Nature-based Solutions are increasingly promoted as a means to tackle the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change. Their implementation, though, continues to lag behind political ambition. While existing reviews highlight a broad set of barriers, from financial and political constraints to entrenched practices and fragmented governance, much less is known about how these barriers play out across different ecosystems and institutional contexts. This contribution presents results from a series of mixed-method research activities conducted within the Biodiversa+ BiodivClim Knowledge Hub to better understand where and why Nature-based Solutions implementation efforts encounter friction, and what kinds of solutions stakeholders believe should be sought.
First, we report findings from a survey completed by researchers, practitioners, and policymakers from across Europe and beyond. Respondents assessed the importance of twelve commonly cited barriers and suggested concrete actions to overcome them. Across ecosystems and stakeholder groups, political will, long-term commitment, and financial resources emerged as the most pressing obstacles, followed closely by difficulties in breaking away from established norms and conventional grey-infrastructure preferences. Interestingly, and not totally unexpectedly, the perceived importance of several barriers varied by ecosystem type. For example, researchers and practitioners engaged in coastal ecosystems highlighted land availability as a dominant constraint, whereas those working in urban settings emphasised public awareness and competing interests.
Second, we draw on insights from two participatory “House of Commons” debate sessions that explored tensions and value clashes arising when aligning biodiversity and climate objectives through Nature-based Solutions. These debates made visible a divide around issues such as investment priorities, distributional fairness, and the balance between restoration and conservation. They also highlighted the potential of deliberative formats to unmask deeply held assumptions and open space for more flexible and inclusive governance approaches. This is precisely the type of collective reflection we aim to spark in the session, encouraging participants to engage with these tensions and consider what is needed for successful to move Nature-based Solutions implementation forward in practice.
How to cite: Sousa Silva, R., Gantioler, S., Oen, A., and Wild, T.: Connecting biodiversity and climate transformative action: Clashing of tough choices on nature-based solutions implementation?, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-309, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-309, 2026.
Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are increasingly promoted in global initiatives for their potential to address interconnected socio-environmental challenges and support transformative ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation. Yet, the shift from ambition to action remains limited, as traditional ‘grey’ infrastructure continues to dominate planning and investment decisions. This dominance is reinforced by strong path dependencies in engineering practice, procurement routines, and institutional expectations, making it difficult for NbS to compete on equal terms. While extensive research has explored systemic barriers and enablers for NbS uptake, far less attention has been given to the practical challenges and opportunities encountered by private-sector professionals, such as contractors and consultants, who operate at the core of the implementation process. Understanding their experiences is essential for moving from high-level NbS ambitions toward scalable and transformative practice.
To address this gap, we conducted interviews with 17 contractors and consultants across Europe who have worked directly on NbS projects. Our findings reveal a range of persistent challenges, including limited NbS-specific expertise and skills, difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified staff, insufficient evidence of NbS performance, market demand uncertainties, and lack of clear standards and regulatory guidance. Additional obstacles arise from constrained funding streams that restrict opportunities to engage in NbS work, competition with established grey-infrastructure providers, siloed mindsets among project owners, administrative burdens, and concerns about liability and risk distribution.
Despite these constraints, professionals also identified strategic opportunities that could help strengthen and scale NbS implementation. These include expanding cross-sectoral collaboration, making better use of existing data and technological tools, capitalising on the growth of green markets, building multidisciplinary teams, and increasing training, communication, and awareness efforts. We recommend future research on the specific expertise required across different NbS categories and professional roles. Such knowledge is necessary to build the sector’s capacities and employment opportunities, counteract existing path dependencies, and enable more durable and transformative scaling of NbS in practice, thereby securing their critical biodiversity benefits.
How to cite: Aguilera-Rodríguez, J. J., Martin, J. G. C., Scolobig, A., and Linnerooth-Bayer, J.: From concept to practice: What contractors and consultants reveal about implementing nature-based solutions, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-469, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-469, 2026.
The causes of biodiversity loss and the consequences of its loss for human wellbeing are well known. New scientific knowledge on possible approaches to restore and protect biodiversity and ecosystems are produced almost daily. However, this knowledge is rarely translated into action and workable solutions.
To bridge this „Knowledge-Action Gap“, and to explore new ways to engage a diversity of societal actors, the Senckenberg – Leibniz Institution for Biodiversity and Earth System Research has initiated the Synthesis & Solutions Labs. These labs function as „think tanks“, bringing together perspectives from science and society on a specific topic, encouraging dialogue and debate. Building on existing research projects and a synthesis of existing scientific and practical knowledge, participants in each lab will co-develop feasible solutions and options for actions, which are then applied and tried out in an experimental setting.
