The first stage of the project focused on urban areas, aiming to characterise the distribution of NCP across social groups and to evaluate whether this distribution aligns with population needs. We mapped two regulating NCP - heatwave mitigation and flood mitigation - and one non-material NCP, recreation, for which we developed a new composite index integrating indicators of green-space quality, accessibility, and recreational potential. By combining these spatial layers with publicly available socio-economic data, we assessed:
i) environmental segregation, defined as the co-occurrence of socio-economic spatial segregation (e.g. poor vs. secure households) and variation in NCP supply; and
ii) matches or mismatches between NCP supply and demand, recognizing that certain groups, such as children and the elderly, have heightened vulnerability and therefore greater need for regulating NCP. The analysis uncovered marked environmental segregation for regulating NCP, with poorer households experiencing lower levels of these NCP. By contrast, opportunities for urban recreation were more evenly distributed: although vegetation cover was lower in dense, low-income neighbourhoods, these areas benefited from high-quality urban parks. We further found substantial supply–demand mismatches, particularly for heatwave mitigation in poorer neighbourhoods. These findings advance previous research by directly linking environmental segregation patterns to multiple NCP. The resulting maps and indicators can support decision-makers by identifying priority areas for green infrastructure and nature-based solutions that deliver equitable benefits across populations.
The second stage of the project examined individual-level determinants of people’s ability to benefit from nature, together with ecological factors shaping NCP availability in their surroundings. An online participatory GIS survey (ppGIS) disseminated through local institutions, NGOs, and the general public collected information on valued NCP and their locations, multiple quality-of-life dimensions, barriers to accessing or benefiting from NCP, and respondents’ socio-demographic and economic profiles.
Barriers to benefiting from NCP proved diverse - physical (e.g. low availability of NCP-providing spaces), legal (access restrictions), relational (lack of company, financial constraints), and psychosocial (preferences, motivation). We showed that the types of barriers varied by NCP category (regulating, material, non-material) and by population group. Women, urban residents, low-income respondents, and people with reduced physical mobility reported the greatest number of barriers, which had a direct negative effect on their quality of life. While previous studies suggest that disadvantaged groups face stronger obstacles to nature access, this is the first study to compare these barriers across multiple NCP types and link them explicitly to quality-of-life outcomes. The results underscore that effectively addressing environmental and social inequalities requires policies that not only enhance NCP supply but also ensure that diverse groups can meaningfully access and benefit from them.
This work has been central to multiple communication and dissemination activities. Results have been shared via peer-reviewed publications (one under review, one soon ready for submission), as well as through stakeholder meetings, reports, and a training session. Ongoing analyses using the survey data include: i) assessing how different aspects of people’s relationship with nature contribute to quality of life; and ii) investigating how socio-demographic variables and place of residence jointly shape realised NCP benefits. These analyses should lead to two additional publications.
