Among the examples of incorporating GI into urban adaptation policies, the case of Pakistan stands out, where several actions have been implemented at the municipal level to address CC [38]. One such initiative is the Clean Green City Movement, launched in 2019, which focuses on expanding vegetation cover and promoting urban cleanliness as key CA measures. This strategy also encourages the participation of local actors in climate governance, reinforcing the role of communities in responding to environmental transformations [38].

With regard to the Global North, five cities - Amsterdam, Bristol, Montreal, Toulouse, and Portland - were analysed from the perspective of the intersections between GI, public health, and environmental justice [19]. The analysis identified three main patterns of action in urban CA initiatives: (1) Neglect, exemplified by Amsterdam and Bristol, where climate and health visions lacked grounding in social justice and did not adopt intersectional approaches, prioritising technocratic governance; (2) Omission, observed in Montreal and Toulouse, where equity rhetoric was present but not accompanied by concrete measures ensuring benefits for vulnerable populations; and (3) Aspiration, in the case of Portland, which showed stronger alignment with climate justice policies by articulating urban planning, public health, and intersectoral governance [19]. The case stands out for adopting a climate equity and health framework, identifying socio-structurally vulnerable populations, providing culturally accessible materials, and fostering collaboration between the Office of Planning and Sustainability, the Multnomah Health Department, and community-led coalitions such as the ACHIEVE Coalition [19]. The plan also proposes increasing the equitable distribution of tree canopy and explicitly seeks to incorporate the perspectives of communities historically excluded from climate action planning. Even so, the literature does not allow us to conclude that green gentrification was fully avoided, but it does indicate that Portland offers a stronger example of the institutionalisation of climate justice principles in adaptation planning [19].

By contrast, the importance of urban GI on private land in Austrian cities was highlighted [44]. Although urban planning has historically concentrated GI efforts on public areas, the authors argue that safeguarding and expanding GI on private land, especially residential properties, represents a strategic lever to strengthen urban resilience. The findings identify four main barriers: (1) the absence of explicit political targets for climate-protection-oriented spatial planning across all levels of governance; (2) the lack of legal obligations requiring authorities to adopt concrete measures; (3) insufficient robust indicators for the evaluation, monitoring, and control of GI; and (4) a shortage of specific, binding legal instruments to regulate GI on private properties. These obstacles undermine the effectiveness of CA policies and point to the need for regulatory and strategic revisions enabling the full integration of urban GI into territorial planning [44].

Finnish cities, in turn, have shown increasing alignment between municipal climate action plans and GI priorities, although implementation still faces regulatory and spatial constraints [45]. A growing recognition of the importance of GI as an essential component of climate resilience was identified in the climate action plans of Finland’s six largest cities [45]. In India, the cities of Chennai and Kochi initiated blue–green infrastructure restoration projects in response to SDG 11 and 13, re-establishing ecological networks that had been lost within the urban fabric [46]. In these cities, accelerated urbanisation profoundly altered watercourses and water bodies that had traditionally been integrated into green and blue infrastructures [46]. In response, municipal governments began processes to recover these structures, reframing them as strategic resources for climate resilience. The renewed actions in channels and flood-prone areas indicate a positive shift in social and administrative perceptions regarding the relevance of blue–green infrastructure and its integration into urban planning regulations.

In the United States, 4,617 urban green spaces across twelve cities representing different climate zones, according to the Köppen classification, were analysed [20]. Using Geographic Information Systems and Generalised Linear Mixed Models, the authors examined the relationship between green and blue spaces and their combined effect on regulating land surface temperature. The results indicated that factors such as vegetation density, proximity to water bodies, and park size significantly influence reductions in surface temperature, with average drops of up to 3 °C in areas with dense vegetation, reinforcing the role of GI in mitigating urban heat islands.

However, as interventions in urban green spaces intensify, climate justice concerns become more evident, especially regarding green gentrification. Studies conducted in Boston, Philadelphia, Amsterdam and Barcelona define this phenomenon as the production of new or intensified socio-spatial inequalities associated with green interventions, such as parks, ecological corridors, community gardens, and other GI typologies [36]. In this process, environmental and climate benefits may coexist with socially regressive effects, such as physical displacement, socio-cultural displacement, housing insecurity, erosion of community ties, exclusionary use of new green spaces, and exclusionary climate protection [36]. In parallel, the literature shows that these effects tend to be reinforced when green interventions become intertwined with real estate revalorisation, rising housing costs, and broader cost-ofliving pressures, bringing back the central question: for whom is the green city, after all? [47].

