Supporting Nature-Based Solutions via Nature-Based Thinking across European and Latin American cities

Abstract

Nature-Based Solutions concepts and practices are being used worldwide as part of attempts to address societal challenges but have also been criticised for not dealing with deeper transformations needed to face urgent issues including biodiversity loss, climate change and inclusion. In this paper, we explore how an inclusive, integrated and long-sighted approach, emphasising a more radical integration of nature within cities, might support the transformations needed to endure major contemporary challenges. Addressing important emerging critiques of Nature-Based Solutions, we consider the potential of a more incisive form of Nature-Based Thinking (NBT) in cities, based on more holistic perspectives. The paper draws on a reflective and iterative research process that engaged both the research and practice communities through a symposium and a series of futures workshops that together explored the potential of NBT to develop future nature-cities relations in Europe and Latin America. The results of the reflective process suggest that notions of nature with people—not for people— new organisational structures, and the intention and capacity to apply long-term perspectives, are needed when planning for NBS interventions aimed at sustainable urban development. This includes developing a cultural-structural change based on new and inclusive understandings of human–nature relations, and novel governance paradigms that allow cross-sectoral coordination and engagement of local stakeholders beyond formal organisational structures.

Nature-based Natural-hazard Preparedness: A Cross Section of Categorized Examples

“…Since the first introduction of the term "nature-based solutions" by the international community (through its inclusion in the title of the annual report of the World Bank in 2008), researchers have focused increasingly on related topics such as climate change [12,13] . These studies have directly or indirectly involved several disciplines, including climatology, ecology, economics, agriculture, pisciculture, ornithology, medical sciences, natural resource management, legislation, and public policy.…”

Improving strategic planning for nature: Panacea or pandora’s box for the built and natural environment?

“…The quote above shows that despite improved evidence, concepts, tools and strategies, the decline in species and ecosystems globally and nationally in England is ongoing, signifying policy and delivery failure(s). Environmental discourses utilise multiple conceptualisations of nature often coexisting and struggling to influence change on the ground (Macnaghten and Urry 1998 ; Mercado et al 2024 ).…”

“…Traditionally, the approach to environmental protection has been through designation of key species and habitats within a designation hierarchy with dedicated management plans and advisory committees for the most important landscapes, sites and species. However, more recently there has been a shift towards more holistic approaches using a social–ecological systems perspective involving the re-conceptualisation of the natural environment as an asset leading to financial and non-financial valuations of nature through national ecosystem service assessments (MEA 2005 ) and the development of green infrastructure networks, nature-based solutions and wider landscape-scale thinking (Ahern and Cole 2012 ; Mell and Scott 2023 ; Mercado et al 2024 ). These changing foci catalyse strategic planning responses that cross traditional administrative boundaries adding complexity as new governance layers such as ecological networks and water catchments with greater responsibilities for non-governmental actors.…”

“…However, Spash and Hache ( 2022 ) argue that the current predilection for valuing and pricing nature to optimise resource management serves only to prioritise wealth accumulation and maintain business-as-usual, rather than improve outcomes for nature. Indeed, Mercado et al ( 2024 :80) see anthropogenic narratives “imbued with significant ontological and epistemological assumptions which may constrain rather than enable wider processes of change”. Such criticism links in with other commentators who use a political ecology lens to highlight problems with strategic planning practices for nature (Hurley and Walker 2004 ).…”

“…Such criticism links in with other commentators who use a political ecology lens to highlight problems with strategic planning practices for nature (Hurley and Walker 2004 ). Here, Mercado et al ( 2024 ) argue for a reconceptualisation of “nature with people- not for people” as a reaction to neoliberal narratives of nature.…”