Decoding Nature’s Values in Urban Planning: a Comparative analysis of Policy Imaginaries in master plans, climate and biodiversity plans across Twelve Cities

In light of the need to build transformative change in a world with interconnected crises, old and new narratives around the integration of nature in cities and, ultimately, human-nature relationships, have increasingly gained space in debates about urban futures. Central to this transformative vision are the imaginaries embodied in urban planning policies, which reflect (and/or define) how nature is valued, integrated and imagined in the cities of the future. Imaginaries influence what is seen as possible, desirable, or inevitable; they frame debates, inspire action, reflect, define and legitimize specific visions of urban futures and the values that underpin them.

 

In the EU project NATURESCAPES, we explore the values, visions and imaginaries around urban nature and nature-based solutions in three key policy documents: master plans, climate and biodiversity plans. We compare these three “official” perspectives on NBS and human–nature relations in twelve cities (in Europe, Latin America, USA), and identify emerging typologies of urban ‘official imaginaries’ reflecting on futures being promoted by policy actors, and any transformative drive being supported.

 

Our analytical framework builds upon the IPBES Values Assessment (IPBES, 2022) and its definition of intrinsic, relational, and instrumental values (“nature for nature”, “nature as culture”, and “nature for society”, respectively). Our methodology draws on document analysis and qualitative coding of how policies frame human–nature relations, goals, and spatial logics (e.g., corridors, preserves, urban forests).

 

Our analysis includes (1) mapping and critically comparing the emerging nature-related visions, and values attributed to urban nature and human-nature relations, in 36 official documents, exploring what dominates and what is marginalised or absent; (2) identifying patterns of nature-related meaning, coherence and tensions between the three types of plans, and reflecting on the role of biodiversity in particular. Preliminary results suggest that biodiversity plans tend to offer a more balanced reflection of different nature-values, including intrinsic ones. By contrast, master plans more strongly reflect instrumental and relational values, while climate plans predominantly emphasize instrumental values across the different contexts. We will present a comparative typology of official imaginaries and a cross-city matrix showing where these imaginaries converge or diverge, discussing implications for biodiversity, climate, justice, and transformative change.