A review of pro-climate solutions carried out in selected projects of public space

Urszula Forczek-Brataniec, Katarzyna Jamioł

doi:10.37190/arc260106

Abstract

In the face of ongoing climate change, urban public spaces must respond to new adaptation challenges. Implementing environmentally friendly solutions in their design can contribute to increasing the resilience of the urban environment to climate-related threats and improving residents’ quality of life. The aim of this article is to review, identify, and develop a typology of pro-ecological solutions applied in contemporary European public space projects, with particular emphasis on measures related to water management and green infrastructure. The research material consisted of public space projects presented during two editions of the IFLA Europe exhibition. Two main categories of interventions were distinguished: “water” and “greenery”, both related to the development of blue–green infrastructure in cities. The analysis included both Nature-based Solutions (NBS) and interventions incorporating elements of technical infrastructure. The results indicate the growing importance of integrating measures related to water retention, increasing biologically active surfaces, and strengthening ecosystem functions in the process of shaping contemporary urban public spaces.

2026

1(85)

Urszula Forczek-Brataniec*, Katarzyna Jamioł**

A review of pro-climate solutions carried out in selected projects

of public space

DOI: 10.37190/arc260106

Published in open access. CC BY-NC license.

Abstract

In the face of ongoing climate change, urban public spaces must respond to new adaptation challenges. Implementing environmentally friendly

solutions in their design can contribute to increasing the resilience of the urban environment to climate-related threats and improving residents’ qual-

ity of life. The aim of this article is to review, identify, and develop a typology of pro-ecological solutions applied in contemporary European public

space projects, with particular emphasis on measures related to water management and green infrastructure.

The research material consisted of public space projects presented during two editions of the IFLA Europe exhibition. Two main categories of in-

terventions were distinguished: “water” and “greenery”, both related to the development of blue–green infrastructure in cities. The analysis included

both Nature-based Solutions (NBS) and interventions incorporating elements of technical infrastructure.

The results indicate the growing importance of integrating measures related to water retention, increasing biologically active surfaces, and

strengthening ecosystem functions in the process of shaping contemporary urban public spaces.

Key words: climate change adaptation, public spaces, blue–green infrastructure, Nature-based Solutions, urban resilience

Introduction

The adverse impacts of climate and microclimate

change are becoming increasingly evident, particularly

in urban areas. The Paris Agreement (2015) is intended

to be

a catalyst for remedial action. It sets out the objec-

tive of achieving climate neutrality by 2050 and, under an

ambitious scenario, limiting global temperature increase to

1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (UNFCCC 2015). The

European Union (EU) has adopted numerous laws in re-

sponse to these aspirations. Among them are the European

Green Deal (Fetting 2020) and its follow-up document, the

Nature Restoration Law (Council of the European Union

2024). The assumptions presented in these documents are

intended to help the European Union (EU) achieve climate

neutrality through cooperation across all sectors of the

economy (including construction), which should prioritise

reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Increased commitment

to the development and implementation of climate-neutral

solutions, as well as to minimising their adverse environ-

mental impacts, is strongly advocated. Gradual adaptation

has been identied as a key component of the long-term

response to climate change impacts (Council of the Euro-

pean Union 2021), encompassing, inter alia, measures re-

lated to urban development. In 2015, 76.5% of the world’s

population lived in urban areas (European Commission

2020a), compared to 72% in the EU (PBL Netherlands

Environmental Assessment Agency 2016). Most Europe-

an cities are projected to continue to grow, with the share

of Europe’s urban population expected to rise to approx-

imately 83.7% by 2050 (European Commission 2020b).

This process will accelerate the optimisation of public

space design and its use (Alberti et al. 2019). Urban ar-

eas are vulnerable to the eects of climate change, such as

extreme heat, oods, droughts, and water shortages, and

improper management of urban space further exacerbates

these phenomena. Given the substantial proportion of the

global population residing in urban areas and the projected

continued growth of urban populations, it is essential to

* ORCID:

0000-0003-1600-4332. Faculty of Architecture, Cra cow

University of Technology, Poland, e-mail: uforczek-brataniec@pk.edu.pl

** ORCID:

0009-0005-8155-2935. Faculty of Architecture, Cra-

cow University of Technology, Poland.

68 Urszula Forczek-Brataniec, Katarzyna Jamioł

emphasise that climate change mitigation and adaptation

measures should focus particularly on cities.

The study aimed to review climate-responsive design so-

lu tions implemented in public space projects presented at

the 2018 and 2022 exhibitions of the European Region of

the International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA

Europe 2018; 2022). It examined how projects from the past

decade address the local-scale impacts of climate change.

The analysis enabled the identication of distinct groups of

design interventions, which were subsequently classied ac-

cording to specic categories of climate-related threats. This

review responds to the current need to implement such mea-

sures, as emphasised by the Council of the European Union

(2021), by systematising and synthesising a set of applicable

solutions. Consequently, the ndings may serve as practical

design recommendations for the development of more resil-

ient and climate-responsive public spaces. In addition, the

study sought to disseminate knowledge about existing best

practices and to raise public awareness of the potential for

implementing similar interventions in publicly accessible

urban areas. In the long term, this may contribute to increas-

ing the number of pro-environmental actions at the local

level, fostering strategic planning processes, and strength-

ening resilience across broader urban agglomerations.

