Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS IN RIVER LANDSCAPES
Planning and governing nature-based solutions in river
landscapes: Concepts, cases, and insights
Christian Albert, Jochen Hack, Stefan Schmidt, Barbara Schro
¨ter
Abstract Nature-based solutions (NBS), understood as
actions that use ecosystem processes to address societal
needs, can play important roles to future-proof river
landscape development for people and nature. However,
knowledge gaps exist how NBS can be planned and
implemented at landscape scales. This Special Issue brings
together insights and experiences from studies of assessing,
planning, and implementing NBS in river landscapes in
Europe and beyond. It addresses three research fields:
(i) NBS effects, looking at the effectiveness of NBS to
achieve ecological, social, and/or economic outcomes, (ii)
NBS planning, focusing on approaches for planning and
designing NBS, and (iii) NBS governance, relating to
governance and business models for implementation. The
twelve contributions deliver evidence on how NBS
outperform conventional, rather technical solutions,
provide guidance and tools to operationalize the NBS
concept into practice, and showcase successful governance
models of NBS in different contexts. The editorial ends
with an outlook on further research needs.
Keywords Effects Governance Landscape planning
Green infrastructure Social–ecological research
Spatial planning
INTRODUCTION
Since thousands of years, river landscapes across the world
have been transformed by humans to increase their func-
tion as drainage, to enhance navigation, to produce energy,
and to enable agricultural production and settlement in
former floodplain areas (Brown et al. 2009,2018;
Posthumus et al. 2010). The degree of transformations
exacerbated in the last two centuries has led to undesirable
ecological effects over time, such as increased erosion,
decrease, and pollution of groundwater resources, increase
in flood probability, decline in fisheries and biodiversity, as
well as loss of esthetics and recreational functions (Bunn
and Arthington 2002; Malmqvist and Rundle 2002; Tock-
ner et al. 2011; Sabater et al. 2018). To date, around 90%
of Europe’s river landscapes have been changed (Tockner
et al. 2011) and only 40% are in a good ecological con-
dition (EEA 2018). In addition, changes in the river and
flood regime as a result of climate change lead to further
challenges (IPCC 2014; Pletterbauer et al. 2018), which
entail considerable economic costs (Scha
¨fer and Kowatsch
2015) and make it more difficult to sustain people’s quality
of life (Vo
¨ro
¨smarty et al. 2010; Kibria 2016).
In response to this unsustainable development, policy
and decision makers have drawn up ambitious restoration
programs to stop ecological degradation and to advance
river landscape restoration. The Sustainable Development
Goals 14 and 15 (Life on Land and Life below Water)
explicitly aim at enhancing global ecological conditions of
river landscapes. In the year 2000, the European Union
issued the Water Framework Directive as a milestone
policy program, aiming to achieve a ‘good status’ for all
ground and surface waters including rivers in the EU by
2015, a target date that was later postponed to 2030. River
restoration remains high on the political agenda, with the
EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 recently calling to
restore at least 25 000 km of rivers in the EU to a free-
flowing state.
Nature-based solutions (NBS), i.e., activities inspired
and supported by ecosystem processes to fulfill human and
societal needs (European Commission 2015), can arguably
play an important role in the emerging efforts to future-
proof river landscape development for people and nature
(Albert et al. 2019). NBS are seen as beneficial over purely
The Author(s) 2021
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01569-z
technical solutions in that they minimize negative-side
effects and instead create co-benefits for people and nature
today and in the future (IUCN 2012; European Commis-
sion 2015; Davis et al. 2018). NBS today are considered
important elements of international efforts to combat cli-
mate change (Nature-based Solutions Coalition 2019), to
safeguard biodiversity (leaders pledge for nature, see
leaderspledgefornature.org and Vaughan 2020), to advance
ecosystem restoration (see decadeonrestoration.org), and,
more recently, supportive approaches for advancing
towards a green recovery in the aftermath of the SARS-
COV-2 pandemic (e.g., Science for Environment Policy
2021).
Supported, among others, by targeted funding from the
EU, research on NBS has grown dramatically, with the
numbers of papers published on the subject rising from
only three in 2015 to more than 250 in 2020 (April 7, 2021,
Web of Science). While scientific debate about the exact
definition and conceptualization of NBS continues (e.g.,
Eggermont et al. 2015; Albert et al. 2017; IUCN 2020),
important advances have already been made and lessons
learned of how NBS can be successfully planned and
implemented (Short et al. 2018; Frantzeskaki 2019). In the
context of river landscape development, recent research on
NBS has addressed a wide range of challenges, including,
for example, approaches to stormwater management (e.g.,
Pelorosso et al. 2018; Kopp et al. 2019; Simperler et al.
2020), flood risk management (Majidi et al. 2019; Pagano
et al. 2019; Singh et al. 2020), and climate change miti-
gation and adaptation (e.g., Chausson et al. 2020; Wamsler
et al. 2020). First special issues on NBS are also beginning
to emerge, with early examples focusing on NBS for cre-
ating resourceful circular cities (Langergraber and Atana-
sova 2020), on NBS in cities in relation to justice and
equity considerations (Sekulova et al. 2021) and on NBS
for hydro-meteorological risk reduction (Lupp and Zin-
graff-Hamed 2021).
