Nature-Based Solutions 2 (2022) 100009
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Nature-Based Solutions
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nbsj
What are Nature-based solutions (NBS)? Setting core ideas for concept
clarification
Barbara Sowińska-Świerkosz a,∗, Joan García b
a
Department of Hydrobiology and Ecosystems Protections, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Dobrzańskiego 37, Lublin, 20-262, Poland
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, GEMMA-Group of Environmental Engineering and Microbiology, Universitat Politècnica de
Catalunya-BarcelonaTech, c/ Jordi Girona 1-3, Building D1, Barcelona E-08034, Spain
b
a r t i c l e
Key words:
Conceptualisation
Core ideas
Nature-based solutions
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Although nature-based solutions (NBS) have been promoted as a key tool for solving diverse environmental and
societal problems, the concept and its practical applications remain unclear. This ambiguity is linked to the
fact that the NBS concept has emerged from the integration of multiple scientific fields. In addition, there has
been a delay in establishing clear standards for NBS, hence a number of actions that today would be seen as
complementary or related measures, are frequently branded as NBS. Thus, this paper paves the way to clarify
NBS by identifying their core features and formulating criteria to exclude certain actions from the set of NBS.
After reviewing 20 definitions of NBS, these actions are identified as interventions that: (1) are inspired and
powered by nature; (2) address (societal) challenges or resolve problems; (3) provide multiple services/benefits,
including biodiversity gain; and (4) are of high effectiveness and economic efficiency. The non-systematic review
includes both peer-review research papers and relevant official reports, enabling the formulation of a set of
criteria that exclude green/blue interventions from the set of NBS. These are: (1) lack of functioning ecosystems;
(2) random actions; (3) post-implementation goal(s); (4) negative/no impact on biodiversity; (5) same benefits
as grey infrastructure alone; (6) unfair distribution of benefits; (7) ‘copy-paste’ implementation approach; (8)
top-down model of governance; (9) static management approach; (10) financial expenses disproportionate to
benefits; and (11) ‘point scale’ approach. Ongoing and future practice will contribute to our understanding of the
long-term operation of NBS as well as to the detection of synergies and trade-offs, thereby enabling us to better
define this concept’s boundaries.
1. Introduction
The concept of nature-based solutions (NBS) was first mentioned in
2008 by the World Bank [1]. The first research programme on NBS was
launched in 2013 [2]. The concept emerged from the search for innovative solutions to manage natural systems in a way that can balance the
benefits for both nature and society. In other words, by working with nature, rather than against it, human communities can develop and implement solutions towards a resilient, resource-efficient and green economy
[3]. Over the past ten years, several attempts have been made to precisely define and clarify the term ‘NBS’. In 2015, NBS were for the first
time officially defined by the European Commission [4] as ‘actions address environmental, social and economic challenges simultaneously by
maximizing the benefits provided by nature (…) inspired by, supported
by, or copied from nature’. Another commonly agreed definition was
provided by the International Union for Conservation of Nature [5] as
‘actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified
∗
ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively,
simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits’.
The most recent EC report on NBS states that the ‘concept of naturebased solutions embodies new ways to approach socio-ecological adaptation and resilience, with equal reliance upon social, environmental
and economic domains’ [6].
These definitions, however, are somewhat general and blurry and
fail to clearly indicate which green and blue solutions should be regarded as NBS. As a result, there is a constant debate on the scope and
types of interventions that can be classified as NBS [6,7]. Furthermore,
the concept’s ambiguity has already been stressed by many researchers
([8–13]; United Nations Environmental Programme, [14]). Such ambiguity results first from the fact that any definition of NBS involves integrating multiple scientific fields and experts with different backgrounds
think about NBS from the point of view of their own base discipline
[15]. For example, Dorst et al. [16] claim that NBS should mostly address the sustainability challenges caused by processes of urbanization
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: barbara.sowinska@wp.pl (B. Sowińska-Świerkosz).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100009
Received 24 May 2021; Received in revised form 7 January 2022; Accepted 15 January 2022
Available online 17 January 2022
2772-4115/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
B. Sowińska-Świerkosz and J. García
Nature-Based Solutions 2 (2022) 100009
and climate change. On the other side, Kabisch et al. [10] emphasize
the positive contribution of NBS to biodiversity restoration. By contrast, Frantzeskaki et al. [17] view NBS in a solely socio-ecological context. There are however studies that emphasize the multi-functionality
of NBS and their capacity to simultaneously address multiple societal
challenges (e.g. [6,18]). Second, there is a noticeable tendency to mix
existing related actions with the NBS concept, such as the management of green-blue infrastructure (GBI), conservation approaches, the
implementation of ecological/environmental engineering projects and
ecosystem-based management. Third, there has been a delay in establishing clear standards for NBS (e.g. the IUCN published its standards
in 2020) as well as practical guidelines for their implementation (e.g.
Dumitru and Wendling eds. in 2021). Consequently, prior to 2020 there
was a noteworthy lack of specific, detailed criteria for NBS and, as a
result, a number of actions that today would be regarded as measures
complementary or related to NBS but that do not fulfil all the requisite
criteria to truly be NBS, were branded as such.
To clarify the NBS concept, the IUCN Global Standard [5] includes
eight criteria by which to frame green/blue interventions as NBS actions. These criteria are built upon the concept’s principles as well as
feedback from consultations with stakeholders and refer to the following aspects: (1) address societal challenges; (2) landscape scale of intervention; (3) biodiversity gain; (4) economic viability; (5) governance
capability; (6) equitably balance trade-offs; (7) adaptive management;
(8) mainstreamed within an appropriate jurisdictional context. Furthermore, the latest EC document on NBS [3] proposes five questions to
define whether an action can or cannot be framed as NBS: (1) Does the
NBS use nature/natural processes? (2) Does it provide/improve social
benefits? (3) Does it provide/improve economic benefits? (4) Does it
provide/improve environmental benefits? (5) Does it have a net benefit
for biodiversity? Clear examples of actions that fulfil these requirements
are flowering plants planted on green vertical walls in urban settings,
which help significantly increase biodiversity and are also highly appreciated by people for aesthetic value. Such formulated questions pay
central attention to the notion of ‘benefits’ and highlight environmental
benefits in particular. The importance of biodiversity is also accentuated
by the EC [4] and the IUCN Global Standard [5].
However, NBS should not only simultaneously provide multiple benefits. To effectively tackle urgent (and usually global) social and ecological challenges, they should also be economically efficient and be
based on transparent models of governance [19,5,2]. Therefore, the list
of questions could be enlarged to: (6) Is the solution cost- and resourceefficient or economically viable? ([5,20]); (7) What societal challenges
can the NBS address? [6,5]; and (8) Is the NBS based on inclusive, transparent and empowering governance processes [5,7]? Such a practical
perspective has already been presented by Albert et al. (2020), who
lists three NBS criteria: challenge-orientation, ecosystem process utilization and practical viability. Sowińska-Świerkosz et al. [20] add further possible criteria: management capabilities and superposing of grey
solutions.
