Nature Based Solutions

Nature-based solutions are gaining prominence in urban sustainability discourses, especially in climate adaptation, in efforts to increase resilience, and as a means of promoting a range of social, environmental, and economic benefits.

There are however barriers and inertia that slow the adoption of such solutions, and a term commonly used for overcoming such factors is mainstreaming.  (Adams,C., Frantzeskaki, N., Moglia, M. 2023). Nature-based solutions (NBS) entered the mainstream scientific literature in the 2000s, initially in the context of finding solutions to agricultural problems, e.g., biological pest control (Potschin et al., 2014). Since around 2009, the term has been increasingly incorporated into the literature related to how nature can be used to address major societal challenges such as climate change (Eisenberg and Polcher, 2018:1). 

Over the past decade, the European Commission has paid particular attention to NBS through consultations and dialogues that have sought to make the concept more concrete and to define its place within the spectrum of ecosystem-based approaches (Faivre et al. 2017). In this sense, in 2015, a survey on citizens’ views and perceptions of ‘Nature in Cities’ was conducted to provide further guidance for future work. Based on this evidence and the results of ongoing European projects, an R&I agenda was developed and issued targeted calls for proposals for large-scale demonstration projects in this field. The term NBS was defined as “solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience […] through locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions. […] Such solutions bring more, and more diverse, nature and natural features and processes into cities, landscapes and seascapes, through locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions” (European Commission, 2015).

Empirical evidence shows that the natural environment is a crucial determinant of human health and wellbeing, and this is of extreme importance for urban planning. Most research on the impact of nature and NBS on health and wellbeing in urban areas is conducted in single locations and relies mainly on self-reported health and wellbeing indicators or on experiments in artificially controlled environmental conditions (Kingsley et al., 2021). Qualitative research on how nature and green urban spaces influence health and wellbeing and the social mechanisms behind this is also scarce. NBS, to be effective, should prove the following characteristics: adaptation to local conditions; economic efficiency; policy and management capability; community involvement and stakeholders participation; adequate spatial scale and performance in the long-term; and embracing experimental approaches to governance to boost dynamic collaboration and citizen participation. An additional relevant aspect might be to develop interventions in a timely and relatively low-cost manner in order to respond to and quickly address major public health concerns. 

Potential negative effects of the implementation of NBS, such us not planned actions; negative or no impact on people o biodiversity; lack of adaptation to the context in the implementation and replication of the actions; static management approach; not cost-benefits efficiency; the reduced local scale of the solutions and unfair distribution of benefits should be considered (Sowińska-Świerkosz & García, 2022). Concerns have also emerged about whether NBS represents a “new” approach to urban renaturation (EC, 2015; O’Sullivan 2020). This is because the relationship between NBS and pre-existing concepts, namely green and blue infrastructure (GBI) and ecosystem services (ESS), is still ambiguous (Potschin et al., 2014; Dorst et al., 2019). When planning significant urban transformations related to urban greening resources or potentials, it is critical to perform high sensitivity for the site, and socio-economic and environmental specificities and values. Initiation of the co-creation process before the formal urban planning procedure (EPC) is essential, as well as the utilization of complementary, informal co-creation tools to enable trustworthy and constructive communication. (Mitić-Radulović, A., & Lalović, K. 2021). The potential risk of urban NBS producing injustices is deeply connected to why and how such interventions come about, including the negotiation processes taking place prior and during implementation, and the relevant (conflicting) interests at play. In order to capture such (in)justice aspects in environmental / urban nature / climate change adaptation contexts, geographers and urban scholars have often used a conceptualisation of justice along three main, interrelated pillars (Fraser, 2007; Schlosberg, 2009).

In Brazil, the results have shown that there are several NBS planned, designed and implemented at different scales, from local to regional. At regional and city scales, the NBS are planned, designed and implemented by local authorities, with some participation of civil society representatives and NGOs. However, local NBS are usually bottom-up initiatives promoted by citizens (grassroots) and articulated with other residents and institutions, public and private, to transform sites that they see as opportunities to create a better place to live in. Also, there are institutional initiatives that are carried out due to legal requirements to protect and enhance the local environment. (Antuña-Rozado, C.,Herzog, C.P., Freitas, T., Cagnin, C., Wiedman, G. 2019). NBS are used for different purposes like the regeneration of degraded urban areas, storm water management, flooding risk reduction, etc. Even though most of the European examples involve multi-stakeholder engagement, the ones chosen for this paper are a bottom-up initiative and a highly participatory NBS co-design process in order to show how such approaches can contribute to social inclusion and cohesion. They also illustrate how cities can improve their environment and their citizens’ wellbeing with small-scale measures relatively cheap to implement even in times of economic downturn. (Antuña-Rozado, C.,Herzog, C.P., Freitas, T., Cagnin, C., Wiedman, G. 2019).

