Towards Nature-Positive Smart Cities: Bridging the Gap Between Technology and Ecology

Highlights

• What are the main findings?
  • A new framework, Nature-Positive Smart Cities in a Socio-Technical-Ecological System (STES), has been proposed.
  • Findings from the literature highlight the potential of smart technologies to enhance ecosystem services and biodiversity in urban green spaces.
• What is the implication of the main finding?
  • This study supports a shift towards urban planning that prioritises biodiversity and addresses environmental challenges.
  • This study calls for policy interventions and further research to integrate ecological considerations into urban planning and design.

Abstract

In the biodiversity and climate emergency, a holistic approach is needed for the development of smart cities. This perspective paper proposed a novel conceptual framework for nature-positive smart cities in a socio-technical-ecological system (STES), which bridged the gap between technological advancement and ecological principles within the existing smart city approach, enabling cities to transition towards a biodiversity-led paradigm. Based on recent literature on smart cities and nature-positive cities, this framework combines the principles of nature-positive cities and smart cities with the technological capabilities of Nature 4.0, using tools such as AI, sensors, IoT, big data analytics, and machine learning. The literature shows that smart green spaces have already been developed worldwide; therefore, education is needed for personnel working in local government to effectively use this new technology. The paper presents examples of how smart technologies can be utilised within urban green spaces to maximise ecosystem services and biodiversity. Finally, it provides recommendations and areas for future research, concluding with a call for specific policy interventions to facilitate the transition towards nature-positive smart cities.

1. Introduction

Rapid population growth, increasing urbanisation, and unsustainable development are placing immense stress on global ecosystems, endangering the Earth [1]. This population growth leads to a significant strain on natural resources, with over 13 million hectares of forest lost annually to various land uses, including agriculture and urban expansion [2]. This habitat destruction, driven largely by urbanisation, remains the primary threat to biodiversity [2]. These impacts of urbanisation and deforestation are compounded by other human-induced environmental disruptions, including climate change, which pose a grave threat to the biosphere and its ability to provide vital ecosystem services [3]. Indeed, the climate catastrophe is entering a critical and uncertain phase for humanity [4]. These interconnected changes, including the impacts of urbanisation, deforestation and climate change, underscore the Anthropocene as an era of significant environmental degradation, characterised by biodiversity loss, insect decline, and the looming threat of a sixth mass extinction [5,6,7,8,9].

A key example of this decline is seen in insect populations [5,6,10]. In many ecosystems, insect abundance and diversity are declining due to a combination of factors, including habitat loss, pollution, pesticide use, invasive species, artificial light at night, climate change, and overexploitation [5,6,10,11,12].

This decline threatens essential ecosystem services and functions, such as pollination, decomposition, and pest control, which are vital for both ecosystem stability and human wellbeing, including global food security [10,13,14,15]. Indeed, maintaining healthy ecosystems through effective planning is fundamental for sustainable social and economic development, and crucially underpins global health [16,17]. Consequently, urban design and planning must prioritise strategies to predict and mitigate biodiversity loss, including that caused by urbanisation, buffering against the devastating long-term impacts of habitat loss, climate change, pollution and species invasions [10,18,19].

Therefore, within the landscape architecture and urban planning literature, various approaches and concepts have been proposed for sustainable development, creating resilient cities, and improving the overall quality of life for their citizens [20,21,22,23]. In particular, over the past century, research in this area has largely followed two main strands: one, emerging from the 1960s, focused on ecological design and planning with nature as the key focus [23,24] (e.g., McHarg’s Design with Nature [25,26] and a more recent strand emphasising the technological aspects of smart cities, utilising IoT, information and communication technologies (ICTs), digital twins, and artificial intelligence (AI) [27,28,29,30,31,32]. This latter approach, rooted in smart urbanism, envisions urban spaces where interactive infrastructure, high-tech development, the digital economy, and engaged citizens are integrated—a vision promoted by various stakeholders, including international organisations, the corporate sector, and governments at all levels [33].

Since its first appearance in 1998, the term “smart city” has been emphasised by several scholars [34]. However, it does not refer to a city with specific characteristics; rather, it describes a variety of urban situations [34]. These include web portals that virtualise cities or city guides, knowledge bases that address local needs, agglomerations with ICT infrastructure that attract business relocation, metropolitan-wide ICT infrastructures that provide e-services to the public, ubiquitous environments [34], and, more recently, the use of AI in smart city domains such as smart government, economics, mobility, environment, living, and people [35].