Taking into account the growing demand to implement NBS actions
and assess their outcomes, there is a need to specify in detail their scope
so as to avoid framing any green/blue actions as NBS. Therefore, the
main aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of NBS, by identifying
their core features and formulating criteria that exclude certain actions
from the set of these solutions. To this end, a systematic review of publications addressing the concept was performed. Subsequently, certainties
and uncertainties related to each core idea behind NBS were identified.
The higher level aim of this research was to formulate criteria that can
be used to determine what is and is not NBS, according to the official
guidelines (EC and IUCN) and the current state of knowledge. From a science (conceptual) perspective, such clarification will enable researchers
to distinguish amongst NBS interventions and green or green-grey interventions in order to avoid abusing the NBS concept ([20] (a). From
a research perspective, this article will provide a solid structure, ensuring comparability across studies [21,12]. From a policy/management
perspective, the paper addresses the issue of providing decision makers with data on how to select solutions that can be framed as NBS
[3,2].
2. Methods
The research consisted of three stages: (1) a systematic review of
publications addressing the NBS concept, aimed at identifying definitions; (2) an extraction of the key words used in those definitions; (3) a
non-systematic review of research papers, aimed at clarifying the NBS
concept and identifying criteria that exclude specific actions from the
set of NBS.
First, in order to undertake the systematic review of publications
addressing the NBS concept and to thereby obtain a comprehensive
overview of studies that potentially hold information on their definition,
on 30 January 2021, Scopus was searched for publications including
the term ‘nature-based solution’ in their title, abstract and/or keywords.
Of the 970 documents retrieved, the most relevant 200 were screened
based on the following criteria: ‘definition/defined’; ‘is understood as’;
‘mean(s)’. After detecting duplicates (e.g. papers repeating another author’s definition) and unavailability (lack of definition of NBS), a total
of 20 papers were found to provide a definition of NBS.
Second, key words – understood as the central ideas and topics that
define NBS – were extracted from the identified 20 definitions and were
counted. Key words used in at least 10 definitions were used to build
the main core ideas related to the NBS concept; 10 was regarded as a
pragmatic way of proceeding because it is half of 20. An example of the
method for extracting key words is presented in Fig. 1.
In the third stage, certainties and uncertainties were determined
based on a non-systematic review of research papers and the authors’ expert knowledge and experience regarding NBS. Readers should be aware
that this method was therefore subjective. Certainly, other authors could
have determined different certainties and uncertainties, an inherent limitation of this type of study. Thus, based on a review of literature, the
present paper’s authors decided whether the scope of knowledge – as
well as knowledge gaps on a given core idea related to the NBS concept –
could be classified as ‘certainty’ or ‘uncertainty’. This non-systematic review includes both peer-reviewed research papers and relevant reports
by the EC [4,19,3], the IUCN [22,23] and UNEP [14]. These reports
were evaluated in order to take into consideration all types of studies
that may hold information on NBS.
3. Results
3.1. Results of the systematic review
Of the 200 papers screened, 64 were detailed analysed, of which
20 include a definition of NBS (Table 1). The in-depth analysis of
definitions revealed that at the core of the NBS concept is an ‘action’/‘intervention’/‘solution’ term, surrounded by two types of key
words related to (1) purpose of action (e.g. challenge’, ‘society’, ‘biodiversity’) and (2) style of action (e.g. ‘powered by nature’, ‘sustainable’, ‘efficient/effective’) (Fig. 2). As a result, the NBS concept refers to
actions/interventions comprising four core ideas: (1) are inspired and
powered by nature (used in 13 definitions); (2) address (societal) challenges or resolve problems (11 definitions); (3) provide multiple services/benefits, including biodiversity gain (11 definitions); (4) are of
high effectiveness and economic efficiency (10 definitions).
3.2. Clarification of core ideas
3.2.1. Actions inspired and powered by nature
The core idea of the NBS concept is ‘the use of nature’, as nature provides solutions to global challenges and should be treated as
a remedy rather than an obstacle to human activities [3]. That is
2
B. Sowińska-Świerkosz and J. García
Nature-Based Solutions 2 (2022) 100009
Fig. 1. Example of the method of key words extraction
and core ideas formulation.
why NBS have also been defined as green interventions [24], as actions that use green and/or blue infrastructure [8] and as measures
that are supported by nature [25,26]. The ‘power of nature’ should be
used to enhance ‘natural capital’ (EC 2020) and result in a net gain to
biodiversity and ecosystem integrity [5]. NBS also require good engineering to be designed, made and maintained. The word ‘engineering’
is usually associated with concrete and high energy demands, but in
the twenty-first century, engineering is not only based on ‘hard and
extractive’ principles. Rather, it is additionally grounded on ecological/environmental aspects rooted in the use of plants and other organisms, and the incorporation or exploitation of natural processes concomitant with support for enhanced ecosystem integrity. Consequently,
instead of framing NBS as alternatives to engineered solutions and as
exclusive of grey infrastructure, emphasis should be placed on finding synergies between conventional and nature-based solutions [27].
The integration of blue-green elements as an aspect of engineered solutions is a key criterion of NBS, according to the IUCN Global Standard
[5].
Regarding the scope and the type of human interventions, the EC
[4] excludes only one possible intervention – the use of genetically modified organisms – thus permitting actions featuring a high level of human
intervention in natural, restored and created ecosystems. In addition,
NBS should not be framed as actions aimed at biomimicry – whereby
strategies found in nature are imitated to solve challenges –because this
process does not apply ‘living ecosystem(s)’ [28,4]. For this reason, Eggermont et al. [9] have divided NBS actions into three broad categories,
which may penetrate in space (i.e. overlap or complement each other):
(1) minimal or no intervention, close to the concept of nature protection;
(2) management approaches that involve some intervention; (3) exten-
sive and intrusive management of ecosystems, including the creation of
new ones.
From a practical point of view, however, discussion as to the level
of intervention should focus on the evaluation of effectiveness criteria,
answering two questions that refer to opposite levels of anthropogenic
transformation: (1) whether the creation of an entirely new ecosystem
by manipulating abiotic and biotic components will be effective, considering the three pillars of NBS (environmental, social and economic); and
(2) whether it is possible to effectively solve all types of urgent global
problems using no or minimal intervention and without grey infrastructure. Of course, there are examples of entirely ‘nature-based’ solutions
in that no grey infrastructure is involved, for example aiming at biodiversity conservation and enhancement, but many global problems, including water management in cities, cannot be solved based solely on
purely green solutions. In highly urbanized environments, there is usually a lack of space to implement entirely ‘nature-based’ solutions and
thus traditional infrastructure must be implemented alongside green solutions.