These findings underscore the need for integrated planning that combines ecological functionality with social justice. Without intentional efforts to prioritise vulnerable populations, GI policies risk exacerbating inequalities rather than reducing them [36]. Green climate gentrification affects historically marginalised populations marked by racial, social, and economic vulnerabilities, such as those living in low-income neighbourhoods. These territories, already shaped by historical disinvestment, now face new threats: both CC and displacement imposed in areas with lower climate resilience. These findings reinforce the importance of integrating principles of social justice and equity into the formulation and implementation of urban CA plans [36]. In practical terms, this integration may involve the explicit identification of historically marginalised groups, the articulation between climate planning and public health, partnerships with community-led coalitions, and the provision of culturally accessible materials [19].

Evidence indicates that GI planning has been guided by technocratic approaches and economic valuation logics, aiming to protect areas of high monetary value from flooding while neglecting considerations related to climate justice. By contrast, a study conducted in Toronto, Canada [21], examined how flood-adaptive GI planning can incorporate the experiential knowledge of socially under-represented groups, with an emphasis on epistemic justice and on recognising the sociocultural valuation of ES. The research focused on the Thorncliffe Park neighbourhood, a high-density residential area predominantly inhabited by low-income immigrants. The study explored: (1) residents’ experiential knowledge of flood events, flood-adaptive GI, and structural vulnerabilities; (2) the structural causes of epistemic injustice in previous GI interventions; and (3) alternative locations for future flood-adaptive GI. The methodology included 199 online questionnaires with residents, 20 in-depth interviews with community leaders and urban planning experts from the City of Toronto, as well as policy analyses. In addition, the research incorporated a spatial component, with 120 online participatory mapping exercises and surface runoff analyses. The results show that Thorncliffe Park residents continue to be systematically excluded from decision-making processes related to blue–green infrastructure planning, as flood management remains guided by technical and economic criteria. These findings highlight the urgency of developing more inclusive and participatory processes for planning and implementing green and blue infrastructures.

This finding helps explain why green interventions may reproduce injustice even when they are framed as CA. In Thorncliffe Park, planning remained guided by technical and economic valuation criteria, with the systematic exclusion of residents’ experiential knowledge, especially that of low-income immigrants, alongside barriers related to social networks, citizenship rights, communication tools, and climate awareness opportunities [21]. This suggests that, without inclusive mechanisms of recognition and participation, GI may reinforce pre-existing vulnerabilities rather than reduce them.

By contrast, Portland appears in the literature as a case of stronger alignment with climate justice principles, particularly through the articulation between planning, public health, and community partnerships, as well as the recognition of socio-structurally vulnerable groups [19]. Even so, the available evidence does not allow a conclusive claim that green gentrification was fully avoided. For this reason, Portland is treated here as a case of stronger institutional alignment with climate justice, rather than as definitive proof of the absence of the phenomenon.

As demonstrated by the study [47], urban tree-planting processes in Global North cities are intertwined with urban valorisation strategies aimed at attracting capital investment, raising the question: for whom is the green city of the future intended? By analysing the interrelationship between pro-green rhetoric adopted by urban administrations, urban affordability, and dimensions of social justice in tree-planting programmes, the study investigated the extent to which—and for what reasons—the level of discursive promotion of environmental sustainability in cities predicts variations in affordability levels. The research was based on a macro-scale analysis of tree-planting trajectories in 99 cities across Western Europe, the United States, and Canada. Regression analysis results indicate a correlation between greater intensity and longevity of green rhetoric and rising urban living costs. Among the main determinants of this relationship between tree planting and affordability are the degree of active intervention by municipal public authorities, the presence of redistributive policies, and the historical centrality attributed to inclusion and social equity in urban planning and development.

