A green city is not produced by vegetation alone but by the regimes of knowledge that determine what vegetation is, where it belongs, which functions matter, how effects are measured and whose interpretation can alter the plan. Contemporary urban greening is therefore less a single environmental programme than an epistemic reorganisation of urban space. The blunt category of “green” is already disintegrating under the pressure of more exact evidence. Hao and colleagues separate vegetation into structural, species and colour diversity and show that these dimensions interact rather than simply accumulate; maximal complexity is not automatically optimal.
Gong, Yang and Li introduce nature connectedness as a mediator between biodiversity and wellbeing, demonstrating that environmental effects cannot be detached from the experiential histories through which people perceive ecological difference. Croeser and colleagues shift attention from composition to position: converting many parking spaces into small green areas produces one kind of result, but targeting fewer retrofits according to ecological connectivity can generate substantially greater benefit per unit of intervention. The city therefore emerges as a relational ecological field in which amount, type, perception and location cannot be collapsed into a single green-space measure. Cook and colleagues expose the institutional corollary of this complexity. Decades of discourse around multifunctional green infrastructure have not generated fully multifunctional implementation because disciplinary divisions determine which functions become visible: engineered systems tend to be framed through stormwater, while more natural systems are associated with biodiversity or wellbeing. Multifunctionality is consequently not a passive property waiting to be discovered after construction. It has to be intentionally designed through the coordination of distinct knowledges before spatial decisions harden. Li and colleagues make the evidential weakness of easy multifunctionality explicit. Across 185 nature-based-solution cases in 87 cities and 33 countries, positive biodiversity outcomes are common, yet the evidence is unevenly distributed across taxa, intervention types and indicators, and most cases lack baseline comparison. The problem is not a scarcity of green claims but an insufficiency in the architecture of comparison. Knowledge infrastructure becomes the hidden substrate of ecological infrastructure: baselines, indicators, models, categories and thresholds determine which urban transformations can be recognised as effective. Konijnendijk’s 3–30–300 rule provides the inverse operation, translating complex evidence into a spatially intelligible standard of views, canopy and proximity. Its force is precisely its reduction. The rule demonstrates how scientific knowledge crosses into governance by acquiring a memorable geometry, while simultaneously revealing the danger that heterogeneous conditions may be compressed into universal prescriptions. Between Li’s demand for stronger evaluation and Konijnendijk’s demand for actionable simplicity lies the central epistemological problem of the green city: how to make ecological complexity operational without destroying the distinctions that make it true. Pluchinotta and colleagues answer by changing who builds the model. Their participatory system-dynamics work in Thamesmead turns stakeholders’ understandings of maintenance, accessibility, safety, participation and use into explicit causal relations that can be simulated and contested. The model is not merely predictive; it is an epistemic meeting place in which assumptions become inspectable and social learning becomes part of urban analysis. Egerer and colleagues produce a comparable shift at the scale of community gardens in Berlin and Munich, treating them as real-world laboratories where biodiversity practices are co-created with gardeners and neighbourhood actors, tested materially and considered for transfer across wider urban ecosystems. In both cases, knowledge is produced inside the intervention rather than delivered to it from outside. Urban nature becomes a device through which scientific, situated and institutional intelligences encounter one another. Hölscher and colleagues then show the institutional difficulty of making such encounters durable. Co-production has to acquire capacities, resources, legitimacy, partnerships and organisational space if it is to move from exceptional pilot to ordinary governance. Green transformation is therefore inseparable from administrative transformation. The spatial system can only learn when the institutional system can absorb knowledge that it did not generate by itself.
