Examining the policy needs for implementing nature-based solutions in cities: Findings from city-wide transdisciplinary experiences in Glasgow (UK), Genk (Belgium) and Poznań (Poland)
Introduction
Nature-based solutions have emerged as both a challenge and an opportunity to assist urban communities in the transition to greater sustainability and adaptation to climate change. NBS are living solutions inspired and supported by nature that simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help to build resilience (European Commission (EC), 2015). These solutions bring more nature and natural features and processes into cities, landscapes and seascapes, through locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions (Faivre et al., 2017). As systemic solutions, nature-based solutions (NBS) provide multiple benefits such as ecological, economic, social and business (Lafortezza et al., 2018), and are advocated and evinced to be the next-generation solutions for cities to deal with climate and social pressures (Frantzeskaki et al., 2019).
In practice, NBS represent a complex problem for many urban planners, with barriers still standing in the way of the scale-up and roll-out necessary for city-wide benefits (Connop et al., 2016; Kabisch et al., 2016; Krauze and Wagner, 2019). As such, scaling-up NBS requires knowledge and expertise from many different disciplines for being designed, planned, implemented and maintained spanning discipline-specific knowledge from ecology to engineering (Frantzeskaki, 2019). To progress the science and practice of implementation of NBS in cities, it is important to understand what hinders their implementation and examine critically the requirements for overcoming these difficulties. Recent literature has pointed to a number of implementation gaps that refer to the substantial gap between what is stated in an urban plan or program and the realisation of NBS on the ground. We differentiate between knowledge gaps, skills gaps and governance gaps for implementing NBS in cities.
First, there are knowledge gaps on the effectiveness of NBS and their simultaneous delivery of multiple benefits (Albert et al., 2019; Santoro et al., 2019) that is the result of the dispersed knowledge of NBS, linked to the dearth of long-term monitoring and evaluation of outcomes, and the lack of knowledge systematization (Albert et al., 2019; Fernandes and Guiomar, 2018; Raymond et al., 2017). The knowledge gaps concern not only the design, the operation of NBS but also their delivery of economic benefits (Blau et al., 2018) and their potential to generate green businesses and green jobs specifically.
Second, there is a gap about the affinity and skillsets of urban planners and infrastructure professionals in cities in understanding, designing and adapting NBS to their local conditions (Blau et al., 2018; Davies and Lafortezza, 2019). This knowledge gap applies to tactical planning actions and processes, pointing to the expertise and experience as well as the openness of planners and engineers in cities to learn, and to the knowledge required to trust NBS similarly to grey infrastructure (Fernandes and Guiomar, 2018).
Third, there is a governance gap about collaboration between different urban actors required for the design and implementation of NBS as multifaceted solutions with the potential to deliver across multiple planning and community agendas (Davies and Lafortezza, 2019). This gap is recognised also in any type of cross-sectoral solution or approach (Weitz et al., 2017) and in interconnected sustainability issues (Bergsten et al., 2019, p.30 as ‘collaborative misfit’).
We contend that these implementation gaps are recognisable in and relevant for urban planning of NBS in European cities but remain rather abstract and difficult to operationalise, or connect to actions for advancing the implementation of NBS in cities. Thus, these well-documented discourses that focus on gaps and barriers remain within the realm of organisational silos and policy disintegrations. Notwithstanding these discourses, a growing number of city-makers are looking to transform and progress urban agendas, including the scaling-up of NBS, that transcend persistent barriers and shift the discourse towards a policy and action-focused framework. We see this as a gap in the literature to develop an analytical framework to explore this more transformational approach. We therefore propose the use of the conceptual construct of ‘NBS policy needs’ to operationalise and connect these gaps to proposed actions and governance processes to progress the science and practice of implementing NBS in cities. By using the concept of policy needs, we plan to systematically investigate what are the requirements for every phase of the NBS planning cycle as mapped by Raymond et al. (2017). Responding to the need of a planning cycle that acknowledges and maps complexity of governance processes, Raymond et al. (2017) propose a seven-stage policy process for implementing NBS, considering the multiplicity of stakeholders and the possible feedback loops. The stages are: 1) identify problem or opportunity; 2) select NBS and related actions; 3) design NBS implementation processes; 4) implement NBS; 5) frequently engage stakeholders and communicate co-benefits; 6) transfer and upscale NBS, and the transversal stage of 7) monitor and evaluate co-benefits.