3.2.2. Actions tackling challenge
NBS address urgent and generally global challenges [4] and as
stressed by the EC, and so there is little time for action [3]. Challenge–
orientation refers to the contributions of NBS in alleviating well-defined
environmental, societal and economic challenges. amongst these, Dumitru and Wendling [6] list climate resilience, water management, natural and climate hazards, green space management, biodiversity, air quality, place regeneration, knowledge and social capacity building for sustainable urban transformation, participatory planning and governance,
social justice and social cohesion, health and well-being and new eco3
B. Sowińska-Świerkosz and J. García
Nature-Based Solutions 2 (2022) 100009
Table 1
NBS definitions in chronological order in 20 papers extracted from a total search of 970 papers.
‘[…] the use of nature in tackling challenges such as climate change, food security, water resources, or disaster risk management, encompassing a wider definition of how to conserve
and use biodiversity in a sustainable manner’ ([51]; p. 5)
‘Actions address environmental, social and economic challenges simultaneously by maximising the benefits provided by nature (…) inspired by, supported by, or copied from nature’
([4]; p. 5).
‘Nature-based solutions are measures which are supported by nature and jointly benefit the environment, society and the economy. Because of these multiple benefits, they are more
efficient and cost-effective than traditional methods’ ([26]; p. 461–462)∗
‘NBS are living solutions inspired by, continuously supported by, and using nature. They are designed to address various environmental challenges in a resource efficient and
adaptable manner and to provide simultaneously economic, social and environmental benefits’ ([52]; p.42)
‘Multifunctional green interventions delivering upon the social, environmental and economic pillars of suitable development’ ([24]; p. 265).
‘Conscious use of nature to help urban inhabitants address various environmental, social and economic challenges’ ([53]; p. 295).
‘ (…) a pure nature-based solution is a solution (to a certain issue) that is completely based on elements and direct inputs from nature, thus not managed by mankind nor containing
any human/industrial element’ ([54]; p. 1187)
‘NBS is considered to be a broad definition covering the conserving, enhancing, and using of biodiversity by society in a sustainable manner, while also integrating social factors such
as socio‐economic development and effective governance’ ([46]; p. 1)∗
‘Actions that alleviate a well-defined societal challenge employ ecosystem processes of spatial, blue and green infrastructure networks, and are embedded within viable governance or
business models for implementation’ ([8]; p.12) .
‘Nature-based solutions address these societal challenges through the delivery of ‘ecosystem services’ ([55]; p. 2)
‘Nature-based solutions as being powered by nature and restoring natural flows in cities, create novel ecosystems that require multi-actor collaborations for their design and
sustainability’ ([33]; p.102).
‘Nature based solutions are innovative solutions, which are inspired from nature, and applied to contemporary societal problems such as climate change, overtourism, poverty
alleviation, and so on’ ([56] et al. 2019; p. 1)
‘A promising means to address a number of societal challenges arising from climate change and urbanisation, with multiple social, environmental and economic co-benefits’ ([13]; p.
15)∗
‘Actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human
well-being and biodiversity benefits’ [5]∗
‘The key characteristic of NBS is their capability to be multi-functional, which means the ability to simultaneously perform multiple functions to deliver a set of associated ecosystem
services (ES)’ ([43]; p. 2)
‘Nature-based solutions (NBS) is a concept, defined as actions inspired by, supported by, or copied from nature that: (1) deploy various natural features and processes in a resource
efficient and sustainable manner; (2) are adapted to local systems (…); and (3) face social, environmental, and economic challenges, leading to multiple benefits and supporting
sustainable development and resilience.’ ([48]; p. 2)∗
‘NBS can provide a range of ecosystem services beneficial for the urban biosphere such as regulation of micro-climates, flood prevention, water treatment, food provision, and more.’
([57]; Abstract)
‘(…) NBS should be cost-effective, resource efficient and locally adapted. NBS are systemic interventions that bring more, and more diverse, nature and natural features and
processes. They address either a specific problem (i.e., societal challenge) or multiple challenges and simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits, such as
biodiversity, climate change mitigation and adaptation, resilience, human well-being etc. ([50]; p. 3)∗
‘(…) NBS as a concept stresses the strategic, integrated use of natural ecosystems to support human wellbeing in a cost-effective way’ ([25]; p. 1)∗
‘Nature-based solutions (NBS) are usually defined as complementary or alternative solutions to “grey infrastructures” (traditionally made with cement) aimed at conserving and
regenerating the functionality of natural and semi-natural ecosystems.’ ([58]; p. 1)
nomic opportunities and green jobs. NBS should also address at least
one of the societal challenges defined by the IUCN [5]: climate change
adaptation and mitigation, disaster risk reduction, ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss, human health, socio-economic development,
food security and water security. If required, other societal challenges
may be added to this list. Nevertheless, climate-related challenges are
the most commonly discussed in the existing literature on NBS, as climate effects may alter ecosystems and affect service provision [3]. In
the context of cities, given that NBS promote green and blue infrastructure within urban structures, they have significant potential to decrease these places’ vulnerability and enhance their resilience to climate change [10]. To address this challenge, researchers (e.g. [29] et al.
2020; [17] et al. 2019; [30]) are assessing different types of NBS from
the point of view of reducing temperature, decreasing the urban heat
island (UHI) effect and contributing to carbon storage and emissions
reduction. The second-most analysed challenge pertains to the development of sustainable cities. Many elements of green and blue spaces in
urban areas, such as urban parks, forest, gardens and water – as well
as green roofs and walls, which under certain circumstances may be
considered NBS – can make a positive contribution to different sustainable development goals (31,32,7]). These goals inter alia include tackling poverty, good health and well-being, clean water, responsible consumption, life on land/below water and reduced inequalities in access
to green areas (https://sdgs.un.org/goals).
The provision of solutions to defined challenges is connected to the
scale of NBS; in other words, the NBS should be sufficiently large to be
considered relevant [12,33–36]. The effects of an intervention’s implementation can embrace the micro, meso and macro levels [35], referring to local, regional, national, continental and/or global dimensions.
To address global challenges, for example, large-scale initiatives such
as ECCA30 (which aims to restore 350 million hectares of the world’s
deforested and degraded land by 2030) are needed [3]. Local problems
such as degraded peatland ecosystems may be tackled by point or smallscale actions aimed at wetland restoration. Local and regional problems
include flood and drought management, the well-being of specific citizen groups, health-related problems and participatory planning. However, it should be emphasized that problems that are considered local in
one place may be deemed regional (or even higher in scale) elsewhere.