State of research

The role of public spaces in enhancing local resilience

to climate change has become an increasingly prominent

subject of scholarly inquiry (European Environment Agen-

cy 2020). Public spaces play a crucial role in creating a sat-

isfactory quality of life in cities, both in the social context

and in terms of the eciency of the urban ecosystem. Bar-

celona provides an example of a European city that has

eectively leveraged the potential of public spaces in the

development of its climate strategy. For several years, the

municipality has implemented programmes aimed at in-

tegrating and enhancing the accessibility of public spaces

(Amati, Stevens and Rueda 2023). One of the more recent

initiatives involves the creation of a network of “climate

shelters”, designed to provide residents with refuge during

heatwaves and periods of extreme cold. A vast number of

the shelters is in public urban parks and gardens (Barcelona

City Council 2024). However, parks are not the only key to

achieving the ecological transformation of cities. The green

transformation of urban infrastructure, often encapsulated

in the concept of “grey to green”, is assuming a prominent

role in contemporary climate policy and planning. Street

greening, which is popular in many cities, noticeably re-

duces urban heat island eects and improves stormwater

management systems (Gimenez-Maranges, Breuste and

Hof 2020). Analyses of the potential of streets in Vienna

(Furchtlehner, Lehner and Lička 2022) and Leipzig (Mar-

selle et al. 2022) have demonstrated the measurable eects

of these measures. Properly designed public spaces also

play a signicant role in urban ood risk reduction. Inte-

grated water management approaches, such as Sustainable

Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), have for many years

de monstrated tangible benets in this regard (Silva, Costa

2018). The growing scholarly interest in completed proj-

ects incorporating such solutions is reected, for example,

in an analysis conducted by Spanish researchers of projects

nominated for the European Union Prize for Contemporary

Architecture – Mies van der Rohe Award. Their study is

focused on public spaces found near water bodies and the

impact of spatial features on the eects of rising ocean lev-

els (Dal Cin, Hooimeijer and Matos Silva 2021). The rel-

evance of this type of research is further conrmed by the

noticeable increase in the diversity of design solutions that

address specic climate threats in dierent regions, such as

heavy rainfall, heat waves, or ood risks (Forczek-Brata-

niec, Jamioł 2024). Hiltrud Pötz, among others, attempted

to categorise pro-climate measures, including nature-based

solutions (NBS), in her book Green-blue grids. Manual for

resilient cities, dividing these measures into seven main

thematic blocks: water challenges, heat, biodiversity, urban

agriculture, air quality, energy, and the social and economic

importance of blue-green infrastructure areas (Pötz 2016).

Researchers from the European Commission, in turn, di-

vided NBS into three main types: Type 1 NBS – minimal

or no intervention in ecosystems, with objectives related to

maintaining or improving delivery of ecosystem services

within and beyond the protected ecosystems; Type 2 NBS

– extensive or intensive management approaches seeking to

develop sustainable, multifunctional ecosystems and land-

scapes in order to improve delivery of ecosystem services

relative to conventional interventions; Type 3 NBS – char-

acterised by highly intensive ecosystem management or

creation of new ecosystems (European Commission 2021).

Methods

The research was conducted based on a selection of proj-

ects presented at IFLA Europe exhibitions, included in the

2018 “Landscape as a Common Ground” and 2022 “Recon-

sidering Nature” catalogues. The objective of the study was

to categorise design initiatives addressing the climate chal-

lenges which Europe is currently facing within the frame-

work of blue–green infrastructure. The research was based

on an analysis of project descriptions highlighting the cli-

mate-responsive solutions implemented, as well as on ac-

tivities previously classied in the literature. Earlier studies

sought to compare pro-climate interventions identied in

projects presented during the second edition of the exhibi-

tion with specic environmental stressors (Jamioł, Jaróg and

Nowak 2023). They also examined the principal objectives

pursued by designers such as prevention, protection, contri-

bution to the circular economy, restoration of degraded ele-

ments, or education and assessed whether the adopted mea-

sures responded to threats characteristic of the Nomenclature

of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS 3) regions in which

the projects were located (Forczek-Brataniec, Jamioł 2024).

In the present study, neither the dataset nor the corpus

of analysed projects was altered; rather, the classication

framework was revised. The identied design solutions

were subsequently compared with the principal climate-re-

lated challenges outlined in legal and policy documents

issued by the EU, including reports of the European Envi-

ronment Agency (2024). Reference was also made to the

Nature-based Solutions (NBS) typology proposed by the

A review of pro-climate solutions carried out in selected projects of public space 69

European Commission (2021), as well as to the categori-

sation framework developed by Hiltrud Pötz (2016). In the

rst stage of the analysis, the projects were examined ac-

cording to the types of interventions implemented. In total,

114 project descriptions from 29 countries aliated with

IFLA Europe were analysed. The sample included projects

located outside geographical Europe (e.g., Turkey and Is-

rael) and outside the EU (Norway, Switzerland, Ukraine,

and the United Kingdom, which withdrew from the EU in

2020). Each IFLA Europe landscape architecture associa-

tion could submit a maximum of three proposals, which in

many cases required pre-selection at the national level. The

analysed projects were assigned alphanumeric identiers, in

which the two-digit prex denotes the year of the exhibition,

the subsequent two letters indicate the country of implemen-

tation, and the nal number refers to the project’s sequence

within that country. It should be noted, however, that sub-

mitting a project to the exhibition did not require the use of

pro-ecological solutions, and the adopted research method

has its limitations and may involve a degree of subjectivity.

