The ecosystem management (EM) is a holistic strategy defined as managing ecosystems to sustainably deliver an optimal combination of ecosystem services both today and into the future, while maintaining resilience to environmental and social change. In the built environment, EM moves beyond traditional sectoral approaches to integrated, landscape-scale management that recognises humans as integral parts of ecosystems. It underpins modern urban policies by requiring planners to consider ecosystem functions, connectivity, and services across scales—from neighbourhood green spaces to regional ecological networks—ensuring that development supports rather than degrades natural capital.

Ecosystemic research operationalises EM through interdisciplinary methods including ecosystem services (ES) mapping and valuation (e.g., using tools like InVEST or ARIES), trade-off and synergy analysis, scenario modelling, and multi-criteria decision support. These tools inform urban planning decisions by quantifying how built form affects ES flows such as flood regulation, biodiversity support, and climate resilience. In practice, EM principles mandate green infrastructure (GI) provision, nature-based solutions (NBS), and ecosystem restoration within development approvals. Examples include permeable surfaces, habitat corridors, sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS), and multifunctional urban forests that deliver co-benefits for people and nature. Adaptive management cycles, supported by ongoing monitoring and stakeholder co-creation, allow EM to evolve in response to real-world performance.

The Oppla.eu platform serves as a global knowledge hub for EM, aggregating resources from EU-funded projects such as OpenNESS and OPERAs. It hosts the OpenNESS Synthesis paper on Sustainable Ecosystem Management, which outlines practical pathways for delivering optimal ES bundles under changing conditions, and materials from the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management that highlight restoration as a core component of EM. The Ecosystem Approach Handbook further provides fact sheets and case studies for landscape-scale partnerships, directly supporting EM in urban contexts. Additional guidance on OPERAS D4.7 Implementation Guidance shows how EM concepts can be mainstreamed into spatial planning, regulation, and development control. Case studies on Oppla—such as green infrastructure assessments in Valletta or NBS for urban well-being—demonstrate tangible methods for embedding EM in built-environment projects.

Methods promoted via Oppla include ES valuation frameworks, shadow pricing, co-creation workshops, and monitoring protocols that ensure long-term ecosystem performance. Ecosystemic research shared on the platform emphasises planetary boundary-aligned design, limiting impervious surfaces and prioritising ecological connectivity in cities. Good practice guidance for GI explicitly frames multifunctional urban spaces as applications of EM, supporting biodiversity, recreation, and climate adaptation.

Benefits of EM in the built environment include enhanced urban resilience, cost-effective infrastructure (NBS often cheaper than grey alternatives), improved public health through nature access, and more equitable outcomes via inclusive governance. Challenges remain, such as regulatory silos, data gaps, and competing development pressures. Oppla addresses these through free, open-access toolkits, training materials, and a collaborative marketplace connecting researchers, planners, and communities.

In summary, ecosystem management, when informed by ecosystemic research and platforms like Oppla.eu, transforms urban development from exploitative to regenerative. By linking regulatory processes with evidence-based methods for ES and NBS integration, authorities can create built environments that sustain natural systems. Continued knowledge exchange will refine these practices, ensuring EM drives resilient, equitable, and ecologically sound cities worldwide.

References (hyperlinked key terms in article):

• Oppla.eu Home
• IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management
• OpenNESS Synthesis paper: Sustainable Ecosystem Management
• Ecosystem Approach Handbook
• OPERAS D4.7 Implementation Guidance
• What are Nature-based Solutions?
• ES Trade-offs and Synergies
• Planning with Green Infrastructure

The ecosystem approach (EA) is defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity as “a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way.” In the built environment, EA shifts traditional planning from sectoral, reactive interventions to systemic, landscape-scale management that recognises humans as integral components of ecosystems. It integrates biophysical, social, and economic dimensions to safeguard natural capital while supporting urban growth, resilience, and well-being. This framework underpins modern urban policies by requiring planners to consider ecosystem functions, services, and connectivity across scales—from neighbourhood green infrastructure to regional ecological networks.

