The concept of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) has emerged to foster sustainable development by transversally addressing social, economic, and environmental urban challenges. However, there is still a considerable lack of agreement on the conceptualization of NBS, especially concerning typologies, nomenclature, and performance assessments in terms of ecosystem services (ES) and urban challenges (UC).Therefore, this article consolidates the knowledge from 4 European projects to set a path for a common understanding of NBS and thus, facilitate their mainstreaming. To do so, firstly, we performed elicitation workshops to develop an integrative list of NBS, based on the identification of overlaps among NBS from different projects. The terminologies were formalized via web-based surveys. Secondly, the NBS were clustered, following a conceptual hierarchical classification. Thirdly, we developed an integrative assessment of NBS performance (ES and UC) based on the qualitative evaluations from each project. Afterwards, we run a PCA and calculated the evenness index to explore patterns among NBS. The main conceptual advancement resides in providing a list of 32 NBS and putting forward two novel NBS categories: NBS units (NBSu) that are stand-alone green technologies or green urban spaces, which can be combined with other solutions (nature-

No abstract

No abstract

The Ecosystem Services Framework (ESF) is a powerful tool for understanding the relationship between nature and society, and tourism is an important expression of this. However, the scientific literature focusing on the relationship between tourism and the ESF is limited. Hence, there is a need to bring the tourism research community and the ESF together, not only as a cultural service but as an economic sector that consumes natural resources. This paper aims to do this by analyzing discourse on tourism in institutional reports produced by the ESF. Additionally, how the tourism research community has approached the ESF is analyzed by reviewing the literature that has used it and literature addressing nature-based tourism. The results suggest a “schizophrenic” approach to tourism, which is defined as either a cultural ES (nonmaterial) or as a nature-based industry (consumptive). Moreover, a disconnect has been found between tourism research and the ESF. The tourism research community may not feel comfortable with the inaccurate definition of tourism in the ESF and may prefer to use freer terms. However, the aforementioned community should integrate the ESF within their studies on natural resources. At the same time, the ESF should be more accurate in using tourism-related concepts.