Due to the wide range of interpretations of the solutions pre-

sented in the design drawings, the scope of the analysis cov-

ered only the design elements described in the catalogues.

Grouping similar solutions allowed us to identify two

main categories related to blue-green infrastructure: “wa-

ter”, which includes actions aimed at managing water excess

and decit in the landscape, and “greenery”, which includes

solutions that strengthen and protect the integrity of green

infrastructure. Subcategories of actions were assigned to the

main categories, and within each subcategory, types of solu-

tions were specied. The “water” category included: retention

based on NBS, which specied: surface bioretention facilities

(BR), de-sealing impermeable surfaces and application of

permeable paving systems (PS); and then retention based

on grey infrastructure (GRI), divided into: surface retention

reservoirs (SR) and large-scale engineering solutions, includ-

ing hydraulic water treatment systems (IR) and water de-

cit management (LWT). The “greenery” category includes

protection of green infrastructure and existing ecosystems

(PRG), vegetation design for enhanced biodiversity support

(GBD) and restoration of lost ecosystem functions (REC).

The above categorisation was intended to systematise

the analytical framework. However, it should be empha-

sised that blue–green infrastructure interventions are in-

he rently interconnected and function through multiple,

in teracting mechanisms. Nature-based Solutions (NBS),

in cluding blue–green infrastructure elements, generate

co-benets for both water management and biodiversity

enhancement. Measures such as rain gardens and retention

basins increase inltration capacity and stormwater reten-

tion, thereby reducing pressure on conventional drainage

systems (Kimic, Ostrysz 2021). At the same time, they can

support the creation of diverse habitats, complement urban

green networks, and contribute to the conservation and en-

hancement of biodiversity (Bowler et al. 2024).

Results

A preliminary analysis of the use of pro-climate solu-

tions related to blue-green infrastructure applied in com-

pleted projects from both editions of the IFLA Europe

exhibition showed that they were mentioned in the de-

scriptions of 96 projects, which constitutes 84.21% of the

total and shows that the pro-ecological aspect plays a sig-

nicant role in presenting project ideas. The following

number of projects was assigned to individual categories:

“water” – managing stormwater excess and decit – 26

(22.81%), including in the subcategories: retention based

on NBS (NBS) – 19 projects (16.67%); surface bioret-

ention facilities (BR) – 15 projects (13.16%); de-sealing

impermeable surfaces and application of permeable pav-

ing systems (PS) – 9 projects (7.89%), retention based on

grey infrastructure (GRI) – 8 projects (7.02%); surface re-

tention reservoirs (SR) – 2 projects (1.75%); large-scale

engineering solutions including hydraulic water treatment

systems (IR) – 6 projects (5.26%), as well as water de-

cit management (LWT) – 4 projects (3.51%); “greenery”

– strengthening and protecting the integrity of green infra-

structure: protection of green infrastructure and existing

ecosystems (PRG) – 41 projects (35.96%), vegetation de-

sign for enhanced biodiversity support (GBD) – 47 proj-

ects (41.23%), and restoration of lost ecosystem functions

(REC) – 9 projects (7.89%). The research also shows that

33 out of 114 projects (28.95%) included solutions that fell

into both the “greenery” and “water” categories in their de-

scriptions (Table 1).

Water

– managing excess and deficit rainwater

• Retention based on Nature-based Solutions (NBS)

The “water” category was divided into three subcatego-

ries. The rst one includes nature-based retention solutions,

so-called NBS, which were further divided into surface bio-

retention facilities (BR), which included such activities as

the use of retention greenery, which was designed through,

among others, the use of retention basins (18_DK_030),

rain gardens (22_GR_01, 22-IT_02, 22_iT_03, 18-LV_02,

22_NO_02, 22_PL_03), green inltration ditches (922-

NO_03) or biolters (18_NL_02), as well as the de-seal-

ing impermeable surfaces and application of permeable

paving systems (PS), notable in the projects from Austria

(22-AT_01), Belgium (22_BE_03), Italy (22_IT_02, 22_

IT_03), Norway (22_NO_02), Poland (22_PL_01, 22_

PL_03), Slovenia (22_SI_01) and Spain (22_ES_01).

•

Retention based on grey infrastructure (GRI)

The second identied category – retention based on grey

infrastructure – was divided into retention using surface

retention reservoirs (SR), which took the form of water

sculptures (22_NO_02, 18_BG_02). The analysed descrip-

tions did not mention articial underground retention res-

ervoirs. The subsequent subgroup comprised large-scale

engineering interventions (IR), including hydraulic water

management systems such as embankments and ood pro-

tection levees integrated with extensive underground in-

frastructure (e.g., 18_FI_01; 18_NL_03; 18_CH_03). This

category also encompassed underground sewerage systems

equipped with water treatment and ltration components

(e.g., 18_DK_03; 18_FR_02; 22_FI_02).