Proponents contend that the development of smart cities has the potential to foster positive social change through the adoption of ICTs, enhanced governance, and the cultivation of human capital among citizens to promote sustainable development goals (SDGs) [27,36,37,38].

These aspects of sustainability, along with quality of life (QOL), are integral to the evolving concept of smart cities [39]. Initially, the focus was primarily on digital technologies and their applications in urban management [40,41]. However, the concept has gradually expanded to encompass a multidimensional and integrated vision that includes sustainability and QOL [36,39]. This evolution reflects the adoption of the SDGs and a broader understanding of the complexities of urban development [39].

The growing body of literature highlights this shift. For example, Caragliu et al. (2011) [42] examine the various dimensions of smart cities in Europe, emphasising the need to integrate technological advancements with social and environmental goals. Similarly, Giffinger and Kramar (2021) [43], using the European smart cities approach, describe different types of smart urban development and their relationships to sustainability.

Recent studies, such as research by Wang and Zhou, have explored these assertions. Utilising data from the 2018 China Family Panel Studies and applying a generalised ordered logit model, the research examines the impact of core smart city investments—namely ICT and human capital—on subjective quality of life [44].

The study reveals that ICT is negatively associated with life satisfaction and the frequency of positive emotions, while human capital exerts a positive influence on both life satisfaction and positive emotions and reduces the frequency of negative emotions [44]. Furthermore, the research indicates that ICT and human capital indirectly affect subjective QOL through perceptions of government corruption and performance, with significant variations observed across different age groups and levels of education [44]. However, the smart city approach has also been criticised in the literature [39,45]. For example, there is disagreement over what characteristics define smart cities, especially in relation to their function in urban sustainability and modern urbanism, despite their broad adoption and current global momentum [46]. In addition, while smart city initiatives predominantly utilise ICT for managing municipal operations, there is a lack of robust evaluation regarding their social and sustainability benefits [46].

Furthermore, research and policy agendas surrounding smart cities have often insufficiently integrated social, environmental, and community considerations, underemphasising the role of social and environmental capital and citizen [45,47,48]. Although some frameworks have attempted to link smart, compact, and biophilic city concepts, prioritising spatial sustainability through compact urban forms [48,49,50,51], the dominant smart city paradigm frequently overlooks critical environmental concerns, particularly biodiversity conservation and climate resilience [45,47].

The current smart cities approach, largely focused on infrastructure and connectivity [47,52], risks creating “smart” concrete jungles that exacerbate environmental degradation, leading to increased heat island effects, reduced biodiversity, and diminished human wellbeing [53]. This approach, lacking an urban ecological foundation [45], fails to adequately consider the health of natural ecosystems and the socio ecological interactions.

Furthermore, the prevailing model of urban development often disregards the vital role of natural ecosystem health, resulting in adverse effects on ecosystem structure and function due to factors such as resource extraction, land-use conversion, and pollutant emissions [16]. Sustainable planning may be achieved by incorporating ecology into city design and planning [18], but ecology by itself is unable to supply the sophisticated data required by managers and planners [54]. It is necessary to build an integration of concepts and methods that satisfy managers and social and natural scientists alike [54]. This necessitates a fundamental re-evaluation of the smart cities approach through a socio-ecological lens. This re-evaluation should integrate the recent nature-positive paradigm to enable cities to meet the goals of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework [55,56]. Building on the study of Hui et al. (2023) [57], which proposed the integration of urban natural resources and smart city technologies to promote sustainability, this paper critiques the limitations of the existing smart cities model. It argues for a unified approach that fosters synergies between technological innovation and socio-ecological factors, aligning urban development with global environmental goals, particularly those that emphasise the interdependencies between biodiversity, ecosystem services, and sustainable development, as highlighted by Reyers and Selig (2020) [52].

This paper traces the evolution from McHarg’s seminal work, Design with Nature, to the current Nature 4.0 approach [58], which provides a framework for developing nature-positive smart cities (Section 2). It also presents examples of how smart technologies can be utilised within urban green spaces to maximise ecosystem services and biodiversity.

Finally, the paper provides recommendations and areas for future research, concluding with a call for specific policy interventions to facilitate the transition towards nature-positive smart cities (Section 3).