Two pilot projects have been initiated, two to three labs are to follow on an annual basis. The first pilot lab works with city authorities, nature conservation agencies and the private sector to exploring options for insect friendly urban green space management. Starting out from understanding why green spaces are managed in a certain way, the lab explores barriers that impede biodiversity-friendly green space management to then develop cost-effective and easily implementable measures to promote insect diversity. These measures are then tried out by interested stakeholders, and the experiences shared.
The second pilot lab collaborates with schools in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and Campinas, Brazil, to highlight how food and food choices are intertwined with biodiversity. Working with teachers and teacher educators, the lab will develop teaching materials for secondary schools; school children will have the opportunity to develop and participate in activities on food and biodiversity that span continents.
In this talk, I will share experiences from building up a platform that combines synthesis centre and real world lab approaches with the aim to foster biodiversity and nature-based solutions, and explore what pitfalls might await.
How to cite: Krug, C.: From Knowledge to Action - the Senckenberg Synthesis & Solutions Labs, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-606, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-606, 2026.
Given the ongoing climate crisis and accelerating biodiversity loss, harnessing the support of local communities for environmental action has become more critical than ever (Pörtner et al., 2023). Urban streets, in particular, represent an underutilised yet significant opportunity for enhancing biodiversity through a range of greening initiatives (Atkins, 2018). Despite being central to neighbourhood life, streets are frequently among the most deprived urban spaces in terms of green–blue–grey infrastructure (GBGI), leaving considerable potential for ecological and social improvement untapped.
The GP4Streets project is developing Do it Yourself (DIY) interventions across several locations in the South East and South West of England, supporting citizens in their actions and understandings of nature-based solutions. We report the results of a scoping review of literature on perceptions and acceptability of such GBGI interventions. Our vision is to help transform streets into more resilient, sustainable environments which benefit both people and the planet.
To achieve this, we are adopting a participatory action research approach (De Oliveira, 2023), to involve community members in the data collection methods and gain their insights. Our interdisciplinary team comprises environmental scientists, public health experts, ecologists and landscape architects. Together, we are inviting people to take part in the study through a wide range of opportunities. These include walking interviews in their local area, with questions focusing on GBGI at the street and household level, and residents’ perceptions in relation to climate change adaptation, and biodiversity. We also invite them to record plants and wildlife in their garden through an ecological survey and host sensors to record water, air quality and noise.
We will then translate this data into a ‘greening prescription for streets’, i.e. accessible, cost-effective, and easy-to-implement climate adaptation solutions that empower both the public and policymakers to tackle biodiversity loss and other critical environmental and societal challenges posed by climate change in confined urban spaces.
References:
Atkins (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812150-4.00023-9
De Oliveira (2023). https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-08-2022-0101
Pörtner, et al. (2023) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl4881
How to cite: Woolf, Y., Wild, T., Roberts, T., and Bray, I.: Transforming NBS research with citizens: do-it-yourself interventions?, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-468, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-468, 2026.
Urban nature-based solutions (NBS) are increasingly deployed to restore ecosystems, regulate microclimates, support biodiversity, and enhance wellbeing. Yet many remain short-lived: once installation and early monitoring end, maintenance budgets shrink, responsibilities become unclear, and socio–ecological performance declines. The EU BiodivNBS NatureScape project addresses this overlooked post-implementation phase by examining how NBS are cared for, governed, and experienced over time in seven European cities – Oslo, Dublin, Riga, Milan, Lisbon, Lublin, and St. Gallen.
To strengthen long-term sustainability, NatureScape establishes Transformation Labs (T-Labs) at demonstration sites, including rain gardens in Lublin; community gardens in Oslo, Riga, Milan, and St. Gallen; school gardens in Lisbon; and goat-grazing vegetation management in Dublin. These T-Labs function as practice-based innovation spaces where municipal authorities, researchers, and community groups jointly observe socio–ecological dynamics, identify stewardship challenges, and co-develop adaptive responses. The approach extends conventional living labs by focusing on long-term socio–ecological change and governance arrangements that support NBS persistence.
NatureScape integrates baseline assessments across five forms of capital (natural, social, human, manufactured, financial) with participatory workshops, PPGIS, citizen science, and systems tools such as causal loop diagrams and multi-criteria assessments. This mixed-methods design enables analysis of NBS as dynamic systems shaped by interactions between ecological conditions, institutions, and community practices.
Early findings from Oslo, Riga, Lublin and St. Gallen reveal recurrent barriers: unclear responsibilities after project funding ends, limited resources for routine care and climate adaptation, insecure land tenure, weak alignment with municipal strategies, and uneven community participation. In St. Gallen, expectations to expand activities, actors, or spatial scope further increase complexity and demand stronger management capacities.