The political limit of this emerging epistemology appears most clearly in Derickson and colleagues’ account of justice and urban greening. Their argument moves beyond distributive questions—who gets trees, parks or green infrastructure—to the historical and epistemic processes through which urban inequalities are produced and interpreted. Researchers are asked to reconsider scale, practice reflexivity, embrace uncertainty and recognise themselves as knowledge brokers whose methods can either reproduce or interrupt the marginalisation of other ways of knowing. This is a decisive enlargement of the urban ecological object. “Urban” no longer names a bounded container inside which green interventions occur; it names processes of urbanisation whose material, ecological and political relations cross neighbourhoods, municipalities and regions. The scale at which a green benefit is measured can therefore change whether the same intervention appears just or unjust. A wetland restored elsewhere may compensate a metric while intensifying vulnerability locally; a canopy target may improve an average while leaving historically deprived streets unchanged; a biodiversity intervention may succeed according to species richness while failing according to residents’ capacity to use or shape the space. Epistemic justice becomes material because categories, maps and indicators participate in the distribution of consequences. This is where the contemporary green-city literature becomes unusually fertile for Socioplastics. It reveals that every infrastructure is accompanied by a grammar of admission: some relations become variables, some experiences become evidence, some scales become authoritative, some uncertainties disappear through modelling, and some actors acquire the institutional right to translate knowledge into space. An archive capable of holding this field cannot merely collect papers under headings such as biodiversity, nature-based solutions or green infrastructure. It must preserve the operations through which knowledge changes state. A factorial experiment isolates variables; a connectivity model reorders spatial priority; a systematic review creates comparability; a planning rule compresses evidence; a participatory model formalises plural understandings; a community garden tests knowledge through practice; a governance study examines institutional absorption; a justice framework interrogates authority itself. These are epistemic technologies. Their outputs circulate differently and produce different spatial powers. Socioplastics can therefore treat the green city as a laboratory for infrastructural epistemology: a field in which evidence becomes thresholds, models become negotiations, metrics become investment priorities, situated knowledge becomes governance and ecological relations become public objects. The operative objective is neither to dissolve expertise into participation nor to defend expert knowledge against situated experience. It is to design translations that remain reversible and accountable, so that compressed rules can return to their evidential conditions, models can reveal their assumptions, classifications can be contested, and local knowledge can enter without being stripped of the context that gives it force. Such a system would understand public legibility not as simplification but as structured access to complexity. This also changes how ecological innovation should be evaluated. Novelty does not reside only in introducing a new green technology; it may lie in changing the regime through which an existing urban condition becomes perceptible and actionable. A parking space recognised as a connectivity barrier, a garden recognised as a biodiversity laboratory, a resident recognised as a co-producer of environmental knowledge, or a baseline recognised as absent can each reorganise what the city is capable of doing. The green city, in this sense, is a city that modifies its own apparatus for knowing. It does not simply accumulate ecological objects; it develops the capacity to revise the distinctions by which ecological value is seen, measured, negotiated and distributed. Within Socioplastics, this transformation condenses as RegimeMutation.
Anto Lloveras is an architect and urban researcher working across spatial practice, epistemology, urban systems, archives and public knowledge infrastructures through LAPIEZA LAB and Socioplastics.
Cook, L.M. et al. (2024) ‘Towards the intentional multifunctionality of urban green infrastructure: a paradox of choice?’, npj Urban Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-024-00145-0.
Croeser, T., Bekessy, S.A., Garrard, G.E. and Kirk, H. (2024) ‘Nature-based solutions for urban biodiversity: Spatial targeting of retrofits can multiply ecological connectivity benefits’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 251, 105169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105169.
Derickson, K. et al. (2024) ‘The intersection of justice and urban greening: Future directions and opportunities for research and practice’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 95, 128279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128279.
Egerer, M., Karlebowski, S., Schoo, D. and Sturm, U. (2024) ‘Growing gardens into neighborhoods through transdisciplinary research’, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 100, 128481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128481.
Gong, C., Yang, R. and Li, S. (2024) ‘The role of urban green space in promoting health and well-being is related to nature connectedness and biodiversity: Evidence from a two-factor mixed-design experiment’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 245, 105020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105020.
Hao, J. et al. (2024) ‘Vegetation diversity in structure, species or colour: Coupling effects of the different characteristics of urban green spaces on preference and perceived restoration’, Ecological Indicators, 169, 112897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112897.
Hölscher, K. et al. (2024) ‘Embedding co-production of nature-based solutions in urban governance: Emerging co-production capacities in three European cities’, Environmental Science & Policy, 152, 103652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103652.
Li, M., Remme, R.P., van Bodegom, P.M. and van Oudenhoven, A.P.E. (2025) ‘How do nature-based solutions contribute to biodiversity in cities?’, Ecological Indicators, 175, 113523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113523.
Pluchinotta, I. et al. (2024) ‘Co-producing knowledge on the use of urban natural space: Participatory system dynamics modelling to understand a complex urban system’, Journal of Environmental Management, 353, 120110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120110.