A study conducted in two Portuguese cities, Elvas and Faro, investigated residents’ level of awareness of CC, sensory perceptions associated with GI, and the attributes most valued by citizens within these structures [48]. The results indicate that residents in both cities demonstrate high climate awareness, and report similar perceptions regarding the positive sensations attributed to GI and the elements considered most important in its configuration. However, the factors explaining these patterns differ between the two localities, showing that different urban contexts shape the population’s relationship with GI in distinct ways. This finding reinforces the importance of considering local specificities in the planning and implementation of GI, providing relevant evidence for cities in southern Europe facing similar climate challenges. In this sense, local specificities may be incorporated through participatory tools that capture residents’ perceptions, locally valued GI attributes, and context-dependent needs, as well as through public consultation mechanisms that inform decision-making [49]. The incorporation of public expectations and needs into decisionmaking is widely promoted by the European Union, which supports regular research initiatives such as the Eurobarometer in order to capture citizens’ perceptions of the role of GI in relation to social, economic, and environmental challenges. Regardless of direct policy uptake, citizen participation contributes to increasing collective knowledge about climate issues, strengthening the population’s capacity to formulate informed policy proposals. Moreover, public engagement may be essential, insofar as citizens are also called upon to share responsibility for mitigating the effects of CC, whether by adopting behaviours that avoid maladaptive responses or by collaborating in the maintenance of GI [48].

In the Brazilian context, a study examined the feasibility of implementing GI in the Pirambu neighbourhood, located in a social interest zone in the city of Fortaleza, in the Northeast of the country. This is an area characterised by high socio-environmental vulnerability, as indicated by the Municipal Adaptation Plan, marked by deficiencies in urban infrastructure and buildings, high population density, and low human development indices [50]. The adopted methodology combined decision-support techniques to select among different GI typologies and spatial analyses conducted with geoprocessing tools, with the aim of providing ES and environmental benefits directed at mitigating the impacts arising from CC. The methodological framework was structured based on the Fortaleza Adaptation Plan [51] and the GI Implementation Guide [52]. Based on these instruments, four GI solutions were proposed: multi-use pathways, rain gardens, permeable pavements, and soil bioengineering techniques. The research results identify the proposed location for each of these interventions, their respective ES and environmental benefits associated with mitigating global warming, the benefits resulting from their implementation, and the SDG potentially addressed. From an international perspective, this case study offers methodological inputs to improve decision-making processes and to formulate public policies aimed at strengthening GI performance [50]. Among the CA strategies recommended for the neighbourhood, the need to consolidate GI as a cross-cutting public policy stands out, oriented towards mitigating the effects of ECE, such as high temperatures, heatwaves, prolonged droughts, and intense rainfall. However, the analysed technical document does not specify the GI typologies to be applied, nor does it define the technical and operational parameters required for their implementation [50]. By contrast, other studies have already pointed to more concrete technical and operational references, such as vegetation density, proximity to water bodies, and park size as relevant parameters for climatic performance [20], as well as siting, scale, configuration, and co-design processes as relevant operational dimensions for more contextsensitive and inclusive implementation [21].

In a study conducted in the municipalities of Bodø, Indre Østfold, Stavanger and Trondheim, it was identified that interventions such as daylighting and renaturalisation of watercourses, rain gardens, green roofs and façades, vegetated corridors, and open stormwater management solutions have been progressively incorporated into strategic and thematic plans and, in some cases, into regulatory zoning instruments. These initiatives reflect growing recognition of the role of NbS in mitigating urban climate risks [53]. The results, however, show that this integration remains constrained by conceptual, institutional and operational barriers. Despite these limitations, the study points to concrete opportunities for strengthening NbS as public policy, such as improving intersectoral governance, consolidating national guidelines in binding instruments, and expanding mechanisms for translating and disseminating technical knowledge [53]. This experience reinforces that, even in contexts with a consolidated tradition of spatial planning, the effectiveness of NbS depends on clear guidelines, institutional integration and administrative capacity—central conditions for advancing LCAP and for consolidating GI and NbS as structuring axes of urban CA [53].