This study presents the NatureScape framework for post-implementation NBS governance and demonstrates how T-Labs can: (i) shift perceptions of NBS from temporary projects to living infrastructures requiring continuous care; (ii) clarify and redistribute responsibilities and resources for long-term stewardship; and (iii) provide structured settings where new forms of cooperation and valuation can be tested and embedded in policy. Embedding co-maintenance and co-stewardship as core practices can help cities move beyond pilot projects toward durable, multifunctional NBS aligned with EU and global biodiversity frameworks and targets.
How to cite: Liu, H.-Y., Dace, E., Kemper, R., Sowińska-Świerkosz, B., Istrate, A.-L., and Ikingura, A.: Beyond Implementation: How Transformation Labs Support Long-term Stewardship of Urban Nature-based Solutions, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-752, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-752, 2026.
Delivering transformative Nature-based Solutions requires decisions grounded in robust ecological understanding, yet many implementation processes rely on a short-term or incomplete understanding of past system states. Such gaps limit the legitimacy of restoration proposals by narrowing what communities consider feasible or desirable. Using the Gausa Delta in Norway as a case, stakeholder interviews reveal substantial differences in how landscape change is perceived over time. These contrasting perspectives directly influence support for or resistance to proposed restoration measures, reflecting differing priorities related to flood protection, land use, and ecological recovery. Reintroducing historical and ecological system knowledge into these discussions helps counter narrow assumptions about what constitutes a “normal” or acceptable river state, broadening the shared understanding of viable options and enabling more ambitious, ecologically grounded NbS decisions. This challenge is reinforced by evaluations that often prioritise short-term co-benefits over ecological integrity, further constraining restoration ambition.
In the Gausa context, a more complete ecological understanding has direct implications for restoration design, including consideration of reconnecting side channels, enhancing habitat diversity, and accepting periodic natural flooding as part of a functioning river system. These dynamics highlight governance challenges rooted in fragmented institutional roles, competing expectations for land use and risk management, and limited incorporation of ecological evidence in planning, all of which weaken the legitimacy of restoration proposals. When ecological understanding is unevenly distributed among actors, decision processes tend to favour the status quo or risk-averse engineering measures over options that would restore natural processes or reintroduce hydromorphological variation.
Co-production and multi-actor learning provide a pathway to address this gap. Structured engagement processes that bring together ecological analyses, historical system knowledge, and stakeholder perspectives help create more inclusive and transparent decision environments. Such approaches strengthen the shared understanding of system dynamics, clarify trade-offs, and improve the credibility and acceptability of NbS options. Together, these insights show how linking ecological evidence with stakeholder perspectives and governance realities can support more ambitious, legitimate, and ecologically grounded Nature-based Solutions.
How to cite: Sandin, L., Köhler, B., Bargmann, T., and Museth, J.: Shifting Baselines in Practice: Strengthening Ecological Foundations for Transformative NbS through Multi-Source Evidence, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-908, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-908, 2026.
As societies address the twin challenges of biodiversity loss and climate change, nature-based solutions (NbS) are often proposed as systemic interventions that bridge the socio-economic-cultural, environmental and technological domains. Yet wider NbS uptake and implementation continue to face key challenges arising from knowledge and practice gaps, fragmented mandates, rigid governance and institutional and cultural lock-ins, and competing framings of NbS value. The Horizon Europe "GREEN TALENT - Building Capacity and Partnerships for Systemic Solutions to the Climate and Biodiversity Crises" project (2025–2029) seeks to overcome traditional barriers limiting NbS implementation to address biodiversity loss and climate change, and embed NbS within a broader green and digital transition. Through four national demonstration hubs, in Malta, Greece, Cyprus and Bulgaria, the project facilitates 45 secondments and cross-sector mentoring and collaboration with EU and US-based partners, and hands-on co-creation of NbS-oriented interventions. Concurrently, GREEN TALENT involves demonstration hubs and regional stakeholders to co-design and deliver open-access interdisciplinary training modules focusing on nature-based and systemic solutions, but also research and innovation capacity building, grant management, entrepreneurship and stakeholder engagement, thereby empowering and supporting a new generation of “green talents”.
Through this presentation we illustrate how GREEN TALENT reframes NbS as entry points for a transformative practice lab model established through place-based experimentation, monitoring, evidence generation and iterative testing, and multi-stakeholder platforms. This approach deliberately focuses on aligning ecological to social, institutional and economic transformations by cultivating interdisciplinary and shared vocabularies and collaborative digital infrastructures that extend beyond the lifespan of typical NbS pilots.