2. From Design with Nature to Nature-Positive Smart Cities

2.1. Historical Evolution of Nature in Urban Planning and Design

The role of nature in urban planning has undergone a significant transformation, shifting from being considered separate from cities to being recognised as an integral component of urban systems [24]. A key milestone in this evolution was Ian McHarg’s Design with Nature (1969), which profoundly influenced the ecological movement in urban planning and policy [24]. McHarg challenged the prevailing notion of nature as merely a retreat from industrial urban life, instead advocating for its protection as a fundamental life-supporting system [24]. Rather than restricting nature to peripheral greenbelts, he promoted its spatial integration within urban areas through nature-based design and the incorporation of extensive green spaces [24].

Over time, this perspective has evolved, reflecting broader conceptual shifts in urban planning [23]. Initially, efforts centred on the conservation of natural habitats and ecological connectivity [23]. Subsequently, there was an increasing focus on the benefits of nature for human well-being [23]. From the 1980s onwards, interest in integrating ecological principles into urban planning and design became more pronounced. By the 2000s, a more holistic socio-ecological systems approach had emerged, driven by a growing awareness of the adverse impacts of urbanisation on landscapes and global ecosystems, its implications for human health and wellbeing, insights from systems theory, and advances in sustainability research and policy [23].

Figure 1 illustrates this trajectory, tracing the conceptual evolution from McHarg’s work to more recent frameworks, such as nature-based solutions (NBS) from the 2000s onwards [59]. More recently, emerging paradigms, including Nature 4.0 [58] and nature-positive cities [55], have gained prominence. The figure presents key milestones in this transformation, including significant reports, frameworks, and policy developments that have shaped the integration of nature in urban environments. These developments highlight the increasing recognition of nature as a fundamental element of sustainable urban planning and design, with a growing emphasis on biodiversity conservation, climate resilience, and nature-positive strategies. The following sections will explore these concepts in further detail.

2.2. The Rise of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)

Nature’s role is increasingly prominent not only in urban planning and landscape architecture literature, but also in research exploring its benefits in cities [60]. This literature covers a wide range of fields, including psychology, urban planning, environmental health, education and development, landscape design, and medicine [60].

Building on this growing interest, the concept of nature-based solutions (NBS) first emerged in the early 2000s, initially within the context of land-use and water resource management [59]. By the mid-2000s, NBS began to appear in industrial design literature as well [59]. In 2008, the World Bank [61] adopted the term to highlight nature as a solution to climate change-related challenges [59]. Subsequently, in 2009, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) included NBS in a position paper for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which further broadened its application [59,62]. Since then, both the IUCN and the European Commission have played pivotal roles in expanding and supporting NBS [59]. In 2020, the IUCN introduced the Global Standard for NBS, thereby providing a comprehensive framework for the implementation of these solutions across various sectors [63,64]. As NBS gained recognition, their role in addressing societal challenges became increasingly significant [62,64]. In particular, research indicates that NBS offer a wide range of benefits, with a primary focus on mitigating climate change [62,65,66,67,68]. Studies suggest that NBS could provide up to 30% of the cost-effective mitigation needed by 2030 to keep global warming below 2 °C [64]. Additionally, they can serve as a strong barrier against the effects and long-term risks of climate change, which represents the most significant threat to biodiversity [64]. Communities incorporating natural elements can achieve substantial energy savings and experience positive health effects [64]. For instance, a study by Cortinovis et al. (2022) evaluates the potential and advantages of expanding NBS for climate adaptation in Barcelona, Malmö, and Utrecht, revealing that green roofs are most effective for reducing runoff and enhancing biodiversity, while tree planting excels in heat mitigation and increasing greenness, with benefits varying based on urban structure and land use [68].

2.3. Nature-Positive Cities and Urban Development

Building on this understanding of the benefits of nature, recent literature has focused on the concept of a “nature-positive” approach [69,70]. Concepts such as nature-positive design, biodiversity-positive design, nature-positive infrastructure, and nature-positive cities [55,71,72,73,74,75] are gaining momentum, with a particular focus on biodiversity. The recent “Nature Positive: Guidelines for the Transition in Cities” [55] report provides a clear definition of nature-positive cities. According to the report, nature-positive cities are those that:

• “Commit to act to the benefit of nature and leave it in a better state than it was before, both within and beyond their own city boundaries” [55] (p. 15).
• “Translate this commitment into formal objectives and clear science-based targets tailored to their context, ideally detailed in a nature strategy that also addresses the required enablers” [55] (p. 15).
• “Implement actions to deliver on set targets, and monitor and report on their impact” [55] (p. 15).