Therefore, the level of disturbance causing the problem and the expected
spatial thresholds of success should be determined a priori in order to
ensure that a proposed solution responds to a given challenge [2]. The
IUCN Global Standard [5] describes this criterion of NBS effectiveness as
‘Design of NBS is informed by scale’. Larger scale level considerations,
however, can greatly contribute to the successful application and operation of NBS. Large scale informs the robustness and resilience of the
solution, beyond its implementation and has more positive outcomes for
biodiversity, human well-being and economy [5].
3.2.3. Actions providing multiple benefits
NBS have been described as solutions that, by working with nature
and taking advantage of natural capital, benefit both natural ecosystems and the people who depend on them [3]. As a result, they produce
services which can be divided into three general types: social, environmental and economic. Indeed, according to the IUCN [5], an intervention that is unequivocally an NBS should at the same time safeguard
biodiversity and society, with human well-being a primary objective.
With regard to the societal dimension, it has been demonstrated that
NBS can improve mental and physical health by reducing the incidence
of depression and the number of heat-related deaths ([37]; Kabisch et al.
2017). In urban areas, this positive impact is mainly produced by the
GBI inherent to NBS [7]. Moreover, open green areas facilitate social
cohesion and community support, as they constitute meeting places ac4
B. Sowińska-Świerkosz and J. García
Nature-Based Solutions 2 (2022) 100009
Fig. 2. Schematic representation on the process used in this study for retrieval of core ideas behind NBS definition. On the left the key words extracted from NBS
definitions (size of the key word is proportional to the number or reflects the number of its uses); on the right the core ideas of NBS.
cessible to every citizen [33,10]. Furthermore, health and well-being
benefits are not limited to small-scale urban NBS actions; wilderness
and protected areas can also help improve people’s physical and mental
condition through the healing effects of greenery [38]. Examples of the
environmental benefits of NBS include promoting biodiversity, creating
new habitats, reducing flood risk, mitigating water runoff and enhancing water resilience [39,13,3]. NBS also positively affect the economic
dimension through creating green jobs and business opportunities and
reducing water and energy costs ([4,20]a).
Regarding uncertainties, it is known that both synergies (the increase
of one service causes the increase of another service) and trade-offs (the
increase of one service causes the decrease of another service) exist between the benefits provided by NBS [4,18,35,3]. However it is still difficult to detect such dependencies at the present state of the art of NBS,
due to three main factors: (1) the complexity of the relationships between different benefits and NBS pillars [2]; (2) a lack of systematic
analysis of the synergies and trade-offs between different categories of
impacts of NBS [40,10]; and (3) the impossibility of detecting all the
possible advantages and disadvantages of any intervention a priori [12].
As a result, despite the existence of some examples of synergies and
trade-offs, there is a shortage of practical approaches and tools for their
evaluation in relation to their character and strength as well as changes
over time [2,27,33,35,39,41–44]. So far, most of the detected negative
inputs of green actions – such as exposure to allergenic pollen, increase
in mosquitos and inequalities in access to green areas – are of a general nature [18,39]. Therefore, they may be highlighted in reference to
actions that have little in common with NBS.
economically viable and also ensures the long-term operation of the infrastructure adopted. In addition, these guidelines state that in order to
identify the most effective and affordable NBS solution available, alternative solutions must be considered (e.g. grey and hybrid solutions).
As can be seen from this list, there are four main dimensions of NBS
effectiveness. The first dimension pertains to management and governance capabilities, meaning the existence of flexible and transparent
governance models that can facilitate adaptive management and involve
stakeholders (Albert et al. 2020; [5,7,10,33,36,44,46,47]). Moreover,
effective models of NBS management should enable the participation
of different actors, including citizens, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) and researchers from different disciplines. NBS therefore integrate not only technical and scientific knowledge, but local and traditional knowledge as well [3]. Second, locally adapted solutions must
reflect local environmental, social and policy conditions and requirements [33,5,48,46]. Therefore, to ensure the effectiveness of a solution,
a ‘case-by-case’ rather than a ‘copy-paste’ approach should be adopted.
The third dimension refers to economic efficiency [4,12,17,44,49,50].
The cost of a solution’s implementation, management, monitoring and
maintenance over a certain period of time should not exceed its potential environmental and social benefits [4]. Moreover, economic viability
means the promotion of renewable sources of energy and, for example,
the use of rainwater or treated water instead of drinking water to irrigate and maintain NBS [2]. The fourth dimension pertains to the issue
of producing services and has already been discussed in the previous
section.
Few studies and practical guides have evaluated the effectiveness
and efficiency of NBS, including Dumitru et al. [40], Dumitru and
Wendling [6], EC [[4], 2020, [15]a], IUCN [5,23], Kabisch et al. [10],
Raymond et al. [35], Science for Environment Policy [3] and SowińskaŚwierkosz and García [2]. Despite this general lack of relevant research,
most NBS specialists suggest the use of performance and multi-metric
indicators as the best tools for evaluation, because they help assess the
performance of solutions, increase the measurability of effects and enable the systematic evaluation of NBS projects [10,35]. They also facilitate the simultaneous assessment of multiple benefits [3]. Another very
significant reason for the use of specific, defined indicators is that they
allow meta-analyses of diverse types of NBS actions across multiple spatial and temporal scales. This is what enables the scientific community
to build a coherent evidence base and promotes both the mainstreaming
of the concept and the availability of financing instruments [6].
3.2.4. Actions with a certain level of effectiveness and efficiency
According to the first comprehensive EC publication on NBS [4], effective solutions should be ‘locally adapted’, ‘resource-efficient’ and ‘systematically verified’. The EC’s latest publication (CBD [45]) regards NBS
as effective when they are ‘technically feasible’, ‘politically desirable’,
‘socially acceptable’, ‘economically viable’ and ‘beneficial’. SowińskaŚwierkosz and García [2] add to this list the following criteria: ‘stakeholders’ involvement’, ‘adaptation to local environmental conditions’,
‘long-time performance’ and ‘relevant size to address a given challenge’.
The ECLIPSE report emphasizes that multiple types of benefits (environmental, social, economic) need to be delivered for NBS to be effective [35]. The IUCN Global Standard [5] underscores that NBS should
effectively address at least one societal challenge in a manner that is
5
B. Sowińska-Świerkosz and J. García
Nature-Based Solutions 2 (2022) 100009
4. Formulation of exclusion criteria
these elements need to be re-shaped or modernized to resolve, reduce
or detect problem(s) a priori.