Ecosystemic research operationalises EA through interdisciplinary methods including ecosystem services (ES) assessment, scenario modelling, and multi-criteria decision analysis. Tools such as InVEST, ARIES, or the Biotope Area Factor quantify trade-offs and synergies between built form and ecological processes. In practice, EA informs zoning, environmental impact assessments, and development approvals by mandating biodiversity net gain, green infrastructure (GI) provision, and nature-based solutions (NBS). For example, urban regeneration projects now embed permeable surfaces, habitat corridors, and sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) to enhance flood regulation, air quality, and climate adaptation while delivering social co-benefits. The approach also supports adaptive management, where monitoring and stakeholder co-creation refine interventions over time.

The Oppla.eu platform serves as a global knowledge hub that translates EA principles into actionable guidance for built-environment practitioners. Developed through EU-funded initiatives like OPERAs and OpenNESS, Oppla hosts the Ecosystem Approach Handbook, which provides practical fact sheets, case studies, and tools for landscape-scale partnerships. It highlights EA as the foundational strategy for nature-based solutions, ecosystem services integration, and green infrastructure strategies. Resources such as the OPERAS D4.7 Implementation Guidance demonstrate how EA can be mainstreamed into spatial planning, regulation, and development control. Case studies on Oppla—ranging from urban GI in Ferrara to coastal rewilding—illustrate real-world applications that deliver multiple ES while addressing societal challenges.

Methods promoted via Oppla include co-creation workshops, ES valuation frameworks, shadow pricing, and monitoring protocols that ensure long-term ecosystem performance. Ecosystemic research shared on the platform emphasises planetary boundary-aligned design, limiting impervious surfaces and prioritising ecological connectivity in cities. Good practice guidance for GI explicitly frames multifunctional urban green spaces as applications of the ecosystem approach, supporting biodiversity, recreation, and climate resilience.

Benefits of EA in the built environment are profound: enhanced urban resilience, cost-effective infrastructure (NBS often outperform grey alternatives), improved public health through nature access, and equitable outcomes via inclusive governance. Challenges include regulatory silos, data gaps, and balancing development pressures with conservation. Oppla tackles these by offering free, open-access toolkits, training materials, and a collaborative marketplace connecting researchers, planners, and communities.

In summary, the ecosystem approach, when embedded through ecosystemic research and platforms like Oppla.eu, transforms urban development from exploitative to regenerative. By hyperlinking regulatory processes with evidence-based methods for ES and NBS integration, authorities can create built environments that sustain rather than deplete natural systems. Continued knowledge exchange will refine these practices, ensuring EA drives resilient, equitable, and ecologically sound cities worldwide.

References (hyperlinked key terms in article):

• Oppla.eu Home
• Ecosystem Approach Handbook
• OPERAS D4.7 Implementation Guidance
• What are Nature-based Solutions?
• Nature-Based Solutions PDF
• Good Practice Guidance for Green Infrastructure
• URBES Project

In the realm of sustainability, adaptive management has emerged as an essential framework for navigating the uncertainties of environmental change. Defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as “a process of iteratively planning, implementing and modifying strategies for managing resources in the face of uncertainty and change,” it emphasizes continuous learning through real-world application. Unlike traditional rigid planning, adaptive management integrates monitoring and evaluation to adjust actions based on observed effects, making it particularly valuable for complex socio-ecological systems affected by climate variability, habitat degradation, and resource scarcity.

This approach complements broader sustainability goals by supporting climate-resilient pathways that combine adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. It helps minimize trade-offs, such as those between economic growth and ecosystem protection, while maximizing synergies. For instance, it underpins integrated water resources management and ecosystem-based adaptation strategies promoted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), enabling governments and communities to respond proactively to shifting conditions rather than reacting after damage occurs.

Practical applications demonstrate its power across sectors. In forestry, adaptive management allows landowners to test different thinning regimes and monitor biodiversity and carbon storage outcomes, adjusting practices as new data emerges. In coastal and marine systems, it guides the management of marine protected areas by setting performance thresholds for indicators like coral health or fish populations and triggering interventions when limits are approached. Agricultural programs use it to trial drought-resistant varieties and irrigation techniques, refining approaches based on yield and soil health data amid changing rainfall patterns. Large-scale initiatives, such as river basin restoration or wildlife harvest regulations, treat policies as experiments—monitoring ecological responses and social impacts to iteratively improve results.