This concept urges cities to not just reduce their negative impact on nature but actively contribute to its restoration by 2030 and beyond. This requires establishing clear goals and measurable progress, aligning with the Global Biodiversity Framework’s (GBF) aim to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 and ensure its long-term value, preservation, restoration, and sustainable use by 2050 [55]. As highlighted in the report, the next decade must focus on ecosystem, habitat, and species regeneration, presenting cities with a significant opportunity to integrate nature as a core component of their development [55]. Whilst the general idea of “nature-positive” has been discussed for some time, effective implementation requires specific targets and baselines to track progress towards the GBF’s objectives of halting biodiversity loss, maintaining ecosystem services, and ensuring a healthy planet that benefits all [55].

2.4. Technological Nature and the Concept of Nature 4.0

Alongside the development of the nature-positive framework, the literature has explored the related concept of a technological nature, termed Nature 4.0. Swiątek (2018) describes this concept as the reintegration and transformation of “human-nature” systems from pathogenic to salutogenic states [58]. The framework emphasises the creation of intelligent green–blue infrastructure to enhance bio-productive lands, sustain biodiversity, and strengthen ecosystems’ regenerative capacities [58]. This shift from Industry 4.0 to Nature 4.0 represents a long-term evolution aimed at improving the vitality and regenerative potential of Society 5.0 members [58]. Several authors have investigated the concept of Nature 4.0 in various contexts. For example, Zeuss et al. (2023) conceptualised Nature 4.0 as a networked sensor system designed for integrated biodiversity monitoring [76]. Their approach addressed challenges in biodiversity assessment by developing a modular system comprising sensors, data transmission, and data storage [76]. By incorporating plants and animals as integral components of the sensor network, this system enabled automated biodiversity monitoring [76]. This method provided a cost-efficient and robust solution for biodiversity assessment, supporting the sustainable management of ecosystems and the provision of ecosystem services [76].

Furthermore, Thiele (2020) investigated Nature 4.0 in the context of assisted evolution, de-extinction, and ecological restoration technologies [76]. These advanced methods utilised synthetic biology to conserve biodiversity and restore ecosystems by assisting the evolution of species and reviving extinct ones. While these technologies demonstrated significant potential for ecological restoration, they also posed substantial ecological and cultural risks, highlighting the need for careful consideration and interdisciplinary collaboration [76].

2.5. Smart Urban Forests and Smart Parks

A technological nature already exists in the form of smart urban forests, smart urban green spaces, and parks [77]. In response to this growing need, SMART Parks™: A Toolkit, developed by the UCLA Luskin Centre for Innovation, offers technologies for creating SMART parks—an innovative concept integrating environmental, digital, and physical technologies to improve park performance [78]. This aligns with Hui et al. (2023), who categorised green spaces into two main types: smart green spaces, which utilise advanced systems such as sensors for irrigation and lighting or transform spaces into energy sources, and green spaces for social development, which focus on creating recreational areas, spaces for gatherings, and fostering community engagement in design and upkeep [57]. The study also compared green space data analysis in Western and Eastern countries, highlighting both similarities and differences in technology use, the importance of reducing air pollution, and stakeholder engagement [57]. For example, in Western cities such as Copenhagen and London, the focus is on advanced technology such as CCTV cameras, sensors, AI algorithms, and machine learning for the development of green spaces. In these Western contexts, green space data analysis is used to identify areas for regreening and reduce pollutants. Conversely, in Eastern contexts, green space data analysis has been used for water irrigation calculation and management [57]. Figure 2 shows international examples of smart technologies in urban blue and green spaces.

Several reviews and studies have been conducted to explore smart urban forestry. For example, Nitoslawski et al. (2019) reviewed trends and technologies in smart urban forestry and proposed a framework for conceptualising smart urban forests and their management [79]. They emphasised the role of digital technologies, such as sensors, the Internet of Things (IoT), big data analytics, and augmented/virtual reality, in enhancing the delivery of forest benefits and facilitating stakeholder engagement [79]. Current smart urban forestry projects primarily focus on open data and citizen participation, particularly through the use of mobile devices and open-source mapping platforms [79]. In a related vein, Prebble et al. (2021) examined the application of digital technologies in urban forest management within Australian cities [80]. Their study employed a more-than-human lens to analyse local council policies and projects, highlighting the use of digital geographies to collect and manage tree data [80]. They identified challenges such as balancing priorities, access to resources, technological constraints, and community engagement. Despite these challenges, the study highlighted the potential of digital technologies to deepen human-nature relationships and foster collaborations in urban environments [80].

