ALBERT

Description: Nature-based solutions (NBS) are inspired and supported by nature but designed by humans. Historically, governmental stakeholders have aimed to control nature using a top-down approach; more recently, environmental governance has shifted to collaborative planning. Polycentric governance and co-creation procedures, which include a large spectrum of stakeholders, are assumed to be more effective in the management of public goods than traditional approaches. In this context, NBS projects should benefit from strong collaborative governance models, and the European Union is facilitating and encouraging such models. While some theoretical approaches exist, setting-up the NBS co-creation process (namely co-design and co-implementation) currently relies mostly on self-organized stakeholders rather than on strategic decisions. As such, systematic methods to identify relevant stakeholders seem to be crucial to enable higher planning efficiency, reduce bottlenecks and time needed for planning, designing, and implementing NBS. In this context, this contribution is based on the analysis of 16 NBS and 359 stakeholders. Real-life constellations are compared to theoretical typologies, and a systematic stakeholder mapping method to support co-creation is presented. Rather than making one-fit-all statements about the “right” stakeholders, the contribution provides insights for those “in charge” to strategically consider who might be involved at each stage of the NBS project.

Description: Nature-based solutions (NBS) have recently received attention due to their potential ability to sustainably reduce hydro-meteorological risks, providing co-benefits for both ecosystems and affected people. Therefore, pioneering research has dedicated efforts to optimize the design of NBS, to evaluate their wider co-benefits and to understand promoting and/or hampering governance conditions for the uptake of NBS. In this article, we aim to complement this research by conducting a comprehensive literature review of factors shaping people’s perceptions of NBS as a means to reduce hydro-meteorological risks. Based on 102 studies, we identified six topics shaping the current discussion in this field of research: (1) valuation of the co-benefits (including those related to ecosystems and society); (2) evaluation of risk reduction efficacy; (3) stakeholder participation; (4) socio-economic and location-specific conditions; (5) environmental attitude, and (6) uncertainty. Our analysis reveals that concerned empirical insights are diverse and even contradictory, they vary in the depth of the insights generated and are often not comparable for a lack of a sound theoretical-methodological grounding. We, therefore, propose a conceptual model outlining avenues for future research by indicating potential inter-linkages between constructs underlying perceptions of NBS to hydro-meteorological risks.

Description: Many researchers and politicians believe that the COVID-19 crisis may have opened a “window of opportunity” to spur sustainability transformations. Still, evidence for such a dynamic is currently lacking. Here, we propose the linkage of “big data” and “thick data” methods for monitoring debates on transformation processes by following the COVID-19 discourse on ecological sustainability in Germany. We analysed variations in the topics discussed by applying text mining techniques to a corpus with 84,500 newspaper articles published during the first COVID-19 wave. This allowed us to attain a unique and previously inaccessible “bird’s eye view” of how these topics evolved. To deepen our understanding of prominent frames, a qualitative content analysis was undertaken. Furthermore, we investigated public awareness by analysing online search behaviour. The findings show an underrepresentation of sustainability topics in the German news during the early stages of the crisis. Similarly, public awareness regarding climate change was found to be reduced. Nevertheless, by examining the newspaper data in detail, we found that the pandemic is often seen as a chance for sustainability transformations—but not without a set of challenges. Our mixed-methods approach enabled us to bridge knowledge gaps between qualitative and quantitative research by “thickening” and providing context to data-driven analyses. By monitoring whether or not the current crisis is seen as a chance for sustainability transformations, we provide insights for environmental policy in times of crisis.