70 Urszula Forczek-Brataniec, Katarzyna Jamioł

Table 1. Results of the analysis of project descriptions from the 2018 and 2022 exhibitions – assignment of activities from individual projects

to selected categories and their assigned subcategories (elaborated by U. Forczek-Brataniec, K. Jamioł)

Tabela 1. Wyniki analizy opisów projektów z wystaw z 2018 i 2022 r. – przyporządkowanie działań z poszczególnych projektów

do wybranych kategorii i przypisanych im podkategorii (oprac. U. Froczek-Brataniec, K. Jamioł)

Project ID

Water Greenery

Project ID

Water Greenery

NBS GRI

LWT PGR GBD REC

NBS GRI

LWT PGR GBD REC

BR PS SR IR BR PS SR IR

18_AT_01 + 22_LT_02 +

22_AT_01 + + 22_LT_03

22_AT_02 18_NL_01 + +

22_BE_01 18_NL_02 + + +

22_BE_02 18_NL_03 + +

22_BE_03 + 18_NO_01

18_BG_01 + 18_NO_02 +

22_BG_01 + 18_NO_03 +

22_BG_02 + 22_NO_01

18_HR_01 + 22_NO_02 + + +

18_CZ_01 + 22_NO_03 + +

18_CZ_02 + + 18_PL_01

18_CZ_03 + + 18_PL_02

22_CZ_01 + + 18_PL_03 +

22_CZ_02 + + + + 22_PL_01 + + +

22_CZ_03 + + 22_PL_02 + +

18_DK_01 + + 22_PL_03 + + + +

18_DK_02 + 18_RO_01

18_DK_03 + + + + 18_RO_02

22_DK_01 + + 18_RO_03 +

22_DK_02 22_RO_01 + +

18_EE_01 + 22_RO_02

18_EE_02 22_RO_03 + +

18_EE_03 18_SK_01

22_EE_01 + + + 18_SK_02

22_EE_02 + + 18_SK_03

22_EE_03 + 18_SI_01

18_FI_01 + 18_SI_02 + +

18_FI_02 18_SI_03 +

18_FI_03 22_SI_01 + + +

A review of pro-climate solutions carried out in selected projects of public space 71

Project ID

Water Greenery

Project ID

Water Greenery

NBS GRI

LWT PGR GBD REC

NBS GRI

LWT PGR GBD REC

BR PS SR IR BR PS SR IR

22_FI_01 + + 22_SI_02

22_FI_02 + + 22_SI_03 +

22_FI_03 18_ES_01 +

18_FR_01 18_ES_02

18_FR_02 + + 18_ES_03 +

18_FR_03 + 22_ES_01 + +

22_DE_01 + 22_ES_02 + +

22_DE_02 + 22_ES_03 + +

22_DE_03 + 18_SE_01

18_GR_01 + + 18_SE_02

22_GR_01 + + 18_SE_03 + +

22_GR_02 + 22_SE_01 +

18_HU_01 22_SE_02 +

18_HU_02 22_SE_03

18_HU_03 18_CH_01 + +

22_HU_01 18_CH_02 +

22_HU_02 18_CH_03 + + +

22_IE_01 22_CH_01

18_IL_01 22_CH_02 + +

18_IL_02 22_CH_03 +

22_IT_01 + + 18_TR_01

22_IT_02 + + + + 18_TR_02 + +

22_IT_03 + + + + 18_TR_03 +

18_LV_01 + 18_UA_01 +

18_LV_02 + + 18_GB_01

18_LV_03 + 18_GB_02 + +

22_LT_01 + 18_GB_03 +

Legend:

NBS – retention based on Nature-based Solutions: BR – surface bioretention facilities, PS – de-sealing impermeable surfaces and application of

permeable paving systems.

GRI – retention based on grey infrastructure: SR – surface retention reservoirs, IR – large-scale engineering solutions, including hydraulic water

treatment systems.

LWT – water deficit management.

PRG – protection of green infrastructure and existing ecosystems.

GBD – vegetation design for enhanced biodiversity support.

REC – restoration of lost ecosystem functions.

(+) – a design solution that fits the issues of a specific category was included in the description of the analysed project.

72 Urszula Forczek-Brataniec, Katarzyna Jamioł

•

Water deficit management (LWT)

The third distinct category presents activities aimed

at preparing planned areas for periodic water shortages.

Methods described include reusing collected rainwater for

irrigation (18_DK_03, 18_FR_02) and selecting planned

vegetation so that it can survive on natural water sources

(22_CZ_03, 22_CH_02) (Fig. 1).