Building on this exploration of practical applications, Srinurak et al. (2024) explored the Smart Urban Forest Initiative in Chiang Mai, Thailand, focusing on the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and a web-based platform to enhance urban forest management [81]. This approach combined NBS and a people-centred smart city framework (PC-SMA) to monitor tree health in historic urban areas [81]. Data from a mobile application revealed that trees are most vulnerable to damage from animals and insects, particularly in areas with unsuitable soil [81]. Phenological data, such as blooming and fruiting patterns, were identified as essential for tailoring tree care and maintenance [81]. Heatmaps and risk analyses informed by these findings could support urban planning strategies, improving decision-making and resource allocation for tree management [81].

Looking towards future developments, Aragani and Maroju (2024) explore the future of urban development with a focus on integrating blue–green infrastructure, which combines natural and engineered systems to enhance urban resilience, sustainability, and liveability [82]. They emphasise the key role of cloud infrastructure in supporting these initiatives by improving data management, facilitating real-time monitoring, and enabling collaborative decision-making processes [82]. The study analyses the potential of smart water management systems, green spaces, and AI-driven analytics to create adaptive urban environments [82].

2.6. The Need for a Comprehensive Framework for Nature-Positive Smart Cities

The above examples demonstrate the growing potential of smart technologies in enhancing urban green spaces. However, while such technologies offer valuable solutions, they also highlight the need for a comprehensive and city-specific framework to achieve the broader vision of nature-positive smart cities [55]. This perspective has illustrated the potential of Nature 4.0, highlighting innovations such as biodiversity monitoring, ecological restoration, and the integration of green-blue infrastructure to build urban environments that are both sustainable and resilient [58,76]. However, these advancements alone are insufficient without embedding a stronger socio-ecological lens into smart city planning. Since AI-based techniques and tools are being used to optimise particular NBS benefits (such as water management, climate management, economic evaluation, etc.), there is a potential to combine these AI-based models into a single framework or tool intended for urban NBS exploratory planning, which would enable co-creation approaches to take centre stage [83]. Prodanovic et al. (2024), suggest three ways AI can enhance NBS urban planning using current AI solutions for language processing, rapid visualisation, and climate, water quality, and quantity prediction: (1) integration into urban planning tools for rapid exploratory modelling; (2) facilitating stakeholder and cross-sector collaboration throughout project phases; and (3) presenting and disseminating project results for improved visualisation of project achievements [83].

2.7. The Socio-Technical-Ecological System (STES) Framework

Building on these technological advancements, this paper proposes a framework that merges the principles of nature-positive cities and smart cities with the technological capabilities of Nature 4.0. This integration is realised through tools such as AI, sensors, IoT, big data analytics, and machine learning, forming a socio-technical-ecological system (STES), as proposed by Rohde et al. (2024) [84] (Figure 3). This framework [84,85] acknowledges that urban green and blue spaces are complex socio-ecological systems [86,87,88] shaped by the interplay of social, ecological, and technical factors and delivering a wide array of social–ecological values [89]. The social aspects of urban green spaces include human wellbeing, governance structures, community engagement, cultural and historical significance, social equity, and community perceptions and needs [19,90,91,92,93]. The “technical” component includes the technologies used to design, manage, monitor, and improve these spaces, such as sensors, digital twin technology, AI, and IoT [94,95]. The ecological component refers to the biophysical aspects and structures of urban green spaces, including biodiversity, soil, water, ecosystem processes and functions, spatial characteristics such as shape and size, and biophysical structures like canopy cover [88].