Taking into account uncertainties with regard to different core ideas
related to the NBS concept, this discussion section aims to formulate
criteria that exclude green/blue interventions from the NBS set. Such
criteria can be divided into hard (which are crucial for viewing any
action as an NBS) and soft (which relate to deeming NBS effective and
efficient actions). Such an approach was adopted because despite the
existence of the IUCN Global Standard for NBS (2020), ongoing and
future practice is necessary to fully understand the long-term operation
of NBS as well as to detect synergies and trade-offs, which contribute to
our understanding of specific boundaries with regard to these solutions’
effectiveness.
4.2.2. Negative/no impact on biodiversity
Given that the current biodiversity crisis not only affects wild species
but also human well-being, NBS must either maintain or enhance biodiversity. Actions without this quality cannot be classified as NBS [4,5].
Green actions based on ‘copying’ existing ecosystems to surrounding areas do not fulfil the requirements posed to NBS (e.g. the enlargement of
a forest area by implementing monoculture tree plantations). Biodiversity enhancement requires an understanding of the baseline conditions
at different levels as well as an assessment of the landscape-scale factors
affecting the integrity and the structure of the NBS ([20]a). The NBS concept not only excludes solutions that do not provide biodiversity gain,
but also those that do not clearly and measurably set and monitor biodiversity conservation outcomes. For each NBS, the type of target may
differ; for example, the target could be the percentage of the ecosystem
area restored or the return of a species. Ideally, an NBS should maintain
biodiversity over the long term and across a vast area by linking conservation efforts with an agreement between stakeholders and policy
actions [5].
4.1. Actions inspired and powered by nature
4.1.1. Lack of functioning ecosystems
‘Inspired by nature’ is a necessary but not sole condition for framing
an action as an NBS, because otherwise any biological (or natural) process could be described as such. Therefore, innovative interventions that
effectively resolve societal and ecological problems cannot be referred to
as NBS simply because they are inspired by nature. Clear examples here
are NBS that use wind, wave or solar power, or consist of materials and
structures that are modelled on biological processes but are not directly
based on functioning ecosystems [5]. Therefore, biomimicry should not
be framed as NBS, because the aspect of applying ‘living ecosystem(s)’
and in the process gaining benefits is missing.
4.3. Actions providing multiple benefits
4.3.1. Same benefits as grey infrastructure alone
Any criterion solely based on the degree of an anthropogenic intervention is not decisive in including or excluding a given solution in or
from the NBS frame. Purely green interventions, hybrid green-blue-grey
interventions (e.g. green roofs and walls) and solutions that use biochemical processes (such as phytoremediation and phytostabilisation)
can also be regarded as NBS [9], provided that their primary objective
is to deliver additional benefits beyond what can be achieved via engineered infrastructure alone [6]. Therefore, to realize the aim of identifying the most effective and affordable NBS solution possible, the benefits
provided by alternative purely grey solutions must be considered [2].
Of course, existing grey interventions can constitute the basis of implementing NBS via their ecological enrichment and or/modernization.
Moreover, synergies may occur between existing types of grey infrastructure and NBS, hence the latter can be perceived as an amplifier of
the role of traditional solutions. Further distinguishing NBS from other
green solutions are potential synergies with diverse sectors, such as agriculture, forestry and health, which produce additional benefits over that
which can be provided by grey infrastructure alone [5].
4.1.2. Random actions
To be deemed an NBS, green and hybrid actions must be deliberate,
with clearly defined goals, partners, beneficiary groups and management systems. For example, artistic actions and events that take place
in a city’s open spaces, such as external live plant installations, should
not be framed as NBS. This is because even though plants can constitute
‘building materials’ and increase ecological and social benefits, such actions lack well-structured management systems, analyses of stakeholders’ views, assessments of potential outcomes and quality controls in
their design. Their character is artistic (and usually educational as well),
without deeper consideration of societal challenges, meaning that they
are not integral to the planning and implementation of society’s responses to these issues. Furthermore, actions that do not consider the
social, economic and environmental conditions before the intervention
should not be framed as NBS. Without such diagnoses, clear and transparent targets or milestones cannot be formulated, such as the number
of people to benefit or the water-saving costs to achieve [2]. As a result,
it is not possible in the long term to monitor such random interventions
and assess their outcomes.
4.3.2. Unfair distribution of benefits
Through viewing the NBS concept as a dynamic system of service
provisioning that offers multiple benefits directed to different users simultaneously, solutions that exclusively benefit the environment or society should not be treated as NBS. For a solution to be deemed an NBS,
it is necessary to provide simultaneous benefits to the environment and
human well-being. In addition, NBS should be based on solutions that
ensure synergies and do not lead to significant trade-offs [2], in relation
to temporal, spatial and reversibility dimensions [5]. In other words,
NBS should make the best possible use of resources and limit trade-offs
and at the same time ensure the fair distribution of benefits and costs
[3]. Therefore, NBS should not frame actions that benefit only one of
the main three pillars of NBS by treating the environment, society or the
economy as superior, while belittling the others. Besides, it is not NBS
that benefit all three pillars but is directed to maximizing the provision
of one benefit for each dimension. Such an approach almost certainly
reduces the quality and the quantity of other benefits [5]. Nevertheless,
it is not just the type of solution that can ensure the fair distribution of
benefits; even more important is the design, localization, planning and
management of the solution. The regeneration of a brownfield site to
an urban park with green infrastructure for water drainage and urban
agriculture wedges in which only residents have permits to enter might
4.2. Actions tackling challenges
4.2.1. Post-implementation goal(s)
The challenge–orientation of NBS means that they are directed to
provide solutions to problem(s) detected a priori. This aspect is crucial
for distinguishing between NBS and other green interventions [8]. For
example, GBI is a fairly similar concept to NBS and under certain circumstances the two terms can be regarded as synonymous ([20]a). The
biggest difference pertains to the contrasting meanings of the terms ‘infrastructure’ and ‘solution’, as the former refers to the structures needed
for a society or enterprise to operate and the latter to solving the problem(s) encountered [12]. Moreover, the challenges to be tackled should
be detected before an action is taken and constitute the main reason
behind the implementation of a new NBS [3]. Of course, historical elements of GBI can also be framed as NBS [7]. Taking into account the
present level of ecological problems, however, historical gardens and
parks are not enough to address the challenges faced today [5]. Instead,
6
B. Sowińska-Świerkosz and J. García
Nature-Based Solutions 2 (2022) 100009
be understood as NBS, but the designed and managed approach is far
from the concept under analysis.
occurring at the landscape/seascape scale as well as to factors that will
only emerge in the future. Such factors are unforeseen, but are likely to
either hinder or favour the operation of a given solution. Therefore, any
intervention that is carried out in a rigidly embedded framework, without the possibility of introducing changes flexibly and relatively quickly,
should not be considered an effective NBS. Effective interventions require that established guidelines be regularly reviewed, based on selfverification or second-part verification and new social, economic and
ecological evidence [5]. To this end, specific, measurable, attainable,
realistic and timely (SMART) targets should be used as appropriate, as
they are important for ensuring accountability and informing adaptive
management. Moreover, it is crucial that transparent and accessible documentation record the key steps of NBS decision-making procedures, in
order to increase accountability and provide a strong basis for recourse
in the case of a dispute or disagreement. Specific attention should be
paid to the stakeholders who were involved in decision making and the
role they played. This is particularly important where extreme inequality persists, so that processes can be adapted to encourage meaningful
and effective participation.