However, substantial knowledge gaps still exist, partic-
ularly on planning and implementation practices, effec-
tiveness, and monitoring, as well as on governance aspects
(Albert et al. 2019). This is particularly true for the
application of NBS in the case of river landscapes which,
compared to NBS in cities, has so far received compara-
tively less scientific attention. Practice examples are nee-
ded that showcase under which conditions NBS contribute
to overcoming ecological, social, and economic challenges
and how such solutions can be successfully planned and
realized in different contexts (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016).
Especially in the Global South, more scientific evidence of
NBS effects in different contexts is still needed (Chausson
et al. 2020). Also, an enhanced understanding of NBS co-
benefits is required for better exploiting synergetic solu-
tions (Meerow et al. 2019). Further insights are required on
how collaborations between different disciplines, stake-
holders, and decision makers can be established and fos-
tered to develop successful governance and business
models for the implementation of NBS (Sekulova and
Anguelovski 2017). Moreover, examples are needed that
show how to integrate scientific, indigenous, and local
knowledge to attune NBS to local contexts and enhance the
likelihood of successful implementation (Hemmerling et al.
2020).
This Special Issue aims to bring together insights and
experiences from studies of assessing, planning, and
implementing NBS in river landscapes in Europe and
beyond. More specifically, the Special Issue sheds light on
scientific frontiers of NBS planning and governance in
three relevant fields of research: (i) NBS effects, looking at
the effectiveness of NBS to achieve ecological, social, and/
or economic outcomes in river landscapes. (ii) NBS plan-
ning, focusing on methods, and insights concerning
approaches for planning and designing NBS in river
landscapes, and (iii) NBS governance, focusing on gover-
nance models for implementing preferred NBS, also
including suitable business models. Although the Special
Issue places a thematic focus on efforts for planning NBS
in riverine ecosystems and at the landscape scale, the
insights may also be instructive for NBS planning and
governance efforts in other ecosystem types and at lower or
higher levels of public and private decision making.
STRUCTURE OF THE SPECIAL ISSUE
The Special Issue contains a total of twelve manuscripts
pertaining to three key fields of research. The first research
field, NBS effects, is addressed by contributions by Pradilla
et al. (2021) and Turkelbloom et al. (2021). NBS planning,
the second research field, is covered by six manuscripts
from Albert et al. (2021), Chen et al. (2021), Gottwald
et al. (2021), Pe
´rez-Rubi and Hack (2021), Ruangpan et al.
(2021), and Wang et al. (2021). Finally, the third research
on NBS governance features four contributions by
Anderson and Renaud (2021), Fisher et al. (2021), Midgley
et al. (2021), and Zingraff-Hamed et al. (2021). European
case studies dominate and considered NBS relate mostly to
measures that help to manage the water balance to address
floods or droughts (Fig. 1, Table 1).
Part I: Effects of nature-based solutions in river
landscapes
This first section of the Special Issue presents insights into
the effects that NBS may yield in river landscapes.
Turkelbloom et al. (2021) apply a case study research
approach and social cost-benefit analysis in the Dijle river
123 The Author(s) 2021
www.kva.se/en
Ambio
Fig. 1 Contributions included in this Special Issue, their allocation to the three research fields, as well as case study areas and NBS types
considered
Table 1 Contributions included in the special issue
Topic Authors Paper title
NBS effects Pradilla et al. (2021) Hydromorphological and socio-cultural assessment of urban rivers to promote nature-based solutions in
the Dominican Republic
Turkelbloom et al.
(2021)
How does a nature-based solution for flood control compare to a technical solution? Case study evidence
from Belgium
NBS
planning
Albert et al. (2021) Planning nature-based solutions: Principles, steps, and insights
Chen et al. (2021) Development and Modelling of realistic retrofitted Nature-based Solution Scenarios to reduce Flood
Occurrence at the Catchment Scale
Gottwald et al. (2021) Using Geodesign as a boundary management process for planning nature-based solutions in river
landscapes
Pe
´rez-Rubi and Hack
(2021)
Co-design of experimental Nature-based Solutions for decentralized dry-weather runoff treatment
retrofitted in a densely urbanized area in Central America
Ruangpan et al.
(2021)
Incorporating stakeholders’ preferences into a multi-criteria framework for planning large-scale Nature-
Based Solutions
Wang et al. (2021) Bridging the science-practice gaps in nature-based solutions: A riverfront planning in China
NBS
governance
Anderson and Renaud
(2021)
A review of public acceptance of Nature-based Solutions: the ‘why’, ‘when’, and ‘how’ of success for
disaster risk reduction measures
Fisher et al. (2021) ‘‘It’s on the ‘nice to havepile’’: Potential principles to improve the implementation of socially inclusive
Green Infrastructure
Midgley et al. (2021) Typologies of collaborative governance for scalable nature-based solutions in two strategic South African
river systems
Zingraff-Hamed et al.
