Nature-based Solutions for Major Societal Challenges

Session 5: Unpacking NbS—Some Reflections

The IUCN Guidelines provide a useful starting point for identifying NbS and helping to guide practical understandings. Such guidance is important as recent scholarship has cautioned that the concept can become too broad if it is applied to almost any project involving nature or greenery. The simplicity and breadth of the NbS concept have contributed to confusion over what should genuinely count as an NbS (Seddon et al., 2021). Equally, the centrality of assessing whether interventions truly work through ecosystem processes to address societal challenges is often overlooked or diluted amongst other metrics (Seddon et al., 2020). This is particularly problematic when considering engineering-based approaches, where the boundaries between an engineering solution and a genuine NbS are often blurred, risking greenwashing and inequities (Seddon et al., 2020; Sowińska-Świerkosz & García, 2022). Seddon et al. (2021) warn that NbS can be misused when they are reduced to simplified tree-planting schemes, treated as carbon-offset instruments, or framed in ways that neglect biodiversity and local rights.

Against these concerns, the significance of the LCW Programme lies in the way it goes beyond satisfying a broad definition of NbS and more closely reflects the deeper characteristics identified in the literature as central to a robust NbS. It uses the restoration and management of a biodiverse social-ecological landscape to address interconnected societal challenges through participatory and adaptive processes (Seddon et al., 2020; Seddon et al., 2021; Sowińska-Świerkosz & García, 2022).

 
Multifunctionality and social solutions orientated

NbS are characterised by multifunctionality, being particularly valuable when they address interdependent challenges such as ecosystem degradation, declining livelihoods, and reduced adaptive capacity together (Seddon et al., 2020; Dorst et al., 2019). They also are explicitly orientated to addressing complex social problems. This is important because the literature warns against calling interventions NbS where the societal challenge is vague or secondary (Hanson et al., 2020; Sowińska-Świerkosz & García, 2022). Well-designed NbS should build synergies across biodiversity, development, and climate-related goals (Seddon et al., 2021).

The LCW Programme is a multifunctional intervention where social and ecological revitalisation are mutually reinforcing. It addresses clearly defined societal challenges through the stewardship and revitalisation of a functioning social-ecological system. The social purpose was explicit from the outset and shaped through continued dialogue with relevant stakeholders. Ecological restoration was combined with community rebuilding, heritage conservation, local enterprise incubation, food production, environmental education, and new urban-rural relationships.

 
Ecosystems at the heart of NbS

A genuine NbS must be ecosystem-based in both design and outcome (Sowińska-Świerkosz & García, 2022) and biodiversity should not be treated as an optional co-benefit of NbS but as a foundation for long-term ecosystem functioning and resilience (Seddon et al., 2021). The increase in hybrid solutions, those employing engineering solutions or grey infrastructure alongside ecological elements, being classed as NbS has caused concerns about the NbS concept becoming diluted or compromised (Liu et al. 2021; Sowińska-Świerkosz & García, 2022). These hybrid approaches can shift focus from functioning ecosystems and biodiversity, potentially undermining the foundational principles of NbS (Seddon et al., 2021).

Rather than relying on superficial greening or symbolic landscape enhancement, the LCW Programme is strongly grounded in ecosystem processes and ecological integrity as reflected through its whole-catchment and cultural landscape approach, restoration of hydrological and agricultural linkages, species reintroduction and protection, and eco-farming and agroforestry practices.

 

Social justice and genuine participation

Successful NbS should be implemented with the meaningful engagement and consent of local communities and should respect cultural and ecological rights (Seddon et al., 2021). There can be, however, difficulty in determining when engagement is meaningful, risking tokenistic or shallow participation and entrenching inequalities (Kiss et al., 2021; Puskás et al., 2021; Wolff et al., 2022). One of the recurring criticisms in the literature is that NbS language can be attached to top-down projects that marginalise local voices.

The LCW Programme aligns closely with the literature’s emphasis on participatory, place-based, and context-sensitive governance, and embeds governance in dialogue, co-management, and shared decision-making. It evolved through repeated engagement with the Indigenous community, new settlers, farmers, researchers, NGOs, and other actors. Villagers’ concerns over land, rights, heritage, and livelihoods were integrated into the design and management of interventions.

 

Adaptive management and continued learning

Finally, NbS should be designed with an awareness of synergies, trade-offs, and changing social-ecological conditions (Seddon et al., 2021), making adaptation and dynamism in management essential (Seddon et al., 2020). Recent scholarship presents adaptive management and long-term learning as another core element of genuine NbS. Despite this, in major frameworks and practice it is often only partially or weakly recognised (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2019).

The LCW Programme’s strategies shifted over time in response to ecological monitoring, community feedback, labour constraints, and emerging opportunities. Crop choices changed, new socio-economic models were tested, and later phases expanded from farming rehabilitation to broader community economy development and neighbouring village revitalisation. This capacity for iteration and adjustment strengthens the case for the LCW Programme as a robust NbS, rather than a static project retrospectively given NbS language.

 

The LCW Programme as a Robust NbS

NbS Core Element	How the LCW Programme Performs
Specific societal challenge addressed	Clearly addresses rural decay, biodiversity risk, human health, and food security through concrete actions
Ecosystem services as primary mechanism	Benefits delivered through agroecology, irrigation restoration, habitat management, and whole-catchment stewardship
Biodiversity gains / ecosystem integrity	Baseline assessment, habitat management plan, long-term monitoring, species protection, improved connectivity
Equity, participation, safeguards	Indigenous engagement, revived village governance, regular meetings, inclusive platforms, women’s participation
Adaptive management	Monitoring, impact assessment, strategy adjustment, response to labour, crop and tourism pressures

 

Food for Thought

Now that you have finished reading this e-study, what is your own view about NbS?

What would you think are the importance and feasibility of NbS in your city?

How could policy help in promoting NbS adoption in your city?

Could you think of any NbS projects that you can support or participate in?

If you are working on a conservation project, how might the project incorporate the NbS approach? What are the barriers and challenges involved?

 

Continue to "References"

 

 

© 2022 Centre for Civil Society and Governance at The University of Hong Kong

Except where otherwise noted, contents of this e-study is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License.