4.4. Actions with a certain level of effectiveness and efficiency
4.4.1. ‘Copy-paste’ implementation approach
NBS effectiveness is very context-specific, being contingent on a variety of aspects, such as the societal challenges being addressed, geographical zone, ecosystem type(s), landscape/seascape characteristics,
the socio-economic-cultural system and the composition of stakeholder
groups [5]. Soil characteristics, local biodiversity, drought and stress
tolerance are examples of context-specific aspects only in reference to
environmental features [46,36]. Plant selection appropriate for a given
location may not be adequate in other places, even if they share the
same geographical context. Furthermore, NBS affect certain groups of
local people, whose opinions and needs vary significantly, even if the
ecological conditions are similar. Local expertise is important but may
not be ‘sufficient’ as a criterion for deploying NBS in developing contexts. Therefore, solutions that cannot be operated and updated by local
people are not NBS, as is especially the case in developing countries
where residents generally have low incomes. Another key dimension of
context-specific aspects of NBS refers to governance process, which may
hinder or favour the implementation of a given solution type. Therefore,
an NBS should not be framed as a solution that is based on a previous
successful solution, without having first adapted it to local conditions.
Of course, it is recommended that strategies be replicated provided that
adaptive management is applied first [5].
4.4.4. Financial expenses disproportionate to benefits
Ideal NBS are green/blue solutions that are cost-effective. This does
not imply that solutions that require immense financial costs to be spent
on protection, such as the conservation of coastal marshes, should not
be framed as NBS. Rather, it is important that the implementation and
management costs be reasonable. Finding a balance between costs and
benefits and adaptively managing trade-offs throughout the NBS life cycle are crucial to distinguishing NBS from other green and blue solutions.
Based on the evidence-based review of potential approaches, this means
that the most effective methods are applied to avoid a solution’s ‘economic failure’. Therefore, a solution that requires the constant replacement of plants instead of using perennial or drought-resistant plants,
or that needs technical infrastructure to undergo continuous repairs,
should not be considered an effective NBS [2]. Furthermore, the costs
of an NBS should be comparable or lower than those of other possible
solutions applied to resolve the same societal challenge(s) [5]. This is
achieved not only through the thoughtful selection of building materials
and the use of innovative solutions that save water and energy, but also
through the integration of management actions with financial institutions and incentive structures. With regard to this exclusion criterion,
we must also remember that the benefits of implementing NBS may be
both material and non-material, thus both economic and non-economic
methods of assessment must be incorporated to fully assess the balance
between costs and benefits.
4.4.2. Top-down model of governance
Green interventions that are not specifically designed to address issues identified through a transparent process that actively involves all
the stakeholders affected should not be classified as NBS. It is essential to
ensure active, broad and transparent participation, regardless of a person’s gender, age and social, economic and cultural background [18,3].
Therefore, for public NBS financed with public resources, a decisionmaking approach – in which national or local authorities decide what
types of green actions should be applied and where to do so, without
consulting local communities – does not fit with the NBS approach. Examples of such non-NBS can include the creation of national reserves
or buffer zones around high-value areas, which may be necessary and
effective, but do not necessarily involve consultation with stakeholders.
Of course, it is not possible to obtain full agreement amongst all the
parties involved, but some form of consensus, even if it is obtained via
the application of redress mechanisms, must be reached to frame an implemented solution as an NBS. Otherwise, the governance process will
be based on limited, narrow perspectives, which risk amplifying social
and/or economic inequalities amongst the groups of people affected [5].
Besides, negotiations processes may result that local communities will
understand long-term positive implications of the NBS interventions,
and thus accepted proposed solution. In sum, NBS are not solutions that
lack social acceptance and as a result risk failing implementation, even
if their conservation objectives are fully realized [7].
4.5.5. ‘Point scale’ approach
Even if ‘point scale’ interventions such as infiltration planters and
tree boxes may be framed as NBS, they should take into account the interactions that occur across different social and ecological scales within
a landscape or seascape [5]. This is the only way to avoid spatial conflicts, duplications of actions and project failure. A given NBS project
may affect both the socio-ecological ‘space’ of the applicable area and
its surroundings, even where the latter are not directly subjected to the
action in question. Therefore, we should not call as effective NBS actions that do not monitor solutions performance at landscape scale as
such approach would hinder the capture of all impacts of a given intervention ([20]a). Besides, monitoring and understanding of how NBS
performance and impacts evolve with time, provides insights into their
respective potential for up-scaling is required [6]. Solutions that are
managed in isolation (i.e. without goods and services being assessed at
the landscape scale) and that are focused on a narrow group of stakeholders (e.g. the inhabitants of the area undergoing the action) should
not be framed as NBS. Cumulative impacts amongst sites and the inclusion of multiple stakeholders are features distinguishing NBS from other
green solutions [5].
4.4.3. Static management approach
Ideally, NBS should be based on the theory of change, iterative learning and an adaptive management approach [5]. The results of any green
or blue intervention, especially innovative ones or those being applied
for the first time in relation to a given set of conditions, are likely to
be unintended, unforeseen and sometimes undesirable. To prove successful, a management approach should be flexible enough to apply the
knowledge learnt at one stage of NBS functioning in subsequent stages,
through introducing changes to the methods and procedures adopted.
The application of day-to-day management rather than static management determines whether a given green/blue intervention can be framed
as a successful NBS [3]. Adaptive management also includes the possibility that an area under the action will be subjected to external factors
7
B. Sowińska-Świerkosz and J. García
Nature-Based Solutions 2 (2022) 100009
5. Conclusion
[13] S. Sarabi, et al., Key enablers of and barriers to the uptake and implementation of
nature-based solutions in urban settings: a review, Resources 2019 (2019) 121.
[14] UNEP (2020). The fifth edition of the UNEP adaptation gap report looks at progress
in planning for, financing and implementing adaptation – with a focus on naturebased solutions. https://www.unep.org/resources/adaptation-gap-report-2020
[15] T. Wild, T. Freitas, S. Vandewoestijne (Eds.), Nature-Based Solutions State of
the Art in EU-funded Projects European Commission, Luxembourg, 2020 Edited
byAvailable from https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/nature-based-solutionsstate-art-eu-funded-projects_en .
