German Living Lab

The module introduced NBS through European and international policy frameworks, including the definitions of the European Commission and IUCN. Students explored how NBS relate to ecosystem services and sustainable development, and how they differ from interventions that rely only on grey infrastructure or imitate nature without meaningful ecological integration.

Examples covered ecosystem restoration and protection, green–blue infrastructure, ecosystem-based adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Case studies—including beaver reintroduction and an urban forest initiative in Chiang Mai—helped students consider how NBS are designed, adapted to local contexts and supported by data and stakeholder engagement. Scenario exercises invited students to identify possible approaches to challenges such as urban heat, coastal erosion, agricultural runoff and post-mining degradation.

Students also examined how to identify problems that NBS projects might address. In an interactive session on problem identification and entrepreneurial competences, they considered pain points, unmet needs and inefficiencies, and explored tools such as interviews, empathy mapping and problem trees. Reflection models and the EU EntreComp framework supported discussion of how learning, creativity and resource mobilisation can contribute to developing NBS projects.

A central thread of the module was permaculture and its potential contribution to regenerative land use. Students explored its ethics—Earth Care, People Care and Fair Share – and considered how its principles respond to the environmental and social challenges associated with agriculture.

Sessions addressed permaculture design processes, including site analysis, sector analysis, zoning and the placement of system elements. A case study of Grüne Paula, an urban project in Stuttgart, showed how design tools can be applied to a real site. Students considered climate, water management, resource efficiency and the ways different elements can work together. They also discussed traditional and contemporary approaches such as keyline systems, food forests, herb spirals, keyhole gardens and vertical stacking.

Further sessions looked at plants and planting systems, including food forest layers, plant guilds and species selection. Students considered the functions of plants such as nutrient accumulators and nitrogen-fixing trees, alongside the context-dependent risks and benefits of species such as Prosopis. Case studies and examples also opened discussion of farm economics, income diversification, value-adding, architecture, edible cities and social dimensions of permaculture.

The role of animals in permaculture was explored through examples of integrated livestock systems. Students considered animal behaviour, social structures and ecological niches, and how these can inform system design and animal welfare. In a group exercise, they developed concepts for systems incorporating laying hens, considering flock behaviour, nutrient cycling and connections with plants and other parts of the farm.

The module also connected biodiversity science with quantitative economic assessment. A session on life cycle assessment (LCA) introduced biodiversity footprints and the role of land use and land-use change in biodiversity impacts. Students examined indicators such as PDF·m²·year and practised comparing the impacts of agricultural systems. Examples from supply chains – including soy, cappuccino, lithium batteries and dairy – illustrated how impacts can occur at different stages of production.

Students took part in two separate excursions to Schloss Tempelhof in Kreßberg, Baden-Württemberg.

One visit focused on the food forest. A guided tour explored how diverse plants, trees and shrubs can grow together in a temperate climate and contribute to community food supply. Students also learned about the local Community Supported Agriculture (SoLaWi/CSA) initiative and its approach to organising and sharing produce. The second visit was a separate course excursion to Schloss Tempelhof and was mandatory for students wishing to take the examination.

Together, the module’s lectures, case studies, practical exercises and excursions gave students opportunities to connect ecological principles with design decisions and real-world examples. The activities encouraged them to assess both the potential and the limitations of NBS and permaculture, and to consider how approaches might be adapted to different ecological, economic and social contexts.

Across the activities, students were encouraged to compare permaculture with other approaches, including organic farming, agroforestry, regenerative agriculture and agroecology. A session on upscaling permaculture considered what may be gained or lost when approaches developed in small projects are applied to commercial agriculture. A case study of the Spanish farm Jelanisol & Montebello prompted discussion of design features such as keyline water management, biodiversity measures and renewable energy, as well as questions about climate adaptation and arable farming.

For the module assessment, students applied the eNaBlS project’s NBS inclusion and exclusion criteria to debate, using scientific evidence, whether permaculture should be considered an NBS.

If you are interested in setting up something similar, we are happy to share the module structure and setup and advise on how to implement in your institution as well.