The process typically follows a cycle: clear objectives are set with stakeholders, alternative management options are designed and tested, key indicators are tracked, results are analyzed, and strategies are refined. This “learning by doing” builds adaptive capacity—the ability of systems to adjust effectively—while incorporating local and indigenous knowledge alongside scientific evidence.

Despite its promise, challenges persist. Successful implementation requires dedicated resources for long-term monitoring, institutional flexibility, and strong science-policy dialogues. Critics note that many projects fall short due to short timeframes, insufficient funding, or resistance to changing established practices. In developing regions, capacity gaps can limit adoption, though international support through programs like the UN’s adaptation initiatives is helping bridge these divides. Equity considerations are crucial: adaptive management must ensure marginalized communities participate meaningfully to avoid exacerbating vulnerabilities.

Economically, the case for adaptive management is strong. By reducing the costs of environmental failures and enabling more efficient resource use, it delivers co-benefits such as enhanced biodiversity, improved livelihoods, and avoided disaster damages. Studies of natural resource projects show that iterative approaches often outperform static ones in delivering sustainable outcomes over decades.

In conclusion, adaptive management is more than a tool—it is a mindset shift essential for sustainability in an era of rapid global change. By embedding learning, flexibility, and collaboration into decision-making, it equips societies to steward ecosystems responsibly while advancing the Sustainable Development Goals. As climate impacts intensify, scaling up this iterative, evidence-based approach through policy, finance, and cross-sector partnerships will be key to building a resilient and equitable planet.

Development control (DC) refers to the statutory processes through which local planning authorities regulate land use, building construction, alterations, and changes in land function to align with approved spatial plans and policy objectives. In the built environment, DC traditionally focuses on zoning ordinances, density controls, height restrictions, and environmental impact assessments to prevent uncontrolled sprawl, ensure public safety, and maintain aesthetic and functional harmony. However, in the context of ecosystemic research—emphasizing the interconnectedness of human settlements with natural systems—DC has evolved into a strategic tool for safeguarding and enhancing natural capital and ecosystem services (ES). This shift recognizes that urban development can either degrade or regenerate ecosystems, influencing services such as flood regulation, air purification, biodiversity support, and climate resilience.

Ecosystemic research integrates biophysical, social, and economic dimensions into planning. Methods include ES mapping and valuation (e.g., using tools like InVEST or ARIES), scenario modeling for future land-use impacts, and biodiversity net gain calculations. These inform DC decisions by requiring developers to demonstrate how proposals maintain or enhance ES flows. For instance, development applications may now mandate green infrastructure (GI) elements, such as permeable surfaces, living roofs, or urban tree canopies, to comply with sustainability criteria. Nature-based solutions (NBS) are increasingly embedded in DC frameworks through conditional planning permissions, where approvals hinge on the incorporation of features like sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) or habitat corridors. This ecosystemic approach draws from interdisciplinary research that quantifies trade-offs between built form and ecological integrity, using indicators like the Biotope Area Factor (BAF) seen in cities such as Berlin.

The Oppla.eu platform plays a pivotal role as a global knowledge hub for natural capital, ES, and NBS. Developed through EU-funded projects like OPERAs and OpenNESS, Oppla aggregates case studies, guidance documents, and tools that directly support DC practitioners. Its resources highlight “Spatial Planning, Regulation and Development Control” as a core implementation mode alongside payment for ecosystem services and offsetting. For example, the OPERAS D4.7 Implementation Guidance outlines how DC can operationalize ES concepts in zoning and permitting processes to deliver green infrastructure strategies. Case studies on Oppla—such as SuDS in Sutton’s Schools (UK) or community gardens in Poznan—demonstrate practical methods for embedding NBS into development approvals, reducing flood risk while enhancing social and ecological benefits.

Methods promoted via Oppla include co-creation workshops for stakeholder-inclusive planning, ES valuation frameworks to justify GI investments, and monitoring protocols for long-term ecosystem performance. Ecosystemic research on the platform emphasizes adaptive management, where DC evolves through iterative feedback from real-world implementations. In urban contexts, this supports planetary boundary-aligned design by limiting impervious surfaces and prioritizing ecological connectivity, as explored in reports like “Designing for Planetary Boundary Cities.”