(2021)
Governance models for nature-based solutions: Seventeen cases from Germany
The Author(s) 2021
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
valley in central Belgium to assess and compare the effects
of a nature-based and a technical alternative for flood
damage protection. For the NBS option, they assumed a
restoration of the alluvial floodplain, whereas the technical
alternative was represented by an installation of a storm
water basin.
Pradilla et al. (2021) explore the applicability of a socio-
ecological assessment method to guide urban river
restoration and strategic planning of NBS in Jarabacoa,
Dominican Republic. The authors complemented a hydro-
morphological assessment method widely used in Germany
(LAWA-OS) with a citizen survey on the perception of
blue-green infrastructure features of three streams in and
near the town of Jarabacoa.
Part II: Planning and designing nature-based
solutions in river landscapes
The second part of the Special Issue brings together papers
that present novel approaches for planning and designing
NBS at the landscape scale. Albert et al. (2021) propose a
conceptual framework for planning NBS at the landscape
scale, consisting of three key criteria of NBS, six essential
planning steps, and five overarching principles. The authors
develop the framework based on a synthesis of relevant
literature, report on an application in a transdisciplinary
research project in the Lahn river landscape, Germany, and
evaluate the degree to which the principles can be adhered
to in real-world planning contexts.
Chen et al. (2021) explore decentralized NBS such as
Urban Green Infrastructures (UGI) to reduce flooding in
urban areas. Contrary to earlier studies which have shown
the effectiveness of flood control of UGI at a plot or
neighborhood level, this study, conducted in the
metropolitan area of Costa Rica, proposes a scenario
development and hydrological modeling approach for a
more realistic upscaling of UGI by taking into account
empirical insights from a representative neighborhood
regarding the actual suitable space for UGI and potential
implementation constraints.
Gottwald et al. (2021) develop and apply a novel
Geodesign procedure in the planning with NBS in the Lahn
river landscape in Hesse, Germany. A specific focus is put
on the development of Geodesign tools that allow diverse
stakeholders to interact with a spatial decision-support
system in three planning phases: sketching and writing
ideas, assigning land-use changes, and evaluating likely
impacts. The Geodesign tools were applied in a workshop
with stakeholders, facilitated by the use of a large touch
table as an interface between participants and the digital,
special decision-support system. Four ecosystem services
were considered as criteria for evaluating impacts: food
provision, climate change regulation, pollination, and
recreation. In addition, a systematic evaluation was con-
ducted to assess the contributions of the Geodesign exer-
cise to the boundary management between participants.
Pe
´rez-Rubi and Hack (2021) present an adaptive
methodology for the design of NBS for decentralized urban
runoff treatment in a Latin American context. Through this
study, technical solutions commonly used for stormwater
management were adapted for dry-weather runoff treat-
ment and co-designed for the particular conditions of a
representative study area, considering space availability as
the main constraining factor for retrofitting in urban areas.
By applying a co-design process in a densely urbanized
neighborhood of the Great Metropolitan area of Costa Rica
insights about conditions that could be hindering the
implementation of NBS infrastructures in Latin America
are intended to be revealed.
Ruangpan et al. (2021) are interested in the feasibility of
measures for hydro-meteorological risk reduction. With a
focus on potential NBS development options for reducing
flood risks in the Tamnava river basis in Serbia and the
Nangang river landscape in Taiwan, the authors develop
and apply a multi-criteria assessment framework for a
range of potentially feasible decision-making options.
Wang et al. (2021) strive to address the gap between
science and practice in the field of NBS and propose
planning as a bridging procedure. Focusing on a case study
of the Jialing River in the Sichaun Province, China, the
authors explore options for addressing three challenges:
transforming riverfront planning towards holistic perspec-
tives, effectively communicating the implications of NBS,
and procedures for incorporating both scientific insights
and local wisdom in plan and decision making.
Part III: Realizing nature-based solutions
with suitable governance
The third part for the Special Issue contains five contri-
butions that deal with governance aspects of the imple-
mentation of NBS. The articles analyze social principles
that decision makers should take into account, the inclusion
of actor preferences and the stakeholder constellation per
se in different governance models. These insights are
important to overcome implementation barriers for NBS by
improving institutions and carefully including all relevant
actors important for NBS.
Anderson and Renaud (2021) perform a systematic
review of the public acceptance of NBS. The authors
compare technical and nature-based approaches to disaster
risk reduction and try to identify factors of relevance for
the acceptance of such approaches as relating to individuals
and society in general.
Fisher et al. (2021) use a mixed method approach—a
literature review and a survey among practitioners—to find
123 The Author(s) 2021
www.kva.se/en
Ambio
out if social aspects really matter for the uptake of green
infrastructure (GI) and are more than just something ‘‘nice
to have.’’ The authors identify social principles guiding the
implementation of GI in the United Kingdom and reflect on
in how far these principles are taken into consideration in
practice.
Midgley et al. (2021) aimed to explore how different
collaborative governance models and financial arrange-
ments play out in implemented NBS and how they can be
upscaled to achieve greater impact. The authors developed
an inventory that compiles actor, environmental, social,
and financial dimensions and benefits of water-related
ecological infrastructure intervention projects in two river
systems in South Africa. By qualitatively and quantita-
tively analyzing the inventory, major characteristics of
governance, financing and scalability could be revealed and
scalable typologies identified that offer structures suited to
increased investment.
