An impact assessment framework to support the planning and implementation of nature-based solutions projects

Nature-based solutions (NBS) is a new umbrella term that brings together established ecosystem-based approaches such as ‘ecosystem services’, ‘green-blue infrastructure’, ‘ecological engineering’, ‘ecosystem-based management’ and ‘natural capital’(Nature Editorial, 2017; Nesshöver et al., 2017). NBS have global appeal given their potential to initiate strategies that provide environmental, social and economic benefits, help building climate resilience (European Commission, 2015) and reduce biodiversity loss by supporting existing, modified and new forms of nature in cities (Cohen-Shacham, Walters, Janzen, & Maginnis, 2016). While the strength of the term rests in its potential to integrate knowledge on living solutions and to provide multidisciplinary, evidence-based strategies to address societal challenges(Nature Editorial 2017; Nesshöver et al., 2016), important questions remain about what NBS can deliver within and across different societal challenges.

In response, an EKLIPSE Expert Working Group (EWG) developed an impact evaluation framework (Figure 1) to support the planning, implementation and evaluation of nature-based solutions projects. This presentation will provide an overview of the theoretical framework used for guiding the assessment of NBS impacts within and across 10 climate resilience challenge areas, a description of the quick scoping review procedure used to identify and synthesise key impacts, indicators and methods for each challenge and a synthesis of key findings and future research directions. Over 1,700 publications were considered as part of the review process. It was found that NBS can have environmental, social and economic benefits and/or costs both within and across climate resilience challenge areas. In some instances, benefits in one challenge area can lead to costs or neutral effects in other areas. Previous work found similar trends only with respect to the assessment of ecosystem service values, synergies and trade-offs, or in relation to specific climate change interventions. Future research would benefit from: 1) the systematic consideration of NBS co-benefits and costs within and across challenge areas, and geographic and temporal scales; 2) public participation and governance processes for weaving multiple forms and systems of knowledge into NBS design, delivery and implementation; and 3) further consideration of how existing or new urban planning regimes could interact with the science of NBS assessment.