Using examples from initial hub set-up, cross-sector networks and capacity-building designs, we highlight how GREEN TALENT support is addressing existing knowledge and practice gaps through capacity-building, clustering, knowledge exchange, and inclusive, long-term NbS upscaling. We argue that such a talent-centred, learning-based, hub-driven framework is instrumental for transitioning from fragmented and isolated NbS implementation toward a more systemic and equitable nature-positive transformations across diverse landscapes and seascapes.
How to cite: Balzan, M. V., Beach, S., Camilleri, S., Pham, T. G., and Mendes Correia, R.: From Research to Transformative Practice Labs: Investing in GREEN TALENTs to Build Capacities for Systemic Change, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-800, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-800, 2026.
Achieving transformative biodiversity outcomes requires more than ecological evidence alone, it demands trust, dialogue, and co-produced knowledge between scientists, policymakers, practitioners, and the communities most affected by conservation decisions. This research examines how conservation strategies that prioritise either nature protection or restoration shape social–ecological outcomes in island and coastal contexts, with a central focus on equity, communication, and stakeholder participation.
The project develops a predictive social–ecological equity model that integrates global biodiversity data with indicators of livelihood access, procedural fairness, participation, and local wellbeing. While the model identifies potential trade-offs between ecological performance and social justice, its purpose extends beyond prediction: it functions as a shared resource to facilitate conversations between rights holders, conservation practitioners, and decision-makers.
To strengthen trust and co-production, the modelling is embedded within two participatory case studies, in the Cayman Islands and the United Kingdom, where qualitative methods including interviews, focus groups, community surveys, participatory mapping, and media analysis explore lived experiences of conservation benefits and burdens. These engagements foreground community narratives, local-informed perspectives where applicable, and sectoral insights from fisherfolk, NGOs, policymakers, and youth leaders. The iterative feedback between modelling and lived experience refines the representation of equity within the model, ensuring that statistical relationships reflect social realities.
The research culminates in a decision-support framework that integrates model outputs with stakeholder priorities using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Designed for use by governments, NGOs, and community groups in Small Island Developing States and UK Overseas Territories, the tool aims to support transparent communication of trade-offs, strengthen trust in science, and improve alignment between top-down policy mandates and bottom-up community aspirations.
By connecting science, society, and practice, this project demonstrates how co-produced modelling and participatory methods can build shared understanding, improve the influence of biodiversity science, and support more equitable conservation pathways, advancing the World Biodiversity Forum’s vision of leading transformation together.
How to cite: Lashley, R.: Balancing Nature Protection and Restoration: Assessing Social and Ecological Impacts to Inform Equitable Conservation Policy, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-480, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-480, 2026.
Background:
Nature-based solutions (NbS) are actions inspired and supported by nature to address significant global challenges, including public health priorities. An extensive body of research highlights the positive links between nature and human health. We addressed two gaps; first we aimed to understand the potential public health benefits of both place and activity-focused NbS in a relatively deprived, superdiverse setting, and second, we explored professional perceptions across the public health-greenspace spectrum, informing innovative transdisciplinary policy and practice.
Methods: In this qualitative investigation, 16 professional stakeholders in diverse roles across public health and greenspace policy and practice in Luton were purposively recruited for semi-structured interviews conducted between 23rd June and 11th July 2025. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed then analysed by reflexive thematic analysis. All participants gave written consent. The study was approved by the University of Sheffield Research Ethics Committee.
Results: Four main themes emerged, (with multiple sub-themes): (1) Unmet need and ‘at risk’ groups; (2) Thriving in nature (successful place and activity-focused NBS, aesthetics and care, and increasing ethnic diversity in nature); (3) Barriers (migration background, local deprivation, fear and perceived safety; negative image); (4) Enablers of thriving (partnerships, co-creation and individual agency.) Green social prescribing, funding and COVID, were recognised as both barriers and enablers.
Conclusions: Co-creation and partnership working had key roles in enabling successful place and activity-focused NbS delivering significant public health benefits in Luton. Increasing ethnic diversity in nature highlights how consultation and co-creation with local communities can break down barriers to accessing NbS. Insights are provided into the barriers associated with green social prescribing in a deprived, diverse setting. Innovative enablers including a triage and buddy system are proposed towards delivering a successful green social prescribing programme. These findings are significant for Luton and local authorities seeking to address public health priorities through NbS in other deprived, diverse settings.
How to cite: Hoyle, H. and Blackmore, C.: Harnessing nature-based solutions towards public health benefits in Luton: A qualitative study of professional stakeholder perceptions. , World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-5, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-5, 2026.