Zingraff-Hamed et al. (2021) give an overview over
implemented NBS for flood risk management and mitiga-
tion in Germany, and they combine a hierarchical cluster-
ing procedure and a qualitative analysis to identify
governance models applied in 17 case studies and explore
the differences between these models.
INSIGHTS
Nature-based solutions’ effects in river landscapes
In comparison to conventional, technical solutions, NBS
can perform equally while providing additional social and
ecological benefits. A comprehensive assessment of
potential effects of NBS and a comparison with alternative
solutions should, therefore, be encouraged. Furthermore,
taking into account stakeholder preferences and the variety
of co-benefits can contribute to better decision making and
NBS planning (Pradilla et al. 2021). However, certain
preconditions, for instance the availability of space and its
use as well as water quality, may be required to success-
fully implement and achieve benefits of NBS.
In the context of reducing flood risk through flood
retention, it could be shown that NBS offer similar flood
security, lower costs, more ecosystem services benefits,
and higher biodiversity values than a technical option
(Turkelbloom et al. 2021). When looking at urban flooding,
NBS such as Urban Green Infrastructures can yield sig-
nificant runoff reduction compared to conventional
stormwater drainage when available space is effectively
used (Chen et al. 2021). Chances for successful NBS
implementation increase in conditions of sufficient space to
retain flood water, when flood water is of sufficient quality,
and when economic activity and housing in the floodplain
are limited (Turkelbloom et al. 2021). The effects of NBS
can be further enhanced when knowledge on co-benefits
and stakeholders’ preferences enables decision makers in a
multi-criteria assessment to identify the most suitable and
preferable NBS measures for an area (Ruangpan et al.
2021). This contributes to the development of easy-to-use
decision-support tools for planners and decision makers to
enable a systematic and transparent NBS planning process.
Nature-based solutions planning in river landscapes
Taken together, contributions to the section on planning
NBS in river landscapes re-emphasize the important role
that planning can take in operationalizing the NBS concept
in practice and in facilitating processes of transdisciplinary
knowledge co-generation.
First, the contributions show how planning with NBS in
river landscapes could work across different scales. Albert
et al. (2021) propose a framework of six essential steps for
planning with NBS at landscape levels: Co-define setting,
Understand challenges, Create visions and scenarios,
Assess potential impacts, Develop solution strategies, and
Realize and monitor. In addition, the authors propose five
key principles to which the implementation of the planning
steps should adhere to. Those principles are Place speci-
ficity, Evidence base, Integration, Equity, and Transdisci-
plinary. Drawing on insights from an empirical testing and
evaluation of the planning steps in the Lahn case study, the
authors find that adhering to those principles is possible
through specific measures taken during the application of
the planning steps, but that the degree to which the prin-
ciples are implemented may vary over the course of a
planning process. Chen et al. (2021) highlight the impor-
tance of taking space availability and site-specific con-
straints into account in order to generate plausible and
relevant scenarios and impact assessments. In addition,
they find that insights from detailed field work-based site
assessments of a representative urban area can eventually
be extrapolated to a larger watershed scale using a highly
resolved land-use classification.
Second, contributions show how planning can facilitate
the creation of novel plans with NBS to address societal
challenges. For example, the application of a co-design
process in a dense neighborhood of the Great Metropolitan
area of Costa Rica (Pe
´rez-Rubi and Hack 2021) enabled the
development of strategic siting of NBS to address societal
challenges of water treatment in dry-weather conditions.
The chosen approach not only proved successful in
devising suitable NBS but also brought to light the needs to
carefully take into account implementation conditions and
stakeholders demands early onwards during the planning
process already.
The Author(s) 2021
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
And third, the contributions shed light on planning
approaches that integrate diverse stakeholders in the plan-
ning process. Ruangpan et al. (2021) highlight the need to
involve stakeholders in the early planning stages to achieve
successful implementation of NBS. Local actors can
introduce relevant data and considerations into the process
of measure selection that might otherwise be disregarded
by planners. One tool particularly supportive for such
solution-oriented knowledge co-production can be Geode-
sign. In their pilot application in a workshop with local
planners in the Lahn river landscape, Gottwald et al. (2021)
found that Geodesign facilitated the co-design and explo-
ration of NBS and contributed to boundary management
between actors from different backgrounds. However,
applying Geodesign in just one workshop alone is not
sufficient but needs to be integrated within a larger col-
laborative planning and implementation processes. In a
similar way, Wang et al. (2021) present how planning with
NBS can help bridging top down and bottom-up planning
and mediating between different stakeholders, thus,
enhancing communication and expanding the planning
goals towards multi-functionality.
Nature-based solutions governance in river
landscapes
The contributions to the section on governance of NBS in
river landscapes stress that context and collaboration are
key when improving governance aspects for NBS.
