Hautamäki, R; Kulmala, L; Ariluoma, M and Järvi, L (2025) How urban green infrastructure contributes to carbon neutrality. Buildings & Cities, 6(1), pp. 272-280. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Reaching the carbon-neutrality targets of cities necessitates not only reducing emissions but also enhancing carbon sinks. This is enabled by urban green infrastructure (UGI), which is a cost-effective sink that provides numerous co-benefits beyond carbon sequestration. To fully harness this potential, it is essential to preserve existing carbon storage in urban planning, to create new multifunctional sinks, and to adopt low-emission practices in the construction and management of UGI. Key findings Urban vegetation and soils provide a cost-efficient method of carbon sequestration and storage (CSS) that can be used more efficiently. In addition to CSS, UGI provides other co-benefits: it helps to alleviate urban flooding and heatwaves and enhances biodiversity and wellbeing. There are three key elements to harnessing UGI for adapting and mitigating climate change: preserving existing carbon stocks in UGI; creating new multifunctional carbon sinks; and adopting low-carbon practices and design options.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | built environment; carbon sink; carbon storage and sequestration; climate change mitigation; planners; soil; trees; urban green infrastructure; urban planning; vegetation |
| Index terms: | mitigation, well-being, climate change, heatwave, urban planning, sequestration, flooding, built environment, planner, option, neutrality, biodiversity, green infrastructure |
| Subjects: | financial risk, environmental hazards, climate science, urban planning, ethical practice, biodiversity, decision analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, profession, mental health and wellbeing, sustainability and resilience |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Risk Management, Sustainability, Cost Management, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Governance, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here