Action area 1 – Advancing NbS Knowledge and Data

Links between biodiversity, ecosystems functioning and the delivery of ecosystem services that enable life on Earth which underpin the effectiveness of NbS actions are widely recognised as a key area for strategic development. An improved understanding of cascading impacts of extreme events and slow onset changes, and the feedback among ecological integrity ("ecosystem conditions"), biodiversity and ecosystem services delivery at multiple scales and in different biogeographic regions is essential to plan effective NbS actions. There is an urgent need to address the present lack of mechanistic and long-term knowledge regarding the relationships between biological diversity, ecosystem functioning, ecosystem services delivery and societal processes in the face of changing conditions, in order to "future proof” NbS actions.

References

Chausson, A. et al. Mapping the effectiveness of nature‐based solutions for climate change adaptation. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 6134–6155 (2020).

Clough, Y. et al. Combining high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 8311–8316 (2011).

Eggermont, H. et al. Strategic Research & Innnovation Agenda : Horizon Europe Partnership on Biodiversity. (2021).

Johnson, J. A., Runge, C. F., Senauer, B., Foley, J. & Polasky, S. Global agriculture and carbon trade-offs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 12342–12347 (2014).

Raymond, C. M. et al. An impact evaluation framework to support planning and evaluation of nature-based solutions projects: prepared by the EKLIPSE Expert Working Group on nature-based solutions to promote climate resilience in urban areas. (Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, 2017)

Identifying and understanding trade-offs between the desired economic, social and environmental objectives of NbS as well as between benefits for different stakeholder groups would enable a more strategic approach to NbS design and implementation and an improved understanding, management and evaluation of the multiple impacts of NbS.

References

Dumitru, A., Frantzeskaki, N. & Collier, M. Identifying principles for the design of robust impact evaluation frameworks for nature-based solutions in cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 107–116 (2020).

Eggermont, H. et al. Strategic Research & Innnovation Agenda : Horizon Europe Partnership on Biodiversity. (2021).

European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation et al. Nature-based solutions: state of the art in EU funded projects. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2020).

European Environment Agency. Nature-based solutions in Europe policy, knowledge and practice for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2021).

Kabisch, N. et al. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol. Soc. 21, art39 (2016).

Seddon, N. et al. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190120 (2020).

Somarakis, G., Stagakis, S. & Chrysoulakis, N. ThinkNature / Nature-Based Solutions Handbook. (2019) doi:10.26225/JERV-W202.

Recognising the diverse values and understandings of nature in NbS design, implementation and assessment is crucial for more inclusive, equitable and just biodiversity conservation and decision-making. There are significant knowledge gaps as to how different worldviews, knowledge systems, and broad and specific values, shape, and influence NbS design, planning and implementation in different decision-making contexts. This includes taking account of the many ways that values can be compared, combined, or used by different groups in parallel. Comparative research on the contribution of different method families (e.g., ‘nature-based’, ‘behaviour-based’, ‘statement-based’ and ‘integrated’ methods) to NbS assessment could significantly guide NbS policy and decision-making. 

References

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform On Biodiversity And Ecosystem Services. Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). https://zenodo.org/record/6522392 (2022) doi:10.5281/ZENODO.6522392.

Pascual, U. et al. Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nat. Sustain. 4, 567–572 (2021).

Raymond, C. M. et al. An impact evaluation framework to support planning and evaluation of nature-based solutions projects: prepared by the EKLIPSE Expert Working Group on nature-based solutions to promote climate resilience in urban areas. (Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, 2017).

The effective design, performance, and sustainability of NbS over different scales of space and time is an area with significant margins for improvement: 

• Planning NbS across geographical scales, from local/small-scale NbS to embedding NbS within landscape, regional or national management plans, either individually or as networks, as well as understanding NbS interdependence and performance at these different scales, remain pressing questions underpinning challenges for replication and upscaling of NbS. 
• The sustainability of NbS and their performance over time and in the face of global change is also an area of significant unknowns, both in terms of the long-term delivery of benefits by NbS  as well as the costs of NbS over time. The resilience of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and implemented NbS actions to slow on-set events or pressures such as climate change, land-use change or invasions by non-native species is an area in need of further investigation.   
• Understanding and planning NbS across different socio-ecological contexts, including traditional rural systems, is also an area for improvement of knowledge, whether it be analysing more systematically varying contexts when looking at NbS performance, or exploring different solutions for different contexts, including what NbS are suited for, ranging from e.g., dense urban environments to rural environments used for pastoralism and agriculture. 