First, the spatial as well as the socio-ecological context
matters. Turkelbloom et al. (2021) found that both are
important for setting up a business case for NBS. Also,
Pe
´rez-Rubi and Hack (2021) highlighted the need for
knowing and including context-specific conditions like
stakeholder demands in the implementation of NBS. In a
similar vein, Fisher et al. (2021) found that practitioners in
the UK are in favor of incorporating social principles into
the concept of GI that reach beyond the provision of socio-
economic benefits: principles that ensured the inclusivity,
equal access to, and long-term funding options for GI.
Second, the observation, establishment, and monitoring
of public acceptance is neglected in governance processes
but crucial to legitimize and sustain NBS infrastructures
(Pe
´rez-Rubi and Hack 2021). Especially long-term success
of NBS consistently relies on a broader range of public
acceptance outcomes (Anderson and Renaud 2021).
Therefore, Anderson and Renaud (2021) propose a
framework for understanding and increasing public
acceptance of NBS. The model highlights the role of risk
perception, trust, competing societal interests, and
ecosystem services. Efforts to increase acceptance should
focus on providing and promoting awareness of benefits
combined with effective communication and collaboration
(Anderson and Renaud 2021).
Third, collaboration is needed for implementing NBS.
This is a logical consequence of the context importance but
also a condition for upscaling NBS. Knowledge co-pro-
duction and joint sense making with relevant landscape
actors are essential for scaling NBS to larger areas and
different contexts (Midgley et al. 2021). To take the con-
text into account, different knowledge has to be considered,
and different actors have to collaborate. For NBS imple-
mentation in Germany, Zingraff-Hamed et al. (2021)
identified four governance models: Cooperation and inci-
tation, Co-design, Citizen power, and Top-down, which
differ according to the diversity of involved stakeholder
groups and the direction of mainstreaming at the opera-
tional and institutional level. The authors did not identify
the ‘‘best’’ governance model as there is no ‘‘one-size-fits-
all’’ model. All governance models have in common that
they include different stakeholder groups which show that
a high degree of cooperation between the stakeholders
improves NBS implementation potential. Municipalities,
citizens, and NGOs are identified as key groups to be
included. Further, local authorities—so-called ‘‘local
champions’’—have a crucial role in integrating NBS into
location-based planning.
CONCLUSIONS
The contributions to this Special Issue reflect the emergence
of increasing research regarding the effects, planning, and
governance of NBS. The Special Issue has shown the broad
spectrum of NBS interventions that can help address societal
challenges in the case of river landscapes and shed light on
approaches for assessing their effects, for integrated plan-
ning at local to regional scales, and for initiating governance
schemes for successful realization in practice.
The contributions also reflect the need for more research
to further advance scientific understanding of how NBS can
be harnessed in river landscapes to meet, together with
technical solutions, the increasing societal challenges. With
respect to the three fields of NBS research outlined
above and addressed in the contributions of this special
issue, the following avenues for further research emerge:
•How efficient and effective are NBS towards achieving
ecological, social, and economic outcomes in different
social-ecological context conditions in river landscapes,
in particular in comparison to conventional, technical
alternatives? How do those effects change over time in
response to important drivers of change? And how do
NBS effects relate to issues of distributional equity and
justice?
123 The Author(s) 2021
www.kva.se/en
Ambio
•Which approaches for planning and designing NBS can
be recommended in different social-ecological settings
to help crafting engaging visions of NBS futures, to
develop plausible scenario pathways for attaining those
visions, and for spatially negotiating the contestations
involved in making progress? More knowledge is also
needed on how the necessary knowledge integration
across sectors and academic and non-academic knowl-
edge holders can best be realized and insights commu-
nicated to diverse audiences.
•Which governance models can facilitate NBS imple-
mentation in different governance contexts and actor
constellations? Which roles can new business models
play as part of such governance arrangements? Knowl-
edge is needed on how adequate funding schemes can
be put into place, how stewardship for the implemen-
tation of NBS can be harnessed, and how the benefits
and costs of implementing NBS can be balanced in just
ways across affected actor groups.
Acknowledgements We thank all contributing authors of the Special
Issue for submitting their work, and the anonymous reviewers for
their critical and constructive feedback. We thank Thea Kelly for
assistance in preparing this editorial. As guest editors, we acknowl-
edge the funding that has made the editing of this Special Issue
possible: Christian Albert, Barbara Schro
¨ter, and Stefan Schmidt
received funding from the German Federal Ministry of Research and
Education (BMBF, Grant ID: 01UU1601A and B) and Jochen Hack
from the same institution (Grant ID: 01UU1704). Finally, we thank
Ambio for the kind opportunity to publish in this outlet, and the
Editor-in-Chief, Bo So
¨derstro
¨m, for the continuous support and the
kind collaboration.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt
DEAL.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as
long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/.
REFERENCES
Albert, C., B. Schro
¨ter, D. Haase, M. Brillinger, J. Henze, S.
Herrmann, S. Gottwald, P. Guerrero, et al. 2019. Addressing
societal challenges through nature-based solutions: How can
landscape planning and governance research contribute?
Landscape and Urban Planning 182: 12–21. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.003.