Greenery – strengthening and protecting

the integrity of green infrastructure

•

Protection of green infrastructure and existing eco-

systems (PRG)

In the “greenery” group, the rst identied subcategory

is the protection of green infrastructure and existing eco-

systems (PRG). It includes preserving existing greenery by

incorporating it into the design concept (e.g., 22_AT_01,

22_GB_02, 18_CZ_02, 22_EE_03, 22_IT_01) and pre-

serving its original, most often natural character (18_

GB_01, 22_CZ_01, 18_GR_01). The projects described,

among other things, the preservation of fragments of mead-

ow undergrowth (22_CZ_02), vegetation that appeared

on the site through the process of secondary succession

(18_CZ_01) and the natural values of so-called wasteland

(22_EE_01). The integrity of green infrastructure systems

was further reinforced through measures aimed at main-

taining ecological continuity and safeguarding sensitive

landscapes. These included preserving the continuity of the

greater fjord landscape (18_DK_02) and protecting valu-

able areas through the careful spatial distribution of rec-

reational functions as dispersed elements within dened

enclaves (22_EE_02). Additional interventions involved

the incorporation of new design elements that accounted

for erosion processes and episodic ooding (22_FI_02), the

alignment of pathways to prevent dune erosion and avoid

disturbance to the unique vegetation of coastal dune sys-

tems (22_LT_02), and the provision of controlled access

to riverside alder forests while maintaining their distinctive

ecological values (18_SE_03). System integrity was also

supported through regular monitoring of ora and fauna

(22_FI_01), as well as through the introduction or strength-

ening of legal protection mechanisms – such as improving

the conservation status of coastal meadow and lagoon hab-

itats (18_EE_01) or designating parts of the area as ecolog-

ical reserves (22_DE_02).

•

Vegetation design for enhanced biodiversity support

(GBR)

The problem of biodiversity loss is one of the greatest

negative impacts of climate change. The EU’s goal is for

European biodiversity to be on a path to recovery by 2030,

helping people, the planet, the climate, and our economy

(Council of the European Union 2024). Designing vegeta-

tion to support biodiversity (GBR) was also the most often

addressed topic in the analysed projects.

Solutions assigned to this subcategory primarily focused

on enhancing both the horizontal and vertical structural di-

versity of the landscape, as well as on the careful selection

of plant species to provide shelter and food resources for

local fauna (e.g., 18_CZ_03; 22_RO_01). Multi-layered

vegetation compositions combining ground-cover plants,

shrubs, and trees (18_LV_01) were implemented along-

side perennial species (18_PL_03), with planting schemes

designed to ensure continuous owering throughout the

growing season (18_LV_03). Additional measures includ-

ed the integration of both deciduous and evergreen conif-

erous tree species (22_BG_01), as well as the prioritisation

of native species (e.g., 18_GR_01; 22_IT_01), selected

and arranged according to local environmental conditions

(22_CZ_03; 18_NO_03; 22_PL_03). Diversication of

the horizontal landscape mosaic was achieved through the

introduction of new aquatic biotopes adjacent to ower

beds (18_CZ_02) or grass-dominated areas (18_DK_01),

the establishment of pollinator-friendly ower meadows

combined with the designation of less frequently mown

zones (22_EE_02; 22_DE_01), and the creation of sun-ex-

posed stone piles to provide habitats for reptiles and am-

phibians (22_EE_01).

It is important to emphasise that protecting the integ-

rity of green infrastructure whose fragmentation in urban

areas is frequently associated with infrastructure expan-

sion (Pasek 2008) as well as implementing well-designed

NBS, particularly bioretention systems, can signicantly

contribute to the enhancement of local biodiversity. Em-

Fig. 1. Diagram illustrating the synthesis of activities undertaken in projects assigned to the “water” category (elaborated by K. Jamioł)

Il. 1. Schemat ilustrujący syntezę działań podjętych w projektach przypisanych do kategorii „woda” (oprac. K. Jamioł)

A review of pro-climate solutions carried out in selected projects of public space 73

of materials that absorb and retain heat in urban spaces. An-

other factor that worsens this eect is the signicant lim-

itation or absence of vegetation or natural water retention,

which can positively contribute to local air temperature

reduction (Błażejczyk et al. 2014). To reduce heat islands,

designers attempted to increase the number of trees in cit-

ies (10_CZ_03; 22_AT_01) and design greenery of diverse

types, not forgetting perennial owerbeds, ground-covers,

shrubs (18_PL_03), and grasses (22_EE_03). However,

increasing the shaded area was also achieved by proper

small-scale architecture (18_SI_03), and increasing air

humidity had a positive impact on local microclimate im-

provement (22_BG_01). The designs emphasised reducing

winter wind force achieving it by planting evergreen spe-

cies (22_BG_01) and designing multi-story greenery, as

well as minimising articial lighting pollution (22_PL_03),

which negatively aects biodiversity and landscape pro-

cesses (Zalesińska 2024). Furthermore, interventions not

directly associated with blue–green infrastructure can still

contribute positively to urban climate adaptation, as well

as to other environmental benets, such as noise reduc-

tion (18_AT_01). Designers also emphasised the integra-

tion of renewable energy technologies, particularly solar

energy, including on-site energy generation (18_LV_03;

18_NL_01). Another strategy contributing to emission

reduction and supporting EU climate objectives involves

promoting the circular economy through the use of recy-

cled materials (22_EE_01; 22_FI_01), such as granite slabs

(22_SI_01) or stones salvaged from decommissioned dams

(22_FI_02), as well as the use of locally sourced materi-

als (22_PL_03), which reduces supply chain distances and

enables on-site reuse of waste. Complementary measures

included design approaches aimed at minimising long-term

maintenance requirements (22_PL_03). A further key as-

pect observed across the analysed projects was the empha-

sis on educational components, aimed at raising awareness

of climate change, its mitigation, and the purpose of the im-

plemented design interventions (Gkoltsiou, Forczek-Brata-

niec 2024).

