**10. Conclusions**

This article highlights that the URT and the HNCT can both make multifaceted contributions to mitigating and mediating the drivers and impacts of the twin crises of climate change and declining health among urban dwellers. With respect to both theories, conserving, protecting, and restoring quality UGI is the foundation for action to reduce the severity and impact of those crises and for progressing inclusive and sustainable community planning and urban development that focuses beyond 2050. While some UGI can be found within the fabric of most modern cities, the URT, the HNCT, and this article advocate for an increase in the amount, the resourcing, and the perceived value of those UGI assets.

Historically, the benefits that UGI provides in terms of mitigating and mediating climate change and providing physiological and psychological health benefits for urban dwellers have been considered as intangibles. As such, UGI has not been valued in terms of the economic return-on-investment those spaces provide with respect to the resources expended to realize the environmental and social value of the ecosystem services that quality UGI delivers for modern urban centers. However, this article highlights how, congruen<sup>t</sup> with the URT and the HNCT, access to quality UGI can assist in changing from "business as usual" to a more sustainable and resilient approach to community planning and urban development in the second half of the 21st-century.

Implementing the combined approach to URT and HNCT advocated in this article is likely to have limitations in the global context. The limitations could include geographical and cultural considerations at the local scale, resources that are available to land managers, community demand and expectations for UGI installations, stability of current political environments, and the quality of governments and governmen<sup>t</sup> structures. However, given the previously identified gap in the literature regarding the complementary implementation of URT and HNCT through the medium of UGI, the nature and magnitude of such limitations remains unknown. Clarification of such limitations will most likely be facilitated by the anticipated increase in volume of research URT, HNCT, and UGI. Further, the rapid global changes and growing research interest highlighted in this article, will generate additional insights that are not ye<sup>t</sup> apparent.

Further research is therefore required to investigate and understand the contribution that UGI can make in terms of inclusive community planning and sustainable urban development as our increasingly urbanized human population begins to recalibrate and refocus beyond 2100. That research should investigate different forms of UGI to deliver specific and robust findings aligned to the climate change, human health, urban resilience, community planning, and sustainable urban development foci of this article. To that end, two such studies have been completed in support and are under manuscript development:


**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, J.P.; methodology, J.P.; investigation, J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, J.P.; writing—review and editing, J.P. and G.D.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors thank Richard Harper for his supervision of JPs PhD program and allowing us to progress this article without being listed as an author. We also thank our former and current colleagues and managemen<sup>t</sup> at the City of Belmont and the Towns of Claremont and Mosman Park for their support of the research projects that help to inform this article. The authors also thank the *Land* editors and four reviewers whose insightful feedback enhanced our article.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