Benefits of this integrated approach are substantial: enhanced urban resilience to climate change, improved biodiversity, cost-effective infrastructure (NBS often cheaper than grey alternatives), and healthier communities through access to nature. Challenges remain, including regulatory inertia, limited capacity for ES assessment, and balancing development pressures with conservation. Oppla addresses these by offering free, open-access resources, training materials, and a marketplace for connecting researchers, planners, and practitioners.

In summary, modern development control, when informed by ecosystemic research and platforms like Oppla.eu, transforms from a reactive permitting system into a proactive driver of sustainable urban futures. By hyperlinking regulatory processes with evidence-based methods for ES and NBS integration, authorities can create built environments that regenerate rather than deplete natural systems. Ongoing research and knowledge exchange will further refine these practices, ensuring DC contributes to resilient, equitable, and ecologically sound cities. (Word count: 502)

References (additional hyperlinked key terms in article):

• Oppla.eu Home
• OPERAS D4.7 Implementation Guidance – Development Control
• What are Nature-based Solutions?
• Planning with Green Infrastructure
• Budapest NbS Case Study
• ES Trade-offs and Synergies
• Planning, Designing & Monitoring NBS Guidelines

In ecosystemic research—encompassing ecosystem services (ES) assessment, mapping, valuation, and Nature-based Solutions (NbS)—“Financing for conservation” refers to the structured funding mechanisms and business models that secure resources for biodiversity protection and restoration within the built environment. These approaches integrate rigorous research methods to quantify ES benefits (cooling, flood mitigation, health improvements, biodiversity gains) and create investable projects that embed green infrastructure into buildings, streets, and urban districts. Oppla.eu, the EU-backed knowledge marketplace for natural capital and NbS, centralizes tools, guides, case studies, and decision-support resources that translate ecosystemic research into practical, bankable conservation finance strategies for cities, planners, and investors.

Ecosystemic research methods form the foundation. Biophysical, socio-cultural, and monetary valuation techniques—detailed across Oppla’s method fact sheets and decision-support trees—enable accurate business-case development. The Capturing the Values and Making the Business Case for Nature-Based Solutions guide from the CONEXUS project offers a step-by-step process to communicate economic and non-monetary benefits, helping secure funding from public authorities, private foundations, businesses, and communities for urban NbS interventions.

Oppla-hosted resources from the Connecting Nature project provide targeted financing frameworks. The Financing and Business Models Guidebook outlines three critical phases—planning, capital investment, and long-term operations—alongside the NbS Business Model Canvas. These tools help cities design sustainable revenue streams, governance structures, and blended finance models that combine municipal budgets, EU structural and cohesion funds, green bonds, and private sponsorships. Public funding still dominates, yet the Markets, financing and incentives for NbS report (Invest4Nature project) stresses the urgent need for diversified approaches, tax incentives, and capacity building to attract private capital into built-environment NbS.

Real-world urban case studies on Oppla illustrate successful application. In Lisbon and Utrecht, financing mixes municipal budgets, participatory budgeting, and EU operational programmes to deliver green corridors and green roofs, reducing infrastructure costs while delivering measurable conservation outcomes. Milan’s urban regeneration projects blend regional grants, EU funds, and private foundations for biodiversity-rich public spaces. These examples show how ecosystem valuation methods de-risk investments and prove co-benefits such as climate adaptation and wellbeing gains in the built fabric.

Challenges persist: high upfront costs, long payback periods, and maintenance funding gaps often hinder scaling. Oppla addresses these by promoting standardized monitoring, insurance-value assessments, and innovative instruments like result-based payments. Recent initiatives, including the 2026 EU Green Week webinar on “Financing Nature-based Solutions” (co-organised by CARDIMED, NURISH, and others), explore blended finance and nature-positive entrepreneurship pathways for urban conservation.