Conclusions

The analysis of pro-ecological initiatives proved that the

projects presented at IFLA Europe exhibitions constitute

valuable research material, and their analysis in terms of

pro-climate implementations presents a broad, albeit in-

complete, range of design solutions that can be implement-

ed in urban public spaces. It is important to emphasise that

pirical evidence supports this claim, indicating that bioret-

ention basins located within street greenbelts can function

as small, spatially dispersed habitat patches, facilitating the

movement of ora and fauna between larger natural areas

(Bjørn, Howe 2023).

•

Restoration of lost ecosystem functions (REC)

The analysed projects involved land undergoing rec-

lamation – the process of restoring degraded or damaged

areas to their original natural, ecological, and function-

al values, identied as the third subcategory (IRP 2019).

This was achieved by converting intensively used arable

land into pastures (22_CZ_02), cleaning water bodies to

improve amphibian habitats (22_EE_01), or purifying

soil using phytoremediation techniques (18_NL_01, 22_

NO_03) a process in which plants are used as natural “l-

ters” that absorb, transform, store, or neutralise pollutants.

This method is ecological, inexpensive, and easy to imple-

ment (Rymsza, Gawroński and Gawrońska 2013). Another

noteworthy example involves the reclamation of land pre-

viously occupied by a landll and its transformation into

recreational areas of high ecological value (22_FI_01).

Further interventions related to blue infrastructure included

the restoration of degraded coastal ecosystems (22_ES_03)

and wetland-associated habitats (18_TR_02), the renatura-

tion of watercourses (18_CH_01), and the reconnection of

previously fragmented hydrological systems (18_NL_03).

Such measures not only enhance ecological integrity but

may also contribute to improved management of both ex-

cess and decit rainfall by increasing the overall retention

capacity of the landscape.

These actions are consistent with the strategy related to

the second goal of the Nature Restoration Law – ensuring

that at least 30% of degraded areas are eectively restored

by 2030 (Council of the European Union 2024). While this

law only entered into force in 2024, projects implemented

over the last decade can serve as examples of solutions that

can be used to positively contribute to the restoration of

degraded urban areas (Fig. 2).

Other pro-ecological activities

The above categories only include activities related to

blue–green infrastructure. It is important to note that these

activities contribute to local microclimate improvement, in-

cluding reducing the urban heat island eect (Łęczek 2022).

The formation of a heat island is caused by factors such as

dense development that reduces air circulation and the use

Fig. 2. Diagram illustrating the synthesis of activities undertaken in projects assigned to the “green” category (elaborated by K. Jamioł)

Il. 2. Schemat ilustrujący syntezę działań podjętych w projektach przypisanych do kategorii „zieleń” (oprac. K. Jamioł)

74 Urszula Forczek-Brataniec, Katarzyna Jamioł

these solutions inuence each other and positively change

the mitigation of other negative eects. For example, en-

hancing biodiversity through the diversication of green

spaces positively aects the microclimate, which mitigates

the urban heat island eect and can thus contribute to in-

creasing water retention and reducing the negative eects

of periodic droughts.

The adopted division into categories and subcategories,

along with the dened types of activities, complements

contemporary landscape architecture patterns and provides

an overview of solutions implemented in recent years. The

analysed projects include activities already catalogued in

the studies (European Commission 2021; Pötz 2016), but

many of them represent solutions not previously men-

tioned. Together, they create a dictionary of new landscape

architecture tools, a compendium of knowledge based on

a creative approach to the issue, veried by a completed

project. The implementation in this case may be evidence of

a positive transition through the later stages: from competi-

tion and tender, through procurement, nancing, regulatory

approval, and nally, the implementation of pro-ecological

solutions in public spaces. It should be noted, however, that

the eectiveness of such interventions is highly dependent

on local conditions and may vary over time.

The analysed projects were developed by multidisci-

plinary teams that included landscape architects, an ap-

proach considered particularly appropriate in the context

of escalating climate change impacts (Gkoltsiou, For czek-

Brataniec 2024). Multidisciplinary collaboration ensures

the integration of current scientic knowledge and design

tools, enabling a holistic approach that harmonises inter-

ventions with both natural and cultural contexts.

During the research, a set of good practices was iden-

tied and systematically classied. In the future, their ef-

fectiveness during the operational phase can be evaluated,

and their eciency assessed. Examples of such analyses

include the Green–Blue Grids: Manual for Resilient Cities

(Pötz 2016) and city-published catalogues of good practic-

es, such as those from Wrocław, where selected retention

solutions in public spaces were assessed in terms of reten-

tion capacity, replacement costs, operational challenges,

and water purication potential (Lejcuś et al. 2017). It is

also essential to determine which measures are most appro-

priate for implementation in dierent types of public spac-

es. Such classication will facilitate an understanding of

which interventions are likely to perform most eectively

in specic urban contexts.

The research generated data on currently implemented

climate-responsive solutions in public space projects, pre-

dominantly within Europe. Given the signicance of the

topic, a substantial sample of implementation examples

from the past decade was analysed. Continued research in

this area is warranted to expand and update the spectrum

of climate-adaptive interventions, ensuring their alignment

with the evolving dynamics of local environmental threats.