[16] H. Dorst, A. van der Jagt, R. Raven, H. Runhaar, Urban greening through nature-based solutions – key characteristics of an emerging concept, Sustain. Cities
Soc. 49 (2019) 101620.
[17] N. Frantzeskaki, et al., Nature-based solutions for urban climate change adaptation:
linking science, policy, and practice communities for evidence-based decision-making, Bioscience 69 (2019) 455–466.
[18] Ch.M. Raymond, et al., A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits
of nature-based solutions in urban areas, Environ. Sci. Policy 77 (2017) 15–24.
[19] E. Mačiulytė, E. Durieux (Eds.), Public Procurement of Nature Based Solutions
Addressing Barriers to the Procurement of Urban NBS: Case Studies and Recommendations European Commission, 2020 Edited by:Available from: https://op.europa.
eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d75b2354-11bc-11eb-9a54-01aa75ed71a1
.
[20] B. Sowińska-Świerkosz, M. Michalik-Śnieżek, A. Bieske-Matejak, Can allotment gardens be considered an example of nature-based solutions (NBS) based on the use of
historical green infrastructure? Sustainability 13 (2021) 835.
[21] C. Albert, J.H. Spangenberg, B. Schröter, Nature-based solutions: criteria, Nature
543 (7645) (2017) 315.
[22] E. Cohen-Shacham, G. Walters, C. Janzen, S. Maginnis (Eds.), Nature-based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges IUCN, 2016 (Edited by:Available from
https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-036.pdf .
[23] Ensuring Effective Nature-Based Solutions, IUCN, 2020 www.iucn.org. Available from: https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/ensuring-effective-naturebased-solutions.
[24] A.P.N. Van der Jagt, L.R. Szaraz, T. Delshammar, R. Cveji´c, A. Santos, J. Goodness,
A. Buijs, Cultivating nature-based solutions: the governance of communal urban gardens in the European union, Environ. Res. 159 (2017) 264–275.
[25] H. Toxopeus, P. Kotsila, M. Conde, A. Katona, A.P.N. van der Jagte, F. Polzina,
How ‘just’ is hybrid governance of urban nature-based solutions? Cities 105 (2020)
102839.
[26] L. Triest, I. Stiers, S. Van Onsem, Biomanipulation as a nature-based solution to
reduce cyanobacterial blooms, Aquatic Ecol. 50 (2016) 461–483.
[27] N. Seddon, A. Chausson, P. Berry, C.A.J. Girardin, A. Smith, B. Turner, Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global
challenges, Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. B 375 (1794) (2020).
[28] E. Cohen-Shacham, G. Walters, C. Janzen, S. Maginnis (Eds.), Nature Based Solutions
to Address Global Societal Challenges, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2016.
[29] A. Chausson, et al., Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate
change adaptation, Glob. Change Biol. 26 (2020) 6134–6155.
[30] J. Vieira, P. Matos, T. Mexia, P. Silva, N. Lopes, C. Freitas, O. Correia, M. Santos-Reis,
C. Branquinho, P. Pinho, Green spaces are not all the same for the provision of air
purification and climate regulation services: the case of urban parks, Environ. Res.
160 (2018) 306–313.
[31] T. Mexia, et al., Ecosystem services: urban parks under a magnifying glass, Environ.
Res. 160 (2018) 469–478.
[32] L. Nesbitt, N. Hotte, S. Barron, J. Cowan, S.R.J. Sheppard, The social and economic
value of cultural ecosystem services provided by urban forests in North America:
a review and suggestions for future research, Urban For. Urban Green. 25 (2017)
103–111 2017.
[33] N. Frantzeskaki, Seven lessons for panning nature-based solutions in cities, Environ.
Sci. Policy 93 (2019) 101–111.
[34] A.N. Majidi, Z. Vojinovic, A. Alves, S. Weesakul, A. Sanchez, F. Boogaard, J. Kluck,
Planning nature-based solutions for urban flood reduction and thermal comfort enhancement, Sustainability 11 (2019) 6361.
[35] Ch.M. Raymond, et al., An impact evaluation framework to support planning and
evaluation of nature-based solutions projects, Report Prepared By the EKLIPSE Expert Working Group on Nature-based Solutions to Promote Climate Resilience in
Urban Areas, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom, 2017.
[36] Y. Xing, et al., Characterization of nature-based solutions for the built environment,
Sustainability 9 (2017) 149.
[37] J. Dick, et al., How are nature based solutions contributing to priority societal challenges surrounding human wellbeing in the United Kingdom: a systematic map protocol, Environ. Evidence 8 (2019) 37.
[38] D. Dushkova, M. Ignatieva, New trends in urban environmental health research:
from geography of diseases to therapeutic landscapes and healing gardens, Geogr.
Environ. Sustain. 1 (2020) 159–171.
[39] V. Ferreira, et al., Stakeholders’ engagement on nature-based solutions: a systematic
literature review, Resources 8 (2020) 121.
[40] A. Dumitru, N. Frantzeskaki, M. Collier, Identifying principles for the design of robust impact evaluation frameworks for nature-based solutions in cities, Environ. Sci.
Policy 112 (2020) 107–116.
[41] V.R. Coletta, A. Pagano, I. Pluchinotta, U. Fratino, A. Scrieciu, F. Nanu, R. Giordano,
Causal loop diagrams for supporting nature based solutions participatory design and
performance assessment, J. Environ. Manage. 280 (2021) 111668.
[42] A. Colléony, A. Shwartz, Beyond assuming co-benefits in nature-based solutions: a
human-centered approach to optimize social and ecological outcomes for advancing
sustainable urban planning, Sustainability 11 (2019) 4924.
Taking into account the growing demand to implement NBS actions
and assess their outcomes, this paper has contributed to the existing literature by specifying in detail these solutions’ scope so as not to frame
any green/blue actions as NBS. Such strict limits concerning what are
and are not NBS are mainly derived from the IUCN Global Standard [5].
They are necessary to provide decision makers with data on how to select solutions that can be framed as NBS in order to avoid abusing this
concept. Ongoing and future practice is required to increase our understanding of the long-term operation of NBS as well as to detect synergies
and trade-offs, thereby enabling us to better define the concept’s boundaries.
Declaration of Competing Interest
We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest
associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. We
confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named
authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for
authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us. We confirm
that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual
property associated with this work and that there are no impediments
to publication, including the timing of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm that we have followed the
regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual property.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their questions and suggestions, which have allowed us to improve the quality of
the final manuscript. The Editor in Chief Laura Wendling also provided
an enormous number of comments, fuelling an in-depth discussion of
several sections of the manuscript. These comments suggested a very
positive critical contribution, which the authors greatly appreciated.