References

Dumitru, A., Frantzeskaki, N. & Collier, M. Identifying principles for the design of robust impact evaluation frameworks for nature-based solutions in cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 107–116 (2020)

European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation. The vital role of nature-based solutions in a nature positive economy. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2022).

European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation et al. Nature-based solutions: state of the art in EU funded projects. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2020).

European Environment Agency. Nature-based solutions in Europe policy, knowledge and practice for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2021)

European Research Executive Agency (European Commission). Nature-based solutions: EU funded NbS research projects tackle the climate and biodiversity crisis. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2022).

Doswald, N. et al. Effectiveness of ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation: review of the evidence-base. Clim. Dev. 6, 185–201 (2014).

Grace, M. et al. Priority knowledge needs for implementing nature-based solutions in the Mediterranean islands. Environ. Sci. Policy 116, 56–68 (2021).

McQuaid, S. et al. From Nature-based Solutions to the Nature-based Economy - Delivering the Green Deal for Europe. Draft White Paper for consultation. Nature-based Economy Working Group of EC Task Force III on Nature-based Solutions. (2021) doi:10.5281/ZENODO.5055605.

Nelson, D. R., Bledsoe, B. P., Ferreira, S. & Nibbelink, N. P. Challenges to realising the potential of nature-based solutions. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 45, 49–55 (2020).

Raymond, C. M. et al. An impact evaluation framework to support planning and evaluation of nature-based solutions projects: prepared by the EKLIPSE Expert Working Group on nature-based solutions to promote climate resilience in urban areas. (Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, 2017).

Ruangpan, L. et al. Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological risk reduction: a state-of-the-art review of the research area. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 243–270 (2020).

Seddon, N. et al. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190120 (2020).

UNEP-IEMP. Research on Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA): A reference guide. (2019).

Advancing systemic understanding of and approaches to NbS development and implementation is also referred to in identified gaps and entails:

• Developing easy-to-apply and established methods and tools for systematic evaluation of NbS, such as frameworks for identifying, selecting and designing NbS and conducting cost-benefits analyses, systematic comparisons of different processes of design and implementation as well as the adoption of standardised indicators for crosscutting measurement of NbS socio-ecological performance.
• Further developing systematic processes and approaches to engage and empower diverse stakeholders and institutions in NbS creation and implementation. Such processes need to address issues of NbS acceptance and environmental justice and pay attention to the tensions associated with biodiversity conservation through NbS. Expert consultations also raised further examples such as the co-development of pathways for NbS implementation across scales with the modelling community, or developing specific governance approaches to, e.g., protected and productive areas, or supporting the identification of investment needs and pathways and better characterisation of NbS markets.
• Identifying and synthesising knowledge on the approaches and governance systems that can reinforce innovation with and the deployment of NbS, enable institutional cooperation and allow to include NbS in planning and policy frameworks. Expert feedback suggests in particular a need for synthesis and systematisation of existing knowledge to generate adaptive governance and financing strategies, alongside a recognised need for business models and financial mechanisms to support NbS implementation without generating negative socio-economic impacts. This aspect is further highlighted by stakeholders consulted, who experience deep institutional, legal, economic, and governance barriers to implementing NbS at scale and see a strong avenue for science on how to overcome these barriers.

References

Anguelovski, I. et al. Expanding the boundaries of justice in urban greening scholarship: toward an emancipatory, antisubordination, intersectional, and relational approach. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 110, 1743–1769 (2020).

De Vreese, R. Reviewing the knowledge on the importance of UF-NbS for resilient cities  (CLEARINGHOUSE Deliverable 1.2). (2021).

Dorst, H. et al. What’s behind the barriers? Uncovering structural conditions working against urban nature-based solutions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 220, 104335 (2022).

Dumitru, A., Frantzeskaki, N. & Collier, M. Identifying principles for the design of robust impact evaluation frameworks for nature-based solutions in cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 107–116 (2020).

Eggermont, H. et al. Strategic Research & Innnovation Agenda : Horizon Europe Partnership on Biodiversity. (2021).

European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation. The vital role of nature-based solutions in a nature positive economy. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2022).