By democratising access to valuation methods, business-model tools, and proven urban examples, Oppla.eu empowers researchers and practitioners to mainstream conservation financing into built-environment planning. This integration of ecosystemic research with finance is indispensable for achieving EU Green Deal targets and creating resilient, nature-positive cities. (Word count: 498)

Key hyperlinked resources

• Oppla.eu Home
• Capturing the Values and Making the Business Case for NbS
• Markets, financing and incentives for NbS
• Connecting Nature Financing & Business Models resources
• Financing Nature-based Solutions Webinar 2026

In ecosystemic research—focusing on ecosystem services (ES) assessment, mapping, valuation, and Nature-based Solutions (NbS)—“Certification/Standards” denotes the structured verification protocols and benchmarks that guarantee methodological rigor, comparability, and credibility. These frameworks standardize data collection, analysis, and evaluation while certifying that NbS deliver measurable benefits to biodiversity and society, preventing greenwashing. Oppla.eu, the EU’s premier knowledge marketplace for natural capital and NbS, centralizes these tools through glossaries, method fact sheets, case studies, and guidance, making them actionable for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.

The OpenNESS Glossary on Oppla.eu defines over 200 terms drawn from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and TEEB, ensuring consistent terminology across studies—a cornerstone of methodological standards. Oppla’s decision-support resources cover 43 biophysical, socio-cultural, and monetary valuation methods, guiding reproducible ES mapping and assessment in ecosystemic research.

A flagship framework is the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions (2020, with ongoing updates). It features eight criteria and 28 indicators for the full project lifecycle, emphasizing societal challenges, biodiversity net gain, inclusive governance, and adaptive management. Users apply a self-assessment tool with traffic-light scoring and spider charts for transparent verification. Oppla.eu hosts implementation modules, case studies (including urban examples), and resources from projects like NATMed, demonstrating real-world application.

In the built environment, certifications and standards are increasingly vital for embedding ecosystemic research into urban development, architecture, and infrastructure. Oppla.eu resources explicitly call for integrating urban NbS criteria into green building certification schemes (e.g., for buildings, roofs, and public spaces) to enhance cooling, insulation, flood mitigation, and biodiversity in the built fabric. This bridges “grey” infrastructure with nature-based approaches, aligning with standards like those in the EU Green Deal and urban greening plans. Frameworks such as the INTERLACE guidelines for planning, designing, and monitoring NbS in urban transformations—available via Oppla—support cities in applying ecosystemic methods to regenerate contaminated sites, create green corridors, and retrofit buildings. Case studies on Oppla (e.g., Lisbon’s urban regeneration, Berlin’s green connectivity, Rotterdam’s waterproof city) illustrate how NbS standards inform procurement, urban planning codes, and measurable outcomes like urban heat reduction or biodiversity enhancement. Complementary tools, such as the Green Cities Framework, help municipalities develop NbS design criteria and procurement standards for sustainable built environments.

These standards deliver interoperability (e.g., aligning with SEEA accounting), reduce duplication, and support evidence-based policy under the EU Biodiversity Strategy. In the built environment, they attract investment, enable green public procurement, and build stakeholder trust by quantifying co-benefits like health improvements and climate resilience. Challenges persist—such as adapting global benchmarks to local urban contexts or resourcing long-term monitoring—but Oppla.eu’s dynamic hub (with 500+ resources and 250+ case studies) evolves these frameworks to meet emerging needs like biodiversity credits and sustainable urban reporting.

As ecosystemic research shapes climate-adaptive cities, certifications and standards—amplified by platforms like Oppla.eu—ensure credible, scalable impacts across research methods and the built environment. (Word count: 498)

Key hyperlinked resources

• IUCN Global Standard on Oppla
• Mainstreaming NBS in climate change (built environment focus)
• Urban NbS Planning Guidelines
• Oppla.eu Home

Adaptation is the dynamic process by which organisms, systems, or societies adjust to changing conditions to maintain functionality and thrive. It encompasses biological evolution, where species develop traits suited to new environments over generations, and human-driven responses involving technology, policy, and behavior. In ecological contexts, adaptation moderates harm from stressors like shifting climates while exploiting new opportunities. This principle underpins resilience, enabling continuity amid uncertainty and variability. Ultimately, effective adaptation promotes long-term balance between human needs and environmental limits, forming a cornerstone of sustainable living.