We apply and test this Raymond et al. (2017) policy cycle approach as an analytical framework to explore our conceptual construct of NBS policy needs in relation to empirical data collected from our three case study cities, but we do so through the more nuanced conceptual lens of the three types of policy needs of knowledge, skills, and partnerships. In this way, we examine the specific needs for cities to accelerate the uptake and implementation of NBS. Thus, we not only advance the conceptualization of NBS policy needs in urban planning and environmental management literatures but also provide useful insights for urban planners in terms of directions to update and advance their practice for better planning of and with NBS. To do this, the paper explores our conceptual framing of policy needs in the following section. We then outline our methodology (expanded through the supplementary material), followed by data analysis from our three cities. We then discuss the data through our conceptual framework and reflect on limitations and suggestions for further research.
In policy and planning literature, the focus on how to achieve identified (policy) objectives and (policy) goals has been in formulating strategies and mobilising capitals to support the implementation of these strategies (Dunn, 2012). We argue that a (policy) objective or goal in order to be achieved requires a governance process to see the mobilization and/or sourcing of capitals and the implementation of solutions. The concept of ‘policy need’ will help us identifying and examining these complementary governance processes. We conceptualise a policy need as the combination of governance processes and conditions that are required to bridge the gap between a strategy or solution, a policy problem or opportunity (the current situation) and a policy objective (the desired situation).
First, our conceptualization of policy needs extends from the need assessment literature. ‘Need’ is identified as a gap between current and desired results at the strategic (goals, objectives, strategic policies), tactical (procedures) and operational level (decisions and tasks) (Watkins et al., 2012). A more appreciative perspective sees a needs perspective as a process of engaging people and empowering them to reach the desired situation (Watkins et al., 1998, 2012); while a more accounting perspective points to the possibility of prioritizing and ranking needs based on the expected costs to meet or ignore them (Kaufman and Guerra-López, 2013).
Second, our conceptualization is informed from the needs’ approach proposed from sustainability science researchers by considering the collective processes and conditions. Jolibert and Paavola (2014) argue that a (human) needs based approach to policy making is relevant, because it helps to understand and deal with the (conflicting) values and practices of planning processes (on both short and long-term) through creating “more dynamic interaction of stakeholders for social change” (p.30).
Third, our conceptualization agrees with assemblage thinking in the way of looking beyond policies and into programs, processes and (political) conditions to identify policy needs for achieving strategic objectives (Anderson and McFarlane, 2011; Anderson et al., 2012; Anderson and McFarlane, 2011). Our conceptual proposition suggests three types of policy needs as interrelated processes and conditions for successful implementation of NBS in cities: knowledge, skills, and partnerships.
Knowledge needs are often addressed as amongst the fundamental requirements for the planning and implementation of NBS. Urban planning has recently shifted into evidence-based approaches that require different forms of knowledge for the design and implementation of systemic solutions in cities. NBS as systemic innovative solutions that have the potential to deliver on multiple urban agendas require substantive knowledge for their successful implementation. This might be challenging since there is uncertainty in the direct and indirect impacts of NBS implementation (Nesshöver et al., 2017). Recent research on NBS also points to this dimension with Albert et al. (2019) suggesting different forms of knowledge. Frantzeskaki and Kabisch (2016) and Frantzeskaki (2019) point to the need for including knowledge from different urban actors as essential for institutional embedding of NBS. An example of knowledge need has been highlighted by recent research by Russo et al., 2017 (p.62) who argue on the need for “proper planning guidelines that indicate, when designating an area as suitable for edible green infrastructure, that knowledge of past site history, existing soil properties and distance from possible nearby sources of pollution, especially traffic, should be taken into account in order to prevent crop contamination.” Hence knowledge needs are important to understand in order to equip urban planners to implement NBS.