Albert, C., J.H. Spangenberg, and B. Schro
¨ter. 2017. Nature-based
solutions: criteria. Nature 543: 315. https://doi.org/10.1038/
543315b.
Albert, C., M. Brillinger, P. Guerrero, S. Gottwald, J. Henze, S.
Schmidt, E. Ott, and B. Schro
¨ter. 2021. Planning nature-based
solutions: Principles, steps, and insights. Ambio.https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13280-020-01365-1.
Anderson, C.C., and F.G. Renaud. 2021. A review of public
acceptance of nature-based solutions: The ‘why’, ‘when’, and
‘how’ of success for disaster risk reduction measures. Ambio.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01502-4.
Brown, R.R., N. Keath, and T.H.F. Wong. 2009. Urban water
management in cities: Historical, current, and future regimes.
Water Science and Technology 59: 847–855. https://doi.org/10.
2166/wst.2009.029.
Brown, A.G., L. Lespez, D.A. Sear, J.-J. Macaire, P. Houben, K.
Klimek, R.E. Brazier, K. Van Oost, et al. 2018. Natural vs
anthropogenic streams in Europe: History, ecology and impli-
cations for restoration, river-rewilding and riverine ecosystem
services. Earth-Science Reviews 180: 185–205. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.02.001.
Bunn, S.E., and A.H. Arthington. 2002. Basic principles and
ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic
deflation basin lakes. Environmental Management 30: 492–507.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2737-0.
Chausson, A., B. Turner, D. Seddon, N. Chabaneix, C. Girardin, V.
Kapos, I. Key, and D. Roe. 2020. Mapping the effectiveness of
nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. Global
Change Biology 26: 6134–6155. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.
15310.
Chen, V., J. Bonilla Brenes, F. Chapa, and J. Hack. 2021.
Development and modelling of realistic retrofitted Nature-based
Solution scenarios to reduce flood occurrence at the catchment
scale. Ambio.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01493-8.
Cohen-Shacham, E., G. Walters, C. Janzen, and S. Maginnis. 2016.
Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges.
Gland.https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en.
Davis, K.M., M.N. Nguyen, M.R. McClung, and M.D. Moran. 2018.
A comparison of the impacts of wind energy and unconventional
gas development on land-use and ecosystem services: An
example from the Anadarko Basin of Oklahoma, USA. Envi-
ronmental Management 61: 796–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00267-018-1010-0.
Decadeonrestoration.org. 2021. Preventing, halting and reversing the
degradation of ecosystems worldwide. Retrieved 24 March,
2021, from https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/.
EEA – European Environment Agency. 2018. EEA 2018 water
assessment. Retrieved 31 March, 2021, from https://www.eea.
europa.eu/themes/water/european-waters/water-quality-and-
water-assessment/water-assessments/eea-2018-water-
assessment.
Eggermont, H., E. Balian, J. Azevedo, V. Beumer, T. Brodin, J.
Claudet, B. Fady, M. Grube, et al. 2015. Nature-based solutions:
New influence for environmental management and research in
Europe. GAIA Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society
24: 243–248. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.24.4.9.
European Commission. 2015. Towards an EU Research and Innova-
tion policy agenda for Nature-Based Solutions & Re-Naturing
Cities. Final Report of the Horizon 2020 Expert Group on
‘Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities’. https://doi.
org/10.2777/765301.
Fisher, D., K. Blackstock, and K. Irvine. 2021. ‘‘It’s on the ‘nice to
have’ pile’’: Potential principles to improve the implementation
The Author(s) 2021
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
of socially inclusive Green Infrastructure. Ambio.https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13280-020-01372-2.
Frantzeskaki, N. 2019. Seven lessons for planning nature-based
solutions in cities. Environmental Science & Policy 93: 101–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.033.
Gottwald, S., J. Brenner, R. Janssen, and C. Albert. 2021. Using
Geodesign as a boundary management process for planning
nature-based solutions in river landscapes. Ambio.https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13280-020-01435-4.
Hemmerling, S., M. Barra, H. Bienn, M. Baustian, H. Jung, E.
Meselhe, Y. Wang, and E. White. 2020. Elevating local
knowledge through participatory modeling: Active community
engagement in restoration planning in coastal Louisiana. Journal
of Geographical Systems 22: 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10109-019-00313-2.
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Climate
Change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A:
Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom.
IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2012. 2012
IUCN Annual Report. Nature ?Towards Nature-Based Solu-
tions. Retrieved 24 March, 2021, from https://www.iucn.org/
content/iucn-annual-report-2012.
IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2020.
Guidance for using the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based
Solutions: first edition. https://doi.org/10.2305/iucn.ch.2020.09.
en.
Kibria, G. 2016. Climate change and social and economic impacts.
Pollution and Climate Change Impacts.https://doi.org/10.13140/
RG.2.2.22469.04324/2.
Kopp, R., E.A. Gilmore, C.M. Little, J. Lorenzo-Trueba, V.C.
Ramenzoni, and W.V. Sweet. 2019. Usable science for manag-
ing the risks of sea-level rise. Earth’s Future 7: 1235–1269.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF001145.
