Through the MAES mapping effort, a series of reports (five until January 2018) and other supporting framework documents have been published for the authorities and citizens of the Member States, as well as for European forums whose concerns interact with ecosystems and the use of natural resources. Among these, particularly interesting for the built environment is Report 4 – Urban Ecosystems (May 2016), a framework document for indicators to be used in connection with the subject addressed, because it refers directly to environments where the human-nature report is particularly one in terms of high weight of spatial occupancy, very high in terms of the use of ecosystem services but very limited in terms of preserving healthy spaces, including for people, and very unbalanced compared to the potential for responsible use of materials and technologies that are neither efficient, nor sustainable, nor resilient.
The Urban Ecosystems report, supervised by MAES, is the result of a coordinated effort of JRC (Joint Research Centre) and RIVM—the Dutch Institute for Public Health and Environment, with the support of the Portuguese Territorial Directorate, the European Commission, and EEA. The presented conclusions and data are based on information from case studies and support from cities such as Barcelona, Cascais, Lisbon, Oieras, Olso, Padua, Poznan, Rome, Trent, and Utrecht, as well as from a workshop and a survey in 42 cities, among researchers, NGO representatives, and local authorities. The case studies and the presence of experts, along with examples of best practices and particular local conclusions, offered expertise in selecting a framework of indicators and tools for mapping and analyzing urban ecosystems, their actual conditions, and ecosystem services. For 2020, an MAES Urban pilot is planned, for which this report is supporting material, and from testing it in as many cities as possible, conclusions will be drawn regarding the effectiveness of using the methodology of measuring (the actual state and ecosystem services) as relevant tools for green urban infrastructure and nature-based solutions (NBS).
The document departs from the premise that \”urban ecosystems or cities are defined here as socio-ecological systems composed of green infrastructure (ecological) and built infrastructure.\”
Green urban infrastructure (GI) is understood in this report as the multifunctional network of green spaces in the urban environment located within the limits of the urban ecosystem. Green spaces in the urban environment represent the structural components of urban GI.
The report does not take into account, not even as an example, elements that would have been useful for inclusion as additional categories, such as advanced research biotopic elements, networks (designed) of mycelia, mosses, or lichens, urban algae containers, or biotechnological microcellular elements. The insertion of a category of hybrid elements, possibly even biomimetic, which take mechanisms from nature and augment the provision of certain ecosystem services—such as artificial trees, green buses, or living vegetal sculptures or organic collectors/purifiers (which utilize certain bacteria for purifying air, soil, or water).
Instead, the report focuses on results or classifications from European projects like GreenSurge, GreenUrbs, or Urbes, which is why the report can be considered less innovative and more centralized-generalist, focusing on classical vegetation.
It gives important attention to the architectural finishing elements (walls, roofs) without detailing these sub-categories, except through examples from the studied cities.