The Norwegian experience also highlights the importance of translating NbS into more operational requirements within municipal instruments. In the analysed plans, provisions appear aimed at ensuring connectivity and effective transitions through green–blue solutions, including prioritising riparian vegetation and establishing minimum natural buffer strips along water bodies, as well as recommending the implementation of continuous strips where connections are lacking. In addition, mechanisms were identified such as requirements to investigate the feasibility of NbS in projects, as well as uncertainties related to the maintenance of implemented infrastructures and the insufficiency of legal instruments capable of ensuring their adoption in private developments [53]. Similarly, in the analysed municipal plans, measures are foreseen for preserving trees and existing vegetation, associated with a ‘no net loss’ directive, alongside requirements for planting new trees in major projects, including along streets currently lacking trees, reinforcing the institutionalisation of tree-management guidelines within spatial planning [53].

The comparative analysis highlights a set of recurring challenges that affect the effectiveness of GI as instruments of local CA. These include the insufficiency of robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, the weakness of specific performance indicators, and the lack of clear implementation timelines, which hinders the measurement of climatic, environmental and social benefits over time. In Austrian cities [44], the authors identified the absence of indicators for monitoring and controlling GI as one of the main barriers to the effectiveness of CA policies, especially in private areas. This pattern was also observed in Norway [53].

Another relevant challenge concerns institutional fragmentation and the difficulty of intersectoral integration. The incorporation of GI into local plans is not always accompanied by consistent coordination across sectors such as urban planning, mobility, housing, sanitation and the environment, undermining the cross-cutting approach required for CA. In addition, normative constraints persist, linked to the absence of binding legal instruments or to the still incipient revision of urban planning legislation to institutionalise GI and NbS as structuring guidelines. International experiences in the Global North indicate that, in contexts marked by technocratic and sectoral governance, such as Amsterdam, Bristol, Montreal, and Toulouse, this fragmentation limits integration between climate policies, urban health, and environmental justice. In the more positive cases, however, the problem appears to have been addressed more explicitly, though not fully resolved. In Portland, stronger articulation between planning, public health, and community-led coalitions suggests a more advanced attempt at intersectoral integration. Even so, the literature also highlights remaining limits in adequately representing historically marginalised groups and in fully aligning implementation with community concerns [19]. In the main Finnish cities, although there is growing recognition of GI in climate action plans, implementation remains constrained by regulatory restrictions and unresolved tensions between greening and other planning priorities [45].

Territorial inequality emerges as a central challenge. In municipalities in São Paulo, including Campinas, the unequal distribution of urban tree cover and other GI intensifies the exposure of peripheral populations to ECE, limiting the benefits of CA for socially vulnerable groups. This reality resonates with the international literature, which points to different manifestations of socio-environmental injustice associated with green strategies. Studies in Boston, Philadelphia, Amsterdam and Barcelona show that GI-based interventions can trigger processes of green gentrification, resulting in population displacement and new socio-spatial inequalities [36]. Complementarily, research conducted in Toronto showed that the planning of flood-adapted GI remains guided by technical and economic criteria, systematically excluding the experiential knowledge of low-income immigrant populations [21].

In this sense, strengthening intersectoral governance, expanding social participation, and improving access to diversified sources of funding constitute essential refinements for the effectiveness of GI- and NbS-based CA policies. International experiences indicate that financial and technical arrangements are decisive for conducting feasibility studies, quantifying risks and benefits, and implementing flagship projects. In Pakistan, the Clean Green City Movement illustrates how the institutionalisation of green actions at municipal level, combined with the mobilisation of local actors, enabled the expansion of vegetation cover and the strengthening of climate governance, even under economic constraints [38]. In India, blue–green infrastructure restoration projects in Chennai and Kochi were driven by the incorporation of these solutions as an administrative and regulatory priority aligned with SDG 11 and SDG 13 [46].

Technical capacity and local political will also emerge as strategic factors. International evidence indicates that translating concepts such as GI and NbS into operational instruments depends on the existence of trained technical teams and mechanisms for knowledge diffusion [53]. In parallel, experiences classified as aspirational, such as Portland, indicate that alignment between climate policies, social justice and intersectoral engagement is associated with deliberate political choices and the institutional prioritisation of CA [19]. In the Brazilian context, the Campinas case illustrates how institutional coordination, combined with access to funding and integration across public policies, can support the cross-cutting incorporation of GI and NbS.