Bottom-up NBS initiatives offer many opportunities for improving the urban environment while enhancing social engagement and inclusion. More in particular, they allow the implementation of NBS when the economic conditions or the lack of institutional commitment are not favorable for top-down NBS development driven by the public administration, either local or regional. Similarly, citizens’ participation in the decision-making process, not only before, but also during the implementation of NBS projects, particularly large and complex ones, and even after their completion, can lead to: 1) new innovative ideas better tailored to the needs and preferences of the citizens; and 2) long-term appropriation and commitment to further development with multiple benefits for all stakeholders. (Antuña-Rozado, C.,Herzog, C.P., Freitas, T., Cagnin, C., Wiedman, G. 2019). NBS offer plenty of opportunities for cities to address contemporary local and global challenges such as: climate change impacts; urban heat island effect; floods and landslides; air, water and soil pollution; or human health improvement (among others). (Antuña-Rozado, C.,Herzog, C.P., Freitas, T., Cagnin, C., Wiedman, G. 2019)

NBS delivered through hybrid governance have demonstrated their potential for strengthening justice elements, as in the case of Barcelona’s community-driven and municipality-supported urban gardens placed in heavily dense and contaminated areas of the city (Kotsila et al., 2020). Hybrid governance to deliver urban NBS has been identified as a key opportunity in this debate, referring to a type of governance where policy makers collaborate with non-public actors such as businesses, citizens, and NGOs. (Toxopeus, H., Kotsila, P., Conde, M., Katona, A., van der Jagt, A. P.N., Polzin, F. 2020). Hybrid (or multi-actor) governance has been seen as crucial ingredient for the cost-effective mainstreaming realization of urban NBS, allowing policy makers to collaborate with non-public actors (businesses, citizens, and NGOs) to create “resource and governance synergies” (Kabisch et al., 2016). Hybrid (or multi-actor) governance has been identified as a key opportunity for upscaling urban nature-based solutions (referred to as urban NBS), representing a demand-driven and cost-effective realization of urban green infrastructure. However, it is unclear how such hybrid governance affects the justice outcomes of urban NBS. (Toxopeus, H., Kotsila, P., Conde, M., Katona, A., van der Jagt, A. P.N., Polzin, F. 2020).

European policy planning in recent years has seen an increasing focus on the dissemination of nature-based solutions as a fundamental part of urban regeneration, social cohesion and inclusion, and economic development processes. The term NBS arises in the wake of pressing issues such as climate change, the resource crisis, pandemic phenomena, but also the need to recreate social cohesion and find better solutions to promote the well-being and health of citizens and mitigate the effects of growing inequality. Multiple social challenges can be addressed simultaneously through NBS (Raymond et al., 2017; Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016). The creation of institutional arrangements that can promote NBS in each individual case is playing a decisive factor in the local sustainability agenda (Santiago Fink, H. 2016). Changes in governance, more closely related to climate change adaptation processes, are also becoming crucial in the construction of intervention schemes and policies at the local scale (Wamsler, 2016; De Leeuw & Simos, 2017). Then, through the Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, the EC aimed to position itself as a forerunner of NBS worldwide by financially supporting cities proposing NBS demonstration projects on the European continent (O’Sullivan,et.al 2020).

In addition, the EU Green Deal (2019) established a roadmap for EU-level policies with a high focus on NbS and its related concepts, influencing several EU legislations, policies, roadmaps, and strategies. As part of the EU agenda for emissions neutrality and climate adaptation by 2050, the New EU climate law of 2021 also emphasized NBS. In line with the EU policies, therefore, 77% of Dutch policies have explicitly adopted NbS, and 15% have implicitly absorbed NbS. Accordingly, 81% of German policies explicitly absorbed NbS. It is worth mentioning that the term NbS directly has been used in the EU policies after 2015, while in the Dutch and German national and decentral policies, the NbS term was used more commonly in the policies after 2020. (Qazizada, M.R. 2022). Furthermore, the Paris Agreement 2015 played a significant role in developing transnational and national strategies related to the limitation of global warming and climate change resilience (adaptation and mitigation) which influenced EU-level and member states’ policies for adaptation of the NbS practices as moderators for adaptation to climate change. Hence, NbS has infected multiple societal sectors’ policies of the EU, and this research has categorized it under four areas: environment and climate; agriculture, water and soil; habitat, biodiversity and forest; and growth and regional development. From the review of 21 EU policies across the societal sectors, there was 86% indication for the explicit use of NbS, 9% of the policies have used NbS approaches implicitly, and only 5% did not use the NbS concept.

For instance, in Latina (Italy), the European Commission supports the UPPER project, an Urban Innovative Action – IUA program. UIA provides support by establishing direct collaboration with the commission and a funding channel reserved for cities that engage in experimentation with innovative solutions in their territory. With UPPER, the city council of Latina has built a territorial partnership to intervene in urban green areas, in many cases degraded or abandoned, to transform them into productive parks or experimentation sites for nature-based solutions (NBS). Tesserae had a key role in the project, coordinating the co-design process with citizens, and leading the communication, including In this context, the conference “Grafting: NBS for sustainable urban policy and social inclusion” was held as part of the UPPER project. Another example is IN-HABIT, an EU Horizon 2020 project that aims to identify visionary and integrated solutions to promote inclusive health and wellbeing in small and medium-sized pilot cities Cordoba, Lucca, Riga, and Nitra. The project investigates how the mobilisation of existing undervalued resources, such as culture and heritage, food, human-animal bonds, and art and environment, might contribute to boosting health and wellbeing, with a focus on gender, diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

Olenka Palomino