European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation et al. Nature-based solutions: state of the art in EU funded projects. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2020).

European Environment Agency. Nature-based solutions in Europe policy, knowledge and practice for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2021).

Grace, M. et al. Priority knowledge needs for implementing nature-based solutions in the Mediterranean islands. Environ. Sci. Policy 116, 56–68 (2021).

Hamel, P. & Tan, L. Blue–Green Infrastructure for Flood and Water Quality Management in Southeast Asia: Evidence and Knowledge Gaps. Environ. Manage. (2021) doi:10.1007/s00267-021-01467-w.

Raymond, C. M. et al. Inclusive conservation and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: Tensions and prospects. One Earth 5, 252–264 (2022).

Raymond, C. M. et al. An impact evaluation framework to support planning and evaluation of nature-based solutions projects: prepared by the EKLIPSE Expert Working Group on nature-based solutions to promote climate resilience in urban areas. (Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, 2017).

Seddon, N. et al. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190120 (2020).

Somarakis, G., Stagakis, S. & Chrysoulakis, N. ThinkNature / Nature-Based Solutions Handbook. (2019) doi:10.26225/JERV-W202.

Studying the role of NbS in systemic change and transition processes, including social and environmental justice dimensions of NbS design and implementation. The potential of NbS in contributing to transformative change appears promising. However, whether, how and to what extent NbS engage with diverse values, worldviews and knowledge systems, community engagement processes, and environmental management practices needs to be more demonstrated. The deployment of NbS at local and regional scales also raises questions in terms of assessing who can access NbS benefits and how to avoid reinforcing existing or creating new inequalities and social injustice, e.g., through gentrification.

References

European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation et al. Nature-based solutions: state of the art in EU funded projects. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2020).

Grace, M. et al. Priority knowledge needs for implementing nature-based solutions in the Mediterranean islands. Environ. Sci. Policy 116, 56–68 (2021).

Kabisch, N. et al. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol. Soc. 21, art39 (2016).

Palomo, I. et al. Assessing nature-based solutions for transformative change. One Earth 4, 730–741 (2021).

Russo, A. & Cirella, G. T. Urban Ecosystem Services: Current Knowledge, Gaps, and Future Research. Land 10, 811 (2021)

Gathering data, such as integral, structural and comparable data, long-term data on biodiversity feedback and trade-offs between ecosystem services, data on ecosystem services at different scales and data on the effectiveness and multiple impacts of NbS, especially in the context of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction.

References

Chausson, A. et al. Mapping the effectiveness of nature‐based solutions for climate change adaptation. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 6134–6155 (2020).

Clough, Y. et al. Combining high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 8311–8316 (2011).

De Vreese, R. Reviewing the knowledge on the importance of UF-NbS for resilient cities (CLEARINGHOUSE Deliverable 1.2). (2021).

European Environment Agency. Nature-based solutions in Europe policy, knowledge and practice for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2021).

Johnson, J. A., Runge, C. F., Senauer, B., Foley, J. & Polasky, S. Global agriculture and carbon trade-offs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 12342–12347 (2014).

Addressing the needs for systemic and comparable analyses and evaluations of NbS, and underlying monitoring needs, which are often linked to assessing NbS design and performance. This entails an improved documentation of ecosystem functions and services, such as carbon sequestration and storage or services provided by woodlands and also comparing NbS to hybrid and conventional “grey” solutions. In this respect, efforts under development towards the set-up of the Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity and related a Science Service appear essential, noting the latter will test demonstration cases on the topic NbS This lever also relates to monitoring needs, such as enabling long-term monitoring and evaluation of ecosystem performance and functioning, as well as monitoring synergies and trade-offs between NbS impacts, different policy objectives and different stakeholder interests. There is presently a dearth of knowledge concerning NbS performance and impact at multiple scales, in the long term, and across different biogeographic regions. R&I can help simplify NbS planning and design processes and ensure the effectiveness of implemented NbS actions through standardised monitoring and evaluation processes, and by sharing data openly to enable meta-analyses of the effectiveness of individual NbS types or different NbS systems under a range of different conditions. In this respect, key efforts being developed for data integration and monitoring harmonisation, such as the co-development of transnational monitoring schemes for Europe.

References

Cohen-Shacham, E. et al. Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling Nature-based Solutions. Environ. Sci. Policy 98, 20–29 (2019).

Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C. & Maginnis, S. Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. (IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2016).

De Vreese, R. Reviewing the knowledge on the importance of UF-NbS for resilient cities (CLEARINGHOUSE Deliverable 1.2). (2021).

Dumitru, A., Frantzeskaki, N. & Collier, M. Identifying principles for the design of robust impact evaluation frameworks for nature-based solutions in cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 107–116 (2020).

European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation et al. Nature-based solutions: state of the art in EU funded projects. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2020).

European Environment Agency. Nature-based solutions in Europe policy, knowledge and practice for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2021).

Faivre, N., Fritz, M., Freitas, T., Boissezon, B. & Vandewoestijne, S. Nature-Based Solutions in the EU: Innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental challenges. Environ. Res. 159, 509–518 (2017).

Grace, M. et al. Priority knowledge needs for implementing nature-based solutions in the Mediterranean islands. Environ. Sci. Policy 116, 56–68 (2021).

Ruangpan, L. et al. Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological risk reduction: a state-of-the-art review of the research area. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 243–270 (2020).

Russo, A. & Cirella, G. T. Urban Ecosystem Services: Current Knowledge, Gaps, and Future Research. Land 10, 811 (2021).

Seddon, N. et al. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190120 (2020).

Somarakis, G., Stagakis, S. & Chrysoulakis, N. ThinkNature / Nature-Based Solutions Handbook. (2019) doi:10.26225/JERV-W202.

UNEP-IEMP. Research on Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA): A reference guide. (2019).

Implementing more relational approaches to NbS assessment and integration to help design and implement NbS in ways that align with and promote diverse human-nature relationships, and address critiques that NbS are only grounded in market-based logics of performance, cost-effectiveness, and pursuit of unsustainable economic growth, which are associated with the destruction of biodiversity globally. Similarly, previous studies suggest that NbS are often embedded asymmetrically in urban environments, more often guided by social exclusion, neoliberal governance and growth ideologies. To move beyond these logics and foster biodiversity conservation, R&I can document new relational approaches to NbS assessment that take account of different ways that people live from, live with, live in and/or live as nature, enabling identification of how NbS can be designed and implemented in ways that align with and promote these diverse human-nature relationships. This includes improved consideration of relational values and worldviews, and indigenous and local knowledge perspectives on human-nature relationships which often assume no separation between humans and the benefits one receives from nature.

References

Anguelovski, I. et al. Expanding the boundaries of justice in urban greening scholarship: toward an emancipatory, antisubordination, intersectional, and relational approach. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 110, 1743–1769 (2020).

Chausson, A. et al. Mapping the effectiveness of nature‐based solutions for climate change adaptation. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 6134–6155 (2020).

Díaz, S. et al. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. (2019).

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform On Biodiversity And Ecosystem Services. Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). https://zenodo.org/record/6522392 (2022) doi:10.5281/ZENODO.6522392.

O’Connor, S. & Kenter, J. O. Making intrinsic values work; integrating intrinsic values of the more-than-human world through the Life Framework of Values. Sustain. Sci. 14, 1247–1265 (2019).

Sekulova, F. et al. The governance of nature-based solutions in the city at the intersection of justice and equity. Cities 112, 103136 (2021).

Welden, E. A., Chausson, A. & Melanidis, M. S. Leveraging Nature-based Solutions for transformation: Reconnecting people and nature. People Nat. 3, 966–977 (2021).

Undertaking research on economic and non-economic costs and benefits of NbS performance, including social, economic and environmental costs and benefits, and also considering their valuation across time and space. The need for better inclusion of multiple costs and benefits, but also trade-offs and disservices in these analyses, is largely highlighted. These are related, for example, to the creation of jobs or growth or to human health and well-being, and tied with the need for more comprehensive and large-scale evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of NbS. As such this lever closely relates to the operational implementation and evaluation of NbS for practice and policy, described in subsequent pillars. 

References

Cohen-Shacham, E. et al. Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling Nature-based Solutions. Environ. Sci. Policy 98, 20–29 (2019).

Dumitru, A., Frantzeskaki, N. & Collier, M. Identifying principles for the design of robust impact evaluation frameworks for nature-based solutions in cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 112, 107–116 (2020).

Eggermont, H. et al. Strategic Research & Innnovation Agenda : Horizon Europe Partnership on Biodiversity. (2021).

