., Corral, S., & Guimarães Pereira, Â. (2018). Climate-related displacements of coastal communities in the Arctic: Engaging traditional knowledge in adaptation strategies and policies. Environmental Science and Policy, 85, 90-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.04.007 Singers, N. J. D., & Rogers, G. M. (2014). A classification of New Zealand?s terrestrial ecosystems. Science for Conservation 325. Wellington: Department of Conservation. Spalding, M. D., Ruffo, S., Lacambra, C., Meliane, I., Hale, L. Z., Shepard, C. C., & Beck, M. W. (2014). The role of ecosystems in coastal protection: Adapting to climate change and coastal hazards. Ocean and Coastal Management, 90, 50-57. Tau, T. M., Goodall, A., Palmer, D., & Tau, R. (1990). Te Whakatau Kaupapa ? the Ngai Tahu Resource Management Strategy for the Canterbury Region. Aoraki Press. Otautahi Christchurch. Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., Spierenburg, M., Stockholms, u., . . . Stockholm Resilience, C. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio, 43(5), 579-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3 Tipa, G., Harmsworth, G. R., Williams, E., & Kitson, J. C. (2016). Integrating matauranga Maori into freshwater management, planning and decision making. In P. G. Jellyman, T. J. A. Davie, C. P. Pearson, & J. S. Harding (Eds.), Advances in New Zealand Freshwater Science: New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society & New Zealand Hydrological Society. UNEP. (2010). Ecosystem-based Adaptation Programme Paris, France: United Nations Environment Programme. UNEP/GPA. (2006). Ecosystem-based management: Markers for assessing progress. Report commissioned by the Coordination Office of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The Hague, Netherlands. Vasseur, L., Horning, D., Thornbush, M., Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Barrow, E., . . . Jones, M. (2017). Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: Bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN sustainable development goals. Ambio, 46(7), 731-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0918-6 Watts, R. H. (2011). The Christchurch waterways story. Lincoln, N.Z.: Manaaki Whenua Press, Landcare Research. 51pp. White, P. A., Goodrich, K., Cave, S., & Minni, G. (2007). Waterways, swamps and vegetation of Christchurch in 1856 and baseflow discharge in Christchurch city streams. GNS Science Consultancy Report 2007/103. Taupo. Yohe, G. W., Lasco, R. D., Ahmad, Q. K., Arnell, N. W., Cohen, S. J., Hope, C., . . . Perez, R. T. (2007). Perspectives on climate change and sustainability. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 811-841. 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings 4 Kabete Dam, which was built in the 1950?s and joins the Mathare and then Nairobi river. © Edmund Barrow 1Member of IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Nairobi; Fellow, Rights & Resources Initiative 2Director Planning Systems, Nairobi 3Senior Urban Planner, Planning Systems, Nairobi 4Foundation Manager, Community Cooker Foundation, Nairobi 5Volunteer Adviser, Community Cooker Foundation, Nairobi 6Director, Cookswell Jikos Ltd., Nairobi 7Kenya Green Building Society, Nairobi, Kenya Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? ? dependent on ecosystem services from large, diverse and distant catchments Edmund Barrow1, Jim Archer2, Louise Groth3, Wakina Mutembei4, Linda Archer5, Teddy Kinyanjui6, Amrish Shah7 30 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract This chapter explores the dependencies Nairobi has with its rural hinterlands with a focus on water, which is sourced from some of the main water towers of Kenya, and charcoal which is still the main source of household energy in many parts of the city. Nairobi, a city of more than 4 million people, lies south of the equator at 1,795 metres above sea level. It is the heart of Kenya?s economy and development yet is dependent on its rural hinterland for its goods and services, such as water, fuel (especially charcoal), and much of its food. There are strong labour and cultural attachments between Nairobi residents and their rural home areas to which remittances are important. The Nairobi rivers are heavily polluted by human and industrial waste. Encroachment into the riparian zone, discharge of raw sewage and illegal dumping of waste has led to a reduced capacity of these waterways. The rivers originate in the mountains west of Nairobi, flow through the city, join the Athi river and passes through Tsavo National Park before discharging into the Indian Ocean. The river corridors in the city are vital as part of the lungs of the city. Nairobi is unique?the world-famous Nairobi National Park borders the city. Other important green areas are Uhuru Park and Nairobi Arboretum close to the city centre, City Park, and Karura Forest. Karura Forest is one of the largest forests within any city. Nobel Peace Laureate the late Wangari Maathai fought to change Karura Forest from being a robbers? den to a nature reserve with footpaths, bike paths and an educational centre. There have been previous initiatives and there are current programmes to restore the Nairobi rivers, but unified public backing and commitment is still lacking. This chapter analyses some of the positive environmental actions that Nairobi is implementing, and shows how Nairobi can learn from other cities, as well as lessons Nairobi has to offer. Introduction Nairobi is the capital and largest city of Kenya. The name comes from the Maasai ?Enkare Nyrobi?, which means ?place of cool water?, a reference to the Nairobi River which flows through the city. According to the last official census, the city has a population of 4 million, up from 3.1 million in 2009 (Wikipedia, 2020a). Nairobi was founded in 1899 as a rail depot on the Uganda Railway, and quickly grew to replace Mombasa as the capital of the British East Africa Protectorate in 1905 (Greenway & Monsma, 1989). After independence in 1963, Nairobi remained the capital (Cities of the World, 2007). The city lies on the Athi river plains 1,795 metres above sea level. Home to thousands of Kenyan businesses and over 100 major international companies and organisations such as the United Nations, Nairobi is an important business hub. The Nairobi Securities Exchange is one of the largest in Africa and the second-oldest exchange on the continent, and the city is a major financial centre for Africa (Millennium Information Technologies, 2007). Nairobi has one of the highest growth rates in Africa, currently 4.1% a year (World Factbook-Kenya, 2018), and its population will likely reach 5.8 to 6.2 million by 2025 (Hoornweg & Pope, 2014; Responsible Business, 2018). Given the high population growth, due to rural?urban migration and birth rates, the economy has yet to catch up. Unemployment is estimated at 40%, mainly in the high- density, low-income areas (Oyugi & K?Akumu, 2017). The Kenya National Bureau of Statistics estimate that, by 2014, the informal sector represented over 80% of employment in Kenya (World Bank Group, 2016). An estimated 26% of people live-in urban areas in Kenya (Oyugi & K?Akumu, 2017). Most urban people have strong links to their rural home areas through family and land. There are cash and commodity flow from urban to rural, which is matched by similar flows of food and other products from rural to urban. Such remittances, though important and large, are difficult to quantify. However, Kenya?s main mobile money providers have made remittances easier, quicker and safer, and helps to further cement the strong ties between Nairobi and its rural hinterland. This chapter explores how linked and dependent Nairobi is on its rural catchments with respect to people, water, wood-based fuel and food (Map 1, where distances are approximate as is the thickness of the coloured arrows which denote the scale of the flows). We explore how Nairobi is improving its environmental efficiency through various forms of energy saving, the adoption of green building standards, and the sustainability of the green areas that are in and border the city. At the same time, we explain how more could be done. Nairobi depends on the water towers of the Aberdares and Mt Kenya Nairobi obtains 94% of its water from the Tana River and the Aberdare-Mt Kenya water towers north of the city. The sustainability of these sources is contingent on good catchment management. The Nairobi Dam, constructed as a freshwater lake, is no longer a water reservoir due to sprawling human settlements, pollution, drainage of raw sewage and dumping of garbage (University of Nairobi, 2013). The remaining water comes from the Kikuyu Springs and Ruiru Dam. In the 1970s, the Thika Dam, with a capacity of 225,000 m3/day, was built to meet growing demands (African Development Bank, 1998). Groundwater supplies 85,000 m3 per day from about 3,000 boreholes. But the groundwater table has declined, and the average depth of new wells in 2001 was 238 meters (Wikipedia, 2020b). Most wells are operated by industry, hotels, farms for flower production, and private houses in parts of the city that receive intermittent supplies. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 31 Map 1: Catchments, Green Spaces of Nairobi City and Its Rural Linkages (Note: distances are approximate) here. (Source of base map: Planning Systems Services, Kenya) Water availability increased from 165 litres per person per day in 1976 to 200 in 1995 (Skytta & Jean-Francois, 1996). However, by 1998 water losses, including physical losses due to old piping, illegal water use and under-metering, reduced the water supply by up to 30% (African Development Bank, 1998). Since the 1970s, slum residents, with communal water connections, built water kiosks (small shops) to resell water. The number of water kiosks increased from about 150 in 1978 to nearly 1,500 in 1994. A particular challenge for Nairobi is to provide affordable water to its population living in slum areas. Insufficient urban planning, especially the implementation of existing plans combined with poor governance and management, and lack of enforcement has led to urban development with little or no correlation between land use planning and the provision of urban functions and systems. In addition, land grabbing and growing informal settlements encroach on wetlands and riparian zones. Nairobi depends on its rural catchment for most of its water supply, yet few or no Payments for Environmental Services (PES) are paid to those living in these catchments for conserving the land and water sources, nor have land users been encouraged to adopt water conservation strategies. In 2009, the dry season was longer than usual, and the Thika Dam reservoir was less than half full at the height of the drought. These low levels are due to failed rains and destruction of key catchment forests in the Aberdares, due to poor landscape governance (BBC, 2009; K24TV, 2009). Erosion reduced the reservoir capacity, and water quality reduced due to agricultural pesticide runoff and pollution (Moriasi et al., 2007). Improved water and land use governance would enhance both landscape management and water supply?a win: win for all. PES could go a long way to better assure the conservation of the catchments, its water supply services and a reduction in degradation. For example, Beijing a city with over 21 million people, relies on the Miyun Catchment for about 70% of its water. Beijing supports conservation friendly land use in the catchment and makes payments for the water services provided (Jia & Emerton, 2012). And New York City supports the water provisioning services from the Catskill Mountains (Munson et.al., 2019; UNDRR, 2016). Nairobi could learn from such examples as to how this is done, why it is successful together with the governance arrangements so as to secure its fresh water supply for the future. Map 1: Catchments, Green Spaces of Nairobi City and Its Rural Linkages (Note: distances are approximate) Nairobi National Park The polluted Nairobi River joins Athi river & flows to Indian Ocean Karura Forest (370 km) Charcoal from Kajiado (106 km), Narok (142 km) Charcoal from Machakos (66 km), Kitui (175 km), & Tana River (544 km) Charcoal from Baringo (530 km) Narok (142 km) Kitui (175 km), Food, Fruit from Aberdares (145 km), & Mt. Kenya (138 km)) 94% Nairobi?s water from Aberdares & Mount Kenya Source of base map: Planning Systems Services, Kenya Nairobi rivers catchment in Kikuyu & Kiambu Counties, & Ngong hills - reasonably clean 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? 32 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Fuel sources and enhanced efficiencies Nairobi?s main cooking fuel is charcoal, especially for lower income areas, whilst higher-end residential and commercial areas use gas or electricity.Charcoal is used in restaurants and for traditional grilling. For most businesses and mid-upper income residents a hybrid energy supply of gas, charcoal, and electricity is typically used. Charcoal demand is based on population and per capita charcoal demand. Nairobi County has the highest demand at 3.4 million cubic meters per annum whilst Lamu County has the lowest at 0.11 million cubic meters (Wanleys Consultancy Services, 2013). Approximately 10% of all Kenya?s charcoal production goes to Nairobi. The National Study on Charcoal by Energy for Sustainable Development Africa (ESDA, 2005) estimated the annual national production of charcoal as 1.6 million tons in 2005 (Ministry of Environment and Forestry Republic of Kenya, 2018). But production rose to 2.5 million tons in 2013, an increase of 156%. The economic value of charcoal over the same period grew from about USD $320 million to USD $1.35 billion per annum?a staggering 422% growth and much of that is driven by Nairobi. Increasingly charcoal is sustainably produced, for example,farm forestry around the tea and coffee farms ofMount Kenya, or the removal of invasive species such as Prosopis juliflora for charcoal. These sources increasingly provide Nairobiperi-urban demand. But much charcoal still comes from unsustainable indigenous wood sources, from illegal logging or as a by-product ofland clearance for agriculture. Charcoal that is unsustainably and inefficiently produced contributes to deforestation and the degradation of natural woodlands in the hinterlands of Kenya. The charcoal supply for Nairobi comes from distant rural counties, such as Kitui, Makueni, Tana River, Kwale, Narok, Baringo, Kajiado and Garissa, and recently even from Uganda and South Sudan?often in excess of 400 km from Nairobi. For Nairobi, this trade was worth over USD $160 million in 2013 (Kenya Forestry Services, Camco Advisory Services Kenya, 2013) and together with firewood it supplies about 80% of Nairobi?s domestic energy.Charcoal is a looming issue. In spite of the importance accorded to County Governments for the sustainable management of forests, counties have not really implemented appropriate plans. This is essential if sustainable charcoal production is to be achieved and is exacerbated by a lack of clarity between County and Central Government as to management responsibilities. In February 2018, the national government imposed a 3-month ban (and in effect to November 2020) on logging in all public and community forests, and on charcoal production. In some places this led to budding Charcoal Producing Associations becoming irrelevant with cartels taking over charcoal production. The reasons given for the ban are for the government to have time to train more Kenya Forest Service rangers, implement better forest protection, and replant plantations with indigenous trees. Yet, improved forest governance combined with incentives for sustainable charcoal production will help reduce degradation and enhance sustainable use. There have been multiple, often donor led attempts to regulate the charcoal market, but most charcoal is marketed through the informal market, and governance is poor. Key challenges to the sustainable charcoal trade include unregulated land use change, illegal trade and corruption. For example, a typical mid-distance lorry might have to pay $230 in ?rents? to traffic police to transport charcoal from its source to the market and small-scale farmers may get up to a 30% ?charcoal subsidy? for land clearing and planting when clearing forested land for farming. But overall, illegal rents are, perhaps, the main reason keeping the trade unsustainable, informal and underground. There are two strategies to create greater efficiency, both of which require the enhanced and more equitable governance of the charcoal industry in rural and urban areas. Firstly, there should be a focus on increasing sustainable and more efficient charcoal production at the supply end. At present many farmers around Mount Kenya and some dryland counties grow trees for fuelwood and charcoal on a sustainable basis. Then the removal of invasive species like Prosopis can help offset pressures on old growth forests. Assuming charcoal will remain an important cooking fuel, this will help reduce environmental degradation. Secondly, on the demand side, greater efficiencies can be achieved in cooking, so less charcoal is burnt for the same or greater energy output. Two examples highlight this. The late Dr. Maxwell Kinyanjui was part of a team who pioneered the improved clay and ceramic lined Charcoal Jiko (cooker) in the 1970?s that has since been replicated across Africa and the Caribbean.Now Cookswell Jikos Ltd. provides a variety of high-quality charcoal and wood fuel stoves, and improved charcoal making kilns?all based on the original designs and concept of Maxwell Kinyanjui. This reduces demand on traditional charcoal sources. Cookswell Jikos Ltd. includes a free packet ofseed-balls(recycled charcoal dust used to coat a tree seed for ground or aerial low- cost direct seeding)with every stove purchased to encourage more sustainable charcoal production and establish more trees. Along with the Tamarind Group, they established The Woodlands 2000 Trust to promote dryland tree growing in Kenya and East Africa for enhanced wood-fuel security. In this way, Cookswell contributes to more efficient charcoal burning and production from tree branches (not tree trunks), which further reduces pressures on natural forests and woodlands. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 33 The other example is the Community Cooker Foundation, a charity based in Nairobi, which promotes the Community Cooker, a waste-to-energy technology that burns rubbish for cooking in an environmentally correct manner (Community Cooker Foundation, 2016). Having five large cooking plates and two ovens, it is suitable for a range of organisations and institutions (it costs about USD $25,000) as an alternative to charcoal and firewood. Rubbish is collected and sorted to remove rubber, glass and metal. The remaining rubbish is burnt at over 880 °C to generate clean heat that can be used for cooking, baking, heating and, soon, for generating electricity. The Community Cooker was tested by Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS) for dry gas analysis. These tests showed the cooker is within European, American, and Kenyan standards for emissions of Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Carbon Monoxide, Furans, and Dioxins. If one Cooker is used continuously every day, it saves 7,500 m3 of wood per year (approximately 3,000 trees) from being made into charcoal or used as fuelwood. The Cooker can burn 500 kg of rubbish per day (or about 200 tons per annum) and provides at least five jobs, as well as earning income from selling meals. The Mirema School Community Cooker saves 93% of its previous charcoal and fuelwood costs whilst preparing meals for over 1,000 students and staff each day. The cooker not only saves trees but reduces rubbish, provides jobs and promotes a sense of community. The catchment for Nairobi?s fruit, vegetables and meat Up to 50% of Nairobi?s vegetables and root crops are grown along the Nairobi, Ngong and Mathare rivers and their tributaries that flow through Nairobi. Most of the vegetables are sold through informal markets and account for about 25% of Nairobi households? food expenditure. Given the heavily polluted rivers used for irrigation, there is concern about pollution affecting the quality of the vegetables, which could be solved by ?re-greening Nairobi?s rivers?. The rest of Nairobi?s vegetables comes from 50-100 km from the city, to the north in the highland areas of the Rift Valley escarpment to the Aberdares and around Mount Kenya, and to the east in Kitui and Machakos. The majority of these vegetables come from small-scale farmers. Likewise, most of Nairobi?s milk comes from within 100 Km of the city (IGAD, 2013; Behnke & Muthami, 2011). Over 50% of Nairobi?s meat comes from pastoralist lands in the dry areas, especially Kajiado and Narok (south and south-west of Nairobi) and from northern Kenya, travelling sometimes over 400 Km. Under the Urban Areas and Cities Act of 2011, Nairobi should have an urban agriculture plan. In 2015, Nairobi City County passed the Urban Agriculture Promotion and Regulation Act to regulate urban agriculture. As a pilot site for a project (FAO, 2020; Lee-Smith & Knaepen, 2017), Nairobi is developing a strategy for food security and the urban-rural food linkages were being mapped. However, to date nothing has been publicized. Nairobi sources most of its food from distant areas of Kenya, though urban cultivation is increasing and offers increased economic opportunities for the future provided quality can be assured, especially from pollutants. There are reasonably well-developed value chains from the producer (farmer or pastoralist) to the market. This is made more transparent as farmers and pastoralists better understand the value of their products due to mobile phone services. But still farmers and pastoralists are in a weak bargaining position. Greening the buildings Rapid building development, population growth and over consumption of resources has placed significant pressures on urban and rural environments, for example, sources of sand and stone for construction. There is now an increasing focus on green construction. Developers want buildings that are more energy and water efficient to reduce costs and reliance and pressure on municipal utilities. This will reduce land use impacts (cutting fewer trees, managing storm water runoff, reduce urban heat effects), by selecting locally sourced materials which have a lower energy signature and be less harmful to people?s health. Although the Government started to review the building code is 2009, there is still no official change either at national or Nairobi levels, and here the private sector is leading the way. There are currently 32 registered green building projects in Kenya?mostly in Nairobi. Companies such as Urban Green Consultants Ltd (UGC, 2020), a Kenyan-owned sustainability firm, specializes in ?green? buildings and seeks to create more sustainable and low impact buildings. UGC are accredited to rate and certify local building developments using LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design), Green Star and EDGE (Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies) ratings. All rating systems are internationally recognised green building certification systems. EDGE is a low-cost tool developed by the World Bank to encourage developing nations to build green. UGC assists building projects to be ?green? and fulfil sustainability objectives by reducing operating costs and increasing the life span of buildings. Through modelling (energy, daylight, ventilation, facade) they can reduce building operation costs, reduce environmental impacts and the pressures on energy and water utilities. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? 34 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Cleaning and rehabilitating the river systems of Nairobi The Nairobi River and its tributaries traverse Nairobi County. These include the Mathare, Ngong and Nairobi rivers?with tributaries and seasonal streams. They rise in the Rift Valley escarpment between the Ngong Hills and the Aberdares, about 30 Km west of Nairobi and flow into the Athi River. The Athi-Galana River is one of the main rivers of Kenya which flows into the Indian Ocean?with much of the waste and pollution from Nairobi. Where the rivers rise and as they flow into Nairobi, they are relatively clean. Once in Nairobi, they become heavily polluted, and are contaminated with biological and chemical wastes and refuse. The rivers in Nairobi are breeding grounds for disease; poor conveyors of flood flows resulting in frequent flooding; and associated with illegal and/or informal waste dumping and sewage discharge. The lack of robust sanitation infrastructure is partly the cause of the heavy deterioration of the rivers? water quality, and it is estimated that the Nairobi Water and Sewage Company only collects about 40% of the city?s sewage. The polluted rivers have major negative impacts especially on the urban poor and downstream as the rivers join the Athi river and flow to the Indian ocean. Since the river corridors, wetlands and riparian reserves are sources of open land and are rarely controlled by the authorities, they have become locations for uncontrolled settlements. Many of Nairobi?s informal settlements (the ?slums?) are located along these river corridors, among them Kibera?often called the largest slum in Africa (University of Nairobi, 2013). These settlements lack basic services whilst being exposed to flooding during the rainy season. It is important to clean and restore the rivers for the residents of the city, to provide clean water flowing into the Athi River, and improve the hydraulic capacity of the waterways. There is also a need to support catchment conservation at the rivers? sources and as they flow through Nairobi. Links are needed between the counties where these rivers have their sources, Nairobi, and the counties where the Athi River flows as it makes it way to the Indian Ocean. The story of the clean-up of the Thames River which flows through London is analogous. In 1957 the Thames was considered biologically dead and classified as a badly managed open sewer (Hardach, 2015). A concerted effort was made to clean the river. Though much has been done, and the river is cleaner, plastics have emerged as the new threat to the Thames. The Nairobi rivers are not as big, but a similar type of integrated clean-up is needed?in terms of water cleanliness, flood plain management, and waste and sewage treatment. Kenya has the necessary legislative framework and policies for such work, but lack of implementation and enforcement, coordination between authorities, cross-sectoral disagreement on responsibilities, and corruption have stalled implementation ? all summarised as a lack of responsible governance. Previous attempts to clean the rivers, or parts thereof, were not successful as they did not address underlying causes. In 2016 a Nairobi River Rehabilitation and Restoration Master Plan was developed by the Government, but without much implementation. The ?Nairobi Rivers Regeneration project?, a private urban planning initiative by a Kenyan architectural practice, provides for an integrated approach to rehabilitate the Nairobi rivers and promote sustainable urban development (Planning Systems, 2018; Burohappold Engineering, 2018). This project is gaining interest in Government, the Private Sector and among the people of Nairobi, and could become a flagship project to boost the ?Re-Greening of the Green City in the Sun? and be a show piece for Nairobi as it participates in the 100 Resilient Cities (UNDRR, 2016) programme. The Nairobi Rivers Regeneration project could catalyse the wider regeneration of the city, and has the following objectives to: a) clean the rivers and secure water supplies; b) support the regreening of Nairobi with new public parks and green open spaces; c) relieve traffic congestion by improving connectivity; d) identify land along riparian areas for mixed use development; e) enable Nairobi?s central business district to expand; and f) develop a network of walk and cycle ways to improve connectivity through a ?non-motorized movement network? that will also connect urban with rural. The rivers and riparian areas are the responsibility of diverse sectors, ?owners? and groups which makes such a project complicated. Therefore, an integrated approach is needed without sectoral conflicts, yet ensuring a sound business case. This public-private partnership (PPP) had early support from the then- President Mwai Kibaki and is starting to be re-invigorated at local and national levels. The green areas ? the lungs of Nairobi Nobel Laureate Wangari Maathai fought to save the indigenous Karura Forest which was under threat of being converted to housing and other infrastructure (Nyaga, 1998). This brought into focus the plight of Nairobi?s parks and gardens. The 1948 Nairobi Master Plan was designed for 250,000 residents and allocated 28% of Nairobi?s land to public space. Because of rapid population growth, lack of adequate urban planning, implementation and unplanned development, these spaces are increasingly threatened (Makworo & Mireri, 2011). This is characteristic of all the green areas in Nairobi?they have all been or are threatened, usually by unscrupulous developers and greedy individuals. However, the people of Nairobi and civil society want to ensure these green spaces are conserved. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 35 Nairobi National Park (117 sq.km.), established in 1946, was Kenya?s first national park. Located about seven km south of the city centre, it has an electric fence separating the park?s wildlife from the city. Open grass plains and scattered Acacia bush, with the backdrop of the city skyline, plays host to a wide variety of wildlife. Nairobi is one of the few cities in the world with a national park within its boundaries, making it a prime tourist destination (KWS, 2020). Despite its fame, the Park is threatened. Part was excised for the Southern-Bypass road. More damage is likely to be done as the extension of the Standard Gauge Railway has been constructed dividing the park into two. What the effect the railway will have on the wildlife in the park, and the park itself, is yet to be established. In 2009, the Kenya Forest Service and the Friends of Karura Community Forest Association, embarked on a programme to secure Karura Forest Reserve (Nyaga, 1998; Friends of Karura, 2020), an urban upland forest north of the city centre. Karua is one of the largest gazetted forests in the world within a city. It is 1,041 ha and shows how corporate social responsibility and philanthropy can secure a forest. The forest offers eco-friendly opportunities for visitors to walk, jog, bike, and experience the tranquillity of nature. The 2005 Forest Act was,in part, inspired by the rescue of Karura Forest, reflecting a broader recognition of the importance of urban forest restoration. The Nairobi Arboretum (Kenya Forest Services, 2020) occupies 30.4 ha and is 3 km north-east of the city centre. It was established in 1907 for exotic tree species trials, as foresters were concerned that the indigenous trees which the railway relied on were being depleted faster than they were being regenerated. The Arboretum was gazetted as a Forest Reserve in 1932 and is managed by Kenya Forest Service and the Friends of Nairobi Arboretum.It hosts over 300 species of exotic and indigenous tree species and over 100 bird species. Jeevanjee Gardens (Nairobi News, 2016), an open garden in the central business district, was founded by Mr. A.M. Jeevanjee, an Asian-born entrepreneur in Kenya. It is the only park directly owned by the people, having been donated to the poor people of Nairobi as a resting area. Open for free to the public, Jeevanjee Gardens is a recreational park and attracts people from all walks of life. There have been attempts to develop it for the construction of multi-storey buildings, which has been met with resistance by the people of Nairobi. City Park (Nature Kenya, 2020), managed by Nairobi City County, is one of the few remaining areas of the indigenous forest that once covered most of Nairobi. The Park is rich in biodiversity and natural vegetation and has one of Nairobi rivers? shorter tributaries, the Kibagare, flowing through it. Friends of City Park help protect, maintain and enhance the park amenities. This group came together in response to challenges faced by the Park including land grabbing, cutting of trees and garbage dumping. It was originally 61 ha but 20 ha were lost to private development through squatting and illegal alienation in the 1980s. The most popular park in Nairobi is Uhuru Park (Wikipedia, 2020c), which was opened by the first president of Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta, in 1969. The Park,12.9 ha, borders the central business district and is a centre for outdoor speeches, services and rallies. It contains an artificial lake, several national monuments, and an assembly ground for political and religious gatherings. It is infamous as the site where protests against illegal land grabbing were violently broken up in 1989, as Wangari Maathai and many of her followers held a protest to stop the construction of the 60-storey Kenya Times Media Trust business complex within its boundaries. She was vilified in parliament, but her protests and the government?s response led investors to cancel the project. Ngong Forest (Kenya Forest Service, 2020b) was gazetted in 1932 and covered about 2,900 ha of indigenous forest. By 1978, the area had been reduced after excisions, land grabbing and portions of the forest being allocated to private developers. In the early 1990s, the Trustees of Ngong Road Forest Sanctuary learnt that the core of forest had been divided into 35 land parcels to be given to developers. However, the sell-off was cancelled after intense lobbying. By 2005, the area of the Ngong Road Forest was 1,224 ha. Ngong Forest is divided by Ngong Road and the recently constructed Southern Bypass. Since 2005, the Ngong Road Forestis managed by the Kenya Forest Service. All these green areas in the city provide the means for people to be in and re-connect with nature, especially City Park, Uhuru Park and Jivanjee Gardens as there are no entry charges. Karura, Nairobi National Park and the Arboretum are largely inaccessible for most of Nairobi?s population, as they charge entrance fees. Being able to visit such green spaces is especially important for the children and youth for education to create awareness about the importance of nature. Yet they are all under threat due to illegal appropriation and greed. Many of these green areas are connected to the rural hinterlands through the rivers and streams in Nairobi and serve to promote nature connectivity within Nairobi and the rural catchments. Urban dwellers need easy access to ?green spaces? as everyone should maintain their emotional and cultural connections to nature. So being green has to mean usable and accessible green space. Discussion and lessons Nairobi used to be the ?Green City in the Sun?. That ?greenness? needs to be restored. This chapter highlights some ways to achieve this, together with some of the challenges. A common challenge is the lack of good governance at all levels. Nairobi (like Kenya) has the necessary legal framework and policies in place. However, implementation and adherence are lacking whether in the charcoal trade or in allocating public green space for buildings. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? 36 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Like many cities in Africa, Nairobi has strong urban-rural linkages as many city residents have land and relatives in their rural home areas and remittances are an important flow from Nairobi to the rural areas. This attribute can help better inform and strengthen the linkages of urban to rural and back. Supplying and securing water is key to maintaining Nairobi yet is its Achilles tendon. Nairobi?s water comes from the Aberdare and Mount Kenya catchments. Yet there appears to be little support for improved catchment land and water management, so that landowners have incentives to conserve for water provisioning to Nairobi. This can be combined with improvements in farming practice to promote conservation. The example of Beijing is something Nairobi could learn from. At present landowners in the catchment do not receive any incentives or PES for water provisioning. Within Nairobi it is clear that much is needed from replacing and repairing old water piping infrastructure to enhanced water provisioning for all residents of the city. Whilst city residents need water to drink, they also need sources of fuel to cook and access to affordable food. Although logging and charcoal production are banned except on private land, Nairobi?s main fuel source is still charcoal. Charcoal production is inefficient as most of the trees come from natural woodlands and forests, and the charcoal trade is mired in corruption and cartels. Thus, Nairobi contributes to deforestation, degradation and unsustainable land use. Good governance is required in the charcoal value chain, from its source, its transport and to its selling, but this is not yet in evidence. Greater efficiencies in the charcoal trade can be made by using smaller branches in production, and in terms of the more efficient charcoal stoves, as the Cookswell Jikos demonstrate. And the Community Cooker has demonstrated a tremendous potential to use ?rubbish? as a source of energy for institutions, thereby saving on trees and helping clean up the city. Whilst some food, especially vegetables and fruit, is grown in urban areas, most of Nairobi?s food is sourced from rural areas 5-100 Km from Nairobi. These value chains for food from source to market could be improved so rural farmers earn a larger share of the income. If farmers have a better understanding of pricing (for example, through mobile phones) at the Nairobi market end, this will support fairer pricing and improve equity at the grower end. The deteriorating health of the Nairobi rivers is acknowledged at all levels of government and by stakeholders. However, fragmented legislation, lack of coordination, a sense of ownership, and enforcement by the authorities obstructs efficient and long-term environmental and urban governance. For example, the deterioration of Nairobi Dam is largely blamed on over 77 sectoral laws and many bodies responsible for regulating and conserving the dam. There has been conflict and duplication of roles leading to ineffective modes of cleaning, conserving, and rehabilitating the dam (University of Nairobi, 2013). Whilst efforts to clean the rivers, provide sewage infrastructure and regenerate the riparian areas have been supported at national, regional, and local levels, these initiatives have largely been carried out in isolation, without sufficient cross-organisational support and funding to create lasting change on a scale that matters. Kenya has a devolved system of governance which consists of the national government and 47 county governments. Under the 2010 Kenyan Constitution, the state is responsible for ensuring sustainable exploitation, utilisation, management and conservation of the environment and natural resources. This is the basis for a durable and sustainable system of development, including, in particular water protection. County governments are mandated to enact legislation relating to solid waste disposal, to plan, develop and implement for the sustainable use of natural resources, and for environmental conservation including water conservation. The Nairobi River and its tributaries are polluted and degraded. As many slum areas are located close to rivers, dumping is uncontrolled. Other cities have cleaned up their rivers and made them attractive. Nairobi can do the same, and there are detailed plans to do this: regenerate the rivers, restore the flood plains, and make land close to the rivers attractive for investment, which will result in clean water flowing out of Nairobi to the Athi river and the Indian ocean. This re-greening and regenerating of Nairobi can be combined with green building technology to make developments energy and water efficient, as well as being cost effective in terms of building costs. Political and government support is key for such re-greening, and this can only be achieved by public-private partnerships and responsible governance. Nairobi used to be well endowed with green areas, but too many parts of these green areas have been grabbed and converted. Public spaces now represent only 12% (which includes streets, parks, squares) of the land in Nairobi. In Barcelona and New York, the figure is close to 50%. Most of these spaces are in danger of being converted in Nairobi. Only Uhuru Park, Jivanjee Gardens and City Park are open to the public free of charge, whilst Nairobi National Park, Arboretum and Karura Forest are less available due to entry fees. The people of Nairobi also need a more comprehensive network of sidewalks to benefit the many. Yet road development is mainly for the few who have vehicles. The great work Nobel Laureate Wangari Maathai did to raise awareness of these green spaces, how she combated corruption and supported improved and more equitable governance are salutary lessons for us all. These green spaces are of central importance for the people of Nairobi: they are the lungs of the city. They are vital for the future of the city and its links with the rural hinterlands. Such green spaces could be termed the ?consciousness? of the city. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 37 For the re-greening of Nairobi to happen and have any real chance of success, awareness and education about waste, nature, urban cleanliness, and sustainability combined with action is needed. Whilst political support for the future of a sustainable and green Nairobi is a requisite, massive private-public efforts are also needed. Corruption needs to be reeled in and transparency be the norm. Unless there is consistent and equitable enforcement of regulations and good governance, any re-greening attempts will be just ?blowing in the wind?. References African Development Bank (1998). Project Completion Report: Third Nairobi Water Supply Project. https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/projects-operations BBC (2009, July 15). Nairobi water ?stolen for farms?. BBC news. Retrieved April 1, 2018 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8144415.stm Behnke R., and D. Muthami (2011). The Contribution of Livestock to the Kenya Economy. IGAD LPI Working Paper no. 03-11. Djibouti. Burohappold Engineering (2018). Inception report for Pre-Analysis Study. Burohappold Engineering, 28p. Cities of the World-Nairobi (2008). Retrieved 25 August 2008 from http://www.city-data.com/world-cities/Nairobi-History.html Community Cooker Foundation (2016). The Community Cooker ? Waste into Clean Energy for Cooking. Planning Systems Nairobi. www.communitycooker.or.ke FAO (2020). The NADHALI project Retrieved April 1, 2018 from http://www.fao.org/in-action/nadhali/en/ Friends of Karura Forest (2020). The Karura Forest Reserve. Retrieved April 5, 2018 from https://www.friendsofkarura.org/the- karura-forest-researve/ Greenway, R. and T. Monsma (1989).Cities: Missions? new frontier. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Hardach, S. (2015). How the River Thames was brought back from the dead. BBC. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151111- how-the-river-thames-was-brought-back-from-the-dead Hoornweg, D. and K. Pope (2014). Socioeconomic Pathways and Regional Distribution of the World?s 101 Largest Cities. Global Cities Institute Working Paper No. 4. Ontario 143p. IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (2013). The Contribution of Livestock to the Kenyan Economy. Policy Brief ICPALD/CLE/8/2013 Jia, L., and L. Emerton (2012). Moving closer to Nature: Lessons for Landscapes and Livelihoods from the Miyun Landscape, China. Gland: IUCN, 2012. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/10156. K24TV (2009). Nairobi water shortage deepens. [video]. Youtube. Retrieved November 11, 2013 from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=DXIj44GAUiM&feature=related Kenya Forestry Services and Camco Advisory Services Kenya (2013): Analysis of Charcoal Value Chain in Kenya, Final Report. Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Nairobi. Kenya Forest Services (2020a). Nairobi Arboretum. Retrieved June 12, 2021 from http://www.kenyaforestservice.org/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=541&Itemid=726 Kenya Forest Services (2020b). Ngong Road Forest. Retrieved June 12, 2021 from http://www.kenyaforestservice.org/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=696:ngong-forest&catid=184:nairobi-forest-stations&Itemid=574 KWS (2020). Nairobi National Park ? the World?s only Wildlife Capital. http://www.kws.go.ke/parks/nairobi-national-park Lee-Smith, D., and H. Knaepen (2017). Food challenges and opportunities in Nairobi. GREAT Insights Magazine, 6(4). https:// ecdpm.org/great-insights/sustainable-food-systems/food-challenges-opportunities-nairobi/ Makworo, M., and C. Mireri (2011). Public open spaces in Nairobi City, Kenya, under threat. J. Environmental Planning and Management, 54(8), 1107?1123. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.549631 Millennium Information Technologies (2020). Retrieved June 12, 2021 from https://web.archive.org/web/20061103152926/http:/ www.millenniumit.com/esp/news_7.php Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Republic of Kenya. (2018). Taskforce Report on Forest Resource Management and Logging Activities in Kenya. Retrieved August 2, 2019 from http://www.environment.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Task-Force- Report.pdf 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Moriasi, D., Steiner, J., Arnold, J., Allen, P., Dunbar, J., Shisanya, C., Gathenya, J., Nyaoro, J., Sang, J. (2007). Fort Cobb Reservoir Watershed, Oklahoma and Thika River Watershed, Kenya twinning pilot project. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, California. 88(52), H21F-0810. Munson, C., Main S., and L. Ritchie (2019). Trip to the Catskills Teaches Students About New York City?s Water Supply. Retrieved January 30, 2020 from https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/11/22/student-trip-nyc-water-supply/ Njaga, N. W. (1998). Karura: Are We Missing the Trees for the Forest? The East African (2nd November). ?Karura: Are We Missing the Trees for the Forest?? Nairobi News (2016). Jeevanjee Gardens: People?s Park gives rest to weary poor. https://nairobinews.nation.co.ke/news/jeevanjee- gardens-peoples-park-gives-rest-weary-poor/ Nature Kenya (2020). Friends of City Park. Retrieved June 10, 2021 from http://naturekenya.org/about/friends-of-city-park/ Oyugi, M., and O. K?Akumu (2007). Land use management challenges for the city of Nairobi.Urban Forum,18(1), 94-113. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF02681232 Planning Systems Services Ltd. (2018). Concept Note and Executive Summary ? Nairobi Rivers Regeneration Project. Nairobi. Responsible Business (2018). Top 6 fastest growing cities in Africa in 2018. http://www.responsiblebusiness.com/news/africas- news/top-6-fastest-growing-cities-africa/ Skytta T., and L. Jean-Francois (1996). Kenya: Development of Housing, Water Supply, and Sanitation in Nairobi World Bank Operations Evaluation Department. Report No. 15586. Urban Green Consultants Africa (2020). Retrieved June 12, 2021 from https://www.ugcafrica.com/ UNDRR (2016). 100 Resilient Cities Project. UNDRR, https://www.undrr.org/publication/100-resilient-cities-project University of Nairobi, Department of Urban and Regional Planning (2013). Effects of Land Use Encroachment on Wetlands: Case Study Nairobi Dam Area. WANLEYS Consultancy Services (2013). Analysis of Demand and Supply of Wood Products in Kenya. Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. http://www.kenyaforestservice.org/documents/redd/Analysis%20of%20Demand%20and%20 Supply%20of%20Wood%20Products%20in%20Kenya.pdf and https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/news/Kenyan-charcoal- sector-finally-gets-the-attention/539546-1187244-y2nw2o/index.html World Factbook: Kenya (2018). https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html Wikipedia (2020a). Nairobi. Retrieved June 12, 2021 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nairobi and http://worldpopulationreview. com/world-cities/nairobi-population/ Wikipedia (2020b). Water Supply and Sanitation in Nairobi. Retrieved June 12, 2021 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_ supply_and_sanitation_in_Nairobi Wikipedia (2020c). Uhuru Park. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhuru_Park World Bank Group (2016). Informal Enterprises in Kenya. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/262361468914023771/ pdf/106986-WP-P151793-PUBLIC-Box.pdf . 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 39 Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe: a case study on the town of Lincoln, Canada Salima Medouar1 and Liette Vasseur2 5 Lincoln, Canada © Liette Vasseur 1 Lead of the Young Professionals Network and Co-chair of the Region of North America for IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Senior Policy Analyst at Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Climate Change, Canada 2 UNESCO Chair on Community Sustainability: From Local to Global, Brock University, Dept. Biological Sciences, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St Catharines, ON L2S3A1 Canada 40 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract Urban-rural fringe planners must often undertake the challenging task of managing growth and development in a way that meets the needs of various local actors and maintains the ecological integrity of the region. This research paper employs a scoping review of the literature and relevant policy plans and news articles to understand the challenges to urban-rural fringe planning for ecosystem governance. This is done through a case study of the Town of Lincoln an urban-rural community facing expansion pressures in Southern Ontario. The aim of this paper is to underline urban-rural fringe conflicts and how municipalities have mediated for these. Central governments benefit from partnerships that aim at improving environmental stewardship and the livelihoods of local people. Ecosystem governance is proposed as a means for achieving sustainability within these often described as entrenched spaces. Introduction The urban-rural fringe is often described as an area of transition located at the edge of an urban centre or a residential division, where conflicts over land-use change may occur depending on the needs and development prospects of the urban area (Cash, 2014; Hiner, 2015; Weaver & Lawton, 2001). The urban-rural fringe concept made its earliest appearance in the United Kingdom during the 1930s in planning as concerns over protecting agricultural land grew (Cash, 2014; Gant, Robinson, & Fazal, 2011; Lloyd & Peel, 2007; Tang, Wong, & Lee, 2007). These concerns stem from an often-unanticipated rapid population growth, which in turn creates increasing demands for housing development and services essential for thriving urban centres (Tang et al., 2007). Limiting urban sprawl and protecting natural resources have since been important components of urban-rural fringe planning. This can become a challenge and lead to conflicts when there also are needs to protect rural areas for agricultural production and maintain the biodiversity of the area. Within the rural side, there can be varying interests, ?farmers traditionally value the agricultural way of life whilst non-farming rural country residents seem more likely to establish their place attachments and community expectations based on natural amenities? (Mason- Renton et al., 2016, p. 23). This creates clashing viewpoints on how to use the land in an urban-rural fringe as well as the desirable qualities to maintain in land use planning. Urban-rural fringe planning is an important subject of research for achieving sustainability by improving the health of both rural and urban communities in a municipality, its environment and fostering green growth. In this major research paper, I explore the main issues that are considered in residential development at the urban-rural fringe and examine the potential strategies that can be used to reduce conflicts and enhance the sustainability of the social-ecological system through an ecosystem governance lens. Issues related to growth in urban rural fringe The Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (OMMAH) in the 2017 growth plan has expressed concern over loss of biodiversity and contamination of natural resources as a result of population growth. The Ontario provincial government has provided planning documents and policies that give direction for municipalities to guide development in the region and to protect sensitive areas. Municipal governments have over the years gained greater responsibility over managing development in their communities (Fullerton, 2015). This is exceptionally challenging for predominantly rural communities who ?have often also reduced the number of staff whose mandate is to serve as rural development facilitators? (Fullerton, 2015, p. 57). Municipalities must consider managing land-use changes such that it meets the needs of local actors without harming the environment. Ecosystem degradation is often the result of ?social and economic forces, for instance, population pressure, urbanisation and over exploitation of natural resources? (Pirot, Meynell, & Elder, 2000, p. 43). Pirot, Meynell, & Elder (2000) explain that ?people have dramatically changed ecosystems, usually by transforming the patterns of vegetation and fauna across landscapes? through industrialisation, pollution, intensive agriculture, dam construction, and the canalization of river systems? (p. 31). For instance, in Boundary Bay, British Columbia, run-off from agriculture and sewage lead to the ?closure of oyster harvesting in 1962? as it had affected water quality (Boyle & Nichol, 2018, p. 46). Biodiversity conservation efforts contribute to maintaining ecosystem health, which preserves valuable processes that societies depend on and assist cities in adapting to climate and environmental changes (Díaz, Fargione, Chapin, & Tilman, 2006). This helps protect populations from natural dangers such as flooding, drought, storms, and landslides (Díaz et al., 2006). Moreover, the natural environment is important for contributing to the sense of place in communities and are an important part in making them unique spaces to visit (Andersson et al., 2014; Daniels & Lapping, 2005). For example, green spaces can be used for recreational and cultural practices. To protect and maintain natural habitats, conservation efforts are necessary in these urban-rural fringe areas. Another concern is protecting the lifestyle of the community in the face of increased land-use changes for development needs. Varying interests in the urban-rural fringe can create conflicts among constituents as municipalities comprising of both rural and urban areas debate how to spend their limited budget. Lyon (1983) posits that the urban rural fringe ?features competitive urban and rural land uses: agriculture, rural non-farm residences, hobby farms, recreation sites, mobile-home parks, aggregate and quarry mineral operations, towns and villages, and other land uses? (Lyon, 1983, p. 8). Development pressures in the area may also create resentment within the community from what Weaver & Lawton (2001) describe as an ?urban invasion? (p. 411). Residents may fear losing their culture and way of life that make their community unique due to some of the development pressures. Development often 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 41 attracts more tourism and increases the number of parking lots, malls, and other infrastructures. This may bring noise pollution, congestion, and more compact building designs. As a result, predominantly rural communities have shown political will and action against external forces that impact their livelihoods (Mason-Renton et al., 2016; Walker et al., 2018). Concepts of growth management Pressures for development have the potential to cause significant changes in the way of life of local people as well as the environment they rely on. Planners have over the years developed various growth management strategies to help prevent degradation, direct growth and preserve the environment. Growth management for sustainability refers to any proactive rather than reactive method of managing growth (Perveen, Kamruzzaman, & Yigitcanlar, 2017). Growth management is defined by Hare (2001) as ?a dynamic process for anticipating and accommodating development needs that balances competing community building goals and coordinates local with regional-scale interests? (p. ii). Sustainability science and urban planning have researched strategies to tackle the complex systems of growth management in the face of environmental, political, and social challenges for sustainable development. ?Traditionally, master plans, land use allocation, and functional zoning were used as the main tools for urban growth management? (Perveen, Kamruzzaman, & Yigitcanlar, 2017, p. 2). For instance, planners have developed a combination of scenario-based planning and ?urban growth models to simulate alternative urban growth scenarios and to assess their impacts? (Perveen et al., 2017, p. 2). These models help explore possible outcomes from development processes by evaluating the extent to which natural areas will be affected by development and possible growth prospects whilst also identifying areas of uncertainty (Perveen et al., 2017). Careful planning strategies like scenario-based planning are valuable methods in monitoring the potential environmental impacts. When investigating urban-rural fringe planning, ecosystem governance should be strongly considered in order to reduce conflicts between both social-ecological systems as it promotes a collaborative framework and knowledge sharing (Altinbilek et al., 2007). Ecosystem governance is defined by the International Union for Conservation and Nature as ?the means by which society determines and acts on goals and priorities related to the management of natural resources, ... [including] ? the rules, both formal and informal, that govern human behaviour in decision-making processes as well as the decisions themselves? (IUCN, 2018). Whilst growth management and ecosystem governance have been subject of some studies across the globe, there is still a need to examine how these concepts can be used when looking at urban expansion and rural protection at the urban-rural fringe. The case study of the Town of Lincoln is interesting as it relates to how Ontario observes its population growth, especially in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Growth in southern Ontario and the town of Lincoln According to the 2017 Growth Outlook report, forecast show a drastic population growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe to 13.5 million people by the year 2041, which will greatly affect municipalities, land use and infrastructure (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2017). Currently approximately 25% of Canada?s population resides in the Greater Golden Horseshoe and is projected to increase in the upcoming years (Greenbelt, 2017b). This will put more pressure on municipalities like the Town of Lincoln in southern Ontario to expand their urban boundaries into rural areas to accommodate this increase. The Town of Lincoln is a young municipality in Southern Ontario established in 1970 from the amalgamation of the former municipalities of the Town of Beamsville, Township of Clinton, and part of the Township of Louth (Town of Lincoln, 2018a). Settled in the heart of the Niagara region and Greenbelt, it produces a variety of goods, services, cultural and heritage sites. As expressed in the Town of Lincoln (2017) official plan, the town ?is comprised of rural lands, the majority of which are under agricultural production, surrounding small towns with fixed urban boundaries? (p. 10). Being located within the Greenbelt, the Town of Lincoln cannot expand its current urban boundaries (Town of Lincoln, 2018b). The municipality?s vision ?is to be a centre of Excellence for Agriculture? and their focus is on managing and protecting agricultural development as part of ?the natural heritage system? (Town of Lincoln, 2017, p.1). The mild climate allows for agriculture to produce specialty crops such as orchards, vineyards, wineries, fresh fruit and vegetables which also contributes to maintaining a ?healthy hydrological function, air quality and wildlife habitat? (Town of Lincoln, 2017, p.1). In consulting with its citizens, the Town of Lincoln Official plan (2017) states that qualities valued in the community tend to be related to the environmental landscape and ?the small-town character, diversity in choices of housing, employment and services, the vibrant culture and being part of a regional community that has tremendous social and economic opportunity? (p.1). In addition, the municipality is near a large urban centre (Toronto) and some famous attractions, such as Niagara Falls which brings millions of tourists year-round (Niagara Falls, 2018). Being one of the ?fourth fastest growing? townships in the Niagara region, the town faces great development pressures (Town of Lincoln, 2018c). The town currently has a population of almost 24,000 residents (Town of Lincoln, 2017). Its regional growth plan forecasts a population growth of approximately 4,783 in the next 20 years (Town of Lincoln, 2017). Maps of the Town show pockets of urban development within a web of agricultural and natural lands. There is a need to accommodate future residents, necessitating strategies for attaining a sustainable vision. Indeed, the Town of Lincoln?s vision is to create a ?vibrant Greenbelt community?, managing urban and rural land use for the betterment of the community and the environment they depend on (Town of Lincoln, 2017). 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe 42 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective The town of Lincoln consultation and expression of conflicts The town of Lincoln is expecting a large population growth in the coming years which ?will precipitate the need for approximately 2,110 new dwelling units? (Town of Lincoln, 2017, p. 9). Moreover, development trends evaluated in the Development Charges Background study reveal that residential housing units will be mixed of ?approximately 29% low density (single detached and semi-detached), 38% medium density (multiples except apartments) and 33% high density (bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2+ bedroom apartments)? (Watson & Associates Economists LTD., 2018, p. 21). Most of these housing needs is anticipated to be developed in ?Beamsville urban area (65%), the remaining urban area (26%) and rural (9%)? (Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2018, p.21). The official plan also states that in terms of employment, ?the agricultural sector experienced considerable growth between 2001 and 2012? (Town of Lincoln, 2017, p. 10). The town of Lincoln census data show that it currently has mostly single-detached housing types (Statistics Canada, 2017). The Town of Lincoln (2017) official plan states that they will be able to meet their target for accommodating ?approximately 900 new units? within built up areas in the next 15 years (p. 13). In addition, the Town of Lincoln as shown in the Development Charges Background Study ?maintains 309km of urban and rural roads? and will likely increase in the coming years (Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2018, p. 51). A list of concepts such as fixed ?urban area boundaries?, ?built-up areas?, ?greenfield areas?, and the intensification and redevelopment of existing urban areas are shared in the official plan to improve land use management based on provincial and regional plans (Town of Lincoln, 2017). To avoid aggravating sprawl and growth conflicts, the official plan outlines their goal to direct residential development in ?areas where full municipal services and other community facilities exist? as well as employing intensification strategies near their ?central business districts? (Town of Lincoln, 2017, p. 6). In line with this strategy for directing growth and economic development, the town has instilled a Community Improvement Plan aimed at revitalizing ?private sector investment and building rehabilitation and development? (Town of Lincoln, 2018d). Three spots were approved under this plan: ?the CIP for the Vineland Central Business District, the CIP for the Beamsville Central Business District and the Ontario Street Commercial Area, and the Mixed Use and Residential Intensification CIP? (Town of Lincoln, 2018d). Further attempts to encourage economic growth and invigorate development in designated areas are directed by six economic growth guiding principles that support business and other related endeavours (Town of Lincoln, 2018e). In terms of preserving the community values and its agricultural character, the municipality expresses its intent to avoid fragmentation, degradation, and improper land use of prime agricultural areas through proactive land use policies supported by regional and provincial policy plans (Town of Lincoln, 2017). These documents acknowledge that the land is a finite resource of significant value to the character of the town for its benefits to economic development, the cultural and natural heritage. As an urban-rural town with budget constraints and fixed boundaries, supplying necessary services and maintaining existing infrastructure will be challenging. The type of infrastructures includes those ?for waste disposal, aggregate extraction, cemeteries, power corridors and community services? (Horner, 2014, p. 4). One problem will be the heightened congestion of roads and stress put on existing infrastructure due to increased population growth. For instance, Lincoln (2018b) posits that ?the Wine Route alone is in need of repair? and that investment in these infrastructures ?is critical, but unaffordable for the Town and its residents?. Likewise, the Golden Horseshoe Agriculture and Agri-Food Strategy Food & Farming: An Action Plan 2021 shares a similar concern for congestion and the impact this will have on ?efficient movement of goods and the cost of transportation? (Walton, 2012, p. 2). Because the Town is located in the Greenbelt and has fixed urban boundaries, this also restricts the potential tax-base for supplying such infrastructure and service needs, making high development residential areas an attractive endeavour (Town of Lincoln, 2018b). As expressed in the Development Charges Background Study ?Town capital funding sources need to be obtained in order to help ensure that the necessary infrastructure and amenities are installed? (Watson & Associates Economists LTD., 2018, p. 81). This will be important to maintain services and accommodate for growth in the area. The town of Lincoln relies on provincial and regional policies and recommendations to be more sustainable and maintain a healthy agricultural community. Rural urban fringe challenges in the media As development pressures increase in previously predominantly rural areas moving towards urban-rural fringe, there can be opposition to land-use changes and practices. Some of the complaints from urban residents may come from agricultural practices which sometimes release unpleasant odours and noises. For example, farmers have to ?install noise makers? meant to scare off birds from their crops which can cause a disturbance to neighbours, whilst agricultural run-off is another concern (Jayasinghe-Mudalige et al., 2005). With the various needs and worries of the community, municipalities must understand how to balance these interests to provide services appropriate to different groups of people. Walker et al. (2018) report that respondents feel that ?rural areas are being used to absorb the demands and problems of urban centres? as they protest techno-industrial developments in their neighbourhoods (p. 117). These sentiments are aggravated by recent school closures in rural areas across Canada. In the Niagara Region, the District School Board of Niagara has begun closing schools in predominantly rural areas due to ?low enrolment figures? and limited budget and source of funding (Gollom, 2017). Likewise, in Prince Edward Island local people have been distraught by plans to remove rural schools (Yarr, 2017). Whilst recommendations 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 43 are underway to close the selected primarily rural schools, many people show concerns over maintaining the lifestyle of rural communities and their interests (Yarr, 2017). CBC News reports the sentiments of the president of Georgetown Elementary Home and School Association, ?It kind of feels as though the rural areas are being attacked, and we?re being closed down so that the urban schools can prosper which really isn?t fair to our children?s education? (Yarr, 2017). Closing schools has not only an impact on the sense of place felt by the residents but also the economic viability of the area. Potential homeowners will give precedence to an area closer to a school and will thus be less likely to reside in these rural areas (Yarr, 2017). Mason-Renton et al. (2016) find that members? attachment to sense of place play a role in the varying responses towards development and land use changes, reflecting the multiple divergent expectations and concerns within the community that create conflicts. The varying interests and conflicts that emerge can be seen as exceptionally detrimental to the community as concerns are heightened and groups are felt their needs are left out of land use changes. Some residents can feel the effect of such social conflicts to be ?so bad as to stigmatize the community, whether imagined as harmoniously pastoral or agricultural? (Mason-Renton et al., 2016, p. 37). For example, Walker et al. (2018) report residents? reactions to development pressures in the rural communities of Southgate township, Port Burwell and Clear Creek that are close to operational wind turbines and a biosolids fertilizer processing facility. Walker et al. (2018) argue that ?differing priorities lead to community conflict and strife? reflecting what respondents had described as ?changing the socio-cultural nature of their community? (p. 117). Attachment sentiments to the area and varying expectations for land use plays a role in the intra-conflicts that one may find in urban-rural contexts. These concerns reflect the importance of understanding the clashing sentiments of urban and rural communities in municipal planning as predominantly rural areas face land use pressures and look to collaborative solutions to socio-economic and environmental problems. Policy review Governments have the potential to shape a community by developing strategies to support the health and livelihoods of people and nature. Supporting conservation and development must be balanced to ensure the viability of the natural area and secures economic prosperity to meet the needs of the community. The Province of Ontario acknowledges that with increasing economic activities in the Greater Toronto Area, there is a need to continue supporting housing and community development whilst at the same time protecting lands for biodiversity and agricultural practices. Certainly, ?Ontario?s agricultural industry remains the most diverse and productive in Canada? ranking 4th in total area of farmland by province? which makes agricultural protection an important factor in planning (Lauzon et al., 2015, p. 41). The province has adopted a number of land use planning policies for this purpose. Major policies include the ?2005 provincial policy statement regarding land use planning, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Greenbelt, the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Greater Golden Horseshoe Plan? (Donnan, 2008, p. 2). The majority of these planning policies have been developed through public consultations and reflect the ability of a ?multi-actor network, including government, the environmental movement, and the private sector? to work towards providing ?significant environmental protection through collaborative efforts? (Whitelaw, 2007, p. 682). The following paragraphs discuss these policies further, their implementation and relation to the town of Lincoln for urban-rural fringe areas as the municipality employs regional and provincial strategies. The provincial policy statement for land-use planning provides direction for how development should be planned and was made to better mirror the condition of various communities in rural Ontario (OMMAH, 2014). Relevant to this study is the particular interest of the policy statement to undertake a preventative method in planning to reduce or avoid some of the negative impacts of development on land such as ?odour, noise and other contaminants? (OMMAH, 2014, p. 13). The overall aim is to protect ?resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment? (OMMAH, 2014, p.1). In terms of suburban development, the OMMAH (2014) encourages recurrently throughout this policy statement ?efficient development patterns?, mixed housing and land-use in appropriate growth areas as well as conservation (p. 4). The policy statement asks of municipalities to ?accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 10 years through residential intensification and redevelopment? ensuring that such land can sustain ?at least a three-year supply of residential units available through lands suitably zoned? (OMMAH, 2014, p. 14). The main focus is on developing already existing residential areas and improving their infrastructure. As for the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan initiated in 2002, it validates the escarpment and moraine covering 160 km of Southern Ontario?s natural heritage as an important structure unique to the region which contributes to its health and liveability (OMMAH, 2002). This plan comes at a time when people advocated for more stringent planning to protect the moraine natural heritage and biodiversity conservation (Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007). The plan recognises that the Moraine faces strong development pressures for various touristic, recreational and economic uses necessitating a preventative strategy to protect the valuable ecosystems and resources from such effects (OMMAH, 2002). As part of the plan?s land management strategies, four types of land use designations are presented: natural core areas, natural linkage areas, countryside areas, and settlement areas representing the smallest portion (8%) of designated land use (OMMAH, 2002; Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007). Niagara?s Escarpment plan in conjunction with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation plan and Greenbelt plan offer greater conservation in terms of land use planning following the Growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, to direct how development will accommodate growth trends and secure prime agricultural land and natural resources (Niagara Escarpment Commission, 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe 44 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective 2017). In 1990, the Niagara escarpment was recognised for being an ?internationally significant landform? when it was designated as a Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (Niagara Escarpment Commission, 2017, p. 1). The plan covers 725km of land providing a breadth of ecological and natural resources, cultural heritage, and contribute to providing the Niagara region population health and quality of life benefits (Niagara Escarpment Commission, 2017). The Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) provides seven land use designations: ?Escarpment Natural Area, Escarpment Protection Area, Escarpment Rural Area, Minor Urban Centre, Urban Area, Escarpment Recreation Area, Mineral Resource Extraction Area? (p. 11). In 2005, the province decided to adopt the Greenbelt concept (OMMAH, 2017). The Greenbelt has often been used to deal with land- use challenges caused by development pressures. They must reconcile demands for recreational activities, development needs, and safeguard the area?s biodiversity (Fung & Conway, 2007; Lloyd & Peel, 2007; Pond, 2009; Siedentop, Fina, & Krehl, 2016; Lloyd & Peel, 2007). The Greenbelt plan in southern Ontario assumes such an endeavor, covering approximately 8,000 square kilometres of land making it one of the largest of its kind (Greenbelt, 2017a). The Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (2017) explains how the Greenbelt Plan along with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan, work together with the Growth Plan to deal with urban sprawl and protect the environment. Among other benefits are the protection of natural resources such as ensuring clean water, and other critically important ecosystem services (Greenbelt, 2017a). The Greater Golden Horseshoe plan was initiated in 2006 as an addition to other land use management strategies that tackle development and conservation needs in Ontario (OMMAH, 2017). It explains the desired trajectory of the GGH to safeguard the natural heritage whilst striving for economic development (OMMAH, 2017). The plan describes some foreseeable challenges from growth trends that justify the need for greater planning strategies such as ?increased demand for infrastructure investments?, the need for community designs offering a ?mix of housing options? and amenities, ?increased traffic congestion?, degradation of natural and ?cultural heritage resources?, the need to protect the ?finite supply of quality agricultural lands that feed the region?, climate change impact on communities and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (OMMAH, 2017, p. 3). The plan along with other acting land use management plans has for aim to foster ?complete communities, a thriving economy, a clean and healthy environment, and social equity? (OMMAH, 2017, p. 3). Over the course of the implementation of these regional and provincial land use planning policies, researchers and various stakeholders have presented a number of appraisals, benefits and criticisms for how the plans deal with conflicts faced by communities in Ontario as well as their ability to maintain the ecological viability of the area. Plans such as the Moraine and Greenbelt were unique at the time for protecting land and limiting development on private land whilst also being important for expressing the value of such areas to different groups of people (Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007). This type of planning for ?ecological corridors? was an important policy to prevent further degradation of ecosystems and ?fragmented pockets of natural habitat, which are isolated from each other and can no longer function together as an ecosystem? (Pirot, Meynell, & Elder, 2000, p. 26). However, Fung & Conway (2007) describe the Oak Ridges Moraine plan and Greenbelt plan to be limited in having fixed boundaries as they could benefit from ?future modifications of the boundary due to new findings on the geographical extent of the moraine? and Greenbelt that may further improve conservation efforts (p. 107). In addition, there is a concern that development can still occur on these lands due to ?inconsistent policies? (Fung & Conway, 2007, p. 107). Some areas of the plan are ?flexible? in permitting some forms of development if shown to be necessary through a ?comprehensive growth management study? (Fung & Conway, 2007, p. 107). For instance, Fung & Conway (2007) assert that municipalities near Toronto with ?developers who are seeking to build new subdivisions in the eastern section will increasingly be able to ?demonstrate? the need for new residential development? as growth needs place more pressure on municipalities to extend development (p. 107). Another concern voiced by Fung & Conway (2017) is ?that it encourages developers to ?leapfrog? the moraine to the north, where there is more land and potentially lower prices? (p. 109). Protecting and restricting development on privately owned land may be an important planning tool employed by the province to preserve prime agricultural and sensitive lands, but it also creates issues for farmers and other residents who are unhappy with the restriction to develop on these lands (Pond, 2009). In addition to this sentiment is the feeling shared by the ?Golden Horseshoe Agriculture and Agri-Food Strategy Food & Farming: An Action Plan 2021? that these provincial policy plans neglect the interests of farmers (Walton, 2012). In reaction to this a group of actors and stakeholders have collaboratively worked to conceptualize shared concerns and challenges faced by farmers in the region and identify opportunities to not only protect agricultural land but ensure that this is supported and continues to grow (Walton, 2012). This effort has resulted in ?a strategy and action plan to support food and farming across the Golden Horseshoe and in the Holland Marsh? (Walton, 2012, p. 3). Growth development strategies in Lincoln Provincial planning policies provide direction on where to allow development as well as some guidance for improving the quality of life, equity, and sustainability of various areas. Some of the main and recurrent strategies provided through these documents 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 45 are: smart growth principles, intensification, compact community design, and slow urban expansion. The plans acknowledge that municipalities will have challenges due to limited budget for achieving the goals set out by the region and province. Smart growth and new urbanism principles have emerged as a way to manage growth, limit sprawl and deal with some of the urban-rural planning conflicts (Daniels & Lapping, 2005; Emerine, Shenot, Bailey, Sobel, & Susman, 2006; Godschalk, 2004; Hare, 2001; Jepson & Edwards, 2010; Kim & Larsen, 2017; Tomalty & Alexander, 2005). The wish to balance sustainability, economic development and protection of natural areas can consider among many things the notion of livable communities. Godschalk (2004) explains that this notion often falls under two concepts: New Urbanism and Smart Growth. As recommended by the province, the Town of Lincoln is considering smart growth principles to deal with land use conflicts and development pressures (Town of Lincoln, 2017). Smart Growth has been advocated for tackling issues of social sustainability as well as environmental protection through a set of guiding principles: ?mix land uses; take advantage of compact building design; create a range of housing opportunities and choices; create walkable neighbourhoods; foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place; preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas; strengthen and direct development towards existing communities; provide a variety of transportation choices; make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective; encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions? (Emerine et al., 2006, p. 1). Moreover, New Urbanism employs a ?citizen-based participatory planning and design? to address the social and economic implications of design decisions? (Godschalk, 2004, p. 6). The focus of such a concept is on equity and quality of life through improved ?housing affordability and social equity, two frequently cited expected outcomes of new urbanism projects? (Kim & Larsen, 2017, p. 2844). Whilst the concept has been valued for its concern for social aspects of sustainability, Godschalk (2004) criticizes it for not considering environmental implications and ignoring ?some important internal value conflicts? in land use planning (p. 7). Moreover, Kim & Larzen (2017) through an evaluation of the New Urbanism concept applied in an Orlando city neighbourhood named Parramore, explain that in order to achieve the social sustainability promoted by the charter, ?public sector intervention and support? as well as publicly funded affordable housing and community development programs? are more effective (p. 3,859). Principles voiced by Sustainability, New urbanism and Smart Growth proponents are all beneficial in that they aim at directing growth in a way that fosters responsible management of natural resources, land, and improving the quality of life of people. These methods will likely continue to be used and bring benefits to community planning efforts, however ?metropolitan development plans require continuous conflict resolution and consensus building to maintain the problematic relationships within the ecology of plans? (Godschalk, 2004, p. 12). Continuous research and evaluations of the implementation of such concepts will greatly help in understanding the gaps in achieving the objectives of the municipal and provincial plans who utilize these strategies. Open dialogue to discuss future projects is also encouraged to achieve sustainability and can be done using ecosystem governance as a framework. Discussion The term urban-rural fringe has had ?negative connotations? as a result of the complexity of challenges and actors that engage in urban-rural fringe planning (Cash, 2014, p. 128). In this case ?decision-makers need to be multi-tasking the coordination of local preferences, contexts and stakeholder initiatives horizontally across sectors whilst concurrently addressing vertical integration of decision making across spatial scales? (Scott et al., 2013, p. 40). Due to the complexity of social-ecological systems (SES), communities? benefit from taking an ecosystem governance approach for the following reasons. To begin, environmental management has taken precedence in planning as there is a greater acknowledgement that ecosystems are an invaluable component of SES for sustaining life and mitigating for climate change (Boyle & Nichol, 2018). Ecosystems are important to human populations and are directly in line with the concept of social-ecological system where humans and all other components of the environment are intricately connected. Investing in the protection and maintenance of ecosystems is thus good planning as it is beneficial for the long-term health benefits these offer (Adhikari & Baral, 2018; Boyle & Nichol, 2018). However, the importance of maintaining ecosystem health has been hard to conceptualize and communicate in local governance as municipalities try to justify spending on ?green infrastructure? for the benefit of ecosystem health which is often ?difficult to quantify compared to manmade infrastructure such as pipes and seawalls? (Boyle & Nichol, 2018, p. 18). Moreover, although human populations are ?an integral part of ecosystems? many find it difficult to identify with concepts of ecosystem processes? (Pirot et al., 2000, p. 29). Seeing people as separate from such processes adds to the challenge of expressing the importance of ecosystem governance and contributes to this ?development conflict? whereby different needs are competing. Quantifying the value of ecosystem services through policy design is a recent endeavor to assist in communicating their benefits in a way that can be measured and appraised (Frantzeskaki & Tilie, 2014). Properly communicating how protecting ecosystems function in local governance is important for community cohesion as well as encouraging greater involvement in environmental stewardship. Additionally, management practices have often taken a ?reductionist approach?? in looking at preserving a few facets of the environment without considering the full extent and ?interconnections? of such ecosystems (Vasseur et al., 2017, p. 734). Ecosystem governance provides a more holistic approach by looking to promote innovative solutions to socioeconomic, cultural and environmental problems 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe 46 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective faced by various communities through greater integration and collaboration. This is important in the context of urban-rural fringe planning as development needs put pressure on land which can be deemed a finite resource requiring careful management strategies. Ecosystem governance encapsulates a participatory framework that would benefit communities by enticing greater collaboration and integration whilst also highlighting the importance of ecosystems for preserving human and other life (Vasseur et al., 2017). In such a perspective, ecosystems are valued as the foundation of the system rather than an aspect of planning that requires being balanced along with social and economic development (Vasseur et al., 2017). Ecosystem governance is also beneficial in being flexible and promoting a collaborative participatory approach, which has been favoured by many researchers in urban-rural fringe and environmental planning (Altinbilek et al., 2007; Cash, 2014; Frantzeskaki & Tilie, 2014; Gulsrud, Hertzog, & Shears, 2018; Haysom, 2015; Hiner, 2015; Pirot et al., 2000; Vasseur et al., 2017; Wamsler, 2015). It especially encourages a bottom-up approach in managing resources (Pirot et al., 2000). This serves multiple functions by sharing knowledge among a wider audience and expressing the importance of such frameworks for better governance. Everyone collectively holds a shared responsibility in the proper governance of ecosystems as they are an essential part of them, and as such have the potential to make such endeavors a great success or failure (Pirot et al., 2000). Fostering local community participation ensures interest in environmental planning and encourages stewardship such that these practices can be maintained long-term. The Town of Lincoln followed such principles for the recent development of what is called ?The Prud?homme Development? where a series of citizen-based participatory planning was completed and where environmental considerations are seriously being taken, especially along the shore of Lake Ontario. Conclusion This paper demonstrates the complexity of urban rural fringe planning and the need for further strategies that foster collaboration and environmental planning and encourage foresight to limit unsustainable development practices. It is likely that the clashing sentiments felt by residents in the urban-rural fringe will continue as conflicts over land-use is unavoidable when there are many groups holding different interests and complex social dynamics. Decisions over land use changes will often favour one groups interests and thus create conflicts. However, Mason-Renton et al. (2016) explain how these sentiments and conflicts can be detrimental to community cohesion as people feel annexed in their community. Collaborative participatory frameworks under ecosystem governance fosters greater community involvement which can help in mediating conflicts. Moreover, opportunities exist for collaboration in environmental management whilst engaging some of the social conflicts expressed in this report. Communities have assets in the form of organisations and people such as universities that can contribute greatly to environmental management efforts. Involving local organisations and people provides opportunities for knowledge sharing and partnerships that are both beneficial to the community and the university that wishes to put into practice their skills (Fullerton, 2015). This sort of endeavor is undertaken in the Town of Lincoln through the Brock-Lincoln Living Lab initiative which is both an opportunity for experiential education and a way to operationalize this experience for the benefit of the municipality of Lincoln by providing research specific to their needs and challenges (Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, 2018). Place-based approaches should help in identifying collaborations that will benefit communities under the ecosystem governance approach and assist the municipality of Lincoln reach their goals as well as some objectives provided by the provincial government. References Altinbilek, D., Gopalakrishnan, C., Lundqvist, J., Pres, A., Turton, A., Varis, O., ? Ashton, P. J. (2007). Towards a Model for Ecosystem Governance: An Integrated Water Resource Management Example. In Governance as a Trialogue: Government- Society-Science in Transition (pp. 1?28). