Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Tackling urban challenges with synthetic biology in SynCity

Nature Cities volume 2, pages 783–793 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Cities urgently require sustainable and regenerative practices, such as nature-based solutions (NbSs). Successful in climate adaptation and increasing biodiversity, NbSs often combine gray and green infrastructure to tackle more complex issues. Simultaneously, synthetic biology (SynBio)—the ability to ‘write’ DNA and thereby enhance organisms—is on the rise. Despite its own set of challenges, including ethical ones, SynBio has the potential to address limitations in resources, increases in pollution and even the fading biodiversity of our cities. Hence, its role in regeneration, especially in conjunction with NbSs, should be explored. After all, interesting times require interesting measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: SynBio triggers considerations regarding the natural–artificial dichotomy and existing definitions.
Fig. 2: NbS criteria and ways in which synthetic biology can aid in their fulfillment.
Fig. 3: The do’s and don’ts of public engagement.
Fig. 4: Next to biotechnology and synthetic biology, multiple disciplines are needed at various project stages to ensure its success.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ershad Sarabi, S., Han, Q. L., Romme, A. G., de Vries, B. & Wendling, L. Key enablers of and barriers to the uptake and implementation of nature-based solutions in urban settings: a review. Resources 8, 121 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Yan, W. & Roggema, R. Developing a design-led approach for the food-energy water nexus in cities. Urban Plan. 4, 123–138 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Secretary-General’s remarks at C40 World Mayors Summit. unfccc.int https://unfccc.int/news/guterres-cities-are-where-the-climate-battle-will-largely-be-won-or-lost (United Nations, 2019).

  4. Dorst, H., Van der Jagt, A., Raven, R. & Runhaar, H. Urban greening through nature-based solutions—key characteristics of an emerging concept. Sustain. Cities Soc. 49, 101620 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Grazieschi, G., Asdrubali, F. & Guattari, C. Neighbourhood sustainability: state of the art, critical review and space-temporal analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 63, 102477 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  6. De la Sota, C., Ruffato-Ferreira, V. J., Ruiz-García, L. & Alvarez, S. Urban green infrastructure as a strategy of climate change mitigation. A case study in northern Spain. Urban For. Urban Green. 40, 145–151 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hauser Hand, G., Weber, R. & Bluestone, N. Regenerative cities: moving beyond sustainability. J. Urban Des. Mental Health 3, 14 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Zari, M. P. Ecosystem services analysis: mimicking ecosystem services for regenerative urban design. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 4, 145–157 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Blanco, E., Raskin, K. & Clergeau, P. Towards regenerative neighbourhoods: an international survey on urban strategies promoting the production of ecosystem services. Sustain. Cities Soc. 80, 103784 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cheshire, D. Regenerative by Design: Creating Living Buildings and Cities (Routledge, 2024).

  11. Regenerative design: towards living in harmony with nature. Arup https://www.arup.com/insights/regenerative-design/ (2024).

  12. Schaubroeck, T. ‘Nature-based solutions’ is the latest green jargon that means more than you might think. Nature 541, 133–134 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Girvan, M. How nature-based solutions can deliver a sustainable future today. Arcadis https://www.arcadis.com/en/insights/blog/global/martina-girvan/2022/how-nature-based-solutions-can-deliver-a-sustainable-future-today (2022).

  14. Oxley, M. Nature-based solutions for resilience and sustainability. AECOM https://aecom.com/blog/nature-based-solutions-for-resilience-and-sustainability/ (2021).

  15. Brunton, J. Nature-based solutions for our nature-positive journey. WSP https://www.wsp.com/en-gb/insights/nature-based-solutions-for-our-nature-positive-journey (2022).

  16. Pauleit, S., Zölch, T., Hansen, R., Randrup, T. B. & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. in Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: Linkages Between Science, Policy and Practice (eds Kabisch, N. et al.) 29–49 (Springer, 2017).

  17. Seddon, N. et al. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1518–1546 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Seddon, N. Harnessing the potential of nature-based solutions for mitigating and adapting to climate change. Science 376, 1410–1416 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chang, C. R., Chen, M. C. & Su, M. H. Natural versus human drivers of plant diversity in urban parks and the anthropogenic species-area hypotheses. Landsc. Urban Plan. 208, 104023 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ng, K. T., Herrero, P., Hatt, B., Farrelly, M. & McCarthy, D. Biofilters for urban agriculture: metal uptake of vegetables irrigated with stormwater. Ecol. Eng. 122, 177–186 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shen, P., Deletic, A., Bratieres, K. & McCarthy, D. T. Real time control of biofilters delivers stormwater suitable for harvesting and reuse. Water Res. 169, 115257 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Arden, S. & Ma, X. Constructed wetlands for greywater recycle and reuse: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 630, 587–599 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dorst, H. et al. What’s behind the barriers? Uncovering structural conditions working against urban nature-based solutions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 220, 104335 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Anderson, C. M. et al. Natural climate solutions are not enough. Science 363, 933–934 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  25. International Union for Conservation of Nature: Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions (IUCN, 2020).