Egusquiza, A., Cortese, M. & Perfido, D. Mapping of innovative governance models to overcome barriers for nature based urban regeneration. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 323, 012081 (2019).

European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation. The vital role of nature-based solutions in a nature positive economy. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2022).

European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation et al. Nature-based solutions: state of the art in EU funded projects. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2020).

European Environment Agency. Nature-based solutions in Europe policy, knowledge and practice for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2021).

Grace, M. et al. Priority knowledge needs for implementing nature-based solutions in the Mediterranean islands. Environ. Sci. Policy 116, 56–68 (2021).

Raymond, C. M. et al. An impact evaluation framework to support planning and evaluation of nature-based solutions projects: prepared by the EKLIPSE Expert Working Group on nature-based solutions to promote climate resilience in urban areas. (Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, 2017).

Ruangpan, L. et al. Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological risk reduction: a state-of-the-art review of the research area. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 243–270 (2020).

Somarakis, G., Stagakis, S. & Chrysoulakis, N. ThinkNature / Nature-Based Solutions Handbook. (2019) doi:10.26225/JERV-W202.

Toxopeus, H. & Polzin, F. Reviewing financing barriers and strategies for urban nature-based solutions. J. Environ. Manage. 289, 112371 (2021).

UNEP-IEMP. Research on Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA): A reference guide. (2019).

Wild, T. C., Henneberry, J. & Gill, L. Comprehending the multiple ‘values’ of green infrastructure – Valuing nature-based solutions for urban water management from multiple perspectives. Environ. Res. 158, 179–187 (2017).

Further developing methods, tools and skills for a clear appraisal of economic costs and benefits of NbS, e.g., related to natural capital accounting and financing of NbS, is key for the development of attractive business models and cases, and advancing the methodologies and tools for systematic evaluation of benefits and co-benefits. More research is also needed to differentiate between financing, governance and business models at different scales of financing. Closely linked to the implementation and capacity building, stakeholder feedback shows that while numerous valuation methods per se exist, a significant challenge remains in capacities and skills required for, e.g., regions or municipalities to consistently evaluate the impacts of NbS, alongside with their communication to the public. Moreover, more research is needed into the transaction costs for NbS planning and implementation, which sometimes appear to be higher than for traditional engineering projects, because there is a broader set of stakeholders and government agencies that must coordinate on NbS projects. These transaction costs must be factored into any appraisal of the economic costs and benefits of NbS. A clear appraisal is needed to operationalise NbS in business and developing investment capacities for NbS, and is recognised as a priority question by economic actors. As the World Economic Forum states, “significant barriers are inhibiting their deployment at scale, in particular how investment is linked with inclusive economic benefit, project prioritisation for sustainable financing”.

References

European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation. The vital role of nature-based solutions in a nature positive economy. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2022).

European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation et al. Nature-based solutions: state of the art in EU funded projects. (Publications Office of the European Union, 2020).

Faivre, N., Fritz, M., Freitas, T., Boissezon, B. & Vandewoestijne, S. Nature-Based Solutions in the EU: Innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental challenges. Environ. Res. 159, 509–518 (2017).

Mayor, B. et al. State of the Art and Latest Advances in Exploring Business Models for Nature-Based Solutions. Sustainability 13, 7413 (2021).

Seddon, N. et al. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190120 (2020).

Non-monetary and monetary valuation methods within the method families of ‘nature-based’, ‘behaviour-based’, ‘statement-based’ and ‘integrated’ methods can help consider, beyond natural capital or inclusive wealth approaches, the potential for different types of values of nature and NbS in supporting transformative change towards just and sustainable futures. R&I can help identify the ways in which NbS and the multiple values of nature can act as both leverage points and levers for transformative change and opportunities for decision-makers to draw upon NbS and the multiple values of nature to enact change, including motivational, analytical, bridging, negotiation, social and governance. This highlights a role for R&I in uncovering how different methods and institutional structures promote, impede, or exclude different value expressions in NbS design and implementation through norms, conventions, rules, and other systems of power.

References

Chan, K. M. A. et al. Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. People Nat. 2, 693–717 (2020).

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform On Biodiversity And Ecosystem Services. Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). https://zenodo.org/record/6522392 (2022) doi:10.5281/ZENODO.6522392.