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-46266-8 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 Boyle, C., & Nichol, E. (2018). Low Carbon Resilience and Transboundary Municipal Ecosystem Governance: A case study of Still Creek. Cash, C. (2014). Towards Achieving Resilience at the Rural-Urban Fringe: The Case of Jamestown, South Africa. Urban Forum, 25(1), 125?141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-013-9204-2 Daniels, T., & Lapping, M. (2005). Land preservation: An essential ingredient in smart growth. Journal of Planning Literature, 19(3), 316?329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412204271379 Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin, F. S., & Tilman, D. (2006). Biodiversity loss threatens human wellbeing. PLoS Biology, 4(8), 1300? 1305. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Donnan, J. a. (2008). Economic Implications and Consequences of Population Growth, Land Use Trends and Urban Sprawl in Southern Ontario. Services, Environmental Economics Hill, West, (June). Retrieved from Index of /en/content/reporttopics/envreports/env08 (auditor.on.ca) Emerine, D., Shenot, C., Bailey, M. K., Sobel, L., & Susman, M. (2006). This Is Smart Growth, 32. Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=792715 Environmental Sustainability Research Center. (2018). Brock Lincoln Living Lab. Retrieved from Brock University: https://brocku.ca/esrc/brock-lincoln-living-lab/ Frantzeskaki, N., & Tilie, N. (2014). The dynamics of Urban ecosystem governance in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ambio, 43(4), 542?555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0512-0 Fullerton, C. (2015). University-Community Partnerships as a Pathway to Rural Development : Benefits of an Ontario Land Use Planning Project. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 10(1), 56?71. Fung, F., & Conway, T. (2007). Greenbelts as an Environmental Planning Tool : A Case Study of Southern Ontario , Canada. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(2), 101?117. Gant, R. L., Robinson, G. M., & Fazal, S. (2011). Land-use change in the ?edgelands?: Policies and pressures in London?s rural- urban fringe. Land Use Policy, 28(1), 266?279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.007 Godschalk, D. R. (2004). Land Use Planning Challenges. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 5?13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360408976334 Gollom, M. (2017). How rural school closures are ?ripping the heart out of the community?. Retrieved from CBC News: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rural-school-closures-1.4157059 Greenbelt. (2017a). The GreenBelt EST 2005. Retrieved from http://www.greenbelt.ca/about_the_greenbelt. Greenbelt. (2017b). Global Cities: Housing Prices in Major Urban Centres, one in a series. Housing Affordability in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Retrieved from: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/greenbelt/pages/3064/attachments/ original/1488831799/Housing_Reports_1_Final.pdf?1488831799 Gulsrud, N. M., Hertzog, K., & Shears, I. (2018). Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne?: Investigating ?green placemaking? as a nature-based solution. Environmental Research, 161(November 2017), 158158?167167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.005 Hare, M. (2001). Exploring growth management roles in Ontario: learning from ?who does what? elsewhere. Haysom, G. (2015). Food and the City: Urban Scale Food System Governance. Urban Forum, 26(3), 263?281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-015-9255-7 Hiner, C. C. (2015). (False) Dichotomies, political ideologies, and preferences for environmental management along the rural-urban interface in Calaveras County, California. Applied Geography, 65, 13?27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.10.001 IUCN. (2018). Ecosystem Governance. Retrieved from https://www.iucn.org/commissions/commission-ecosystem-management/ ourwork/cems-thematic-groups/ecosystem-governance Jayasinghe-mudalige, B. U., Weersink, A., Deaton, B., Beaulieu, M., & Trant, M. (2005). The urban-rural clash: Environmental management systems on Canadian farms, (21). Jepson, E. J., & Edwards, M. M. (2010). How possible is sustainable urban development? An analysis of planners? perceptions about new urbanism, smart growth and the ecological city. Planning Practice and Research, 25(4), 417?437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010.511016 Kim, J., & Larsen, K. (2017). Can new urbanism infill development contribute to social sustainability? The case of Orlando, Florida. Urban Studies, 54(16), 3843?3862. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016670557 Lauzon, A., Ragetlie, N., Caldwell, W., & Douglas, D. (2015). State of rural Canada report: Ontario. Lloyd, M. G., & Peel, D. (2007). Green belts in Scotland: Towards the modernisation of a traditional concept? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(5), 639?656. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560701475220 Lyon, D. (1983). The Development of the Urban-Rural Fringe: A Literature Review, (3). Mason-renton, S. A., Luginaah, I., & Baxter, J. (2016). The Community Divide is more Detrimental than the Plant Itself: Confrontational Stigma and Community Responses to Rural Facility Siting. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 11(2), 22?44. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2002). Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 73. 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2014). Provincial Policy Statement, 56. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2017). Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017), 1?120. Niagara Escarpment Commission. (2017). Niagara Escarpment Plan. Niagara Falls. (2018). Niagara Falls Facts. Retrieved from Niagara Falls: https://niagarafalls.ca/living/about-niagara-falls/facts.aspx Perveen, S., Kamruzzaman, M., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2017). Developing policy scenarios for sustainable urban growth management: A Delphi approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101787 Pirot, J. -y., Meynell, P. J., & Elder, D. (2000). Ecosystem Management: Lessons from around the World. A guide for Development and Conservation Practitioners. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Pond, D. (2009). Ontario?s Greenbelt: Growth Management, Farmland Protection, and Regime Change in Southern Ontario, 35(4). Scott, A. J., Carter, C., Reed, M. R., Larkham, P., Adams, D., Morton, N., ? Coles, R. (2013). Disintegrated development at the rural ? urban fringe: Re-connecting spatial planning theory and practice. Progress in Planning, 83, 1?52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2012.09.001 Siedentop, S., Fina, S., & Krehl, A. (2016). Greenbelts in Germany?s regional plans ? An effective growth management policy? Landscape and Urban Planning, 145, 71?82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.09.002 Statistics Canada. (2017). Census Profile, 2016 Census. Retrieved from Statistics Canada: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E Tang, B. sin, Wong, S. wai, & Lee, A. K. wah. (2007). Green belt in a compact city: A zone for conservation or transition? Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(3?4), 358?373. Tomalty, R., & Alexander, D. (2005). Smart Growth in Canada: implementation of a planning concept, 226. https://doi. org/10.1177/1524839908331273 Town of Lincoln. (2018a). About Lincoln. Retrieved from Town of Lincoln: https://lincoln.ca/about Town of Lincoln. (2018b). Greenbelt Position Paper. Retrieved from Town of Lincoln: https://lincoln.ca/key-corporate-documents/greenbelt-position-paper Town of Lincoln. (2018c). Economic Development. Retrieved from Town of Lincoln: https://lincoln.ca/economic-development Town of Lincoln. (2018d). Community Improvement Plans. Retrieved from Town of Lincoln: https://lincoln.ca/community-improvement-plans Town of Lincoln. (2018e). Focus of Lincoln. Retrieved from Town of Lincoln: https://lincoln.ca/economic-development/focus-lincoln Town of Lincoln. (2017). Lincoln - OFFICIAL PLAN. Vasseur, L., Horning, D., Thornbush, M., Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Barrow, E., and Jones, M. (2017). Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: Bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN sustainable development goals. Ambio, 46(7), 731?742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0918-6 Walker, C., Mason, S., & Bednar, D. (2018). Sustainable Development and Environmental Injustice in Rural Ontario, Canada: Cases of Wind Energy and Biosolid Processing. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 13(2), 110?129. Walton, M. (2012). Golden Horseshoe Agriculture and Agri-Food Strategy Food & Farming: An Action Plan 2021. Wamsler, C. (2015). Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation: Transformation toward sustainability in urban governance and planning. Ecology and Society, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07489-200230 Watson & Associates Economists LTD. (2018). Town of Lincoln Development Charges Background Study. Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2001). Resident perceptions in the urban-rural fringe. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 439?458. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00052-951 Whitelaw, G. S., & Eagles, P. F. J. (2007). Planning for Long, Wide Conservation Corridors on Private Lands in the Oak Ridges Moraine, Ontario, 21(3), 675?683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00708.x Yarr, K. (2017, January 11). Urban-rural divide highlighted over school closure proposals. Retrieved from CBC News: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/peischool-closure-reaction-1.3930391 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 49 Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature ? our loss of connection with nature in our cities Edmund Barrow, CEM 6 Riverine Acacia tree forest along the Turkwell river in Turkana, Kenya © Edmund Barrow 50 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract Many of us have lost our sense of belonging and connectedness with nature. One reason is that about 55% of the world?s population reside in urban areas with little access to nature. Yet, we still assume that water will flow from our taps, food will be available, with little thought for where these services originate. This loss of connection with nature impacts people in various ways. It is evident that there are detriments to human functioning from a lack of nature exposure. How can we re-connect and respect nature?s limits? How can we re-achieve a sense of place, community, and what does this mean? What will it take to position nature, so it is not a slave to economic growth? This chapter provides analyses on the importance of reconnecting with nature in education, health, and our daily lives; the relevance of nature to industry and cities; and awareness on the importance of nature. The chapter highlights practical ways to achieve greater urban-rural connectivity, so that nature is an important part of urban planning and life in cities and rural areas. Impacts are felt on various sectors, e.g., education, land, water, and urban use, urban agriculture, health, industry and the private sector, in our spiritual domains, and in conservation. Forests, lakes, rivers, mountains can all be powerful healers and educators. The practical examples and lessons suggested can be used and adapted by people, families, communities, private sector and business. We can then become the change we want to be for a more sustainable world that recognises its dependence on nature and integrates this recognition in our actions. Introduction ? our cities need nature Humankind is increasingly alienated from nature. We need to reconnect with nature, respect and understand the wisdom and peace that it emanates, and bring nature ?back to? centre stage in our lives (Berry & Clarke, 1991). Prior to the industrial era we had a conscious awareness of our dependency on nature. Yet such experiences are being lost as we spend less time in nature. Since the mid-19th century, humankind has become increasingly urbanised (Pyle, 2003). As such our increased lack of experience with nature is a growing issue in urban areas. Urbanisation has increased over the past 50 years, and over 55% of the global population is urban ? a percentage that is increasing daily. This disconnect from natural environments and the importance of learning in and from nature has serious impacts on life in terms of attention disorders, our ability to learn, various health conditions, and conflict. Its effects are felt most in cities, especially amongst children and youth, where over 50% of children live and go to school, a figure that will increase to 65% by 2030 (Malone & Waite, 2016). There are factors that have led to our lack of connection with nature, for example: a). human exemptionism (Catton and Dunlap, 1978) which refers to the belief that the relationship between humans and the natural environment is unimportant because humans are ?exempt? from environmental forces and capable of adapting via cultural change ? this has led to the belief that human-kind is separate from nature rather than a part of it; b). The increasing urbanisation of the world has contributed to the lack of meaningful nature experience (Pyle, 2003); c). Since the start of the COVID pandemic, restrictions on freedoms around the world became a crisis. It caused nature deficit and accelerated our separation from nature. But the pandemic also increased people?s motivation to return to nature, which provided an opportunity to seek experiences and health recovery in nature (Syamsi et.al, 2022). Human- kind was closely connected with and depended on nature. This changed with the agrarian and industrial revolutions. These are some reasons why nature connection is becoming and increasingly important issue that needs to be addressed for sustainable environment management and the social and cultural well-being of people. We can learn from nature and being in nature. Because of their age, for example, trees are places of sacredness, provide materials and inspiration, are places of silence, awareness, and peace; and they are powerful educators. There are similar examples of how sacred natural places, such as rivers, mountains, waterfalls?are all powerful educators and healers. Nature is good for us and being in nature can give us an emotional lift. A walk in the park or garden restores you. But we take this for granted. Research shows that walking in nature and spending time under trees causes electrochemical changes that relax and calm us. There is increasing evidence for why we need to relate and connect more with nature, in terms of our health, state of mind and as a vehicle for restoration and education (Bird, 2010; Bouchardon, 1998; UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, 2011; Hanh, 1987; Li, 2010; Morris, 2003). These are restorative experiences (Dolesh, 2014). Yet the cost of mental illness in the UK, for example, is £12.5 billion to the National Health Service (NHS) and £23.1 billion to the economy (Bird, 2007). Drugs are prescribed, not a walk in the forest. The wellbeing benefits of nature help us relate to and experience nature. Yet we still do not know enough about the detriments to our wellbeing from a lack of time in nature (Maller et al., 2009). The growing literature on the benefits nature provides as to how this relates to our functioning (Richardson & McEwan, 2018); and. the increasing numbers of reviews on our exposure to nature and wellbeing (Capaldi et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2013; Staats et al., 2010). There is increasing concern that people?s more urbanised lifestyles have fewer and lower quality interactions with nature. As a result, they have limited access to the associated health and well-being benefits (Ying et.al., 2021). These all point to the growing importance of nature exposure and connection that can lead to health and wellbeing benefits. With most of humanity living in cities, urban people are often not able to care or understand as to, for example, what trees are cut down to build their homes, or where food comes from, nor do they experience such things. Yet, for many indigenous and rural people, the destruction of trees is like killing children, as the connection with nature is deep (Randall, 2007). This lack of experience 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 51 with nature is serious, as the author George Monbiot points out in a poignant story Randall (2007) spent two days with a group of 10-year-old children from a deprived London borough exploring rock pools and roaming the woods in mid-Wales, a rural area. Many had never ever been to the countryside before, nor had they ever seen the sea. A staggering example of how city youth are not exposed to nature. In the woods, the children paddled in streams, rolled down a hill, ate blackberries, and tasted mushrooms. Most had never done these things before, yet the exhilaration they showed in exploring nature seemed instinctive and natural. George Monbiot (2013) realized just how little contact they had with nature ? not one of them had seen a nettle or knew what happens if you touch it! This summarises how separate we have become. Many children are not exposed to nature and want to stay indoors. They become the next generation of adults who are then more ?nature and ecology ignorant?. There is a growing disparity between the time children spend indoors and in nature. The majority of children now use a computer, watch TV, or play video games. Only about 10% spend time in nature. Lack of access to natural areas and discomfort with the outdoors are two factors identified by a Nature Conservancy?s survey in the USA. This lack of connection is becoming increasingly serious as health and wellbeing benefits are lost which in turn means we are less exposed to the various benefits of nature. This chapter provides some examples on reconnecting with nature ? wherever we are and whatever we are doing. Loss of connectivity with nature needs to be seen in the context of the challenges we face ? a subject that has been neatly described as ?Nature Deficit Disorder? (Louv, 2008) which is being increasingly supported by research, for example with respect to stress or cancer, or education. This may be the cause of many disorders, such as a lack of peace, especially in cities. The insidious and increasing effects of our loss of connection with nature We will hand our children what we have done to the world. Our children could live amidst ruined infrastructure and cities, and the ruins of nature (Berry & Clarke, 1991). For many, we have lost direct contact with our food and water sources. But we can learn from those closely connected with Mother Earth ? the indigenous peoples and others living close to the land (Berry & Clarke, 1991). So, what have we done to raise a generation of mainly urban children and youth who fear the outdoors? Children have numerous excuses: getting muddy, being cold and wet. One in 10 children said they would rather stay inside to avoid ?touching germs,? and 11% felt ?too scared to go outside?. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in the UK identified that a large percentage of UK children are not connected to nature (Richardson et al., 2015). Children are conditioned to fear the outdoors, whether it is from repeated orders to ?be careful!? or ?stay out of the mud!?, or from sensationalized news stories (Martinko, 2018). The worrying thing is that each generation will pass on less nature experience with a poorer understanding. Nature Deficit Disorder means that people, especially urban children, spend less time outdoors, which results in various behavioural problems (Louv, 2008; 2009), including reduced use of senses, attention difficulties, stress, high blood pressure, various health conditions, higher rates of physical and emotional illnesses, and violence ? all characteristics of today?s fast moving mainly urban lives. These disorders and problems are now receiving increased research emphasis (Richardson et al., 2015). We can integrate nature in the classroom, and nature therapy into healthcare. But this often does not happen because of restrictive education curricula, or health care that does not embrace natural remedies. If children play in nature, they have less obesity, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), depression, suicide, alcohol, and drug abuse, and bullying (Atwood, 2011), which all contribute to less violence and greater peace. In 2017, DiversEarth, Peace Pals International, World Peace Prayer Society and IUCN organised the 20th anniversary celebrations of Peace Pals. This was an international art competition for children (over 6,000 entries from 60 countries). The theme was Loving the Earth?Nature, and it helped children think about peace in relation to nature. Many of us were lucky enough to grow up in nature and even take nature?s gifts for granted. I grew up on an organic farm in Ireland in the 1950?s where we were able to walk in our small wood, lie amongst the blue bells, fish in the river, make straw houses after the harvest, climb trees ? memories I have treasured since. Our children grew up in nature in the 1980?s when we worked in a very dry rural part of northwest Kenya and did similar things. We have been able to learn from nature and take that learning into our daily lives. But increasingly, urban people are connected to the internet and cities, not to nature. An adult?s attitude to the environment and time spent in green space is influenced by their experience as a child. A UK National Trust survey found 90% of parents prefer children to spend time connecting with nature, as children today spend half the time their parents did playing outside in nature. Whilst over 80% of parents thought it was important for children to learn to use technology. On average, children play outside for about 4 hours per week, compared to 8.2 hours a week when the adults questioned were children (The Guardian, 2016). ?Nature serves as a blank slate and inspires creativity in a child by demanding visualization and full use of the senses. Given a chance, a child will bring the confusion of the world into the woods, wash it in the creek, and turn it over to see what lies on the unseen side of that confusion? (Louv, 2010). There are risks to learning and playing in nature, but there are also risks of staying indoors too long, including to our judgement and value of place, our ability to feel awe and a lost sense of stewardship. There are more immediate threats to our psychological and physical health and there is a lot of local variation in the interactions between people and nature. (Ying et.al, 2021). 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature 52 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Reduced exposure to nature is due to parental fears, restricted access, and electronic devices. People can, but often do not spend time outdoors, e.g., outdoor education, forest kindergartens or forest schools. Solutions to Nature Deficit Disorder lie in how urban areas, planners, and policy makers (especially for education and health) embrace the role of nature in cities and the natural hinterlands. The causes of Nature Deficit Disorder include (Louv, 2008): a) Parents keep children indoors for safety and over-protect them which disrupts their ability to connect to nature; b) Loss of natural surroundings in a child?s neighbourhood make it difficult to access nature, as many nature parks have restricted access type signs. Then environmentalists and educators tell children ?look but don?t touch?. This comes at a cost to a child?s relationship with nature, as experiential learning requires touching and doing; c) Children spend more time, and have more reasons to stay inside, due to computers, video games, social media and television. The average American child spends 44 hours a week with electronic media; and d) This lack of exposure to nature in childhood is perpetuated into adulthood, which creates a vicious cycle resulting in a further increased alienation from nature. As a result, children and adults have changed their interactions with nature. This contributes to a variety of effects ? either partly or directly attributable to a lack of exposure to nature. Such effects include (Louv, 2008; 2017): a) Children have less respect for nature, due to the increasing pace of the last three decades, of a rapid disengagement between children and direct experiences in nature. This has implications for the health of future generations and for the health of the Earth itself?; b) Stress and depression may develop or be exacerbated, as people who do not get adequate time in nature are more prone to depression, and stress; c) With a greater understanding of ADD, lower grades in school seem to be related, in part, to Nature Deficit Disorder. Children as young as 5 showed up to 30% reduction in ADD when they engage with nature compared to urban outdoor activities. ADD affects 5-10% of school children in the UK, and they may benefit from more time in nature, greener routes to school and better views from their windows (Bird, 2007); d) There is now a stronger link between time spent in nature and future engagement in nature as adults. Nature connection can predict engagement with nature and childhood experiences being important in adulthood (Hinds & Sparks, 2009; Nisbet et al., 2009). Outdoor experiential education results in children having better self-esteem, are better able to solve problems and ask questions, and are more motivated to learn. Whilst the lack of access to green space is very unfortunate for city residents, this can also severely affect their resilience to climate change. If there are few trees and most of the built environment is paved, temperatures can be up to 10° higher than if there were ample green space. So small steps could add up to a cooler, more disaster-hardy, and more equitable city. Physical activity and exposure to nature are good for health, have positive impacts on mental health and wellbeing, and reduce sadness and negativity. Children who spend time in woodlands with friends or alone without parental supervision are more likely to visit and enjoy woodlands as adults, are more likely to describe woodlands as ?magical? and are less anxious when visiting woodlands (Bird, 2007). Education engaging with nature ? children, youth, adults We have much to learn from nature, yet our education systems have ?unconditioned? us to think that working the land, and with nature is not good. It will not make us millionaires! Rather we should be in offices in front of computer screens ? in short be urban. This calls for retooling our education systems. As Paulo Freire said, ?Education is suffering from narration sickness? (Freire, 1968). He criticizes education for its passivity. Education should be experiential, where students and teachers are co-learners, problems jointly solved, and solutions provide avenues for learning (Giracca, 2016). Such experiential approaches bring people into nature and may attract more policy support, especially in view of current ?environmental crises?, e.g., plastics, climate change, and forest destruction. Children of the ?Plant for the Planet? movement have a simple rationale for tree planting and respecting nature: ?We do it because trees are the lungs of the world. There is no life without trees? (Felix and Friends, 2011). This helps children and adults understand the importance of learning together, knowing that ?it all counts, every tree planted counts?. Children who spend time learning in nature do better academically, as exploring nature makes subjects richer and more relevant (Kings College London, 2011). Schools should have access to nature (e.g., a school garden), a city park nearby, or incorporate visits to nature (c.f. Monbiot?s experience in this chapter) in a rural hinterland. This is an essential part of education, not an add-on. 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 53 About 76% of youth today believe issues like climate change can be solved if action is taken now. There is a growing disparity between the time children spend indoors with their social media and the time they spend enjoying nature. The vast majority of today?s children use a computer, watch TV, or play video games on a daily basis, but only about 10% say they spend time outdoors every day, according to a poll in the USA from The Nature Conservancy. Lack of access to natural areas and discomfort with the outdoors are two factors identified by the Conservancy?s poll. Eighty per cent said it was uncomfortable to be outdoors due bugs and heat, whilst 62% said they did not have transport to natural areas, and 61% said there were no natural areas near their homes. A child today can likely tell you about the Amazon rainforest (classroom knowledge), but not about the last time he or she explored the woods (experiential knowledge). Young people in urban schools can recognise over 50 logos of business corporations. But take them into the woods, few will be able to name 10 trees (Kumar, 2005). Yet, many indigenous peoples have a deep knowledge of nature. For example, 8?12-year-old Mayan girls in Central America know the names and uses of nearly 1,000 different plants (Stowe, 2003)! How many in cities of the developed world could name 50? It is clear younger people are more likely to form strong nature connections, which can continue into adulthood (Lumber et al., 2017). Nature connection accounts for around 69% of ecological behaviour as measured in studies (Otto & Pensini, 2017). Schools using outdoor classrooms and experiential learning produce students with enhanced skills in problem solving, critical thinking and decision-making. They are more engaged in class and more open to conflict resolutions. Time in nature stimulates children?s creativity, whilst separation causes a failure to bond properly and establish a caring relationship with nature (Sigman, 2009). Caring for nature is important, and can be supported by experiential environmental education. For example, Parents of children in Switzerland watch TV and play video games for less than half the amount of time each week that British children do. It seems Swiss families do a better job at balancing relationships and technology, without letting the addictiveness of the latter overtake every aspect of their lives. The survey found 90% of Swiss children play outside at least once a week, 84% play sports, and 80% meet with friends. When asked what people feel when they are in nature, the feelings are similar ? peace, silence, stillness, and connectedness (Maira, 2010). Yet children can no longer, so easily, roam the countryside, experience nature and learn life lessons. How can we expect children to grow up being environmentally conscious? We can sit under a tree, go into a deep silence, and become aware of the sounds of silence. This helps us become aware of the aliveness of the natural world around us (Tolle, 2005). We can all do this in areas such as woodland, river, mountain, city park, but it can also be done in a garden, or with a potted plant. Education, especially the early years, is the foundation for reversing the destruction of the planet and our pursuit of economic growth (Thinley, 2010). Bhutan infuses education with human and ecological values of their policy of Gross National Happiness (GNH). Thinley, the Prime Minister of Bhutan noted a) we should separate true happiness from fleeting feel good moods; b) GNH is a development path embracing sustainable and economic development with environmental conservation, good governance, and the wisdom of Bhutan?s ancient culture; and c) Education is the glue that holds this together (Thinley, 2010). This requires teachers to be facilitators and sources of knowledge, providing a climate for ?learning by doing?. In this way, we bring the class out of the classroom into nature. If young people graduate with a sense of care for nature and each other, this will help us live in harmony (Thinley, 2010). Putting this into practice in education systems and changing how teachers are trained are challenges for experiential learning. Sadly, experiential learning is restricted by more and more rules (Sobel, 2012), exams, and disadvantaged by the fact that most of the world?s population are alienated from nature in cities. Education systems have to foster environmental responsibility, so we care for creation as an imperative. The seeds of environmental stewardship are sown when we are young and most receptive. This will support a move, as Pope Francis says, to ?ecological conversion, ... and the ecological conversion needed to bring about lasting change is also a community conversion? (Pope Francis, 2015). Children, between 6 and 12, have a strong desire to explore woods and climb trees, dig tunnels, collect earthworms etc. All the great environmentalists had first-hand experience with nature (Sobel, 2012). My wife used to take her school class into nature in the outskirts of Nairobi, Kenya, so they could experience nature ? the soil, the leaves, the earthworms (and other insects), and plant trees. The parents used to ask why their children came back so muddy, yet so happy, and full of what they had learnt about nature. Many of those children, now adults, still remember those experiences. Many schools, with or without government support, are starting to use natural spaces as part of learning experience. Such learning in nature has undergone a renaissance. Some countries are more advanced, for example the concept of open-air living and learning is established in Scandinavia, whilst Germany has the Kindergarten movement (Gilchrist et al., 2016). 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature 54 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Education systems need to be enquiry driven ? so students experience nature (Clarke, 2015). Some schools are enquiry driven, for example, the International School in Geneva where environmental concerns are a central aspect. The example from Germany of champions who are school children who took steps to create environmental awareness in schools in Germany is illustrative. They felt that adults should stop talking and do something (Felix and Friends, 2011). As a result, there are now 10,000 climate justice ambassadors who are children from over 100 countries working with ?plant the planet?, and over 15 billion trees have (2017) been planted across the globe in urban and rural areas. Rural and urban students ?can do it? (Simon, 2012). The following questions might help us experience nature ? whether at home, in school, a city park, or the countryside (Bouchardon,1998; Giracca, 2016; Sobel, 2012; Stowe, 2003): ? What is this place we live in and how does it sustain life? ? What might we grow and nurture? ? Where does our food come from? ? What feelings does this natural place arouse? ? Would you come here to do something in particular? What? Why? ? What do you want to do in the presence of this tree, this woodland or natural place? ? Which plants and trees make the strongest impression on you? ? What parts of the natural world are you really grateful for? Why? The UK government agrees on the need for outdoor learning and published a white paper proposing that children should do more learning outdoors (DEFRA, 2011). But what actually happened was the opposite ? there were massive cuts for outdoor education centres, and children continue to be confined to the classroom, stuffed with rules and facts, and doing endless tests ? a recipe for boredom (Monbiot, 2013). This exacerbates the already serious issue that over 50% of children have never visited the countryside in the UK according to WideHorizons. Children should spend at least a week in the countryside every term and have real experience with nature. Experiential nature learning ought to be mainstreamed in curricula and adequately resourced ? not relegated to clubs, or additional activities. Three quarters of respondents in a survey of children and youth in the USA reported they had little if any access to nature through their schools. The Nature Conservancy is pioneering ways to support environmental education. The LEAF Program (Leaders in Environmental Action for the Future, now called Nature Lab) is one such program that works with a network of schools to engage urban youth in conservation and environmental stewardship. There are a growing number of such programs. Those with personal, positive nature experiences are twice as likely to view themselves as environmentalists and more likely to express concern about water issues, air pollution, climate change, and the state of the environment (Elks, 2014). This offers ways to work with urban schools and communities for children of all ages to experience nature in urban and rural areas. In New York, for example, the Mashokack Preserve?s Summer Children?s Environmental Education Program is very popular, and involves hiking, muddling in a marsh, a canoe and kayak trip and nature art. The survival of humanity and our urban lives will depend on our ecological and nature literacy. Ecological literacy is a critical skill for politicians, business leaders and professionals in all spheres ? not just in conservation but needs to be embedded from an early age. So, ecological literacy should be a very important part of education ? from primary and secondary schools to universities and continuing education (Capra, 2012) and in all spheres of life. Nature and urban health benefits Nature is good for our health, stress management, and helps us concentrate (Pretty, 2006). We are happier in nature than in urban areas. This evidence between nature and wellbeing includes that nature: a) affects the nervous system by reducing stress and improving attention; b) is lower in environmental ?bads? such as noise and air pollution in urban areas which can cause sleep disturbance, hearing impairment, tinnitus, and raised stress, leading to high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, stroke (Passchier- Vermeer & Passchier, 2000); and c) increases happiness with behaviours that are physically and mentally beneficial, e.g. exercise, and recreation (Barton Pretty, 2010; MacKeeron & Mourato, 2013; Morris, 2003). Having a close relationship with nature is like having a close relationship with friends and family. Or nature may be more of an acquaintance, as we may like it well enough, but there is little intimacy or attention paid to it. We may spend time in nature, but it serves as a backdrop to the things we do, and we pay it little attention, have little interest in what it does, and get little back from it. In some cases, nature may even be a nuisance (Richardson and Butler, 2022). Children and young people lead increasingly indoor-based, sedentary, urban lives, with no direct nature experience. There are health issues related to this in terms of physical health, for example obesity, which has doubled worldwide since 1980, and 42 million children under the age of five were overweight in 2013, most of whom reside in urban areas. This is partially due to physical inactivity, changing modes of transportation and urbanisation. This can then lead to breathing difficulties, hypertension, increased 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 55 risk of cardio-vascular disease and diabetes (World Health Organization, 2015), vitamin D deficiency and short-sightedness (Charles & Louv, 2009; Moss, 2012). Yet time spent in nature enhances physical and wellbeing benefits (Gilchrist et al., 2016). Urban areas are starting to recognise the importance of green spaces in cities, not just for recreation but for health and educational reasons. This includes parks, rivers and riverbank areas, foot paths, treelined streets. This can create green connectivity in an urban landscape, and green connectivity to rural catchment areas ? important for people and wildlife, which in turn contributes to the UN international standard for access to green space in urban areas. The United Nations (2020) uses 400 m as a maximum distance to reach an open space and UN-Habitat (2021) advocates for open spaces to be reachable within a five minute walk so that the benefits can be enjoyed equitably. Exposure to nature is associated with various mental health benefits. Nature connectedness (NC, a psychological construct that measures individuals? sense of connection to nature) can influence the relationship between nature exposure and mental health. NC is stronger than nature exposure in predicting mental well-being, whilst greenspace visitation frequency and duration are stronger than NC in predicting ill-being (Liu et.al. 2022). Being in nature encourages us to be more active, less stressed and calmer. Children become less hyper-active, concentrate better and play more creatively and independently. Children can develop life-long connections with nature. They need to play regularly in streams and woods (Bird, 2010) ? experientially, and not by ?look but don?t touch? doctrines. Regular contact with nature promotes concentration and reduces stress ? especially with direct experience of nature, e.g., walking in a forest or park, gardening, being with potted plants at home. Already there are health centres and hospitals that have green spaces, or are close to a park, or have access to gardens and allotments. A study demonstrated that the COVID-19 pandemic changed people?s perceptions by enhancing their preference for natural recreational activities and health. It accelerated people?s return to nature and fostered a positive perception of nature?s ability to promote good health (Syamsi et.al. 2022). Green care farms Green Care evolved as a means to treat ailments including dementia, stress, attention disorders. There are a total of 1,935 Green Care farms who receive payments for taking in patients (Pretty, 2006), and most of these patients come from cities, further strengthening urban-rural connections. Patients are prescribed Green Care treatment. By 2006 there were 500 Green Care farms in Norway, 430 in the Netherlands, 300 in Italy and Germany, 250 in Austria, 140 in Belgium and 15 in Slovenia. The numbers are increasing, as there are (by 2015) 1,100 Green Care Farms in the Netherlands ? one of the most densely populated countries. This can be extended to other countries, and other aspects of nature, e.g., indigenous tree planting, walking in nature, countryside management. Forest bathing in Japan Forest bathing in Japan (?Shinrinyoku?) is a leisurely mindful visit to a forest. The forest environment provides a quiet atmosphere, beautiful scenery, mild climate, and clean fresh air. A forest bathing trip involves visiting a forest for relaxation and recreation whilst breathing in volatile substances, called phytoncides (wood essential oils), which are antimicrobial organic compounds derived from trees. We now know that forest bathing lowers levels of cortisol ? a stress hormone, blood pressure and heart rates. Forest bathing increases vigour and decreases anxiety, depression, and anger. Walking in the woods boosts the body?s immune system by increasing anti-cancer proteins, or human Natural Killer (NK) cells. In Japan forest bathing or walking in woods is prescribed by doctors to reduce stress, blood pressure and heart rate. This has long been regarded as natural aromatherapy (Atwood, 2011). Natural forest environments enhance human NK cell activity. The key substance that forests emit are phytoncides, which help plants and trees protect themselves. Phytoncide exposure and decreased stress hormone levels contribute to increased NK activity (Li et al., 2009). The increased NK activity lasts for more than 30 days after a forest bathing trip, whilst a visit to the city made no difference (Li, 2010). NK cells kill tumour cells by releasing anticancer proteins, and forest bathing trips increase NK activity and the levels of anti- cancer proteins. As such forest bathing trips may have a preventive effect on cancer (Li, 2010). This reflects the positive clinical benefits of nature on our health, whilst the mechanisms of the central nervous system facilitate this (Kuo, 2015; Selhub & Logan, 2012). Forest therapy is a good example of how our health is dependent on the health of nature. Forest bathing results in less depression and hostility. The greater the stress levels, the greater the positive effects of forest bathing. Forests are ?therapeutic landscapes? and forest bathing decreases risks of stress-related diseases. Even for children diagnosed with ADD, after 20-minute walks in a city park, they experienced improved concentration compared to 20-minute walks in downtown and residential settings (Forest Therapy Association of the Americas, 2013). Incorporating forest bathing into our lifestyles was first proposed in 1982 by the Forest Agency of Japan and is a recognised relaxation and stress management activity. Because forests occupy 67% of the land in Japan, forest bathing is easily accessible from cities. Over a quarter of Japan has participated in forest bathing. Such forest bathing is possible in similar environments throughout 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature 56 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective the world in rural areas or in urban woodlands. Other forest therapy activities include wild edible plant identification, herbal medicines, planting trees, walking or running, and natural food cooking. There are positive effects from contact with nature on our mental health and well-being. Such findings should be acted upon by policy, as the health benefits could have enormous implications, e.g., reductions in national healthcare expenditures. Contact with nature may be effective for treating children with poor self-discipline, hyperactivity and ADD; coping with anxiety and stress; strategies to reduce crime and aggression; benefiting care for the elderly and treatment for dementia; improving concentration levels in children and office workers and the healthy cognitive development of children; and as a means to improve hospital environments, strengthen communities, and an increased sense of wellbeing and mental health (Bird, 2007). Role of nature as one tool to resolve urban conflict ?If we are peaceful, if we are happy, we can blossom like a flower and everyone in our family, our entire society will benefit from our peace? (Hanh, 1987). But there can be no real peace whilst millions live in poverty, and nature is being destroyed by economic growth. Sustainability, social justice, and equitable governance are prerequisites for peace (Mathai, 2007). Yet much conflict boils down to scarcity, or lack of access to resources, and is one reason why we see so much inner-city violence ? people are too confined to concrete and tarmac, and do not have access to trees and flowers. Violence expresses itself directly, structurally, and culturally, and these three forms of violence need to be tackled directly and together (Basterfield, 2006). Experiencing nature is one approach through fostering access to nature in cities and rural areas and facilitate experiential learning for all ? especially urban populations. Crime and poor school achievement are associated with low levels of self-discipline, impulsive behaviour, immediate gratification, and inattention. Increasing accessibility to nature is an innovative and equitable method of increasing overall performance and ability for inner city children (Bird, 2007). Who has not experienced the calming effect of a few minutes in the garden after a stressful phone call, or a walk in the park at lunchtime? Contact with nature has a positive effect on anxiety and stress, on elderly people and those with dementia, concentration in children and office workers, and reducing crime and aggression (Aitkens, 2015). In a study on a Chicago housing estate, people knew more of the neighbours when there were more trees where they lived. In areas dominated by concrete, people interacted less. There is also less violence in areas with more trees (Juniper, 2014). Pope Francis asks us to focus on nature and bring peace to our troubled world saying ?An integral ecology is also made up of simple daily gestures which break the logic of violence, exploitation and selfishness. In the end, a world of exacerbated consumption is at the same time a world which mistreats life in all its forms? (Pope Francis, 2015). Nature can reduce aggressive behaviour, possibly due to its restorative effects on the brain. This can range from domestic violence to aggressive behaviours. If nature in inner city areas can reduce some violence, this is good for public health, and has large social implications (Bird, 2007). We desperately need mechanisms for peace, and nature can be a central aspect. Major security threats come from issues that do not relate only to power and weapons. Such threats also include climate change, water and natural resource scarcity, disaffected people and societies in urban areas, and the growing rich-poor gap (Elworthy, 2017). Nature can be a locus for understanding the importance of inner peace which in turn creates positivity for both dialogue and as a vehicle for preventing conflict. Nature is a potent locus for peace building and conflict resolution. This is particularly so for low-level conflicts (e.g., over water access or access to critical natural resources). If not addressed early, such conflicts can escalate. For example, there is 50% less crime and domestic violence in families with views of vegetation in a poor housing estate compared to identical blocks with no vegetation. If this is true then the presence of nature in inner city residential areas should be an essential part of design (Bird, 2007). Whatever our relationship with nature is, we can get closer by noticing more, listening more, feeling more, enjoying more, and caring more. The closer we get to nature, the happier we are and the more we are willing to take action to support conservation and the environment. Closer relationships with nature are more necessary now than ever. (Richardson & Butler, 2022). Conclusion ? plan nature into urban, and urban into nature The benefits of being in nature are clear and there is increasing empirical evidence (Priest, 2006). Such restorative environments offer opportunities to be in nature and receive nature?s benefits for our well-being. Identifying with nature, for example, a tree or a woodland, helps us become part of that landscape, which in turn reduces stress. We can all have, make, or gain access to our piece of nature, trees, or forests to re-connect and bring peace; and be able to go to that place within, pause and witness nature. Urban landscapes have lost much of their ?nature? and need to reconnect, especially amongst children and the youth. We need to create ways for urban people to better connect with nature, whether it relates to restored urban river systems, woodlands, being able to visit the countryside. And this all has important health benefits that nature can bring. 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 57 A walk in the park, in the forest can be a spiritual experience. We should not walk-through nature ?deaf, blind and senseless?. Practice such walks in silence, as a walking meditation so that you are present to and mindful of the experience. This enables us to offer gratitude to the Earth and be exposed to the healing powers of nature. Be present for a tree, in a forest ? just simply be silent and witness the tree and its surroundings (Stowe, 2003). You can do the same in your garden and have a ?corner? of the garden where you can be still. You can have potted plants or trees in a corner of, or on a table in your home. Urbanisation raises concern about chronic human health along with less frequent interaction with the natural world. All nature-related measures?exposure, knowledge, skills, willingness to lead, perceived safety, sense of place, and nature connection?significantly increased in a mixed Methods Pilot Study of Young Adults Attending a Wilderness Camp in the USA. Well-being outcomes improved, including perceived stress, relaxation, positive and negative emotions, and the sense of wholeness. The findings illustrated the change in nature relations and well-being that wilderness camp experiences can provide (Warber et.al. 2015). The climate emergency and biodiversity crisis show that the human?nature relationship is failing. The ?pathways to nature connectedness? (sensory contact, emotion, meaning, beauty and compassion) is a framework to improve the human?nature relationship. Evidence illustrates how the pathways provide a novel approach for improving human?nature relationships, and the importance of cultural programmes and urban design to increase sensory, meaningful and emotional engagement with nature. The pathways to nature have societal relevance and provide solutions to foster human?nature relationships (Richardson et. al., 2020) Educational policy and practice have to integrate experiential learning in nature, rather than condition our children not to connect with nature. Many schools now bring students to experience nature as part of school activities. Whilst there are risks in learning and playing in nature, there are also risks of not doing so. Nature experience and therapy are growing in importance, especially as we become increasingly urbanised. Outdoor education is an important part of education and health, fostering a greater interest in nature, and perhaps less on electronics. All schools should try and have access to a small garden or some trees. Many schools are close to green areas, for example a park, stream, woodland, field. Teachers can facilitate experiential learning. Governments and policy makers have to recognise and value learning from nature, and the opportunities that it provides to overcome contemporary challenges to children?s education, health, wellbeing and future success in life (Malone & Waite, 2016). The London National Park City initiative is another example of where green spaces are promoted for education, health, wellbeing, high quality local produce, and biodiversity. In the past, and still so with many indigenous societies, the ways to resolve conflict were the elders (men and women) who would sit, listen, and reach consensus. This still works in areas where indigenous institutions are strong. But in many cases, it is being replaced ? often at great cost and maybe less effectively ? by formal systems. Maybe it is time to re-invigorate local community level conflict resolution in all walks of life, in all countries, in rural and urban areas, and with all religious and spiritual groups. That way most conflict would be resolved before it gets out of hand. ?A degraded habitat will produce degraded humans. If there is to be any true progress, then the entire life community must progress? (Berry, 1988). ?We are inextricably linked to nature, so we must take action, and stop the talk about the importance of nature? (Wangari Mathai). All children, urban and rural, require access to nature, and to real experiential learning. This is no longer a luxury and is at the heart of our and nature?s well-being, and on which the future of Mother Earth depends. References Aitkens, A. (2015). Only Connect: Joining the Dots for the Future We Want. Resurgence & Ecologist 289, 30-33. Atwood, M. (2011). New Frontiers. Resurgence 268, 8-12. Barton, J., & Pretty, J. (2010). Urban Ecology and Human Health and Wellbeing, in: Gaston, J. (Ed.), Urban Ecology. (pp. 202- 229). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778483.010 Basterfield, D. (2006). Make Violence History. Resurgence. 234, 30-31. Berry, T. (1988). The Dream of the Earth. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. Berry, T., & Clarke, T. (1991). Befriending the Earth: A Theology of Reconciliation between Human and the Earth. Twenty-Third Publications, Connecticut. Bird, W. (2007). Natural Thinking: Investigating the Links Between the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Mental Health. (p. 116). Royal Society of the Protection of Birds, London. Bird, W. (2010). NHS - A Natural Health Service. Resurgence. 258, 10-12. Bouchardon, P. (1998). The Healing energies of Trees. Gaia Books, London. 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature 58 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Capaldi, C., Passmore, H.-A., Nisbet, E., Zelenski, J., & Dopko, R. (2015). Flourishing in nature: A review of the benefits of connecting with nature and its applicateion as a Wellbing Intervention. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v5i4.449 Capra, F. (2012). Ecological Literacy. Resurgence. 272, 42-43. Catton, W. & R. Dunlap (1978). Environmental Sociology: A new Paradigm. American Sociology, Vol 13, 41-49. Charles, C., & Louv, R. (2009). Children?s Nature Deficit: What We Know - and Don?t Know. Children and Nature Network Report. Clarke, P. (2015). A Beetle?s View of the Cosmos Might Suit our Schools. Resurgence & Ecologist 293, 34-35. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DEFRA. (2011). The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature. TSO. Dolesh, R. (2014). A Walk in the Park. Resurgence & Ecologist. 284, 16-17. Elks, J. (2014). Survey Reveals Shocking Truth: Kids Don?t Spend Enough Time Outside. Sustainable Brands. https://sustainablebrands.com/read/behavior-change/survey-reveals-shocking-truth-kids-don-t-spend-enough-time-outside Elworthy, S. (2017). Working for a World Without War. Resurgence & Ecologist. 302, 34-36. Felix and Friends. (2011). Tree by Tree: Now We Children Save the World. Plant for the Planet, Germany. Forest Therapy Association of the Americas. (2013). Health Benefits. Retrieved from http://forest-therapy.net/healthbenefits.html Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum International Publishing Group, New York. Gilchrist, M., Passy, R., Waite, S., & Cook, R. (2016). Exploring Schools? use of Natural spaces, in: Freeman, C., Tranter, P.E. (Eds.), Risk, Protection, Provision and Policy (Vol. 12, pp. 103-124). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-035-3_18 Giracca, A. (2016). Into the Field. Orion Nature and Culture. https://orionmagazine.org/article/into-the-field/ accessed 2016, 7. Hanh, T.N. (1987). Being Peace. Rider Ltd., London. Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2009). Investigating Environmental Identity, Well-being and Meaning. Ecopsychology, 1(4), 181-186. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2009.0026 Juniper, T. (2014). Healthy Nature, Healthy People. Resurgence & Ecologist, 283, 36-37. Kings College London. (2011). Understanding the Diverse Benefits of Learning in Natural Environments, London. Kumar, S. (2005). Nature Knows us - do We Know Nature? Resurgence, 232, 3. Kuo, M. (2015). How Might Contact with Nature Promote Human Health? Promising Mechanisms and a Possible Central Pathway. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093 Li, Q. (2010). Effect of Forest Bathing Trips on Human Immune Function. J. Environmental Health and Preventative Medicine, 15(1), 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12199-008-0068-3 Li, Q., Kobayashi, M., Wakayama, Y., Inagaki, H., Katsumata, M., Hirata, Y., Hirata K., Shimizu, T., Kawada, T., Park, J., Ohira, T., Kagawa, T., & Miyazakp, Y. (2009). Effect of Phytoncides from Trees on Human Natural Killer Cell Function. International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology, 22(4), 951-959. https://doi.org/10.1177/039463200902200410 Liu, H., Nong, H., Ren, H., & Liu, K. (2022). The effect of nature exposure, nature connectedness on mental well-being and ill-being in a general Chinese population. Landscape and Urban Planning, 222, 104397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2022.104397 Louv, R. (2008). Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Workman Publishing, New York. Louv, R. (2009). Narture-Deficit Disorder. Resurgence, 254, 14-15. Louv, R. (2010). Nature Deficit Disorder. Resurgence, 260, 16-17. Louv, R. (2017). Leave No Child Inside. Orion Nature and Culture, 6. https://orionmagazine.org/article/leave-no-child-inside/ Lumber, R., Richardson, M., & Sheffield, D. (2017). Beyond Knowing Nature: Contact, Emotion, Compassion, Meaning, and Beauty are Pathways to Nature Connection. PLOS ONE, 12(5), e0177186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177186 MacKeeron, G., & Mourato, S. (2013). Happiness is Greater in Natural Environments. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.010 Maira, S. (2009). A Master Key. Resurgence, 253, 40-42. Maira, S. (2010). Eternal Beauty. Resurgence, 261, 24-27. 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 59 Maller, C., St Leger, L., Townsend, M., & Henderson-Wilson, C. (2009). Healthy Parks Healthy People: The Health Benefits of Contact with Nature in a Park Context. The George Wright Forum, 26, 51-83. Malone, K., & Waite, S. (2016). Student Outcomes and Natural Schooling. Plymouth University, Plymouth. Martinko, K. (2018). British Kids Don?t Want to Get Muddy or Wet, So They Stay Inside. Retrieved from https://www.treehugger.com/british-kids-dont-want-get-muddy-or-wet-so-they-stay-inside-4849568 Mathai, W. (2007). Poverty and Empowerment. Resurgence, 245, 27-29. Monbiot, G. (2013). Rewild the Child. The Guardian. http://www.monbiot.com/2013/10/07/rewild-the-child/ Morris, N. (2003). Health, Wellbeing and Open Space Literature Review, Edinburgh Openspace. Moss, S. (2012). Natural Childhoood Report. National Trust. Nisbet, E., Zelenski, J., & Murphy, S. (2009). The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking individuals? connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behaviour, 41, 715-740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748 Otto, S., & Pensini, P. (2017). Nature-based Environmental Education of Children: Environmental Knowledge and Connectedness to Nature, Together, are Related to Ecological behaviour. Global Environmnental Change, 47, 88-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.09.009 Passchier-Vermeer, W., & Passchier, W. (2000). Noise Exposure and Public Health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108, 123- 131. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.00108s1123 Pope Francis. (2015). Encyclical on Climate Change and Inequality: On Care for our Common Home. Melville House Publishing. Pretty, J.N. (2006). Green Care - Working the Land is Good for Your Health. Resurgence, 234, 9. Priest, P. (2006). Walking Testimonies. Resurgence, 234, 26-27. Pyle, M. (2003). Nature Matrix: Reconnecting People and Nature. Oryx, 37(2), 206-214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000383 Randall, B. (2007). Kanyini - the Four Dimensions of Aboriginal Life. Resurgence, 243, 26-27. Richardson, M., & McEwan, K. (2018). 30 Days Wild and the Relationships Between Engagement with Nature?s Beauty, Nature Connectedness and Well-Being. Frontiers in Psychology. 9, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01500 Richardson, M., Sheffield, D., Harvey, C., & Petronzi, D. (2015). The Impact of Children?s Connection to Nature: A Report for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). (pp. 25). University of Derby, Derby. Richardson, M., J. Dobson , D. J. Abson , R. Lumber , A. Hunt , R. Young & B. Moorhouse (2020) Applying the pathways to nature connectedness at a societal scale: a leveragepoints perspective, Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 387-401. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1844296 Richardson, M., & Butler, C.W. (2022). The nature connection handbook: A guide for increasing people?s connection with nature. (pp. 39). Univ. Derby, United Kingdom. Russell, R., Guerry, A., Balvaner, P., Gouold, R., Basurto, X., Chan, K., Klain, S., Levine, J., & Tam, J. (2013). Humans and Nature: How Knowing and Experiencing Nature Affect Well-Being. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 38, 473-502. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012312-110838 Selhub, E., & Logan, A. (2012). Your Brain on Nature: The Science of Nature?s Influence on Your Health, Happiness and Vitality. John Wily, London. Sigman, A. (2009). Videophilia. Resurgence, 254, 16-17. Simon, B. (2012). Tales, traditions and folklore of Ireland?s trees. The Forest of Belfast. Sobel, D. (2012). Look, Don?t Touch. Orion Magazine, 8. https://orionmagazine.org/article/look-dont-touch1/ Staats, H., Van-Gemerden, E., & Hartig, T. (2010). Preference for Restorative Situations: Interactive Effects of Attentional State, Activity-in-Environment, and Social Sciences. Leisure Sciences, 32(5), 401-417. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2010.510990 Stowe, J. (2003). The Findhorn Book of Connecting with Nature. Findhorn Press, Forres Scotland. Syamsi, M., Lee, K., Aung, T., & R. Burns: 2022: Accelerating the Nature Deficit or Enhancing the Nature-Based Human Health during the Pandemic Era: An International Study in Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, and Myanmar, following the Start of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Forests, 13, 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13010057 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature The Guardian. (2016). Children spend only half as much time playing outside as their parents did. The Guardian. https://www. theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/27/children-spend-only-half-the-time-playing-outside-as-their-parents-did Thinley, J.Y. (2010). Exploring How Bhutan Might Now Implement Its Unique Concept of Gross National Happiness into Its Education Systems. Resurgence 260, 20-23. Tolle, E. (2005). A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life?s Purpose. Plume, New York. Warber, S., Ashley, A., DeHudy, M. Bialko, M. Marselle, & K. Irvine (2015): Addressing Nature-Deficit Disorder: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study of Young Adults Attending a Wilderness Camp. Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2015, 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/651827 World Health Organization. (2015). Obesity and Overweight. In: WHO (Ed.), Geneva. Ying, R., Kelly, S., Thi P., Chia-Chen, C., Shanahan, D., Gaston, K., Carrasco, R., R. Fuller. (2021) Factors influencing nature interactions vary between cities and types of nature interactions. People and Nature, 3(2), 405-417. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10181 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Judy Ling Wong1, and Carolyn Roberts2 7 London from the air © Luke Massey & the Greater London National Park City Initiative 1CBE Co-Founder, National Park City Foundation 2Emeritus Professor of Environment, Gresham College, London 62 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract London was declared the world?s first National Park City in July 2019. London National Park City aims to transform the relationship residents have with the ecosystems and natural assets of their cities so that they see it as a living landscape to value and to share stewardship of its ecology and natural assets; and to then extend this value and stewardship to environments beyond the city limits. Learning includes recognising what works and championing it; mapping challenge and opportunities in accessible ways; disrupting traditional top-down and bottom-up thinking; demonstrating how individuals can influence landscapes; recognising nature as a cultural choice; assessing the economic value of ecosystem services; and using imagery to help people visualize alternative futures. These align with the recognition of the crucial role of people embodied in key policy documents including AICHI Biodiversity Target 1, The Promise of Sydney, and the Defra 25 Year Environment Plan. Introduction The vision of a National Park City offers a rich cultural life anchored in nature, and action for nature, motivating citizens by putting the benefits to their lives at the top of the list. London National Park City draws from the values of the United Kingdom?s rural National Parks and sets it into an urban context. The defining element of London National Park City is that it will pay equal attention to outstanding nature and the potential for increasing the presence of nature within the built environment. This means facilitating the relationship between urban people and nature where they live and beyond the city so that the full spectrum of natural spaces is experienced by a population in danger of losing a vital connection to nature. It is grassroots, bottom-up campaign encouraging and facilitating citizens, who are part of the ecosystem, to be agents of change in their own communities and areas, via neighbourhood and community groups, new initiatives, local political structures, a network of organisations and a Bank of Good Ideas inspiring best practice. Its strapline is ?Greener, Wilder, Healthier.? The campaign promotes understanding of how important ecosystems are; raises awareness of all the social, economic, community and health benefits that better connections to nature provide; and incentivizes citizens to actively engage in shaping the urban areas in which they live, work and relax whilst playing a key role in the care and protection of ecosystems further afield. The London National Park City initiative addresses the issue of urban-rural ecosystem linkages head-on by encouraging residents of a major world city to harness and enhance existing ecosystems and natural assets. The initiative has learning points to offer about initiating and sustaining a successful campaign. Political successes include gaining the support of the Mayor of London and over 50% of London?s Wards, its smallest political unit. Large cities, urgent problems Cities internationally are evolving at an unprecedented rate. In many parts of the world, growing populations are putting huge pressure on housing, roads, water, food, power supplies and other infrastructure. Some services are at risk of grinding to a halt, putting vulnerable populations at risk. Concurrently, open spaces are disappearing under concrete, and whilst a majority of residents inhabit smaller and smaller living spaces, polarisation in wealth is increasing, and a small number of wealthy individuals have been able to annexe far more than their fair share of the good things of life, the natural assets, including access to parks, gardens and other open space, and fresh air. UN Habitat (2016) notes that, ?the prosperity generated by cities has not been equitably shared, and a sizeable proportion of the urban population remains without access to the benefits that cities produce?. Technology is also changing everyday life for city populations, as attempts have been made by governments and the private sector to understand what could actually make cities ?smarter? and more efficient: reducing the congestion, the rubbish in the streets, the air pollution, and the power outages. Digital technology offers new ways of approaching complex urban problems, by providing an opportunity for instantaneous adjustments to the flows of information, goods and services, at all levels from the individual to the conurbation. However, local and national administrations have struggled to match the promise of smarter cities with the crowded, chaotic reality of urban life; digital technology is not proving to be a universal panacea for urban ills. What has become apparent is that in order for a city genuinely to plan a sustainable future, and for the physical and mental wellbeing of all of its inhabitants, broader aspects of city living such as governance, education, social inclusion and, crucially, access to the natural environment need to be considered alongside more material considerations. Moreover, citizens need choice about their own community?s future, and cannot be regarded merely as passive recipients of the ambitions of technologists, planners, architects and local politicians. Consequently, ambitious world city leaders who agree that narrowly focussed technology-driven approaches to development cannot generate major improvements in the quality of residents? lives, have begun to involve themselves in social and environmental initiatives linking citizens with the natural environment. This paper explores the emergence of an ambitious movement to engage the citizens of one world city, London, with their natural surroundings. In particular, it will examine the London National Park City initiative, formally launched in Islington, Central London in October 2017 following more than three years of preparatory work. London National Park City draws part of its inspiration from the United Kingdom?s world-class National Parks programme, which had its roots in the early twentieth century when statutory 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 63 environmental protection criteria were established for a group of rural and predominantly upland areas. The National Parks? mission was twofold: to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of selected countryside areas, and to promote the public?s understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities. London National Park City is intended to be a metropolitan parallel, supporting and protecting London?s environment and landscapes for the enjoyment of the city?s residents. Whilst initially surprising and challenging to romantic preconceptions of what a National Park might look like (perhaps a pristine wilderness, largely shaped by geology and climate, rather than a landscape largely created by human activity), the idea has been gaining momentum. Growing interest from other cities wishing to follow suit has led to the formation of an international working group with a Universal Charter for a National Park City in place. London National Park City, not a designation as a National Park City, is a new model. The initial Steering Group proposed that London would be declared a National Park City through the mandate of its citizens. In 2017, London National Park City was formally endorsed by the Mayor of London. March 2018 saw over 50% of London?s Local Councillors sign up to support London National Park City. With this support London has been declared the world?s first National Park City in July 2019. Figure 1. People enjoying a sunny day in a London park. © Judy Ling Wong City challenges London National Park City is not the first city initiative with environmental and citizen engagement objectives. For example, recognising the acute underrepresentation of black and ethnic minority people amongst National Park visitors, the explicitly multicultural Mosaic Project was led by the Campaign for National Parks, in partnership with the Youth Hostels Association and the Black Environment Network voluntary organisation (Gilfinnian Partnership, 2012; Ling Wong, 2015). The project facilitated more than 28,000 people from deprived minority groups to access rural areas beyond the city boundaries, through building relationships between city communities and their nearest National Park. More than two hundred local ?Community Champions? were trained, funded mainly by the national Big Lottery; most were still active at the end of the three year programme in 2012 and the independent evaluation suggested that the project had been highly successful. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages 64 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective The six underlying principles of Mosaic were concerned with: ? Empowerment: giving key individuals the skills and confidence to engage. ? Sustainability: ensuring that the impact of the project endures beyond the period of core funding, by training local volunteers, and by helping statutory authorities to make organisational changes better to engage new audiences in the longer term. ? Relationships: building personal relationships and networks between and across all stakeholder groups. ? Choice: recognising that community participation is about choice, not compulsion. ? Enjoyment: maintaining the objective relating to public benefit and enjoyment. ? Flexibility: making sure that volunteers and staff in the National Parks can undertake activities in which they are interested, by being flexible and adaptable to local and individual circumstances. Although reductions in public funding have threatened the Mosaic legacy, the underlying principles proved robust, and it offers a valuable, tried and tested model for London National Park City?s future engagement with various community and local authority stakeholders. London as a model for other cities London is one of Europe?s largest cities. With a population approaching nine million, at current rates of growth it will become a megacity by 2026. It supports a globally focused economy dependent upon trade and finance, manufacturing and services, and a mobile international population. National and international tourism, largely founded on the city?s extraordinary history, vibrant culture and high-profile events, is crucial to the enterprise. London is an active member of the C40 group of cities, and although it is not the largest or the fastest-growing global metropolis, the similar characteristics of other world cities have prompted consideration of whether the United Kingdom?s capital could act as a model, test bed or beacon for others considering environmental engagement programs. Comparisons with Dhaka or Dar es Salaam may nevertheless prove more challenging than those with Paris or New York. In some ways London is unique. As the capital city of a former global empire, some of the wealth of previous centuries was invested in striking and sometimes extraordinary buildings that continue to draw admirers today. Beyond the architecture, early expropriation by English royalty, several centuries of philanthropy, and active intervention by various local administrations has preserved an exceptional amount of outdoor space, supporting a substantial set of semi-natural or ?fusion? ecosystems. The proportion of open space in London is variously estimated at between a third and two thirds depending on whether private gardens are included, or whether all open space or only ?green and blue? space (vegetated spaces or open water ? rivers, reservoirs and canals), is encompassed. London?s environmental records centre, (Green Information for Greater London CIC, 2013) estimates that 49.5% of London?s surface area is green and blue space, making London the greenest major city in Europe and the third greenest city of its size in the world according to a 2013 report commissioned by the City of London Corporation. Nevertheless, this legacy of parks, gardens and water bodies is not always recognised as an asset, and in the current political and economic climate, all levels of London?s government are under pressure to provide more space for housing and business use, and to reduce maintenance costs. London?s governance is a bewildering mixture of overlapping territories and responsibilities. It has three basic layers of government: a Cabinet Minister of State with responsibility for the whole city (a role created in January 2018); an elected Mayor of London with an environmental team; and Local Authority government comprising 32 London Boroughs, with elected Councillors representing 653 wards. The London Boroughs have environmental responsibilities as well. In total, the urban area contains some 14,000 hectares of public parks, woodlands and gardens, which means that some 40% of the ground is publicly accessible green space. The City of London Corporation is the authority with responsibility for managing almost 4,400 hectares of green spaces in and around the capital, including many of the largest open spaces - Epping Forest, Hampstead Heath, and more than two hundred gardens, churchyards, parks and plazas within the historic ?Square Mile? itself. Its principal mission is to promote London as a leading centre for finance and business. The Corporation?s report ?Green Spaces: The Benefits for London? (2013) credited these spaces with climate change prevention and mitigation, absorbing pollution, reducing flooding, and improving air quality. The report also suggested that London?s green spaces contribute direct economic benefits to society, citing research, which found that people are more likely to be physically active if they have access to green spaces, hence making significant savings for the United Kingdom?s National Health Service.In addition, the analysis found that London?s parks and woodlands were a major draw for tourists and a boost to the local economy, with some 23 million visits to the Corporation?s green spaces in 2012/13. Beyond this, the increasing use of natural capital accounting is starting to demonstrate the monetary value of the ecosystem services provided by green space, increasing the pressure for better management by all the owners. However, like all large cities, the issue of universal access to these areas is fundamental. Many traditional approaches to environmental access are about provision, ?greening? the city and maintaining parks in an ecologically sympathetic manner but failing to put people at the heart of the ecosystem. For less well-off people in London, expensive transport means that poorer communities in the east of the city may never experience the joy of seeing freely roaming deer in Richmond Park or observe fish in local rivers and streams. They may not dream of visiting beautiful semi-wild spaces, and can feel excluded from city parks, wrongly fearing they should not be there. London National Park City has been concerned to address this by fostering the appropriate collaborations to ensure that citizens are encouraged not only to visit, but also to engage as innovators, thus harnessing a bigger pool of intellectual capital. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 65 Figure 2. Percentage of green and blue spaces in Greater London in 2013. Source: Judy Ling Wong The National Park City initiative The London National Park City initiative began with a campaign to achieve ?National Park City? status, unlocking the vast missing contribution of its residents. Echoing the sentiments behind the UK?s existing National Parks, the Advisory Board summarised the definition of any National Park City as ?A large urban area managed and semi-protected through both formal and informal means to enhance the natural capital of its living landscape. A defining feature is the widespread and significant commitment of residents, visitors and decision-makers to allow natural processes to provide a foundation for a better quality of life for wildlife and people.? The aim of transforming the relationship between citizens and the London landscape, encouraging them to value it as a living landscape, to share stewardship of its ecology and natural assets, and to transform personal behaviours that damage the environment, is challenging. The intention is to address many of London?s key challenges, including natural environmental issues such as improving air and water quality, increasing the amount of architectural greenery, enhancing wildlife habitats, and increasing biodiversity. Human-centred issues include improving mental and emotional health, reducing obesity, improving community cohesion and a sense of place, and promoting inclusivity and higher quality of life for everyone, particularly children and residents in deprived neighbourhoods. Specific attention is being paid to producing high quality green spaces where people choose to walk and cycle. National Park City Foundation was registered as a charity in 2017, with twelve volunteer trustees. Its published aims are for: ? Better enjoyment: Connect more people to nature and the outdoors, improving their health, wellbeing and social cohesion; ? Better environment: Create more high-quality green and blue spaces to better support and maintain wildlife alongside a sustainable and attractive environment for people; ? Greater economy: Promote the identity of London as the world?s first National Park City, helping residents and visitors to appreciate the potential for a rich cultural life anchored in its outdoor heritage. London National Park City?s vision of access is city-based but not city-bound. Experiences of nature are envisaged as concentric circles of contact starting at home, rippling outwards into the nearby community?s green spaces and parks, then further afield to 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages 66 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective urban nature reserves, woodlands, forests, rivers and canals throughout London, and beyond London into rural nature reserves, Areas of Outstanding Beauty and the National Parks. It is the reflection back and forth of these experiences that is intended to embed a sense and ownership of nature into individual and community consciousness. In years to come, communities will be guardians of nature, because it is inherent in their way of life. To achieve this, the London National Park City approach envisages a leadership of many leaders, working in partnership at all levels from the individual, through community and Borough, to City Government, enabling common understanding, fuelling commitment and driving contributions to the care and protection of ecosystems. Many examples of good practice already exist, which may be replicated and scaled up to bring about a significant impact and broad awareness and enjoyment of London?s natural assets. London, like all urban areas, is beset with a range of problems. The positioning of LNPC is to focus on the power of the positive to pull us out of the negative. LNPC is about the creation of a movement around the concept of a National Park City rather than being an organisation that takes on all issues as its agenda. Many organisations are already at work ? social, economic, cultural, environmental. The concept releases new cohesive actions through buy in to a coordinated vision, with the assertion of a heightened awareness that enjoyment and celebration give impetus and harness energy to act. Joy and celebration importantly underpin the struggles on various fronts that the agenda of many organisations address ? from air pollution to social cohesion, from access to nature to releasing a vast missing contribution from those who are left behind through opening up experience and enabling knowledge, choices and skills. The strapline ?Greener, Wilder, Healthier? keys into the possible everyday actions of individuals as well as the rising policy concerns about mental and physical health and well-being linked to the quality of the urban environment. Delivering London National Park City The initiative is primarily a volunteer grassroots movement, encouraging Londoners themselves to generate solutions. In its first phase, campaigning focused on gaining a political mandate to identify London as a National Park City. Activists have engaged with Borough representatives to gain explicit support for the idea, with support from the Mayor and 50% of wards by early 2018, culminating in the declaration of London as the world?s first National Park City in July 2019. This has both raised grassroots awareness among citizens and brought some bottom-up pressure on policymakers for a greener, more sustainable future that offers rich opportunities for everyone to collaborate and engage with nature. Simultaneously, the London National Park City Network, a platform to facilitate cooperation and partnerships to enhance London?s ecosystem and the activities that will support it, is being formed. A ?Bank of Good Ideas? website will provide a platform for sharing and showcasing good practice, allowing replication of successful nature- based ideas that are within the power of ordinary citizens to progress. There have always been policy frameworks, and focused environmental organisations addressing themes such as biodiversity or habitat degradation. For LNPC the gap is an expansion of individual citizen action and cohesive overall actions so that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. At the level of City Hall, London National Park City is written into the London Plan and is cited as an instrument in the context of Green Infrastructure. The Mayor has recognised the role of citizens and has put a £12million fund to facilitate the role of communities in greening London. With additional donations, the London National Park City is the art of the possible moving at an organic pace, with people, organisations and government at city level stimulated to move together. Examples of activities that could theoretically support London as a National Park City include: ? outdoor school ?classrooms?; ? increased use of city parks for sports, yoga, art classes, meditation, guided walks, wildlife watching; ? community and other organisations offering ways to engage with waterways, for example river-keeping, bird-watching, watersports; ? active participation in conservation groups; ? neighbourhood tree planting; ? Local Authorities planning ?green? commuting corridors; ? developers and housebuilders building green play spaces and wild areas. Drawing on the Mosaic project experience, London National Park City is establishing a Park Ranger Scheme, with two sets of rangers providing a core around which wider participation can be built. Space-based Rangers with specialist knowledge will be located in a range of green spaces from local urban nature reserves to woodlands, canals, rivers and forests. Community-based, urban Neighbourhood Rangers will coordinate volunteers caring for ecosystems in local green and blue spaces and organise trips further afield. This arrangement will potentially benefit communities in many ways, including promoting informal education, play, creativity, social interaction, encouragement to take ownership of and transform natural assets in local neighbourhoods, and stimulating uptake of a wider range of outdoors activities. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 67 A wide range of existing community engagement activities could be brought within the London National Park City framework. Dragonfly Detectives with London Wildlife Trust Between May and September some of London?s peripheral streams, rivers and ponds light up with dazzling, darting, dragonflies and damselflies. These fascinating insectsthrive around clean water and are an excellent indicator of healthy aquatic ecosystems. Even novices can learn how to evaluate the quality of freshwater habitats by surveying their presence and abundance. The Living Landscapes Initiative with London Wildlife Trust Living Landscapes applies the principles widely adopted by rural Wildlife Trusts to London?s unique setting. London Wildlife Trust?s initiative (2014) draws on familiar animals and plants, such as birds, hedgehogs, squirrels, and park or street trees, to prompt residents? experiences of habitats from woodland and chalk grasslands to rivers and wetlands. The key aims are to generate understanding of the needs of individual species, protect existing environmental assets and enhance biodiversity, fostering greater ecological resilience in green spaces across the capital. Healthy High Street, with Incredible Edible Lambeth Interest in growing food in cities is increasing. Astute food growing networks such as Incredible Edible Lambeth have been highlighting city challenges such as health and well-being, sustainability, food security, food waste, food miles, soil quality, recycling and composting, enterprise and the social capital that can be engendered by bringing local people together. The ?Healthy High Street? is mapping the local area to identify beautiful small spaces where food is grown, and children?s play areas. They also champion local restaurants serving healthy and vegetarian meals, or which buy local allotment produce. Parkrun Many Londoners have already taken up the international Parkrun idea of free, weekly, 5 km timed runs in pleasant parkland surroundings (Marshall, 2017). They are safe and open to everyone. Green Gym London, with the Conservation Volunteers Green Gym London is run by TCV, the largest nature conservation organisation in Europe. They have an innovative way of capitalising on the desire of Londoners to get fit, offering structured sessions of nature conservation designed to promote health and well-being. The atmosphere is social, and ecological skills are learnt whilst engendering the sense of being part of a team. Green Gyms are offered to both local communities and schools. London as an urban forest Greater London is heavily wooded. The National Tree Count in 2016 surprised everyone by revealing that London and Surrey were the United Kingdom?s most densely covered areas. London had previously been officially recognised by the Forestry Commission as the UK?s newest forest, its 8.5 million trees covering just under 20% of the City in 2002, making it the largest urban forest in the world; there are some 65,000 woodlands and stands of trees. Two-thirds is registered ancient woodland, suggesting links with the original forest that once covered the majority of the country. This reality invites a shift of vision in terms of the dominant trope that the rural is where nature resides. Beyond this, the Ealing Forest i-tree Survey (Forestry Commission, 2016) pointed out that problems caused by poor air quality are well known, ranging from smog and adverse effects on human health, to damaged buildings. Trees can make a significant contribution to mitigating the urban heat island and various aspects of climate change, and potentially to improving air quality. With 2015 total canopy cover at 21.9%, the goal is 30%. This could be achieved using volunteer tree planters. Trout in the Classroom with The Wandle Trust The headwaters of London?s River Wandle emerge in the Surrey countryside. The Wandle Trust (2012) took London schoolchildren on a journey of discovery into native fish species. Schoolchildren were given fish eggs in tanks to watch them grow from egg to fry, later releasing them back into the Wandle and creating a tremendous sense of ownership. Children have since also brought their families to enjoy previously unknown riversides. However, there have been failures created by subsequent low river flows killing the fish. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages 68 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Lost Effra Project, partnership for sustainable water management in London The Lost Effra Project involves people in sustainable water management in areas that periodically flood. The original Effra River is now encased in sewers beneath London?s concrete and tarmac. DEFRA and the Carnegie Trust commissioned the project in 2013, relying on the motivation of local people to address their vulnerability to flooding, and equipping them with practical mechanisms to improve resilience whilst supporting biodiversity and creating green spaces. New features such as green roofs and rain gardens have been built, and hard paving removed to make the city more resilient to climate and environmental change. The project evolved into a partnership between local people, Thames Water, the Greater London Authority, Lambeth Council and voluntary organisation Groundwork (London Wildlife Trust, 2018). With valuable input from various community groups and private sector partners, it has spread into other areas of London. Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) Citizen science projects can be crucial to connecting people to nature, because they prompt the first steps of discovery. The OPAL concept (Imperial College, 2018) puts experts alongside local people to investigate the natural world, exchanging knowledge, experience and skills whilst learning about local wildlife and their habitats. Citizens who participate can contribute data on topics including environmental degradation, biodiversity loss and climate change, through OPAL?s national surveys. OPAL has designed field and desk-based activities suitable for all ages, abilities and backgrounds, and in particular, has launched a series of national biological surveys. By bringing scientists, amateur-experts, local interest groups, policy makers and the public closer together, OPAL works towards lasting relationships. Community Scientists have already brought over a million enthusiastic volunteers into research on matters of scientific concern. Getting beyond the city Various environmental organisations including Conservation Trust Volunteers offer working holidays in beautiful settings beyond the city, and as part of the recently published 25 Year Plan for the Environment (2018) funds are available from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs for schoolchildren to visit more distant National Parks. Specific opportunities London has several advantages when considering how to enhance environmental quality and engage its citizens with nature. Firstly, the country has a well-established voluntary sector, with over 120,000 non-governmental and charitable organisations working across a range of social, cultural, economic, and environmental themes. There is nevertheless work to be done to enable them to build environmental engagement into their objectives. London is also home to powerful private interests, from the headquarters of international banks and corporations to major developers and manufacturing industry. A better urban environment with a healthy ecology provides a more attractive investment environment for business, hence identifying common aims across public and private sectors, and recognising the importance of a beautiful green city as an asset and a setting for prosperity, is potentially rewarding. Secondly, London has some three million private gardens, all of which could be miniature nature reserves. In the face of climate change and habitat fragmentation, this massive expanse of green space has enormous untapped potential for both people and wildlife. As in many other major cities, the amount of time children spend outside has declined dramatically with a concomitant decline in their physical and emotional health, hence increasing the attractiveness of outdoor play would be valuable. In some of the London Boroughs, the area of green space within social housing areas exceeds that in public parks and gardens, but it is often of poor ecological and environmental quality, mainly closely mown grass. The opportunity to transform areas outside the windows of some of London?s most disadvantaged social groups, working with their landlords, would be advantageous for people and nature, and might tap into social sector funding alongside nature sector support. Finally, the agency of people as a force for change, is not yet captured. The London National Park City Rangers element and other accessible grassroots projects such as the ?9 Million Wildflowers for 9 Million People? project, are intended to turn people into citizens of action, sowing the seeds of what could become a world of pleasurable engagement with nature. Their aspirations to transform grey land into green, and their power to care for and protect nature, are crucial to the overall project. Intrinsic to most of environmental activity is the creation of beauty and the betterment of the quality of life. At the centre of the concept of a National Park City is the promotion of an identity. If one identifies with living in a National Park City, it implies a way of being ? a way of thinking, feeling and therefore acting. This a creative dynamic position. It is a frame that charges a situation with energy. Everyone is inspired to do more and to work together within the vision of a National Park City. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 69 Specific challenges Some environmental problems remain very difficult to address at community level, without wider political action from higher echelons of city or national government. For example, after an improvement from the coal burning-derived smog of the 1950s, London?s air quality has deteriorated recently, contributing to some 10,000 deaths a year; EU standards are frequently breached, largely as a result of diesel vehicle use across the city. Traffic gridlock, public transport under pressure and long commuting times also contribute to the stresses Londoners feel. Whilst as a result of smart technologies available on mobile phones, people may now be aware of the presence of polluting levels of nitrogen compounds and particulates in the air in their Boroughs and understand that they particularly affect asthmatic and young residents, it is difficult for local communities to take direct ameliorative action. Similarly, although local authorities, developers, and others have seen the potential for pleasant waterside living and working, water quality in many of London?s rivers and canals is very poor, with the River Lea, a major tributary to the Thames, being one of the dirtiest rivers in the country. The reasons for the pollution are widespread, and include local discharges, overflows from surcharged sewers and incorrect connections, but the science and the solution are multifaceted. Whilst local ?greening? might be achieved by home-grown action, people can feel powerless to change these broader aspects of the environment. The deterioration in quality has occurred because of economic pressures beyond community level, and solutions are technically complex and expensive. Wider awareness may only be the first step along a tortuous pathway to better air and water quality. This raises questions about holistic and realistic measures of success for London National Park City, as it addresses a complex and integrated set of human and environmental systems. Enjoyment as the key to contribution to the care and protection of ecosystems Targets for specific, quantifiable features of the natural environment, and for measurable levels of citizen engagement, may not capture all, or indeed any, of the intended outcomes of London National Park City. The initiative is predicated on inspiring citizens through contact with nature, which complements traditional environmental approaches. Proponents of the project believe that the fundamental process for engaging people is remarkably simple: people love what they enjoy, and they protect what they love. This love for nature grows as people make nature part of their lives. Hence, when citizens have information suggesting that their environment is being threatened, or that their help is needed, a normal human response would be to volunteer effort to care and protect what they love, and to fight for it. Indeed, this is how the contemporary environmental movement was formed. At present, nature is marginal to the lives of many Londoners, so if they are to play their part in contributing to the future of local ecosystems, London National Park City must start by promoting universal access to beautiful open spaces. The initiative will put the opportunity in place for residents to love nature. It will engage them and supply information to support the growth of knowledge and skills, nurturing the inevitable blossoming of respect and pride in London?s quasi-natural environment. Other agencies, including statutory bodies, measure more specific parameters such as air and water quality, on occasion assisted by local residents engaging in citizen science. The targets for the National Park City will therefore relate mainly to numbers of people engaged in, participating in and enjoying their natural environment, and to other more subtle dimensions of sustainability as defined by programs such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Conclusion Despite the definitions captured in legislation, the rural environments of United Kingdom?s National Parks are far from being ?natural?; they reflect thousands of years of human occupancy, ecological and environmental change. Efforts have nevertheless coalesced around protection of, and access to, ?nature?, and the Parks have become jewels in the crown in the imaginations of many people, and the destinations of choice for growing numbers. Whilst there are urban national parks elsewhere in the developed world, they are rarely inside major cities, and none properly value and recognise the special qualities and potential of an entire urban landscape, including its natural and built environment, and its surrounding rural areas. The London National Park City model not only challenges traditional conservation boundaries that exclude cities and alienate urban dwellers from ?nature? but recognises the potential of residents to be agents for change, within and beyond the city. Knowledgeable and passionate citizens can clamor for improvement, demanding new forms of collaboration and cooperation, planning, governance, finance and learning that can sustain positive change. Moreover, if governments, organisations and citizens connect with and value ecosystems on their doorstep, they are more likely to understand the importance of ecosystems everywhere. Pioneering National Park Cities will help inspire urban leaders to better protect not just their own habitats, but those they influence too. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages 70 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective There are already conclusions to be drawn from the London National Park City initiative, as there were from the earlier Mosaic project. These include the importance of ? recognising what works and championing it, ? recognising what does not work and remembering it, ? mapping challenges and opportunities in accessible ways, ? disrupting traditional top-down and bottom-up thinking, ? demonstrating how individuals can influence landscapes, ? recognising nature as a cultural choice, ? unlocking people?s potential and desire to create a better life, ? assessing the economic value of ecosystem services, ? using imagery to help people visualize alternative futures. These messages will need to be remembered as the movement progresses. Habitat III, in the preamble to the New Urban Agenda, states that ?The battle for sustainable development will be won or lost in cities?.80% of the United Kingdom?s population already lives in urban areas. The model of a National Park City ensuring the importance of nature through active citizenship is momentous. The last seventy years saw the birth and development of National Parks. The coming decades could see the era of a family of National Parks and National Park Cities, playing a fundamental role to protect people and nature. This simple idea of a journey that increases activity focused on a better life for people in the context of the presence of nature in a city is now embodied in a Universal Charter. It has fired the imagination and desire of other cities in the UK and abroad to follow in our footsteps. As the first National Park City, London is very aware that its methodology is based on its particular circumstances and issues. An international working group has produced a Universal Charter, distilling the essence of the concept in a manner that enables other cities to find their own way forward. The movement is growing! References City of London Corporation. (2013). Green Spaces: The Benefits for London Report. Supporting businesses - City of London Forestry Commission. (2016). Valuing London?s Urban Forest ? results of the London i-Tree Eco Project. Valuing London?s Urban Forest (itreetools.org) Gilfillian Partnership. (2012). Mosaic Final Evaluation. https://heritagehindusamaj.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/mosaic-legacy-18-final-evaluation-exec-summary.pdf The Conservation Volunteers. (n.d). Green Gym London. https://www.tcv.org.uk/london/green-gym-london Greenspace Information for Greater London. (2013). Dragonfly Detectives: Citizen science survey. http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/dragonfly-detectives HM Government. (2018). A Green Future ? Our 25 year Plan to Improve the Environment. www.gov.uk/government/publications. Imperial College London. (2018). OPAL:Citizen Science for Everyone.http://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/about/ Incredible Edible Lambeth. (n.d). Retrieved from http://www.incredibleediblelambeth.org/ Ling Wong, J. (2015). The Mosaic Model ? Engaging BME communities in National Parks. Campaign for National Parks. Natural England Access to Evidence Marshall, G. (2017). What we learnt running every single London Parkrun. Londonist. https://londonist.com/london/sport/london-parkrun London Wildlife Trust. (2014). Living Landscapes initiative and All London Green Grid. Research and Reports | London Wildlife Trust (wildlondon.org.uk) London Wildlife Trust and DEFRA. (2018). Lost Effra Project. http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/lost-effra UN Habitat. (2016). Urbanisation and Development: Emerging Futures. World Cities Report 2016. United Nations Human Settlements Program. World Cities Report 2016:Urbanization and Development - Emerging Futures | UN-Habitat (unhabitat.org) UN Habitat. (2017). New Urban Agenda. Documents & Archive - Habitat III (habitat3.org) Wandle Trust London. (2012). Trout in the classroom. https://www.wandletrust.org/tag/trout-in-the-classroom/ 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Creighton Connolly, Department of Urban Planning and Design, The University of Hong Kong 8 Entrance of The Habitat at Penang Hill, Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve (photo by author, 2024) 72 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract This chapter offers an empirical analysis of ecosystem governance on Penang Hill, which is a culturally and ecologically significant area in the centre of Penang Island, Malaysia. Penang is one of the most rapidly urbanising regions in Malaysia, which is putting increasing pressure on the island?s forested hills. Penang Hill, in particular, is important for its swaths of tropical rainforest, a variety of endemic flora and fauna, the jungle trails and funicular tram, as well as its historic bungalows reflecting the island?s colonial history. In order to conserve these features, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve has been established on Penang Hill in 2021 which aims to balance sustainable ecotourism with biodiversity conservation. This chapter aims to evaluate the usefulness of Biosphere Reserves for conserving heritage that transgresses traditional categories of cultural/natural and urban/rural, and the role of local communities in preparing for the nomination of sites. Whilst it was anticipated that Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve would enable conservation of cultural and natural heritage through promoting biodiversity research, cultural revitalisation and nature education, the success has been limited as yet. The chapter is based on analysis of both primary and secondary data and utilizes a landscape approach to conceptualize the layering of cultural and natural values embedded in the urban landscape and thereby enable a more holistic view of urban heritage. Introduction Over the past few decades, there have been numerous studies examining the interface between cultural heritage conservation and urban (re)development, particularly in rapidly urbanising regions (Bandarin & Van Oers, 2012; Barber, 2013; Cartier, 1998; Jenkins & King, 2003; Logan, 2002). On the other hand, scholars have also examined nature conservation movements in the context of encroaching (urban) development, which have primarily sought to conserve the biophysical characteristics of place such as coastlines, topographic landmarks, flora and fauna (Bengston & Youn, 2006; Jim, 2005; Lorimer, 2008; Neo, 2007). However, this body of research has, with a few exceptions (e.g., Daly & Winter, 2012; Ishizawa, 2014, 2017), not considered the importance of the interplay of both natural and cultural heritage in urban settings, and the myriad connections between the two. In illustrating these interconnections, this chapter offers a case study of Penang Hill, which is a culturally and ecologically significant area in the centre of Penang Island, Malaysia. Penang Hill is important for both natural and cultural features including its swaths of tropical rainforest, a variety of endemic flora and fauna, jungle trails and funicular tram, as well as its historic bungalows reflecting the island?s colonial history. Specifically, the Penang Hill ecosystem has 550 animal species; 2456 species of plants from 206 families, including 20 on the IUCN Red List, and four that are listed as Critically Endangered (Habitat Foundation, 2018). However, Penang Hill has been the target of repeated development plans over the past few decades, which has resulted in various grassroots movements to protect the Hill. One initiative has been the designation of Penang Hill as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (BR) in order to work towards a more sustainable form of urban development. Whilst the ultimate success of the BR in meeting this goal is still uncertain, it is anticipated that the designation will enable conservation of Penang Hill?s rich cultural and natural heritage, whilst also supporting biodiversity research and nature education. This chapter will discuss the background of this initiative, including how it has been influenced by both local cultural attachments to the Hill and resistance to ongoing development projects threatening. In analysing this case, I assert that Penang Hill must be viewed as an integral part of the city, rather than a separate ?natural? landscape. The material presented in this chapter is based on a mixed methods approach, using documentary analysis of a variety of sources; planning documents and personal observations spanning over a decade of research in Penang on different, related projects, including natural & cultural heritage conservation. This has allowed for understanding the discursive attachment of Penangites to the Hill, in addition to the history of development and conservation initiatives on Penang Hill. Documents analysed included newspaper articles, government reports, websites, and social media sources for the period 1990 to the time of writing. Positioning Penang Hill: context, history and heritage George Town is the capital of the Malaysian state of Penang, in the northwestern part of peninsular Malaysia. George Town is the historic centre of Penang, located in the northeastern corner of Penang Island, and designated as a UNESCO (cultural) World Heritage Site, jointly listed with Malacca as the ?Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca?. The city is often referred to as Penang, as the metropolitan area extends across the entire island, with a population of approximately 700,000 people. The level of urbanisation in Penang is 90.8%, which is among the highest in Malaysia, after Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Selangor (Mok, 2016a). Penang?s rapid and intensive urban transition has put considerable pressure on the natural environment, including its forested hills. It is largely this development pressure which has caused many Penangites to become increasingly alarmed by the loss of these valuable heritage assets, causing the impetus to push for enhanced protection of Penang?s hills and associated flora and fauna (Dermawan, 2016, 2017; Looi, 2017). This speaks to the importance of community-led heritage movements, in which locals take seriously the value of their city?s existing natural resources and heritage. Despite its name, Penang Hill (or Bukit Bendera) does not actually refer to a single hill, but rather an agglomeration of hills within the north-central part of Penang Island. These hills are connected by a ridge (with a paved road) which is the area commonly referred to as 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 73 Penang Hill. The primary peaks encompassed in this area are Government Hill, Tiger Hill, Flagstaff Hill (Hilltop Station), and Western Hill, which is the highest peak on the island (830m). The Hill is famous for its swaths of primary tropical rainforest, the wide variety of flora and fauna found within them, the jungle trails and funicular tram leading up the hill, as well as its historic bungalows reflecting the island?s colonial history (see Figure 1). The historical significance of Penang Hill relates to its history as the first hill station built in Asia during the British colonial period, which is the origin of many of the heritage buildings remaining on the hill today (Aiken, 1987). Figure 1: A view from Penang Hill. (Photo by author, 2017) Due to its accessibility and visibility from George Town, many Penangites have a strong cultural attachment to the hill, related to childhoods spent visiting its peaks, or merely the aesthetic charm that it offers (Chan, 2018). Penang Hill is thus understood by many Penangites to be central to the ?unique atmosphere, heritage and cultural value? of Penang (Khor et al., 1991, p. 36), and a symbol of the island?s identity (Gibby, 2017, p. 203). Through such statements, we can see how the intrinsic value of Penang?s forested hillsides are central to the identity and well-being of many local people, which have generated wider awareness about the need for greater protection from the threat of development. Whilst Penang Hill is not included in the UNESCO World Heritage designation for George Town as a cultural heritage site, various architectural, historical, cultural and biophysical qualities of the Hill do correspond to many of the ten selection criteria, or ?outstanding universal values? (OUVs) used by UNESCO in evaluating and designating World Heritage Sites (UNESCO, 2005). For example, Criterion (ii) specifically refers to the ?interchange of human values over a span of time within a cultural area of the world on developments in architecture, town-planning or landscape design? (UNESCO, 2017). Others include criterion (v): ?an outstanding example of traditional human settlement?which is representative of?human interaction with the environment?. The omission of Penang Hill from the George Town World Heritage Site is arguably one reason why the Hill has been the focus of so many (re) development plans over the years. As such, various stakeholders in Penang have sought to secure UNESCO Biosphere listing for the Hill, which can conserve the conjoined cultural and natural heritage components of the site and limit future large-scale development. Penang Hill does, however, have stringent legislation regulating development on the site, which goes beyond the forest reserve designation for Penang?s other hills. In addition to designated Permanent Forest Reserve and Water Catchment Areas; the Hill is specifically mentioned in the Structure Plan for Penang Island (PSP), dating back to 1988. The section notes that ?Penang Hill should be designated as an area of special characteristics. Its natural vegetation, topography and character as a hill resort must be maintained and conserved and any development shall conform to, and not destroy these special characteristics? (Khor et al., 1991, p. 19). It goes on to note that the hill may be ?enhanced? by improving and increasing the various look-out points and the provision and maintenance of additional walkways, gardens and ?other facilities?. Moreover, a Local Plan for Penang Hill was gazetted in 1991, which seeks to promote the hill as a ?green, heritage destination? for ?nature and heritage tourism?, whilst taking into account the carrying capacity of the site, and development constraints (Netto, 2013). What Khor et al. (1991) find most significant about the built landscape of the Hill is the sensitive manner in which it was developed over the years. This refers not only to the limited number of bungalows and hotels on the Hill, but also the way in which these buildings were designed to blend in with the natural landscape as much as possible, and the absence of vehicular traffic (Gibby, 2017). This sensitive and slow-pace of development over the years has been recognised by locals as one of the major attractions of George Town as a whole - in that ?it has not really changed over the decades. Yet, as the next section will discuss, this valorisation of slow-paced development is not shared by local politicians who have been labelled ?development obsessed? (Nambiar, 2018; Netto, 2018; Ng, 2016), and have continued to promote large development projects on Penang Hill, despite seeking to promote its cultural and natural heritage attributes. 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia 74 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Penang Hill?s (re)development trajectories: from hill resort to transport hub, and back again In 1990, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the Penang State Government and Berjaya Corporation, announcing their intention to develop Penang Hill into an ?international tourist resort?, which caused unprecedented public controversy (Khor et al., 1991). This plan would have not only affected Penang Hill itself, but also the Municipal Youth Park and the Botanic Gardens at its foothills. The Youth Park was to be developed into a ?water world complex?, whilst a cable-car would be constructed to link Penang Hill with the Botanic Gardens (see Gibby, 2017). On the hill itself, the plan included an ?Acropolis? complex (consisting of a dome, planetarium, theatre, shopping, and sports centre); two large hotels; a condominium; forest lodge (with 300 units); and an ?Adventure Park? on Tiger Hill (consisting of a golf course, ?moon walk?, ?space shuttle?, ?haunted mansion? and ?shipwreck?) which would cover nearly the entire developable surface of the Hill (Khor et al., 1991). Given that Penang Island was completely forested upon the arrival of European settlers in 1786; two-thirds forested by 1900, and one-fifth forested in 1991, the Berjaya Plan was, as Mike Gibby (2017, p. 183) has remarked: ?the next logical step towards deforesting the Hill completely? (p. 183). Indeed, at the time of writing, only seven per cent of Penang State?s forests remain intact. This plan was eventually defeated by a campaign to ?Save Penang Hill?, which was ultimately successful due to the unprecedented levels of public engagement and support that it attracted (nearly 30,000 signatures) (Connolly, 2020). Nonetheless, redevelopment plans continued to be pursued by the State Government, including a cable car that was proposed to connect Penang Hill with the adjacent Youth Park and Botanical Gardens as a way of improving the efficiency of transport on the island. Whilst this plan was dismissed as ?unnecessary? in a 2001 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report commissioned for the Prime Minister?s Office, the plan again re-emerged in 2013 with an additional connection to the northwestern tip of Penang Island (WWF Malaysia, 2001). The cable car was declared by the Malaysia Tourism and Culture Minister as, ?not only a top priority in Penang but also for the country? and was included in the 11th Malaysia Plan (Hilmy, 2015). Whilst the cable car plan has been pursued to increase tourism revenues and improve transportation on the island, it has been consistently resisted due to its incompatibility with the Hill?s natural environment, and limited carrying capacity (Dermawan, 2017; Netto, 2013; Tan, 2013). Penang Hill is now managed by Penang Hill Corporation (PHC), formed in 2009, is a state-owned corporation directed largely by politicians. Penang Hill is touted by the Penang state government as a ?green, heritage destination?, and the recommended tourism theme for the hill as ?nature and heritage tourism?(Netto, 2013a). Penang Hill has thus become central to the Penang 2030 agenda in promoting Penang as a ?green and smart? state (Dermawan, 2021). Whilst the PHC has actively promoted conservation initiatives on the hill, it has also pursued large-scale development projects that seemingly threaten the cultural and ecological integrity of the area. For instance, the PHC?s website claims that the organisation was formed ?with the primary objectives of managing the funicular train system and the development of Penang Hill? (PHC, 2019). The website also describes the PHC?s success with attracting ?more and more tourists? up to Penang Hill, whilst many NGOs have argued that the government should be limiting the number of tourists. In February 2017, the PHC raised the idea of a cable car again, in a bid to increase tourism revenues and improve transportation on the island. In response to this announcement, Friends of Penang Hill representatives announced that they would embark on a ?Save Penang Hill 2.0? campaign if the state government continued to push the project (Dermawan, 2017). The group has consistently rejected the proposal due to its incompatibility with the hill?s natural environment and limited carrying capacity. For instance, the Penang advisor for the Malaysian Nature Society, Dr Kanda Kumar, argued that the construction of additional infrastructure on the hill would be unfeasible in light of the numerous landslides that occurred in 2017 (Loh et al, 2019). The project was then shelved, only to re-emerge again in 2019, with RM100m of funding awarded by then national Finance Minister (and former Chief Minister of Penang) Lim Guan Eng, which was later cancelled in early 2020. Nonetheless, in June 2020 a new plan for a RM300 million cable car line connecting Penang Hill to Teluk Bahang on Penang?s northwest coast was proposed. The project has been pursued by the Singapore listed resort developer Sim Leisure Group, which has been involved in discussions with the state government since 2015. The CEO of Sim Leisure, Sim Choo Kheng, claimed that his firm is against further development on the hill, and suggested that the hill could thrive as an attraction without the need for additional infrastructure. He implied that this is because the main selling point of the cable car ride would be ?the sense of riding through the air over untouched forests? (Loh, 2020). However, the project would involve the construction of two cable car stations, 20 pylons and a 10km-long maintenance road ? all of which would have significant impacts on the hill?s forest ecology. Regardless of Sim?s claim that ?the footprints of the pylons will be unbelievably small?, and that they would carefully preserve the forest floor, PHW argued that the project would inevitably fragment the forest and lead to soil erosion due to excavation and terracing (Penang Hills Watch, 2020b). This risk is particularly high given the steep terrain over which the cable car route would be constructed. Moreover, the Penang Forum, a coalition of NGOs in Penang, pointed out that the route would pass through two forest reserves and three important water catchments for Penang Island, threatening their ability to ensure sustained water yields. Finally, Penang civil society groups also asked for more public consultation in the planning procedures for the hill, rather than simply announcing plans after contracts have been signed with developers (Netto, 2013; Tan, 2013). For instance, when the Botanic Gardens?Penang Hill cable car plan was announced in June 2019, the budget allocation was provided by the federal government before a full technical and feasibility study was completed (Loh et al., 2019). 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 75 In addition to the cable car, the PHC in 2018 announced plans for two new hotels to be built on Penang Hill, claiming that these would ?blend in well with the environment?, and ?be compatible with the history and heritage of Penang Hill? (Tan, 2018). This announcement, however, was heavily criticized by NGOs, pointing out that the largest hotel on Penang Hill has only 12 rooms, whilst one of the proposed hotels will contain 200 (Tan, 2018). This would mean an additional 500?600 overnight guests (an increase of roughly 60 per cent) of its current population, which would immensely strain the hill?s already stretched resources. Consequently, an online petition to protest against the state government?s proposed hotel projects on Penang Hill surpassed 22,000 signatures within just six days of its launch (Mok, 2018). Whilst the Penang Forum would support the idea of refurbishing and repurposing some of the old government bungalows on Penang Hill, they stressed that the construction of new hotels there would ?mar the historic cultural landscape and turn Penang Hill into a warmer, over-developed and overcrowded resort? (Mok, 2018). Subsequently, the state government shelved the hotel idea, in order to achieve ?sustainable development? on the hill, and to preserve the hill as ?the state?s iconic heritage? (Mok, 2020). However, it is hard to see how this vision for the hill is reconciled with the simultaneous push to construct the cable car project. As Thompson et al. (2017) caution, eco-tourism strategies can thus result in serious failings with regards to heritage conservation if the local governance regimes are ineffective. Whilst there is strong legislation protecting the integrity of Penang?s hills (the PSP), this is largely not enforced by the government. This emphasises the need for the active role of local residents in co-directing the planning process and preserving important heritage landscapes (Caballero, 2016). Civil society members have pointed out that forested hills are Penang?s natural heritage and function as water catchments to provide water supply, prevent soil erosion, flooding and landslides (Mizrah, 2013). They also host a rich diversity of plant and animal species, and act as ?green lungs? for CO2 buffering, nature appreciation and outdoor recreation activities, which significantly influences the well-being of urban dwellers (Dwyer et al., 1992; Penang Forum, 2016). Thus, whilst Penang civil society members and many residents are not against development, they maintain that any future development on the Hill should be done in a sensitive manner which compliments its natural and cultural attributes (Gibby, 2017; Mok, 2016b). The Penang Hill Man and Biosphere Reserve In order to better protect and promote the natural and cultural heritage of Penang Hill, the Penang state government announced in October 2016 that it would seek UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Reserve designation for Penang Hill, which would grant the same level of protection as the George Town World Heritage Site (Ngui, 2016; The Star, 2016). Man and the Biosphere Reserves are described by UNESCO (2017) as ?learning sites for sustainable development?, which ?promote solutions reconciling the conservation of biodiversity with its sustainable use?. In this way, Biosphere Reserves recognise the coexistence and even interdependencies of rich biodiversity and distinct social landscapes (Cockrell and Cockrell, 2021). The Biosphere Reserve nomination was a joint effort initiated by the private sector and local biodiversity researchers, but also involved the PHC, State and federal governments. Some of the main characteristics of Biosphere Reserves include the integration of conservation and development, focusing on a multi- stakeholder approach that emphasises the involvement of local communities (Reed and Price, 2019). Importantly, they also seek to integrate cultural and biological diversity through sound sustainable development practices and policies and acting as sites of excellence for education and training. Penang Hill was awarded UNESCO Biosphere Reserve status on 15 September 2021, becoming the third site in Malaysia to receive the designation. In addition to Penang Hill, the Biosphere Reserve also encompasses the Botanical Gardens and Penang National Park to the northeast and northwest, respectively. Together, the area spans 12,481ha, with 7,285ha of this inland, and 5,196 ha marine (Lim, 2021; see Figure 2). The site is divided into three zones: a core, buffer and transition zone, and three ecosystems: forest, coastal and marine. The core zone measures 5,757ha, which consists of permanent forest reserves and water catchment areas and is where biodiversity conservation works, research and educational activities are carried out. The buffer zone covers 2,176ha and the transition zone spans 4,548ha (Habitat Foundation, 2018). The designation is expected to promote and support biodiversity research to be conducted on the hill, which will help to document and conserve the hill?s unique flora and fauna. Penang Hill is an ideal site for a Man and Biosphere Reserve, because the area integrates cultural and biological diversity at the landscape scale, and has the potential to develop and promote sustainable development practices and policies through the involvement of local communities, education and training. The Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve (PHBR) seeks to instil a deeper sense of appreciation to Penang?s natural environment and to generate awareness of the importance of conserving it (Lim, 2021). As Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow stated, the aim is for the PHBR is to ?become a world-class learning site to explore and illustrate methods of conservation and sustainable development? (Lim, 2021). This is part of the ?innovative and green approaches? that the state government is using to achieve the Penang 2030 vision, in order to balance conservation with sustainable economic development (Lim, 2021). This will also help Penang in its long-term goal to become an international centre for research on sustainability, biodiversity and conservation (Free Malaysia Today, 2021). 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia 76 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Figure 2: A map of the Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve. Penang Hill is the area in yellow; Penang National Park is the area in white; the Botanic Gardens the area in red; blue areas are Water Catchments and dams; green areas are Permanent Forest Reserves. The map bottom left shows the situation within Penang State (source: adapted from Habitat Foundation, 2018). One of the key stakeholders involved in initiating and securing the Biosphere designation is the Habitat at Penang Hill, which is a private sector, eco-tourism based operation located near the hill?s Upper Station. The Habitat opened in 2016, and is involved in sustainable tourism, research, conservation and education, promoting the exploration of the hill?s intrinsic identity, unique features and attributes. The Habitat features a wide walking path, canopy walkway and zip line, which allow visitors to experience the natural environment of the summit area. It is also working with the state government to restore some of the heritage bungalows on the hill for community and scientific use. As such, the Habitat Foundation director Allen Tan noted, the Biosphere Reserve could create a new economic sector for the state, rather than concentrating on mass tourism and property investment. He also noted that the state government could also organise more scientific conferences and research programmes to help attract scientists to Penang (Mok, 2020). Various stakeholders have noted that this would also be a more sustainable form of development, whereby ?sustainable economic activities facilitate conservation efforts, and vice versa? whilst also requiring minimal capital investment (Chan, 2018; Gibby, 2017). As Head and Muir (2016) have noted, such forms of community action help to identify possibilities for transformative potential with regards to sustainable urban development. In particular, the Biosphere Reserve can help to promote a more sustainable development model based on the conservation of cultural and natural heritage rather than infrastructure and property development. However, civil society groups are cautiously optimistic, noting the challenges that George Town has faced in managing rampant gentrification and development following the UNESCO World Heritage designation in 2008, and the degradation of the Tasik Chini Biosphere Reserve in Pahang, Malaysia (Yeoh, 2021). There is also the threat posed by the cable car project, which is likely to go ahead. The Penang State Government justified the cable car project, noting that ?many nature reserves and even UNESCO World Heritage Sites? had successfully implemented them, labelling it an ?environmentally sustainable transport? system (Dermawan, 2021). This is seen to be integral to redistributing traffic during peak seasons and facilitating increased tourism on the hill. Indeed, the Penang Hill Special Area Plan (2020) targets an increased capacity for Penang Hill of more than three times the average number of visitors at any one time recorded in 2019. Furthermore, the state government proposed in the 2020 Special Area Plan for Penang Hill to redevelop the summit area of the hill, with a new four-storey hillside café, and a large concrete helipad jutting off the side of the cliff, all of which would harm the ambiance and ?heritage views? of the summit area (Penang Forum, 2021). Of even more concern is the PIL1 highway project planned as part of the PTMP, which would tunnel through 10km of Penang?s hills, with the addition of a bridge over the Penang Hill Railway. As a former 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 77 senior UNESCO advisor familiar with Penang has claimed, this would be ?clearly incompatible? with the Biosphere designation, and ?in fact, seemed purposely designed to undermine and scuttle this conservation initiative? (quoted in Netto, 2018). Yet, it is unclear whether the cable car or PIL1 projects were included in the nomination documents for the PHBR or how these were viewed by UNESCO. As such, whilst the state government has played an important role in securing the Biosphere Reserve nomination, it can be argued that this is being done largely for the purposes of promoting Penang and Penang Hill internationally, and enhancing the state?s ?green and smart? agenda. For instance, the general manager of PHC was quoted as saying that the Biosphere Reserve project would help to attract up to 13,000 people up to Penang Hill simultaneously, which is far beyond the 4,000 deemed feasible by the WWF Report on Penang Hill and the 6,463 stated in the Penang Hill Special Area Plan (Chern, 2018). The PHC?s promotion of Penang Hill as a ?green, heritage designation?, and a place where visitors can ?see the nature, feel the history? is therefore little more than a green- washing strategy intended to promote ecotourism and perhaps appease civil society groups (PHC, 2019). Conclusion The controversies over the future of Penang Hill have shed light on the challenges - but also the potentials - at stake in the conservation of urban heritage. Whilst heritage conservation in the past has been hampered by rigid binaries of cultural/natural, tangible/intangible and urban/rural, the case of Penang illustrates how such binaries might be overcome. This is seen in the way in which heritage NGOs and activists in Penang have become increasingly concerned with emerging threats to the natural environment, and how these are negatively impacting Penang?s rich heritage assets, which are seen as central to Penangites? sense of place and well-being (see Connolly, 2022). In conceptualizing these relationships, it is important to understand urban heritage landscapes as simultaneously cultural and natural, urban, and rural. This is especially important in order to develop and maintain landscapes that foster progressive relations with the natural world, which can only be achieved through conservation approaches and forms of urban development which take seriously the integrated cultural and natural character of urban ecosystems (DeSilvey, 2017). In this way, as Matthew Gandy (2018: 102) has observed, cities can play a dual role in the protection of bio-diversity: ?first, through the provision of a kind of ecological sanctuary for flora and fauna; and second, by enabling the exploration of different socio-ecological interactions that might ultimately be ?scaled up? towards new forms of global environmental politics?. Yet, as Wilson (1991) has argued, constructing forms of urban heritage conservation that are able to connect cultural and natural aspects of the landscape ?must begin with understanding the process of contemporary land development? and everyday experiences of it (p.16). This can help to identify the pressures on particular ecosystems - such as the Penang Hill cable car and highway developments - and how the various (urban, cultural and natural) components can be integrated in a sustainable manner. The Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve is one outcome of this process, which has been developed through the joint efforts of various stakeholders. However, the ultimate success of the Biosphere nomination for Penang Hill and adjacent areas will require active support and management of government agencies, including the (government-led) Penang Hill Corporation. Given the commercial and mass-tourism focused means by which the PHC has promoted the hill and - to some extent - the Biosphere Reserve, there seems to be an incompatibility between the motivation of the local government and the aims of the Man and the Biosphere Programme and other stakeholders. As such, the future of Penang Hill will depend on greater synergies between stakeholders and genuine commitment to the preservation of the natural environment and the livelihoods and well-being of those who depend upon it. It will also require a more sustainable approach to urban development in Penang that respects the conjoined natural and cultural heritages of Penang Hill and surrounding landscapes. As Matthew Gandy (2018: 104) has observed, ?if the future of the biosphere is to be deliberated over in an increasingly urban context the question of what is worth protecting, on what grounds, and over what scale ...will be an inescapable dimension to public culture?. References Aiken, S. R. (1987). Early Penang Hill Station. Geographical Review, 77(4), 421?439. https://doi.org/10.2307/214282 Bandarin, F., & van Oers, R. (2012). The historic urban landscape: managing heritage in an urban century. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119968115 Barber, L. B. (2013). Making meaning of heritage landscapes: The politics of redevelopment in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 57, 90?112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00452.x Bengston, D. N., & Youn, Y.-C. (2006). Urban Containment Policies and the Protection of Natural Areas: The Case of Seoul?s Greenbelt. Ecology & Society, 11, 3?18.https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01504-110103 Berger, A. A. (1997). Narratives in popular culture, media and everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243344 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Biosphere Reserve pitch for Penang Hill. The Star. (October 6, 2016). https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/10/06/biosphere-reserve-pitch-for-penang-hill/ Caballero, G. V. A. (2016). The role of natural resources in the historic urban landscape approach. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 6, 2?13. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-11-2014-0037 Cartier, C. (1998). Megadevelopment in Malaysia: From Heritage Landscapes to ?Leisurescapes? in Melaka?s Tourism Sector. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 19(2), 151?176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.1998.tb00257.x Chacko RP (2021) What you need to know about the Replacement Penang Hill Special Area Plan 2020. In: Aliran. Available at: https://m.aliran.com/web-specials/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-replacement-penang-hill-special-area-plan-2020/ (accessed 20 September 2021). Chan, T. (2018). Penang Hill?s 2018 bid for Unesco status boosted by findings of world?s first whole-forest biodiversity survey. South China Morning Post.https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/travel-leisure/article/2124782/penang-hills-2018-bid-unesco-status- boosted-findings-worlds. Accessed May 20, 2019. Chern, L.T. (2018). Out to maintain island?s beauty: Penang Hill and surrounding areas inchtowards Unesco reserve status. The Star.https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/07/22/out-to-maintain-islands-beauty-penang-hill-and-surrounding-areas- inch-towards-unesco-reserve-status/. Accessed May20, 2019. Chow, M. D. (2018a.). Final stage reached for Penang Hill Unesco listing attempt. Free Malaysia Today. https://www. freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/08/03/final-stage-reached-for-penang-hill-unesco-listing-attempt. Accessed February 10, 2020. Chow, M. D. (2018b). Rushing to get Penang Hill listed as a Unesco Biosphere Reserve. Free Malaysia Today. https://www. freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/07/21/rushing-to-get-penang-hill-listed-as-a-unesco-biosphere-reserve/. Accessed May 20, 2019. Cloke, P., & Jones, O. (2001). Dwelling, Place, and Landscape: An Orchard in Somerset. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 33(4), 649?666. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3383 Cockrell HA and Cockrell RA (2021) Designation of the Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO: a fitting recognition of the unique natural and cultural heritage of Penang Island and its people. Available at: https://www.tourism.gov.my/news/trade/view/ designation-of-the-penang-hill-biosphere-reserve-by-unesco-a-fitting-recognition-of-the-unique-natural-and-cultural-heritage-of- penang-island-and-its-people (accessed 19 September 2021). Connolly, C. (2019). From resilience to multi-species flourishing: (Re)imagining urban-environmental governance in Penang, Malaysia. Urban Studies.https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018807573 Connolly, C. (2020). Urban Political Ecologies of Heritage: Integrating Cultural and Natural Landscapes in Penang, Malaysia. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 45(1): 168-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12335 Connolly C (2022) Political Ecologies of Landscape Governing Urban Transformations in Penang. Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press. Daly, P. & Winter, T. (Eds.). (2012). Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203156001 Dermawan, A. (2016). Group launches Penang Hills Watch site to monitor hill clearing activities. New Straits Times. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2016/10/184600/group-launches-penang-hills-watch-site-monitor-hill-clearing-activities Dermawan, A. (2017). People will ?Save Penang Hill, again?. New Straits Times. http://www.nst.com.my/news/2017/02/209515/people-will-save-penang-hill-again Dermawan A (2021b) RFP for Penang Hill cable car project open from Wednesday till May 24. Available at: https://www.nst.com. my/news/nation/2021/01/656413/rfp-penang-hill-cable-car-project-open-wednesday-till-may-24 (accessed 20 September 2021). DeSilvey, C. (2017). Curated Decay: Heritage Beyond Saving. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Dwyer, J. F., McPherson, G., Schroeder, H. W., et al. (1992). Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Aboriculture, 18(5), 227?235. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1992.045 Free Malaysia Today (FMT) (2021) Penang Hill?s Unesco recognition boosts our green efforts, says CM. 16 September. Available at: https://bit.ly/3lVmC4F (accessed 19 September 2021). Gandy M (2018) Cities in deep time: Bio-diversity, metabolic rift, and the urban question. City, 22(1): 96?105. Gibby, M. (2017). Penang Hill - A Journey Through Time. Penang: Entrepot Publishing. Habitat Foundation T. (2018). The proposed Penang Hill UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve ? The Habitat Foundation. Accessed February 10, 2020. 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 79 Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw25q Head, L. & Muir, P. (2006). Suburban life and the boundaries of nature: resilience and rupture in Australian backyard gardens. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(4), 505?524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00228.x Heynen, N., Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (2006). Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism. In N. Heynen, M. Kaika, & Swyngedouw, E. (Eds.), In the Nature of Cities. (pp. 1?21). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203027523 Hilmy, I. (2015). Proposed cable car project will benefit Penang. The Sun Daily. http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1405592 International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (2016). ICOMOS & IUCN Partner on Nature-Culture Journey at the World Conservation Congress 2016. http://www.icomos.org/en/178-english-categories/news/5760-icomos-iucn-partner-on- nature-culture-journey-at-the-world-conservation-congress-2016 Ishizawa, M. (2014). About the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes: Sustainability or Unviability? Unpublished PhD Thesis. Brandemburg University of Technology, Cottbus. Ishizawa, M. (2017). Landscape change in the terraces of Ollantaytambo, Peru: an emergent mountain landscape between the urban, rural and protected area. Landscape Research, 42(3), 321?333. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1267132 Jenkins, G., & King, V. T. (2003). Heritage and development in a Malaysian city: George Town under threat? Indonesia and the Malay World, 31(89), 44?57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639810304441 Jim, C. Y. (2005). Monitoring the performance and decline of heritage trees in urban Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management, 74(2), 161?172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.08.014 Jones, O., & Cloke, P. J. (2002). Tree cultures: the place of trees and trees in their place. Oxford; New York: Berg. Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (2011). The Urbanization of Nature: Great Promises, Impasse, and New Beginnings. In G. Bridge & S. Watson (Eds.), The New Blackwell Companion to the City (pp. 106?117). Malden, MA: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444395105.ch9 Khor, M., & Friends of Penang Hill (Eds.). (1991). Penang Hill: the need to save our natural heritage: critique of the proposed development and alternative plan. Penang, Malaysia: Friends of Penang Hill. King, V. T. (Ed.). (2016). World Heritage in Southeast Asia: Issues, Prospects and Problems. In UNESCO in Southeast Asia: World Heritage sites in comparative perspective (pp. 1?30). Copenhagen: NIAS Press. https://doi.org/10.26721/spafajournal.v1i0.165 Lim R (2021) Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve is nation?s latest on Unesco conservation list. Available at: https://www.thestar.com. my/news/nation/2021/09/16/penang-hill-biosphere-reserve-is-nations-latest-on-unesco-conservation-list (accessed 19 September 2021). Logan, W. (2012). The disappearing ?Asian? city: protecting Asia?s urban heritage in a globalizing world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Looi, S.-C. (2017, October 23). We?ll kick you out, groups warn Penang govt over hillside development. The Malaysian Insight. October 23, 2017. https://www.themalaysianinsight.com/s/19639/ Lorimer, J. (2008). Living roofs and brownfield wildlife: towards a fluid biogeography of UK nature conservation. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 40(9), 2042?2060. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39261 Mizrah, R. (2013, December 11). Rexy?s thoughts: Penang Hill Special Area Plan (SAP). RexyMizra. https://rexymizrah.wordpress.com/tag/teluk-bahang/ Mok, O. (2016a, October 26). Massive projects in place to alleviate urbanisation in Penang. The Malay Mail. http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/massive-projects-in-place-to-alleviate-urbanisation-in-penang Mok, O. (2016b, November 17). State Opposition leader questions planned development for Penang Hill. The Malay Mail. http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/state-opposition-leader-questions-planned-development-for-penang-hill Mok O (2018, November 21) Online petition to Save Penang Hill tops 22,000 backers. Malay Mail. Available at: https://www. malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2018/11/21/online-petition-to-save-penang-hill-tops-22000-backers/1695606 Mok O (2020, October 5) Penang applies to Unesco for Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve recognition. Malay Mail Available at: https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2020/10/05/penang-applies-to-unesco-for-penang-hill-biosphere-reserve- recognition/1909566. Nambiar, P. (2018, November 16). Chow: If HK Had to take advice of Penang NGOs, it would still be backward. FMT News. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/11/16/chow-if-hk-had-to-take-advice-of-penang-ngos-it-will-still-be- backward/ 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Netto, A. (2013, November 14). Cable cars will push Penang Hill visitors beyond 10,000/day threshold. Anilnetto.com. http://anilnetto.com/economy/development-issues/cable-car-proposal-added-on-to-penang-hill-draft-special-area-plan/. Netto, A. (2018, September 18). Penang?s monster highway: Yeo Bee Yin?s biggest test. Anilnetto.com. https://anilnetto.com/ economy/development-issues/penangs-monster-highway-yeo-bee-yins-biggest-test/. Accessed September 22, 2018. Neo, H. (2007). Challenging the developmental state: Nature conservation in Singapore. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 48(2), 186?199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2007.00340.x. Ngui, A. (2016, October 5). Efforts to get Penang Hill listed as a Unesco Biosphere Reserve. The Sun Daily. http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1992843. Penang Forum. (2016). Penang Forum launches Penang Hills Watch online crowd-sourcing, mapping initiative. https://penangforum.net/2016/10/31/penang-forum-launches-penang-hills-watch-online-crowd-sourcing-mapping-initiative/ Penang Forum (2021) The Draft Penang Hill Special Area Plan: What you need to know. Penang, Malaysia. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/events/451335555873895/ (accessed 20 September 2021). Penang Hill Corporation (PHC). (2019). About Us. https://corporate.penanghill.gov.my/index.php/en/. Reed, M. G., & Price, M. F. (2019). Introducing UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. In Reed, M.G. & Price M.F. (Eds.) Unesco biosphere reserves: Supporting biocultural diversity, sustainability and society. (pp. 1-10). Taylor & Francis Group. Pp. 1-10. Speechley, S.-T. (2014). Penang?s Heritage Wealth Goes Way Beyond the UNESCO Site. Penang Monthly, January. http://penangmonthly.com/penangs-heritage-wealth-goes-way-beyond-the-unesco-site/. Tan, S. C. (2018, November 21). Penang Hill Projects to go ahead. The Star. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/ nation/2018/11/21/penang-hill-hotel-projects-to-go-ahead-phc-two-lodging-facilities-to-be-built-on-dilapidated-buildin/. Tan, S. H. (2013, October 7). So where is the Penang Local Plan? ? Letters. The Star. http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2013/10/07/so-where-is-the-penang-local-plan/ Thompson, B. S., Gillen, J., & Friess, D. A. (2018). Challenging the principles of ecotourism: insights from entrepreneurs on environmental and economic sustainability in Langkawi, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(2), 257?276. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1343338 UNESCO, W. H. C. (2005). The Criteria for Selection. http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/. UNESCO, W.H.C. (2017). Biosphere Reserves. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/ Wilson, A. (1991). The culture of nature North American landscape from Disney to the Exxon Valdez. Toronto: Between the Lines. Winter, T., & Daly, P. (2012). Heritage in Asia: Converging forces, conflicting values. In P. Daly & T. Winter (Eds.), Routledge handbook of heritage in Asia. New York: Routledge. WWF Malaysia. (2001). Study on the Development of Hill Stations (pp. 1?168). Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister?s Department. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/26736923/wwfm-hill-stations-study-vol2-2001pdf-sdn-bhd-wwf-malaysia. Yeoh R (2021) Unesco listing great, but don?t let Penang Hill devolve like Tasik Chini: experts. Available at: https://www.thevibes. com/articles/news/41794/unesco-listing-is-great-but-dont-let-penang-hill-devolve-like-tasik-chini-experts (accessed 19 September 2021). 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Cordillera Azul National Park: integrated landscape management under a participatory model for the conservation of nature and its benefits Tatiana Z. Pequeño Saco and Patricia I. Fernández ? Dávila Messum and Lily O. Rodriguez, Centro de Conservación, Investigación y Manejo de Áreas Naturales ? Cordillera Azul CIMA ? Cordillera Azul 9 Laguna del mundo perdido, foto Alvaro Del Camp 82 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract The integrated management of Cordillera Azul National Park presents a great challenge for CIMA, as it is a 20-year administration contract with SERNANP, the Peruvian park authority. The situation is further aggravated in the context of climate change where its ecosystems -mainly those with great anthropic influence in the park?s buffer zone- face a tendency to become increasingly dryer due to water stress. Cordillera Azul shelters intact montane forests is a key biodiversity area, where new species are discovered every year, acting also as an important carbon reservoir, generating a REDD megaproject that has managed to reduce emissions by more than 36.6 million tons of CO2 from 2008-2020. The buffer zone is a mosaic of landscapes with different degrees of use and historically one of the most threatened by forests? loss due to constant migration. CIMA works on processes that promote participatory land-use planning and strengthening of local governance to reduce and mitigate the drivers of biodiversity loss. Processes include mapping territory uses and potentialities for sustainable management, conservation commitments to support park conservation, mitigation of threats and ecological landscape restoration, in order to contribute to improving rural quality of life. By bridging distant villages and rural areas with municipal and regional governments, CIMA is promoting environmental sensitivity, integrated governance, and participatory engagement in an urban ? rural context. Introduction Geographical location, scale of the project and types of ecosystems The Cordillera Azul National Park (PNCAZ) is located in the heart of the Amazon Andes, with 1,351,190.85 hectares making it the largest protected area in Peruvian Amazonian mountains; covering from cloud forests to the Amazon plain (2,650 to 200 masl), with a wealth of endemic and threatened species, it hosts healthy populations of large mammals included in Red Lists (IUCN/CITES) (Alverson et al, 2001), and new species adding every year (O?Neill et al., 2000; Weber & Montoya-Burgos, 2002; Lujan et al., 2010; Cusi et al., 2017; Lane et al., 2017; Moncrief et al., 2018; Castillo-Urbina et al, 2021; Vasquez & Valenzuela, 2022; Gonzales et al, 2023). It is protecting a wide range of unique habitats and important headwaters securing the provision to thousands of people. The integrated management of the Cordillera Azul is carried out following UNESCO?s concept of biosphere reserve1. The core area corresponds to the PNCAZ, whilst its buffer zone consists of a large mosaic of different degrees of land uses. The buffer zone has as natural limits the Huallaga and Ucayali rivers, distributed in part of San Martín, Loreto, Huánuco and Ucayali departments. The Park and CIMA offices are located in the main urban cities of Tarapoto, Tocache, Contamana and Aguaytía all of them outside the buffer zone (Figure 1). The PNCAZ and its buffer zone comprise 21 unique structural habitats (INRENA, 2006) distinguished by differences in underlying geology, soils, hydrology and vegetation; and grouped into five types of forests (CIMA, 2012) for a simpler description: ? Alluvial Forests, with typical successional species (Gynerium, Cecropia, Guazuma, Triplaris, Acacia), Ficus and Cedrela, as well as a palm-dominated understory; swampy habitats dominate open areas; large number of fruiting species in alluvial and terrace forests attract ungulates. ? Hill Forests, includes low, medium, and high hill forests and eroded red hills, from 400 to 800 masl. Cedar (Cedrelinga) forests, up-hills with morning mists and regular cloud cover, maintains high diversity of epiphytes, ferns; also palm dominated understory. Eroded red and white hills have steep slopes and exposed rocks as a result of landslides. ? Mountain Forests, (from 800 to 2300masl or more) include mountain, stunted and cloud forests with arborescent ferns (Metaxya), trees and palms. Highest elevations with superficial root systems form spongy, humid carpets on acidic soils, poor in woody species but rich in epiphytes, palms, and herbs. Tall mountain forests in Cushabatay headwaters are a rare habitat sheltering several endemic species. ? Wetlands, with Mauritia palm stands and species associated like Eritrina poeppigiana, Ficus insipida, Ficus maxima, and Acacia loretensis. ? Huallaga Dry Forest, in the buffer zone, with 700-1600mm of annual rainfall; this isolated forest with high endemism is strongly threatened by its proximity to Marginal highway. It is the only place in Peru for Erythoxylum lucidum, E. shatona (?Coca? genus), Mosannona raymondi, Croton glabellus. Important trees are Manilkara bidentate and Schinopsis peruviana. Context The Park was established by the Peruvian government in 2001 to protect a unique assemblage of species, biological communities and geological formations from the Cordillera Azul complex, intact headwaters and basins, and to support an integrated and balanced management of the natural resources of adjacent areas (DS-2001-AG). 1 https://www.unesco.org/en/mab/wnbr/about Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 83 Figure 1. Altitudinal map and location of Cordillera Azul N.P. (Source: CIMA) There are no human settlements within the park, but its 23,034.14 sq Kms of buffer zone (995Km perimeter) houses more than 330K people (510 villages), doubling the number since the park establishment, and including indigenous communities (Kichwas, Yine, Shipibo and Kacataibo) and isolated Kacataibo groups between park and buffer zone. Most of the villages closest to the park have fewer than 300 people, and less than a dozen, within the buffer zone, attaining 5000 people. CIMA works since 2002 supporting the Peruvian authority in managing the PNCAZ, currently Servicio Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado Peruano-SERNANP; since 2008, the PNCAZ?s management is carried out under a public-private co- management scheme, through an Administration Contract that CIMA has with the Peruvian State over 20 years (Figure 2). The main financial mechanism for the contract is a REDD+ project that has generated the largest amount of carbon credits-VCU in protected areas in Peru. With the sales of the VCUs, a financial sustainability fund for the park has been established. Other ecosystem services provided by Cordillera Azul forests are: provision of water in quantity and quality by protecting the headwaters of some 45 watersheds (INRENA, 2006), supply of non-timber forest resources as a source of protein and non-timber plant resources (Gavin, 2004, 2006; Klebelsberg, 2005; Sánchez, 2006; Sánchez & Vásquez, 2007; Meyer, 2006; La Torre-Cuadros, 2011), breeding and nesting areas for several aquatic species (Martinez, 2007), control of erosion, contribution to the pollination of crops such as cocoa and coffee (Howe, 2017). 