Langergraber, G., and N. Atanasova. 2020. Editorial for the ‘Towards
Circular Cities—Nature-based solutions for creating a resource-
ful circular city’ Special Issue. Blue-Green Systems 2: 137.
https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs.2020.001.
Leaderspledgefornature.org. 2021. Leaders’ Pledge for Nature.
United to Reserve Biodiversity Loss by 2030 for Sustainable
Development. Retrieved 24 March, 2021, from https://www.
leaderspledgefornature.org/.
Lupp, G., and A. Zingraff-Hamed. 2021. Nature-based solutions—
Concept, evaluation, and governance. Sustainability 13: 3012.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063012.
Majidi, A.N., Z. Vojinovic, A. Alves, S. Weesakul, A. Sanchez, F.
Boogaard, and J. Kluck. 2019. Planning nature-based solutions
for urban flood reduction and thermal comfort enhancement.
Sustainability 11: 6361. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226361.
Malmqvist, B., and S. Rundle. 2002. Threats to the running water
ecosystems of the world. Environmental Conservation 29:
134–153. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892902000097.
Meerow, S., P. Pajouhesh, and T. Miller. 2019. Social equity in urban
resilience planning. Local Environment 24: 793–808. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1645103.
Midgley, S.J.E., K.J. Esler, P.B. Holden, A.J. Rebelo, S.I. Stuart-Hill,
J.D.S. Cullis, and N. Methner. 2021. Typologies of collaborative
governance for scalable nature-based solutions in two strategic
South African river systems. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13280-021-01531-z.
Nature-based Solutions Coalition. 2019. The Nature-Based Solutions
for Climate Manifesto. Developed for the UN Climate Action
Summit 2019. Retrieved 24 March, 2021, from https://wedocs.
unep.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.11822/29705.
Pagano, A., I. Pluchinotta, P. Pengal, B. Cokan, and R. Giordano.
2019. Engaging stakeholders in the assessment of NBS effec-
tiveness in flood risk reduction: A participatory System
Dynamics Model for benefits and co-benefits evaluation. The
Science of the total environment 690: 543–555. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.059.
Pelorosso, R., F. Gobattoni, and A. Leone. 2018. Reducing urban
entropy employing nature-based solutions: The case of urban
storm water management. In Smart planning: Sustainability and
mobility in the age of change, ed. R. Papa, R. Fistola, and C.
Gargiulo, 37–48. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-77682-8_3.
Pe
´rez-Rubi, M., and J. Hack. 2021. Co-design of experimental nature-
based solutions for decentralized dry-weather runoff treatment
retrofitted in a densely urbanized area in Central America.
Ambio.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01457-y.
Pletterbauer, F., A. Melcher, and W. Graf. 2018. Climate Change
Impacts in Riverine Ecosystems. In Riverine Ecosystem Man-
agement. Aquatic Ecology Series, vol 8, eds. S. Schmutz, and J.
Sendzimir, 203-223. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-73250-3_11.
Posthumus, H., J.R. Rouquette, J. Morris, D.J.G. Gowing, and T.M.
Hess. 2010. A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods
and services: A case study on lowland floodplains in England.
Ecological Economics 69: 1510–1523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2010.02.011.
Pradilla, G., G. Lamberty, and J. Hamhaber. 2021. Hydromorpho-
logical and socio-cultural assessment of urban rivers to promote
nature-based solutions in Jarabacoa, Dominican Republic. Am-
bio.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01565-3
Ruangpan, L., Z. Vojinovic, J. Plavs
ˇic
´, D.J. Doong, T. Bahlmann, A.
Alves, L.H. Tseng, and A. Randelovic
´. 2021. Incorporating
stakeholders’ preferences into a multi-criteria framework for
planning large-scale Nature-Based Solutions. Ambio.https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13280-020-01419-4.
Sabater, S., F. Bregoli, V. Acun
˜a, D. Barcelo
´, A. Elosegi, A.
Ginebreda, R. Marce
´, I. Mun
˜oz, et al. 2018. Effects of human-
driven water stress on river ecosystems: a meta-analysis.
Scientific Reports 8: 11462. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-
018-29807-7.
Scha
¨fer, A., and Kowatsch, A. 2015. Gewa
¨sser und Auen—Nutzen
fu
¨r die Gesellschaft. Bundesamt fu
¨r Naturschutz. Bonn: 58
pages.
Science for Environment Policy. 2021. The solution is in nature.
Future Brief 24. Brief produced for the European Commission
DG Environment. Bristol: Science Communication Unit, UWE
Bristol.
Sekulova, F., and I. Anguelovski. 2017. The Governance and Politics
of Nature-Based Solutions. Retrieved 24 March, 2021, from
https://naturvation.eu/sites/default/files/news/files/naturvation_
the_governance_and_politics_of_nature-based_solutions.pdf.
Sekulova, F., I. Anguelovski, B. Kiss, P. Kotsila, F. Baro
´, Y.V.
Palgan, and J. Connolly. 2021. The governance of nature-based
solutions in the city at the intersection of justice and equity.
Cities 112: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103136.
Short, C., L. Clarke, F. Carnelli, C. Uttley, and B. Smith. 2018.