Acquiring knowledge about NBS and their implementation requires not only receptivity in planning practice but also skilled officers in identifying the appropriate knowledge from the diffuse sources available, embedding it effectively in relation to local context and local needs (Connop et al., 2016; Pedersen Zari, 2015), and relating it to existing knowledge systems in their practice. Hence, the second type of policy need we identify is the required skills for planning NBS. For example, for implementing innovative solutions, skills in leadership also play an important role (Carmeli et al., 2006). Critical to this are problem-solving skills and an ability to see the “big picture”. Due to the need for collaboration with different actors, managerial and cooperation skills are also required (O’Leary et al., 2012; Zeemerling, 2008). Additionally, knowledge and skills in organising and realising monitoring and evaluation of NBS due to their multifunctionality are required to assure a fully operational NBS for climate adaptation and resilience in cities.
Introducing systemic NBS often require multiple actors to ensure effective design, implementation, management and maintenance. To coordinate and orchestrate the multitude of urban actors and their involvement, collaborative efforts can take the shape of temporal or longstanding partnerships. Partnerships are vital for mobilising and providing resources such as finances, knowledge, institutional backing and social acceptance (Frantzeskaki et al. 2014). Collaborations with local stakeholder groups and “close collaboration between scientists and practitioners to establish concepts and share knowledge” are also important for mainstreaming NBS in cities (Wamsler et al., 2014, p.193 & 198). Albert et al. 2018 (p.17) add to this by pointing out that in the best practice examples of implementing NBS, co-creation and co-implementation of funding, business and governance of NBS has been a collaborative endeavour. Lopez-Rodriguez et al. (2017) further argue that through partnerships, scientific knowledge becomes embedded and is introduced in a more effective way in science-policy interfaces for conservation of nature in cities. Fig. 1 below summarises our emergent conceptual framework of NBS policy needs.
This paper presents a conceptual framework for not only analysing the science of NBS implementation but also the practice of implementation. It adopts and extends a policy needs approach that we argue helps identify and examine governance processes and conditions that are required to bridge the gap between a strategy or solution, a policy problem (the current situation) and a policy objective (the desired situation). This analytical framework is explored in the rest of this section. Section 2 presents the methodology for collecting our empirical data, outlining our three case study cities. In section 3 we analyse the data from each city using our conceptual framework. Section 4 discusses our findings in the light of the most recent literature and reflects on the conceptual framework and emerging limitations. We conclude in section 5 with a discussion of the research and propose next steps and recommendations.
Section snippets
Research methodology
This paper contributes to the emerging NBS policy and governance literature by exploring, and proposing adaptations to, the conceptual frameworks within which NBS policy needs and NBS planning cycles are being developed, as outlined in section 1. We do this through empirical data analysis from three case study cities in Europe. Empirical testing of a conceptual framework is a critical step in advancing understanding, and, by analyzing empirical data from our three case study cities, this paper
Results: policy needs for planning and implementing NBS in cities
In this section, we present the results of our analysis of data gathered from the interviews, workshops and site visits outlined in section2. We analyse each of the case study city’s perceived policy needs (that is, as elicited from the city participants), framed by our conceptual lens of the NBS policy cycle identified by Raymond et al. (2017), cross cut by our proposed themes of knowledge, skills and partnerships outlined in section 1. Thus, we test this proposed conceptual framework through
Discussion
Blending the themes of knowledge, skills and partnerships in relation to Raymond et al’s (2017) NBS policy cycle has provided a useful analytical framework. We now present a review of the findings in relation to the conceptual framework outlined in section 1 and in relation to recent NBS literature that also points at knowledge, skills and partnerships. Fig. 2 shows a synthesis of the findings from each of the three case study cities, drawn from analysis of the four methods deployed in each
Conclusions
Cities are struggling in dealing with urban challenges, however solving contemporary problems with the use of NBS may require changes in previously applied approaches that encompasses a policy needs approach. Our conceptual framework and analysis indicate that bridging processes or approaches are required that simultaneously address knowledge needs, required skills, establishing of partnerships and ensuring political commitment. We propose three such bridging processes as suggestions for the
Acknowledgements
Researchers are very grateful to the thoughtful inputs and positive contributions in this truly collaborative research. Our colleagues in the cities of Genk, Glasgow and Poznań and the teams from Osmos and UEL Sustainability Research Institute worked with the authors on the empirical data. We are also thankful to all stakeholders contributing context through the workshops in the three cities. The research of this paper has received funding from European Union Horizon 2020 program with the
References (57)
- et al.