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park 84 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Figure 2. Complexity of PNCAZ co-management, including threats management and complementary roles. (Source: Cordillera Azul National Park (CIMA 2012)) CIMA coordinates with rural communities located closer to the park, with participative (Martínez, 2009) and adaptive management (Pequeño, 2007); striving to implement conservation processes and sustainable land-use management. Community?s conservation agreements, and not only with organisations, strengths the relationship and cooperation with CIMA and the park (Arenas et al, 2019). Linking these areas with urban areas is made by coordinating with municipal and regional governments, including the national level, ensuring the application of ecosystem approach principles (Pequeño & Fernández-Dávila, 2014) incorporating a gradient of spatial scales, from rural to urban scope also, CIMA applies its intervention model with the aim to Strengthen Local Capabilities for Conservation-FOCAL, linking participatory diagnostic processes with the generation of communal norms and strategic planning. CIMA?s efforts seek to ensure the conservation of PNCAZ and contribute to improving the quality of life of its neighbouring peoples. Reason for action The buffer zone is a mosaic of landscapes under different degrees of use and is historically one of the most threatened areas due to constant migration, land trafficking, road construction, disordered expansion of agriculture by waves of licit and illicit crops and scarce authority present in the area (Holland et al. 2016, Rojas et al. 2019). The occidental valleys outside the park, the Huallaga valley, have endured deforestation since the 70?s, affecting also quality and quantity of water supply (Shanee & Shanee, 2016). Ther is also a risk of adverse impacts to local crops, as well as the loss of productive capacity of soils, reducing opportunities for sustainable development but increasing conflicts over the space occupation and natural resources (Holland et al, 2016). Methods, governance context and process In the buffer zone, as part of the FOCAL model of intervention (CIMA, 2013a), CIMA has been implementing with local communities, sequential strategic planning processes (Figure 3): a) Formal and non-formal environmental education for environmental awareness, based on total participation, inclusion, logical sequencing, and updated knowledge; carried out from the beginning, in continuous and transversal ways to the subsequent moments of the FOCAL; applied at the rural and urban level; b) Socio-economic and physical-environmental diagnosis applying Mapping of Uses and Strengths-MUF for social diagnosis, and Communal Participatory Zoning- ZPC for land use zoning (Llactayo, 2008); c) Building rules of coexistence that favours harmonious coexistence, ordered occupation and use of the territory, promotion of communal identity, respect for agreements and full exercise of rights and duties of the inhabitants of a village (CIMA, 2014b); d) Communal strategic planning by Quality-of-Life Plans (QLP), based on the construction of a long-term communal vision with a lens on political, economic, social, cultural and natural aspects that will allow rural populations to improve their quality of life (CIMA, 2014c). Complementary Roles P Participatory Management (Conservation Agreements) Neighbors PNCAZ Local authorities Private sector Diagnosis of actors, mapping of uses and potentials in prioritized sectors (in areas with > vulnerability) Population, entrepreneurs, etc. Local authorities Economic Deforestation Park & buffer zone Overuse of Resources (effects per activity) Unsustainable harvesting 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 85 Figure 3. Graphical description of CIMA?s intervention strategy, FOCAL. Each number corresponds to different tools: (1) formal and non-formal environmental education, (2) mapping resources and people strengths (MUF); (3) participatory land-use planning (ZPC); (4) community coexistence rules; (5) life quality plans and implementation; (6) monitoring. (Source: CIMA, 2013a) Up to this point of the FOCAL process, activities of CIMA provide the conditions for figure orderly, sustainable and compatible development with environmental conservation, as well as contributing to achieve results with SERNANP (CIMA, 2017). FOCAL is consolidated with: a) Implementation of QLP where CIMA has a promoter and articulator role with municipal and regional authorities, whilst also providing technical support to rural areas. b) Blue agreements are communal conservation agreements that aim to consolidate the joint work between CIMA, municipal authorities and rural populations around Cordillera Azul. (Arenas et al. 2019). c) Impact monitoring considering the progress to the improvement of the quality of life of the populations and the protection of the park (Pequeño, 2007). Other processes developed with the neighbouring populations to the park and that may occur outside the framework of FOCAL are: ? Organisational Technical-Productive Strengthening (FOTP), with local grassroot organisations (cooperatives, committees, associations, producers, etc.) to generate strategic alliances. ? Communal support for PNCAZ?s protection with communal park guards, rondas campesinas and self-defence committees. ? Technical and legal support to Local Conservation Initiatives evaluating/enabling feasibility and strengthening their management. ? All these actions strengthen the environmental governance that underpins the orderly use of the territory and other natural resources. Outcomes and results Strengthening environmental processes: natural capital Effective control and surveillance system have been consolidated around the park, thanks to the joint work between CIMA and SERNANP including local organisations, authorities, and communities. The rangers and CIMA?s team jointly control and monitor the PNCAZ on the ground with the support of local communities and in buffer zone with the rondas campesinas. CIMA contributes to generate conditions for PNCAZ to remain free of activities such as logging or agriculture, that would degrade its ecological integrity. Surveillance and control of the park boundaries, monitoring and control strategies; hiring and training of 67 SERNANP?s rangers, communal rangers, well-connected 22 control posts, and concentrated operations in areas with heightened conservation threat risks. CIMA also facilitates constant satellite monitoring SERNANP legal actions in major cities where authorities are located (i.e., prosecutor?s office, police, etc.) to prevent and act timely against any illegal activities. E N V IR O N M E N TA L E D U C A T IO N A N D J O IN T R E FL E C T IO N 3 Institutional strengthening of 86 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Compatible and traditional use of resources (hunting and fishing) are allowed within the park; this was ensured according to the PNCAZ-zoning and rules of use since the first Master Plan (2004), established by consensus with neighbouring communities. CIMA facilitates processes of participatory land-use zoning among the closest villages to the park, which enables conflict resolution (i.e. boundaries definition between villages, forestry concessions, etc.), prevent and reduce environmental risks (i.e. avoid settlements in areas of landslides or floods) and avoid the degradation of areas defined for protection (Rodriguez et al., 2018). In the buffer zone, 24 villages and native communities (117,066 ha), grouped in nine landscapes, developed participative ZPC processes, with CIMA?s technical support and backed by Municipalities and the Ministry of the Environment-MINAM. Part of the buffer zone of 81,123 hectares is a conservation concession from CIMA to protect the park on its narrower area. And at least 8 small local forest on the Huallaga side (~ 2,200 has) protect remnant communal forest. Furthermore, since 2018 CIMA develops landscape ecological restoration pilot projects in four degraded areas of the buffer zone (Secretariat CBD, 2021). To date, PNCAZ continues to maintain the lowest rate of deforestation within the National System of Natural Protected Areas. It has benefited from the support of neighbouring towns who recognise the benefits the forest has to offer. Respect and consideration for ancestral and indigenous culture: cultural capital The internal zoning of PNCAZ contains a Strict Protection Zone, on sites with references to presence and displacement of uncontacted Kakataibo indigenous people, consistent with precautionary principle, applied to prevent any violation of human rights. CIMA generated a Contingency Plan for possible encounters with these vulnerable populations, developing technical and popular versions for local dissemination. This document was based on work developed jointly with native communities, and participation of indigenous federations; it has served as a base for the Ministry of Culture-MINCU with whom the strategy was shared. CIMA continues to coordinate with MINCU, helping to establish the Kacataibo Territorial Reserve next to the Park (~90,000 has) and is currently a member of its governance body. Strengthening processes in community decision-making: socio-political and economic capital CIMA has been fundamental in connecting distant rural populations to local authorities in the urban areas. Projects of infrastructure (drinking water and sanitation, river defense, road improvement, electricity, signaling and interpretation, schools, etc.) and the mechanisms (public or private inversion) for its upkeeping have been implemented. These projects were part of the development of Action Plans of their QLP, applying new technical skills in resource and project management and governance, to implement their communal priorities. Around 5,942 families -from associations or communal institutions in 70 villages or indigenous communities- have benefited from CIMA support to acmber harvesting. More than 250 women are actively participating in formal associations, strengthened and supported by CIMA: Handicraft Association Kari Isa Xanu, several Mother?s Club (Virgen de las Mercedes, Virgen del Carmen, Las Samaritanas, Sarita Colonia), and several Education Institutions. Economic valuation of PNCAZ?s ecosystem services: conservation insertion in market CIMA worked tirelessly to promote the development and implementation of the Cordillera Azul Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) project, in order to contribute to the financial sustainability of the park (CIMA, 2012, 2013b, 2018; SERNANP?WWF?GIZ-IT, 2014). A milestone occurred at the end of 2014, when CIMA achieved consolidation of the Cordillera Azul REDD Project, creating an alliance with the Althelia Climate Fund (ACF). Bringing along renowned international financial institutions, by committing an investment of almost 11M USD for the period 2015-2018 through a loan contract, this was a substantive new figure for financing conservation. This operation committed more than 8M carbon credits as collateral, to finance park operations and to promote and implement sustainable economic activities in the buffer zone. The agreement between CIMA and Althelia was recognised as historic, being the largest transaction of its type in the region. However, until 2019, demand and prices were very low (Michaelowa et al, 2019); it is only from 2019 that large quantities could be marketed to international companies, mainly in the oil industry. These sells generated surpluses for the establishment of the fund for the PNCAZ. The PNCAZ REDD+ project prevents the deforestation in average of 6,800 hectares per year and has generated the largest amount of carbon credits-VCU in protected areas in Peru, with a total of 36,612,043 tCO2 verified with carbon standards VCS and CCB, within 2008-2020 (CIMA, 2023). Around 31M VCUs were successfully traded in the voluntary market up to 2023. With the revenues, owned by the park, a under the management of the Fondo de promoción de las áreas naturales protegidas (PROFONANPE). Before 2014, partners such as USAID, Moore Foundation, MacArthur Foundation and others have secured the conservation and protection of the park (see figure 4). 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 87 Figure 4. Evolution of the financing sources of PNCAZ 2001-2022 (source: CIMA). Application of highest quality standards The PNCAZ REDD+ project went through a long process of design and accreditation according to two of the highest international standards under VERRA (https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/985): ? Verified Carbon Standard-VCS: assures the quality of projects, quantifies emissions of greenhouse gases reduced and the attributes of the conservation project. http://www.v-c-s.org ? Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard-CCB: ensures that projects mitigate climate change, and contribute to sustainable development of rural populations, highlighting biodiversity conservation; PNCAZ have the Gold Level. http://www.climate-standards.org Furthermore, PNCAZ was recognised by IUCN Green List, as an area-based conservation effectively managed and fairly governed https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/our-work/iucn-green-list-protected-and-conserved-areas/iucn-green-list-areas Discussion Urban and rural linkages Two main relationships exist between the communities and the urban areas: education and the market economy. Many villages do not have high-schools and need to send students to bigger villages or cities ? for universities or for technical studies. This migration to the city from the youth, does not help to stabilize agricultural frontier and may pose challenges in the future. CIMA has promoted environmental responsibility from urban and rural population. By bridging distant populations to public responsibilities, but also by awareness communication and environmental education tools in the neighbouring cities. This enables urban citizens to value conservation and sustainable use of natural landscapes provided by adequate territory management. For instance, by recognising the benefits produced by headwater protection transcend rural sites in the buffer zone, since it feeds main rivers (Ucayali and Huallaga) of the Amazon basin. The conservation of natural landscapes represents a potential for research, recreation, and tourism. Moreover, it constitutes an element of proud as natural heritage of nation and global importance (KBI). Conservation of forests ensures regional climatic stability (CIMA, 2013b, 2017), contributing to national and global reduction of GHG and mitigation of global climate change. Strengthening processes in community decision-making achievements: socio-political capital People from 145 villages have improved planning processes and received environmental education and 57 villages and native communities developed the complete FOCAL process, applying their QLP based on their land-use zoning and coexistence rules, and have exchanged their experiences with neighbours. 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Fuentes de Financiamiento PNCAZ en US$ CIMA SERNANP Cooperacion Española MacArthur Foundation Moore Foundation 88 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Nevertheless, even when CIMA based its approach on the full scope of community life quality, deforestation has occurred in one side of the buffer zone, attesting for the need to much larger efforts to combat the diversity of indirect causes acting in the territory for deforestation and account for the socio-ecological complexity involved (Rodríguez et al., 2018; Ravikumar, 2017). These processes are long-term and require strong commitment from rural communities as well as authorities at various levels (local and regional) where the fundamental role of CIMA is to ensure this territorial participation. Lesson learnt Integral approach CIMA?s PNCAZ management bases its success on its integrated approach, taking the park as core for protection, with an intense work with the populations and corresponding local, municipal, and regional authorities from the buffer zone. Greater emphasis is placed on villages and communities closer to the park, simulating a series of concentric rings, as in a biosphere reserve approach. CIMA?s approach guarantees to concentrate work efforts in areas where accumulates the greatest threats to the Park?s integrity, especially when they are extensive and present diverse problems. But in addition to land use-zoning, additional policies for improving agricultural production without deforestation, risk reduction, the formalization and distribution of legal land ? uses rights (through ownership or long-term permits) should be a commitment of national, regional and municipal authorities. In addition, CIMA aims to generate, manage and share information to understand and have a holistic vision of physical, ecological, socio-economic and cultural processes that are essential for the site?s management, providing sustainable socio-economic alternatives to population. Scientific and technical research in the park and its buffer zone allows obtaining relevant information for decision-making. Research continues to be promoted by CIMA and contributes to PNCAZ?s management, but the dissemination of results and exchange is still a growing process. Cordillera Azul has shifted from being totally financed by international cooperation during almost 12 years to being financed by the voluntary carbon market, gradually consolidating the sale of its carbon credits to national and foreign companies with social and environmental responsibility. This demonstrated the effectiveness of REDD+ for conservation and that biodiversity conservation in protected areas can be self-sustaining. Participation, local involvement and decision making In order to involve rural and urban stakeholders in Cordillera Azul?s management, it was necessary to promote knowledge and pride of the area. Awareness was important at all levels. Institutional support to local and regional decision-making authorities was essential to avoid counter actions in the planning processes. The results were to have park neighbours participating actively in patrolling and surveillance, for a small economic compensation, add communal and PNCAZ delimitations, and land-use zoning with regional authority?s support. To align rural and urban visions among different actors and at different levels, CIMA promotes and facilitates crucial spaces like the park?s Master Plan process or during the formulation of communal QLPs, for such exchanges. CIMA strengthens local self- management capacities so that in the future, local people can lead their own processes to improve their quality of life in harmony with their communal vision and nature. Share information and experiences CIMA has abundant biological, environmental, social, and geographic information generated during its 23 years of work experience in Cordillera Azul. This information has supported important park management processes and has been shared with allies, and the local population, and can be reached through its web page. It provides support to processes led by Regional Governments, such as REDD and carbon issues, co-management experience, environmental education, zoning processes, conservation initiatives and participatory processes (QLP, blue agreements), that have been formalized as public tools. Challenges and prospects for PNCAZ CIMA?s efforts are focussed on reducing threats from the buffer zone and at the same time contribute to improving the quality of life of its neighbouring communities. One of the main challenges is mainstreaming with public sectors participating in Cordillera Azul?s management, from Park to buffer zone (3,6M ha); complexity has increased in buffer zone where diverse land-uses and rights are overlapping. Thus, CIMA needs to coordinate multisectoral (Environment, Agriculture, Forestry, Transportation, fisheries, Tourism, among others), with a multilevel scope 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 89 from rural/local to regional and national and, requiring greater incidence in different levels of government for a better understanding of the ecosystem approach. To better support sustainable economies where nature conservation becomes an important asset, CIMA?s approach with rural populations and authorities is not enough; it is necessary to strengthen also the link with the private sector and regional and local government initiatives, which are the main drivers of deforestation (Suarez et al, 2023). Working in such scenarios requires working with alliances/agreements, creating more linkages between rural and urban people. The buffer zone size (23,000 sk km) has made it challenging for CIMA to attend to each community individually with great dedication, specially as the number of villages has doubled since 2001. A new approach, for a larger attainment of villages, by basins is being applied ? for instance, by grouping initiatives of community conservation areas, scaling-up strategies to better contribute to the KM 30x30 target and stop deforestation. In the last 3 years, to make the park?s benefits more participatory and equitable, in addition to seed funds for start-ups, CIMA and SERNANP have opened-up annual competitions for associations, for small grants to projects for sustainable economic activities, under the principle of investments. Tourism and recreation towards the park and neighbouring villages is still incipient, but is growing slowly, as accessibility improves and reduces time to access the zone, which in any case remains remote, at least in the eastern side of the park Recently, since large sums and surpluses were generated by the sale of carbon credits and the establishment of a fund for park management, there has been a complaint from a native community that has taken the case to court, which is still in dispute. Financing integrated management is a permanent challenge. REDD+ has proved efficient for the park, but other carbon mechanisms, such as ARR projects could be better for areas with land-use intensity. References Alverson, W.S., L.O. Rodríguez, and D.K. Moskovits (eds.). (2001). Perú: Biabo Cordillera Azul. Rapid Biological Inventories: No.2. The Field Museum. Arenas Aspilcueta, M. Rubio Torgler, H and Huamán Mendoza, D. 2019. Acuerdos de Conservación. Base conceptual de acuerdos de conservación, propuesta de directiva para su implementación en el marco del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado (SINANPE) y formatos estándar. Documento.trabajo 3. SERNANP. 41 p. Castillo-Urbina, E., Glaw, F, Aguilar-Puntriano, C., Vences, M., & Köhler, J. (2021). Genetic and morphological evidence reveal another new toad of the Rhinella festae species group (Anura: Bufonidae) from the Cordillera Azul in central Peru. SALAMANDRA, 57(2), 181-195. Centro de Conservación, Investigación y Manejo de Areas Naturales (CIMA). (2012). Cordillera Azul National Park REDD Project. Lima-Perú.198pp. CIMA. (2013a). FOCAL. Modelo para el fortalecimiento de capacidades locales para la gestión del territorio y la mejora de la calidad de vida. CIMA. Lima-Perú. 68pp. CIMA. (2013b). Experiencia del proyecto REDD+ PNCAZ. Cordillera Azul: Legado natural del Perú para el mundo. Lima-Perú. 78 pp. CIMA. (2014a). Guía MUF. Mapeo de Usos y Fortalezas. CIMA. Lima- Perú. 80pp. CIMA. (2014b). Guía para la elaboración de Normas de Convivencia. CIMA. Lima-Perú. 51pp. CIMA. (2014c). Guía para la elaboración de Planes de Calidad de Vida. CIMA. Lima-Perú. 55pp. CIMA. (2017). Ucayali. Sinergias por el Clima. Proyecto red Climática Ucayali. CIMA, FONDAM, SENAMHI y SERNANP. Lima-Perú. 27pp. CIMA. (2023). Monitoring Report PNCAZ REDD Project. Lima-Peru. 151 pp. Cusi J. C., Moravec, J., Lehr, E., Gvozdík, V. (2017). A new species of semiarboreal toad of the Rhinella festae group (Anura, Bufonidae) from the Cordillera Azul National Park, Peru. ZooKeys, 673, 21?47. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.673.13050 Gavin, M. (2004). Changes in forest use value through ecological succession and their implications for land management in the Peruvian Amazon. Conservation Biology, 18(6), 1562?1570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00241.x Gavin, M. (2006). Foraging in the fallows: Hunting patterns across a successional continuum in the Peruvian Amazon. Biological Conservation, 134(7), 64-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.07.011 González, F., Valenzuela, L., & Pabón-Mora, N. (2023). Aristolochia brachylimba (Aristolochiaceae; Piperales), a new species from the Peruvian Amazonia with an unusually short perianth limb. Darwiniana, 11(1), 347?356. https://doi.org/10.14522/darwiniana.2023.111.1139 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park 90 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Holland T. G., Coomes, O. T., & Robinson, B. E. (2016) Evolving frontier land markets and the opportunity cost of sparing forests in western Amazonia. Land Use Policy, 58, 456?471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.015 Howe, C. (2017). Oportunidades para la restauración del paisaje forestal. CIMA. Tarapoto-Perú. 51pp. INRENA. (2006). Plan Maestro del Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul. Lima?Perú. 273pp. INRENA, CIMA, Field Museum, & GTZ/PDRS. (2008). Caja de Herramientas para la Gestión de Áreas de Conservación. Fasc.4: ¿Cómo determinar las características socioeconómicas y culturales del área de conservación? El MUF. Lima-Perú. 138pp. Klebelsberg, E. (2005). Auswirkungen der jads in der pufferzone des Parque NacionalCordillera Azul in Perú. DIPLOMARBEIT Zum Erwerb des akademischen Grades DIPLOM-BIOLOGIN. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. BERLIN und LIMA. La Torre-Cuadros, M. A. (2011). Catálogo Comunidades Nativas Yamino y Mariscal Cáceres. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Lima. 52 pp. Lane, D. F., Kratter, A. W., & O?Neill, J. P. (2017). A new species of manakin (Aves: Pipridae; Machaeropterus) from Peru with a taxonomic reassessment of the Striped Manakin (M. regulus) complex. Zootaxa, 4320(2), 379-390. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4320.2.11 Llactayo, W., Reategui, A., & Ozambela, M. (2008). Mechanisms of Territorial Management with Communities? Neighboring Cordillera Azul National Park. In Implementation of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas: Progress and Perspectives (pp. 63?67). Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Technical Series no. 35. Montreal. Lujan, N. K., Hidalgo, M., & Stewart, D. J. (2010). Revision of Panaque (Panaque), with Descriptions of Three New Species from the Amazon Basin (Siluriformes, Loricariidae). Copeia, 2010(4), 676?704. https://doi:10.1643/ci-09-185 Martínez, J. L. (2007). De vuelta al río: crónicas del manejo de tortugas en el sur de Loreto. CIMA. Lima-Perú. 91pp. Martínez, J. L. (2009). Gestión Participativa del Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul. En: Elloit, J. Conservación y Desarrollo Sostenible Corredor Abiseo?Cóndor?Kutukú. Soluciones Prácticas: 91?115. Lima-Perú. Meyer, W. (2006). The Piassaba Palm: Conservation and Development in the Buffer Zone of Peru?s Cordillera Azul National Park. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Duke University. Durham, NC, USA. 144pp. Michaelowa, A., Shishlov, I., & D. Brescia, 2019. Evolution of international carbon markets: lessons for the Paris Agreement. WIREs Climate Change. Vol 10(6). E613. Moncrieff, A. E., Johnson, O., Lane, D. F., Beck, J. R., Angulo, F., & Fagan, J. (2018). A new species of antbird (Passeriformes: Thamnophilidae) from the Cordillera Azul, San Martín, Peru. The Auk, 135(1), 114-126. https://doi.org/10.1642/AUK-17-97.1 O?Neill, J. P., Lane D. F., Kratter, A. W., Capparella, A. P., & Fox, J. C. (2000). A striking new species of barbet (Capitoninae: Capito) from the eastern Andes of Peru. The Auk, 117, 569-577. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/117.3.569 Pequeño,T. (2007). Camino a un monitoreo integral en el Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul y su zona de amortiguamiento. CIMA. Lima-Perú. 91pp. Pequeño, T., Fernández-Dávila, P. (2014). Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul: Construyendo un Modelo de Gestión Integral en Áreas Protegidas. En: Planificación y Gestión de Áreas Protegidas en América del Sur: Avances en la Aplicación del Enfoque Ecosistémico. Casavecchia, C., Lobo, A., Arguedas, S. (Eds). UICN, Quito, Ecuador. Ravikumar, A., R. R. Sears, P. Cronkleton, M. Menton, and M.P.-O. del Arco. 2017. Is small-scale agriculture really the main driver of deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon? Moving beyond the prevailing narrative. Conservation Letters, 10(2), 170?177. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12264 Rodríguez, L. O., Cisneros, E., Pequeño, T., Fuentes, M. T., & Zinngrebe, Y. (2018). Building Adaptive Capacity in Changing Social- Ecological Systems: Integrating Knowledge in Communal Land-Use Planning in the Peruvian Amazon. Sustainability, 10(2), 511; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020511 Rojas Briceño, N. B., Barboza Castillo, E., Maicelo Quintana, J. L., Oliva Cruz, S. M., & Salas López, R. (2019). Deforestación en la Amazonía peruana: Índices de cambios de cobertura y uso del suelo basado en SIG. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, (81), 2538, 1?34. http://dx.doi.org/10.21138/bage.2538a Sánchez, A., & Vásquez, P. (2007). Presión de Caza de la Comunidad Nativa MushuckLlacta de Chipaota, Zona de Amortiguamiento del Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul, Perú. Ecología Aplicada, 6(1,2), 131?138. https://doi.org/10.21704/rea.v6i1-2.349 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2021). The Forest Ecosystem Restoration Initiative on the Ground: Case Studies from Twelve Small-scale, Innovative Ecosystem Restoration Projects around the World. Montreal, 33 pages. SERNANP?WWF?GIZ-IT. (2014). Análisis de la Vulnerabilidad de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas frente al Cambio Climático al 2030, 2050 y 2080. Documento de Trabajo No.12. 82pp. SERNANP (2017). Plan Maestro del Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul. Lima?Perú. Shanee, N., & Shanee, S. (2016). Land trafficking, migration, and conservation in the ?no-man?s land? of northeastern Peru. Tropical Conservation Science, 9(4), 1?16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082916682957 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 91 Suárez de Freitas C., G.; L. Briceño, M. Laos-Llanos, P. Luna del Pozo 2023. Estrategia Regional de Desarrollo Rural Bajo en Emisiones. Gobierno Regional de Huánuco. Earth Innovation, UK Pact. 33 p. Vásquez, R. I., & Valenzuela, L. (2022). Virola parvusligna, a New Species of Myristicaceae from the Cordillera Azul National Park, Peru. Journal of Plant Sciences, 10(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jps.20221001.14 Tasker, K. (2016). Informing the Carbon Frontier: Economics and Landscape in the Western Amazon. University of Texas. Austin. 96 p. UN-HABITAT-CBD 2022. Managing urban-rural linkages for biodiversity: an integrated territorial approach. Nairobi. 50 p. Weber, C. & Montoya- Burgos, J. I. (2002). Hypostomus fonchii sp.n. (Silurifromes: Loricariidae) de Perú, una especie clave que sugiere la sinonimia de Cochliodon con Hypostomus. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 109(2), 355-368. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.79595 Zúñiga, J. (2010). Monitoreo Hidrometeorológico en el Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul y su zona de amortiguamiento para propósito de conservación. 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park 92 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective New energy trends: hydrogen and other clean fuels as tools to strengthen urban- rural linkages ? China case study Bartlomiej Kolodziejczyk, University of Gothenburg 10 Wind Farm in Guangling County, Shanxi - Renewable energy in China © Creative Commons CC Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 93 Abstract The socio-economic landscape is rapidly changing. Linkages between rural and urban communities are quickly disappearing. Growing migration from rural to urban areas makes rural communities weaker and vulnerable. One linkage that remains strong is food production and food security. However, shifting energy trends gives great hope to rebuild the linkages and cooperation between rural and urban areas. Technologies like solar fuels, where large-scale solar installations are utilized to produce green, or carbon neutral fuels of the future provide enormous opportunities to rural communities. Fuels like hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, etc. can be produced efficiently and sustainably with minimal damage to the environment and biodiversity. These new energy trends simplify the energy production and conversion processes by utilizing solar and wind energy, as well as water, atmospheric nitrogen, and carbon dioxide as a feedstock rendering fuels pollution-free. For the first time, farmers have gained a new opportunity to rebrand themselves and instead of producing food, they are able to join the new industry of clean fuel production from solar or wind energy. Large scale-solar installations already play a significant role in countries like China, where the government is trying to reduce fossil emissions and preserve the environment and biodiversity. Electrification of rural areas via electricity transmission lines and other related energy infrastructure is still an issue, mainly because of the high costs. Many solar and wind farms in China are not utilized completely because energy demand is often lower than the generation capacity, this gives the opportunity for green hydrogen production which can be then transported and utilized in the urban areas, i.e. clean fuel for transportation, or power-to-gas applications. The Chinese Government is strongly pushing towards this scenario, giving a number of subsidies for both solar farms and hydrogen fuel cell cars. Moreover, the 2017 announcement by the Central Government committing to ban internal combustion engine cars will only make this transition quicker. China is becoming a green fuel pioneer. The scale of green hydrogen generation projects in China cannot be compared to any other place. This new industry gives many opportunities and hopes to rural communities. Introduction Since economic reform policies were implemented in 1978, the Chinese economy has experienced remarkable economic growth. Over the thirty-year period (1978-2007), the growth rate of GDP per capita averaged 8.6 per cent per annum and this trend continues. Over the years 2000 ? 2007 there was no sign of deceleration in growth, whilst the equivalent GDP figure was 9.2 per cent. China accounted for about 35 per cent of the growth in the world GDP at PPP prices (Abramovitz, 1986; Acemoglu et al., 2005).China?s real GDP growth rate peaked at 14.2 per cent in 2007 and has since been trending downward, however, China?s real GDP growth remains one of the strongest globally (Acemoglu et al., 2001). China accounts for more than one-fifth of the world?s population, such rapid economic and population growth are unprecedented. This remarkable progress has occurred amidst China?s poverty, allowing over 300 million Chinese citizens to be lifted out of one-dollar-a-day poverty since 1978 (Hedrick-Wong, 2018). Within only decades China transitioned its? centrally planned and closed economy towards a market economy and regional leader. Whilst the recent years show China?s economy slowdown (Eichengreen et al., 2011; Dinda, 2017), some believe that it might be of benefit to the country and its citizens as it allows for a transition to slower but sustainable growth (Diepp, 2018). China aspires to greater sustainable development. For decades economic growth, poverty alleviation and establishing the position ofinternationalleader were on top of the agenda for China?s Central Government. Everything else, including the environment, was of less importance. China?s rise as an economic power has no clear parallel in history, but its pollution problem has also shattered all precedents. According to a study performed by Chinese Ministry of Health, cancer became China?s leading cause of death due to pollution. Ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Whilst hundreds of millions of people lack access to safe drinking water (Spengler, 1983; Yu, 2011).What in many countries may be seen as an environmental catastrophe, in China, it seems to be a commonplace. People rarely see the sun in China?s industrial cities, deforestation and land degradation have become a massive issue threatening biodiversity and food security, whilst lead poisoning is among the highest in the world, and large sections of the ocean no longer sustain marine life (Yu, 2011).Hygiene and sanitation are also becoming an issue. In 2011, a study published by Chinese researchers estimated that more than 94 million people in China become ill annually, and about 8,500 people die due to bacterial foodborne diseases (Mao, 2011). The last three decades of continuous economic growth triggered rapid and ongoingurbanisation. Large industrial centres attracted millions of rural workers and farmers providing better work prospects, higher wages, and better lifestyles. In addition, many rural centres have been urbanised due to growing economic demand. In 2011,urbanisationreached 51 per cent, meaning that for the first time in history, more Chinese citizens lived in towns and cities than in rural villages (Hillman, 2013).China?surbanisation is accelerating. Due to the belief thaturbanisationholds the key to the country?s ongoing social and economic development,China?s leaders recently announced anurbanisationtarget of 70 per cent by 2025 (Woetzel et al., 2009; Kamal-Chaoui et al., 2009).However, it may seem that the government is realizing the value of rural areas. Some of the most common issues describes as a result of rapid urbanisation is the increased waste and exhaustion of resources, the declining standards of living and environmental capacity, the imbalance between urban and rural development, as well as sociocultural challenges (Zhang, 2012).Rapid urbanisation in China often overlooks urban-rural linkages and focuses on cities whilst underestimating urban-rural regions. The approaches applied in China have to switch from technical planning to communicative planning, and from extensive growth to intensive growth. The ecosystem governance approach is rarely applied or integrated into urban-rural social-ecological systems in China. China?s growing demand for clean fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol produced using renewable energy has the opportunity to address the growing urbanisation, whilst also strengthening urban-rural linkages. The hydrogen projects strongly pushed 10. ?New energy trends 94 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective for by China?s Central Government will provide specialized work opportunities for rural and undeveloped regions whilst addressing the transportation sector?s fossil fuel emissions. China?s strategy for clean fuels will contribute largely to good environmental and ecosystem governance practices and can potentially lead to reverse migration, from urban to rural areas. Hydrogen can be produced on a large scale in rural areas using solar or wind resources and water can be transported to urban areas to be supplied for transportation and other industry sectors. China?s demand for a hydrogen economy Large-scale exploitation of fossil fuels has resulted in severe health, environmental, ecosystem and climate change challenges throughout China, significantly affecting a variety of ecosystems and threatening biodiversity as well as China?s healthy economic growth. Since the year 2000, China?s energy strategy has been consequently reformed and adapted to concentrate on providing new opportunities for the safe supply of reliable, cost-effective and environmentally friendly energy (Yuan & Lin, 2009; ICCT, 2017).China?s government had to adopt a new strategy to promote sustainable development and meet present energy demands (Hydrogen Council, 2017). Table 1. China?s development goal for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Reproduced from SAE China (2018). Year Hydrogen refuelling stations Fuel cell vehicles 2020 Over 100 stations 5,000 fuel cell vehicles in demonstration, among which 60 per cent are fuel cell commercial vehicles and 40 per cent are fuel cell passenger cars 2025 Over 300 stations 50,000 fuel cell vehicles in service, among which 10,000 units are fuel cell commercial vehicles, and 40,000 units are fuel cell passenger cars 2030 Over 1,000 stations, and over 50 per cent hydrogen production from renewable resources Over one million fuel cell vehicles in service China?s central government has renewed interest in Clean and renewable hydrogen for a number of reasons. Hydrogen can be harvested from water using any type of renewable energy, effectively making it a clean energy storage medium. Hydrogen when combined with atmospheric oxygen forms water vapor and generates heat; it is also capable of efficiently generating high quality electricity when combined in a fuel cell. In standard conditions, hydrogen is present in a gas form, but for energy storage purposes can be compressed to provide better energy density. Hydrogen can also be liquefied to store more energy within the same volume; this is especially important for the transportation of energy over large distances. Finally, to some extent current gas infrastructure can be adapted to meet working requirements for hydrogen (Hydrogen Council, 2017; Government of South Australia, 2017; IEA, 2015). Since 2000, a number of hydrogen related projects were supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MOST), as well as China?s National Natural Science Foundation. In 2015, a first workshop was held to develop China?s Hydrogen Economy Roadmap. A year later, in 2016, Hydrogen was included as one of the seven priority areas in China?s National Mid-to-Long Term Sci-Tech Plan 2006 ? 2020. China?s government vision states that by 2050 China will have developed a mature hydrogen market infrastructure and that by this stage the hydrogen economy in China will be prevalent (Yuan & Lin, 2009).In 2017, the Chinese government announced their intention to ban petrol and diesel vehicles. The effective date of the ban was not mentioned in the announcement. The ban is expected to have a positive impact on hydrogen infrastructure development (Burch, 2018). China has committed to promoting electric vehicles since 2009, with the goal of having 5 million electric vehicles in operation by 2020. To support this target, the Chinese government offers generous fiscal subsidies, for both battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (ICCT, 2017).China has clearly expressed its? commitment to decarbonize the transportation industry using clean hydrogen. This commitment is shown by substantial investment, subsidies and policies that support the hydrogen technology industry. By the end of 2015, China?s central government had spent approximately $4.8 billion on electric vehicle subsidies (ICCT, 2017).As of 2017, the subsidies given to battery electric vehicles (~$7,500 per passenger car) were over four times lower than subsidies for hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (~$31,000 per passenger car), resulting in a strong uptake in the new subsidized electric cars and a good response by the automotive industry in China. The subsidies also attracted significant interest in hydrogen infrastructure development and investment. The urban-rural linkage in terms of hydrogen developments in China may not be obvious at this point, but the projects mentioned previously are mainly small-scale demonstration projects. China has demonstrated over the last couple of years, the potential for hydrogen development to provide positive environmental and health benefits which has reinvigorated China?s appetite for hydrogen technology. China?s hydrogen economy is feasible only if applied on a large scale. Centralized large-scale green hydrogen generation farms using solar, or wind energy also make more sense economically. This is beneficial to rural communities through new job opportunities, whilst electrification will further lead to greater local infrastructure development and more benefits. China is already attempting to build numerous large-scale hydrogen generation facilities in rural areas where land is still accessible or more cost-effective than in urban areas and where renewable energy conditions are suitable to generate clean electricity which then will be converted into hydrogen (Siqi, 2018).In return rural communities will benefit from investment and infrastructure, job creation, access to energy which currently is not always present in rural China and new revenue streams which may allow to alleviate local poverty. Zhang Weidong, a Programme Manager at UNDP China believes that rural communities could also benefit by generating hydrogen from biofuels produced locally (Siqi, 2018). Zhang (2012) said 10. ?New Energy Trends Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 95 that ?promoting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles could also help rural areas get rid of poverty as green hydrogen could also be generated from reforming ethanol that can be extracted from farm crop residues such as sugar-rich straws.? Hydrogen being a value-added chemical can help address the growing income disparity between cities and rural areas by providing significant revenue streams to rural communities. Generation of green hydrogen in rural areas is not that different from previous solar or wind energy projects implemented throughout the globe, and which provided numerous new opportunities to rural communities where these projects are often implemented. Existing large- scale solar or wind energy farms in China are outside of the metropolitan areas, whilst transmission lines and other relevant infrastructure is expensive. The environmental conditions, which are a driving force for renewable power generation, and electricity demand are very unpredictable. According to Reuters (2017) over 30 per cent of solar and 47 per cent of wind electricity in China in 2016 was wasted.This electricity could be converted into hydrogen, supplying new jobs, and bringing additional revenue streams to local rural communities. For example, a large-scale hydrogen generation project was recently announced. The 4 MW power-to-gas project is delivered by French hydrogen technology manufacturer McPhy together with Chinese Jiantou Yanshan (Guyuan) Wind Energy in Hebei Province. The project aims at converting the surplus energy generated by a 200 MW wind farm into hydrogen and supplying it as a replacement for natural gas (Barrett, 2017). The communities which already benefit from wind energy projects developed in rural areas will further benefit from extended opportunities provided by hydrogen generation and supply. Although, project evaluation and real measurable benefits of this project to rural communities will be known only in the next couple years. China?s reliance and demand for the hydrogen economy is already slowly closing the urban-rural gaps whilst rebuilding linkages between these two worlds. In the past, urban communities relied on rural communities mainly for food supply. China?s market is shifting, and rural farmers are slowly becoming energy generators and suppliers. Urban communities have to understand the role rural communities will play in their future energy security. At this stage, most of the hydrogen projects in China focus on reducing fossil fuel emissions in transportation by developing hydrogen refuelling infrastructure and introducing new types of vehicles. This is mainly due to the system size requirements. China has been demonstrating the feasibility of hydrogen economy on a small scale since 2000 from a couple to hundreds of kilowatts. Currently, the development stage of the hydrogen economy in China has reached a scale of a couple of megawatts per system, the size of this system meets the requirements of hydrogen refuelling stations. China is entering the next stage where hundreds of megawatts or even gigawatts of hydrogen will be required for applications such as energy storage in the form of hydrogen, or power-to-gas (P2G) applications where electricity is converted to gas (hydrogen) and supplied as a clean replacement for natural gas, which can be used for heating and cooking. Reaching this scale of hydrogen generation will have a tremendous effect on rural communities and will form new linkages and a stronger reliance on rural communities. Once the hydrogen economy has reached maturity, studies show that hydrogen can be combined with atmospheric nitrogen or carbon dioxide to form ammonia and renewable methanol, respectively. Ammonia is a precursor for numerous fertilizers, whilst renewable methanol provides an effective way for carbon recycling. There is also potential to produce other sustainable chemicals and longer carbon chains using similar technology (Montoya et al., 2017; Grinberg et al., 2016; Nocera, 2017). This new way of utilizing solar and wind resources will allow rural communities to produce sustainable products and at the same time diversify their role and customer markets. Finally, it will further enhance the links and role that rural communities play. Most of these hydrogen developments in China are not well documented or promoted in the media. Chinese market tends to be competitive, preventing companies from openly advertising their projects in fear of competition. However, generous hydrogen subsidies introduced by the Chinese government attract Chinese companies to join the hydrogen ?race?. Conclusion It is clearly demonstrated that China?s government has an ongoing interest in shifting to a hydrogen economy. China has made significant progress and is a leader in developing a hydrogen economy. The current transition phase passed small-scale demonstration and feasibility studies and reached a phase where megawatt-scale hydrogen generation systems are utilized mainly for hydrogen refuelling and transportation. Whilst rural communities in China have already started benefiting from this energy paradigm shift, the next phase of the development will allow for large-scale centralized renewable hydrogen generation, which will benefit rural communities: providing new specialized job opportunities, new revenue streams whilst at the same time strengthening the position of rural communities in the supply chain for urban communities. Whilst preserving and building new urban-rural linkages is of high importance for ecosystem governance, in this case, renewable hydrogen will help reduce fossil fuel emissions and environmental pollution whilstpreservingthe ecosystems and biodiversity of China. At this stage, it is difficult to talk about measurable outcomes for rural communities as these projects are still being developed. References Abramovitz, M. (1986). Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind. Journal of Economic History, 46 (2), 385-406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700046209 Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2005). Institutions as a Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth. In P. Aghion & S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth, 1A, 386-472. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3 10. ?New Energy Trends Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369-1401. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.5.1369 Barrett, S. (2017). McPhy Delivers 4 MW of Hydrogen Production to China for P2G Application with Wind Farm. Fuel Cells Bulletin, 2017(6), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1464-2859(17)30206-7 Burch, I. (2018). Survey of Global Activity to Phase Out Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles. Center for Climate Protection. Chang, L., Li, Z., Gao, D., Huang, H., & Ni, W. (2007). Pathways for Hydrogen Infrastructure Development in China: Integrated Assessment for Vehicle Fuels and a Case Study of Beijing. Energy, 32(11), 2023-2037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2007.04.003 Dinda, S. (2017). Impact of the People?s Republic of China?s Slowdown on the Global Economy. ADBI Working Paper Series No. 784. Dieppe, A., Gilhooly, R., Han, J., Korhonen, I., & Lodge, D. (2018). The Transition of China to Sustainable Growth ? Implications for the Global Economy and the Euro Area. Occasional Paper Series No. 206, European Central Bank. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3113109 Eichengreen, B., Park, D., & Shin, K. (2011). When Fast Growing Economies Slow Down: International Evidence and Implications for the People?s Republic of China. ADP Economics Working Paper Series No. 262. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1883962 Government of South Australia. (2017). A Hydrogen Roadmap for South Australia Grinberg Dana, A., Elishav, O., Bardow, A., Shter, G. E., & Grader, G. S. (2016). Nitrogen-Based Fuels: A Power-to-Fuel-to-Power Analysis. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl, 55(31), 8798?8805. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201510618 Hedrick-Wong, Y. (2018). The Myths About China?s Economic Slowdown. Forbes. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/yuwahedrickwong/2018/08/15/the-myths-about-chinas-economic-slowdown/#28c776985d55 Hillman, B., & Unger, J. (2013). Editorial. China Perspectives No. 2013/3, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. https://doi.org/10.4000/chinaperspectives.6235 Hydrogen Council. (2017). Hydrogen Scaling up: A Sustainable Pathway for the Global Energy Transition. Retrieved from https://hydrogencouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Hydrogen-scaling-up-Hydrogen-Council.pdf ICCT (2017). Adjustment to Subsidies for New Energy Vehicles in China. Policy Update, International Council on Clean Transportation. IEA (2015). Technology Roadmap: Hydrogen and Fuel Cells. International Energy Agency. Kamal-Chaoui, L., Leman, E., & Rufei, Z. (2009). Urban Trends and Policy in China. OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2009/1. Mao, X., Hu, J., & Liu, X. (2011). Epidemiological burden of bacterial foodborne diseases in China-Preliminary study. Chinese Journal of Food Hygiene, R151.31, 132-136. Montoya, J. H., Seitz, L. C., Chakthranont, P., Vojvodic, A., Jaramillo, T. F., & Norskov, J. K. (2017). Materials for Solar Fuels and Chemicals. Nature Materials, 16, 70?81. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4778 Nocera, D. G. (2017). Solar Fuels and Solar Chemicals Industry. Accounts of Chemical Research, 50(3), 616?619. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00615 Reuters (2017). China renewable power waste worsens in 2016 ? Greenpeace. Retrieved from: https://www.reuters.com/article/china-renewables-waste/china-renewable Siqi, C. (2018). China mulls use of hydrogen-powered cars to beat smog. Global Times. Retrieved from: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1125457.shtml Strategy Advisory Committee of the Technology Roadmap for Energy Saving and New Energy Vehicles (SAE China). (2018). Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Technology Roadmap - English version. Spengler, J. D., & Sexton, K. A. (1983). Indoor Air Pollution: A Public Health Perspective. Science, 221(4605), 9?17. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6857273 Woetzel, J., Mendoca, L., Devan, J., Negri, S., Hu, Y., Jordan, L., Li, X., Maasry, A., Tsen, G., & Yu, F. (2009). Preparing for China?s Urban Billion. McKinsey Global Institute. Yu, M-H., Tsunoda, H., & Tsunoda, M. (2011). Environmental Toxicology: Biological and Health Effects of Pollutants, Third Edition. CRC Press. Yuan, K., & Lin, W. (2009). Hydrogen in China: Policy, Program and Progress. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 35(2010), 3110? 3113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.08.042 Zhang, J. (2012). Several Problems in the Course of Urbanization in China and Planning Responses. . In X. Qu & Y. Yang (Eds.), Information and Business Intelligence. IBI 2011. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 268. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29087-9_76 Extracting key elements from the case studies: toward developing principles Liette Vasseur 11 Alvars (on the red list of Ecosystems) in the Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve © Liette Vasseur 98 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective This book has focused on how ecosystem governance can be applied in understanding and supporting rural-urban linkage. Ecosystem governance, as defined by the Commission on Ecosystem Management of IUCN, is based on the ecosystem approach (CBD, 1995) and its twelve principles (Shepherd, 2004). Through case studies, various aspects of ecosystem governance have been examined and demonstrate that rural-urban integration can be quite complex and context dependent. In this chapter, the case studies are analysed according to the principles of ecosystem approach as it is the basis on which the Ecosystem Governance concept has been developed (Vasseur et al., 2017). Governance systems, as stated by Bennett and Satterfield (2018) are characterized by its institutions, structures, and processes. As outcomes, governance should include features such as capacity, functioning, and performance. Ecosystem governance may encompass all these elements but using the lens of the ecosystem approach, the process promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable manner (Shepherd, 2004). Therefore, this analysis integrates the 12 principles (Table 1) and the five steps (Table 2) set by the ecosystem approach to assess whether the decisions and actions effectively are derived from an ecosystem governance process. Combining the various concepts of ecosystem approach and governance systems, from these case studies, commonalities are identified as well as limitations and gaps in linking rural and urban ecosystems. Table 1. The 12 principles of the ecosystem approach (Shepherd, 2004, p. 2) 1. The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choice. 2. Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level. 3. ?Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems. 4. ?Recognising potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programme should: (i) reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity; (ii) align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; and (iii) internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible. 5. ?Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach. 6. Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning. 7. The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales. 8. ?Recognising the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term. 9. Management must recognise that change is inevitable. 10. ?The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity. 11. ?The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices. 12. The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines Table 2. Five steps to the implementation of the ecosystem approach as defined by Shepherd (2004). Step Description Related principles A Determining the main stakeholders, defining the ecosystem area, and developing the relationship between them 1, 7, 11, 12 B Characterizing the structure and function of the ecosystem, and setting in place mechanisms to manage and monitor it 2, 5, 6, 10 C Identifying the important economic issues that will affect the ecosystem and its inhabitants 4 D Determining the likely impact of the ecosystem on adjacent ecosystems 3, 7 E Deciding on long-term goals, and flexible ways of reaching them 7, 8, 9 11. ?Extracting key elements from the case studies Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 99 Governance system and ecosystem approach Conservation and sustainable use of the ecosystems require that governance is effective, equitable and inclusive, and allows for participation of all actors. It is at the basis of fair decisions that can lead to the implementation of sustainable solutions. The first characteristic of governance is to understand the institutions, formal and informal, that are engaged in the process. Formal institutions include, for example, laws or rules established by government from the local to the national, whilst informal institutions are based on cultural or religious systems, social norms and other interactions that influence decisions. In these case studies, institutions can greatly vary but most have in common either state legislation and policies (formal) that are either at the national or more local level (Table 3). In some cases, Indigenous knowledge and values are considered such as in the case studies of New Zealand (Chapters 3 and 4) and Cordillera Azul National Park (Chapter 10) (informal governance). The second characteristic of governance system is the structures or the entities that are involved in the process (Bennett & Satterfield, 2018). The structures of these case studies also vary but at the basic level, citizens are often involved as either for their involvement or as the target audience of the governance system. In several cases, the structures include NGOs (Chapters 8, 9, 10), which generally lead to greater involvement of the communities. In a few cases, the structure is mainly led by state government or governmental agencies (Chapters 2 and 11), limiting the governance system. This is also reflected in the processes used to engage people in governance. Cases where governments are directly involved as a top-down system, citizens are generally not participating except as beneficiaries or as the audience (Chapters 2 and 11). The analysis of the various case studies was based on these characteristics and considered whether these was a formal or informal system and structure of involvement. The analysis shows quite a range from very poor (e.g., formal versus informal and weak structure) to high (e.g., strong community engagement). Table 3. Identification of the three components of governance according to Bennett &Satterfield (2018) for each chapter. Chapter Institutions Structures Processes Governance 2 Regional planning policies, environmental versus development plans, cultural issues Canterbury regional council, rural and Indigenous communities Development of a community group and forum, code of conduct, public and Indigenous engagement, transparency, cooperation High 3 Land use planning, legislations for environmental protection, cultural issues, Treaty of Waitangi Local and regional councils, Maori tribe Extensive community engagement, integration of cultural and environmental values into decisions as well as resilience and climate change adaptation, inclusive process High 4 Lack of regulations, land grabbing, illegal trade, legal framework, and policies Rural communities versus urban agriculture plans; urban family members linked to rural families but great dependence of Nairobi on its rural catchments for water, food and fuel Individual projects and companies; slow governmental decisions and revisions of policies with 47 county governments unable to enact legislations, corruption, lack of engagement, individualistic approach Very poor Municipality, citizens, pressure from developers for urban residential and commercial zoning Consultations, open houses, reliance on the Greenbelt for rural protection, participatory approach for citizen engagement (although remains limited) Medium 7 National Parks programme, municipal bylaws, London Plan, City of London Corporation, National Park City Foundation, citizens (of all classes) Citizen engagement, activism, bottom-up pressure on policymakers for a greener, more sustainable future, several volunteer organisations with initiatives Medium to high 100 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Chapter Institutions Structures Processes Governance 8 Municipal planning, legislations, stringent legislation regulating development, cultural/ ecological heritage, Georgetown as a UNESCO world heritage site Citizens, local NGOs, Habitat Foundation, developers, municipality, Penang Hill Corporation (PHC) Strong citizen engagement, meetings, interviews, management through PHC, bottom-up meeting top-down, local residents in co- directing the planning process, limited transparency in decisions Medium 9 State government legislation, system like a biosphere reserve, Indigenous cultural values and traditional knowledge (especially by women) CIMA (NGO for management of the National Park), farmers, state government, municipal authorities, Education, Communal Strategic Planning, Blue agreements with municipalities for conservation, local conservation initiatives, highly participative and inclusive with all stakeholders Medium to high China?s central government, French hydrogen technology manufacturer McPhy together with Chinese Jiantou Yanshan (Guyuan) Wind Energy, rural communities Top-down approach with involvement of corporations to implement projects Poor Limited and poor governance can lead to additional challenges as it is the case in Chapter 5 where people are involved in illegal trade, land grabbing, unregulated land use change, deforestation, and land degradation. In this case, conservation action and the capacity of government are limited in what can be done. It is clear that good governance relates to the engagement and inclusion of the communities resulting in the devolution of the decisions at the lowest level and enhancing mobilization and social capacity to engage in conservation and sustainable ecosystem management. Whilst in conservation and ecosystem management, grassroots actions are often promoted, the cases studies described in this book suggest that this may not be always the case. Table 4 describes the results of the ecosystem approach through the five-step guideline proposed by Shepherd (2004). Interestingly, low governance generally leads to limited focus on the ecosystem and therefore limited conservation and ecosystem management actions. Case studies in chapters (e.g., 3, 4, 10) where communities are engaged, data are available, and actions are based on these components, conservation and ecosystem management can be implemented with a long-term vision in mind, leading to conditions that are favourable for the sustainability of the solutions that are being proposed. In Chapter 10, for example, engaging the communities through discussions and agreements can lead to greater conservation and even restoration of lands in the buffer zone, thus enhancing the protection of the National Park. There may be new challenges, however, as seen in Chapter 9, where governance may be good, and the ecosystem approach is adopted leading to the establishment of the Biosphere Reserve but perceptions of the authorities versus the communities differ, possibly causing conflicts in the future. 11. ?Extracting key elements from the case studies Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 101 Table 4. Analysis of the case studies according to the five steps of the ecosystem approach (see Table 2 for the steps). For each step, each case study was content analysed to define the major elements and then considering the principles, a score from low to high was allocated. Chapter Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E AE 2 Stakeholders: community of Canterbury Ecosystem at the catchment level with farmlands, recreational areas, water bodies Data collection of the basin with community involvement, mechanisms in place to ensure management and implementation Issues are related to water use for agriculture versus recreational/ environmental protection Regional components identified and integrated approach to the larger ecosystem Short-, medium- and long-term goals developed and in a governance structure that is participative, inclusive, and devolved to the community High 3 Stakeholders: community leaders, community, and Maori tribe. Floodplains and river corridor in peri-urban system Very detailed data sets to better understand environmental issues and linkages among the various ecosystems including impact of sea level rise on the land Issues related to land use and importance of ecosystem protection as natural system for resilience Impacts of earthquakes and climate change identified on the ecosystems leading to importance to restore ecological and cultural values Long-term planning considering the potential impacts of climate change and earthquakes High 4 Stakeholders: rural versus urban people Nairobi large catchment with urban centre, parks, rivers that link to the rural areas Characterization of the issues and current situation show degradation of the environment due to pollution, illegal settlements, etc. Unsustainable use of the natural resources from water to land leading to economic burden on both urban and rural people Due to population growth, impact increasing in rural areas, especially along the rivers for illegal settlements and agriculture No long-term goals, actions are individual and piecemeal Low 5 Stakeholders: urban vs. rural citizens, developers Town of Lincoln includes agricultural lands, urban centres and protected zones through the Greenbelt Detailed profile of the town with an official municipal plan limiting possible land changes Economic pressures come from urban development due to its proximity to Toronto Potential reduction in rural lands, greater stress on protected areas and waterbodies including Lake Ontario Long-term goal is included in the official municipal plan with specific location for urban growth to protect rural areas but limited in conservation Medium 7 Stakeholders: citizens of all classes City of London as the integrated rural within urban ecosystem Several projects that accumulated data with many organisations working on conservation and protection as well as monitoring Economic issues are more related to health consequence of air and water pollution River Lea, a major tributary to the Thames, is the dirtiest river in UK. No analysis of impact to other ecosystems Long-term goal of a healthy ecosystem through the National Park City charter Medium 102 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Chapter Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E AE 8 Stakeholders: citizens, local NGOs, state government, developers, PHC Ecosystem that encompasses a botanical garden, urban centre, protected area Data are available that allowed for submission of Penang Hill as a biosphere reserve, including species at risk in the area Economic pressure is coming from the State pushing for development of tourism with hotels, facilities Potential impacts will come from increased tourism on the natural ecosystems and adjacent systems Long-term goal would be included in the biosphere reserve plan which should include ecosystem conservation Medium 9 Stakeholders: municipalities, farmers, local communities, state government. Ecosystem includes the National Park as well as a buffer zone where conservation is to be done and the communities Data include status of the national park, the importance of buffer zones to increase conservation and restoration Economic pressure from the farming communities to expand as well as migration Potential impact on the national park reduced by adding the buffer zone and with participatory land-use zoning in villages Long-term goal of increased conservation and reduced pressure on the national park High 10 Stakeholders: state government, energy companies, rural communities as recipient Ecosystem not really defined. Data are related to energy consumption and push for renewable, including hydrogen production Hydrogen economy to reduce environmental pollution and increase job in rural communities Not really defined since it is in rural communities at the country level Long-term goal is to reduce use of fossil fuel Low Ecosystem governance: lessons learnt from the case studies As seen in these case studies, ecosystem governance to sustainably manage rural-urban linkages can be quite complex. This may be in part due to the assumption often made that the rural component is not as important, less economically interesting than the urban centres. At the same time, people tend to believe that rural ecosystems are more natural, quiet, accessible, and therefore for their use for leisure, tourism, or to acquire a residence where it will be quiet and fresh. These misconceptions originate in some respects to the ?tragedy of the commons? where rural ecosystems have been there for grab and exploitation, as seen in Chapter 5, assuming that land is ?free? to be used. The rural-urban linkage underlines the importance of considering both components as part of the same complex system. As stated by Mitchell et al. (2015, p. 1903), ?Complexity can be conceptualised in terms of the multiple interactions that can occur within and between different system components, at different scales? (p. 1903). While Mitchell et al. (2015) are describing social-ecological systems through this, rural-urban linked ecosystem can be viewed as the same where the different feedback between the urban and the rural can co-evolve over time. This also means that to have both urban and rural systems sustainable, planners, decision makers and citizens must view the connections between them as essential. In some cases, the rural can even be integrated within the urban, as seen in Chapter 8. Considering both rural and urban components as part of the landscape/ecosystem, ecosystem governance would have to combine several variables as illustrated in Figure 1. First, it is important to understand that both urban and rural systems are affected by their own environmental and social-economic conditions as well as those coming from the other component. 11. ?Extracting key elements from the case studies Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 103 Figure 1. Rural-urban ecosystem and how ecosystem governance can be integrated relies on considering both the governance system and the various factors that make a community both rural and urban. The activities (from planning and decision making to implementation) must then consider both environmental and socio-economic conditions on both sides (urban and rural) and the attributes that can lead to greater social acceptability and ecosystem governance. The arrows show the connections and interactions among the elements of the diagram. (Source: L. Vasseur, drawing) Any activity or management would have to consider all these interactions to ensure that ecosystem governance includes the following attributes: accessibility and equity; inclusion; engagement; social learning; transparency and accountability; and flexibility and adaptive management. Accessibility, equity, and inclusion are essential to ensure that all people are included from the start in the planning and implementation of any intervention. This includes marginalized or vulnerable peoples, women, youth, and elders, and from both rural and urban components. Community engagement is going further than just participation as it brings the sense of ownership of the intervention and brings trust and greater sustainability of the actions. To reach such a level of engagement, social learning is also needed so that every actor involved has the same understanding and knowledge about the issue at stake. Any governance system to be sustainable must include continuous learning to generate innovations and new knowledge (Folke et al., 2005). ?Trust-building dialogues, mobilization of social networks with actors and teams across scales, coordination of ongoing activities, sense making, collaborative learning, and creating public awareness? (Folke et al., 2005, p. 457) are potential strategies to enhance the possibility of successful interventions. Ecosystem governance should also be based on decision making that is transparent and through consensus. At the same time, decisions must be flexible and supported by an adaptive management system. It is important to consider the multi-level dynamic representation of ecosystem governance in a rural-urban ecosystem. Without such an understanding, conflicts, inequalities, and mistrust may arise. One of the first variables that can be extracted from the case studies is the decision-making process where the top-down approach most likely will limit acceptance of the community members, as well as their involvement. In some cases (e.g., Chapter 5), this can lead to illegal activities. In such conditions, as we have seen, ecosystem governance is weak. One of the first initial steps to avoid such issues is to develop the profile of the community first to better understand its components at both community and governance system levels. A profile allows to define all the potential issues as well as the demographic and the environmental conditions of the system (Vasseur et al. 2022). As illustrated in Figure 1, community and governance system are both influencing the types of decision or management activities and the process that is supporting it. Mitchell et al. (2015) suggest some of the characteristics that the governance system should consider such as supportive political will, coordination, effectiveness in engagement, and open and innovative organisational culture (p. 1913). On the Environment Socio-Economic Attributes ? acessibility / equity ? inclusion ? engagement ? social learning ? transparency ? adaptive management Community ? cultures ? traditions ? education ? wealth 11. ?Extracting key elements from the case studies 104 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective other side, the profile of the community helps identify the influencers such as cultural diversity, traditions, education levels, and wealth inequity among groups. The profile should be able to identify the most vulnerable or marginalized people to ensure their inclusion, especially if it is linked to a social network analysis. A social network analysis allows to also determine the most connected people or organisations and where potential conflicts or collaborations may occur (Vasseur et al. 2022). A main result of this approach is building trust and implementation of decisions that are sustainable. Reconsidering the 12 principles and the five steps for Ecosystem Approach, several aspects relate to ecosystem governance. However, the idea of developing a profile with potentially a social network analysis in Step A can help ensure that no one if left behind and that the dynamics between rural-urban are well understood. The attributes suggested in Figure 1 can also be explicitly used in the principles to contribute to a more integrated social ecological system that can serve as the basis for ecosystem governance. Ecosystem governance emphasises the importance to not consider the urban and rural systems as separated but rather understand their interdependency in which both citizens interact in a dynamic manner. The intricate connections are cultural, social, economic and even environmental. Ecosystem governance can effectively support the ecosystem approach. In conclusion, ?Changes in governance are needed to deal with rapid directional change, adapt to it, shape it, and create opportunities for positive transformations of social?ecological systems? (Folke et al., 2009, p. 103). As seen in these case studies, ecosystem governance varies from very weak to strong, depending on how the various attributes developed in Figure 1 are supported or not. There is effectively a need for changes in ways governance is looked at. The complexity of the rural-urban ecosystem requires an integrated approach that is based on attributes that once combined can enhance the likelihood of finding sustainable solutions where no one loses. From this analysis, challenges and limitations have also been obvious such as defining priorities, financial resource limitation, capacities of groups, tensions among groups, and lack of commitment and champions. Finally, monitoring and evaluation is generally the poor child of any intervention leading to limited flexibility and adaptive management. Understanding all the components of the ecosystem from an environmental and socio-economic perspective can help support long term decision making through an ecosystem governance system that considers the balance between both rural and urban communities and their respective ecosystems. As van Zeijl-Rozema et al. (2008, p. 411) state, ?Wicked problems, social complexity and weak institutionalization undermine the rationale of ?traditional? governing with governments as institutions with hierarchical power, and support the idea of governance as a shared responsibility of representatives from the state, the market and civil society dealing with societal problems? (p. 411). One observation made by one of the reviewers is the bias toward the global north. Whilst it is true that the number from the global south is low, it demonstrates the need to find and analyse ecosystem governance from the global south. More needs to be done to better understand how effectively ecosystem governance can better support the Ecosystem Approach. References Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (1995). Decision II/8 [Conference session]. United Nations Conference of the Parties, Jakarta. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441?473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 Folke, C., Chapin, F. S., & Olsson, P. (2009). Transformations in Ecosystem Stewardship. In C. Folke, G. P. Kofinas, & F. S. Chapin (Eds.), Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship (pp. 103?125). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73033-2_5 Mitchell, M., Lockwood, M., Moore, S.A., & Clement, S. (2015). Incorporating governance influences into social-ecological system models: A case study involving biodiversity conservation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(11), 1903-1922. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.967387 Shepherd, G. (Ed.). (2004). The Ecosystem Approach: Five Steps to Implementation. World Conservation Union (IUCN). Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. vi + 30 pp. Van Zeijl-Rozema, A., Corvers, R., Kemp, R., & Martens, P. (2008). Governance for sustainable development: A framework. Sustainable Development, 16(6), 410-421. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.367 Vasseur, L., Horning, D., Thornbush, M., Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Barrow, E., Edwards, S., Wit, P., & Jones, M. (2017). Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ambio, 46(7), 731?742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0918-6 Vasseur, L., B. May, M. Caspell, A. Marino, P. Garg, J. Baker and S. Gauthier. 2022. Using an inverted funnel analogy to develop a theory of change supporting resilient ecosystem-based adaptation in the Great Lakes Basin: a case study of Lincoln, Ontario, Canada. Facets, 7, 1348?1366 (accepted without revision). https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2022-0121 11. ?Extracting key elements from the case studies U rban-rural linkage INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE WORLD HEADQUARTERS Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland, Switzerland Tel +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0002 www.iucn.org 2. Water governance in Canterbury, New Zealand 3. Ecosystem governance in postdisastersettings: peri-urban floodplain management and a river corridor recoveryfollowing a major earthquake 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? ?dependent on ecosystem services from large, diverse and distant catchments 5. Ecosystem governance and planning at theurban rural fringe: a case study on the town of Lincoln, Canada 6. Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature ? our loss of connection with nature in our cities 7. London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages 8. Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia 9. Cordillera Azul National Park: integrated landscape management under a participatory model for the conservation of nature and its benefits 10. New energy trends: hydrogen and other clean fuels as tools to strengthen urban-rural linkages ? China case study INVALIDE) (ATTENTION: OPTION f Geology and Geophysics, 55(3), 207-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2012.697472 Bell, R., Lawrence, J., Allan, S., Blackett, P., & Stephens, S. (2017). Coastal hazards and climate change: Guidance for local government. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W., & Courchamp, F. (2012). Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 15(4), 365-377. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01736.x Betts, R., Lowe, J., Liddicoat, S., & Jones, C. (2009). Committed terrestrial ecosystem changes due to climate change. Nature Geoscience, 2(7), 484-487. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo555 Canterbury Biodiversity Strategy Partners. (2008). A biodiversity strategy for the Canterbury Region. Environment Canterbury Report Number: R08/13. Christchurch: Environment Canterbury. Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R. S., Díaz, S., . . . Clark, W. C. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(5), 1305-1312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106 Chan, K. M. A., Shaw, M. R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E. C., & Daily, G. C. (2006). Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biology, 4(11), e379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379 Christchurch City Council. (2023). Christchurch District Plan. Updated 17 January 2023. Christchurch City Council. Available at https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/plans/christchurch-district-plan/. Department of Conservation. (2010). New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010. Wellington: Department of Conservation. Department of Conservation. (2016). Canterbury (Waitaha) Conservation Management Strategy 2016. New Zealand Government: Department of Conservation. Dudley, N., Stolton, S., Belokurov, A. K., L., Lopoukhine, N., MacKinnon, K., Sandwith, T., & Sekhran, N. e. (2010). Natural Solutions: Protected areas helping people cope with climate change. Gland, Switzerland; Washington DC; New York, USA: IUCN- WCPA, TNC, UNDP, WCS, The World Bank and WWF. Environment Canterbury. (2020). Canterbury Regional Policy Statement 2013. Updated October 2020. Christchurch: Environment Canterbury. Environment Canterbury. (2019). Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan. Volume 1. Updated September 2019. Christchurch: Canterbury Regional Council. Estrella, M., & Saalismaa, N. (2013). Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR): An Overview. In F. Renaud, K. Sudmeier-Rieux, & M. Estrella (Eds.), The role of ecosystem management in disaster risk reduction (pp. 26-54). Tokyo: UNU Press. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social?ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 27 Gunderson, L. H., Allen, C. R., & Holling, C. S. (2010). Foundations of ecological resilience. Washington, DC: Island Press. Harmsworth, G. R. (1995). Maori values for land-use planning. Discussion report. Manaaki Whenua-Landcare Research. Hino, M., Field, C. B., & Mach, K. J. (2017). Managed retreat as a response to natural hazard risk. Nature Climate Change, 7(5), 364-370. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3252 Hoekstra, J. M., Boucher, T. M., Ricketts, T. H., & Roberts, C. (2005). Confronting a biome crisis: global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters, 8(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245 Hughes, M. W., Quigley, M. C., van Ballegooy, S., Deam, B. L., Bradley, B. A., Hart, D. E., & Measures, R. (2015). The sinking city: earthquakes increase flood hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand. GSA Today, 25(3-4), 4-10. IPCC. (2023). Synthesis report of the IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6). Summary for Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). Jolly, D., & Nga Papatipu Runanga Working Group. (2013). Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013. Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd. Otautahi Christchurch. Kirk, R. M. (1979). Dynamics and management of sand beaches in southern Pegasus Bay. Morris and Wilson Consulting Engineers Limited, Christchurch. Land Information New Zealand. (2021). Transitional land use in the Residential Red Zones. Guide for applicants and Te Tira Kahikuhiku - The Red Zones transformative land use group. Land Information New Zealand. 12pp. Lang, M., Orchard, S., Falwasser, T., Rupene, M., Williams, C., Tirikatene-Nash, N., & Couch, R. (2012). State of the Takiwa 2012 -Te Ähuatanga o Te Ihutai. Cultural Health Assessment of the Avon-Heathcote Estuary and its Catchment. Christchurch: Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd. McLeod, K. L., & Leslie, H. M. (2009). Ecosystem-based management for the oceans. Washington DC: Island Press. McMullen, C. P., & Jabbour, J. (2009). Climate change science compendium 2009. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. 68pp. Memon, P. A., & Perkins, H. C. (2000). Environmental planning and management in New Zealand. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Washington DC: Island Press. Ministry for the Environment. (2017). National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (amended 2017). Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. New Zealand Government. (1987). Conservation Act 1987. Reprint as at 16 December 2017. Wellington: New Zealand Government. New Zealand Government. (1991). Resource Management Act 1991. Wellington: New Zealand Government. New Zealand Government. (2011). Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2011. Wellington, New Zealand Government. New Zealand Government. (2016). Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016. Wellington: New Zealand Government. New Zealand Law Society. (2010). Law Society comments on Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act. Accessed 29 March 2018 from http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/. New Zealand Law Society, September 2010. Orchard, S. (2014). Potential roles for coastal protected areas in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: a case study of dune management in Christchurch, New Zealand. In R. Murti & C. Buyck (Eds.), Safe Havens: Protected Areas for Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. (pp. 83-93). Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Orchard, S. (2017a). Floodplain restoration principles for the Avon-Otakaro Red Zone. Case studies and recommendations. Report prepared for Avon Otakaro Network, Christchurch, N.Z. Orchard, S. (2017b). Integrated assessment frameworks for evaluating large scale river corridor restoration. Report prepared for the Avon Otakaro Network. Christchurch, New Zealand. Orchard, S., Hickford, M. J. H., & Schiel, D. R. (2018). Earthquake-induced habitat migration in a riparian spawning fish has implications for conservation management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 2018, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2898 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings Orchard, S., Hughey, K. F. D., Measures, R., & Schiel, D. R. (2020). Coastal tectonics and habitat squeeze: response of a tidal lagoon to co-seismic sea-level change. Natural Hazards, 103(3), 3609-3631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04147-w Orchard, S., Hughey, K. F. D., & Schiel, D. R. (2020). Risk factors for the conservation of saltmarsh vegetation and blue carbon revealed by earthquake-induced sea-level rise. Science of the Total Environment, 746, 141241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141241 Orchard, S., & Measures, R. (2017). Sea level rise impacts in the Avon Heathcote Estuary Ihutai. Salinity intrusion and inanga spawning scenarios. Report prepared for Christchurch City Council. Park, G. (2000). New Zealand as ecosystems: the ecosystem concept as a tool for environmental management and conservation. Wellington: Department of Conservation. Partnership for Environment & Disaster Risk Reduction. (2010). Demonstrating the role of ecosystems based management for Disaster Risk Reduction. Accessed 28 March 2018 from http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/bgdocs/ PEDRR_2010.pdf. Pauling, C., Lenihan, T. M., Rupene, M., Tirikatene-Nash, N., & Couch, R. (2007). State of the Takiwa -Te Ähuatanga o Te Ihutai. Cultural Health Assessment of the Avon-Heathcote Estuary and its Catchment. Christchurch, NZ: Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu. Potter, S. H., Becker, J. S., Johnston, D. M., & Rossiter, K. P. (2015). An overview of the impacts of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14(Part 1), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.01.014 Quigley, M. C., Hughes, M. W., Bradley, B. A., van Ballegooy, S., Reid, C., Morgenroth, J., . . . Pettinga, J. R. (2016). The 2010? 2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence: Environmental effects, seismic triggering thresholds and geologic legacy. Tectonophysics, 672-673, 228-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2016.01.044 Regenerate Christchurch. (2019). Otakaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan. Christchurch: Regenerate Christchurch. Roberts, M., Norman, W., Minhinnick, N., Wihongi, D., & Kirkwood, C. (1995). Kaitiakitanga: Maori perspectives on conservation. Pacific conservation biology, 2(1), 7-20. Romero Manrique, D., Corral, S., & Guimarães Pereira, Â. (2018). Climate-related displacements of coastal communities in the Arctic: Engaging traditional knowledge in adaptation strategies and policies. Environmental Science and Policy, 85, 90-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.04.007 Singers, N. J. D., & Rogers, G. M. (2014). A classification of New Zealand?s terrestrial ecosystems. Science for Conservation 325. Wellington: Department of Conservation. Spalding, M. D., Ruffo, S., Lacambra, C., Meliane, I., Hale, L. Z., Shepard, C. C., & Beck, M. W. (2014). The role of ecosystems in coastal protection: Adapting to climate change and coastal hazards. Ocean and Coastal Management, 90, 50-57. Tau, T. M., Goodall, A., Palmer, D., & Tau, R. (1990). Te Whakatau Kaupapa ? the Ngai Tahu Resource Management Strategy for the Canterbury Region. Aoraki Press. Otautahi Christchurch. Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., Spierenburg, M., Stockholms, u., . . . Stockholm Resilience, C. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio, 43(5), 579-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3 Tipa, G., Harmsworth, G. R., Williams, E., & Kitson, J. C. (2016). Integrating matauranga Maori into freshwater management, planning and decision making. In P. G. Jellyman, T. J. A. Davie, C. P. Pearson, & J. S. Harding (Eds.), Advances in New Zealand Freshwater Science: New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society & New Zealand Hydrological Society. UNEP. (2010). Ecosystem-based Adaptation Programme Paris, France: United Nations Environment Programme. UNEP/GPA. (2006). Ecosystem-based management: Markers for assessing progress. Report commissioned by the Coordination Office of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The Hague, Netherlands. Vasseur, L., Horning, D., Thornbush, M., Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Barrow, E., . . . Jones, M. (2017). Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: Bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN sustainable development goals. Ambio, 46(7), 731-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0918-6 Watts, R. H. (2011). The Christchurch waterways story. Lincoln, N.Z.: Manaaki Whenua Press, Landcare Research. 51pp. White, P. A., Goodrich, K., Cave, S., & Minni, G. (2007). Waterways, swamps and vegetation of Christchurch in 1856 and baseflow discharge in Christchurch city streams. GNS Science Consultancy Report 2007/103. Taupo. Yohe, G. W., Lasco, R. D., Ahmad, Q. K., Arnell, N. W., Cohen, S. J., Hope, C., . . . Perez, R. T. (2007). Perspectives on climate change and sustainability. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 811-841. 3. Ecosystem governance in post-disaster settings 4 Kabete Dam, which was built in the 1950?s and joins the Mathare and then Nairobi river. © Edmund Barrow 1Member of IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Nairobi; Fellow, Rights & Resources Initiative 2Director Planning Systems, Nairobi 3Senior Urban Planner, Planning Systems, Nairobi 4Foundation Manager, Community Cooker Foundation, Nairobi 5Volunteer Adviser, Community Cooker Foundation, Nairobi 6Director, Cookswell Jikos Ltd., Nairobi 7Kenya Green Building Society, Nairobi, Kenya Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? ? dependent on ecosystem services from large, diverse and distant catchments Edmund Barrow1, Jim Archer2, Louise Groth3, Wakina Mutembei4, Linda Archer5, Teddy Kinyanjui6, Amrish Shah7 30 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract This chapter explores the dependencies Nairobi has with its rural hinterlands with a focus on water, which is sourced from some of the main water towers of Kenya, and charcoal which is still the main source of household energy in many parts of the city. Nairobi, a city of more than 4 million people, lies south of the equator at 1,795 metres above sea level. It is the heart of Kenya?s economy and development yet is dependent on its rural hinterland for its goods and services, such as water, fuel (especially charcoal), and much of its food. There are strong labour and cultural attachments between Nairobi residents and their rural home areas to which remittances are important. The Nairobi rivers are heavily polluted by human and industrial waste. Encroachment into the riparian zone, discharge of raw sewage and illegal dumping of waste has led to a reduced capacity of these waterways. The rivers originate in the mountains west of Nairobi, flow through the city, join the Athi river and passes through Tsavo National Park before discharging into the Indian Ocean. The river corridors in the city are vital as part of the lungs of the city. Nairobi is unique?the world-famous Nairobi National Park borders the city. Other important green areas are Uhuru Park and Nairobi Arboretum close to the city centre, City Park, and Karura Forest. Karura Forest is one of the largest forests within any city. Nobel Peace Laureate the late Wangari Maathai fought to change Karura Forest from being a robbers? den to a nature reserve with footpaths, bike paths and an educational centre. There have been previous initiatives and there are current programmes to restore the Nairobi rivers, but unified public backing and commitment is still lacking. This chapter analyses some of the positive environmental actions that Nairobi is implementing, and shows how Nairobi can learn from other cities, as well as lessons Nairobi has to offer. Introduction Nairobi is the capital and largest city of Kenya. The name comes from the Maasai ?Enkare Nyrobi?, which means ?place of cool water?, a reference to the Nairobi River which flows through the city. According to the last official census, the city has a population of 4 million, up from 3.1 million in 2009 (Wikipedia, 2020a). Nairobi was founded in 1899 as a rail depot on the Uganda Railway, and quickly grew to replace Mombasa as the capital of the British East Africa Protectorate in 1905 (Greenway & Monsma, 1989). After independence in 1963, Nairobi remained the capital (Cities of the World, 2007). The city lies on the Athi river plains 1,795 metres above sea level. Home to thousands of Kenyan businesses and over 100 major international companies and organisations such as the United Nations, Nairobi is an important business hub. The Nairobi Securities Exchange is one of the largest in Africa and the second-oldest exchange on the continent, and the city is a major financial centre for Africa (Millennium Information Technologies, 2007). Nairobi has one of the highest growth rates in Africa, currently 4.1% a year (World Factbook-Kenya, 2018), and its population will likely reach 5.8 to 6.2 million by 2025 (Hoornweg & Pope, 2014; Responsible Business, 2018). Given the high population growth, due to rural?urban migration and birth rates, the economy has yet to catch up. Unemployment is estimated at 40%, mainly in the high- density, low-income areas (Oyugi & K?Akumu, 2017). The Kenya National Bureau of Statistics estimate that, by 2014, the informal sector represented over 80% of employment in Kenya (World Bank Group, 2016). An estimated 26% of people live-in urban areas in Kenya (Oyugi & K?Akumu, 2017). Most urban people have strong links to their rural home areas through family and land. There are cash and commodity flow from urban to rural, which is matched by similar flows of food and other products from rural to urban. Such remittances, though important and large, are difficult to quantify. However, Kenya?s main mobile money providers have made remittances easier, quicker and safer, and helps to further cement the strong ties between Nairobi and its rural hinterland. This chapter explores how linked and dependent Nairobi is on its rural catchments with respect to people, water, wood-based fuel and food (Map 1, where distances are approximate as is the thickness of the coloured arrows which denote the scale of the flows). We explore how Nairobi is improving its environmental efficiency through various forms of energy saving, the adoption of green building standards, and the sustainability of the green areas that are in and border the city. At the same time, we explain how more could be done. Nairobi depends on the water towers of the Aberdares and Mt Kenya Nairobi obtains 94% of its water from the Tana River and the Aberdare-Mt Kenya water towers north of the city. The sustainability of these sources is contingent on good catchment management. The Nairobi Dam, constructed as a freshwater lake, is no longer a water reservoir due to sprawling human settlements, pollution, drainage of raw sewage and dumping of garbage (University of Nairobi, 2013). The remaining water comes from the Kikuyu Springs and Ruiru Dam. In the 1970s, the Thika Dam, with a capacity of 225,000 m3/day, was built to meet growing demands (African Development Bank, 1998). Groundwater supplies 85,000 m3 per day from about 3,000 boreholes. But the groundwater table has declined, and the average depth of new wells in 2001 was 238 meters (Wikipedia, 2020b). Most wells are operated by industry, hotels, farms for flower production, and private houses in parts of the city that receive intermittent supplies. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 31 Map 1: Catchments, Green Spaces of Nairobi City and Its Rural Linkages (Note: distances are approximate) here. (Source of base map: Planning Systems Services, Kenya) Water availability increased from 165 litres per person per day in 1976 to 200 in 1995 (Skytta & Jean-Francois, 1996). However, by 1998 water losses, including physical losses due to old piping, illegal water use and under-metering, reduced the water supply by up to 30% (African Development Bank, 1998). Since the 1970s, slum residents, with communal water connections, built water kiosks (small shops) to resell water. The number of water kiosks increased from about 150 in 1978 to nearly 1,500 in 1994. A particular challenge for Nairobi is to provide affordable water to its population living in slum areas. Insufficient urban planning, especially the implementation of existing plans combined with poor governance and management, and lack of enforcement has led to urban development with little or no correlation between land use planning and the provision of urban functions and systems. In addition, land grabbing and growing informal settlements encroach on wetlands and riparian zones. Nairobi depends on its rural catchment for most of its water supply, yet few or no Payments for Environmental Services (PES) are paid to those living in these catchments for conserving the land and water sources, nor have land users been encouraged to adopt water conservation strategies. In 2009, the dry season was longer than usual, and the Thika Dam reservoir was less than half full at the height of the drought. These low levels are due to failed rains and destruction of key catchment forests in the Aberdares, due to poor landscape governance (BBC, 2009; K24TV, 2009). Erosion reduced the reservoir capacity, and water quality reduced due to agricultural pesticide runoff and pollution (Moriasi et al., 2007). Improved water and land use governance would enhance both landscape management and water supply?a win: win for all. PES could go a long way to better assure the conservation of the catchments, its water supply services and a reduction in degradation. For example, Beijing a city with over 21 million people, relies on the Miyun Catchment for about 70% of its water. Beijing supports conservation friendly land use in the catchment and makes payments for the water services provided (Jia & Emerton, 2012). And New York City supports the water provisioning services from the Catskill Mountains (Munson et.al., 2019; UNDRR, 2016). Nairobi could learn from such examples as to how this is done, why it is successful together with the governance arrangements so as to secure its fresh water supply for the future. Map 1: Catchments, Green Spaces of Nairobi City and Its Rural Linkages (Note: distances are approximate) Nairobi National Park The polluted Nairobi River joins Athi river & flows to Indian Ocean Karura Forest (370 km) Charcoal from Kajiado (106 km), Narok (142 km) Charcoal from Machakos (66 km), Kitui (175 km), & Tana River (544 km) Charcoal from Baringo (530 km) Narok (142 km) Kitui (175 km), Food, Fruit from Aberdares (145 km), & Mt. Kenya (138 km)) 94% Nairobi?s water from Aberdares & Mount Kenya Source of base map: Planning Systems Services, Kenya Nairobi rivers catchment in Kikuyu & Kiambu Counties, & Ngong hills - reasonably clean 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? 32 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Fuel sources and enhanced efficiencies Nairobi?s main cooking fuel is charcoal, especially for lower income areas, whilst higher-end residential and commercial areas use gas or electricity.Charcoal is used in restaurants and for traditional grilling. For most businesses and mid-upper income residents a hybrid energy supply of gas, charcoal, and electricity is typically used. Charcoal demand is based on population and per capita charcoal demand. Nairobi County has the highest demand at 3.4 million cubic meters per annum whilst Lamu County has the lowest at 0.11 million cubic meters (Wanleys Consultancy Services, 2013). Approximately 10% of all Kenya?s charcoal production goes to Nairobi. The National Study on Charcoal by Energy for Sustainable Development Africa (ESDA, 2005) estimated the annual national production of charcoal as 1.6 million tons in 2005 (Ministry of Environment and Forestry Republic of Kenya, 2018). But production rose to 2.5 million tons in 2013, an increase of 156%. The economic value of charcoal over the same period grew from about USD $320 million to USD $1.35 billion per annum?a staggering 422% growth and much of that is driven by Nairobi. Increasingly charcoal is sustainably produced, for example,farm forestry around the tea and coffee farms ofMount Kenya, or the removal of invasive species such as Prosopis juliflora for charcoal. These sources increasingly provide Nairobiperi-urban demand. But much charcoal still comes from unsustainable indigenous wood sources, from illegal logging or as a by-product ofland clearance for agriculture. Charcoal that is unsustainably and inefficiently produced contributes to deforestation and the degradation of natural woodlands in the hinterlands of Kenya. The charcoal supply for Nairobi comes from distant rural counties, such as Kitui, Makueni, Tana River, Kwale, Narok, Baringo, Kajiado and Garissa, and recently even from Uganda and South Sudan?often in excess of 400 km from Nairobi. For Nairobi, this trade was worth over USD $160 million in 2013 (Kenya Forestry Services, Camco Advisory Services Kenya, 2013) and together with firewood it supplies about 80% of Nairobi?s domestic energy.Charcoal is a looming issue. In spite of the importance accorded to County Governments for the sustainable management of forests, counties have not really implemented appropriate plans. This is essential if sustainable charcoal production is to be achieved and is exacerbated by a lack of clarity between County and Central Government as to management responsibilities. In February 2018, the national government imposed a 3-month ban (and in effect to November 2020) on logging in all public and community forests, and on charcoal production. In some places this led to budding Charcoal Producing Associations becoming irrelevant with cartels taking over charcoal production. The reasons given for the ban are for the government to have time to train more Kenya Forest Service rangers, implement better forest protection, and replant plantations with indigenous trees. Yet, improved forest governance combined with incentives for sustainable charcoal production will help reduce degradation and enhance sustainable use. There have been multiple, often donor led attempts to regulate the charcoal market, but most charcoal is marketed through the informal market, and governance is poor. Key challenges to the sustainable charcoal trade include unregulated land use change, illegal trade and corruption. For example, a typical mid-distance lorry might have to pay $230 in ?rents? to traffic police to transport charcoal from its source to the market and small-scale farmers may get up to a 30% ?charcoal subsidy? for land clearing and planting when clearing forested land for farming. But overall, illegal rents are, perhaps, the main reason keeping the trade unsustainable, informal and underground. There are two strategies to create greater efficiency, both of which require the enhanced and more equitable governance of the charcoal industry in rural and urban areas. Firstly, there should be a focus on increasing sustainable and more efficient charcoal production at the supply end. At present many farmers around Mount Kenya and some dryland counties grow trees for fuelwood and charcoal on a sustainable basis. Then the removal of invasive species like Prosopis can help offset pressures on old growth forests. Assuming charcoal will remain an important cooking fuel, this will help reduce environmental degradation. Secondly, on the demand side, greater efficiencies can be achieved in cooking, so less charcoal is burnt for the same or greater energy output. Two examples highlight this. The late Dr. Maxwell Kinyanjui was part of a team who pioneered the improved clay and ceramic lined Charcoal Jiko (cooker) in the 1970?s that has since been replicated across Africa and the Caribbean.Now Cookswell Jikos Ltd. provides a variety of high-quality charcoal and wood fuel stoves, and improved charcoal making kilns?all based on the original designs and concept of Maxwell Kinyanjui. This reduces demand on traditional charcoal sources. Cookswell Jikos Ltd. includes a free packet ofseed-balls(recycled charcoal dust used to coat a tree seed for ground or aerial low- cost direct seeding)with every stove purchased to encourage more sustainable charcoal production and establish more trees. Along with the Tamarind Group, they established The Woodlands 2000 Trust to promote dryland tree growing in Kenya and East Africa for enhanced wood-fuel security. In this way, Cookswell contributes to more efficient charcoal burning and production from tree branches (not tree trunks), which further reduces pressures on natural forests and woodlands. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 33 The other example is the Community Cooker Foundation, a charity based in Nairobi, which promotes the Community Cooker, a waste-to-energy technology that burns rubbish for cooking in an environmentally correct manner (Community Cooker Foundation, 2016). Having five large cooking plates and two ovens, it is suitable for a range of organisations and institutions (it costs about USD $25,000) as an alternative to charcoal and firewood. Rubbish is collected and sorted to remove rubber, glass and metal. The remaining rubbish is burnt at over 880 °C to generate clean heat that can be used for cooking, baking, heating and, soon, for generating electricity. The Community Cooker was tested by Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS) for dry gas analysis. These tests showed the cooker is within European, American, and Kenyan standards for emissions of Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Carbon Monoxide, Furans, and Dioxins. If one Cooker is used continuously every day, it saves 7,500 m3 of wood per year (approximately 3,000 trees) from being made into charcoal or used as fuelwood. The Cooker can burn 500 kg of rubbish per day (or about 200 tons per annum) and provides at least five jobs, as well as earning income from selling meals. The Mirema School Community Cooker saves 93% of its previous charcoal and fuelwood costs whilst preparing meals for over 1,000 students and staff each day. The cooker not only saves trees but reduces rubbish, provides jobs and promotes a sense of community. The catchment for Nairobi?s fruit, vegetables and meat Up to 50% of Nairobi?s vegetables and root crops are grown along the Nairobi, Ngong and Mathare rivers and their tributaries that flow through Nairobi. Most of the vegetables are sold through informal markets and account for about 25% of Nairobi households? food expenditure. Given the heavily polluted rivers used for irrigation, there is concern about pollution affecting the quality of the vegetables, which could be solved by ?re-greening Nairobi?s rivers?. The rest of Nairobi?s vegetables comes from 50-100 km from the city, to the north in the highland areas of the Rift Valley escarpment to the Aberdares and around Mount Kenya, and to the east in Kitui and Machakos. The majority of these vegetables come from small-scale farmers. Likewise, most of Nairobi?s milk comes from within 100 Km of the city (IGAD, 2013; Behnke & Muthami, 2011). Over 50% of Nairobi?s meat comes from pastoralist lands in the dry areas, especially Kajiado and Narok (south and south-west of Nairobi) and from northern Kenya, travelling sometimes over 400 Km. Under the Urban Areas and Cities Act of 2011, Nairobi should have an urban agriculture plan. In 2015, Nairobi City County passed the Urban Agriculture Promotion and Regulation Act to regulate urban agriculture. As a pilot site for a project (FAO, 2020; Lee-Smith & Knaepen, 2017), Nairobi is developing a strategy for food security and the urban-rural food linkages were being mapped. However, to date nothing has been publicized. Nairobi sources most of its food from distant areas of Kenya, though urban cultivation is increasing and offers increased economic opportunities for the future provided quality can be assured, especially from pollutants. There are reasonably well-developed value chains from the producer (farmer or pastoralist) to the market. This is made more transparent as farmers and pastoralists better understand the value of their products due to mobile phone services. But still farmers and pastoralists are in a weak bargaining position. Greening the buildings Rapid building development, population growth and over consumption of resources has placed significant pressures on urban and rural environments, for example, sources of sand and stone for construction. There is now an increasing focus on green construction. Developers want buildings that are more energy and water efficient to reduce costs and reliance and pressure on municipal utilities. This will reduce land use impacts (cutting fewer trees, managing storm water runoff, reduce urban heat effects), by selecting locally sourced materials which have a lower energy signature and be less harmful to people?s health. Although the Government started to review the building code is 2009, there is still no official change either at national or Nairobi levels, and here the private sector is leading the way. There are currently 32 registered green building projects in Kenya?mostly in Nairobi. Companies such as Urban Green Consultants Ltd (UGC, 2020), a Kenyan-owned sustainability firm, specializes in ?green? buildings and seeks to create more sustainable and low impact buildings. UGC are accredited to rate and certify local building developments using LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design), Green Star and EDGE (Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies) ratings. All rating systems are internationally recognised green building certification systems. EDGE is a low-cost tool developed by the World Bank to encourage developing nations to build green. UGC assists building projects to be ?green? and fulfil sustainability objectives by reducing operating costs and increasing the life span of buildings. Through modelling (energy, daylight, ventilation, facade) they can reduce building operation costs, reduce environmental impacts and the pressures on energy and water utilities. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? 34 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Cleaning and rehabilitating the river systems of Nairobi The Nairobi River and its tributaries traverse Nairobi County. These include the Mathare, Ngong and Nairobi rivers?with tributaries and seasonal streams. They rise in the Rift Valley escarpment between the Ngong Hills and the Aberdares, about 30 Km west of Nairobi and flow into the Athi River. The Athi-Galana River is one of the main rivers of Kenya which flows into the Indian Ocean?with much of the waste and pollution from Nairobi. Where the rivers rise and as they flow into Nairobi, they are relatively clean. Once in Nairobi, they become heavily polluted, and are contaminated with biological and chemical wastes and refuse. The rivers in Nairobi are breeding grounds for disease; poor conveyors of flood flows resulting in frequent flooding; and associated with illegal and/or informal waste dumping and sewage discharge. The lack of robust sanitation infrastructure is partly the cause of the heavy deterioration of the rivers? water quality, and it is estimated that the Nairobi Water and Sewage Company only collects about 40% of the city?s sewage. The polluted rivers have major negative impacts especially on the urban poor and downstream as the rivers join the Athi river and flow to the Indian ocean. Since the river corridors, wetlands and riparian reserves are sources of open land and are rarely controlled by the authorities, they have become locations for uncontrolled settlements. Many of Nairobi?s informal settlements (the ?slums?) are located along these river corridors, among them Kibera?often called the largest slum in Africa (University of Nairobi, 2013). These settlements lack basic services whilst being exposed to flooding during the rainy season. It is important to clean and restore the rivers for the residents of the city, to provide clean water flowing into the Athi River, and improve the hydraulic capacity of the waterways. There is also a need to support catchment conservation at the rivers? sources and as they flow through Nairobi. Links are needed between the counties where these rivers have their sources, Nairobi, and the counties where the Athi River flows as it makes it way to the Indian Ocean. The story of the clean-up of the Thames River which flows through London is analogous. In 1957 the Thames was considered biologically dead and classified as a badly managed open sewer (Hardach, 2015). A concerted effort was made to clean the river. Though much has been done, and the river is cleaner, plastics have emerged as the new threat to the Thames. The Nairobi rivers are not as big, but a similar type of integrated clean-up is needed?in terms of water cleanliness, flood plain management, and waste and sewage treatment. Kenya has the necessary legislative framework and policies for such work, but lack of implementation and enforcement, coordination between authorities, cross-sectoral disagreement on responsibilities, and corruption have stalled implementation ? all summarised as a lack of responsible governance. Previous attempts to clean the rivers, or parts thereof, were not successful as they did not address underlying causes. In 2016 a Nairobi River Rehabilitation and Restoration Master Plan was developed by the Government, but without much implementation. The ?Nairobi Rivers Regeneration project?, a private urban planning initiative by a Kenyan architectural practice, provides for an integrated approach to rehabilitate the Nairobi rivers and promote sustainable urban development (Planning Systems, 2018; Burohappold Engineering, 2018). This project is gaining interest in Government, the Private Sector and among the people of Nairobi, and could become a flagship project to boost the ?Re-Greening of the Green City in the Sun? and be a show piece for Nairobi as it participates in the 100 Resilient Cities (UNDRR, 2016) programme. The Nairobi Rivers Regeneration project could catalyse the wider regeneration of the city, and has the following objectives to: a) clean the rivers and secure water supplies; b) support the regreening of Nairobi with new public parks and green open spaces; c) relieve traffic congestion by improving connectivity; d) identify land along riparian areas for mixed use development; e) enable Nairobi?s central business district to expand; and f) develop a network of walk and cycle ways to improve connectivity through a ?non-motorized movement network? that will also connect urban with rural. The rivers and riparian areas are the responsibility of diverse sectors, ?owners? and groups which makes such a project complicated. Therefore, an integrated approach is needed without sectoral conflicts, yet ensuring a sound business case. This public-private partnership (PPP) had early support from the then- President Mwai Kibaki and is starting to be re-invigorated at local and national levels. The green areas ? the lungs of Nairobi Nobel Laureate Wangari Maathai fought to save the indigenous Karura Forest which was under threat of being converted to housing and other infrastructure (Nyaga, 1998). This brought into focus the plight of Nairobi?s parks and gardens. The 1948 Nairobi Master Plan was designed for 250,000 residents and allocated 28% of Nairobi?s land to public space. Because of rapid population growth, lack of adequate urban planning, implementation and unplanned development, these spaces are increasingly threatened (Makworo & Mireri, 2011). This is characteristic of all the green areas in Nairobi?they have all been or are threatened, usually by unscrupulous developers and greedy individuals. However, the people of Nairobi and civil society want to ensure these green spaces are conserved. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 35 Nairobi National Park (117 sq.km.), established in 1946, was Kenya?s first national park. Located about seven km south of the city centre, it has an electric fence separating the park?s wildlife from the city. Open grass plains and scattered Acacia bush, with the backdrop of the city skyline, plays host to a wide variety of wildlife. Nairobi is one of the few cities in the world with a national park within its boundaries, making it a prime tourist destination (KWS, 2020). Despite its fame, the Park is threatened. Part was excised for the Southern-Bypass road. More damage is likely to be done as the extension of the Standard Gauge Railway has been constructed dividing the park into two. What the effect the railway will have on the wildlife in the park, and the park itself, is yet to be established. In 2009, the Kenya Forest Service and the Friends of Karura Community Forest Association, embarked on a programme to secure Karura Forest Reserve (Nyaga, 1998; Friends of Karura, 2020), an urban upland forest north of the city centre. Karua is one of the largest gazetted forests in the world within a city. It is 1,041 ha and shows how corporate social responsibility and philanthropy can secure a forest. The forest offers eco-friendly opportunities for visitors to walk, jog, bike, and experience the tranquillity of nature. The 2005 Forest Act was,in part, inspired by the rescue of Karura Forest, reflecting a broader recognition of the importance of urban forest restoration. The Nairobi Arboretum (Kenya Forest Services, 2020) occupies 30.4 ha and is 3 km north-east of the city centre. It was established in 1907 for exotic tree species trials, as foresters were concerned that the indigenous trees which the railway relied on were being depleted faster than they were being regenerated. The Arboretum was gazetted as a Forest Reserve in 1932 and is managed by Kenya Forest Service and the Friends of Nairobi Arboretum.It hosts over 300 species of exotic and indigenous tree species and over 100 bird species. Jeevanjee Gardens (Nairobi News, 2016), an open garden in the central business district, was founded by Mr. A.M. Jeevanjee, an Asian-born entrepreneur in Kenya. It is the only park directly owned by the people, having been donated to the poor people of Nairobi as a resting area. Open for free to the public, Jeevanjee Gardens is a recreational park and attracts people from all walks of life. There have been attempts to develop it for the construction of multi-storey buildings, which has been met with resistance by the people of Nairobi. City Park (Nature Kenya, 2020), managed by Nairobi City County, is one of the few remaining areas of the indigenous forest that once covered most of Nairobi. The Park is rich in biodiversity and natural vegetation and has one of Nairobi rivers? shorter tributaries, the Kibagare, flowing through it. Friends of City Park help protect, maintain and enhance the park amenities. This group came together in response to challenges faced by the Park including land grabbing, cutting of trees and garbage dumping. It was originally 61 ha but 20 ha were lost to private development through squatting and illegal alienation in the 1980s. The most popular park in Nairobi is Uhuru Park (Wikipedia, 2020c), which was opened by the first president of Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta, in 1969. The Park,12.9 ha, borders the central business district and is a centre for outdoor speeches, services and rallies. It contains an artificial lake, several national monuments, and an assembly ground for political and religious gatherings. It is infamous as the site where protests against illegal land grabbing were violently broken up in 1989, as Wangari Maathai and many of her followers held a protest to stop the construction of the 60-storey Kenya Times Media Trust business complex within its boundaries. She was vilified in parliament, but her protests and the government?s response led investors to cancel the project. Ngong Forest (Kenya Forest Service, 2020b) was gazetted in 1932 and covered about 2,900 ha of indigenous forest. By 1978, the area had been reduced after excisions, land grabbing and portions of the forest being allocated to private developers. In the early 1990s, the Trustees of Ngong Road Forest Sanctuary learnt that the core of forest had been divided into 35 land parcels to be given to developers. However, the sell-off was cancelled after intense lobbying. By 2005, the area of the Ngong Road Forest was 1,224 ha. Ngong Forest is divided by Ngong Road and the recently constructed Southern Bypass. Since 2005, the Ngong Road Forestis managed by the Kenya Forest Service. All these green areas in the city provide the means for people to be in and re-connect with nature, especially City Park, Uhuru Park and Jivanjee Gardens as there are no entry charges. Karura, Nairobi National Park and the Arboretum are largely inaccessible for most of Nairobi?s population, as they charge entrance fees. Being able to visit such green spaces is especially important for the children and youth for education to create awareness about the importance of nature. Yet they are all under threat due to illegal appropriation and greed. Many of these green areas are connected to the rural hinterlands through the rivers and streams in Nairobi and serve to promote nature connectivity within Nairobi and the rural catchments. Urban dwellers need easy access to ?green spaces? as everyone should maintain their emotional and cultural connections to nature. So being green has to mean usable and accessible green space. Discussion and lessons Nairobi used to be the ?Green City in the Sun?. That ?greenness? needs to be restored. This chapter highlights some ways to achieve this, together with some of the challenges. A common challenge is the lack of good governance at all levels. Nairobi (like Kenya) has the necessary legal framework and policies in place. However, implementation and adherence are lacking whether in the charcoal trade or in allocating public green space for buildings. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? 36 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Like many cities in Africa, Nairobi has strong urban-rural linkages as many city residents have land and relatives in their rural home areas and remittances are an important flow from Nairobi to the rural areas. This attribute can help better inform and strengthen the linkages of urban to rural and back. Supplying and securing water is key to maintaining Nairobi yet is its Achilles tendon. Nairobi?s water comes from the Aberdare and Mount Kenya catchments. Yet there appears to be little support for improved catchment land and water management, so that landowners have incentives to conserve for water provisioning to Nairobi. This can be combined with improvements in farming practice to promote conservation. The example of Beijing is something Nairobi could learn from. At present landowners in the catchment do not receive any incentives or PES for water provisioning. Within Nairobi it is clear that much is needed from replacing and repairing old water piping infrastructure to enhanced water provisioning for all residents of the city. Whilst city residents need water to drink, they also need sources of fuel to cook and access to affordable food. Although logging and charcoal production are banned except on private land, Nairobi?s main fuel source is still charcoal. Charcoal production is inefficient as most of the trees come from natural woodlands and forests, and the charcoal trade is mired in corruption and cartels. Thus, Nairobi contributes to deforestation, degradation and unsustainable land use. Good governance is required in the charcoal value chain, from its source, its transport and to its selling, but this is not yet in evidence. Greater efficiencies in the charcoal trade can be made by using smaller branches in production, and in terms of the more efficient charcoal stoves, as the Cookswell Jikos demonstrate. And the Community Cooker has demonstrated a tremendous potential to use ?rubbish? as a source of energy for institutions, thereby saving on trees and helping clean up the city. Whilst some food, especially vegetables and fruit, is grown in urban areas, most of Nairobi?s food is sourced from rural areas 5-100 Km from Nairobi. These value chains for food from source to market could be improved so rural farmers earn a larger share of the income. If farmers have a better understanding of pricing (for example, through mobile phones) at the Nairobi market end, this will support fairer pricing and improve equity at the grower end. The deteriorating health of the Nairobi rivers is acknowledged at all levels of government and by stakeholders. However, fragmented legislation, lack of coordination, a sense of ownership, and enforcement by the authorities obstructs efficient and long-term environmental and urban governance. For example, the deterioration of Nairobi Dam is largely blamed on over 77 sectoral laws and many bodies responsible for regulating and conserving the dam. There has been conflict and duplication of roles leading to ineffective modes of cleaning, conserving, and rehabilitating the dam (University of Nairobi, 2013). Whilst efforts to clean the rivers, provide sewage infrastructure and regenerate the riparian areas have been supported at national, regional, and local levels, these initiatives have largely been carried out in isolation, without sufficient cross-organisational support and funding to create lasting change on a scale that matters. Kenya has a devolved system of governance which consists of the national government and 47 county governments. Under the 2010 Kenyan Constitution, the state is responsible for ensuring sustainable exploitation, utilisation, management and conservation of the environment and natural resources. This is the basis for a durable and sustainable system of development, including, in particular water protection. County governments are mandated to enact legislation relating to solid waste disposal, to plan, develop and implement for the sustainable use of natural resources, and for environmental conservation including water conservation. The Nairobi River and its tributaries are polluted and degraded. As many slum areas are located close to rivers, dumping is uncontrolled. Other cities have cleaned up their rivers and made them attractive. Nairobi can do the same, and there are detailed plans to do this: regenerate the rivers, restore the flood plains, and make land close to the rivers attractive for investment, which will result in clean water flowing out of Nairobi to the Athi river and the Indian ocean. This re-greening and regenerating of Nairobi can be combined with green building technology to make developments energy and water efficient, as well as being cost effective in terms of building costs. Political and government support is key for such re-greening, and this can only be achieved by public-private partnerships and responsible governance. Nairobi used to be well endowed with green areas, but too many parts of these green areas have been grabbed and converted. Public spaces now represent only 12% (which includes streets, parks, squares) of the land in Nairobi. In Barcelona and New York, the figure is close to 50%. Most of these spaces are in danger of being converted in Nairobi. Only Uhuru Park, Jivanjee Gardens and City Park are open to the public free of charge, whilst Nairobi National Park, Arboretum and Karura Forest are less available due to entry fees. The people of Nairobi also need a more comprehensive network of sidewalks to benefit the many. Yet road development is mainly for the few who have vehicles. The great work Nobel Laureate Wangari Maathai did to raise awareness of these green spaces, how she combated corruption and supported improved and more equitable governance are salutary lessons for us all. These green spaces are of central importance for the people of Nairobi: they are the lungs of the city. They are vital for the future of the city and its links with the rural hinterlands. Such green spaces could be termed the ?consciousness? of the city. 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 37 For the re-greening of Nairobi to happen and have any real chance of success, awareness and education about waste, nature, urban cleanliness, and sustainability combined with action is needed. Whilst political support for the future of a sustainable and green Nairobi is a requisite, massive private-public efforts are also needed. Corruption needs to be reeled in and transparency be the norm. Unless there is consistent and equitable enforcement of regulations and good governance, any re-greening attempts will be just ?blowing in the wind?. References African Development Bank (1998). Project Completion Report: Third Nairobi Water Supply Project. https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/projects-operations BBC (2009, July 15). Nairobi water ?stolen for farms?. BBC news. Retrieved April 1, 2018 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8144415.stm Behnke R., and D. Muthami (2011). The Contribution of Livestock to the Kenya Economy. IGAD LPI Working Paper no. 03-11. Djibouti. Burohappold Engineering (2018). Inception report for Pre-Analysis Study. Burohappold Engineering, 28p. Cities of the World-Nairobi (2008). Retrieved 25 August 2008 from http://www.city-data.com/world-cities/Nairobi-History.html Community Cooker Foundation (2016). The Community Cooker ? Waste into Clean Energy for Cooking. Planning Systems Nairobi. www.communitycooker.or.ke FAO (2020). The NADHALI project Retrieved April 1, 2018 from http://www.fao.org/in-action/nadhali/en/ Friends of Karura Forest (2020). The Karura Forest Reserve. Retrieved April 5, 2018 from https://www.friendsofkarura.org/the- karura-forest-researve/ Greenway, R. and T. Monsma (1989).Cities: Missions? new frontier. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Hardach, S. (2015). How the River Thames was brought back from the dead. BBC. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151111- how-the-river-thames-was-brought-back-from-the-dead Hoornweg, D. and K. Pope (2014). Socioeconomic Pathways and Regional Distribution of the World?s 101 Largest Cities. Global Cities Institute Working Paper No. 4. Ontario 143p. IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (2013). The Contribution of Livestock to the Kenyan Economy. Policy Brief ICPALD/CLE/8/2013 Jia, L., and L. Emerton (2012). Moving closer to Nature: Lessons for Landscapes and Livelihoods from the Miyun Landscape, China. Gland: IUCN, 2012. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/10156. K24TV (2009). Nairobi water shortage deepens. [video]. Youtube. Retrieved November 11, 2013 from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=DXIj44GAUiM&feature=related Kenya Forestry Services and Camco Advisory Services Kenya (2013): Analysis of Charcoal Value Chain in Kenya, Final Report. Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Nairobi. Kenya Forest Services (2020a). Nairobi Arboretum. Retrieved June 12, 2021 from http://www.kenyaforestservice.org/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=541&Itemid=726 Kenya Forest Services (2020b). Ngong Road Forest. Retrieved June 12, 2021 from http://www.kenyaforestservice.org/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=696:ngong-forest&catid=184:nairobi-forest-stations&Itemid=574 KWS (2020). Nairobi National Park ? the World?s only Wildlife Capital. http://www.kws.go.ke/parks/nairobi-national-park Lee-Smith, D., and H. Knaepen (2017). Food challenges and opportunities in Nairobi. GREAT Insights Magazine, 6(4). https:// ecdpm.org/great-insights/sustainable-food-systems/food-challenges-opportunities-nairobi/ Makworo, M., and C. Mireri (2011). Public open spaces in Nairobi City, Kenya, under threat. J. Environmental Planning and Management, 54(8), 1107?1123. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.549631 Millennium Information Technologies (2020). Retrieved June 12, 2021 from https://web.archive.org/web/20061103152926/http:/ www.millenniumit.com/esp/news_7.php Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Republic of Kenya. (2018). Taskforce Report on Forest Resource Management and Logging Activities in Kenya. Retrieved August 2, 2019 from http://www.environment.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Task-Force- Report.pdf 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Moriasi, D., Steiner, J., Arnold, J., Allen, P., Dunbar, J., Shisanya, C., Gathenya, J., Nyaoro, J., Sang, J. (2007). Fort Cobb Reservoir Watershed, Oklahoma and Thika River Watershed, Kenya twinning pilot project. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, California. 88(52), H21F-0810. Munson, C., Main S., and L. Ritchie (2019). Trip to the Catskills Teaches Students About New York City?s Water Supply. Retrieved January 30, 2020 from https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/11/22/student-trip-nyc-water-supply/ Njaga, N. W. (1998). Karura: Are We Missing the Trees for the Forest? The East African (2nd November). ?Karura: Are We Missing the Trees for the Forest?? Nairobi News (2016). Jeevanjee Gardens: People?s Park gives rest to weary poor. https://nairobinews.nation.co.ke/news/jeevanjee- gardens-peoples-park-gives-rest-weary-poor/ Nature Kenya (2020). Friends of City Park. Retrieved June 10, 2021 from http://naturekenya.org/about/friends-of-city-park/ Oyugi, M., and O. K?Akumu (2007). Land use management challenges for the city of Nairobi.Urban Forum,18(1), 94-113. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF02681232 Planning Systems Services Ltd. (2018). Concept Note and Executive Summary ? Nairobi Rivers Regeneration Project. Nairobi. Responsible Business (2018). Top 6 fastest growing cities in Africa in 2018. http://www.responsiblebusiness.com/news/africas- news/top-6-fastest-growing-cities-africa/ Skytta T., and L. Jean-Francois (1996). Kenya: Development of Housing, Water Supply, and Sanitation in Nairobi World Bank Operations Evaluation Department. Report No. 15586. Urban Green Consultants Africa (2020). Retrieved June 12, 2021 from https://www.ugcafrica.com/ UNDRR (2016). 100 Resilient Cities Project. UNDRR, https://www.undrr.org/publication/100-resilient-cities-project University of Nairobi, Department of Urban and Regional Planning (2013). Effects of Land Use Encroachment on Wetlands: Case Study Nairobi Dam Area. WANLEYS Consultancy Services (2013). Analysis of Demand and Supply of Wood Products in Kenya. Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. http://www.kenyaforestservice.org/documents/redd/Analysis%20of%20Demand%20and%20 Supply%20of%20Wood%20Products%20in%20Kenya.pdf and https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/news/Kenyan-charcoal- sector-finally-gets-the-attention/539546-1187244-y2nw2o/index.html World Factbook: Kenya (2018). https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html Wikipedia (2020a). Nairobi. Retrieved June 12, 2021 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nairobi and http://worldpopulationreview. com/world-cities/nairobi-population/ Wikipedia (2020b). Water Supply and Sanitation in Nairobi. Retrieved June 12, 2021 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_ supply_and_sanitation_in_Nairobi Wikipedia (2020c). Uhuru Park. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhuru_Park World Bank Group (2016). Informal Enterprises in Kenya. http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/262361468914023771/ pdf/106986-WP-P151793-PUBLIC-Box.pdf . 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 39 Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe: a case study on the town of Lincoln, Canada Salima Medouar1 and Liette Vasseur2 5 Lincoln, Canada © Liette Vasseur 1 Lead of the Young Professionals Network and Co-chair of the Region of North America for IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Senior Policy Analyst at Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Climate Change, Canada 2 UNESCO Chair on Community Sustainability: From Local to Global, Brock University, Dept. Biological Sciences, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St Catharines, ON L2S3A1 Canada 40 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract Urban-rural fringe planners must often undertake the challenging task of managing growth and development in a way that meets the needs of various local actors and maintains the ecological integrity of the region. This research paper employs a scoping review of the literature and relevant policy plans and news articles to understand the challenges to urban-rural fringe planning for ecosystem governance. This is done through a case study of the Town of Lincoln an urban-rural community facing expansion pressures in Southern Ontario. The aim of this paper is to underline urban-rural fringe conflicts and how municipalities have mediated for these. Central governments benefit from partnerships that aim at improving environmental stewardship and the livelihoods of local people. Ecosystem governance is proposed as a means for achieving sustainability within these often described as entrenched spaces. Introduction The urban-rural fringe is often described as an area of transition located at the edge of an urban centre or a residential division, where conflicts over land-use change may occur depending on the needs and development prospects of the urban area (Cash, 2014; Hiner, 2015; Weaver & Lawton, 2001). The urban-rural fringe concept made its earliest appearance in the United Kingdom during the 1930s in planning as concerns over protecting agricultural land grew (Cash, 2014; Gant, Robinson, & Fazal, 2011; Lloyd & Peel, 2007; Tang, Wong, & Lee, 2007). These concerns stem from an often-unanticipated rapid population growth, which in turn creates increasing demands for housing development and services essential for thriving urban centres (Tang et al., 2007). Limiting urban sprawl and protecting natural resources have since been important components of urban-rural fringe planning. This can become a challenge and lead to conflicts when there also are needs to protect rural areas for agricultural production and maintain the biodiversity of the area. Within the rural side, there can be varying interests, ?farmers traditionally value the agricultural way of life whilst non-farming rural country residents seem more likely to establish their place attachments and community expectations based on natural amenities? (Mason- Renton et al., 2016, p. 23). This creates clashing viewpoints on how to use the land in an urban-rural fringe as well as the desirable qualities to maintain in land use planning. Urban-rural fringe planning is an important subject of research for achieving sustainability by improving the health of both rural and urban communities in a municipality, its environment and fostering green growth. In this major research paper, I explore the main issues that are considered in residential development at the urban-rural fringe and examine the potential strategies that can be used to reduce conflicts and enhance the sustainability of the social-ecological system through an ecosystem governance lens. Issues related to growth in urban rural fringe The Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (OMMAH) in the 2017 growth plan has expressed concern over loss of biodiversity and contamination of natural resources as a result of population growth. The Ontario provincial government has provided planning documents and policies that give direction for municipalities to guide development in the region and to protect sensitive areas. Municipal governments have over the years gained greater responsibility over managing development in their communities (Fullerton, 2015). This is exceptionally challenging for predominantly rural communities who ?have often also reduced the number of staff whose mandate is to serve as rural development facilitators? (Fullerton, 2015, p. 57). Municipalities must consider managing land-use changes such that it meets the needs of local actors without harming the environment. Ecosystem degradation is often the result of ?social and economic forces, for instance, population pressure, urbanisation and over exploitation of natural resources? (Pirot, Meynell, & Elder, 2000, p. 43). Pirot, Meynell, & Elder (2000) explain that ?people have dramatically changed ecosystems, usually by transforming the patterns of vegetation and fauna across landscapes? through industrialisation, pollution, intensive agriculture, dam construction, and the canalization of river systems? (p. 31). For instance, in Boundary Bay, British Columbia, run-off from agriculture and sewage lead to the ?closure of oyster harvesting in 1962? as it had affected water quality (Boyle & Nichol, 2018, p. 46). Biodiversity conservation efforts contribute to maintaining ecosystem health, which preserves valuable processes that societies depend on and assist cities in adapting to climate and environmental changes (Díaz, Fargione, Chapin, & Tilman, 2006). This helps protect populations from natural dangers such as flooding, drought, storms, and landslides (Díaz et al., 2006). Moreover, the natural environment is important for contributing to the sense of place in communities and are an important part in making them unique spaces to visit (Andersson et al., 2014; Daniels & Lapping, 2005). For example, green spaces can be used for recreational and cultural practices. To protect and maintain natural habitats, conservation efforts are necessary in these urban-rural fringe areas. Another concern is protecting the lifestyle of the community in the face of increased land-use changes for development needs. Varying interests in the urban-rural fringe can create conflicts among constituents as municipalities comprising of both rural and urban areas debate how to spend their limited budget. Lyon (1983) posits that the urban rural fringe ?features competitive urban and rural land uses: agriculture, rural non-farm residences, hobby farms, recreation sites, mobile-home parks, aggregate and quarry mineral operations, towns and villages, and other land uses? (Lyon, 1983, p. 8). Development pressures in the area may also create resentment within the community from what Weaver & Lawton (2001) describe as an ?urban invasion? (p. 411). Residents may fear losing their culture and way of life that make their community unique due to some of the development pressures. Development often 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 41 attracts more tourism and increases the number of parking lots, malls, and other infrastructures. This may bring noise pollution, congestion, and more compact building designs. As a result, predominantly rural communities have shown political will and action against external forces that impact their livelihoods (Mason-Renton et al., 2016; Walker et al., 2018). Concepts of growth management Pressures for development have the potential to cause significant changes in the way of life of local people as well as the environment they rely on. Planners have over the years developed various growth management strategies to help prevent degradation, direct growth and preserve the environment. Growth management for sustainability refers to any proactive rather than reactive method of managing growth (Perveen, Kamruzzaman, & Yigitcanlar, 2017). Growth management is defined by Hare (2001) as ?a dynamic process for anticipating and accommodating development needs that balances competing community building goals and coordinates local with regional-scale interests? (p. ii). Sustainability science and urban planning have researched strategies to tackle the complex systems of growth management in the face of environmental, political, and social challenges for sustainable development. ?Traditionally, master plans, land use allocation, and functional zoning were used as the main tools for urban growth management? (Perveen, Kamruzzaman, & Yigitcanlar, 2017, p. 2). For instance, planners have developed a combination of scenario-based planning and ?urban growth models to simulate alternative urban growth scenarios and to assess their impacts? (Perveen et al., 2017, p. 2). These models help explore possible outcomes from development processes by evaluating the extent to which natural areas will be affected by development and possible growth prospects whilst also identifying areas of uncertainty (Perveen et al., 2017). Careful planning strategies like scenario-based planning are valuable methods in monitoring the potential environmental impacts. When investigating urban-rural fringe planning, ecosystem governance should be strongly considered in order to reduce conflicts between both social-ecological systems as it promotes a collaborative framework and knowledge sharing (Altinbilek et al., 2007). Ecosystem governance is defined by the International Union for Conservation and Nature as ?the means by which society determines and acts on goals and priorities related to the management of natural resources, ... [including] ? the rules, both formal and informal, that govern human behaviour in decision-making processes as well as the decisions themselves? (IUCN, 2018). Whilst growth management and ecosystem governance have been subject of some studies across the globe, there is still a need to examine how these concepts can be used when looking at urban expansion and rural protection at the urban-rural fringe. The case study of the Town of Lincoln is interesting as it relates to how Ontario observes its population growth, especially in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Growth in southern Ontario and the town of Lincoln According to the 2017 Growth Outlook report, forecast show a drastic population growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe to 13.5 million people by the year 2041, which will greatly affect municipalities, land use and infrastructure (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2017). Currently approximately 25% of Canada?s population resides in the Greater Golden Horseshoe and is projected to increase in the upcoming years (Greenbelt, 2017b). This will put more pressure on municipalities like the Town of Lincoln in southern Ontario to expand their urban boundaries into rural areas to accommodate this increase. The Town of Lincoln is a young municipality in Southern Ontario established in 1970 from the amalgamation of the former municipalities of the Town of Beamsville, Township of Clinton, and part of the Township of Louth (Town of Lincoln, 2018a). Settled in the heart of the Niagara region and Greenbelt, it produces a variety of goods, services, cultural and heritage sites. As expressed in the Town of Lincoln (2017) official plan, the town ?is comprised of rural lands, the majority of which are under agricultural production, surrounding small towns with fixed urban boundaries? (p. 10). Being located within the Greenbelt, the Town of Lincoln cannot expand its current urban boundaries (Town of Lincoln, 2018b). The municipality?s vision ?is to be a centre of Excellence for Agriculture? and their focus is on managing and protecting agricultural development as part of ?the natural heritage system? (Town of Lincoln, 2017, p.1). The mild climate allows for agriculture to produce specialty crops such as orchards, vineyards, wineries, fresh fruit and vegetables which also contributes to maintaining a ?healthy hydrological function, air quality and wildlife habitat? (Town of Lincoln, 2017, p.1). In consulting with its citizens, the Town of Lincoln Official plan (2017) states that qualities valued in the community tend to be related to the environmental landscape and ?the small-town character, diversity in choices of housing, employment and services, the vibrant culture and being part of a regional community that has tremendous social and economic opportunity? (p.1). In addition, the municipality is near a large urban centre (Toronto) and some famous attractions, such as Niagara Falls which brings millions of tourists year-round (Niagara Falls, 2018). Being one of the ?fourth fastest growing? townships in the Niagara region, the town faces great development pressures (Town of Lincoln, 2018c). The town currently has a population of almost 24,000 residents (Town of Lincoln, 2017). Its regional growth plan forecasts a population growth of approximately 4,783 in the next 20 years (Town of Lincoln, 2017). Maps of the Town show pockets of urban development within a web of agricultural and natural lands. There is a need to accommodate future residents, necessitating strategies for attaining a sustainable vision. Indeed, the Town of Lincoln?s vision is to create a ?vibrant Greenbelt community?, managing urban and rural land use for the betterment of the community and the environment they depend on (Town of Lincoln, 2017). 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe 42 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective The town of Lincoln consultation and expression of conflicts The town of Lincoln is expecting a large population growth in the coming years which ?will precipitate the need for approximately 2,110 new dwelling units? (Town of Lincoln, 2017, p. 9). Moreover, development trends evaluated in the Development Charges Background study reveal that residential housing units will be mixed of ?approximately 29% low density (single detached and semi-detached), 38% medium density (multiples except apartments) and 33% high density (bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2+ bedroom apartments)? (Watson & Associates Economists LTD., 2018, p. 21). Most of these housing needs is anticipated to be developed in ?Beamsville urban area (65%), the remaining urban area (26%) and rural (9%)? (Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2018, p.21). The official plan also states that in terms of employment, ?the agricultural sector experienced considerable growth between 2001 and 2012? (Town of Lincoln, 2017, p. 10). The town of Lincoln census data show that it currently has mostly single-detached housing types (Statistics Canada, 2017). The Town of Lincoln (2017) official plan states that they will be able to meet their target for accommodating ?approximately 900 new units? within built up areas in the next 15 years (p. 13). In addition, the Town of Lincoln as shown in the Development Charges Background Study ?maintains 309km of urban and rural roads? and will likely increase in the coming years (Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2018, p. 51). A list of concepts such as fixed ?urban area boundaries?, ?built-up areas?, ?greenfield areas?, and the intensification and redevelopment of existing urban areas are shared in the official plan to improve land use management based on provincial and regional plans (Town of Lincoln, 2017). To avoid aggravating sprawl and growth conflicts, the official plan outlines their goal to direct residential development in ?areas where full municipal services and other community facilities exist? as well as employing intensification strategies near their ?central business districts? (Town of Lincoln, 2017, p. 6). In line with this strategy for directing growth and economic development, the town has instilled a Community Improvement Plan aimed at revitalizing ?private sector investment and building rehabilitation and development? (Town of Lincoln, 2018d). Three spots were approved under this plan: ?the CIP for the Vineland Central Business District, the CIP for the Beamsville Central Business District and the Ontario Street Commercial Area, and the Mixed Use and Residential Intensification CIP? (Town of Lincoln, 2018d). Further attempts to encourage economic growth and invigorate development in designated areas are directed by six economic growth guiding principles that support business and other related endeavours (Town of Lincoln, 2018e). In terms of preserving the community values and its agricultural character, the municipality expresses its intent to avoid fragmentation, degradation, and improper land use of prime agricultural areas through proactive land use policies supported by regional and provincial policy plans (Town of Lincoln, 2017). These documents acknowledge that the land is a finite resource of significant value to the character of the town for its benefits to economic development, the cultural and natural heritage. As an urban-rural town with budget constraints and fixed boundaries, supplying necessary services and maintaining existing infrastructure will be challenging. The type of infrastructures includes those ?for waste disposal, aggregate extraction, cemeteries, power corridors and community services? (Horner, 2014, p. 4). One problem will be the heightened congestion of roads and stress put on existing infrastructure due to increased population growth. For instance, Lincoln (2018b) posits that ?the Wine Route alone is in need of repair? and that investment in these infrastructures ?is critical, but unaffordable for the Town and its residents?. Likewise, the Golden Horseshoe Agriculture and Agri-Food Strategy Food & Farming: An Action Plan 2021 shares a similar concern for congestion and the impact this will have on ?efficient movement of goods and the cost of transportation? (Walton, 2012, p. 2). Because the Town is located in the Greenbelt and has fixed urban boundaries, this also restricts the potential tax-base for supplying such infrastructure and service needs, making high development residential areas an attractive endeavour (Town of Lincoln, 2018b). As expressed in the Development Charges Background Study ?Town capital funding sources need to be obtained in order to help ensure that the necessary infrastructure and amenities are installed? (Watson & Associates Economists LTD., 2018, p. 81). This will be important to maintain services and accommodate for growth in the area. The town of Lincoln relies on provincial and regional policies and recommendations to be more sustainable and maintain a healthy agricultural community. Rural urban fringe challenges in the media As development pressures increase in previously predominantly rural areas moving towards urban-rural fringe, there can be opposition to land-use changes and practices. Some of the complaints from urban residents may come from agricultural practices which sometimes release unpleasant odours and noises. For example, farmers have to ?install noise makers? meant to scare off birds from their crops which can cause a disturbance to neighbours, whilst agricultural run-off is another concern (Jayasinghe-Mudalige et al., 2005). With the various needs and worries of the community, municipalities must understand how to balance these interests to provide services appropriate to different groups of people. Walker et al. (2018) report that respondents feel that ?rural areas are being used to absorb the demands and problems of urban centres? as they protest techno-industrial developments in their neighbourhoods (p. 117). These sentiments are aggravated by recent school closures in rural areas across Canada. In the Niagara Region, the District School Board of Niagara has begun closing schools in predominantly rural areas due to ?low enrolment figures? and limited budget and source of funding (Gollom, 2017). Likewise, in Prince Edward Island local people have been distraught by plans to remove rural schools (Yarr, 2017). Whilst recommendations 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 43 are underway to close the selected primarily rural schools, many people show concerns over maintaining the lifestyle of rural communities and their interests (Yarr, 2017). CBC News reports the sentiments of the president of Georgetown Elementary Home and School Association, ?It kind of feels as though the rural areas are being attacked, and we?re being closed down so that the urban schools can prosper which really isn?t fair to our children?s education? (Yarr, 2017). Closing schools has not only an impact on the sense of place felt by the residents but also the economic viability of the area. Potential homeowners will give precedence to an area closer to a school and will thus be less likely to reside in these rural areas (Yarr, 2017). Mason-Renton et al. (2016) find that members? attachment to sense of place play a role in the varying responses towards development and land use changes, reflecting the multiple divergent expectations and concerns within the community that create conflicts. The varying interests and conflicts that emerge can be seen as exceptionally detrimental to the community as concerns are heightened and groups are felt their needs are left out of land use changes. Some residents can feel the effect of such social conflicts to be ?so bad as to stigmatize the community, whether imagined as harmoniously pastoral or agricultural? (Mason-Renton et al., 2016, p. 37). For example, Walker et al. (2018) report residents? reactions to development pressures in the rural communities of Southgate township, Port Burwell and Clear Creek that are close to operational wind turbines and a biosolids fertilizer processing facility. Walker et al. (2018) argue that ?differing priorities lead to community conflict and strife? reflecting what respondents had described as ?changing the socio-cultural nature of their community? (p. 117). Attachment sentiments to the area and varying expectations for land use plays a role in the intra-conflicts that one may find in urban-rural contexts. These concerns reflect the importance of understanding the clashing sentiments of urban and rural communities in municipal planning as predominantly rural areas face land use pressures and look to collaborative solutions to socio-economic and environmental problems. Policy review Governments have the potential to shape a community by developing strategies to support the health and livelihoods of people and nature. Supporting conservation and development must be balanced to ensure the viability of the natural area and secures economic prosperity to meet the needs of the community. The Province of Ontario acknowledges that with increasing economic activities in the Greater Toronto Area, there is a need to continue supporting housing and community development whilst at the same time protecting lands for biodiversity and agricultural practices. Certainly, ?Ontario?s agricultural industry remains the most diverse and productive in Canada? ranking 4th in total area of farmland by province? which makes agricultural protection an important factor in planning (Lauzon et al., 2015, p. 41). The province has adopted a number of land use planning policies for this purpose. Major policies include the ?2005 provincial policy statement regarding land use planning, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Greenbelt, the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Greater Golden Horseshoe Plan? (Donnan, 2008, p. 2). The majority of these planning policies have been developed through public consultations and reflect the ability of a ?multi-actor network, including government, the environmental movement, and the private sector? to work towards providing ?significant environmental protection through collaborative efforts? (Whitelaw, 2007, p. 682). The following paragraphs discuss these policies further, their implementation and relation to the town of Lincoln for urban-rural fringe areas as the municipality employs regional and provincial strategies. The provincial policy statement for land-use planning provides direction for how development should be planned and was made to better mirror the condition of various communities in rural Ontario (OMMAH, 2014). Relevant to this study is the particular interest of the policy statement to undertake a preventative method in planning to reduce or avoid some of the negative impacts of development on land such as ?odour, noise and other contaminants? (OMMAH, 2014, p. 13). The overall aim is to protect ?resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment? (OMMAH, 2014, p.1). In terms of suburban development, the OMMAH (2014) encourages recurrently throughout this policy statement ?efficient development patterns?, mixed housing and land-use in appropriate growth areas as well as conservation (p. 4). The policy statement asks of municipalities to ?accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 10 years through residential intensification and redevelopment? ensuring that such land can sustain ?at least a three-year supply of residential units available through lands suitably zoned? (OMMAH, 2014, p. 14). The main focus is on developing already existing residential areas and improving their infrastructure. As for the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan initiated in 2002, it validates the escarpment and moraine covering 160 km of Southern Ontario?s natural heritage as an important structure unique to the region which contributes to its health and liveability (OMMAH, 2002). This plan comes at a time when people advocated for more stringent planning to protect the moraine natural heritage and biodiversity conservation (Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007). The plan recognises that the Moraine faces strong development pressures for various touristic, recreational and economic uses necessitating a preventative strategy to protect the valuable ecosystems and resources from such effects (OMMAH, 2002). As part of the plan?s land management strategies, four types of land use designations are presented: natural core areas, natural linkage areas, countryside areas, and settlement areas representing the smallest portion (8%) of designated land use (OMMAH, 2002; Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007). Niagara?s Escarpment plan in conjunction with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation plan and Greenbelt plan offer greater conservation in terms of land use planning following the Growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, to direct how development will accommodate growth trends and secure prime agricultural land and natural resources (Niagara Escarpment Commission, 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe 44 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective 2017). In 1990, the Niagara escarpment was recognised for being an ?internationally significant landform? when it was designated as a Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (Niagara Escarpment Commission, 2017, p. 1). The plan covers 725km of land providing a breadth of ecological and natural resources, cultural heritage, and contribute to providing the Niagara region population health and quality of life benefits (Niagara Escarpment Commission, 2017). The Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) provides seven land use designations: ?Escarpment Natural Area, Escarpment Protection Area, Escarpment Rural Area, Minor Urban Centre, Urban Area, Escarpment Recreation Area, Mineral Resource Extraction Area? (p. 11). In 2005, the province decided to adopt the Greenbelt concept (OMMAH, 2017). The Greenbelt has often been used to deal with land- use challenges caused by development pressures. They must reconcile demands for recreational activities, development needs, and safeguard the area?s biodiversity (Fung & Conway, 2007; Lloyd & Peel, 2007; Pond, 2009; Siedentop, Fina, & Krehl, 2016; Lloyd & Peel, 2007). The Greenbelt plan in southern Ontario assumes such an endeavor, covering approximately 8,000 square kilometres of land making it one of the largest of its kind (Greenbelt, 2017a). The Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (2017) explains how the Greenbelt Plan along with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan, work together with the Growth Plan to deal with urban sprawl and protect the environment. Among other benefits are the protection of natural resources such as ensuring clean water, and other critically important ecosystem services (Greenbelt, 2017a). The Greater Golden Horseshoe plan was initiated in 2006 as an addition to other land use management strategies that tackle development and conservation needs in Ontario (OMMAH, 2017). It explains the desired trajectory of the GGH to safeguard the natural heritage whilst striving for economic development (OMMAH, 2017). The plan describes some foreseeable challenges from growth trends that justify the need for greater planning strategies such as ?increased demand for infrastructure investments?, the need for community designs offering a ?mix of housing options? and amenities, ?increased traffic congestion?, degradation of natural and ?cultural heritage resources?, the need to protect the ?finite supply of quality agricultural lands that feed the region?, climate change impact on communities and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (OMMAH, 2017, p. 3). The plan along with other acting land use management plans has for aim to foster ?complete communities, a thriving economy, a clean and healthy environment, and social equity? (OMMAH, 2017, p. 3). Over the course of the implementation of these regional and provincial land use planning policies, researchers and various stakeholders have presented a number of appraisals, benefits and criticisms for how the plans deal with conflicts faced by communities in Ontario as well as their ability to maintain the ecological viability of the area. Plans such as the Moraine and Greenbelt were unique at the time for protecting land and limiting development on private land whilst also being important for expressing the value of such areas to different groups of people (Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007). This type of planning for ?ecological corridors? was an important policy to prevent further degradation of ecosystems and ?fragmented pockets of natural habitat, which are isolated from each other and can no longer function together as an ecosystem? (Pirot, Meynell, & Elder, 2000, p. 26). However, Fung & Conway (2007) describe the Oak Ridges Moraine plan and Greenbelt plan to be limited in having fixed boundaries as they could benefit from ?future modifications of the boundary due to new findings on the geographical extent of the moraine? and Greenbelt that may further improve conservation efforts (p. 107). In addition, there is a concern that development can still occur on these lands due to ?inconsistent policies? (Fung & Conway, 2007, p. 107). Some areas of the plan are ?flexible? in permitting some forms of development if shown to be necessary through a ?comprehensive growth management study? (Fung & Conway, 2007, p. 107). For instance, Fung & Conway (2007) assert that municipalities near Toronto with ?developers who are seeking to build new subdivisions in the eastern section will increasingly be able to ?demonstrate? the need for new residential development? as growth needs place more pressure on municipalities to extend development (p. 107). Another concern voiced by Fung & Conway (2017) is ?that it encourages developers to ?leapfrog? the moraine to the north, where there is more land and potentially lower prices? (p. 109). Protecting and restricting development on privately owned land may be an important planning tool employed by the province to preserve prime agricultural and sensitive lands, but it also creates issues for farmers and other residents who are unhappy with the restriction to develop on these lands (Pond, 2009). In addition to this sentiment is the feeling shared by the ?Golden Horseshoe Agriculture and Agri-Food Strategy Food & Farming: An Action Plan 2021? that these provincial policy plans neglect the interests of farmers (Walton, 2012). In reaction to this a group of actors and stakeholders have collaboratively worked to conceptualize shared concerns and challenges faced by farmers in the region and identify opportunities to not only protect agricultural land but ensure that this is supported and continues to grow (Walton, 2012). This effort has resulted in ?a strategy and action plan to support food and farming across the Golden Horseshoe and in the Holland Marsh? (Walton, 2012, p. 3). Growth development strategies in Lincoln Provincial planning policies provide direction on where to allow development as well as some guidance for improving the quality of life, equity, and sustainability of various areas. Some of the main and recurrent strategies provided through these documents 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 45 are: smart growth principles, intensification, compact community design, and slow urban expansion. The plans acknowledge that municipalities will have challenges due to limited budget for achieving the goals set out by the region and province. Smart growth and new urbanism principles have emerged as a way to manage growth, limit sprawl and deal with some of the urban-rural planning conflicts (Daniels & Lapping, 2005; Emerine, Shenot, Bailey, Sobel, & Susman, 2006; Godschalk, 2004; Hare, 2001; Jepson & Edwards, 2010; Kim & Larsen, 2017; Tomalty & Alexander, 2005). The wish to balance sustainability, economic development and protection of natural areas can consider among many things the notion of livable communities. Godschalk (2004) explains that this notion often falls under two concepts: New Urbanism and Smart Growth. As recommended by the province, the Town of Lincoln is considering smart growth principles to deal with land use conflicts and development pressures (Town of Lincoln, 2017). Smart Growth has been advocated for tackling issues of social sustainability as well as environmental protection through a set of guiding principles: ?mix land uses; take advantage of compact building design; create a range of housing opportunities and choices; create walkable neighbourhoods; foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place; preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas; strengthen and direct development towards existing communities; provide a variety of transportation choices; make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective; encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions? (Emerine et al., 2006, p. 1). Moreover, New Urbanism employs a ?citizen-based participatory planning and design? to address the social and economic implications of design decisions? (Godschalk, 2004, p. 6). The focus of such a concept is on equity and quality of life through improved ?housing affordability and social equity, two frequently cited expected outcomes of new urbanism projects? (Kim & Larsen, 2017, p. 2844). Whilst the concept has been valued for its concern for social aspects of sustainability, Godschalk (2004) criticizes it for not considering environmental implications and ignoring ?some important internal value conflicts? in land use planning (p. 7). Moreover, Kim & Larzen (2017) through an evaluation of the New Urbanism concept applied in an Orlando city neighbourhood named Parramore, explain that in order to achieve the social sustainability promoted by the charter, ?public sector intervention and support? as well as publicly funded affordable housing and community development programs? are more effective (p. 3,859). Principles voiced by Sustainability, New urbanism and Smart Growth proponents are all beneficial in that they aim at directing growth in a way that fosters responsible management of natural resources, land, and improving the quality of life of people. These methods will likely continue to be used and bring benefits to community planning efforts, however ?metropolitan development plans require continuous conflict resolution and consensus building to maintain the problematic relationships within the ecology of plans? (Godschalk, 2004, p. 12). Continuous research and evaluations of the implementation of such concepts will greatly help in understanding the gaps in achieving the objectives of the municipal and provincial plans who utilize these strategies. Open dialogue to discuss future projects is also encouraged to achieve sustainability and can be done using ecosystem governance as a framework. Discussion The term urban-rural fringe has had ?negative connotations? as a result of the complexity of challenges and actors that engage in urban-rural fringe planning (Cash, 2014, p. 128). In this case ?decision-makers need to be multi-tasking the coordination of local preferences, contexts and stakeholder initiatives horizontally across sectors whilst concurrently addressing vertical integration of decision making across spatial scales? (Scott et al., 2013, p. 40). Due to the complexity of social-ecological systems (SES), communities? benefit from taking an ecosystem governance approach for the following reasons. To begin, environmental management has taken precedence in planning as there is a greater acknowledgement that ecosystems are an invaluable component of SES for sustaining life and mitigating for climate change (Boyle & Nichol, 2018). Ecosystems are important to human populations and are directly in line with the concept of social-ecological system where humans and all other components of the environment are intricately connected. Investing in the protection and maintenance of ecosystems is thus good planning as it is beneficial for the long-term health benefits these offer (Adhikari & Baral, 2018; Boyle & Nichol, 2018). However, the importance of maintaining ecosystem health has been hard to conceptualize and communicate in local governance as municipalities try to justify spending on ?green infrastructure? for the benefit of ecosystem health which is often ?difficult to quantify compared to manmade infrastructure such as pipes and seawalls? (Boyle & Nichol, 2018, p. 18). Moreover, although human populations are ?an integral part of ecosystems? many find it difficult to identify with concepts of ecosystem processes? (Pirot et al., 2000, p. 29). Seeing people as separate from such processes adds to the challenge of expressing the importance of ecosystem governance and contributes to this ?development conflict? whereby different needs are competing. Quantifying the value of ecosystem services through policy design is a recent endeavor to assist in communicating their benefits in a way that can be measured and appraised (Frantzeskaki & Tilie, 2014). Properly communicating how protecting ecosystems function in local governance is important for community cohesion as well as encouraging greater involvement in environmental stewardship. Additionally, management practices have often taken a ?reductionist approach?? in looking at preserving a few facets of the environment without considering the full extent and ?interconnections? of such ecosystems (Vasseur et al., 2017, p. 734). Ecosystem governance provides a more holistic approach by looking to promote innovative solutions to socioeconomic, cultural and environmental problems 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe 46 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective faced by various communities through greater integration and collaboration. This is important in the context of urban-rural fringe planning as development needs put pressure on land which can be deemed a finite resource requiring careful management strategies. Ecosystem governance encapsulates a participatory framework that would benefit communities by enticing greater collaboration and integration whilst also highlighting the importance of ecosystems for preserving human and other life (Vasseur et al., 2017). In such a perspective, ecosystems are valued as the foundation of the system rather than an aspect of planning that requires being balanced along with social and economic development (Vasseur et al., 2017). Ecosystem governance is also beneficial in being flexible and promoting a collaborative participatory approach, which has been favoured by many researchers in urban-rural fringe and environmental planning (Altinbilek et al., 2007; Cash, 2014; Frantzeskaki & Tilie, 2014; Gulsrud, Hertzog, & Shears, 2018; Haysom, 2015; Hiner, 2015; Pirot et al., 2000; Vasseur et al., 2017; Wamsler, 2015). It especially encourages a bottom-up approach in managing resources (Pirot et al., 2000). This serves multiple functions by sharing knowledge among a wider audience and expressing the importance of such frameworks for better governance. Everyone collectively holds a shared responsibility in the proper governance of ecosystems as they are an essential part of them, and as such have the potential to make such endeavors a great success or failure (Pirot et al., 2000). Fostering local community participation ensures interest in environmental planning and encourages stewardship such that these practices can be maintained long-term. The Town of Lincoln followed such principles for the recent development of what is called ?The Prud?homme Development? where a series of citizen-based participatory planning was completed and where environmental considerations are seriously being taken, especially along the shore of Lake Ontario. Conclusion This paper demonstrates the complexity of urban rural fringe planning and the need for further strategies that foster collaboration and environmental planning and encourage foresight to limit unsustainable development practices. It is likely that the clashing sentiments felt by residents in the urban-rural fringe will continue as conflicts over land-use is unavoidable when there are many groups holding different interests and complex social dynamics. Decisions over land use changes will often favour one groups interests and thus create conflicts. However, Mason-Renton et al. (2016) explain how these sentiments and conflicts can be detrimental to community cohesion as people feel annexed in their community. Collaborative participatory frameworks under ecosystem governance fosters greater community involvement which can help in mediating conflicts. Moreover, opportunities exist for collaboration in environmental management whilst engaging some of the social conflicts expressed in this report. Communities have assets in the form of organisations and people such as universities that can contribute greatly to environmental management efforts. Involving local organisations and people provides opportunities for knowledge sharing and partnerships that are both beneficial to the community and the university that wishes to put into practice their skills (Fullerton, 2015). This sort of endeavor is undertaken in the Town of Lincoln through the Brock-Lincoln Living Lab initiative which is both an opportunity for experiential education and a way to operationalize this experience for the benefit of the municipality of Lincoln by providing research specific to their needs and challenges (Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, 2018). Place-based approaches should help in identifying collaborations that will benefit communities under the ecosystem governance approach and assist the municipality of Lincoln reach their goals as well as some objectives provided by the provincial government. References Altinbilek, D., Gopalakrishnan, C., Lundqvist, J., Pres, A., Turton, A., Varis, O., ? Ashton, P. J. (2007). Towards a Model for Ecosystem Governance: An Integrated Water Resource Management Example. In Governance as a Trialogue: Government- Society-Science in Transition (pp. 1?28). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-46266-8 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 Boyle, C., & Nichol, E. (2018). Low Carbon Resilience and Transboundary Municipal Ecosystem Governance: A case study of Still Creek. Cash, C. (2014). Towards Achieving Resilience at the Rural-Urban Fringe: The Case of Jamestown, South Africa. Urban Forum, 25(1), 125?141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-013-9204-2 Daniels, T., & Lapping, M. (2005). Land preservation: An essential ingredient in smart growth. Journal of Planning Literature, 19(3), 316?329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412204271379 Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin, F. S., & Tilman, D. (2006). Biodiversity loss threatens human wellbeing. PLoS Biology, 4(8), 1300? 1305. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Donnan, J. a. (2008). Economic Implications and Consequences of Population Growth, Land Use Trends and Urban Sprawl in Southern Ontario. Services, Environmental Economics Hill, West, (June). Retrieved from Index of /en/content/reporttopics/envreports/env08 (auditor.on.ca) Emerine, D., Shenot, C., Bailey, M. K., Sobel, L., & Susman, M. (2006). This Is Smart Growth, 32. Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=792715 Environmental Sustainability Research Center. (2018). Brock Lincoln Living Lab. Retrieved from Brock University: https://brocku.ca/esrc/brock-lincoln-living-lab/ Frantzeskaki, N., & Tilie, N. (2014). The dynamics of Urban ecosystem governance in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ambio, 43(4), 542?555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0512-0 Fullerton, C. (2015). University-Community Partnerships as a Pathway to Rural Development : Benefits of an Ontario Land Use Planning Project. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 10(1), 56?71. Fung, F., & Conway, T. (2007). Greenbelts as an Environmental Planning Tool : A Case Study of Southern Ontario , Canada. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(2), 101?117. Gant, R. L., Robinson, G. M., & Fazal, S. (2011). Land-use change in the ?edgelands?: Policies and pressures in London?s rural- urban fringe. Land Use Policy, 28(1), 266?279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.007 Godschalk, D. R. (2004). Land Use Planning Challenges. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 5?13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360408976334 Gollom, M. (2017). How rural school closures are ?ripping the heart out of the community?. Retrieved from CBC News: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rural-school-closures-1.4157059 Greenbelt. (2017a). The GreenBelt EST 2005. Retrieved from http://www.greenbelt.ca/about_the_greenbelt. Greenbelt. (2017b). Global Cities: Housing Prices in Major Urban Centres, one in a series. Housing Affordability in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Retrieved from: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/greenbelt/pages/3064/attachments/ original/1488831799/Housing_Reports_1_Final.pdf?1488831799 Gulsrud, N. M., Hertzog, K., & Shears, I. (2018). Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne?: Investigating ?green placemaking? as a nature-based solution. Environmental Research, 161(November 2017), 158158?167167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.005 Hare, M. (2001). Exploring growth management roles in Ontario: learning from ?who does what? elsewhere. Haysom, G. (2015). Food and the City: Urban Scale Food System Governance. Urban Forum, 26(3), 263?281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12132-015-9255-7 Hiner, C. C. (2015). (False) Dichotomies, political ideologies, and preferences for environmental management along the rural-urban interface in Calaveras County, California. Applied Geography, 65, 13?27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.10.001 IUCN. (2018). Ecosystem Governance. Retrieved from https://www.iucn.org/commissions/commission-ecosystem-management/ ourwork/cems-thematic-groups/ecosystem-governance Jayasinghe-mudalige, B. U., Weersink, A., Deaton, B., Beaulieu, M., & Trant, M. (2005). The urban-rural clash: Environmental management systems on Canadian farms, (21). Jepson, E. J., & Edwards, M. M. (2010). How possible is sustainable urban development? An analysis of planners? perceptions about new urbanism, smart growth and the ecological city. Planning Practice and Research, 25(4), 417?437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010.511016 Kim, J., & Larsen, K. (2017). Can new urbanism infill development contribute to social sustainability? The case of Orlando, Florida. Urban Studies, 54(16), 3843?3862. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016670557 Lauzon, A., Ragetlie, N., Caldwell, W., & Douglas, D. (2015). State of rural Canada report: Ontario. Lloyd, M. G., & Peel, D. (2007). Green belts in Scotland: Towards the modernisation of a traditional concept? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(5), 639?656. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560701475220 Lyon, D. (1983). The Development of the Urban-Rural Fringe: A Literature Review, (3). Mason-renton, S. A., Luginaah, I., & Baxter, J. (2016). The Community Divide is more Detrimental than the Plant Itself: Confrontational Stigma and Community Responses to Rural Facility Siting. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 11(2), 22?44. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2002). Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 73. 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2014). Provincial Policy Statement, 56. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2017). Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017), 1?120. Niagara Escarpment Commission. (2017). Niagara Escarpment Plan. Niagara Falls. (2018). Niagara Falls Facts. Retrieved from Niagara Falls: https://niagarafalls.ca/living/about-niagara-falls/facts.aspx Perveen, S., Kamruzzaman, M., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2017). Developing policy scenarios for sustainable urban growth management: A Delphi approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101787 Pirot, J. -y., Meynell, P. J., & Elder, D. (2000). Ecosystem Management: Lessons from around the World. A guide for Development and Conservation Practitioners. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Pond, D. (2009). Ontario?s Greenbelt: Growth Management, Farmland Protection, and Regime Change in Southern Ontario, 35(4). Scott, A. J., Carter, C., Reed, M. R., Larkham, P., Adams, D., Morton, N., ? Coles, R. (2013). Disintegrated development at the rural ? urban fringe: Re-connecting spatial planning theory and practice. Progress in Planning, 83, 1?52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2012.09.001 Siedentop, S., Fina, S., & Krehl, A. (2016). Greenbelts in Germany?s regional plans ? An effective growth management policy? Landscape and Urban Planning, 145, 71?82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.09.002 Statistics Canada. (2017). Census Profile, 2016 Census. Retrieved from Statistics Canada: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E Tang, B. sin, Wong, S. wai, & Lee, A. K. wah. (2007). Green belt in a compact city: A zone for conservation or transition? Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(3?4), 358?373. Tomalty, R., & Alexander, D. (2005). Smart Growth in Canada: implementation of a planning concept, 226. https://doi. org/10.1177/1524839908331273 Town of Lincoln. (2018a). About Lincoln. Retrieved from Town of Lincoln: https://lincoln.ca/about Town of Lincoln. (2018b). Greenbelt Position Paper. Retrieved from Town of Lincoln: https://lincoln.ca/key-corporate-documents/greenbelt-position-paper Town of Lincoln. (2018c). Economic Development. Retrieved from Town of Lincoln: https://lincoln.ca/economic-development Town of Lincoln. (2018d). Community Improvement Plans. Retrieved from Town of Lincoln: https://lincoln.ca/community-improvement-plans Town of Lincoln. (2018e). Focus of Lincoln. Retrieved from Town of Lincoln: https://lincoln.ca/economic-development/focus-lincoln Town of Lincoln. (2017). Lincoln - OFFICIAL PLAN. Vasseur, L., Horning, D., Thornbush, M., Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Barrow, E., and Jones, M. (2017). Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: Bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN sustainable development goals. Ambio, 46(7), 731?742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0918-6 Walker, C., Mason, S., & Bednar, D. (2018). Sustainable Development and Environmental Injustice in Rural Ontario, Canada: Cases of Wind Energy and Biosolid Processing. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 13(2), 110?129. Walton, M. (2012). Golden Horseshoe Agriculture and Agri-Food Strategy Food & Farming: An Action Plan 2021. Wamsler, C. (2015). Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation: Transformation toward sustainability in urban governance and planning. Ecology and Society, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07489-200230 Watson & Associates Economists LTD. (2018). Town of Lincoln Development Charges Background Study. Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2001). Resident perceptions in the urban-rural fringe. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 439?458. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00052-951 Whitelaw, G. S., & Eagles, P. F. J. (2007). Planning for Long, Wide Conservation Corridors on Private Lands in the Oak Ridges Moraine, Ontario, 21(3), 675?683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00708.x Yarr, K. (2017, January 11). Urban-rural divide highlighted over school closure proposals. Retrieved from CBC News: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/peischool-closure-reaction-1.3930391 5. ?Ecosystem governance and planning at the urban rural fringe Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 49 Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature ? our loss of connection with nature in our cities Edmund Barrow, CEM 6 Riverine Acacia tree forest along the Turkwell river in Turkana, Kenya © Edmund Barrow 50 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract Many of us have lost our sense of belonging and connectedness with nature. One reason is that about 55% of the world?s population reside in urban areas with little access to nature. Yet, we still assume that water will flow from our taps, food will be available, with little thought for where these services originate. This loss of connection with nature impacts people in various ways. It is evident that there are detriments to human functioning from a lack of nature exposure. How can we re-connect and respect nature?s limits? How can we re-achieve a sense of place, community, and what does this mean? What will it take to position nature, so it is not a slave to economic growth? This chapter provides analyses on the importance of reconnecting with nature in education, health, and our daily lives; the relevance of nature to industry and cities; and awareness on the importance of nature. The chapter highlights practical ways to achieve greater urban-rural connectivity, so that nature is an important part of urban planning and life in cities and rural areas. Impacts are felt on various sectors, e.g., education, land, water, and urban use, urban agriculture, health, industry and the private sector, in our spiritual domains, and in conservation. Forests, lakes, rivers, mountains can all be powerful healers and educators. The practical examples and lessons suggested can be used and adapted by people, families, communities, private sector and business. We can then become the change we want to be for a more sustainable world that recognises its dependence on nature and integrates this recognition in our actions. Introduction ? our cities need nature Humankind is increasingly alienated from nature. We need to reconnect with nature, respect and understand the wisdom and peace that it emanates, and bring nature ?back to? centre stage in our lives (Berry & Clarke, 1991). Prior to the industrial era we had a conscious awareness of our dependency on nature. Yet such experiences are being lost as we spend less time in nature. Since the mid-19th century, humankind has become increasingly urbanised (Pyle, 2003). As such our increased lack of experience with nature is a growing issue in urban areas. Urbanisation has increased over the past 50 years, and over 55% of the global population is urban ? a percentage that is increasing daily. This disconnect from natural environments and the importance of learning in and from nature has serious impacts on life in terms of attention disorders, our ability to learn, various health conditions, and conflict. Its effects are felt most in cities, especially amongst children and youth, where over 50% of children live and go to school, a figure that will increase to 65% by 2030 (Malone & Waite, 2016). There are factors that have led to our lack of connection with nature, for example: a). human exemptionism (Catton and Dunlap, 1978) which refers to the belief that the relationship between humans and the natural environment is unimportant because humans are ?exempt? from environmental forces and capable of adapting via cultural change ? this has led to the belief that human-kind is separate from nature rather than a part of it; b). The increasing urbanisation of the world has contributed to the lack of meaningful nature experience (Pyle, 2003); c). Since the start of the COVID pandemic, restrictions on freedoms around the world became a crisis. It caused nature deficit and accelerated our separation from nature. But the pandemic also increased people?s motivation to return to nature, which provided an opportunity to seek experiences and health recovery in nature (Syamsi et.al, 2022). Human- kind was closely connected with and depended on nature. This changed with the agrarian and industrial revolutions. These are some reasons why nature connection is becoming and increasingly important issue that needs to be addressed for sustainable environment management and the social and cultural well-being of people. We can learn from nature and being in nature. Because of their age, for example, trees are places of sacredness, provide materials and inspiration, are places of silence, awareness, and peace; and they are powerful educators. There are similar examples of how sacred natural places, such as rivers, mountains, waterfalls?are all powerful educators and healers. Nature is good for us and being in nature can give us an emotional lift. A walk in the park or garden restores you. But we take this for granted. Research shows that walking in nature and spending time under trees causes electrochemical changes that relax and calm us. There is increasing evidence for why we need to relate and connect more with nature, in terms of our health, state of mind and as a vehicle for restoration and education (Bird, 2010; Bouchardon, 1998; UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, 2011; Hanh, 1987; Li, 2010; Morris, 2003). These are restorative experiences (Dolesh, 2014). Yet the cost of mental illness in the UK, for example, is £12.5 billion to the National Health Service (NHS) and £23.1 billion to the economy (Bird, 2007). Drugs are prescribed, not a walk in the forest. The wellbeing benefits of nature help us relate to and experience nature. Yet we still do not know enough about the detriments to our wellbeing from a lack of time in nature (Maller et al., 2009). The growing literature on the benefits nature provides as to how this relates to our functioning (Richardson & McEwan, 2018); and. the increasing numbers of reviews on our exposure to nature and wellbeing (Capaldi et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2013; Staats et al., 2010). There is increasing concern that people?s more urbanised lifestyles have fewer and lower quality interactions with nature. As a result, they have limited access to the associated health and well-being benefits (Ying et.al., 2021). These all point to the growing importance of nature exposure and connection that can lead to health and wellbeing benefits. With most of humanity living in cities, urban people are often not able to care or understand as to, for example, what trees are cut down to build their homes, or where food comes from, nor do they experience such things. Yet, for many indigenous and rural people, the destruction of trees is like killing children, as the connection with nature is deep (Randall, 2007). This lack of experience 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 51 with nature is serious, as the author George Monbiot points out in a poignant story Randall (2007) spent two days with a group of 10-year-old children from a deprived London borough exploring rock pools and roaming the woods in mid-Wales, a rural area. Many had never ever been to the countryside before, nor had they ever seen the sea. A staggering example of how city youth are not exposed to nature. In the woods, the children paddled in streams, rolled down a hill, ate blackberries, and tasted mushrooms. Most had never done these things before, yet the exhilaration they showed in exploring nature seemed instinctive and natural. George Monbiot (2013) realized just how little contact they had with nature ? not one of them had seen a nettle or knew what happens if you touch it! This summarises how separate we have become. Many children are not exposed to nature and want to stay indoors. They become the next generation of adults who are then more ?nature and ecology ignorant?. There is a growing disparity between the time children spend indoors and in nature. The majority of children now use a computer, watch TV, or play video games. Only about 10% spend time in nature. Lack of access to natural areas and discomfort with the outdoors are two factors identified by a Nature Conservancy?s survey in the USA. This lack of connection is becoming increasingly serious as health and wellbeing benefits are lost which in turn means we are less exposed to the various benefits of nature. This chapter provides some examples on reconnecting with nature ? wherever we are and whatever we are doing. Loss of connectivity with nature needs to be seen in the context of the challenges we face ? a subject that has been neatly described as ?Nature Deficit Disorder? (Louv, 2008) which is being increasingly supported by research, for example with respect to stress or cancer, or education. This may be the cause of many disorders, such as a lack of peace, especially in cities. The insidious and increasing effects of our loss of connection with nature We will hand our children what we have done to the world. Our children could live amidst ruined infrastructure and cities, and the ruins of nature (Berry & Clarke, 1991). For many, we have lost direct contact with our food and water sources. But we can learn from those closely connected with Mother Earth ? the indigenous peoples and others living close to the land (Berry & Clarke, 1991). So, what have we done to raise a generation of mainly urban children and youth who fear the outdoors? Children have numerous excuses: getting muddy, being cold and wet. One in 10 children said they would rather stay inside to avoid ?touching germs,? and 11% felt ?too scared to go outside?. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in the UK identified that a large percentage of UK children are not connected to nature (Richardson et al., 2015). Children are conditioned to fear the outdoors, whether it is from repeated orders to ?be careful!? or ?stay out of the mud!?, or from sensationalized news stories (Martinko, 2018). The worrying thing is that each generation will pass on less nature experience with a poorer understanding. Nature Deficit Disorder means that people, especially urban children, spend less time outdoors, which results in various behavioural problems (Louv, 2008; 2009), including reduced use of senses, attention difficulties, stress, high blood pressure, various health conditions, higher rates of physical and emotional illnesses, and violence ? all characteristics of today?s fast moving mainly urban lives. These disorders and problems are now receiving increased research emphasis (Richardson et al., 2015). We can integrate nature in the classroom, and nature therapy into healthcare. But this often does not happen because of restrictive education curricula, or health care that does not embrace natural remedies. If children play in nature, they have less obesity, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), depression, suicide, alcohol, and drug abuse, and bullying (Atwood, 2011), which all contribute to less violence and greater peace. In 2017, DiversEarth, Peace Pals International, World Peace Prayer Society and IUCN organised the 20th anniversary celebrations of Peace Pals. This was an international art competition for children (over 6,000 entries from 60 countries). The theme was Loving the Earth?Nature, and it helped children think about peace in relation to nature. Many of us were lucky enough to grow up in nature and even take nature?s gifts for granted. I grew up on an organic farm in Ireland in the 1950?s where we were able to walk in our small wood, lie amongst the blue bells, fish in the river, make straw houses after the harvest, climb trees ? memories I have treasured since. Our children grew up in nature in the 1980?s when we worked in a very dry rural part of northwest Kenya and did similar things. We have been able to learn from nature and take that learning into our daily lives. But increasingly, urban people are connected to the internet and cities, not to nature. An adult?s attitude to the environment and time spent in green space is influenced by their experience as a child. A UK National Trust survey found 90% of parents prefer children to spend time connecting with nature, as children today spend half the time their parents did playing outside in nature. Whilst over 80% of parents thought it was important for children to learn to use technology. On average, children play outside for about 4 hours per week, compared to 8.2 hours a week when the adults questioned were children (The Guardian, 2016). ?Nature serves as a blank slate and inspires creativity in a child by demanding visualization and full use of the senses. Given a chance, a child will bring the confusion of the world into the woods, wash it in the creek, and turn it over to see what lies on the unseen side of that confusion? (Louv, 2010). There are risks to learning and playing in nature, but there are also risks of staying indoors too long, including to our judgement and value of place, our ability to feel awe and a lost sense of stewardship. There are more immediate threats to our psychological and physical health and there is a lot of local variation in the interactions between people and nature. (Ying et.al, 2021). 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature 52 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Reduced exposure to nature is due to parental fears, restricted access, and electronic devices. People can, but often do not spend time outdoors, e.g., outdoor education, forest kindergartens or forest schools. Solutions to Nature Deficit Disorder lie in how urban areas, planners, and policy makers (especially for education and health) embrace the role of nature in cities and the natural hinterlands. The causes of Nature Deficit Disorder include (Louv, 2008): a) Parents keep children indoors for safety and over-protect them which disrupts their ability to connect to nature; b) Loss of natural surroundings in a child?s neighbourhood make it difficult to access nature, as many nature parks have restricted access type signs. Then environmentalists and educators tell children ?look but don?t touch?. This comes at a cost to a child?s relationship with nature, as experiential learning requires touching and doing; c) Children spend more time, and have more reasons to stay inside, due to computers, video games, social media and television. The average American child spends 44 hours a week with electronic media; and d) This lack of exposure to nature in childhood is perpetuated into adulthood, which creates a vicious cycle resulting in a further increased alienation from nature. As a result, children and adults have changed their interactions with nature. This contributes to a variety of effects ? either partly or directly attributable to a lack of exposure to nature. Such effects include (Louv, 2008; 2017): a) Children have less respect for nature, due to the increasing pace of the last three decades, of a rapid disengagement between children and direct experiences in nature. This has implications for the health of future generations and for the health of the Earth itself?; b) Stress and depression may develop or be exacerbated, as people who do not get adequate time in nature are more prone to depression, and stress; c) With a greater understanding of ADD, lower grades in school seem to be related, in part, to Nature Deficit Disorder. Children as young as 5 showed up to 30% reduction in ADD when they engage with nature compared to urban outdoor activities. ADD affects 5-10% of school children in the UK, and they may benefit from more time in nature, greener routes to school and better views from their windows (Bird, 2007); d) There is now a stronger link between time spent in nature and future engagement in nature as adults. Nature connection can predict engagement with nature and childhood experiences being important in adulthood (Hinds & Sparks, 2009; Nisbet et al., 2009). Outdoor experiential education results in children having better self-esteem, are better able to solve problems and ask questions, and are more motivated to learn. Whilst the lack of access to green space is very unfortunate for city residents, this can also severely affect their resilience to climate change. If there are few trees and most of the built environment is paved, temperatures can be up to 10° higher than if there were ample green space. So small steps could add up to a cooler, more disaster-hardy, and more equitable city. Physical activity and exposure to nature are good for health, have positive impacts on mental health and wellbeing, and reduce sadness and negativity. Children who spend time in woodlands with friends or alone without parental supervision are more likely to visit and enjoy woodlands as adults, are more likely to describe woodlands as ?magical? and are less anxious when visiting woodlands (Bird, 2007). Education engaging with nature ? children, youth, adults We have much to learn from nature, yet our education systems have ?unconditioned? us to think that working the land, and with nature is not good. It will not make us millionaires! Rather we should be in offices in front of computer screens ? in short be urban. This calls for retooling our education systems. As Paulo Freire said, ?Education is suffering from narration sickness? (Freire, 1968). He criticizes education for its passivity. Education should be experiential, where students and teachers are co-learners, problems jointly solved, and solutions provide avenues for learning (Giracca, 2016). Such experiential approaches bring people into nature and may attract more policy support, especially in view of current ?environmental crises?, e.g., plastics, climate change, and forest destruction. Children of the ?Plant for the Planet? movement have a simple rationale for tree planting and respecting nature: ?We do it because trees are the lungs of the world. There is no life without trees? (Felix and Friends, 2011). This helps children and adults understand the importance of learning together, knowing that ?it all counts, every tree planted counts?. Children who spend time learning in nature do better academically, as exploring nature makes subjects richer and more relevant (Kings College London, 2011). Schools should have access to nature (e.g., a school garden), a city park nearby, or incorporate visits to nature (c.f. Monbiot?s experience in this chapter) in a rural hinterland. This is an essential part of education, not an add-on. 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 53 About 76% of youth today believe issues like climate change can be solved if action is taken now. There is a growing disparity between the time children spend indoors with their social media and the time they spend enjoying nature. The vast majority of today?s children use a computer, watch TV, or play video games on a daily basis, but only about 10% say they spend time outdoors every day, according to a poll in the USA from The Nature Conservancy. Lack of access to natural areas and discomfort with the outdoors are two factors identified by the Conservancy?s poll. Eighty per cent said it was uncomfortable to be outdoors due bugs and heat, whilst 62% said they did not have transport to natural areas, and 61% said there were no natural areas near their homes. A child today can likely tell you about the Amazon rainforest (classroom knowledge), but not about the last time he or she explored the woods (experiential knowledge). Young people in urban schools can recognise over 50 logos of business corporations. But take them into the woods, few will be able to name 10 trees (Kumar, 2005). Yet, many indigenous peoples have a deep knowledge of nature. For example, 8?12-year-old Mayan girls in Central America know the names and uses of nearly 1,000 different plants (Stowe, 2003)! How many in cities of the developed world could name 50? It is clear younger people are more likely to form strong nature connections, which can continue into adulthood (Lumber et al., 2017). Nature connection accounts for around 69% of ecological behaviour as measured in studies (Otto & Pensini, 2017). Schools using outdoor classrooms and experiential learning produce students with enhanced skills in problem solving, critical thinking and decision-making. They are more engaged in class and more open to conflict resolutions. Time in nature stimulates children?s creativity, whilst separation causes a failure to bond properly and establish a caring relationship with nature (Sigman, 2009). Caring for nature is important, and can be supported by experiential environmental education. For example, Parents of children in Switzerland watch TV and play video games for less than half the amount of time each week that British children do. It seems Swiss families do a better job at balancing relationships and technology, without letting the addictiveness of the latter overtake every aspect of their lives. The survey found 90% of Swiss children play outside at least once a week, 84% play sports, and 80% meet with friends. When asked what people feel when they are in nature, the feelings are similar ? peace, silence, stillness, and connectedness (Maira, 2010). Yet children can no longer, so easily, roam the countryside, experience nature and learn life lessons. How can we expect children to grow up being environmentally conscious? We can sit under a tree, go into a deep silence, and become aware of the sounds of silence. This helps us become aware of the aliveness of the natural world around us (Tolle, 2005). We can all do this in areas such as woodland, river, mountain, city park, but it can also be done in a garden, or with a potted plant. Education, especially the early years, is the foundation for reversing the destruction of the planet and our pursuit of economic growth (Thinley, 2010). Bhutan infuses education with human and ecological values of their policy of Gross National Happiness (GNH). Thinley, the Prime Minister of Bhutan noted a) we should separate true happiness from fleeting feel good moods; b) GNH is a development path embracing sustainable and economic development with environmental conservation, good governance, and the wisdom of Bhutan?s ancient culture; and c) Education is the glue that holds this together (Thinley, 2010). This requires teachers to be facilitators and sources of knowledge, providing a climate for ?learning by doing?. In this way, we bring the class out of the classroom into nature. If young people graduate with a sense of care for nature and each other, this will help us live in harmony (Thinley, 2010). Putting this into practice in education systems and changing how teachers are trained are challenges for experiential learning. Sadly, experiential learning is restricted by more and more rules (Sobel, 2012), exams, and disadvantaged by the fact that most of the world?s population are alienated from nature in cities. Education systems have to foster environmental responsibility, so we care for creation as an imperative. The seeds of environmental stewardship are sown when we are young and most receptive. This will support a move, as Pope Francis says, to ?ecological conversion, ... and the ecological conversion needed to bring about lasting change is also a community conversion? (Pope Francis, 2015). Children, between 6 and 12, have a strong desire to explore woods and climb trees, dig tunnels, collect earthworms etc. All the great environmentalists had first-hand experience with nature (Sobel, 2012). My wife used to take her school class into nature in the outskirts of Nairobi, Kenya, so they could experience nature ? the soil, the leaves, the earthworms (and other insects), and plant trees. The parents used to ask why their children came back so muddy, yet so happy, and full of what they had learnt about nature. Many of those children, now adults, still remember those experiences. Many schools, with or without government support, are starting to use natural spaces as part of learning experience. Such learning in nature has undergone a renaissance. Some countries are more advanced, for example the concept of open-air living and learning is established in Scandinavia, whilst Germany has the Kindergarten movement (Gilchrist et al., 2016). 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature 54 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Education systems need to be enquiry driven ? so students experience nature (Clarke, 2015). Some schools are enquiry driven, for example, the International School in Geneva where environmental concerns are a central aspect. The example from Germany of champions who are school children who took steps to create environmental awareness in schools in Germany is illustrative. They felt that adults should stop talking and do something (Felix and Friends, 2011). As a result, there are now 10,000 climate justice ambassadors who are children from over 100 countries working with ?plant the planet?, and over 15 billion trees have (2017) been planted across the globe in urban and rural areas. Rural and urban students ?can do it? (Simon, 2012). The following questions might help us experience nature ? whether at home, in school, a city park, or the countryside (Bouchardon,1998; Giracca, 2016; Sobel, 2012; Stowe, 2003): ? What is this place we live in and how does it sustain life? ? What might we grow and nurture? ? Where does our food come from? ? What feelings does this natural place arouse? ? Would you come here to do something in particular? What? Why? ? What do you want to do in the presence of this tree, this woodland or natural place? ? Which plants and trees make the strongest impression on you? ? What parts of the natural world are you really grateful for? Why? The UK government agrees on the need for outdoor learning and published a white paper proposing that children should do more learning outdoors (DEFRA, 2011). But what actually happened was the opposite ? there were massive cuts for outdoor education centres, and children continue to be confined to the classroom, stuffed with rules and facts, and doing endless tests ? a recipe for boredom (Monbiot, 2013). This exacerbates the already serious issue that over 50% of children have never visited the countryside in the UK according to WideHorizons. Children should spend at least a week in the countryside every term and have real experience with nature. Experiential nature learning ought to be mainstreamed in curricula and adequately resourced ? not relegated to clubs, or additional activities. Three quarters of respondents in a survey of children and youth in the USA reported they had little if any access to nature through their schools. The Nature Conservancy is pioneering ways to support environmental education. The LEAF Program (Leaders in Environmental Action for the Future, now called Nature Lab) is one such program that works with a network of schools to engage urban youth in conservation and environmental stewardship. There are a growing number of such programs. Those with personal, positive nature experiences are twice as likely to view themselves as environmentalists and more likely to express concern about water issues, air pollution, climate change, and the state of the environment (Elks, 2014). This offers ways to work with urban schools and communities for children of all ages to experience nature in urban and rural areas. In New York, for example, the Mashokack Preserve?s Summer Children?s Environmental Education Program is very popular, and involves hiking, muddling in a marsh, a canoe and kayak trip and nature art. The survival of humanity and our urban lives will depend on our ecological and nature literacy. Ecological literacy is a critical skill for politicians, business leaders and professionals in all spheres ? not just in conservation but needs to be embedded from an early age. So, ecological literacy should be a very important part of education ? from primary and secondary schools to universities and continuing education (Capra, 2012) and in all spheres of life. Nature and urban health benefits Nature is good for our health, stress management, and helps us concentrate (Pretty, 2006). We are happier in nature than in urban areas. This evidence between nature and wellbeing includes that nature: a) affects the nervous system by reducing stress and improving attention; b) is lower in environmental ?bads? such as noise and air pollution in urban areas which can cause sleep disturbance, hearing impairment, tinnitus, and raised stress, leading to high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, stroke (Passchier- Vermeer & Passchier, 2000); and c) increases happiness with behaviours that are physically and mentally beneficial, e.g. exercise, and recreation (Barton Pretty, 2010; MacKeeron & Mourato, 2013; Morris, 2003). Having a close relationship with nature is like having a close relationship with friends and family. Or nature may be more of an acquaintance, as we may like it well enough, but there is little intimacy or attention paid to it. We may spend time in nature, but it serves as a backdrop to the things we do, and we pay it little attention, have little interest in what it does, and get little back from it. In some cases, nature may even be a nuisance (Richardson and Butler, 2022). Children and young people lead increasingly indoor-based, sedentary, urban lives, with no direct nature experience. There are health issues related to this in terms of physical health, for example obesity, which has doubled worldwide since 1980, and 42 million children under the age of five were overweight in 2013, most of whom reside in urban areas. This is partially due to physical inactivity, changing modes of transportation and urbanisation. This can then lead to breathing difficulties, hypertension, increased 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 55 risk of cardio-vascular disease and diabetes (World Health Organization, 2015), vitamin D deficiency and short-sightedness (Charles & Louv, 2009; Moss, 2012). Yet time spent in nature enhances physical and wellbeing benefits (Gilchrist et al., 2016). Urban areas are starting to recognise the importance of green spaces in cities, not just for recreation but for health and educational reasons. This includes parks, rivers and riverbank areas, foot paths, treelined streets. This can create green connectivity in an urban landscape, and green connectivity to rural catchment areas ? important for people and wildlife, which in turn contributes to the UN international standard for access to green space in urban areas. The United Nations (2020) uses 400 m as a maximum distance to reach an open space and UN-Habitat (2021) advocates for open spaces to be reachable within a five minute walk so that the benefits can be enjoyed equitably. Exposure to nature is associated with various mental health benefits. Nature connectedness (NC, a psychological construct that measures individuals? sense of connection to nature) can influence the relationship between nature exposure and mental health. NC is stronger than nature exposure in predicting mental well-being, whilst greenspace visitation frequency and duration are stronger than NC in predicting ill-being (Liu et.al. 2022). Being in nature encourages us to be more active, less stressed and calmer. Children become less hyper-active, concentrate better and play more creatively and independently. Children can develop life-long connections with nature. They need to play regularly in streams and woods (Bird, 2010) ? experientially, and not by ?look but don?t touch? doctrines. Regular contact with nature promotes concentration and reduces stress ? especially with direct experience of nature, e.g., walking in a forest or park, gardening, being with potted plants at home. Already there are health centres and hospitals that have green spaces, or are close to a park, or have access to gardens and allotments. A study demonstrated that the COVID-19 pandemic changed people?s perceptions by enhancing their preference for natural recreational activities and health. It accelerated people?s return to nature and fostered a positive perception of nature?s ability to promote good health (Syamsi et.al. 2022). Green care farms Green Care evolved as a means to treat ailments including dementia, stress, attention disorders. There are a total of 1,935 Green Care farms who receive payments for taking in patients (Pretty, 2006), and most of these patients come from cities, further strengthening urban-rural connections. Patients are prescribed Green Care treatment. By 2006 there were 500 Green Care farms in Norway, 430 in the Netherlands, 300 in Italy and Germany, 250 in Austria, 140 in Belgium and 15 in Slovenia. The numbers are increasing, as there are (by 2015) 1,100 Green Care Farms in the Netherlands ? one of the most densely populated countries. This can be extended to other countries, and other aspects of nature, e.g., indigenous tree planting, walking in nature, countryside management. Forest bathing in Japan Forest bathing in Japan (?Shinrinyoku?) is a leisurely mindful visit to a forest. The forest environment provides a quiet atmosphere, beautiful scenery, mild climate, and clean fresh air. A forest bathing trip involves visiting a forest for relaxation and recreation whilst breathing in volatile substances, called phytoncides (wood essential oils), which are antimicrobial organic compounds derived from trees. We now know that forest bathing lowers levels of cortisol ? a stress hormone, blood pressure and heart rates. Forest bathing increases vigour and decreases anxiety, depression, and anger. Walking in the woods boosts the body?s immune system by increasing anti-cancer proteins, or human Natural Killer (NK) cells. In Japan forest bathing or walking in woods is prescribed by doctors to reduce stress, blood pressure and heart rate. This has long been regarded as natural aromatherapy (Atwood, 2011). Natural forest environments enhance human NK cell activity. The key substance that forests emit are phytoncides, which help plants and trees protect themselves. Phytoncide exposure and decreased stress hormone levels contribute to increased NK activity (Li et al., 2009). The increased NK activity lasts for more than 30 days after a forest bathing trip, whilst a visit to the city made no difference (Li, 2010). NK cells kill tumour cells by releasing anticancer proteins, and forest bathing trips increase NK activity and the levels of anti- cancer proteins. As such forest bathing trips may have a preventive effect on cancer (Li, 2010). This reflects the positive clinical benefits of nature on our health, whilst the mechanisms of the central nervous system facilitate this (Kuo, 2015; Selhub & Logan, 2012). Forest therapy is a good example of how our health is dependent on the health of nature. Forest bathing results in less depression and hostility. The greater the stress levels, the greater the positive effects of forest bathing. Forests are ?therapeutic landscapes? and forest bathing decreases risks of stress-related diseases. Even for children diagnosed with ADD, after 20-minute walks in a city park, they experienced improved concentration compared to 20-minute walks in downtown and residential settings (Forest Therapy Association of the Americas, 2013). Incorporating forest bathing into our lifestyles was first proposed in 1982 by the Forest Agency of Japan and is a recognised relaxation and stress management activity. Because forests occupy 67% of the land in Japan, forest bathing is easily accessible from cities. Over a quarter of Japan has participated in forest bathing. Such forest bathing is possible in similar environments throughout 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature 56 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective the world in rural areas or in urban woodlands. Other forest therapy activities include wild edible plant identification, herbal medicines, planting trees, walking or running, and natural food cooking. There are positive effects from contact with nature on our mental health and well-being. Such findings should be acted upon by policy, as the health benefits could have enormous implications, e.g., reductions in national healthcare expenditures. Contact with nature may be effective for treating children with poor self-discipline, hyperactivity and ADD; coping with anxiety and stress; strategies to reduce crime and aggression; benefiting care for the elderly and treatment for dementia; improving concentration levels in children and office workers and the healthy cognitive development of children; and as a means to improve hospital environments, strengthen communities, and an increased sense of wellbeing and mental health (Bird, 2007). Role of nature as one tool to resolve urban conflict ?If we are peaceful, if we are happy, we can blossom like a flower and everyone in our family, our entire society will benefit from our peace? (Hanh, 1987). But there can be no real peace whilst millions live in poverty, and nature is being destroyed by economic growth. Sustainability, social justice, and equitable governance are prerequisites for peace (Mathai, 2007). Yet much conflict boils down to scarcity, or lack of access to resources, and is one reason why we see so much inner-city violence ? people are too confined to concrete and tarmac, and do not have access to trees and flowers. Violence expresses itself directly, structurally, and culturally, and these three forms of violence need to be tackled directly and together (Basterfield, 2006). Experiencing nature is one approach through fostering access to nature in cities and rural areas and facilitate experiential learning for all ? especially urban populations. Crime and poor school achievement are associated with low levels of self-discipline, impulsive behaviour, immediate gratification, and inattention. Increasing accessibility to nature is an innovative and equitable method of increasing overall performance and ability for inner city children (Bird, 2007). Who has not experienced the calming effect of a few minutes in the garden after a stressful phone call, or a walk in the park at lunchtime? Contact with nature has a positive effect on anxiety and stress, on elderly people and those with dementia, concentration in children and office workers, and reducing crime and aggression (Aitkens, 2015). In a study on a Chicago housing estate, people knew more of the neighbours when there were more trees where they lived. In areas dominated by concrete, people interacted less. There is also less violence in areas with more trees (Juniper, 2014). Pope Francis asks us to focus on nature and bring peace to our troubled world saying ?An integral ecology is also made up of simple daily gestures which break the logic of violence, exploitation and selfishness. In the end, a world of exacerbated consumption is at the same time a world which mistreats life in all its forms? (Pope Francis, 2015). Nature can reduce aggressive behaviour, possibly due to its restorative effects on the brain. This can range from domestic violence to aggressive behaviours. If nature in inner city areas can reduce some violence, this is good for public health, and has large social implications (Bird, 2007). We desperately need mechanisms for peace, and nature can be a central aspect. Major security threats come from issues that do not relate only to power and weapons. Such threats also include climate change, water and natural resource scarcity, disaffected people and societies in urban areas, and the growing rich-poor gap (Elworthy, 2017). Nature can be a locus for understanding the importance of inner peace which in turn creates positivity for both dialogue and as a vehicle for preventing conflict. Nature is a potent locus for peace building and conflict resolution. This is particularly so for low-level conflicts (e.g., over water access or access to critical natural resources). If not addressed early, such conflicts can escalate. For example, there is 50% less crime and domestic violence in families with views of vegetation in a poor housing estate compared to identical blocks with no vegetation. If this is true then the presence of nature in inner city residential areas should be an essential part of design (Bird, 2007). Whatever our relationship with nature is, we can get closer by noticing more, listening more, feeling more, enjoying more, and caring more. The closer we get to nature, the happier we are and the more we are willing to take action to support conservation and the environment. Closer relationships with nature are more necessary now than ever. (Richardson & Butler, 2022). Conclusion ? plan nature into urban, and urban into nature The benefits of being in nature are clear and there is increasing empirical evidence (Priest, 2006). Such restorative environments offer opportunities to be in nature and receive nature?s benefits for our well-being. Identifying with nature, for example, a tree or a woodland, helps us become part of that landscape, which in turn reduces stress. We can all have, make, or gain access to our piece of nature, trees, or forests to re-connect and bring peace; and be able to go to that place within, pause and witness nature. Urban landscapes have lost much of their ?nature? and need to reconnect, especially amongst children and the youth. We need to create ways for urban people to better connect with nature, whether it relates to restored urban river systems, woodlands, being able to visit the countryside. And this all has important health benefits that nature can bring. 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 57 A walk in the park, in the forest can be a spiritual experience. We should not walk-through nature ?deaf, blind and senseless?. Practice such walks in silence, as a walking meditation so that you are present to and mindful of the experience. This enables us to offer gratitude to the Earth and be exposed to the healing powers of nature. Be present for a tree, in a forest ? just simply be silent and witness the tree and its surroundings (Stowe, 2003). You can do the same in your garden and have a ?corner? of the garden where you can be still. You can have potted plants or trees in a corner of, or on a table in your home. Urbanisation raises concern about chronic human health along with less frequent interaction with the natural world. All nature-related measures?exposure, knowledge, skills, willingness to lead, perceived safety, sense of place, and nature connection?significantly increased in a mixed Methods Pilot Study of Young Adults Attending a Wilderness Camp in the USA. Well-being outcomes improved, including perceived stress, relaxation, positive and negative emotions, and the sense of wholeness. The findings illustrated the change in nature relations and well-being that wilderness camp experiences can provide (Warber et.al. 2015). The climate emergency and biodiversity crisis show that the human?nature relationship is failing. The ?pathways to nature connectedness? (sensory contact, emotion, meaning, beauty and compassion) is a framework to improve the human?nature relationship. Evidence illustrates how the pathways provide a novel approach for improving human?nature relationships, and the importance of cultural programmes and urban design to increase sensory, meaningful and emotional engagement with nature. The pathways to nature have societal relevance and provide solutions to foster human?nature relationships (Richardson et. al., 2020) Educational policy and practice have to integrate experiential learning in nature, rather than condition our children not to connect with nature. Many schools now bring students to experience nature as part of school activities. Whilst there are risks in learning and playing in nature, there are also risks of not doing so. Nature experience and therapy are growing in importance, especially as we become increasingly urbanised. Outdoor education is an important part of education and health, fostering a greater interest in nature, and perhaps less on electronics. All schools should try and have access to a small garden or some trees. Many schools are close to green areas, for example a park, stream, woodland, field. Teachers can facilitate experiential learning. Governments and policy makers have to recognise and value learning from nature, and the opportunities that it provides to overcome contemporary challenges to children?s education, health, wellbeing and future success in life (Malone & Waite, 2016). The London National Park City initiative is another example of where green spaces are promoted for education, health, wellbeing, high quality local produce, and biodiversity. In the past, and still so with many indigenous societies, the ways to resolve conflict were the elders (men and women) who would sit, listen, and reach consensus. This still works in areas where indigenous institutions are strong. But in many cases, it is being replaced ? often at great cost and maybe less effectively ? by formal systems. Maybe it is time to re-invigorate local community level conflict resolution in all walks of life, in all countries, in rural and urban areas, and with all religious and spiritual groups. That way most conflict would be resolved before it gets out of hand. ?A degraded habitat will produce degraded humans. If there is to be any true progress, then the entire life community must progress? (Berry, 1988). ?We are inextricably linked to nature, so we must take action, and stop the talk about the importance of nature? (Wangari Mathai). All children, urban and rural, require access to nature, and to real experiential learning. This is no longer a luxury and is at the heart of our and nature?s well-being, and on which the future of Mother Earth depends. References Aitkens, A. (2015). Only Connect: Joining the Dots for the Future We Want. Resurgence & Ecologist 289, 30-33. Atwood, M. (2011). New Frontiers. Resurgence 268, 8-12. Barton, J., & Pretty, J. (2010). Urban Ecology and Human Health and Wellbeing, in: Gaston, J. (Ed.), Urban Ecology. (pp. 202- 229). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778483.010 Basterfield, D. (2006). Make Violence History. Resurgence. 234, 30-31. Berry, T. (1988). The Dream of the Earth. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco. Berry, T., & Clarke, T. (1991). Befriending the Earth: A Theology of Reconciliation between Human and the Earth. Twenty-Third Publications, Connecticut. Bird, W. (2007). Natural Thinking: Investigating the Links Between the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Mental Health. (p. 116). Royal Society of the Protection of Birds, London. Bird, W. (2010). NHS - A Natural Health Service. Resurgence. 258, 10-12. Bouchardon, P. (1998). The Healing energies of Trees. Gaia Books, London. 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature 58 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Capaldi, C., Passmore, H.-A., Nisbet, E., Zelenski, J., & Dopko, R. (2015). Flourishing in nature: A review of the benefits of connecting with nature and its applicateion as a Wellbing Intervention. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v5i4.449 Capra, F. (2012). Ecological Literacy. Resurgence. 272, 42-43. Catton, W. & R. Dunlap (1978). Environmental Sociology: A new Paradigm. American Sociology, Vol 13, 41-49. Charles, C., & Louv, R. (2009). Children?s Nature Deficit: What We Know - and Don?t Know. Children and Nature Network Report. Clarke, P. (2015). A Beetle?s View of the Cosmos Might Suit our Schools. Resurgence & Ecologist 293, 34-35. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DEFRA. (2011). The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature. TSO. Dolesh, R. (2014). A Walk in the Park. Resurgence & Ecologist. 284, 16-17. Elks, J. (2014). Survey Reveals Shocking Truth: Kids Don?t Spend Enough Time Outside. Sustainable Brands. https://sustainablebrands.com/read/behavior-change/survey-reveals-shocking-truth-kids-don-t-spend-enough-time-outside Elworthy, S. (2017). Working for a World Without War. Resurgence & Ecologist. 302, 34-36. Felix and Friends. (2011). Tree by Tree: Now We Children Save the World. Plant for the Planet, Germany. Forest Therapy Association of the Americas. (2013). Health Benefits. Retrieved from http://forest-therapy.net/healthbenefits.html Freire, P. (1968). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum International Publishing Group, New York. Gilchrist, M., Passy, R., Waite, S., & Cook, R. (2016). Exploring Schools? use of Natural spaces, in: Freeman, C., Tranter, P.E. (Eds.), Risk, Protection, Provision and Policy (Vol. 12, pp. 103-124). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-035-3_18 Giracca, A. (2016). Into the Field. Orion Nature and Culture. https://orionmagazine.org/article/into-the-field/ accessed 2016, 7. Hanh, T.N. (1987). Being Peace. Rider Ltd., London. Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2009). Investigating Environmental Identity, Well-being and Meaning. Ecopsychology, 1(4), 181-186. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2009.0026 Juniper, T. (2014). Healthy Nature, Healthy People. Resurgence & Ecologist, 283, 36-37. Kings College London. (2011). Understanding the Diverse Benefits of Learning in Natural Environments, London. Kumar, S. (2005). Nature Knows us - do We Know Nature? Resurgence, 232, 3. Kuo, M. (2015). How Might Contact with Nature Promote Human Health? Promising Mechanisms and a Possible Central Pathway. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093 Li, Q. (2010). Effect of Forest Bathing Trips on Human Immune Function. J. Environmental Health and Preventative Medicine, 15(1), 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12199-008-0068-3 Li, Q., Kobayashi, M., Wakayama, Y., Inagaki, H., Katsumata, M., Hirata, Y., Hirata K., Shimizu, T., Kawada, T., Park, J., Ohira, T., Kagawa, T., & Miyazakp, Y. (2009). Effect of Phytoncides from Trees on Human Natural Killer Cell Function. International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology, 22(4), 951-959. https://doi.org/10.1177/039463200902200410 Liu, H., Nong, H., Ren, H., & Liu, K. (2022). The effect of nature exposure, nature connectedness on mental well-being and ill-being in a general Chinese population. Landscape and Urban Planning, 222, 104397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2022.104397 Louv, R. (2008). Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Workman Publishing, New York. Louv, R. (2009). Narture-Deficit Disorder. Resurgence, 254, 14-15. Louv, R. (2010). Nature Deficit Disorder. Resurgence, 260, 16-17. Louv, R. (2017). Leave No Child Inside. Orion Nature and Culture, 6. https://orionmagazine.org/article/leave-no-child-inside/ Lumber, R., Richardson, M., & Sheffield, D. (2017). Beyond Knowing Nature: Contact, Emotion, Compassion, Meaning, and Beauty are Pathways to Nature Connection. PLOS ONE, 12(5), e0177186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177186 MacKeeron, G., & Mourato, S. (2013). Happiness is Greater in Natural Environments. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.010 Maira, S. (2009). A Master Key. Resurgence, 253, 40-42. Maira, S. (2010). Eternal Beauty. Resurgence, 261, 24-27. 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 59 Maller, C., St Leger, L., Townsend, M., & Henderson-Wilson, C. (2009). Healthy Parks Healthy People: The Health Benefits of Contact with Nature in a Park Context. The George Wright Forum, 26, 51-83. Malone, K., & Waite, S. (2016). Student Outcomes and Natural Schooling. Plymouth University, Plymouth. Martinko, K. (2018). British Kids Don?t Want to Get Muddy or Wet, So They Stay Inside. Retrieved from https://www.treehugger.com/british-kids-dont-want-get-muddy-or-wet-so-they-stay-inside-4849568 Mathai, W. (2007). Poverty and Empowerment. Resurgence, 245, 27-29. Monbiot, G. (2013). Rewild the Child. The Guardian. http://www.monbiot.com/2013/10/07/rewild-the-child/ Morris, N. (2003). Health, Wellbeing and Open Space Literature Review, Edinburgh Openspace. Moss, S. (2012). Natural Childhoood Report. National Trust. Nisbet, E., Zelenski, J., & Murphy, S. (2009). The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking individuals? connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behaviour, 41, 715-740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748 Otto, S., & Pensini, P. (2017). Nature-based Environmental Education of Children: Environmental Knowledge and Connectedness to Nature, Together, are Related to Ecological behaviour. Global Environmnental Change, 47, 88-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.09.009 Passchier-Vermeer, W., & Passchier, W. (2000). Noise Exposure and Public Health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 108, 123- 131. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.00108s1123 Pope Francis. (2015). Encyclical on Climate Change and Inequality: On Care for our Common Home. Melville House Publishing. Pretty, J.N. (2006). Green Care - Working the Land is Good for Your Health. Resurgence, 234, 9. Priest, P. (2006). Walking Testimonies. Resurgence, 234, 26-27. Pyle, M. (2003). Nature Matrix: Reconnecting People and Nature. Oryx, 37(2), 206-214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000383 Randall, B. (2007). Kanyini - the Four Dimensions of Aboriginal Life. Resurgence, 243, 26-27. Richardson, M., & McEwan, K. (2018). 30 Days Wild and the Relationships Between Engagement with Nature?s Beauty, Nature Connectedness and Well-Being. Frontiers in Psychology. 9, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01500 Richardson, M., Sheffield, D., Harvey, C., & Petronzi, D. (2015). The Impact of Children?s Connection to Nature: A Report for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). (pp. 25). University of Derby, Derby. Richardson, M., J. Dobson , D. J. Abson , R. Lumber , A. Hunt , R. Young & B. Moorhouse (2020) Applying the pathways to nature connectedness at a societal scale: a leveragepoints perspective, Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 387-401. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1844296 Richardson, M., & Butler, C.W. (2022). The nature connection handbook: A guide for increasing people?s connection with nature. (pp. 39). Univ. Derby, United Kingdom. Russell, R., Guerry, A., Balvaner, P., Gouold, R., Basurto, X., Chan, K., Klain, S., Levine, J., & Tam, J. (2013). Humans and Nature: How Knowing and Experiencing Nature Affect Well-Being. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 38, 473-502. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012312-110838 Selhub, E., & Logan, A. (2012). Your Brain on Nature: The Science of Nature?s Influence on Your Health, Happiness and Vitality. John Wily, London. Sigman, A. (2009). Videophilia. Resurgence, 254, 16-17. Simon, B. (2012). Tales, traditions and folklore of Ireland?s trees. The Forest of Belfast. Sobel, D. (2012). Look, Don?t Touch. Orion Magazine, 8. https://orionmagazine.org/article/look-dont-touch1/ Staats, H., Van-Gemerden, E., & Hartig, T. (2010). Preference for Restorative Situations: Interactive Effects of Attentional State, Activity-in-Environment, and Social Sciences. Leisure Sciences, 32(5), 401-417. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2010.510990 Stowe, J. (2003). The Findhorn Book of Connecting with Nature. Findhorn Press, Forres Scotland. Syamsi, M., Lee, K., Aung, T., & R. Burns: 2022: Accelerating the Nature Deficit or Enhancing the Nature-Based Human Health during the Pandemic Era: An International Study in Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, and Myanmar, following the Start of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Forests, 13, 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13010057 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature The Guardian. (2016). Children spend only half as much time playing outside as their parents did. The Guardian. https://www. theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/27/children-spend-only-half-the-time-playing-outside-as-their-parents-did Thinley, J.Y. (2010). Exploring How Bhutan Might Now Implement Its Unique Concept of Gross National Happiness into Its Education Systems. Resurgence 260, 20-23. Tolle, E. (2005). A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life?s Purpose. Plume, New York. Warber, S., Ashley, A., DeHudy, M. Bialko, M. Marselle, & K. Irvine (2015): Addressing Nature-Deficit Disorder: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study of Young Adults Attending a Wilderness Camp. Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2015, 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/651827 World Health Organization. (2015). Obesity and Overweight. In: WHO (Ed.), Geneva. Ying, R., Kelly, S., Thi P., Chia-Chen, C., Shanahan, D., Gaston, K., Carrasco, R., R. Fuller. (2021) Factors influencing nature interactions vary between cities and types of nature interactions. People and Nature, 3(2), 405-417. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10181 6. ?Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Judy Ling Wong1, and Carolyn Roberts2 7 London from the air © Luke Massey & the Greater London National Park City Initiative 1CBE Co-Founder, National Park City Foundation 2Emeritus Professor of Environment, Gresham College, London 62 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract London was declared the world?s first National Park City in July 2019. London National Park City aims to transform the relationship residents have with the ecosystems and natural assets of their cities so that they see it as a living landscape to value and to share stewardship of its ecology and natural assets; and to then extend this value and stewardship to environments beyond the city limits. Learning includes recognising what works and championing it; mapping challenge and opportunities in accessible ways; disrupting traditional top-down and bottom-up thinking; demonstrating how individuals can influence landscapes; recognising nature as a cultural choice; assessing the economic value of ecosystem services; and using imagery to help people visualize alternative futures. These align with the recognition of the crucial role of people embodied in key policy documents including AICHI Biodiversity Target 1, The Promise of Sydney, and the Defra 25 Year Environment Plan. Introduction The vision of a National Park City offers a rich cultural life anchored in nature, and action for nature, motivating citizens by putting the benefits to their lives at the top of the list. London National Park City draws from the values of the United Kingdom?s rural National Parks and sets it into an urban context. The defining element of London National Park City is that it will pay equal attention to outstanding nature and the potential for increasing the presence of nature within the built environment. This means facilitating the relationship between urban people and nature where they live and beyond the city so that the full spectrum of natural spaces is experienced by a population in danger of losing a vital connection to nature. It is grassroots, bottom-up campaign encouraging and facilitating citizens, who are part of the ecosystem, to be agents of change in their own communities and areas, via neighbourhood and community groups, new initiatives, local political structures, a network of organisations and a Bank of Good Ideas inspiring best practice. Its strapline is ?Greener, Wilder, Healthier.? The campaign promotes understanding of how important ecosystems are; raises awareness of all the social, economic, community and health benefits that better connections to nature provide; and incentivizes citizens to actively engage in shaping the urban areas in which they live, work and relax whilst playing a key role in the care and protection of ecosystems further afield. The London National Park City initiative addresses the issue of urban-rural ecosystem linkages head-on by encouraging residents of a major world city to harness and enhance existing ecosystems and natural assets. The initiative has learning points to offer about initiating and sustaining a successful campaign. Political successes include gaining the support of the Mayor of London and over 50% of London?s Wards, its smallest political unit. Large cities, urgent problems Cities internationally are evolving at an unprecedented rate. In many parts of the world, growing populations are putting huge pressure on housing, roads, water, food, power supplies and other infrastructure. Some services are at risk of grinding to a halt, putting vulnerable populations at risk. Concurrently, open spaces are disappearing under concrete, and whilst a majority of residents inhabit smaller and smaller living spaces, polarisation in wealth is increasing, and a small number of wealthy individuals have been able to annexe far more than their fair share of the good things of life, the natural assets, including access to parks, gardens and other open space, and fresh air. UN Habitat (2016) notes that, ?the prosperity generated by cities has not been equitably shared, and a sizeable proportion of the urban population remains without access to the benefits that cities produce?. Technology is also changing everyday life for city populations, as attempts have been made by governments and the private sector to understand what could actually make cities ?smarter? and more efficient: reducing the congestion, the rubbish in the streets, the air pollution, and the power outages. Digital technology offers new ways of approaching complex urban problems, by providing an opportunity for instantaneous adjustments to the flows of information, goods and services, at all levels from the individual to the conurbation. However, local and national administrations have struggled to match the promise of smarter cities with the crowded, chaotic reality of urban life; digital technology is not proving to be a universal panacea for urban ills. What has become apparent is that in order for a city genuinely to plan a sustainable future, and for the physical and mental wellbeing of all of its inhabitants, broader aspects of city living such as governance, education, social inclusion and, crucially, access to the natural environment need to be considered alongside more material considerations. Moreover, citizens need choice about their own community?s future, and cannot be regarded merely as passive recipients of the ambitions of technologists, planners, architects and local politicians. Consequently, ambitious world city leaders who agree that narrowly focussed technology-driven approaches to development cannot generate major improvements in the quality of residents? lives, have begun to involve themselves in social and environmental initiatives linking citizens with the natural environment. This paper explores the emergence of an ambitious movement to engage the citizens of one world city, London, with their natural surroundings. In particular, it will examine the London National Park City initiative, formally launched in Islington, Central London in October 2017 following more than three years of preparatory work. London National Park City draws part of its inspiration from the United Kingdom?s world-class National Parks programme, which had its roots in the early twentieth century when statutory 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 63 environmental protection criteria were established for a group of rural and predominantly upland areas. The National Parks? mission was twofold: to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of selected countryside areas, and to promote the public?s understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities. London National Park City is intended to be a metropolitan parallel, supporting and protecting London?s environment and landscapes for the enjoyment of the city?s residents. Whilst initially surprising and challenging to romantic preconceptions of what a National Park might look like (perhaps a pristine wilderness, largely shaped by geology and climate, rather than a landscape largely created by human activity), the idea has been gaining momentum. Growing interest from other cities wishing to follow suit has led to the formation of an international working group with a Universal Charter for a National Park City in place. London National Park City, not a designation as a National Park City, is a new model. The initial Steering Group proposed that London would be declared a National Park City through the mandate of its citizens. In 2017, London National Park City was formally endorsed by the Mayor of London. March 2018 saw over 50% of London?s Local Councillors sign up to support London National Park City. With this support London has been declared the world?s first National Park City in July 2019. Figure 1. People enjoying a sunny day in a London park. © Judy Ling Wong City challenges London National Park City is not the first city initiative with environmental and citizen engagement objectives. For example, recognising the acute underrepresentation of black and ethnic minority people amongst National Park visitors, the explicitly multicultural Mosaic Project was led by the Campaign for National Parks, in partnership with the Youth Hostels Association and the Black Environment Network voluntary organisation (Gilfinnian Partnership, 2012; Ling Wong, 2015). The project facilitated more than 28,000 people from deprived minority groups to access rural areas beyond the city boundaries, through building relationships between city communities and their nearest National Park. More than two hundred local ?Community Champions? were trained, funded mainly by the national Big Lottery; most were still active at the end of the three year programme in 2012 and the independent evaluation suggested that the project had been highly successful. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages 64 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective The six underlying principles of Mosaic were concerned with: ? Empowerment: giving key individuals the skills and confidence to engage. ? Sustainability: ensuring that the impact of the project endures beyond the period of core funding, by training local volunteers, and by helping statutory authorities to make organisational changes better to engage new audiences in the longer term. ? Relationships: building personal relationships and networks between and across all stakeholder groups. ? Choice: recognising that community participation is about choice, not compulsion. ? Enjoyment: maintaining the objective relating to public benefit and enjoyment. ? Flexibility: making sure that volunteers and staff in the National Parks can undertake activities in which they are interested, by being flexible and adaptable to local and individual circumstances. Although reductions in public funding have threatened the Mosaic legacy, the underlying principles proved robust, and it offers a valuable, tried and tested model for London National Park City?s future engagement with various community and local authority stakeholders. London as a model for other cities London is one of Europe?s largest cities. With a population approaching nine million, at current rates of growth it will become a megacity by 2026. It supports a globally focused economy dependent upon trade and finance, manufacturing and services, and a mobile international population. National and international tourism, largely founded on the city?s extraordinary history, vibrant culture and high-profile events, is crucial to the enterprise. London is an active member of the C40 group of cities, and although it is not the largest or the fastest-growing global metropolis, the similar characteristics of other world cities have prompted consideration of whether the United Kingdom?s capital could act as a model, test bed or beacon for others considering environmental engagement programs. Comparisons with Dhaka or Dar es Salaam may nevertheless prove more challenging than those with Paris or New York. In some ways London is unique. As the capital city of a former global empire, some of the wealth of previous centuries was invested in striking and sometimes extraordinary buildings that continue to draw admirers today. Beyond the architecture, early expropriation by English royalty, several centuries of philanthropy, and active intervention by various local administrations has preserved an exceptional amount of outdoor space, supporting a substantial set of semi-natural or ?fusion? ecosystems. The proportion of open space in London is variously estimated at between a third and two thirds depending on whether private gardens are included, or whether all open space or only ?green and blue? space (vegetated spaces or open water ? rivers, reservoirs and canals), is encompassed. London?s environmental records centre, (Green Information for Greater London CIC, 2013) estimates that 49.5% of London?s surface area is green and blue space, making London the greenest major city in Europe and the third greenest city of its size in the world according to a 2013 report commissioned by the City of London Corporation. Nevertheless, this legacy of parks, gardens and water bodies is not always recognised as an asset, and in the current political and economic climate, all levels of London?s government are under pressure to provide more space for housing and business use, and to reduce maintenance costs. London?s governance is a bewildering mixture of overlapping territories and responsibilities. It has three basic layers of government: a Cabinet Minister of State with responsibility for the whole city (a role created in January 2018); an elected Mayor of London with an environmental team; and Local Authority government comprising 32 London Boroughs, with elected Councillors representing 653 wards. The London Boroughs have environmental responsibilities as well. In total, the urban area contains some 14,000 hectares of public parks, woodlands and gardens, which means that some 40% of the ground is publicly accessible green space. The City of London Corporation is the authority with responsibility for managing almost 4,400 hectares of green spaces in and around the capital, including many of the largest open spaces - Epping Forest, Hampstead Heath, and more than two hundred gardens, churchyards, parks and plazas within the historic ?Square Mile? itself. Its principal mission is to promote London as a leading centre for finance and business. The Corporation?s report ?Green Spaces: The Benefits for London? (2013) credited these spaces with climate change prevention and mitigation, absorbing pollution, reducing flooding, and improving air quality. The report also suggested that London?s green spaces contribute direct economic benefits to society, citing research, which found that people are more likely to be physically active if they have access to green spaces, hence making significant savings for the United Kingdom?s National Health Service.In addition, the analysis found that London?s parks and woodlands were a major draw for tourists and a boost to the local economy, with some 23 million visits to the Corporation?s green spaces in 2012/13. Beyond this, the increasing use of natural capital accounting is starting to demonstrate the monetary value of the ecosystem services provided by green space, increasing the pressure for better management by all the owners. However, like all large cities, the issue of universal access to these areas is fundamental. Many traditional approaches to environmental access are about provision, ?greening? the city and maintaining parks in an ecologically sympathetic manner but failing to put people at the heart of the ecosystem. For less well-off people in London, expensive transport means that poorer communities in the east of the city may never experience the joy of seeing freely roaming deer in Richmond Park or observe fish in local rivers and streams. They may not dream of visiting beautiful semi-wild spaces, and can feel excluded from city parks, wrongly fearing they should not be there. London National Park City has been concerned to address this by fostering the appropriate collaborations to ensure that citizens are encouraged not only to visit, but also to engage as innovators, thus harnessing a bigger pool of intellectual capital. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 65 Figure 2. Percentage of green and blue spaces in Greater London in 2013. Source: Judy Ling Wong The National Park City initiative The London National Park City initiative began with a campaign to achieve ?National Park City? status, unlocking the vast missing contribution of its residents. Echoing the sentiments behind the UK?s existing National Parks, the Advisory Board summarised the definition of any National Park City as ?A large urban area managed and semi-protected through both formal and informal means to enhance the natural capital of its living landscape. A defining feature is the widespread and significant commitment of residents, visitors and decision-makers to allow natural processes to provide a foundation for a better quality of life for wildlife and people.? The aim of transforming the relationship between citizens and the London landscape, encouraging them to value it as a living landscape, to share stewardship of its ecology and natural assets, and to transform personal behaviours that damage the environment, is challenging. The intention is to address many of London?s key challenges, including natural environmental issues such as improving air and water quality, increasing the amount of architectural greenery, enhancing wildlife habitats, and increasing biodiversity. Human-centred issues include improving mental and emotional health, reducing obesity, improving community cohesion and a sense of place, and promoting inclusivity and higher quality of life for everyone, particularly children and residents in deprived neighbourhoods. Specific attention is being paid to producing high quality green spaces where people choose to walk and cycle. National Park City Foundation was registered as a charity in 2017, with twelve volunteer trustees. Its published aims are for: ? Better enjoyment: Connect more people to nature and the outdoors, improving their health, wellbeing and social cohesion; ? Better environment: Create more high-quality green and blue spaces to better support and maintain wildlife alongside a sustainable and attractive environment for people; ? Greater economy: Promote the identity of London as the world?s first National Park City, helping residents and visitors to appreciate the potential for a rich cultural life anchored in its outdoor heritage. London National Park City?s vision of access is city-based but not city-bound. Experiences of nature are envisaged as concentric circles of contact starting at home, rippling outwards into the nearby community?s green spaces and parks, then further afield to 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages 66 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective urban nature reserves, woodlands, forests, rivers and canals throughout London, and beyond London into rural nature reserves, Areas of Outstanding Beauty and the National Parks. It is the reflection back and forth of these experiences that is intended to embed a sense and ownership of nature into individual and community consciousness. In years to come, communities will be guardians of nature, because it is inherent in their way of life. To achieve this, the London National Park City approach envisages a leadership of many leaders, working in partnership at all levels from the individual, through community and Borough, to City Government, enabling common understanding, fuelling commitment and driving contributions to the care and protection of ecosystems. Many examples of good practice already exist, which may be replicated and scaled up to bring about a significant impact and broad awareness and enjoyment of London?s natural assets. London, like all urban areas, is beset with a range of problems. The positioning of LNPC is to focus on the power of the positive to pull us out of the negative. LNPC is about the creation of a movement around the concept of a National Park City rather than being an organisation that takes on all issues as its agenda. Many organisations are already at work ? social, economic, cultural, environmental. The concept releases new cohesive actions through buy in to a coordinated vision, with the assertion of a heightened awareness that enjoyment and celebration give impetus and harness energy to act. Joy and celebration importantly underpin the struggles on various fronts that the agenda of many organisations address ? from air pollution to social cohesion, from access to nature to releasing a vast missing contribution from those who are left behind through opening up experience and enabling knowledge, choices and skills. The strapline ?Greener, Wilder, Healthier? keys into the possible everyday actions of individuals as well as the rising policy concerns about mental and physical health and well-being linked to the quality of the urban environment. Delivering London National Park City The initiative is primarily a volunteer grassroots movement, encouraging Londoners themselves to generate solutions. In its first phase, campaigning focused on gaining a political mandate to identify London as a National Park City. Activists have engaged with Borough representatives to gain explicit support for the idea, with support from the Mayor and 50% of wards by early 2018, culminating in the declaration of London as the world?s first National Park City in July 2019. This has both raised grassroots awareness among citizens and brought some bottom-up pressure on policymakers for a greener, more sustainable future that offers rich opportunities for everyone to collaborate and engage with nature. Simultaneously, the London National Park City Network, a platform to facilitate cooperation and partnerships to enhance London?s ecosystem and the activities that will support it, is being formed. A ?Bank of Good Ideas? website will provide a platform for sharing and showcasing good practice, allowing replication of successful nature- based ideas that are within the power of ordinary citizens to progress. There have always been policy frameworks, and focused environmental organisations addressing themes such as biodiversity or habitat degradation. For LNPC the gap is an expansion of individual citizen action and cohesive overall actions so that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. At the level of City Hall, London National Park City is written into the London Plan and is cited as an instrument in the context of Green Infrastructure. The Mayor has recognised the role of citizens and has put a £12million fund to facilitate the role of communities in greening London. With additional donations, the London National Park City is the art of the possible moving at an organic pace, with people, organisations and government at city level stimulated to move together. Examples of activities that could theoretically support London as a National Park City include: ? outdoor school ?classrooms?; ? increased use of city parks for sports, yoga, art classes, meditation, guided walks, wildlife watching; ? community and other organisations offering ways to engage with waterways, for example river-keeping, bird-watching, watersports; ? active participation in conservation groups; ? neighbourhood tree planting; ? Local Authorities planning ?green? commuting corridors; ? developers and housebuilders building green play spaces and wild areas. Drawing on the Mosaic project experience, London National Park City is establishing a Park Ranger Scheme, with two sets of rangers providing a core around which wider participation can be built. Space-based Rangers with specialist knowledge will be located in a range of green spaces from local urban nature reserves to woodlands, canals, rivers and forests. Community-based, urban Neighbourhood Rangers will coordinate volunteers caring for ecosystems in local green and blue spaces and organise trips further afield. This arrangement will potentially benefit communities in many ways, including promoting informal education, play, creativity, social interaction, encouragement to take ownership of and transform natural assets in local neighbourhoods, and stimulating uptake of a wider range of outdoors activities. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 67 A wide range of existing community engagement activities could be brought within the London National Park City framework. Dragonfly Detectives with London Wildlife Trust Between May and September some of London?s peripheral streams, rivers and ponds light up with dazzling, darting, dragonflies and damselflies. These fascinating insectsthrive around clean water and are an excellent indicator of healthy aquatic ecosystems. Even novices can learn how to evaluate the quality of freshwater habitats by surveying their presence and abundance. The Living Landscapes Initiative with London Wildlife Trust Living Landscapes applies the principles widely adopted by rural Wildlife Trusts to London?s unique setting. London Wildlife Trust?s initiative (2014) draws on familiar animals and plants, such as birds, hedgehogs, squirrels, and park or street trees, to prompt residents? experiences of habitats from woodland and chalk grasslands to rivers and wetlands. The key aims are to generate understanding of the needs of individual species, protect existing environmental assets and enhance biodiversity, fostering greater ecological resilience in green spaces across the capital. Healthy High Street, with Incredible Edible Lambeth Interest in growing food in cities is increasing. Astute food growing networks such as Incredible Edible Lambeth have been highlighting city challenges such as health and well-being, sustainability, food security, food waste, food miles, soil quality, recycling and composting, enterprise and the social capital that can be engendered by bringing local people together. The ?Healthy High Street? is mapping the local area to identify beautiful small spaces where food is grown, and children?s play areas. They also champion local restaurants serving healthy and vegetarian meals, or which buy local allotment produce. Parkrun Many Londoners have already taken up the international Parkrun idea of free, weekly, 5 km timed runs in pleasant parkland surroundings (Marshall, 2017). They are safe and open to everyone. Green Gym London, with the Conservation Volunteers Green Gym London is run by TCV, the largest nature conservation organisation in Europe. They have an innovative way of capitalising on the desire of Londoners to get fit, offering structured sessions of nature conservation designed to promote health and well-being. The atmosphere is social, and ecological skills are learnt whilst engendering the sense of being part of a team. Green Gyms are offered to both local communities and schools. London as an urban forest Greater London is heavily wooded. The National Tree Count in 2016 surprised everyone by revealing that London and Surrey were the United Kingdom?s most densely covered areas. London had previously been officially recognised by the Forestry Commission as the UK?s newest forest, its 8.5 million trees covering just under 20% of the City in 2002, making it the largest urban forest in the world; there are some 65,000 woodlands and stands of trees. Two-thirds is registered ancient woodland, suggesting links with the original forest that once covered the majority of the country. This reality invites a shift of vision in terms of the dominant trope that the rural is where nature resides. Beyond this, the Ealing Forest i-tree Survey (Forestry Commission, 2016) pointed out that problems caused by poor air quality are well known, ranging from smog and adverse effects on human health, to damaged buildings. Trees can make a significant contribution to mitigating the urban heat island and various aspects of climate change, and potentially to improving air quality. With 2015 total canopy cover at 21.9%, the goal is 30%. This could be achieved using volunteer tree planters. Trout in the Classroom with The Wandle Trust The headwaters of London?s River Wandle emerge in the Surrey countryside. The Wandle Trust (2012) took London schoolchildren on a journey of discovery into native fish species. Schoolchildren were given fish eggs in tanks to watch them grow from egg to fry, later releasing them back into the Wandle and creating a tremendous sense of ownership. Children have since also brought their families to enjoy previously unknown riversides. However, there have been failures created by subsequent low river flows killing the fish. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages 68 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Lost Effra Project, partnership for sustainable water management in London The Lost Effra Project involves people in sustainable water management in areas that periodically flood. The original Effra River is now encased in sewers beneath London?s concrete and tarmac. DEFRA and the Carnegie Trust commissioned the project in 2013, relying on the motivation of local people to address their vulnerability to flooding, and equipping them with practical mechanisms to improve resilience whilst supporting biodiversity and creating green spaces. New features such as green roofs and rain gardens have been built, and hard paving removed to make the city more resilient to climate and environmental change. The project evolved into a partnership between local people, Thames Water, the Greater London Authority, Lambeth Council and voluntary organisation Groundwork (London Wildlife Trust, 2018). With valuable input from various community groups and private sector partners, it has spread into other areas of London. Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) Citizen science projects can be crucial to connecting people to nature, because they prompt the first steps of discovery. The OPAL concept (Imperial College, 2018) puts experts alongside local people to investigate the natural world, exchanging knowledge, experience and skills whilst learning about local wildlife and their habitats. Citizens who participate can contribute data on topics including environmental degradation, biodiversity loss and climate change, through OPAL?s national surveys. OPAL has designed field and desk-based activities suitable for all ages, abilities and backgrounds, and in particular, has launched a series of national biological surveys. By bringing scientists, amateur-experts, local interest groups, policy makers and the public closer together, OPAL works towards lasting relationships. Community Scientists have already brought over a million enthusiastic volunteers into research on matters of scientific concern. Getting beyond the city Various environmental organisations including Conservation Trust Volunteers offer working holidays in beautiful settings beyond the city, and as part of the recently published 25 Year Plan for the Environment (2018) funds are available from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs for schoolchildren to visit more distant National Parks. Specific opportunities London has several advantages when considering how to enhance environmental quality and engage its citizens with nature. Firstly, the country has a well-established voluntary sector, with over 120,000 non-governmental and charitable organisations working across a range of social, cultural, economic, and environmental themes. There is nevertheless work to be done to enable them to build environmental engagement into their objectives. London is also home to powerful private interests, from the headquarters of international banks and corporations to major developers and manufacturing industry. A better urban environment with a healthy ecology provides a more attractive investment environment for business, hence identifying common aims across public and private sectors, and recognising the importance of a beautiful green city as an asset and a setting for prosperity, is potentially rewarding. Secondly, London has some three million private gardens, all of which could be miniature nature reserves. In the face of climate change and habitat fragmentation, this massive expanse of green space has enormous untapped potential for both people and wildlife. As in many other major cities, the amount of time children spend outside has declined dramatically with a concomitant decline in their physical and emotional health, hence increasing the attractiveness of outdoor play would be valuable. In some of the London Boroughs, the area of green space within social housing areas exceeds that in public parks and gardens, but it is often of poor ecological and environmental quality, mainly closely mown grass. The opportunity to transform areas outside the windows of some of London?s most disadvantaged social groups, working with their landlords, would be advantageous for people and nature, and might tap into social sector funding alongside nature sector support. Finally, the agency of people as a force for change, is not yet captured. The London National Park City Rangers element and other accessible grassroots projects such as the ?9 Million Wildflowers for 9 Million People? project, are intended to turn people into citizens of action, sowing the seeds of what could become a world of pleasurable engagement with nature. Their aspirations to transform grey land into green, and their power to care for and protect nature, are crucial to the overall project. Intrinsic to most of environmental activity is the creation of beauty and the betterment of the quality of life. At the centre of the concept of a National Park City is the promotion of an identity. If one identifies with living in a National Park City, it implies a way of being ? a way of thinking, feeling and therefore acting. This a creative dynamic position. It is a frame that charges a situation with energy. Everyone is inspired to do more and to work together within the vision of a National Park City. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 69 Specific challenges Some environmental problems remain very difficult to address at community level, without wider political action from higher echelons of city or national government. For example, after an improvement from the coal burning-derived smog of the 1950s, London?s air quality has deteriorated recently, contributing to some 10,000 deaths a year; EU standards are frequently breached, largely as a result of diesel vehicle use across the city. Traffic gridlock, public transport under pressure and long commuting times also contribute to the stresses Londoners feel. Whilst as a result of smart technologies available on mobile phones, people may now be aware of the presence of polluting levels of nitrogen compounds and particulates in the air in their Boroughs and understand that they particularly affect asthmatic and young residents, it is difficult for local communities to take direct ameliorative action. Similarly, although local authorities, developers, and others have seen the potential for pleasant waterside living and working, water quality in many of London?s rivers and canals is very poor, with the River Lea, a major tributary to the Thames, being one of the dirtiest rivers in the country. The reasons for the pollution are widespread, and include local discharges, overflows from surcharged sewers and incorrect connections, but the science and the solution are multifaceted. Whilst local ?greening? might be achieved by home-grown action, people can feel powerless to change these broader aspects of the environment. The deterioration in quality has occurred because of economic pressures beyond community level, and solutions are technically complex and expensive. Wider awareness may only be the first step along a tortuous pathway to better air and water quality. This raises questions about holistic and realistic measures of success for London National Park City, as it addresses a complex and integrated set of human and environmental systems. Enjoyment as the key to contribution to the care and protection of ecosystems Targets for specific, quantifiable features of the natural environment, and for measurable levels of citizen engagement, may not capture all, or indeed any, of the intended outcomes of London National Park City. The initiative is predicated on inspiring citizens through contact with nature, which complements traditional environmental approaches. Proponents of the project believe that the fundamental process for engaging people is remarkably simple: people love what they enjoy, and they protect what they love. This love for nature grows as people make nature part of their lives. Hence, when citizens have information suggesting that their environment is being threatened, or that their help is needed, a normal human response would be to volunteer effort to care and protect what they love, and to fight for it. Indeed, this is how the contemporary environmental movement was formed. At present, nature is marginal to the lives of many Londoners, so if they are to play their part in contributing to the future of local ecosystems, London National Park City must start by promoting universal access to beautiful open spaces. The initiative will put the opportunity in place for residents to love nature. It will engage them and supply information to support the growth of knowledge and skills, nurturing the inevitable blossoming of respect and pride in London?s quasi-natural environment. Other agencies, including statutory bodies, measure more specific parameters such as air and water quality, on occasion assisted by local residents engaging in citizen science. The targets for the National Park City will therefore relate mainly to numbers of people engaged in, participating in and enjoying their natural environment, and to other more subtle dimensions of sustainability as defined by programs such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Conclusion Despite the definitions captured in legislation, the rural environments of United Kingdom?s National Parks are far from being ?natural?; they reflect thousands of years of human occupancy, ecological and environmental change. Efforts have nevertheless coalesced around protection of, and access to, ?nature?, and the Parks have become jewels in the crown in the imaginations of many people, and the destinations of choice for growing numbers. Whilst there are urban national parks elsewhere in the developed world, they are rarely inside major cities, and none properly value and recognise the special qualities and potential of an entire urban landscape, including its natural and built environment, and its surrounding rural areas. The London National Park City model not only challenges traditional conservation boundaries that exclude cities and alienate urban dwellers from ?nature? but recognises the potential of residents to be agents for change, within and beyond the city. Knowledgeable and passionate citizens can clamor for improvement, demanding new forms of collaboration and cooperation, planning, governance, finance and learning that can sustain positive change. Moreover, if governments, organisations and citizens connect with and value ecosystems on their doorstep, they are more likely to understand the importance of ecosystems everywhere. Pioneering National Park Cities will help inspire urban leaders to better protect not just their own habitats, but those they influence too. 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages 70 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective There are already conclusions to be drawn from the London National Park City initiative, as there were from the earlier Mosaic project. These include the importance of ? recognising what works and championing it, ? recognising what does not work and remembering it, ? mapping challenges and opportunities in accessible ways, ? disrupting traditional top-down and bottom-up thinking, ? demonstrating how individuals can influence landscapes, ? recognising nature as a cultural choice, ? unlocking people?s potential and desire to create a better life, ? assessing the economic value of ecosystem services, ? using imagery to help people visualize alternative futures. These messages will need to be remembered as the movement progresses. Habitat III, in the preamble to the New Urban Agenda, states that ?The battle for sustainable development will be won or lost in cities?.80% of the United Kingdom?s population already lives in urban areas. The model of a National Park City ensuring the importance of nature through active citizenship is momentous. The last seventy years saw the birth and development of National Parks. The coming decades could see the era of a family of National Parks and National Park Cities, playing a fundamental role to protect people and nature. This simple idea of a journey that increases activity focused on a better life for people in the context of the presence of nature in a city is now embodied in a Universal Charter. It has fired the imagination and desire of other cities in the UK and abroad to follow in our footsteps. As the first National Park City, London is very aware that its methodology is based on its particular circumstances and issues. An international working group has produced a Universal Charter, distilling the essence of the concept in a manner that enables other cities to find their own way forward. The movement is growing! References City of London Corporation. (2013). Green Spaces: The Benefits for London Report. Supporting businesses - City of London Forestry Commission. (2016). Valuing London?s Urban Forest ? results of the London i-Tree Eco Project. Valuing London?s Urban Forest (itreetools.org) Gilfillian Partnership. (2012). Mosaic Final Evaluation. https://heritagehindusamaj.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/mosaic-legacy-18-final-evaluation-exec-summary.pdf The Conservation Volunteers. (n.d). Green Gym London. https://www.tcv.org.uk/london/green-gym-london Greenspace Information for Greater London. (2013). Dragonfly Detectives: Citizen science survey. http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/dragonfly-detectives HM Government. (2018). A Green Future ? Our 25 year Plan to Improve the Environment. www.gov.uk/government/publications. Imperial College London. (2018). OPAL:Citizen Science for Everyone.http://www.imperial.ac.uk/opal/about/ Incredible Edible Lambeth. (n.d). Retrieved from http://www.incredibleediblelambeth.org/ Ling Wong, J. (2015). The Mosaic Model ? Engaging BME communities in National Parks. Campaign for National Parks. Natural England Access to Evidence Marshall, G. (2017). What we learnt running every single London Parkrun. Londonist. https://londonist.com/london/sport/london-parkrun London Wildlife Trust. (2014). Living Landscapes initiative and All London Green Grid. Research and Reports | London Wildlife Trust (wildlondon.org.uk) London Wildlife Trust and DEFRA. (2018). Lost Effra Project. http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/lost-effra UN Habitat. (2016). Urbanisation and Development: Emerging Futures. World Cities Report 2016. United Nations Human Settlements Program. World Cities Report 2016:Urbanization and Development - Emerging Futures | UN-Habitat (unhabitat.org) UN Habitat. (2017). New Urban Agenda. Documents & Archive - Habitat III (habitat3.org) Wandle Trust London. (2012). Trout in the classroom. https://www.wandletrust.org/tag/trout-in-the-classroom/ 7. ?London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Creighton Connolly, Department of Urban Planning and Design, The University of Hong Kong 8 Entrance of The Habitat at Penang Hill, Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve (photo by author, 2024) 72 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract This chapter offers an empirical analysis of ecosystem governance on Penang Hill, which is a culturally and ecologically significant area in the centre of Penang Island, Malaysia. Penang is one of the most rapidly urbanising regions in Malaysia, which is putting increasing pressure on the island?s forested hills. Penang Hill, in particular, is important for its swaths of tropical rainforest, a variety of endemic flora and fauna, the jungle trails and funicular tram, as well as its historic bungalows reflecting the island?s colonial history. In order to conserve these features, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve has been established on Penang Hill in 2021 which aims to balance sustainable ecotourism with biodiversity conservation. This chapter aims to evaluate the usefulness of Biosphere Reserves for conserving heritage that transgresses traditional categories of cultural/natural and urban/rural, and the role of local communities in preparing for the nomination of sites. Whilst it was anticipated that Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve would enable conservation of cultural and natural heritage through promoting biodiversity research, cultural revitalisation and nature education, the success has been limited as yet. The chapter is based on analysis of both primary and secondary data and utilizes a landscape approach to conceptualize the layering of cultural and natural values embedded in the urban landscape and thereby enable a more holistic view of urban heritage. Introduction Over the past few decades, there have been numerous studies examining the interface between cultural heritage conservation and urban (re)development, particularly in rapidly urbanising regions (Bandarin & Van Oers, 2012; Barber, 2013; Cartier, 1998; Jenkins & King, 2003; Logan, 2002). On the other hand, scholars have also examined nature conservation movements in the context of encroaching (urban) development, which have primarily sought to conserve the biophysical characteristics of place such as coastlines, topographic landmarks, flora and fauna (Bengston & Youn, 2006; Jim, 2005; Lorimer, 2008; Neo, 2007). However, this body of research has, with a few exceptions (e.g., Daly & Winter, 2012; Ishizawa, 2014, 2017), not considered the importance of the interplay of both natural and cultural heritage in urban settings, and the myriad connections between the two. In illustrating these interconnections, this chapter offers a case study of Penang Hill, which is a culturally and ecologically significant area in the centre of Penang Island, Malaysia. Penang Hill is important for both natural and cultural features including its swaths of tropical rainforest, a variety of endemic flora and fauna, jungle trails and funicular tram, as well as its historic bungalows reflecting the island?s colonial history. Specifically, the Penang Hill ecosystem has 550 animal species; 2456 species of plants from 206 families, including 20 on the IUCN Red List, and four that are listed as Critically Endangered (Habitat Foundation, 2018). However, Penang Hill has been the target of repeated development plans over the past few decades, which has resulted in various grassroots movements to protect the Hill. One initiative has been the designation of Penang Hill as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve (BR) in order to work towards a more sustainable form of urban development. Whilst the ultimate success of the BR in meeting this goal is still uncertain, it is anticipated that the designation will enable conservation of Penang Hill?s rich cultural and natural heritage, whilst also supporting biodiversity research and nature education. This chapter will discuss the background of this initiative, including how it has been influenced by both local cultural attachments to the Hill and resistance to ongoing development projects threatening. In analysing this case, I assert that Penang Hill must be viewed as an integral part of the city, rather than a separate ?natural? landscape. The material presented in this chapter is based on a mixed methods approach, using documentary analysis of a variety of sources; planning documents and personal observations spanning over a decade of research in Penang on different, related projects, including natural & cultural heritage conservation. This has allowed for understanding the discursive attachment of Penangites to the Hill, in addition to the history of development and conservation initiatives on Penang Hill. Documents analysed included newspaper articles, government reports, websites, and social media sources for the period 1990 to the time of writing. Positioning Penang Hill: context, history and heritage George Town is the capital of the Malaysian state of Penang, in the northwestern part of peninsular Malaysia. George Town is the historic centre of Penang, located in the northeastern corner of Penang Island, and designated as a UNESCO (cultural) World Heritage Site, jointly listed with Malacca as the ?Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca?. The city is often referred to as Penang, as the metropolitan area extends across the entire island, with a population of approximately 700,000 people. The level of urbanisation in Penang is 90.8%, which is among the highest in Malaysia, after Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Selangor (Mok, 2016a). Penang?s rapid and intensive urban transition has put considerable pressure on the natural environment, including its forested hills. It is largely this development pressure which has caused many Penangites to become increasingly alarmed by the loss of these valuable heritage assets, causing the impetus to push for enhanced protection of Penang?s hills and associated flora and fauna (Dermawan, 2016, 2017; Looi, 2017). This speaks to the importance of community-led heritage movements, in which locals take seriously the value of their city?s existing natural resources and heritage. Despite its name, Penang Hill (or Bukit Bendera) does not actually refer to a single hill, but rather an agglomeration of hills within the north-central part of Penang Island. These hills are connected by a ridge (with a paved road) which is the area commonly referred to as 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 73 Penang Hill. The primary peaks encompassed in this area are Government Hill, Tiger Hill, Flagstaff Hill (Hilltop Station), and Western Hill, which is the highest peak on the island (830m). The Hill is famous for its swaths of primary tropical rainforest, the wide variety of flora and fauna found within them, the jungle trails and funicular tram leading up the hill, as well as its historic bungalows reflecting the island?s colonial history (see Figure 1). The historical significance of Penang Hill relates to its history as the first hill station built in Asia during the British colonial period, which is the origin of many of the heritage buildings remaining on the hill today (Aiken, 1987). Figure 1: A view from Penang Hill. (Photo by author, 2017) Due to its accessibility and visibility from George Town, many Penangites have a strong cultural attachment to the hill, related to childhoods spent visiting its peaks, or merely the aesthetic charm that it offers (Chan, 2018). Penang Hill is thus understood by many Penangites to be central to the ?unique atmosphere, heritage and cultural value? of Penang (Khor et al., 1991, p. 36), and a symbol of the island?s identity (Gibby, 2017, p. 203). Through such statements, we can see how the intrinsic value of Penang?s forested hillsides are central to the identity and well-being of many local people, which have generated wider awareness about the need for greater protection from the threat of development. Whilst Penang Hill is not included in the UNESCO World Heritage designation for George Town as a cultural heritage site, various architectural, historical, cultural and biophysical qualities of the Hill do correspond to many of the ten selection criteria, or ?outstanding universal values? (OUVs) used by UNESCO in evaluating and designating World Heritage Sites (UNESCO, 2005). For example, Criterion (ii) specifically refers to the ?interchange of human values over a span of time within a cultural area of the world on developments in architecture, town-planning or landscape design? (UNESCO, 2017). Others include criterion (v): ?an outstanding example of traditional human settlement?which is representative of?human interaction with the environment?. The omission of Penang Hill from the George Town World Heritage Site is arguably one reason why the Hill has been the focus of so many (re) development plans over the years. As such, various stakeholders in Penang have sought to secure UNESCO Biosphere listing for the Hill, which can conserve the conjoined cultural and natural heritage components of the site and limit future large-scale development. Penang Hill does, however, have stringent legislation regulating development on the site, which goes beyond the forest reserve designation for Penang?s other hills. In addition to designated Permanent Forest Reserve and Water Catchment Areas; the Hill is specifically mentioned in the Structure Plan for Penang Island (PSP), dating back to 1988. The section notes that ?Penang Hill should be designated as an area of special characteristics. Its natural vegetation, topography and character as a hill resort must be maintained and conserved and any development shall conform to, and not destroy these special characteristics? (Khor et al., 1991, p. 19). It goes on to note that the hill may be ?enhanced? by improving and increasing the various look-out points and the provision and maintenance of additional walkways, gardens and ?other facilities?. Moreover, a Local Plan for Penang Hill was gazetted in 1991, which seeks to promote the hill as a ?green, heritage destination? for ?nature and heritage tourism?, whilst taking into account the carrying capacity of the site, and development constraints (Netto, 2013). What Khor et al. (1991) find most significant about the built landscape of the Hill is the sensitive manner in which it was developed over the years. This refers not only to the limited number of bungalows and hotels on the Hill, but also the way in which these buildings were designed to blend in with the natural landscape as much as possible, and the absence of vehicular traffic (Gibby, 2017). This sensitive and slow-pace of development over the years has been recognised by locals as one of the major attractions of George Town as a whole - in that ?it has not really changed over the decades. Yet, as the next section will discuss, this valorisation of slow-paced development is not shared by local politicians who have been labelled ?development obsessed? (Nambiar, 2018; Netto, 2018; Ng, 2016), and have continued to promote large development projects on Penang Hill, despite seeking to promote its cultural and natural heritage attributes. 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia 74 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Penang Hill?s (re)development trajectories: from hill resort to transport hub, and back again In 1990, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the Penang State Government and Berjaya Corporation, announcing their intention to develop Penang Hill into an ?international tourist resort?, which caused unprecedented public controversy (Khor et al., 1991). This plan would have not only affected Penang Hill itself, but also the Municipal Youth Park and the Botanic Gardens at its foothills. The Youth Park was to be developed into a ?water world complex?, whilst a cable-car would be constructed to link Penang Hill with the Botanic Gardens (see Gibby, 2017). On the hill itself, the plan included an ?Acropolis? complex (consisting of a dome, planetarium, theatre, shopping, and sports centre); two large hotels; a condominium; forest lodge (with 300 units); and an ?Adventure Park? on Tiger Hill (consisting of a golf course, ?moon walk?, ?space shuttle?, ?haunted mansion? and ?shipwreck?) which would cover nearly the entire developable surface of the Hill (Khor et al., 1991). Given that Penang Island was completely forested upon the arrival of European settlers in 1786; two-thirds forested by 1900, and one-fifth forested in 1991, the Berjaya Plan was, as Mike Gibby (2017, p. 183) has remarked: ?the next logical step towards deforesting the Hill completely? (p. 183). Indeed, at the time of writing, only seven per cent of Penang State?s forests remain intact. This plan was eventually defeated by a campaign to ?Save Penang Hill?, which was ultimately successful due to the unprecedented levels of public engagement and support that it attracted (nearly 30,000 signatures) (Connolly, 2020). Nonetheless, redevelopment plans continued to be pursued by the State Government, including a cable car that was proposed to connect Penang Hill with the adjacent Youth Park and Botanical Gardens as a way of improving the efficiency of transport on the island. Whilst this plan was dismissed as ?unnecessary? in a 2001 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report commissioned for the Prime Minister?s Office, the plan again re-emerged in 2013 with an additional connection to the northwestern tip of Penang Island (WWF Malaysia, 2001). The cable car was declared by the Malaysia Tourism and Culture Minister as, ?not only a top priority in Penang but also for the country? and was included in the 11th Malaysia Plan (Hilmy, 2015). Whilst the cable car plan has been pursued to increase tourism revenues and improve transportation on the island, it has been consistently resisted due to its incompatibility with the Hill?s natural environment, and limited carrying capacity (Dermawan, 2017; Netto, 2013; Tan, 2013). Penang Hill is now managed by Penang Hill Corporation (PHC), formed in 2009, is a state-owned corporation directed largely by politicians. Penang Hill is touted by the Penang state government as a ?green, heritage destination?, and the recommended tourism theme for the hill as ?nature and heritage tourism?(Netto, 2013a). Penang Hill has thus become central to the Penang 2030 agenda in promoting Penang as a ?green and smart? state (Dermawan, 2021). Whilst the PHC has actively promoted conservation initiatives on the hill, it has also pursued large-scale development projects that seemingly threaten the cultural and ecological integrity of the area. For instance, the PHC?s website claims that the organisation was formed ?with the primary objectives of managing the funicular train system and the development of Penang Hill? (PHC, 2019). The website also describes the PHC?s success with attracting ?more and more tourists? up to Penang Hill, whilst many NGOs have argued that the government should be limiting the number of tourists. In February 2017, the PHC raised the idea of a cable car again, in a bid to increase tourism revenues and improve transportation on the island. In response to this announcement, Friends of Penang Hill representatives announced that they would embark on a ?Save Penang Hill 2.0? campaign if the state government continued to push the project (Dermawan, 2017). The group has consistently rejected the proposal due to its incompatibility with the hill?s natural environment and limited carrying capacity. For instance, the Penang advisor for the Malaysian Nature Society, Dr Kanda Kumar, argued that the construction of additional infrastructure on the hill would be unfeasible in light of the numerous landslides that occurred in 2017 (Loh et al, 2019). The project was then shelved, only to re-emerge again in 2019, with RM100m of funding awarded by then national Finance Minister (and former Chief Minister of Penang) Lim Guan Eng, which was later cancelled in early 2020. Nonetheless, in June 2020 a new plan for a RM300 million cable car line connecting Penang Hill to Teluk Bahang on Penang?s northwest coast was proposed. The project has been pursued by the Singapore listed resort developer Sim Leisure Group, which has been involved in discussions with the state government since 2015. The CEO of Sim Leisure, Sim Choo Kheng, claimed that his firm is against further development on the hill, and suggested that the hill could thrive as an attraction without the need for additional infrastructure. He implied that this is because the main selling point of the cable car ride would be ?the sense of riding through the air over untouched forests? (Loh, 2020). However, the project would involve the construction of two cable car stations, 20 pylons and a 10km-long maintenance road ? all of which would have significant impacts on the hill?s forest ecology. Regardless of Sim?s claim that ?the footprints of the pylons will be unbelievably small?, and that they would carefully preserve the forest floor, PHW argued that the project would inevitably fragment the forest and lead to soil erosion due to excavation and terracing (Penang Hills Watch, 2020b). This risk is particularly high given the steep terrain over which the cable car route would be constructed. Moreover, the Penang Forum, a coalition of NGOs in Penang, pointed out that the route would pass through two forest reserves and three important water catchments for Penang Island, threatening their ability to ensure sustained water yields. Finally, Penang civil society groups also asked for more public consultation in the planning procedures for the hill, rather than simply announcing plans after contracts have been signed with developers (Netto, 2013; Tan, 2013). For instance, when the Botanic Gardens?Penang Hill cable car plan was announced in June 2019, the budget allocation was provided by the federal government before a full technical and feasibility study was completed (Loh et al., 2019). 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 75 In addition to the cable car, the PHC in 2018 announced plans for two new hotels to be built on Penang Hill, claiming that these would ?blend in well with the environment?, and ?be compatible with the history and heritage of Penang Hill? (Tan, 2018). This announcement, however, was heavily criticized by NGOs, pointing out that the largest hotel on Penang Hill has only 12 rooms, whilst one of the proposed hotels will contain 200 (Tan, 2018). This would mean an additional 500?600 overnight guests (an increase of roughly 60 per cent) of its current population, which would immensely strain the hill?s already stretched resources. Consequently, an online petition to protest against the state government?s proposed hotel projects on Penang Hill surpassed 22,000 signatures within just six days of its launch (Mok, 2018). Whilst the Penang Forum would support the idea of refurbishing and repurposing some of the old government bungalows on Penang Hill, they stressed that the construction of new hotels there would ?mar the historic cultural landscape and turn Penang Hill into a warmer, over-developed and overcrowded resort? (Mok, 2018). Subsequently, the state government shelved the hotel idea, in order to achieve ?sustainable development? on the hill, and to preserve the hill as ?the state?s iconic heritage? (Mok, 2020). However, it is hard to see how this vision for the hill is reconciled with the simultaneous push to construct the cable car project. As Thompson et al. (2017) caution, eco-tourism strategies can thus result in serious failings with regards to heritage conservation if the local governance regimes are ineffective. Whilst there is strong legislation protecting the integrity of Penang?s hills (the PSP), this is largely not enforced by the government. This emphasises the need for the active role of local residents in co-directing the planning process and preserving important heritage landscapes (Caballero, 2016). Civil society members have pointed out that forested hills are Penang?s natural heritage and function as water catchments to provide water supply, prevent soil erosion, flooding and landslides (Mizrah, 2013). They also host a rich diversity of plant and animal species, and act as ?green lungs? for CO2 buffering, nature appreciation and outdoor recreation activities, which significantly influences the well-being of urban dwellers (Dwyer et al., 1992; Penang Forum, 2016). Thus, whilst Penang civil society members and many residents are not against development, they maintain that any future development on the Hill should be done in a sensitive manner which compliments its natural and cultural attributes (Gibby, 2017; Mok, 2016b). The Penang Hill Man and Biosphere Reserve In order to better protect and promote the natural and cultural heritage of Penang Hill, the Penang state government announced in October 2016 that it would seek UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Reserve designation for Penang Hill, which would grant the same level of protection as the George Town World Heritage Site (Ngui, 2016; The Star, 2016). Man and the Biosphere Reserves are described by UNESCO (2017) as ?learning sites for sustainable development?, which ?promote solutions reconciling the conservation of biodiversity with its sustainable use?. In this way, Biosphere Reserves recognise the coexistence and even interdependencies of rich biodiversity and distinct social landscapes (Cockrell and Cockrell, 2021). The Biosphere Reserve nomination was a joint effort initiated by the private sector and local biodiversity researchers, but also involved the PHC, State and federal governments. Some of the main characteristics of Biosphere Reserves include the integration of conservation and development, focusing on a multi- stakeholder approach that emphasises the involvement of local communities (Reed and Price, 2019). Importantly, they also seek to integrate cultural and biological diversity through sound sustainable development practices and policies and acting as sites of excellence for education and training. Penang Hill was awarded UNESCO Biosphere Reserve status on 15 September 2021, becoming the third site in Malaysia to receive the designation. In addition to Penang Hill, the Biosphere Reserve also encompasses the Botanical Gardens and Penang National Park to the northeast and northwest, respectively. Together, the area spans 12,481ha, with 7,285ha of this inland, and 5,196 ha marine (Lim, 2021; see Figure 2). The site is divided into three zones: a core, buffer and transition zone, and three ecosystems: forest, coastal and marine. The core zone measures 5,757ha, which consists of permanent forest reserves and water catchment areas and is where biodiversity conservation works, research and educational activities are carried out. The buffer zone covers 2,176ha and the transition zone spans 4,548ha (Habitat Foundation, 2018). The designation is expected to promote and support biodiversity research to be conducted on the hill, which will help to document and conserve the hill?s unique flora and fauna. Penang Hill is an ideal site for a Man and Biosphere Reserve, because the area integrates cultural and biological diversity at the landscape scale, and has the potential to develop and promote sustainable development practices and policies through the involvement of local communities, education and training. The Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve (PHBR) seeks to instil a deeper sense of appreciation to Penang?s natural environment and to generate awareness of the importance of conserving it (Lim, 2021). As Penang Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow stated, the aim is for the PHBR is to ?become a world-class learning site to explore and illustrate methods of conservation and sustainable development? (Lim, 2021). This is part of the ?innovative and green approaches? that the state government is using to achieve the Penang 2030 vision, in order to balance conservation with sustainable economic development (Lim, 2021). This will also help Penang in its long-term goal to become an international centre for research on sustainability, biodiversity and conservation (Free Malaysia Today, 2021). 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia 76 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Figure 2: A map of the Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve. Penang Hill is the area in yellow; Penang National Park is the area in white; the Botanic Gardens the area in red; blue areas are Water Catchments and dams; green areas are Permanent Forest Reserves. The map bottom left shows the situation within Penang State (source: adapted from Habitat Foundation, 2018). One of the key stakeholders involved in initiating and securing the Biosphere designation is the Habitat at Penang Hill, which is a private sector, eco-tourism based operation located near the hill?s Upper Station. The Habitat opened in 2016, and is involved in sustainable tourism, research, conservation and education, promoting the exploration of the hill?s intrinsic identity, unique features and attributes. The Habitat features a wide walking path, canopy walkway and zip line, which allow visitors to experience the natural environment of the summit area. It is also working with the state government to restore some of the heritage bungalows on the hill for community and scientific use. As such, the Habitat Foundation director Allen Tan noted, the Biosphere Reserve could create a new economic sector for the state, rather than concentrating on mass tourism and property investment. He also noted that the state government could also organise more scientific conferences and research programmes to help attract scientists to Penang (Mok, 2020). Various stakeholders have noted that this would also be a more sustainable form of development, whereby ?sustainable economic activities facilitate conservation efforts, and vice versa? whilst also requiring minimal capital investment (Chan, 2018; Gibby, 2017). As Head and Muir (2016) have noted, such forms of community action help to identify possibilities for transformative potential with regards to sustainable urban development. In particular, the Biosphere Reserve can help to promote a more sustainable development model based on the conservation of cultural and natural heritage rather than infrastructure and property development. However, civil society groups are cautiously optimistic, noting the challenges that George Town has faced in managing rampant gentrification and development following the UNESCO World Heritage designation in 2008, and the degradation of the Tasik Chini Biosphere Reserve in Pahang, Malaysia (Yeoh, 2021). There is also the threat posed by the cable car project, which is likely to go ahead. The Penang State Government justified the cable car project, noting that ?many nature reserves and even UNESCO World Heritage Sites? had successfully implemented them, labelling it an ?environmentally sustainable transport? system (Dermawan, 2021). This is seen to be integral to redistributing traffic during peak seasons and facilitating increased tourism on the hill. Indeed, the Penang Hill Special Area Plan (2020) targets an increased capacity for Penang Hill of more than three times the average number of visitors at any one time recorded in 2019. Furthermore, the state government proposed in the 2020 Special Area Plan for Penang Hill to redevelop the summit area of the hill, with a new four-storey hillside café, and a large concrete helipad jutting off the side of the cliff, all of which would harm the ambiance and ?heritage views? of the summit area (Penang Forum, 2021). Of even more concern is the PIL1 highway project planned as part of the PTMP, which would tunnel through 10km of Penang?s hills, with the addition of a bridge over the Penang Hill Railway. As a former 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 77 senior UNESCO advisor familiar with Penang has claimed, this would be ?clearly incompatible? with the Biosphere designation, and ?in fact, seemed purposely designed to undermine and scuttle this conservation initiative? (quoted in Netto, 2018). Yet, it is unclear whether the cable car or PIL1 projects were included in the nomination documents for the PHBR or how these were viewed by UNESCO. As such, whilst the state government has played an important role in securing the Biosphere Reserve nomination, it can be argued that this is being done largely for the purposes of promoting Penang and Penang Hill internationally, and enhancing the state?s ?green and smart? agenda. For instance, the general manager of PHC was quoted as saying that the Biosphere Reserve project would help to attract up to 13,000 people up to Penang Hill simultaneously, which is far beyond the 4,000 deemed feasible by the WWF Report on Penang Hill and the 6,463 stated in the Penang Hill Special Area Plan (Chern, 2018). The PHC?s promotion of Penang Hill as a ?green, heritage designation?, and a place where visitors can ?see the nature, feel the history? is therefore little more than a green- washing strategy intended to promote ecotourism and perhaps appease civil society groups (PHC, 2019). Conclusion The controversies over the future of Penang Hill have shed light on the challenges - but also the potentials - at stake in the conservation of urban heritage. Whilst heritage conservation in the past has been hampered by rigid binaries of cultural/natural, tangible/intangible and urban/rural, the case of Penang illustrates how such binaries might be overcome. This is seen in the way in which heritage NGOs and activists in Penang have become increasingly concerned with emerging threats to the natural environment, and how these are negatively impacting Penang?s rich heritage assets, which are seen as central to Penangites? sense of place and well-being (see Connolly, 2022). In conceptualizing these relationships, it is important to understand urban heritage landscapes as simultaneously cultural and natural, urban, and rural. This is especially important in order to develop and maintain landscapes that foster progressive relations with the natural world, which can only be achieved through conservation approaches and forms of urban development which take seriously the integrated cultural and natural character of urban ecosystems (DeSilvey, 2017). In this way, as Matthew Gandy (2018: 102) has observed, cities can play a dual role in the protection of bio-diversity: ?first, through the provision of a kind of ecological sanctuary for flora and fauna; and second, by enabling the exploration of different socio-ecological interactions that might ultimately be ?scaled up? towards new forms of global environmental politics?. Yet, as Wilson (1991) has argued, constructing forms of urban heritage conservation that are able to connect cultural and natural aspects of the landscape ?must begin with understanding the process of contemporary land development? and everyday experiences of it (p.16). This can help to identify the pressures on particular ecosystems - such as the Penang Hill cable car and highway developments - and how the various (urban, cultural and natural) components can be integrated in a sustainable manner. The Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve is one outcome of this process, which has been developed through the joint efforts of various stakeholders. However, the ultimate success of the Biosphere nomination for Penang Hill and adjacent areas will require active support and management of government agencies, including the (government-led) Penang Hill Corporation. Given the commercial and mass-tourism focused means by which the PHC has promoted the hill and - to some extent - the Biosphere Reserve, there seems to be an incompatibility between the motivation of the local government and the aims of the Man and the Biosphere Programme and other stakeholders. As such, the future of Penang Hill will depend on greater synergies between stakeholders and genuine commitment to the preservation of the natural environment and the livelihoods and well-being of those who depend upon it. It will also require a more sustainable approach to urban development in Penang that respects the conjoined natural and cultural heritages of Penang Hill and surrounding landscapes. As Matthew Gandy (2018: 104) has observed, ?if the future of the biosphere is to be deliberated over in an increasingly urban context the question of what is worth protecting, on what grounds, and over what scale ...will be an inescapable dimension to public culture?. References Aiken, S. R. (1987). Early Penang Hill Station. Geographical Review, 77(4), 421?439. https://doi.org/10.2307/214282 Bandarin, F., & van Oers, R. (2012). The historic urban landscape: managing heritage in an urban century. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119968115 Barber, L. B. (2013). Making meaning of heritage landscapes: The politics of redevelopment in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien, 57, 90?112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00452.x Bengston, D. N., & Youn, Y.-C. (2006). Urban Containment Policies and the Protection of Natural Areas: The Case of Seoul?s Greenbelt. Ecology & Society, 11, 3?18.https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01504-110103 Berger, A. A. (1997). Narratives in popular culture, media and everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243344 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Biosphere Reserve pitch for Penang Hill. The Star. (October 6, 2016). https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/10/06/biosphere-reserve-pitch-for-penang-hill/ Caballero, G. V. A. (2016). The role of natural resources in the historic urban landscape approach. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 6, 2?13. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-11-2014-0037 Cartier, C. (1998). Megadevelopment in Malaysia: From Heritage Landscapes to ?Leisurescapes? in Melaka?s Tourism Sector. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 19(2), 151?176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9493.1998.tb00257.x Chacko RP (2021) What you need to know about the Replacement Penang Hill Special Area Plan 2020. In: Aliran. Available at: https://m.aliran.com/web-specials/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-replacement-penang-hill-special-area-plan-2020/ (accessed 20 September 2021). Chan, T. (2018). Penang Hill?s 2018 bid for Unesco status boosted by findings of world?s first whole-forest biodiversity survey. South China Morning Post.https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/travel-leisure/article/2124782/penang-hills-2018-bid-unesco-status- boosted-findings-worlds. Accessed May 20, 2019. Chern, L.T. (2018). Out to maintain island?s beauty: Penang Hill and surrounding areas inchtowards Unesco reserve status. The Star.https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/07/22/out-to-maintain-islands-beauty-penang-hill-and-surrounding-areas- inch-towards-unesco-reserve-status/. Accessed May20, 2019. Chow, M. D. (2018a.). Final stage reached for Penang Hill Unesco listing attempt. Free Malaysia Today. https://www. freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/08/03/final-stage-reached-for-penang-hill-unesco-listing-attempt. Accessed February 10, 2020. Chow, M. D. (2018b). Rushing to get Penang Hill listed as a Unesco Biosphere Reserve. Free Malaysia Today. https://www. freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/07/21/rushing-to-get-penang-hill-listed-as-a-unesco-biosphere-reserve/. Accessed May 20, 2019. Cloke, P., & Jones, O. (2001). Dwelling, Place, and Landscape: An Orchard in Somerset. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 33(4), 649?666. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3383 Cockrell HA and Cockrell RA (2021) Designation of the Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO: a fitting recognition of the unique natural and cultural heritage of Penang Island and its people. Available at: https://www.tourism.gov.my/news/trade/view/ designation-of-the-penang-hill-biosphere-reserve-by-unesco-a-fitting-recognition-of-the-unique-natural-and-cultural-heritage-of- penang-island-and-its-people (accessed 19 September 2021). Connolly, C. (2019). From resilience to multi-species flourishing: (Re)imagining urban-environmental governance in Penang, Malaysia. Urban Studies.https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018807573 Connolly, C. (2020). Urban Political Ecologies of Heritage: Integrating Cultural and Natural Landscapes in Penang, Malaysia. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 45(1): 168-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12335 Connolly C (2022) Political Ecologies of Landscape Governing Urban Transformations in Penang. Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press. Daly, P. & Winter, T. (Eds.). (2012). Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203156001 Dermawan, A. (2016). Group launches Penang Hills Watch site to monitor hill clearing activities. New Straits Times. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2016/10/184600/group-launches-penang-hills-watch-site-monitor-hill-clearing-activities Dermawan, A. (2017). People will ?Save Penang Hill, again?. New Straits Times. http://www.nst.com.my/news/2017/02/209515/people-will-save-penang-hill-again Dermawan A (2021b) RFP for Penang Hill cable car project open from Wednesday till May 24. Available at: https://www.nst.com. my/news/nation/2021/01/656413/rfp-penang-hill-cable-car-project-open-wednesday-till-may-24 (accessed 20 September 2021). DeSilvey, C. (2017). Curated Decay: Heritage Beyond Saving. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Dwyer, J. F., McPherson, G., Schroeder, H. W., et al. (1992). Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. Journal of Aboriculture, 18(5), 227?235. https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1992.045 Free Malaysia Today (FMT) (2021) Penang Hill?s Unesco recognition boosts our green efforts, says CM. 16 September. Available at: https://bit.ly/3lVmC4F (accessed 19 September 2021). Gandy M (2018) Cities in deep time: Bio-diversity, metabolic rift, and the urban question. City, 22(1): 96?105. Gibby, M. (2017). Penang Hill - A Journey Through Time. Penang: Entrepot Publishing. Habitat Foundation T. (2018). The proposed Penang Hill UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve ? The Habitat Foundation. Accessed February 10, 2020. 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 79 Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw25q Head, L. & Muir, P. (2006). Suburban life and the boundaries of nature: resilience and rupture in Australian backyard gardens. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31(4), 505?524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00228.x Heynen, N., Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (2006). Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism. In N. Heynen, M. Kaika, & Swyngedouw, E. (Eds.), In the Nature of Cities. (pp. 1?21). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203027523 Hilmy, I. (2015). Proposed cable car project will benefit Penang. The Sun Daily. http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1405592 International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (2016). ICOMOS & IUCN Partner on Nature-Culture Journey at the World Conservation Congress 2016. http://www.icomos.org/en/178-english-categories/news/5760-icomos-iucn-partner-on- nature-culture-journey-at-the-world-conservation-congress-2016 Ishizawa, M. (2014). About the Conservation of Cultural Landscapes: Sustainability or Unviability? Unpublished PhD Thesis. Brandemburg University of Technology, Cottbus. Ishizawa, M. (2017). Landscape change in the terraces of Ollantaytambo, Peru: an emergent mountain landscape between the urban, rural and protected area. Landscape Research, 42(3), 321?333. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1267132 Jenkins, G., & King, V. T. (2003). Heritage and development in a Malaysian city: George Town under threat? Indonesia and the Malay World, 31(89), 44?57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639810304441 Jim, C. Y. (2005). Monitoring the performance and decline of heritage trees in urban Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management, 74(2), 161?172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.08.014 Jones, O., & Cloke, P. J. (2002). Tree cultures: the place of trees and trees in their place. Oxford; New York: Berg. Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (2011). The Urbanization of Nature: Great Promises, Impasse, and New Beginnings. In G. Bridge & S. Watson (Eds.), The New Blackwell Companion to the City (pp. 106?117). Malden, MA: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444395105.ch9 Khor, M., & Friends of Penang Hill (Eds.). (1991). Penang Hill: the need to save our natural heritage: critique of the proposed development and alternative plan. Penang, Malaysia: Friends of Penang Hill. King, V. T. (Ed.). (2016). World Heritage in Southeast Asia: Issues, Prospects and Problems. In UNESCO in Southeast Asia: World Heritage sites in comparative perspective (pp. 1?30). Copenhagen: NIAS Press. https://doi.org/10.26721/spafajournal.v1i0.165 Lim R (2021) Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve is nation?s latest on Unesco conservation list. Available at: https://www.thestar.com. my/news/nation/2021/09/16/penang-hill-biosphere-reserve-is-nations-latest-on-unesco-conservation-list (accessed 19 September 2021). Logan, W. (2012). The disappearing ?Asian? city: protecting Asia?s urban heritage in a globalizing world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Looi, S.-C. (2017, October 23). We?ll kick you out, groups warn Penang govt over hillside development. The Malaysian Insight. October 23, 2017. https://www.themalaysianinsight.com/s/19639/ Lorimer, J. (2008). Living roofs and brownfield wildlife: towards a fluid biogeography of UK nature conservation. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 40(9), 2042?2060. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39261 Mizrah, R. (2013, December 11). Rexy?s thoughts: Penang Hill Special Area Plan (SAP). RexyMizra. https://rexymizrah.wordpress.com/tag/teluk-bahang/ Mok, O. (2016a, October 26). Massive projects in place to alleviate urbanisation in Penang. The Malay Mail. http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/massive-projects-in-place-to-alleviate-urbanisation-in-penang Mok, O. (2016b, November 17). State Opposition leader questions planned development for Penang Hill. The Malay Mail. http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/state-opposition-leader-questions-planned-development-for-penang-hill Mok O (2018, November 21) Online petition to Save Penang Hill tops 22,000 backers. Malay Mail. Available at: https://www. malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2018/11/21/online-petition-to-save-penang-hill-tops-22000-backers/1695606 Mok O (2020, October 5) Penang applies to Unesco for Penang Hill Biosphere Reserve recognition. Malay Mail Available at: https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2020/10/05/penang-applies-to-unesco-for-penang-hill-biosphere-reserve- recognition/1909566. Nambiar, P. (2018, November 16). Chow: If HK Had to take advice of Penang NGOs, it would still be backward. FMT News. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/11/16/chow-if-hk-had-to-take-advice-of-penang-ngos-it-will-still-be- backward/ 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Netto, A. (2013, November 14). Cable cars will push Penang Hill visitors beyond 10,000/day threshold. Anilnetto.com. http://anilnetto.com/economy/development-issues/cable-car-proposal-added-on-to-penang-hill-draft-special-area-plan/. Netto, A. (2018, September 18). Penang?s monster highway: Yeo Bee Yin?s biggest test. Anilnetto.com. https://anilnetto.com/ economy/development-issues/penangs-monster-highway-yeo-bee-yins-biggest-test/. Accessed September 22, 2018. Neo, H. (2007). Challenging the developmental state: Nature conservation in Singapore. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 48(2), 186?199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2007.00340.x. Ngui, A. (2016, October 5). Efforts to get Penang Hill listed as a Unesco Biosphere Reserve. The Sun Daily. http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1992843. Penang Forum. (2016). Penang Forum launches Penang Hills Watch online crowd-sourcing, mapping initiative. https://penangforum.net/2016/10/31/penang-forum-launches-penang-hills-watch-online-crowd-sourcing-mapping-initiative/ Penang Forum (2021) The Draft Penang Hill Special Area Plan: What you need to know. Penang, Malaysia. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/events/451335555873895/ (accessed 20 September 2021). Penang Hill Corporation (PHC). (2019). About Us. https://corporate.penanghill.gov.my/index.php/en/. Reed, M. G., & Price, M. F. (2019). Introducing UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. In Reed, M.G. & Price M.F. (Eds.) Unesco biosphere reserves: Supporting biocultural diversity, sustainability and society. (pp. 1-10). Taylor & Francis Group. Pp. 1-10. Speechley, S.-T. (2014). Penang?s Heritage Wealth Goes Way Beyond the UNESCO Site. Penang Monthly, January. http://penangmonthly.com/penangs-heritage-wealth-goes-way-beyond-the-unesco-site/. Tan, S. C. (2018, November 21). Penang Hill Projects to go ahead. The Star. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/ nation/2018/11/21/penang-hill-hotel-projects-to-go-ahead-phc-two-lodging-facilities-to-be-built-on-dilapidated-buildin/. Tan, S. H. (2013, October 7). So where is the Penang Local Plan? ? Letters. The Star. http://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2013/10/07/so-where-is-the-penang-local-plan/ Thompson, B. S., Gillen, J., & Friess, D. A. (2018). Challenging the principles of ecotourism: insights from entrepreneurs on environmental and economic sustainability in Langkawi, Malaysia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(2), 257?276. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1343338 UNESCO, W. H. C. (2005). The Criteria for Selection. http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/. UNESCO, W.H.C. (2017). Biosphere Reserves. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/ Wilson, A. (1991). The culture of nature North American landscape from Disney to the Exxon Valdez. Toronto: Between the Lines. Winter, T., & Daly, P. (2012). Heritage in Asia: Converging forces, conflicting values. In P. Daly & T. Winter (Eds.), Routledge handbook of heritage in Asia. New York: Routledge. WWF Malaysia. (2001). Study on the Development of Hill Stations (pp. 1?168). Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister?s Department. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/26736923/wwfm-hill-stations-study-vol2-2001pdf-sdn-bhd-wwf-malaysia. Yeoh R (2021) Unesco listing great, but don?t let Penang Hill devolve like Tasik Chini: experts. Available at: https://www.thevibes. com/articles/news/41794/unesco-listing-is-great-but-dont-let-penang-hill-devolve-like-tasik-chini-experts (accessed 19 September 2021). 8. ?Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia Cordillera Azul National Park: integrated landscape management under a participatory model for the conservation of nature and its benefits Tatiana Z. Pequeño Saco and Patricia I. Fernández ? Dávila Messum and Lily O. Rodriguez, Centro de Conservación, Investigación y Manejo de Áreas Naturales ? Cordillera Azul CIMA ? Cordillera Azul 9 Laguna del mundo perdido, foto Alvaro Del Camp 82 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Abstract The integrated management of Cordillera Azul National Park presents a great challenge for CIMA, as it is a 20-year administration contract with SERNANP, the Peruvian park authority. The situation is further aggravated in the context of climate change where its ecosystems -mainly those with great anthropic influence in the park?s buffer zone- face a tendency to become increasingly dryer due to water stress. Cordillera Azul shelters intact montane forests is a key biodiversity area, where new species are discovered every year, acting also as an important carbon reservoir, generating a REDD megaproject that has managed to reduce emissions by more than 36.6 million tons of CO2 from 2008-2020. The buffer zone is a mosaic of landscapes with different degrees of use and historically one of the most threatened by forests? loss due to constant migration. CIMA works on processes that promote participatory land-use planning and strengthening of local governance to reduce and mitigate the drivers of biodiversity loss. Processes include mapping territory uses and potentialities for sustainable management, conservation commitments to support park conservation, mitigation of threats and ecological landscape restoration, in order to contribute to improving rural quality of life. By bridging distant villages and rural areas with municipal and regional governments, CIMA is promoting environmental sensitivity, integrated governance, and participatory engagement in an urban ? rural context. Introduction Geographical location, scale of the project and types of ecosystems The Cordillera Azul National Park (PNCAZ) is located in the heart of the Amazon Andes, with 1,351,190.85 hectares making it the largest protected area in Peruvian Amazonian mountains; covering from cloud forests to the Amazon plain (2,650 to 200 masl), with a wealth of endemic and threatened species, it hosts healthy populations of large mammals included in Red Lists (IUCN/CITES) (Alverson et al, 2001), and new species adding every year (O?Neill et al., 2000; Weber & Montoya-Burgos, 2002; Lujan et al., 2010; Cusi et al., 2017; Lane et al., 2017; Moncrief et al., 2018; Castillo-Urbina et al, 2021; Vasquez & Valenzuela, 2022; Gonzales et al, 2023). It is protecting a wide range of unique habitats and important headwaters securing the provision to thousands of people. The integrated management of the Cordillera Azul is carried out following UNESCO?s concept of biosphere reserve1. The core area corresponds to the PNCAZ, whilst its buffer zone consists of a large mosaic of different degrees of land uses. The buffer zone has as natural limits the Huallaga and Ucayali rivers, distributed in part of San Martín, Loreto, Huánuco and Ucayali departments. The Park and CIMA offices are located in the main urban cities of Tarapoto, Tocache, Contamana and Aguaytía all of them outside the buffer zone (Figure 1). The PNCAZ and its buffer zone comprise 21 unique structural habitats (INRENA, 2006) distinguished by differences in underlying geology, soils, hydrology and vegetation; and grouped into five types of forests (CIMA, 2012) for a simpler description: ? Alluvial Forests, with typical successional species (Gynerium, Cecropia, Guazuma, Triplaris, Acacia), Ficus and Cedrela, as well as a palm-dominated understory; swampy habitats dominate open areas; large number of fruiting species in alluvial and terrace forests attract ungulates. ? Hill Forests, includes low, medium, and high hill forests and eroded red hills, from 400 to 800 masl. Cedar (Cedrelinga) forests, up-hills with morning mists and regular cloud cover, maintains high diversity of epiphytes, ferns; also palm dominated understory. Eroded red and white hills have steep slopes and exposed rocks as a result of landslides. ? Mountain Forests, (from 800 to 2300masl or more) include mountain, stunted and cloud forests with arborescent ferns (Metaxya), trees and palms. Highest elevations with superficial root systems form spongy, humid carpets on acidic soils, poor in woody species but rich in epiphytes, palms, and herbs. Tall mountain forests in Cushabatay headwaters are a rare habitat sheltering several endemic species. ? Wetlands, with Mauritia palm stands and species associated like Eritrina poeppigiana, Ficus insipida, Ficus maxima, and Acacia loretensis. ? Huallaga Dry Forest, in the buffer zone, with 700-1600mm of annual rainfall; this isolated forest with high endemism is strongly threatened by its proximity to Marginal highway. It is the only place in Peru for Erythoxylum lucidum, E. shatona (?Coca? genus), Mosannona raymondi, Croton glabellus. Important trees are Manilkara bidentate and Schinopsis peruviana. Context The Park was established by the Peruvian government in 2001 to protect a unique assemblage of species, biological communities and geological formations from the Cordillera Azul complex, intact headwaters and basins, and to support an integrated and balanced management of the natural resources of adjacent areas (DS-2001-AG). 