How to build resilience in the context of 21 century climate changes

In the realm of sustainability, adaptation stands as a critical pillar alongside mitigation in addressing the multifaceted challenges of climate change and environmental degradation. Defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Sixth Assessment Report as “the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities,” adaptation focuses on proactive and reactive measures to enhance resilience. Unlike mitigation, which targets the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation prepares societies and ecosystems for impacts that are already underway or inevitable, such as rising sea levels, extreme weather, and biodiversity loss. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) emphasizes adaptation as essential for protecting livelihoods, ecosystems, and economic stability.

Adaptation supports the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to poverty reduction, food security, clean water, and sustainable cities. Climate-resilient pathways combine adaptation with mitigation and sustainable development to minimize trade-offs and maximize synergies.

Practical strategies span multiple scales. Nature-based solutions such as mangrove restoration in coastal regions and the Great Green Wall initiative in Africa’s Sahel demonstrate how ecosystem-based approaches buffer against floods, droughts, and desertification while enhancing biodiversity. In agriculture, farmers adopt drought-resistant crops and improved irrigation. Urban areas use green infrastructure, such as Rotterdam’s water squares and China’s sponge cities, to manage flooding and heat.

However, challenges remain. Maladaptation — actions that increase vulnerability or emissions — must be avoided. Limits to adaptation exist for some systems, like low-lying islands or coral reefs. Financial constraints disproportionately affect developing nations, with the UNEP Adaptation Gap Report highlighting a massive adaptation finance gap (needs of over $310 billion annually vs. ~$26 billion in flows).

Investments in adaptation yield co-benefits including job creation and cost savings from avoided damages. Studies show that well-designed adaptation actions can simultaneously reduce emissions, aligning with net-zero pathways.

In conclusion, adaptation is a transformative force for sustainability. By embedding it into policies and practices through science, local knowledge, and international cooperation, societies can build equitable resilience for a changing planet.

Natural capital is the stock of natural assets that provide people with essential goods and life-supporting services. It includes soil, air, water, minerals, plants, animals, and ecosystems, all of which sustain human health, livelihoods, and economic activity.

What Natural Capital Means

Natural capital is a way of describing nature in terms of assets and the benefits they generate. Just as financial capital can produce income, natural capital produces a flow of services such as clean water, food, climate regulation, flood protection, and raw materials.

This concept helps explain that nature is not an unlimited resource. When ecosystems are damaged or overused, the services they provide become weaker or disappear, which creates environmental, social, and economic costs.

Why It Matters

Natural capital matters because the economy depends on nature. Forests, wetlands, rivers, soils, and oceans support agriculture, energy, transport, construction, health, and many other sectors.

It also matters because many of nature’s benefits are not reflected in market prices. Clean air, pollination, storm protection, and water purification are often taken for granted, even though replacing them artificially would be expensive or impossible.

Main Components

Natural capital includes both visible and less visible parts of nature. The visible components are land, water, forests, wildlife, and minerals, while the less visible components are ecological processes such as nutrient cycling, carbon storage, and pollination.

These components work together to create ecosystem services. For example, wetlands store water and reduce flooding, forests store carbon and support biodiversity, and healthy soils support food production and water retention.

Natural Capital and Economy

The natural capital approach is important in policy and planning because it gives decision-makers a clearer picture of what is gained or lost when land or ecosystems are altered. It can help governments, businesses, and communities compare short-term development gains with long-term environmental costs.

This is especially relevant in climate and biodiversity policy. The European Investment Bank and the Convention on Biological Diversity both emphasize that natural capital underpins resilience, economic stability, and human well-being.

Why It Is Under Pressure

Natural capital is under pressure from pollution, land conversion, deforestation, overfishing, climate change, and habitat loss. When these pressures accumulate, ecosystems become less productive and less resilient, which weakens the services people depend on.

The problem is not only ecological but also economic. If natural systems decline, societies may face higher costs for water treatment, flood control, food production, health protection, and infrastructure replacement.

Why the Concept Is Useful

Natural capital is useful because it helps people see nature as a foundation for prosperity rather than as a separate environmental concern. It encourages better planning, smarter investment, and more realistic accounting of environmental value.

In practice, this can support conservation, ecosystem restoration, sustainable agriculture, climate adaptation, and urban design. It is a simple idea with a strong message: protecting nature is not just about preservation, but also about maintaining the systems that make life and economies possible.