References
[1] World BankClimate Change and Adaptation: Nature-Based from the World Bank
Portfolio, Biodiversity, SolutionsWashington, DC, 2008.
[2] B. Sowińska-Świerkosz, J. García, A new evaluation framework for nature-based
solutions (NBS) projects based on the application of performance questions and the
indicators approach, Sci. Total Environ. 787 (2021) 147615.
[3] Science for Environment PolicyThe Solution is in nature. Future Brief 24. Brief Produced For the European Commission DG Environment, Science Communication Unit,
UWE Bristol, Bristol, 2021.
[4] Towards an EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-Based Solutions
& Re-Naturing Cities, European Commission, Brussels, 2015.
[5] IUCNGlobal Standard for Nature-based Solutions. A User-Friendly Framework For
the verification, Design and Scaling Up of NbS, 1st Edition, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 2020.
[6] A. Dumitru, L. Wendling, Evaluating the Impact of Nature-based Solutions: A
Handbook For Practitioners. d-G R&I, European Commission, Luxembourg, 2021,
doi:10.2777/244577.
[7] B. Sowińska-Świerkosz, J. Wójcik-Madej, M. Michalik-Śnieżek, An assessment of the
ecological landscape quality (ELQ) of nature-based solutions (NBS) based on existing
elements of green and blue infrastructure (GBI), Sustainability 13 (21) (2021).
[8] C. Albert, B. Schröter, D. Haase, M. Brillinger, J. Henze, S. Herrmann, S. Gottwald,
P. Guerrero, C. Nicolas, B. Matzdorf, Addressing societal challenges through nature-based solutions: how can landscape planning and governance research contribute? Landsc. Urban Plan. 182 (2019) 12–21.
[9] H. Eggermont, E. Balian, J.M.N. Azevedo, V. Beumer, T. Brodin, J. Claudet, B. Fady,
M. Grube, H. Keune, P. Lamarque, Nature-based solutions: new influence for environmental management and research in Europe, GAIA 24 (2015) 243–248.
[10] N. Kabisch, et al., Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action, Ecol. Soc. 21 (2016) 39.
[11] K. Krauze, I. Wagner, From classical water-ecosystem theories to nature-based solutions — contextualizing nature-based solutions for sustainable city, Sci. Total Environ. 655 (2019) 697–706.
[12] Nesshöver, et al., The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: an interdisciplinary perspective, Sci. Total Environ. 579 (2017) 1215–1227.
8
B. Sowińska-Świerkosz and J. García
Nature-Based Solutions 2 (2022) 100009
[43] E. Gómez Martín, R. Giordano, A. Pagano, P. van der Keur, M. Máñez Costa, Using
a system thinking approach to assess the contribution of nature-based solutions to
sustainable development goals, Sci. Total Environ. 738 (2020) 139693.
[44] J. Maes, S. Jacobs, Nature-based solutions for Europe’s sustainable development,
Conserv. Lett. 10 (2017) 121–124.
[45] C.B.D. COP (2016) Biodiversity and climate change (10 December 2016)
CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/4) Available from: https://www.cbd.int/meetings/COP-13.
[46] C. Short, L. Clarke, F. Carnelli, C. Uttley, B. Smith, Capturing the multiple benefits
associated with nature-based solutions: lessons from a natural flood management
project in the Cotswolds, UK, Land Degrad. Dev. 30 (2019) 241–252.
[47] I. Zwierzchowska, K. Fagiewicz, L. Poniży, P. Lupa, A. Mizgajski, Introducing nature-based solutions into urban policy – facts and gaps. Case study of Poznań, Land
Use Policy 85 (2019) 161–175.
[48] D. Kolokotsa, A.A. Lilli, M.A. Lilli, N.P. Nikolaidis, On the impact of nature-based
solutions on citizens’ health & wellbeing, Energy Build. 229 (2020) 110527.
[49] N. Faivre, M. Fritz, T. Freitas, B. de Boissezon, S. Vandewoestijne, Nature-based
solutions in the EU: innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental challenges, Environ. Res. 159 (2017) 509–518.
[50] C.E. Nika, L. Gusmaroli, M. Ghafourian, N. Atanasova, G. Buttiglieri, E. Katsou, Nature-based solutions as enablers of circularity in water systems: a review on assessment methodologies, tools and indicators, Water Res. 183 (2020) 115988.
[51] Balian, E., Eggermont, H. & Le Roux, X. (2014). Outcomes of the strategic foresight workshop. BiodivERsA Strategic Foresight workshop, Naturebased solutions in a BiodivERsA context. Brussels June 11-12. [online] URL:
http://www.biodiversa.org/687/download
[52] D. Haase, S. Kabisch, A. Haase, E. Andersson, E Banzhaf, F. Baró, M. Brenck, L.K. Fischer, N. Frantzeskaki, N. Kabisch, K. Krellenberg, P. Kremer, G. Kronenber, N. Larondelle, J. Mathey, S. Pauleit, I. Ring, D. Rink, N. Schwarz, M. Wolff, Greening cities
−to be socially inclusive? About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities,
Habitat Int. 64 (2017) 41–48.
[53] J. Kronenberg, T. Bergier, K. Maliszewska, The challenge of innovation disunion:
nature-based solutions in poland. in nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas: linkages between science, in: N. Kabisch, H. Korn, J. Stadler,
A. Bonn (Eds.), Policy and Practice, Springer International Publishing, Cham,
Switzerland, 2017, pp. 291–305. Eds.;.
[54] T. Schaubroeck, Towards a general sustainability assessment of human/industrial
and nature-based solutions, Sustain. Sci. 13 (2018) 1185–1191.
[55] J. Bush, A. Doyon, Building urban resilience with nature-based solutions: how can
urban planning contribute? Cities 95 (2019) 102483.
[56] P. Padma, S. Ramakrishna, S.M. Rasoolimanesh, Nature-based solutions in tourism:
a review of the literature and conceptualization, J. Hospital. Tourism Res. (2019).
[57] G. Langergraber, B. Pucher, L. Simperler, J. Kisser, E. Katsou, D. Buehler, M.C.G. Mateo, N. Atanasova, Implementing nature-based solutions for creating a resourceful
circular city, Blue-Green Syst. 2 (1) (2020) 173–185.
[58] L. Turconi, F. Faccini, A. Marchese, G. Paliaga, M. Casazza, Z. Vojinovic, F. Luino,
Implementation of nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological risk reduction in
small Mediterranean catchments: the case of portofino natural regional park, Italy,
Sustainability 12 (3) (2020) 1240.
9