Addressing societal challenges through nature-based solutions: how can landscape planning and governance research contribute?
Landsc. Urban Plan.
(2019) - et al.
Identifying governance gaps among interlinked sustainability challenges
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2019) - et al.
Renaturing cities using a regionally-focused biodiversity-led multifunctional benefits approach to urban green infrastructure
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2016) - et al.
Transitional path to the adoption of nature-based solutions
Land Use Policy
(2019) - et al.
Nature-based solutions in the EU: innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental challenges
Environ. Res.
(2017) Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2019)- et al.
Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance – lessons from Rotterdam, the Netherlands and Berlin, Germany
Environ. Sci. Policy
(2016) - et al.
Moving towards systemic change? Investigating acceleration dynamics of urban sustainability transitions in the Belgian City of Genk
J. Clean. Prod.
(2018) - et al.
Emerging ecosystem services governance issues in the Belgium ecosystem services community of practice
Ecosyst. Serv.
(2015) Position of the Polish city on the ladder of public participation: are wegoing the right way? The case of Poznan
Cities
(2013)
From classical water-ecosystem theories to nature-based solutions — contextualizing nature-based solutions for sustainable city
Sci. Total Environ.
Nature-based solutions for resilient landscapes and cities
Environ. Res.
The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: an interdisciplinary perspective
Sci. Total Environ.
Using local knowledge and sustainable transport t promote a greener city: the case of Bucharest, Romania
Environ. Res.
Ecosystem services analysis: mimicking ecosystem services for regenerative urban design
Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ.
A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas
Environ. Sci. Policy
Edible green infrastructure: an approach and review of provisioning ecosystem services and disservices in urban environments
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
Assessing stakeholders’ risk perception to promote nature based solutions as flood protection strategies: the case of the Glinščica river (Slovenia)
Sci. Total Environ.
Transdisciplinary landscape planning: does the public have aspirations? Experiences from a case study in Ghent (Flanders, Belgium)
Land Use Policy
The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits
Glob. Environ. Chang. Part A
Allotment gardens and parks: provision of ecosystem services with an emphasis on biodiversity
Urban For. Urban Green.
Cooling effects of wetlands in an urban region: the case of Beijing
Ecol. Indic.
Local levers for change: mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation into municipal planning to foster sustainability transitions
Glob. Environ. Change Part A
Closing the governance gaps in the water-energy-food nexus: insights from integrative governance
Glob. Environ. Chang. Part A
Introducing nature-based solutions into urban policy – facts and gaps. Case study of Poznań
Land Use Policy
A review of cost estimates for flood adaptation
Water
Assemblage and geography
Area
On assemblages and geography
Dialogues Hum. Geogr.
Cited by (68)
What does it take to renature cities? An expert-based analysis of barriers and strategies for the implementation of nature-based solutions
2024, Journal of Environmental ManagementEmbedding co-production of nature-based solutions in urban governance: Emerging co-production capacities in three European cities
2024, Environmental Science and PolicyThe underexposed nature-based solutions: A critical state-of-art review on drought mitigation
2024, Journal of Environmental ManagementNature-based solutions can help reduce the impact of natural hazards: A global analysis of NBS case studies
2023, Science of the Total EnvironmentPrioritizing urban nature-based solutions to support scaling-out strategies: A case study in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
2023, Environmental Impact Assessment Review