Translated by

Katarzyna Jamioł

References

Alberti, Valentina, Maria Alonso Raposo, Carmelo Attardo, et al. The

Future of Cities. Opportunities, Challenges and the Way Forward.

Publications Oce of the European Union, 2019. https://doi.

org/10.2760/375209.

Amati, Marco, Quentin Stevens, and Salvador Rueda. “Taking Play

Seriously in Urban Design: The Evolution of Barcelona’s Super-

blocks.” Space and Culture 27, no. 8 (2023): 1–16. https://doi.

org/10.1177/12063312231159229.

Barcelona City Council. Barcelona for Climate. Barcelona, 2024. Accessed

December 23, 2024, at https://www.barcelona.cat/barcelona-pel-cli-

ma/en/barcelona-responds/specic-actions/climate-shelters-network.

Bjørn, Mona Chor, and Andy G. Howe. “Multifunctional Bioretention Ba-

sins as Urban Stepping Stone Habitats for Wildowers and Pollina-

tors.” Urban Forestry and Urban Greening (2023): 1–15. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128133.

Błażejczyk, Krzysztof, Magdalena Kuchcik, Paweł Milewski, et al. Miej-

ska wyspa ciepła w Warszawie: uwarunkowania klimatyczne i urba-

nistyczne. Wydawnictwo Akademickie SEDNO, 2014.

Bowler, Diana E., Corey T. Callaghan, Jéssica F., et al. “Evidence-base for

Urban Green-blue Infrastructure to Support Insect Diversity.” Urban

Ecosystems (2024): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-024-01649-4.

Council of the European Union, European Parliament. Regulation (EU)

2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June

2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and

amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘Eu-

ropean Climate Law’). Ocial Journal of the European Union. 2021,

L 243/1. Accessed December 23, 2024, at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/

eli/reg/2021/1119/oj.

Council of the European Union, European Parliament. Regulation (EU)

2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June

2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869.

Ocial Journal of the European Union. 2024. L 29.7.2024. Accessed

December 23, 2024, at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1991/oj.

Dal Cin, Francesca, Fransje Hooimeijer, and Maria Matos Silva. “Plan-

ning the Urban Waterfront Transformation, from Infrastructures to

Public Space Design in a Sea-Level Rise Scenario: The European

Union Prize for Contemporary Architecture Case.” Water 13, no. 2

(2021): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13020218.

European Commission. “Developments and Forecasts on Continuing

Urbanisation.” Knowledge4Policy, 2020a. Accessed November 18,

2025, at https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/foresight/topic/con-

tinuing-urbanisation/developments-and-forecasts-on-continuing-ur-

banisation_en.

European Commission. “Urbanisation in Europe.” Knowledge4Policy,

2020b. Accessed November 12, 2025, at https://knowledge4policy.

ec.europa.eu/foresight/topic/continuing-urbanisation/urbanisation-eu-

rope_en.

European Commission. Evaluating the Impact of Nature-based Solutions:

A Handbook for Practitioners. 2021. https://doi.org/10.2777/244577.

European Environment Agency. European Climate Risk Assessment. EEA

Report 01/2024. 2024. https://doi.org/10.2800/204249.

European Environment Agency. Urban Adaptation in Europe: How Cities

and Towns Respond to Climate Change. EEA Report No. 12/2020.

Accessed February 4, 2025, at https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analy-

sis/publications/urban-adaptation-in-europe.

Fetting, Constanze. The European Green Deal. ESDN Report. ESDN

Oce, 2020. Accessed December 23, 2024, at https://www.esdn.eu/

leadmin/ESDN_Reports/ESDN_Report_2_2020.pdf.

Forczek-Brataniec, Urszula, and Karolina Jamioł. “The Role of Public

Space in Building the Resilience of Cities: Analysis of Representative

Projects from IFLA Europe Exhibitions.” Sustainability 16 (2024):

1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125105.

A review of pro-climate solutions carried out in selected projects of public space 75

Furchtlehner, Jürgen, Daniela Lehner, and Lilli Lička. “Sustainable

Street scapes: Design Approaches and Examples of Viennese Prac-

tice.” Sustainability 14, no. 2 (2022): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/

su14020961.

Gimenez-Maranges, Marc, Jürgen Breuste, and Angela Hof. “Sustain-

able Drainage Systems for Transitioning to Sustainable Urban

Flood Management in the European Union: A Review.” Journal of

Cleaner Production 255, no. 1 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-

pro.2020.120191.

Gkoltsiou, Aikaterini, and Urszula Forczek-Brataniec. “The Role of Land-

scape Architecture Profession Recognition in the Context of Facing

Contemporary Challenges.” Sustainability 16, no. 13 (2024): 1–19.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135362.

IFLA Europe. IFLA Europe Exhibition – Landscape Architecture as

a Common Ground. IFLA Europe, 2018. Accessed December 21,

2024, at https://www.iaeurope.eu/assets/docs/IFLA_Europe_Exhibi-

tion_Landscape_Architecture_as_a_common_ground_Catalogue.pdf.