  26. Cameron, D. E., Bashor, C. J. & Collins, J. J. A brief history of synthetic biology. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 125, 381–390 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  27. The Stanford Emerging Technology Review 2025 (Stanford Univ., 2025).

  28. Castellar, J. A. et al. Nature-based solutions coupled with advanced technologies: an opportunity for decentralized water reuse in cities. J. Clean. Prod. 340, 130660 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bertino, G., Menconi, F., Zraunig, A., Terzidis, E. & Kisser, J. Innovative circular solutions and services for new buildings and refurbishments. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 183, 83–91 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Pfleger, B. F. & Ralf, T. Recent progress in the synthesis of advanced biofuel and bioproducts. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 80, 102913 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hassanien, A. et al. Genetic engineering to enhance microalgal-based produced water treatment with emphasis on CRISPR/Cas9: a review. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 10, 1104914 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Khoo, K. S. et al. Enhanced microalgal lipid production for biofuel using different strategies including genetic modification of microalgae: a review. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 96, 101071 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Webster, L. J., Villa-Gomez, D., Brown, R., Clarke, W. & Schenk, P. M. A synthetic biology approach for the treatment of pollutants with microalgae. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 12, 1379301 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sattayawat, P. et al. Synthetic biology-based approaches for microalgal bio-removal of heavy metals from wastewater effluents. Front. Environ. Sci. 9, 778260 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Alabiso, A. et al. A dirty job: dishwasher wastewater reuse and upcycle through an ad hoc engineered microbial consortium. npj Clean Water 6, 66 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Aminian-Dehkordi, J. et al. Synthetic biology tools for environmental protection. Biotechnol. Adv. 68, 108239 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Jeong, B. R., Jang, J. & Jin, E. Genome engineering via gene editing technologies in microalgae. Bioresour. Technol. 373, 128701 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Dawiec-Liśniewska, A. et al. New trends in biotechnological applications of photosynthetic microorganisms. Biotechnol. Adv. 59, 107988 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gul, H. et al. Progress in microbial fuel cell technology for wastewater treatment and energy harvesting. Chemosphere 281, 130828 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Vinayak, V. et al. Microbial fuel cells for remediation of environmental pollutants and value addition: special focus on coupling diatom microbial fuel cells with photocatalytic and photoelectric fuel cells. J. Biotechnol. 338, 5–19 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Simoska, O. et al. Enhancing the performance of microbial fuel cells via metabolic engineering of Escherichia coli for phenazine production. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 11, 11855–11866 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Surti, P., Kailasa, S. K. & Mungray, A. K. Genetic engineering strategies for performance enhancement of bioelectrochemical systems: a review. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 47, 101332 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  43. You, J., Greenman, J. & Ieropoulos, I. A. Microbial fuel cells in the house: a study on real household wastewater samples for treatment and power. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 48, 101618 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  44. UNEP. Global Waste Management Outlook 2024: Beyond an Age of Waste—Turning Rubbish into a Resource (United Nations Environment Programme, 2024).

  45. Mohanty, S. S. et al. A critical review on various feedstocks as sustainable substrates for biosurfactants production: a way towards cleaner production. Microb. Cell Fact. 20, 120 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Nguyen, P. Q., Huang, X., Collins, D. S., Collins, J. J. & Lu, T. Harnessing synthetic biology to enhance ocean health. Trends Biotechnol. 41, 860–874 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ode, Sang, Å., Thorpert, P. & Fransson, A. M. Planning, designing and managing green roofs and green walls for public health—an ecosystem services approach. Front. Ecol. Evol. 10, 804500 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Supreeth, M. Enhanced remediation of pollutants by microorganisms–plant combination. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 19, 4587–4598 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Gawronski, S. W., Gawronska, H., Lomnicki, S., Saebo, A. & Vangronsveld, J. Plants in air phytoremediation. Adv. Bot. Res. 83, 319–346 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Maurya, A., Sharma, D., Partap, M., Kumar, R. & Bhargava, B. Microbially-assisted phytoremediation toward air pollutants: current trends and future directions. Environ. Technol. 31, 103140 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Fulekar, M. H., Singh, A. & Bhaduri, A. M. Genetic engineering strategies for enhancing phytoremediation of heavy metals. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 8, 529–535 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Simmer, R. A. & Schnoor, J. L. Phytoremediation, bioaugmentation and the plant microbiome. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 16602–16610 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wróblewska, K. & Jeong, B. R. Effectiveness of plants and green infrastructure utilization in ambient particulate matter removal. Environ. Sci. Eur. 33, 110 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bachleitner, S., Ata, Ö. & Mattanovich, D. The potential of CO2-based production cycles in biotechnology to fight the climate crisis. Nat. Commun. 14, 6978 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Biswal, T. in Advances in Bioremediation and Phytoremediation for Sustainable Soil Management: Principles, Monitoring and Remediation (ed. Malik, J.) 31–35 (Springer, 2022).