Beyond these challenges, the reviewed literature indicates that the wider implementation of GI and NbS depends on practical conditions that remain unevenly structured across the analysed cases, including maintenance capacity, regulatory requirements, intersectoral coordination, and the availability of technical parameters suited to local contexts. At the same time, the studies examined do not provide a sufficient basis for a conclusive comparative assessment of long-term cost-effectiveness or safety implications across different urban settings. This should therefore be acknowledged both as a limitation of the present study and as an open agenda for future research.

The debate on public policies to address CC in Brazil has intensified over the past two decades, gradually incorporating NbS and GI as key urban CA strategies. From the National Policy on CC, established in 2009, to sectoral plans and the most recent updates to Brazilian commitments under the Paris Agreement, there has been increasing emphasis on integrating measures that combine emissions mitigation and CA, with particular attention to instruments that reconcile environmental conservation, sustainable natural resource management, and adaptive urban planning.

More recently, regional plans such as those of the Campinas Metropolitan Region and the São Paulo Metropolitan Region have discussed in greater detail the role of GI and NbS in urban contexts of high climate vulnerability. At municipal level, several cities in the state of São Paulo have advanced the incorporation of GI and NbS based CA strategies, albeit unevenly. Experiences involving revisions of urban planning legislation, the inclusion of green corridors, and the creation of urban tree plans are examples that have been consolidating as local instruments. However, the systematisation of these practices within LCAP remains incipient, with Campinas emerging as one of the pioneering cases in the state of São Paulo. Based on the evidence from the review, the analysis then proceeded to a comparison with the Campinas case, taking its LCAP as the reference document.

The Campinas LCAP [43] therefore constitutes a strategic initiative for academic analysis, as it articulates normative, financial, and urban planning measures around NbS and GI. Campinas, located in the state of São Paulo, is part of the Campinas Metropolitan Region, which comprises 20 other municipalities [54]. The region is also integrated into the São Paulo Macrometropolis, which reinforces its economic and social relevance at both regional and national scales [55]. According to IBGE [56], the municipality had 245.14 km² of urbanised area, based on the 2019 estimate, within a total territory of 794.571 km² estimated for 2023. Its resident population was 1,139,047 inhabitants, with a demographic density of 1,433.54 inhabitants/km², according to the 2022 Census [57]. Campinas had a Human Development Index of 0.805 (IBGE, 2010). In 2021, its GDP reached BRL 72.94 billion, the third highest among municipalities in the state, after São Paulo, Osasco, and Guarulhos [58].

Its approach integrates different strategic axes and specific actions, consolidating it as a reference case for understanding how municipalities can internalise global CA agendas within their local management instruments. As such, it becomes a central object for investigating how NbS and GI have been applied in practice and which pathways are opening up to strengthen urban resilience in the face of CC. Through the documentary review of the Campinas LCAP [59], it was possible to identify a diverse set of GI and NbS distributed across different strategic axes of the plan. Under Strategic Axis 4, the most prominent measures include linear parks, filtering gardens, urban and community gardens, agroforestry systems, green corridors, and restoration measures associated with ecological connectivity. Under Strategic Axis 3, GI is linked to sustainable mobility, particularly through the integration of the cycling network, public transport, and green elements within the road system. In a cross-cutting manner, the plan also links NbS and GI to urban tree planting, regulatory review, social housing, road requalification, risk reduction, and implementation in both public and private areas [59]. These initiatives are treated both as physical interventions and as public policy instruments linked to regulatory, financial, and monitoring mechanisms.

Among the main initiatives, linear parks set out under Strategic Axis 4 stand out, aiming to expand urban vegetation cover and contribute to improved air quality, as well as to international partnerships such as the City Climate Finance Gap Fund. Complementarily, the same axis proposes the implementation of filtering and urban gardens, community gardens, and agroforestry systems, conceived as sustainable drainage alternatives and as mechanisms to promote local food security.

Urban tree cover appears transversally, linked to mobility and urban planning, with guidelines to update the municipal urban tree plan, revise urban planning legislation, and expand canopy cover along pavements and cycleways, with the aim of reducing thermal discomfort and mitigating CC related risks. Green corridors also linked to the Reconecta RMC Programme are prioritised within the Ecological Restoration Programme, reinforcing the articulation between biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation. In the field of mobility, the plan proposes incorporating GI into the road system, particularly through the expansion of the cycle network integrated with public transport. Finally, NbS play a central role in the LCAP, organised under Action 4.1 and its sub-actions, ranging from implementation in public and private areas to the restoration of Permanent Preservation Areas, legislative review, and capacity-building of public officials. In addition, NbS are applied to social housing, road requalification, and disaster risk reduction, underscoring their cross-cutting character within municipal policies.