2.8. Integrating Resilience into Smart Urban Ecological Design

The interconnected elements of the framework integrate resilience into ecology and design for urban resilience to natural disasters [96]. For example, when planning for urban resilience to extreme weather events such as bushfires and flooding, this framework can utilise digital twin technology [94] to design and implement resilient ecological infrastructure strategies, offering an integrated approach to mitigation and adaptation [96]. Furthermore, given that budgetary restrictions often create significant management challenges for local governments seeking to increase urban green spaces, this approach has the potential to improve the sustainable and resilient governance of these areas. The use of technologies can also reduce disservices and dangers (e.g., casualties and property damage); for example, integrating AI and IoT for tree monitoring can improve safety against tree failure accidents [97]. Furthermore, inexpensive unmanned aerial vehicles, AI and sensors can be used to monitor urban wildlife and improve safe human-nature interactions [98]. Such an approach prioritises ecological restoration, biodiversity conservation, and climate resilience and has the potential to improve ecosystem services while minimising ecosystem disservices for human wellbeing. However, community involvement in the co-design of nature-positive cities is crucial. This can be facilitated by the use of AI and machine learning to analyse community needs and perceptions [99].

3. Conclusions and Recommendations

The smart cities concept has gained traction in urban planning and development; however, this technology-focused approach frequently overlooks key environmental concerns such as biodiversity loss and climate change. Simultaneously, the nature-positive cities [55] concept has emerged, introducing a framework aimed at achieving global biodiversity goals. However, as Thomas et al. (2024) [56] highlight implementing such approaches requires overcoming significant challenges to align urban development with biodiversity conservation objectives and support the achievement of the 2030 Targets and Mission outlined by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). In addition, achieving nature-positive outcomes requires addressing the accumulation of irreversible biodiversity losses [56]. This is particularly vital for threatened species and ecosystems, where any residual impacts must be avoided, minimised, rehabilitated, and, where necessary, more than fully compensated to ensure absolute biodiversity gains [56]. Policies allowing flexibility that prioritise development over biodiversity conservation undermine these principles, resulting in further biodiversity losses for the most vulnerable species and ecosystems [56]. In response, the proposed framework, nature-positive smart cities, aligns with previous critiques of the smart cities model, such as those by Colding and Barthel (2017) [45], who highlighted the need for urban designs to evolve into holistic sustainability concepts. They suggested integrating “nature-based solutions in tandem with digital technologies” to address environmental challenges while fostering habits and values that encourage environmental stewardship [45].

The nature-positive smart cities framework bridges this gap by integrating technological innovation with ecological principles, prioritising biodiversity, and ecosystem services to guide the design, construction, and management of urban green spaces, habitat restoration, and the integration of vegetation into the built environment. It positions nature as a central component of urban strategies, particularly in the face of the current biodiversity and climate crises. In addition, this framework has the potential to foster a biophilic environment that supports childhood development [100], expands urban green spaces, and promotes gardening activities for food production [101,102,103]. These elements collectively improve urban resilience and quality of life, even in the face of future pandemics [104,105,106].

In order to ensure the practical applicability and success of the nature-positive smart cities framework, it is important to initiate pilot projects that test its feasibility, demonstrate its tangible benefits, and evaluate its scalability across diverse urban contexts. These projects would serve to bridge the gap between theoretical concepts and practical implementation. Building on the principles outlined in “Nature Positive: Guidelines for the Transition in Cities” [55], policy measures must prioritise embedding ecological considerations into urban planning processes.

This includes incentivising green infrastructure development, creating robust metrics for biodiversity monitoring, and aligning urban strategies with biodiversity conservation goals [56]. For any city to successfully transition towards a nature-positive state, it must commit to acting for the benefit of nature, define a nature strategy with concrete objectives and targets, and implement actions to achieve those targets [55].

Furthermore, comprehensive training programs for local government staff are essential, focusing on the practical application of relevant technologies, data analysis techniques, and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration among urban planners, ecologists, and technology specialists to ensure the effective adoption and utilisation of AI technologies in local government services [107].

Finally, as local governments often face budget constraints that limit green space expansion due to the need to allocate limited funds between essential services [108], thus understanding how to finance nature-positive smart cities projects is crucial. Future research is needed to explore how biodiversity net gain mechanisms, carbon credits, private finance mechanisms, or funding mechanisms using green infrastructure can promote cooperation between economically and socio-ecologically focused stakeholders [55,109,110,111]. This research will help finance nature-positive smart cities projects while avoiding greenwashing.

Future research should also investigate the integration of the three pillars of sustainability (environmental, economic, and social) [112,113] within pilot studies of the nature-positive smart cities framework. This could include an empirical analysis of pilot cases, examining both the implementation of sustainable urban development measures and their holistic impact across these pillars [113,114].