Capturing the multiple benefits associated with nature-based
solutions: Lessons from a natural flood management project in
the Cotswolds, UK. Land Degradation and Development 30:
241–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3205.
Simperler, L., T. Ertl, and A. Matzinger. 2020. Spatial compatibility
of implementing nature-based solutions for reducing urban heat
islands and stormwater pollution. Sustainability 12: 5967. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12155967.
Singh, C., J. Ford, D. Ley, A. Bazaz, and A. Revi. 2020. Assessing the
feasibility of adaptation options: Methodological advancements
123 The Author(s) 2021
www.kva.se/en
Ambio
and directions for climate adaptation research and practice.
Climatic Change 162: 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-
020-02762-x.
Tockner, K., M. Pusch, J. Gessner, and C. Wolter. 2011. Domesti-
cated ecosystems and novel communities: challenges for the
management of large rivers. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 11:
167–174. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10104-011-0045-0.
Turkelbloom, F., R. Demeyer, L. Vranken, P. de Becker, F.
Raymaekers, and L. de Smet. 2021. How does a nature-based
solution for flood control compare to a technical solution? Case
study evidence from Belgium. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13280-021-01548-4.
Vaughan, A. 2020. Biodiversity summit draws pledges from global
leaders. NewScientist 248: 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-
4079(20)31788-7.
Vo
¨ro
¨smarty, C.J., P.B. McIntyre, M.O. Gessner, D. Dudgeon, A.
Prusevich, P. Green, S. Glidden, E. Bunn, et al. 2010. Global
threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature
467: 555–561. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09440.
Wamsler, C., B. Wickenberg, H. Hanson, J. Alkan Olsson, S.
Sta
˚lhammar, H. Bjo
¨rn, H. Falck, D. Gerell, et al. 2020.
Environmental and climate policy integration: Targeted strate-
gies for overcoming barriers to nature-based solutions and
climate change adaptation. Journal of Cleaner Production 247:
119154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119154.
Wang, Z., L. Huang, M. Xu, and S. Wang. 2021. Bridging the
science-practice gaps in nature-based solutions: A riverfront
planning in China. Ambio.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-
01445-2.
Zingraff-Hamed, A., F. Hu
¨esker, C. Albert, M. Brillinger, J. Huang,
G. Lupp, S. Scheuer, M. Schla
¨tel, et al. 2021. Governance
models for nature-based solutions: Seventeen cases from Ger-
many. Ambio.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01412-x.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Christian Albert (&) is a Professor for Environmental Analysis and
Planning in Metropolitan Regions and Director of the Planning
Metropolitan Landscapes (PLACES) Lab at Ruhr University
Bochum’s Institute of Geography. His research interests focus on
advancing landscape planning theories and methods at the interface
with ecosystem services, green and blue infrastructure, and nature-
based solutions. Christian co-leads the PlanSmart research group,
together with Barbara Schro
¨ter.
Address: Institute of Geography, Ruhr University Bochum, Univer-
sitaetsstr. 150, 44801 Bochum, Germany.
e-mail: christian.albert@rub.de
Jochen Hack is a Professor for Ecological Engineering at the Insti-
tute for Applied Geosciences and Leader of the inter- and transdis-
ciplinary Research Group SEE-URBAN-WATER at Technical
University Darmstadt, Germany. He is an expert in environmental
modeling of nature-based solutions, the study of Green Infrastructure
and Ecosystem Services. Jochen Hack holds a PhD in Environmental
Engineering and a Diploma in Civil Engineering from Technical
University Darmstadt, Germany.
Address: Section of Ecological Engineering, Institute of Applied
Geosciences, Technical University Darmstadt, Schnittspahnstr. 9,
64287 Darmstadt, Germany.
e-mail: hack@geo.tu-darmstadt.de
Stefan Schmidt is a landscape ecologist at the Institute of Geography
at the Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. His research interests
include transdisciplinary, nature-based approaches to address societal
challenges, valuation of ecosystem services, and knowledge man-
agement. Currently, he focuses on spatial analysis and valuation of
nature-based solutions in river landscapes.
Address: Institute of Geography, Ruhr University Bochum, Univer-
sitaetsstr. 150, 44801 Bochum, Germany.
e-mail: Stefan.Schmidt-y9u@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
Barbara Schro
¨ter is a Researcher at the Leibniz Centre for Agri-
cultural Landscape Research (ZALF) in the working group ‘‘Gover-
nance of Ecosystem Services’’ and at the Centre for Sustainability
Studies at Lund University (LUCSUS). Her research interests include
social-ecological research, governance and institutional analysis,
social network analysis, and environmental justice. She is a co-leader
of the inter- and transdisciplinary research group PlanSmart.
Address: Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research
(ZALF), Working Group ‘‘Governance of Ecosystem Services’’,
Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Mu
¨ncheberg, Germany.
Address: Centre for Sustainability Studies, Lund University, Box 170,
221 00 Lund, Sweden.
e-mail: barbara.schroeter@zalf.de
The Author(s) 2021
www.kva.se/en 123
Ambio