1 https://www.unesco.org/en/mab/wnbr/about Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 83 Figure 1. Altitudinal map and location of Cordillera Azul N.P. (Source: CIMA) There are no human settlements within the park, but its 23,034.14 sq Kms of buffer zone (995Km perimeter) houses more than 330K people (510 villages), doubling the number since the park establishment, and including indigenous communities (Kichwas, Yine, Shipibo and Kacataibo) and isolated Kacataibo groups between park and buffer zone. Most of the villages closest to the park have fewer than 300 people, and less than a dozen, within the buffer zone, attaining 5000 people. CIMA works since 2002 supporting the Peruvian authority in managing the PNCAZ, currently Servicio Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado Peruano-SERNANP; since 2008, the PNCAZ?s management is carried out under a public-private co- management scheme, through an Administration Contract that CIMA has with the Peruvian State over 20 years (Figure 2). The main financial mechanism for the contract is a REDD+ project that has generated the largest amount of carbon credits-VCU in protected areas in Peru. With the sales of the VCUs, a financial sustainability fund for the park has been established. Other ecosystem services provided by Cordillera Azul forests are: provision of water in quantity and quality by protecting the headwaters of some 45 watersheds (INRENA, 2006), supply of non-timber forest resources as a source of protein and non-timber plant resources (Gavin, 2004, 2006; Klebelsberg, 2005; Sánchez, 2006; Sánchez & Vásquez, 2007; Meyer, 2006; La Torre-Cuadros, 2011), breeding and nesting areas for several aquatic species (Martinez, 2007), control of erosion, contribution to the pollination of crops such as cocoa and coffee (Howe, 2017). 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park 84 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Figure 2. Complexity of PNCAZ co-management, including threats management and complementary roles. (Source: Cordillera Azul National Park (CIMA 2012)) CIMA coordinates with rural communities located closer to the park, with participative (Martínez, 2009) and adaptive management (Pequeño, 2007); striving to implement conservation processes and sustainable land-use management. Community?s conservation agreements, and not only with organisations, strengths the relationship and cooperation with CIMA and the park (Arenas et al, 2019). Linking these areas with urban areas is made by coordinating with municipal and regional governments, including the national level, ensuring the application of ecosystem approach principles (Pequeño & Fernández-Dávila, 2014) incorporating a gradient of spatial scales, from rural to urban scope also, CIMA applies its intervention model with the aim to Strengthen Local Capabilities for Conservation-FOCAL, linking participatory diagnostic processes with the generation of communal norms and strategic planning. CIMA?s efforts seek to ensure the conservation of PNCAZ and contribute to improving the quality of life of its neighbouring peoples. Reason for action The buffer zone is a mosaic of landscapes under different degrees of use and is historically one of the most threatened areas due to constant migration, land trafficking, road construction, disordered expansion of agriculture by waves of licit and illicit crops and scarce authority present in the area (Holland et al. 2016, Rojas et al. 2019). The occidental valleys outside the park, the Huallaga valley, have endured deforestation since the 70?s, affecting also quality and quantity of water supply (Shanee & Shanee, 2016). Ther is also a risk of adverse impacts to local crops, as well as the loss of productive capacity of soils, reducing opportunities for sustainable development but increasing conflicts over the space occupation and natural resources (Holland et al, 2016). Methods, governance context and process In the buffer zone, as part of the FOCAL model of intervention (CIMA, 2013a), CIMA has been implementing with local communities, sequential strategic planning processes (Figure 3): a) Formal and non-formal environmental education for environmental awareness, based on total participation, inclusion, logical sequencing, and updated knowledge; carried out from the beginning, in continuous and transversal ways to the subsequent moments of the FOCAL; applied at the rural and urban level; b) Socio-economic and physical-environmental diagnosis applying Mapping of Uses and Strengths-MUF for social diagnosis, and Communal Participatory Zoning- ZPC for land use zoning (Llactayo, 2008); c) Building rules of coexistence that favours harmonious coexistence, ordered occupation and use of the territory, promotion of communal identity, respect for agreements and full exercise of rights and duties of the inhabitants of a village (CIMA, 2014b); d) Communal strategic planning by Quality-of-Life Plans (QLP), based on the construction of a long-term communal vision with a lens on political, economic, social, cultural and natural aspects that will allow rural populations to improve their quality of life (CIMA, 2014c). Complementary Roles P Participatory Management (Conservation Agreements) Neighbors PNCAZ Local authorities Private sector Diagnosis of actors, mapping of uses and potentials in prioritized sectors (in areas with > vulnerability) Population, entrepreneurs, etc. Local authorities Economic Deforestation Park & buffer zone Overuse of Resources (effects per activity) Unsustainable harvesting 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 85 Figure 3. Graphical description of CIMA?s intervention strategy, FOCAL. Each number corresponds to different tools: (1) formal and non-formal environmental education, (2) mapping resources and people strengths (MUF); (3) participatory land-use planning (ZPC); (4) community coexistence rules; (5) life quality plans and implementation; (6) monitoring. (Source: CIMA, 2013a) Up to this point of the FOCAL process, activities of CIMA provide the conditions for figure orderly, sustainable and compatible development with environmental conservation, as well as contributing to achieve results with SERNANP (CIMA, 2017). FOCAL is consolidated with: a) Implementation of QLP where CIMA has a promoter and articulator role with municipal and regional authorities, whilst also providing technical support to rural areas. b) Blue agreements are communal conservation agreements that aim to consolidate the joint work between CIMA, municipal authorities and rural populations around Cordillera Azul. (Arenas et al. 2019). c) Impact monitoring considering the progress to the improvement of the quality of life of the populations and the protection of the park (Pequeño, 2007). Other processes developed with the neighbouring populations to the park and that may occur outside the framework of FOCAL are: ? Organisational Technical-Productive Strengthening (FOTP), with local grassroot organisations (cooperatives, committees, associations, producers, etc.) to generate strategic alliances. ? Communal support for PNCAZ?s protection with communal park guards, rondas campesinas and self-defence committees. ? Technical and legal support to Local Conservation Initiatives evaluating/enabling feasibility and strengthening their management. ? All these actions strengthen the environmental governance that underpins the orderly use of the territory and other natural resources. Outcomes and results Strengthening environmental processes: natural capital Effective control and surveillance system have been consolidated around the park, thanks to the joint work between CIMA and SERNANP including local organisations, authorities, and communities. The rangers and CIMA?s team jointly control and monitor the PNCAZ on the ground with the support of local communities and in buffer zone with the rondas campesinas. CIMA contributes to generate conditions for PNCAZ to remain free of activities such as logging or agriculture, that would degrade its ecological integrity. Surveillance and control of the park boundaries, monitoring and control strategies; hiring and training of 67 SERNANP?s rangers, communal rangers, well-connected 22 control posts, and concentrated operations in areas with heightened conservation threat risks. CIMA also facilitates constant satellite monitoring SERNANP legal actions in major cities where authorities are located (i.e., prosecutor?s office, police, etc.) to prevent and act timely against any illegal activities. E N V IR O N M E N TA L E D U C A T IO N A N D J O IN T R E FL E C T IO N 3 Institutional strengthening of 86 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Compatible and traditional use of resources (hunting and fishing) are allowed within the park; this was ensured according to the PNCAZ-zoning and rules of use since the first Master Plan (2004), established by consensus with neighbouring communities. CIMA facilitates processes of participatory land-use zoning among the closest villages to the park, which enables conflict resolution (i.e. boundaries definition between villages, forestry concessions, etc.), prevent and reduce environmental risks (i.e. avoid settlements in areas of landslides or floods) and avoid the degradation of areas defined for protection (Rodriguez et al., 2018). In the buffer zone, 24 villages and native communities (117,066 ha), grouped in nine landscapes, developed participative ZPC processes, with CIMA?s technical support and backed by Municipalities and the Ministry of the Environment-MINAM. Part of the buffer zone of 81,123 hectares is a conservation concession from CIMA to protect the park on its narrower area. And at least 8 small local forest on the Huallaga side (~ 2,200 has) protect remnant communal forest. Furthermore, since 2018 CIMA develops landscape ecological restoration pilot projects in four degraded areas of the buffer zone (Secretariat CBD, 2021). To date, PNCAZ continues to maintain the lowest rate of deforestation within the National System of Natural Protected Areas. It has benefited from the support of neighbouring towns who recognise the benefits the forest has to offer. Respect and consideration for ancestral and indigenous culture: cultural capital The internal zoning of PNCAZ contains a Strict Protection Zone, on sites with references to presence and displacement of uncontacted Kakataibo indigenous people, consistent with precautionary principle, applied to prevent any violation of human rights. CIMA generated a Contingency Plan for possible encounters with these vulnerable populations, developing technical and popular versions for local dissemination. This document was based on work developed jointly with native communities, and participation of indigenous federations; it has served as a base for the Ministry of Culture-MINCU with whom the strategy was shared. CIMA continues to coordinate with MINCU, helping to establish the Kacataibo Territorial Reserve next to the Park (~90,000 has) and is currently a member of its governance body. Strengthening processes in community decision-making: socio-political and economic capital CIMA has been fundamental in connecting distant rural populations to local authorities in the urban areas. Projects of infrastructure (drinking water and sanitation, river defense, road improvement, electricity, signaling and interpretation, schools, etc.) and the mechanisms (public or private inversion) for its upkeeping have been implemented. These projects were part of the development of Action Plans of their QLP, applying new technical skills in resource and project management and governance, to implement their communal priorities. Around 5,942 families -from associations or communal institutions in 70 villages or indigenous communities- have benefited from CIMA support to acmber harvesting. More than 250 women are actively participating in formal associations, strengthened and supported by CIMA: Handicraft Association Kari Isa Xanu, several Mother?s Club (Virgen de las Mercedes, Virgen del Carmen, Las Samaritanas, Sarita Colonia), and several Education Institutions. Economic valuation of PNCAZ?s ecosystem services: conservation insertion in market CIMA worked tirelessly to promote the development and implementation of the Cordillera Azul Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) project, in order to contribute to the financial sustainability of the park (CIMA, 2012, 2013b, 2018; SERNANP?WWF?GIZ-IT, 2014). A milestone occurred at the end of 2014, when CIMA achieved consolidation of the Cordillera Azul REDD Project, creating an alliance with the Althelia Climate Fund (ACF). Bringing along renowned international financial institutions, by committing an investment of almost 11M USD for the period 2015-2018 through a loan contract, this was a substantive new figure for financing conservation. This operation committed more than 8M carbon credits as collateral, to finance park operations and to promote and implement sustainable economic activities in the buffer zone. The agreement between CIMA and Althelia was recognised as historic, being the largest transaction of its type in the region. However, until 2019, demand and prices were very low (Michaelowa et al, 2019); it is only from 2019 that large quantities could be marketed to international companies, mainly in the oil industry. These sells generated surpluses for the establishment of the fund for the PNCAZ. The PNCAZ REDD+ project prevents the deforestation in average of 6,800 hectares per year and has generated the largest amount of carbon credits-VCU in protected areas in Peru, with a total of 36,612,043 tCO2 verified with carbon standards VCS and CCB, within 2008-2020 (CIMA, 2023). Around 31M VCUs were successfully traded in the voluntary market up to 2023. With the revenues, owned by the park, a under the management of the Fondo de promoción de las áreas naturales protegidas (PROFONANPE). Before 2014, partners such as USAID, Moore Foundation, MacArthur Foundation and others have secured the conservation and protection of the park (see figure 4). 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 87 Figure 4. Evolution of the financing sources of PNCAZ 2001-2022 (source: CIMA). Application of highest quality standards The PNCAZ REDD+ project went through a long process of design and accreditation according to two of the highest international standards under VERRA (https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/985): ? Verified Carbon Standard-VCS: assures the quality of projects, quantifies emissions of greenhouse gases reduced and the attributes of the conservation project. http://www.v-c-s.org ? Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard-CCB: ensures that projects mitigate climate change, and contribute to sustainable development of rural populations, highlighting biodiversity conservation; PNCAZ have the Gold Level. http://www.climate-standards.org Furthermore, PNCAZ was recognised by IUCN Green List, as an area-based conservation effectively managed and fairly governed https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/our-work/iucn-green-list-protected-and-conserved-areas/iucn-green-list-areas Discussion Urban and rural linkages Two main relationships exist between the communities and the urban areas: education and the market economy. Many villages do not have high-schools and need to send students to bigger villages or cities ? for universities or for technical studies. This migration to the city from the youth, does not help to stabilize agricultural frontier and may pose challenges in the future. CIMA has promoted environmental responsibility from urban and rural population. By bridging distant populations to public responsibilities, but also by awareness communication and environmental education tools in the neighbouring cities. This enables urban citizens to value conservation and sustainable use of natural landscapes provided by adequate territory management. For instance, by recognising the benefits produced by headwater protection transcend rural sites in the buffer zone, since it feeds main rivers (Ucayali and Huallaga) of the Amazon basin. The conservation of natural landscapes represents a potential for research, recreation, and tourism. Moreover, it constitutes an element of proud as natural heritage of nation and global importance (KBI). Conservation of forests ensures regional climatic stability (CIMA, 2013b, 2017), contributing to national and global reduction of GHG and mitigation of global climate change. Strengthening processes in community decision-making achievements: socio-political capital People from 145 villages have improved planning processes and received environmental education and 57 villages and native communities developed the complete FOCAL process, applying their QLP based on their land-use zoning and coexistence rules, and have exchanged their experiences with neighbours. 0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Fuentes de Financiamiento PNCAZ en US$ CIMA SERNANP Cooperacion Española MacArthur Foundation Moore Foundation 88 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Nevertheless, even when CIMA based its approach on the full scope of community life quality, deforestation has occurred in one side of the buffer zone, attesting for the need to much larger efforts to combat the diversity of indirect causes acting in the territory for deforestation and account for the socio-ecological complexity involved (Rodríguez et al., 2018; Ravikumar, 2017). These processes are long-term and require strong commitment from rural communities as well as authorities at various levels (local and regional) where the fundamental role of CIMA is to ensure this territorial participation. Lesson learnt Integral approach CIMA?s PNCAZ management bases its success on its integrated approach, taking the park as core for protection, with an intense work with the populations and corresponding local, municipal, and regional authorities from the buffer zone. Greater emphasis is placed on villages and communities closer to the park, simulating a series of concentric rings, as in a biosphere reserve approach. CIMA?s approach guarantees to concentrate work efforts in areas where accumulates the greatest threats to the Park?s integrity, especially when they are extensive and present diverse problems. But in addition to land use-zoning, additional policies for improving agricultural production without deforestation, risk reduction, the formalization and distribution of legal land ? uses rights (through ownership or long-term permits) should be a commitment of national, regional and municipal authorities. In addition, CIMA aims to generate, manage and share information to understand and have a holistic vision of physical, ecological, socio-economic and cultural processes that are essential for the site?s management, providing sustainable socio-economic alternatives to population. Scientific and technical research in the park and its buffer zone allows obtaining relevant information for decision-making. Research continues to be promoted by CIMA and contributes to PNCAZ?s management, but the dissemination of results and exchange is still a growing process. Cordillera Azul has shifted from being totally financed by international cooperation during almost 12 years to being financed by the voluntary carbon market, gradually consolidating the sale of its carbon credits to national and foreign companies with social and environmental responsibility. This demonstrated the effectiveness of REDD+ for conservation and that biodiversity conservation in protected areas can be self-sustaining. Participation, local involvement and decision making In order to involve rural and urban stakeholders in Cordillera Azul?s management, it was necessary to promote knowledge and pride of the area. Awareness was important at all levels. Institutional support to local and regional decision-making authorities was essential to avoid counter actions in the planning processes. The results were to have park neighbours participating actively in patrolling and surveillance, for a small economic compensation, add communal and PNCAZ delimitations, and land-use zoning with regional authority?s support. To align rural and urban visions among different actors and at different levels, CIMA promotes and facilitates crucial spaces like the park?s Master Plan process or during the formulation of communal QLPs, for such exchanges. CIMA strengthens local self- management capacities so that in the future, local people can lead their own processes to improve their quality of life in harmony with their communal vision and nature. Share information and experiences CIMA has abundant biological, environmental, social, and geographic information generated during its 23 years of work experience in Cordillera Azul. This information has supported important park management processes and has been shared with allies, and the local population, and can be reached through its web page. It provides support to processes led by Regional Governments, such as REDD and carbon issues, co-management experience, environmental education, zoning processes, conservation initiatives and participatory processes (QLP, blue agreements), that have been formalized as public tools. Challenges and prospects for PNCAZ CIMA?s efforts are focussed on reducing threats from the buffer zone and at the same time contribute to improving the quality of life of its neighbouring communities. One of the main challenges is mainstreaming with public sectors participating in Cordillera Azul?s management, from Park to buffer zone (3,6M ha); complexity has increased in buffer zone where diverse land-uses and rights are overlapping. Thus, CIMA needs to coordinate multisectoral (Environment, Agriculture, Forestry, Transportation, fisheries, Tourism, among others), with a multilevel scope 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 89 from rural/local to regional and national and, requiring greater incidence in different levels of government for a better understanding of the ecosystem approach. To better support sustainable economies where nature conservation becomes an important asset, CIMA?s approach with rural populations and authorities is not enough; it is necessary to strengthen also the link with the private sector and regional and local government initiatives, which are the main drivers of deforestation (Suarez et al, 2023). Working in such scenarios requires working with alliances/agreements, creating more linkages between rural and urban people. The buffer zone size (23,000 sk km) has made it challenging for CIMA to attend to each community individually with great dedication, specially as the number of villages has doubled since 2001. A new approach, for a larger attainment of villages, by basins is being applied ? for instance, by grouping initiatives of community conservation areas, scaling-up strategies to better contribute to the KM 30x30 target and stop deforestation. In the last 3 years, to make the park?s benefits more participatory and equitable, in addition to seed funds for start-ups, CIMA and SERNANP have opened-up annual competitions for associations, for small grants to projects for sustainable economic activities, under the principle of investments. Tourism and recreation towards the park and neighbouring villages is still incipient, but is growing slowly, as accessibility improves and reduces time to access the zone, which in any case remains remote, at least in the eastern side of the park Recently, since large sums and surpluses were generated by the sale of carbon credits and the establishment of a fund for park management, there has been a complaint from a native community that has taken the case to court, which is still in dispute. Financing integrated management is a permanent challenge. REDD+ has proved efficient for the park, but other carbon mechanisms, such as ARR projects could be better for areas with land-use intensity. References Alverson, W.S., L.O. Rodríguez, and D.K. Moskovits (eds.). (2001). Perú: Biabo Cordillera Azul. Rapid Biological Inventories: No.2. The Field Museum. Arenas Aspilcueta, M. Rubio Torgler, H and Huamán Mendoza, D. 2019. Acuerdos de Conservación. Base conceptual de acuerdos de conservación, propuesta de directiva para su implementación en el marco del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado (SINANPE) y formatos estándar. Documento.trabajo 3. SERNANP. 41 p. Castillo-Urbina, E., Glaw, F, Aguilar-Puntriano, C., Vences, M., & Köhler, J. (2021). Genetic and morphological evidence reveal another new toad of the Rhinella festae species group (Anura: Bufonidae) from the Cordillera Azul in central Peru. SALAMANDRA, 57(2), 181-195. Centro de Conservación, Investigación y Manejo de Areas Naturales (CIMA). (2012). Cordillera Azul National Park REDD Project. Lima-Perú.198pp. CIMA. (2013a). FOCAL. Modelo para el fortalecimiento de capacidades locales para la gestión del territorio y la mejora de la calidad de vida. CIMA. Lima-Perú. 68pp. CIMA. (2013b). Experiencia del proyecto REDD+ PNCAZ. Cordillera Azul: Legado natural del Perú para el mundo. Lima-Perú. 78 pp. CIMA. (2014a). Guía MUF. Mapeo de Usos y Fortalezas. CIMA. Lima- Perú. 80pp. CIMA. (2014b). Guía para la elaboración de Normas de Convivencia. CIMA. Lima-Perú. 51pp. CIMA. (2014c). Guía para la elaboración de Planes de Calidad de Vida. CIMA. Lima-Perú. 55pp. CIMA. (2017). Ucayali. Sinergias por el Clima. Proyecto red Climática Ucayali. CIMA, FONDAM, SENAMHI y SERNANP. Lima-Perú. 27pp. CIMA. (2023). Monitoring Report PNCAZ REDD Project. Lima-Peru. 151 pp. Cusi J. C., Moravec, J., Lehr, E., Gvozdík, V. (2017). A new species of semiarboreal toad of the Rhinella festae group (Anura, Bufonidae) from the Cordillera Azul National Park, Peru. ZooKeys, 673, 21?47. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.673.13050 Gavin, M. (2004). Changes in forest use value through ecological succession and their implications for land management in the Peruvian Amazon. Conservation Biology, 18(6), 1562?1570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00241.x Gavin, M. (2006). Foraging in the fallows: Hunting patterns across a successional continuum in the Peruvian Amazon. Biological Conservation, 134(7), 64-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.07.011 González, F., Valenzuela, L., & Pabón-Mora, N. (2023). Aristolochia brachylimba (Aristolochiaceae; Piperales), a new species from the Peruvian Amazonia with an unusually short perianth limb. Darwiniana, 11(1), 347?356. https://doi.org/10.14522/darwiniana.2023.111.1139 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park 90 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Holland T. G., Coomes, O. T., & Robinson, B. E. (2016) Evolving frontier land markets and the opportunity cost of sparing forests in western Amazonia. Land Use Policy, 58, 456?471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.015 Howe, C. (2017). Oportunidades para la restauración del paisaje forestal. CIMA. Tarapoto-Perú. 51pp. INRENA. (2006). Plan Maestro del Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul. Lima?Perú. 273pp. INRENA, CIMA, Field Museum, & GTZ/PDRS. (2008). Caja de Herramientas para la Gestión de Áreas de Conservación. Fasc.4: ¿Cómo determinar las características socioeconómicas y culturales del área de conservación? El MUF. Lima-Perú. 138pp. Klebelsberg, E. (2005). Auswirkungen der jads in der pufferzone des Parque NacionalCordillera Azul in Perú. DIPLOMARBEIT Zum Erwerb des akademischen Grades DIPLOM-BIOLOGIN. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. BERLIN und LIMA. La Torre-Cuadros, M. A. (2011). Catálogo Comunidades Nativas Yamino y Mariscal Cáceres. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Lima. 52 pp. Lane, D. F., Kratter, A. W., & O?Neill, J. P. (2017). A new species of manakin (Aves: Pipridae; Machaeropterus) from Peru with a taxonomic reassessment of the Striped Manakin (M. regulus) complex. Zootaxa, 4320(2), 379-390. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4320.2.11 Llactayo, W., Reategui, A., & Ozambela, M. (2008). Mechanisms of Territorial Management with Communities? Neighboring Cordillera Azul National Park. In Implementation of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas: Progress and Perspectives (pp. 63?67). Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Technical Series no. 35. Montreal. Lujan, N. K., Hidalgo, M., & Stewart, D. J. (2010). Revision of Panaque (Panaque), with Descriptions of Three New Species from the Amazon Basin (Siluriformes, Loricariidae). Copeia, 2010(4), 676?704. https://doi:10.1643/ci-09-185 Martínez, J. L. (2007). De vuelta al río: crónicas del manejo de tortugas en el sur de Loreto. CIMA. Lima-Perú. 91pp. Martínez, J. L. (2009). Gestión Participativa del Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul. En: Elloit, J. Conservación y Desarrollo Sostenible Corredor Abiseo?Cóndor?Kutukú. Soluciones Prácticas: 91?115. Lima-Perú. Meyer, W. (2006). The Piassaba Palm: Conservation and Development in the Buffer Zone of Peru?s Cordillera Azul National Park. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Duke University. Durham, NC, USA. 144pp. Michaelowa, A., Shishlov, I., & D. Brescia, 2019. Evolution of international carbon markets: lessons for the Paris Agreement. WIREs Climate Change. Vol 10(6). E613. Moncrieff, A. E., Johnson, O., Lane, D. F., Beck, J. R., Angulo, F., & Fagan, J. (2018). A new species of antbird (Passeriformes: Thamnophilidae) from the Cordillera Azul, San Martín, Peru. The Auk, 135(1), 114-126. https://doi.org/10.1642/AUK-17-97.1 O?Neill, J. P., Lane D. F., Kratter, A. W., Capparella, A. P., & Fox, J. C. (2000). A striking new species of barbet (Capitoninae: Capito) from the eastern Andes of Peru. The Auk, 117, 569-577. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/117.3.569 Pequeño,T. (2007). Camino a un monitoreo integral en el Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul y su zona de amortiguamiento. CIMA. Lima-Perú. 91pp. Pequeño, T., Fernández-Dávila, P. (2014). Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul: Construyendo un Modelo de Gestión Integral en Áreas Protegidas. En: Planificación y Gestión de Áreas Protegidas en América del Sur: Avances en la Aplicación del Enfoque Ecosistémico. Casavecchia, C., Lobo, A., Arguedas, S. (Eds). UICN, Quito, Ecuador. Ravikumar, A., R. R. Sears, P. Cronkleton, M. Menton, and M.P.-O. del Arco. 2017. Is small-scale agriculture really the main driver of deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon? Moving beyond the prevailing narrative. Conservation Letters, 10(2), 170?177. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12264 Rodríguez, L. O., Cisneros, E., Pequeño, T., Fuentes, M. T., & Zinngrebe, Y. (2018). Building Adaptive Capacity in Changing Social- Ecological Systems: Integrating Knowledge in Communal Land-Use Planning in the Peruvian Amazon. Sustainability, 10(2), 511; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020511 Rojas Briceño, N. B., Barboza Castillo, E., Maicelo Quintana, J. L., Oliva Cruz, S. M., & Salas López, R. (2019). Deforestación en la Amazonía peruana: Índices de cambios de cobertura y uso del suelo basado en SIG. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, (81), 2538, 1?34. http://dx.doi.org/10.21138/bage.2538a Sánchez, A., & Vásquez, P. (2007). Presión de Caza de la Comunidad Nativa MushuckLlacta de Chipaota, Zona de Amortiguamiento del Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul, Perú. Ecología Aplicada, 6(1,2), 131?138. https://doi.org/10.21704/rea.v6i1-2.349 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2021). The Forest Ecosystem Restoration Initiative on the Ground: Case Studies from Twelve Small-scale, Innovative Ecosystem Restoration Projects around the World. Montreal, 33 pages. SERNANP?WWF?GIZ-IT. (2014). Análisis de la Vulnerabilidad de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas frente al Cambio Climático al 2030, 2050 y 2080. Documento de Trabajo No.12. 82pp. SERNANP (2017). Plan Maestro del Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul. Lima?Perú. Shanee, N., & Shanee, S. (2016). Land trafficking, migration, and conservation in the ?no-man?s land? of northeastern Peru. Tropical Conservation Science, 9(4), 1?16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082916682957 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 91 Suárez de Freitas C., G.; L. Briceño, M. Laos-Llanos, P. Luna del Pozo 2023. Estrategia Regional de Desarrollo Rural Bajo en Emisiones. Gobierno Regional de Huánuco. Earth Innovation, UK Pact. 33 p. Vásquez, R. I., & Valenzuela, L. (2022). Virola parvusligna, a New Species of Myristicaceae from the Cordillera Azul National Park, Peru. Journal of Plant Sciences, 10(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jps.20221001.14 Tasker, K. (2016). Informing the Carbon Frontier: Economics and Landscape in the Western Amazon. University of Texas. Austin. 96 p. UN-HABITAT-CBD 2022. Managing urban-rural linkages for biodiversity: an integrated territorial approach. Nairobi. 50 p. Weber, C. & Montoya- Burgos, J. I. (2002). Hypostomus fonchii sp.n. (Silurifromes: Loricariidae) de Perú, una especie clave que sugiere la sinonimia de Cochliodon con Hypostomus. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 109(2), 355-368. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.part.79595 Zúñiga, J. (2010). Monitoreo Hidrometeorológico en el Parque Nacional Cordillera Azul y su zona de amortiguamiento para propósito de conservación. 9. ?Cordillera Azul National Park 92 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective New energy trends: hydrogen and other clean fuels as tools to strengthen urban- rural linkages ? China case study Bartlomiej Kolodziejczyk, University of Gothenburg 10 Wind Farm in Guangling County, Shanxi - Renewable energy in China © Creative Commons CC Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 93 Abstract The socio-economic landscape is rapidly changing. Linkages between rural and urban communities are quickly disappearing. Growing migration from rural to urban areas makes rural communities weaker and vulnerable. One linkage that remains strong is food production and food security. However, shifting energy trends gives great hope to rebuild the linkages and cooperation between rural and urban areas. Technologies like solar fuels, where large-scale solar installations are utilized to produce green, or carbon neutral fuels of the future provide enormous opportunities to rural communities. Fuels like hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, etc. can be produced efficiently and sustainably with minimal damage to the environment and biodiversity. These new energy trends simplify the energy production and conversion processes by utilizing solar and wind energy, as well as water, atmospheric nitrogen, and carbon dioxide as a feedstock rendering fuels pollution-free. For the first time, farmers have gained a new opportunity to rebrand themselves and instead of producing food, they are able to join the new industry of clean fuel production from solar or wind energy. Large scale-solar installations already play a significant role in countries like China, where the government is trying to reduce fossil emissions and preserve the environment and biodiversity. Electrification of rural areas via electricity transmission lines and other related energy infrastructure is still an issue, mainly because of the high costs. Many solar and wind farms in China are not utilized completely because energy demand is often lower than the generation capacity, this gives the opportunity for green hydrogen production which can be then transported and utilized in the urban areas, i.e. clean fuel for transportation, or power-to-gas applications. The Chinese Government is strongly pushing towards this scenario, giving a number of subsidies for both solar farms and hydrogen fuel cell cars. Moreover, the 2017 announcement by the Central Government committing to ban internal combustion engine cars will only make this transition quicker. China is becoming a green fuel pioneer. The scale of green hydrogen generation projects in China cannot be compared to any other place. This new industry gives many opportunities and hopes to rural communities. Introduction Since economic reform policies were implemented in 1978, the Chinese economy has experienced remarkable economic growth. Over the thirty-year period (1978-2007), the growth rate of GDP per capita averaged 8.6 per cent per annum and this trend continues. Over the years 2000 ? 2007 there was no sign of deceleration in growth, whilst the equivalent GDP figure was 9.2 per cent. China accounted for about 35 per cent of the growth in the world GDP at PPP prices (Abramovitz, 1986; Acemoglu et al., 2005).China?s real GDP growth rate peaked at 14.2 per cent in 2007 and has since been trending downward, however, China?s real GDP growth remains one of the strongest globally (Acemoglu et al., 2001). China accounts for more than one-fifth of the world?s population, such rapid economic and population growth are unprecedented. This remarkable progress has occurred amidst China?s poverty, allowing over 300 million Chinese citizens to be lifted out of one-dollar-a-day poverty since 1978 (Hedrick-Wong, 2018). Within only decades China transitioned its? centrally planned and closed economy towards a market economy and regional leader. Whilst the recent years show China?s economy slowdown (Eichengreen et al., 2011; Dinda, 2017), some believe that it might be of benefit to the country and its citizens as it allows for a transition to slower but sustainable growth (Diepp, 2018). China aspires to greater sustainable development. For decades economic growth, poverty alleviation and establishing the position ofinternationalleader were on top of the agenda for China?s Central Government. Everything else, including the environment, was of less importance. China?s rise as an economic power has no clear parallel in history, but its pollution problem has also shattered all precedents. According to a study performed by Chinese Ministry of Health, cancer became China?s leading cause of death due to pollution. Ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Whilst hundreds of millions of people lack access to safe drinking water (Spengler, 1983; Yu, 2011).What in many countries may be seen as an environmental catastrophe, in China, it seems to be a commonplace. People rarely see the sun in China?s industrial cities, deforestation and land degradation have become a massive issue threatening biodiversity and food security, whilst lead poisoning is among the highest in the world, and large sections of the ocean no longer sustain marine life (Yu, 2011).Hygiene and sanitation are also becoming an issue. In 2011, a study published by Chinese researchers estimated that more than 94 million people in China become ill annually, and about 8,500 people die due to bacterial foodborne diseases (Mao, 2011). The last three decades of continuous economic growth triggered rapid and ongoingurbanisation. Large industrial centres attracted millions of rural workers and farmers providing better work prospects, higher wages, and better lifestyles. In addition, many rural centres have been urbanised due to growing economic demand. In 2011,urbanisationreached 51 per cent, meaning that for the first time in history, more Chinese citizens lived in towns and cities than in rural villages (Hillman, 2013).China?surbanisation is accelerating. Due to the belief thaturbanisationholds the key to the country?s ongoing social and economic development,China?s leaders recently announced anurbanisationtarget of 70 per cent by 2025 (Woetzel et al., 2009; Kamal-Chaoui et al., 2009).However, it may seem that the government is realizing the value of rural areas. Some of the most common issues describes as a result of rapid urbanisation is the increased waste and exhaustion of resources, the declining standards of living and environmental capacity, the imbalance between urban and rural development, as well as sociocultural challenges (Zhang, 2012).Rapid urbanisation in China often overlooks urban-rural linkages and focuses on cities whilst underestimating urban-rural regions. The approaches applied in China have to switch from technical planning to communicative planning, and from extensive growth to intensive growth. The ecosystem governance approach is rarely applied or integrated into urban-rural social-ecological systems in China. China?s growing demand for clean fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol produced using renewable energy has the opportunity to address the growing urbanisation, whilst also strengthening urban-rural linkages. The hydrogen projects strongly pushed 10. ?New energy trends 94 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective for by China?s Central Government will provide specialized work opportunities for rural and undeveloped regions whilst addressing the transportation sector?s fossil fuel emissions. China?s strategy for clean fuels will contribute largely to good environmental and ecosystem governance practices and can potentially lead to reverse migration, from urban to rural areas. Hydrogen can be produced on a large scale in rural areas using solar or wind resources and water can be transported to urban areas to be supplied for transportation and other industry sectors. China?s demand for a hydrogen economy Large-scale exploitation of fossil fuels has resulted in severe health, environmental, ecosystem and climate change challenges throughout China, significantly affecting a variety of ecosystems and threatening biodiversity as well as China?s healthy economic growth. Since the year 2000, China?s energy strategy has been consequently reformed and adapted to concentrate on providing new opportunities for the safe supply of reliable, cost-effective and environmentally friendly energy (Yuan & Lin, 2009; ICCT, 2017).China?s government had to adopt a new strategy to promote sustainable development and meet present energy demands (Hydrogen Council, 2017). Table 1. China?s development goal for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Reproduced from SAE China (2018). Year Hydrogen refuelling stations Fuel cell vehicles 2020 Over 100 stations 5,000 fuel cell vehicles in demonstration, among which 60 per cent are fuel cell commercial vehicles and 40 per cent are fuel cell passenger cars 2025 Over 300 stations 50,000 fuel cell vehicles in service, among which 10,000 units are fuel cell commercial vehicles, and 40,000 units are fuel cell passenger cars 2030 Over 1,000 stations, and over 50 per cent hydrogen production from renewable resources Over one million fuel cell vehicles in service China?s central government has renewed interest in Clean and renewable hydrogen for a number of reasons. Hydrogen can be harvested from water using any type of renewable energy, effectively making it a clean energy storage medium. Hydrogen when combined with atmospheric oxygen forms water vapor and generates heat; it is also capable of efficiently generating high quality electricity when combined in a fuel cell. In standard conditions, hydrogen is present in a gas form, but for energy storage purposes can be compressed to provide better energy density. Hydrogen can also be liquefied to store more energy within the same volume; this is especially important for the transportation of energy over large distances. Finally, to some extent current gas infrastructure can be adapted to meet working requirements for hydrogen (Hydrogen Council, 2017; Government of South Australia, 2017; IEA, 2015). Since 2000, a number of hydrogen related projects were supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MOST), as well as China?s National Natural Science Foundation. In 2015, a first workshop was held to develop China?s Hydrogen Economy Roadmap. A year later, in 2016, Hydrogen was included as one of the seven priority areas in China?s National Mid-to-Long Term Sci-Tech Plan 2006 ? 2020. China?s government vision states that by 2050 China will have developed a mature hydrogen market infrastructure and that by this stage the hydrogen economy in China will be prevalent (Yuan & Lin, 2009).In 2017, the Chinese government announced their intention to ban petrol and diesel vehicles. The effective date of the ban was not mentioned in the announcement. The ban is expected to have a positive impact on hydrogen infrastructure development (Burch, 2018). China has committed to promoting electric vehicles since 2009, with the goal of having 5 million electric vehicles in operation by 2020. To support this target, the Chinese government offers generous fiscal subsidies, for both battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (ICCT, 2017).China has clearly expressed its? commitment to decarbonize the transportation industry using clean hydrogen. This commitment is shown by substantial investment, subsidies and policies that support the hydrogen technology industry. By the end of 2015, China?s central government had spent approximately $4.8 billion on electric vehicle subsidies (ICCT, 2017).As of 2017, the subsidies given to battery electric vehicles (~$7,500 per passenger car) were over four times lower than subsidies for hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (~$31,000 per passenger car), resulting in a strong uptake in the new subsidized electric cars and a good response by the automotive industry in China. The subsidies also attracted significant interest in hydrogen infrastructure development and investment. The urban-rural linkage in terms of hydrogen developments in China may not be obvious at this point, but the projects mentioned previously are mainly small-scale demonstration projects. China has demonstrated over the last couple of years, the potential for hydrogen development to provide positive environmental and health benefits which has reinvigorated China?s appetite for hydrogen technology. China?s hydrogen economy is feasible only if applied on a large scale. Centralized large-scale green hydrogen generation farms using solar, or wind energy also make more sense economically. This is beneficial to rural communities through new job opportunities, whilst electrification will further lead to greater local infrastructure development and more benefits. China is already attempting to build numerous large-scale hydrogen generation facilities in rural areas where land is still accessible or more cost-effective than in urban areas and where renewable energy conditions are suitable to generate clean electricity which then will be converted into hydrogen (Siqi, 2018).In return rural communities will benefit from investment and infrastructure, job creation, access to energy which currently is not always present in rural China and new revenue streams which may allow to alleviate local poverty. Zhang Weidong, a Programme Manager at UNDP China believes that rural communities could also benefit by generating hydrogen from biofuels produced locally (Siqi, 2018). Zhang (2012) said 10. ?New Energy Trends Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 95 that ?promoting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles could also help rural areas get rid of poverty as green hydrogen could also be generated from reforming ethanol that can be extracted from farm crop residues such as sugar-rich straws.? Hydrogen being a value-added chemical can help address the growing income disparity between cities and rural areas by providing significant revenue streams to rural communities. Generation of green hydrogen in rural areas is not that different from previous solar or wind energy projects implemented throughout the globe, and which provided numerous new opportunities to rural communities where these projects are often implemented. Existing large- scale solar or wind energy farms in China are outside of the metropolitan areas, whilst transmission lines and other relevant infrastructure is expensive. The environmental conditions, which are a driving force for renewable power generation, and electricity demand are very unpredictable. According to Reuters (2017) over 30 per cent of solar and 47 per cent of wind electricity in China in 2016 was wasted.This electricity could be converted into hydrogen, supplying new jobs, and bringing additional revenue streams to local rural communities. For example, a large-scale hydrogen generation project was recently announced. The 4 MW power-to-gas project is delivered by French hydrogen technology manufacturer McPhy together with Chinese Jiantou Yanshan (Guyuan) Wind Energy in Hebei Province. The project aims at converting the surplus energy generated by a 200 MW wind farm into hydrogen and supplying it as a replacement for natural gas (Barrett, 2017). The communities which already benefit from wind energy projects developed in rural areas will further benefit from extended opportunities provided by hydrogen generation and supply. Although, project evaluation and real measurable benefits of this project to rural communities will be known only in the next couple years. China?s reliance and demand for the hydrogen economy is already slowly closing the urban-rural gaps whilst rebuilding linkages between these two worlds. In the past, urban communities relied on rural communities mainly for food supply. China?s market is shifting, and rural farmers are slowly becoming energy generators and suppliers. Urban communities have to understand the role rural communities will play in their future energy security. At this stage, most of the hydrogen projects in China focus on reducing fossil fuel emissions in transportation by developing hydrogen refuelling infrastructure and introducing new types of vehicles. This is mainly due to the system size requirements. China has been demonstrating the feasibility of hydrogen economy on a small scale since 2000 from a couple to hundreds of kilowatts. Currently, the development stage of the hydrogen economy in China has reached a scale of a couple of megawatts per system, the size of this system meets the requirements of hydrogen refuelling stations. China is entering the next stage where hundreds of megawatts or even gigawatts of hydrogen will be required for applications such as energy storage in the form of hydrogen, or power-to-gas (P2G) applications where electricity is converted to gas (hydrogen) and supplied as a clean replacement for natural gas, which can be used for heating and cooking. Reaching this scale of hydrogen generation will have a tremendous effect on rural communities and will form new linkages and a stronger reliance on rural communities. Once the hydrogen economy has reached maturity, studies show that hydrogen can be combined with atmospheric nitrogen or carbon dioxide to form ammonia and renewable methanol, respectively. Ammonia is a precursor for numerous fertilizers, whilst renewable methanol provides an effective way for carbon recycling. There is also potential to produce other sustainable chemicals and longer carbon chains using similar technology (Montoya et al., 2017; Grinberg et al., 2016; Nocera, 2017). This new way of utilizing solar and wind resources will allow rural communities to produce sustainable products and at the same time diversify their role and customer markets. Finally, it will further enhance the links and role that rural communities play. Most of these hydrogen developments in China are not well documented or promoted in the media. Chinese market tends to be competitive, preventing companies from openly advertising their projects in fear of competition. However, generous hydrogen subsidies introduced by the Chinese government attract Chinese companies to join the hydrogen ?race?. Conclusion It is clearly demonstrated that China?s government has an ongoing interest in shifting to a hydrogen economy. China has made significant progress and is a leader in developing a hydrogen economy. The current transition phase passed small-scale demonstration and feasibility studies and reached a phase where megawatt-scale hydrogen generation systems are utilized mainly for hydrogen refuelling and transportation. Whilst rural communities in China have already started benefiting from this energy paradigm shift, the next phase of the development will allow for large-scale centralized renewable hydrogen generation, which will benefit rural communities: providing new specialized job opportunities, new revenue streams whilst at the same time strengthening the position of rural communities in the supply chain for urban communities. Whilst preserving and building new urban-rural linkages is of high importance for ecosystem governance, in this case, renewable hydrogen will help reduce fossil fuel emissions and environmental pollution whilstpreservingthe ecosystems and biodiversity of China. At this stage, it is difficult to talk about measurable outcomes for rural communities as these projects are still being developed. References Abramovitz, M. (1986). Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind. Journal of Economic History, 46 (2), 385-406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700046209 Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2005). Institutions as a Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth. In P. Aghion & S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth, 1A, 386-472. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3 10. ?New Energy Trends Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369-1401. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.5.1369 Barrett, S. (2017). McPhy Delivers 4 MW of Hydrogen Production to China for P2G Application with Wind Farm. Fuel Cells Bulletin, 2017(6), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1464-2859(17)30206-7 Burch, I. (2018). Survey of Global Activity to Phase Out Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles. Center for Climate Protection. Chang, L., Li, Z., Gao, D., Huang, H., & Ni, W. (2007). Pathways for Hydrogen Infrastructure Development in China: Integrated Assessment for Vehicle Fuels and a Case Study of Beijing. Energy, 32(11), 2023-2037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2007.04.003 Dinda, S. (2017). Impact of the People?s Republic of China?s Slowdown on the Global Economy. ADBI Working Paper Series No. 784. Dieppe, A., Gilhooly, R., Han, J., Korhonen, I., & Lodge, D. (2018). The Transition of China to Sustainable Growth ? Implications for the Global Economy and the Euro Area. Occasional Paper Series No. 206, European Central Bank. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3113109 Eichengreen, B., Park, D., & Shin, K. (2011). When Fast Growing Economies Slow Down: International Evidence and Implications for the People?s Republic of China. ADP Economics Working Paper Series No. 262. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1883962 Government of South Australia. (2017). A Hydrogen Roadmap for South Australia Grinberg Dana, A., Elishav, O., Bardow, A., Shter, G. E., & Grader, G. S. (2016). Nitrogen-Based Fuels: A Power-to-Fuel-to-Power Analysis. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl, 55(31), 8798?8805. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201510618 Hedrick-Wong, Y. (2018). The Myths About China?s Economic Slowdown. Forbes. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/yuwahedrickwong/2018/08/15/the-myths-about-chinas-economic-slowdown/#28c776985d55 Hillman, B., & Unger, J. (2013). Editorial. China Perspectives No. 2013/3, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. https://doi.org/10.4000/chinaperspectives.6235 Hydrogen Council. (2017). Hydrogen Scaling up: A Sustainable Pathway for the Global Energy Transition. Retrieved from https://hydrogencouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Hydrogen-scaling-up-Hydrogen-Council.pdf ICCT (2017). Adjustment to Subsidies for New Energy Vehicles in China. Policy Update, International Council on Clean Transportation. IEA (2015). Technology Roadmap: Hydrogen and Fuel Cells. International Energy Agency. Kamal-Chaoui, L., Leman, E., & Rufei, Z. (2009). Urban Trends and Policy in China. OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2009/1. Mao, X., Hu, J., & Liu, X. (2011). Epidemiological burden of bacterial foodborne diseases in China-Preliminary study. Chinese Journal of Food Hygiene, R151.31, 132-136. Montoya, J. H., Seitz, L. C., Chakthranont, P., Vojvodic, A., Jaramillo, T. F., & Norskov, J. K. (2017). Materials for Solar Fuels and Chemicals. Nature Materials, 16, 70?81. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4778 Nocera, D. G. (2017). Solar Fuels and Solar Chemicals Industry. Accounts of Chemical Research, 50(3), 616?619. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00615 Reuters (2017). China renewable power waste worsens in 2016 ? Greenpeace. Retrieved from: https://www.reuters.com/article/china-renewables-waste/china-renewable Siqi, C. (2018). China mulls use of hydrogen-powered cars to beat smog. Global Times. Retrieved from: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1125457.shtml Strategy Advisory Committee of the Technology Roadmap for Energy Saving and New Energy Vehicles (SAE China). (2018). Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Technology Roadmap - English version. Spengler, J. D., & Sexton, K. A. (1983). Indoor Air Pollution: A Public Health Perspective. Science, 221(4605), 9?17. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6857273 Woetzel, J., Mendoca, L., Devan, J., Negri, S., Hu, Y., Jordan, L., Li, X., Maasry, A., Tsen, G., & Yu, F. (2009). Preparing for China?s Urban Billion. McKinsey Global Institute. Yu, M-H., Tsunoda, H., & Tsunoda, M. (2011). Environmental Toxicology: Biological and Health Effects of Pollutants, Third Edition. CRC Press. Yuan, K., & Lin, W. (2009). Hydrogen in China: Policy, Program and Progress. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 35(2010), 3110? 3113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.08.042 Zhang, J. (2012). Several Problems in the Course of Urbanization in China and Planning Responses. . In X. Qu & Y. Yang (Eds.), Information and Business Intelligence. IBI 2011. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 268. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29087-9_76 Extracting key elements from the case studies: toward developing principles Liette Vasseur 11 Alvars (on the red list of Ecosystems) in the Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve © Liette Vasseur 98 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective This book has focused on how ecosystem governance can be applied in understanding and supporting rural-urban linkage. Ecosystem governance, as defined by the Commission on Ecosystem Management of IUCN, is based on the ecosystem approach (CBD, 1995) and its twelve principles (Shepherd, 2004). Through case studies, various aspects of ecosystem governance have been examined and demonstrate that rural-urban integration can be quite complex and context dependent. In this chapter, the case studies are analysed according to the principles of ecosystem approach as it is the basis on which the Ecosystem Governance concept has been developed (Vasseur et al., 2017). Governance systems, as stated by Bennett and Satterfield (2018) are characterized by its institutions, structures, and processes. As outcomes, governance should include features such as capacity, functioning, and performance. Ecosystem governance may encompass all these elements but using the lens of the ecosystem approach, the process promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable manner (Shepherd, 2004). Therefore, this analysis integrates the 12 principles (Table 1) and the five steps (Table 2) set by the ecosystem approach to assess whether the decisions and actions effectively are derived from an ecosystem governance process. Combining the various concepts of ecosystem approach and governance systems, from these case studies, commonalities are identified as well as limitations and gaps in linking rural and urban ecosystems. Table 1. The 12 principles of the ecosystem approach (Shepherd, 2004, p. 2) 1. The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choice. 2. Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level. 3. ?Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems. 4. ?Recognising potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programme should: (i) reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity; (ii) align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; and (iii) internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible. 5. ?Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach. 6. Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning. 7. The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales. 8. ?Recognising the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term. 9. Management must recognise that change is inevitable. 10. ?The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity. 11. ?The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices. 12. The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines Table 2. Five steps to the implementation of the ecosystem approach as defined by Shepherd (2004). Step Description Related principles A Determining the main stakeholders, defining the ecosystem area, and developing the relationship between them 1, 7, 11, 12 B Characterizing the structure and function of the ecosystem, and setting in place mechanisms to manage and monitor it 2, 5, 6, 10 C Identifying the important economic issues that will affect the ecosystem and its inhabitants 4 D Determining the likely impact of the ecosystem on adjacent ecosystems 3, 7 E Deciding on long-term goals, and flexible ways of reaching them 7, 8, 9 11. ?Extracting key elements from the case studies Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 99 Governance system and ecosystem approach Conservation and sustainable use of the ecosystems require that governance is effective, equitable and inclusive, and allows for participation of all actors. It is at the basis of fair decisions that can lead to the implementation of sustainable solutions. The first characteristic of governance is to understand the institutions, formal and informal, that are engaged in the process. Formal institutions include, for example, laws or rules established by government from the local to the national, whilst informal institutions are based on cultural or religious systems, social norms and other interactions that influence decisions. In these case studies, institutions can greatly vary but most have in common either state legislation and policies (formal) that are either at the national or more local level (Table 3). In some cases, Indigenous knowledge and values are considered such as in the case studies of New Zealand (Chapters 3 and 4) and Cordillera Azul National Park (Chapter 10) (informal governance). The second characteristic of governance system is the structures or the entities that are involved in the process (Bennett & Satterfield, 2018). The structures of these case studies also vary but at the basic level, citizens are often involved as either for their involvement or as the target audience of the governance system. In several cases, the structures include NGOs (Chapters 8, 9, 10), which generally lead to greater involvement of the communities. In a few cases, the structure is mainly led by state government or governmental agencies (Chapters 2 and 11), limiting the governance system. This is also reflected in the processes used to engage people in governance. Cases where governments are directly involved as a top-down system, citizens are generally not participating except as beneficiaries or as the audience (Chapters 2 and 11). The analysis of the various case studies was based on these characteristics and considered whether these was a formal or informal system and structure of involvement. The analysis shows quite a range from very poor (e.g., formal versus informal and weak structure) to high (e.g., strong community engagement). Table 3. Identification of the three components of governance according to Bennett &Satterfield (2018) for each chapter. Chapter Institutions Structures Processes Governance 2 Regional planning policies, environmental versus development plans, cultural issues Canterbury regional council, rural and Indigenous communities Development of a community group and forum, code of conduct, public and Indigenous engagement, transparency, cooperation High 3 Land use planning, legislations for environmental protection, cultural issues, Treaty of Waitangi Local and regional councils, Maori tribe Extensive community engagement, integration of cultural and environmental values into decisions as well as resilience and climate change adaptation, inclusive process High 4 Lack of regulations, land grabbing, illegal trade, legal framework, and policies Rural communities versus urban agriculture plans; urban family members linked to rural families but great dependence of Nairobi on its rural catchments for water, food and fuel Individual projects and companies; slow governmental decisions and revisions of policies with 47 county governments unable to enact legislations, corruption, lack of engagement, individualistic approach Very poor Municipality, citizens, pressure from developers for urban residential and commercial zoning Consultations, open houses, reliance on the Greenbelt for rural protection, participatory approach for citizen engagement (although remains limited) Medium 7 National Parks programme, municipal bylaws, London Plan, City of London Corporation, National Park City Foundation, citizens (of all classes) Citizen engagement, activism, bottom-up pressure on policymakers for a greener, more sustainable future, several volunteer organisations with initiatives Medium to high 100 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Chapter Institutions Structures Processes Governance 8 Municipal planning, legislations, stringent legislation regulating development, cultural/ ecological heritage, Georgetown as a UNESCO world heritage site Citizens, local NGOs, Habitat Foundation, developers, municipality, Penang Hill Corporation (PHC) Strong citizen engagement, meetings, interviews, management through PHC, bottom-up meeting top-down, local residents in co- directing the planning process, limited transparency in decisions Medium 9 State government legislation, system like a biosphere reserve, Indigenous cultural values and traditional knowledge (especially by women) CIMA (NGO for management of the National Park), farmers, state government, municipal authorities, Education, Communal Strategic Planning, Blue agreements with municipalities for conservation, local conservation initiatives, highly participative and inclusive with all stakeholders Medium to high China?s central government, French hydrogen technology manufacturer McPhy together with Chinese Jiantou Yanshan (Guyuan) Wind Energy, rural communities Top-down approach with involvement of corporations to implement projects Poor Limited and poor governance can lead to additional challenges as it is the case in Chapter 5 where people are involved in illegal trade, land grabbing, unregulated land use change, deforestation, and land degradation. In this case, conservation action and the capacity of government are limited in what can be done. It is clear that good governance relates to the engagement and inclusion of the communities resulting in the devolution of the decisions at the lowest level and enhancing mobilization and social capacity to engage in conservation and sustainable ecosystem management. Whilst in conservation and ecosystem management, grassroots actions are often promoted, the cases studies described in this book suggest that this may not be always the case. Table 4 describes the results of the ecosystem approach through the five-step guideline proposed by Shepherd (2004). Interestingly, low governance generally leads to limited focus on the ecosystem and therefore limited conservation and ecosystem management actions. Case studies in chapters (e.g., 3, 4, 10) where communities are engaged, data are available, and actions are based on these components, conservation and ecosystem management can be implemented with a long-term vision in mind, leading to conditions that are favourable for the sustainability of the solutions that are being proposed. In Chapter 10, for example, engaging the communities through discussions and agreements can lead to greater conservation and even restoration of lands in the buffer zone, thus enhancing the protection of the National Park. There may be new challenges, however, as seen in Chapter 9, where governance may be good, and the ecosystem approach is adopted leading to the establishment of the Biosphere Reserve but perceptions of the authorities versus the communities differ, possibly causing conflicts in the future. 11. ?Extracting key elements from the case studies Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 101 Table 4. Analysis of the case studies according to the five steps of the ecosystem approach (see Table 2 for the steps). For each step, each case study was content analysed to define the major elements and then considering the principles, a score from low to high was allocated. Chapter Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E AE 2 Stakeholders: community of Canterbury Ecosystem at the catchment level with farmlands, recreational areas, water bodies Data collection of the basin with community involvement, mechanisms in place to ensure management and implementation Issues are related to water use for agriculture versus recreational/ environmental protection Regional components identified and integrated approach to the larger ecosystem Short-, medium- and long-term goals developed and in a governance structure that is participative, inclusive, and devolved to the community High 3 Stakeholders: community leaders, community, and Maori tribe. Floodplains and river corridor in peri-urban system Very detailed data sets to better understand environmental issues and linkages among the various ecosystems including impact of sea level rise on the land Issues related to land use and importance of ecosystem protection as natural system for resilience Impacts of earthquakes and climate change identified on the ecosystems leading to importance to restore ecological and cultural values Long-term planning considering the potential impacts of climate change and earthquakes High 4 Stakeholders: rural versus urban people Nairobi large catchment with urban centre, parks, rivers that link to the rural areas Characterization of the issues and current situation show degradation of the environment due to pollution, illegal settlements, etc. Unsustainable use of the natural resources from water to land leading to economic burden on both urban and rural people Due to population growth, impact increasing in rural areas, especially along the rivers for illegal settlements and agriculture No long-term goals, actions are individual and piecemeal Low 5 Stakeholders: urban vs. rural citizens, developers Town of Lincoln includes agricultural lands, urban centres and protected zones through the Greenbelt Detailed profile of the town with an official municipal plan limiting possible land changes Economic pressures come from urban development due to its proximity to Toronto Potential reduction in rural lands, greater stress on protected areas and waterbodies including Lake Ontario Long-term goal is included in the official municipal plan with specific location for urban growth to protect rural areas but limited in conservation Medium 7 Stakeholders: citizens of all classes City of London as the integrated rural within urban ecosystem Several projects that accumulated data with many organisations working on conservation and protection as well as monitoring Economic issues are more related to health consequence of air and water pollution River Lea, a major tributary to the Thames, is the dirtiest river in UK. No analysis of impact to other ecosystems Long-term goal of a healthy ecosystem through the National Park City charter Medium 102 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective Chapter Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E AE 8 Stakeholders: citizens, local NGOs, state government, developers, PHC Ecosystem that encompasses a botanical garden, urban centre, protected area Data are available that allowed for submission of Penang Hill as a biosphere reserve, including species at risk in the area Economic pressure is coming from the State pushing for development of tourism with hotels, facilities Potential impacts will come from increased tourism on the natural ecosystems and adjacent systems Long-term goal would be included in the biosphere reserve plan which should include ecosystem conservation Medium 9 Stakeholders: municipalities, farmers, local communities, state government. Ecosystem includes the National Park as well as a buffer zone where conservation is to be done and the communities Data include status of the national park, the importance of buffer zones to increase conservation and restoration Economic pressure from the farming communities to expand as well as migration Potential impact on the national park reduced by adding the buffer zone and with participatory land-use zoning in villages Long-term goal of increased conservation and reduced pressure on the national park High 10 Stakeholders: state government, energy companies, rural communities as recipient Ecosystem not really defined. Data are related to energy consumption and push for renewable, including hydrogen production Hydrogen economy to reduce environmental pollution and increase job in rural communities Not really defined since it is in rural communities at the country level Long-term goal is to reduce use of fossil fuel Low Ecosystem governance: lessons learnt from the case studies As seen in these case studies, ecosystem governance to sustainably manage rural-urban linkages can be quite complex. This may be in part due to the assumption often made that the rural component is not as important, less economically interesting than the urban centres. At the same time, people tend to believe that rural ecosystems are more natural, quiet, accessible, and therefore for their use for leisure, tourism, or to acquire a residence where it will be quiet and fresh. These misconceptions originate in some respects to the ?tragedy of the commons? where rural ecosystems have been there for grab and exploitation, as seen in Chapter 5, assuming that land is ?free? to be used. The rural-urban linkage underlines the importance of considering both components as part of the same complex system. As stated by Mitchell et al. (2015, p. 1903), ?Complexity can be conceptualised in terms of the multiple interactions that can occur within and between different system components, at different scales? (p. 1903). While Mitchell et al. (2015) are describing social-ecological systems through this, rural-urban linked ecosystem can be viewed as the same where the different feedback between the urban and the rural can co-evolve over time. This also means that to have both urban and rural systems sustainable, planners, decision makers and citizens must view the connections between them as essential. In some cases, the rural can even be integrated within the urban, as seen in Chapter 8. Considering both rural and urban components as part of the landscape/ecosystem, ecosystem governance would have to combine several variables as illustrated in Figure 1. First, it is important to understand that both urban and rural systems are affected by their own environmental and social-economic conditions as well as those coming from the other component. 11. ?Extracting key elements from the case studies Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective | 103 Figure 1. Rural-urban ecosystem and how ecosystem governance can be integrated relies on considering both the governance system and the various factors that make a community both rural and urban. The activities (from planning and decision making to implementation) must then consider both environmental and socio-economic conditions on both sides (urban and rural) and the attributes that can lead to greater social acceptability and ecosystem governance. The arrows show the connections and interactions among the elements of the diagram. (Source: L. Vasseur, drawing) Any activity or management would have to consider all these interactions to ensure that ecosystem governance includes the following attributes: accessibility and equity; inclusion; engagement; social learning; transparency and accountability; and flexibility and adaptive management. Accessibility, equity, and inclusion are essential to ensure that all people are included from the start in the planning and implementation of any intervention. This includes marginalized or vulnerable peoples, women, youth, and elders, and from both rural and urban components. Community engagement is going further than just participation as it brings the sense of ownership of the intervention and brings trust and greater sustainability of the actions. To reach such a level of engagement, social learning is also needed so that every actor involved has the same understanding and knowledge about the issue at stake. Any governance system to be sustainable must include continuous learning to generate innovations and new knowledge (Folke et al., 2005). ?Trust-building dialogues, mobilization of social networks with actors and teams across scales, coordination of ongoing activities, sense making, collaborative learning, and creating public awareness? (Folke et al., 2005, p. 457) are potential strategies to enhance the possibility of successful interventions. Ecosystem governance should also be based on decision making that is transparent and through consensus. At the same time, decisions must be flexible and supported by an adaptive management system. It is important to consider the multi-level dynamic representation of ecosystem governance in a rural-urban ecosystem. Without such an understanding, conflicts, inequalities, and mistrust may arise. One of the first variables that can be extracted from the case studies is the decision-making process where the top-down approach most likely will limit acceptance of the community members, as well as their involvement. In some cases (e.g., Chapter 5), this can lead to illegal activities. In such conditions, as we have seen, ecosystem governance is weak. One of the first initial steps to avoid such issues is to develop the profile of the community first to better understand its components at both community and governance system levels. A profile allows to define all the potential issues as well as the demographic and the environmental conditions of the system (Vasseur et al. 2022). As illustrated in Figure 1, community and governance system are both influencing the types of decision or management activities and the process that is supporting it. Mitchell et al. (2015) suggest some of the characteristics that the governance system should consider such as supportive political will, coordination, effectiveness in engagement, and open and innovative organisational culture (p. 1913). On the Environment Socio-Economic Attributes ? acessibility / equity ? inclusion ? engagement ? social learning ? transparency ? adaptive management Community ? cultures ? traditions ? education ? wealth 11. ?Extracting key elements from the case studies 104 | Urban-rural linkage: an ecosystem governance perspective other side, the profile of the community helps identify the influencers such as cultural diversity, traditions, education levels, and wealth inequity among groups. The profile should be able to identify the most vulnerable or marginalized people to ensure their inclusion, especially if it is linked to a social network analysis. A social network analysis allows to also determine the most connected people or organisations and where potential conflicts or collaborations may occur (Vasseur et al. 2022). A main result of this approach is building trust and implementation of decisions that are sustainable. Reconsidering the 12 principles and the five steps for Ecosystem Approach, several aspects relate to ecosystem governance. However, the idea of developing a profile with potentially a social network analysis in Step A can help ensure that no one if left behind and that the dynamics between rural-urban are well understood. The attributes suggested in Figure 1 can also be explicitly used in the principles to contribute to a more integrated social ecological system that can serve as the basis for ecosystem governance. Ecosystem governance emphasises the importance to not consider the urban and rural systems as separated but rather understand their interdependency in which both citizens interact in a dynamic manner. The intricate connections are cultural, social, economic and even environmental. Ecosystem governance can effectively support the ecosystem approach. In conclusion, ?Changes in governance are needed to deal with rapid directional change, adapt to it, shape it, and create opportunities for positive transformations of social?ecological systems? (Folke et al., 2009, p. 103). As seen in these case studies, ecosystem governance varies from very weak to strong, depending on how the various attributes developed in Figure 1 are supported or not. There is effectively a need for changes in ways governance is looked at. The complexity of the rural-urban ecosystem requires an integrated approach that is based on attributes that once combined can enhance the likelihood of finding sustainable solutions where no one loses. From this analysis, challenges and limitations have also been obvious such as defining priorities, financial resource limitation, capacities of groups, tensions among groups, and lack of commitment and champions. Finally, monitoring and evaluation is generally the poor child of any intervention leading to limited flexibility and adaptive management. Understanding all the components of the ecosystem from an environmental and socio-economic perspective can help support long term decision making through an ecosystem governance system that considers the balance between both rural and urban communities and their respective ecosystems. As van Zeijl-Rozema et al. (2008, p. 411) state, ?Wicked problems, social complexity and weak institutionalization undermine the rationale of ?traditional? governing with governments as institutions with hierarchical power, and support the idea of governance as a shared responsibility of representatives from the state, the market and civil society dealing with societal problems? (p. 411). One observation made by one of the reviewers is the bias toward the global north. Whilst it is true that the number from the global south is low, it demonstrates the need to find and analyse ecosystem governance from the global south. More needs to be done to better understand how effectively ecosystem governance can better support the Ecosystem Approach. References Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (1995). Decision II/8 [Conference session]. United Nations Conference of the Parties, Jakarta. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441?473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 Folke, C., Chapin, F. S., & Olsson, P. (2009). Transformations in Ecosystem Stewardship. In C. Folke, G. P. Kofinas, & F. S. Chapin (Eds.), Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship (pp. 103?125). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73033-2_5 Mitchell, M., Lockwood, M., Moore, S.A., & Clement, S. (2015). Incorporating governance influences into social-ecological system models: A case study involving biodiversity conservation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(11), 1903-1922. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.967387 Shepherd, G. (Ed.). (2004). The Ecosystem Approach: Five Steps to Implementation. World Conservation Union (IUCN). Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. vi + 30 pp. Van Zeijl-Rozema, A., Corvers, R., Kemp, R., & Martens, P. (2008). Governance for sustainable development: A framework. Sustainable Development, 16(6), 410-421. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.367 Vasseur, L., Horning, D., Thornbush, M., Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Barrow, E., Edwards, S., Wit, P., & Jones, M. (2017). Complex problems and unchallenged solutions: bringing ecosystem governance to the forefront of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ambio, 46(7), 731?742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0918-6 Vasseur, L., B. May, M. Caspell, A. Marino, P. Garg, J. Baker and S. Gauthier. 2022. Using an inverted funnel analogy to develop a theory of change supporting resilient ecosystem-based adaptation in the Great Lakes Basin: a case study of Lincoln, Ontario, Canada. Facets, 7, 1348?1366 (accepted without revision). https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2022-0121 11. ?Extracting key elements from the case studies U rban-rural linkage INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE WORLD HEADQUARTERS Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland, Switzerland Tel +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0002 www.iucn.org 2. Water governance in Canterbury, New Zealand 3. Ecosystem governance in postdisastersettings: peri-urban floodplain management and a river corridor recoveryfollowing a major earthquake 4. Nairobi ? ?Green City in the Sun?? ?dependent on ecosystem services from large, diverse and distant catchments 5. Ecosystem governance and planning at theurban rural fringe: a case study on the town of Lincoln, Canada 6. Reconnecting our ?urban? lives with nature ? our loss of connection with nature in our cities 7. London National Park City ? maximising urban and rural linkages 8. Heritage conservation along the urban-rural interface in Penang, Malaysia 9. Cordillera Azul National Park: integrated landscape management under a participatory model for the conservation of nature and its benefits 10. New energy trends: hydrogen and other clean fuels as tools to strengthen urban-rural linkages ? China case study INVALIDE)