This articulation makes Campinas a reference case for understanding how municipalities can internalise global CA agendas into local management instruments. The municipality is mobilised here as an analytical lens through which to examine how GI and NbS are operationalised as public policy instruments in a complex urban context, marked by strong regional relevance and by institutional challenges typical of local adaptation. In this sense, the plan stands out for combining normative, financial, and urban planning measures, distributing actions across different strategic axes, and linking CA with mobility, housing, ecological restoration, risk reduction, and regulatory review [59]. For this reason, the Campinas case makes it possible to discuss, in broader terms, the pathways and limits of incorporating global adaptation agendas at the municipal level.

Nature-Based Solution.

The results obtained demonstrate that NbS are recognised in the Campinas LCAP as strategic components oriented towards CA. Action 4.1 of the plan evidences the municipal intention to incorporate these solutions at different scales, covering both public and private areas, focusing on ecological and socio-environmental benefits such as improved soil permeability, increased thermal comfort, and air quality. This approach is reinforced by sub-actions that provide for ecological restoration, protection of Permanent Preservation Areas, review of urban planning legislation, and capacity-building for public officials, evidencing a systemic approach to NbS implementation.

The presence of NbS in other strategic axes of the LCAP such as social housing, road upgrading, and disaster risk reduction confirms the perception that these solutions can operate in an integrated manner, contributing simultaneously to energy efficiency, urban resilience, safety, and environmental upgrading. This alignment between urban planning and CA reflects trends observed in international studies, reinforcing the relevance of NbS as an urban public policy tool.

In the international context, it is observed that the implementation and success of NbS depend strongly on inclusive governance and on integration between climate policies and urban planning. For example, in Pakistan, inclusive governance is identified as a factor that increases socio-environmental resilience [38]. Comparative studies in Global North cities such as Amsterdam, Bristol, Montreal, Toulouse, and Portland indicate that governance significantly shapes the outcomes of GI policies, with Portland highlighted for integrating climate justice and GI [19]. In Austrian cities, an unexplored potential of GI on private properties was identified [44], while in Finland, policies in major cities show convergence between climate policies and GI, albeit limited [45]. In Chennai and Kochi, India, progress is observed in ecological reintegration and urban regulation, with a focus on SDG 11 and SDG 13 [46]. In Toronto, Canada, the experience evidences the importance of integrating local knowledge and promoting epistemic justice in urban planning [21].

The Norwegian experience reinforces this debate by evidencing that the consolidation of NbS occurs when they are translated into operational provisions within municipal instruments especially zoning plans rather than merely stated as a guideline. In the municipalities analysed, mechanisms appear such as requirements to investigate the feasibility of NbS in projects, among others, reinforcing the importance of combining governance and technical capacity with normative institutionalisation to ensure continuity and effectiveness of NbS [53].

These international examples corroborate the strategy adopted by the Campinas LCAP, indicating that the effective implementation of NbS depends not only on the availability of green spaces or physical infrastructure, but also on the capacity for institutional coordination, social inclusion, and regulatory integration. Furthermore, it is evident that applying NbS in urban contexts requires not only structural actions, but also investments in participatory governance, appropriate regulation, and technical capacity-building factors that the LCAP already addresses preliminarily through its sub-actions.

Therefore, the comparative analysis between the municipal plan and international experiences suggests that Campinas is aligned with global good practices regarding the incorporation of NbS as an instrument for CA, although challenges related to governance, monitoring, and the integration of intersectoral policies may still influence the overall effectiveness of the proposed actions.

A Figure 1. Campinas LCAP and the comparative discussion with international cases illustrates the articulation between local urban planning in the Campinas LCAP and international NbS references. Structured in horizontal layers, it links the LCAP’s actions and strategic axes to global lessons, evidencing the exchange between local and international experiences. The representation highlights the resulting benefits, such as CA, urban resilience, environmental justice, and ES.

Figure 1.