IFLA Europe. IFLA Europe Exhibition – Reconsidering Nature. IFLA

Europe, 2022. Accessed December 21, 2024, at https://www.ia-

europe.eu/assets/docs/IFLAEurope_Exhibition2022_catalogue_vir-

tual13MB.pdf.

IRP. Land Restoration for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

United Nations Environment Programme, 2019.

Jamioł, Katarzyna, Tomasz Jaróg, and Natalia Nowak. “Reconsidering

Nature – Analysis of Design Solutions Which Improve the Resil-

ience of Urban Landscapes.” Przestrzeń Urbanistyka Architektura

1 (2023): 189–99. https://doi.org/10.37705/PUA/1/2023/13.

Kimic, Kinga, and Karina Ostrysz. “Assessment of Blue and Green In-

frastructure Solutions in Shaping Urban Public Spaces – Spatial

and Functional, Environmental, and Social Aspects.” Sustainability

(2021): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911041.

Lejcuś, Krzysztof, Ewa Burszta-Adamiak, Jolanta Dąbrowska, et al. Ka-

talog dobrych praktyk – zasady zrównoważonego gospodarowania

wodami opadowymi pochodzącymi z nawierzchni pasów drogowych.

Wrocław, 2017.

Łęczek, Aleksandra. Miejska wyspa ciepła, czyli dlaczego w obszarach zur -

ba ni zowanych jest gorąco i co zrobić, żeby było chłodniej? WUF11

– Światowe Forum Miejskie. 2022. Accessed February 2, 2025, at ht-

tps://www.gov.pl/web/wuf11/miejska-wyspa-ciepla-czyli-dlaczego-w

-obszarach-zurbanizowanych-jest-goraco-i-co-zrobic-zeby-bylo-chlo-

dniej2.

Marselle, Melissa R., Diana E. Bowler, Jan Watzema, David Eichenberg,

Toralf Kirsten, and Aletta Bonn. “Urban Street Tree Biodiversity and

Antidepressant Prescriptions.” Scientic Reports 10 (2022): 1–11.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79924-5.

Pasek, Jarosław. “Ocena wpływu programów rozwoju infrastruktury na

korytarze ekologiczne.” In Ochrona łączności ekologicznej w Pol-

sce, edited by Włodzimierz Jędrzejewski, Dorota Ławreszuk. Zakład

Badania Ssaków Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2008. Accessed Decem-

ber 27, 2024, at https://www.ibs.bialowieza.pl/g2/big/2009_12/f9be-

872871ad4df5d46b9b157525a3b4.pdf.

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Cities in Europe.

Facts and Figures on Cities and Urban Areas. PBL Publishers, 2016.

Pötz, Hiltrud. Green-blue grids. Manual for resilient cities. atelier

GROENBLAUW, 2016.

Rymsza, Barbara, Stanisław Gawroński, and Helena Gawrońska. “Fitore-

mediacja szansą na przyjazne środowisko wokół dróg i ulic.” Trans-

port Miejski i Regionalny 3 (2013): 3–7.

Silva, Maria Matos, and João Pedro Costa. “Urban Floods and Climate

Change Adaptation: The Potential of Public Space Design When Ac-

commodating Natural Processes.” Water 10, no. 2 (2018). https://doi.

org/10.3390/w10020180.

UNFCCC. The Paris Agreement. Paris, 2015. Accessed December 23,

2024, at https://unfccc.int/documents/184656.

Zalesińska, Małgorzata. “Zanieczyszczenie światłem i jego negatywne

skutki dla człowieka i środowiska.” Energetyka 5 (2024): 205–8.

Streszczenie

Przegląd rozwiązań proklimatycznych w przestrzeniach publicznych na przykładzie wybranych projektów

W obliczu postępujących zmian klimatu przestrzenie publiczne w miastach muszą sprostać nowym wyzwaniom adaptacyjnym. Wdrażanie w projek-

tach rozwiązań proekologicznych może przyczyniać się do zwiększania odporności środowiska miejskiego na zagrożenia klimatyczne oraz do poprawy

jakości życia mieszkańców. Celem autorek artykułu jest przegląd, identykacja oraz opracowanie typologii rozwiązań proekologicznych stosowanych

we współczesnych projektach europejskich przestrzeni publicznych, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem działań związanych z gospodarką wodną oraz

zieloną infrastrukturą.

Materiał badawczy stanowiły projekty przestrzeni publicznych prezentowane podczas dwóch edycji wystawy IFLA Europe. Wyróżniono dwie

główne kategorie działań: „woda” oraz „zieleń”, powiązane z kształtowaniem błękitno-zielonej infrastruktury w miastach. Uwzględniono zarówno

rozwiązania oparte na naturze (Nature-based Solutions – NBS), jak i rozwiązania wykorzystujące elementy infrastruktury technicznej.

Wyniki wskazują na rosnące znaczenie integracji rozwiązań związanych z retencją wody, zwiększaniem powierzchni biologicznie czynnych oraz

wzmacnianiem funkcji ekosystemowych w procesie kształtowania współczesnych przestrzeni miejskich.

Słowa kluczowe: adaptacja do zmian klimatu, przestrzenie publiczne, błękitno-zielona infrastruktura, rozwiązania oparte na przyrodzie,

miasta odporne