  56. Azab, E., Hegazy, A. K., Gobouri, A. A. & Elkelish, A. Impact of transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana plants on herbicide isoproturon phytoremediation through expressing human cytochrome P450-1A2. Biology 9, 362 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Anand, U. et al. Biotechnological methods to remove microplastics: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 21, 1787–1810 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Schada von Borzyskowski, L. Taking synthetic biology to the seas: from blue chassis organisms to marine aquaforming. ChemBioChem 24, e202200786 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Simkin, R. D., Seto, K. C., McDonald, R. I. & Jetz, W. Biodiversity impacts and conservation implications of urban land expansion projected to 2050. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2117297119 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Li, G. et al. Global impacts of future urban expansion on terrestrial vertebrate diversity. Nat. Commun. 13, 1628 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Macfarlane, N. B. et al. Direct and indirect impacts of synthetic biology on biodiversity conservation. iScience 25, 105423 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Lean, C. H. Synthetic biology and the goals of conservation. Ethics Policy Environ 27, 250–270 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ainsworth, T. D. et al. Climate change disables coral bleaching protection on the Great Barrier Reef. Science 352, 338–342 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ripple, W. J. & Beschta, R. L. Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: the first 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biol. Conserv. 145, 205–213 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Sundaram, L. S., Ajioka, J. W. & Molloy, J. C. Synthetic biology regulation in Europe: containment, release and beyond. Synth. Biol. (Oxf.) 8, ysad009 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Calvert, J. & Martin, P. The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Rep. 10, 201–204 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Carter, L., Mankad, A., Hobman, E. V. & Porter, N. B. Playing God and tampering with nature: popular labels for real concerns in synthetic biology. Transgenic Res. 30, 155–167 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Gunn, C. & Jongsma, K. Inclusion by invitation only? Public engagement beyond deliberation in the governance of innovative biotechnology. Am. J. Bioethics 23, 79–82 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Carter, L. & Mankad, A. The promises and realities of integration in synthetic biology: a view from social science. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8, 622221 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Chappell, C. R., Perez, R. & Takara, C. O. Growing biodesign ecosystems: community exchange spaces advance biotechnology innovation. Res. Directions Biotechnol. Des. 1, e13 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Aravind Paleri, V. & Hens, K. Beyond the organism versus machine dichotomy: a review of ethical concerns in synthetic biology. ACS Synth. Biol. 13, 3–14 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Bauer, A. & Bogner, A. Let’s (not) talk about synthetic biology: framing an emerging technology in public and stakeholder dialogues. Public Underst. Sci. 29, 492–507 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Lean, C. H. Navigating the ‘moral hazard’ argument in synthetic biology’s application. Synth. Biol. 9, ysae008 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Rawlinson and I. Goodridge of Arcadis for their feedback and suggestions on the manuscript language and structure, as well as J. Lewis of the International Biocontrol Manufacturers Association (IBMA) for her comments on the included tables and figures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arcadis LLP, London, UK

    Agnieszka Krzyżaniak & Daisy Hessenberger

Authors
  1. Agnieszka Krzyżaniak
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daisy Hessenberger
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.K. provided conceptualization and desktop research, drafted the original manuscript and designed the figures. D.H. reviewed the manuscript and contributed revision suggestions, including the redesign of figures and tables.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Agnieszka Krzyżaniak.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Both authors are currently employed by Arcadis. At present, the company does not provide any services related to the use of synthetic biology in the context of tackling urban challenges. However, depending on the emergence of a valid business case, it cannot be excluded that such services will be developed in the future.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Cities thanks Sean Goodwin and Blake Simmons for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krzyżaniak, A., Hessenberger, D. Tackling urban challenges with synthetic biology in SynCity. Nat Cities 2, 783–793 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-025-00313-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-025-00313-y

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research