# Improving cross-sectoral collaboration towards urban nature-based solutions: insights from a participatory workshop

Kayleigh Hutt-Taylor, Sarah Chamberland-Fontaine, Adrina C Bardekjian, Aalia Khan, Aileen Duncan, Ali Mokdad, Alison Munson, Amie L Black, Ana Morales, Anneke Smit, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Kayleigh Hutt-Taylor, Sarah Chamberland-Fontaine, Adrina C Bardekjian, Aalia Khan, Aileen Duncan, et al.. Improving cross-sectoral collaboration towards urban nature-based solutions: insights from a participatory workshop. Facets, 2025, 10, pp.1 - 17. 10.1139/facets-2025-0035. hal-05529419

HAL Id: hal-05529419

https://hal.science/hal-05529419v1

Submitted on 27 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Improving cross-sectoral collaboration towards urban nature-based solutions: insights from a participatory workshop

Kayleigh Hutt-Taylorª, Sarah Chamberland-Fontaineᵇ, Adrina C. Bardekjianª, Aalia Khanᶜ, Aileen Duncanᵈ, Ali Mokdadᵉ, Alison Munson¹, Amie L. Blackᵇ, Ana Moralesᵇ, Anneke Smit¹, Anne-Marie Cousineau¹, Anthony Danielᵏ, Caroline Magar-Bissonᵏ, Chloe Cull¹, Clint Jacobsm, Cole Delisleⁿ, Dylan Rawlykᵉ, Élise Deschênesᵇ, Elizabeth Girolami, Elizabeth Gowᵇ, Elyssa Cameronᶜ, Emma S. Baconᵇ, Felix Landry¹, Joëlle Roy LeFrançois¹, Jordi Vilanovaᵇ, Krista De Grootᵇ, Marie-Claude Bujoldw, Marina Gosselinⁿ, Maxime Fortin Faubert, Olive Bailey', Paul Savaryᵇ, Rachel Buxton², Riikka Kinnunenaa, Rino Bortolinᵉ, Sarah Munrobb, Scott MacIvor, Shawn Marshalldd, Sivajanani Sivarajah ee, Stephanie A. Princeff, Sue Arndtgg, Ted Cheskeyhh, Virginie Angersii, Barbara Freih, and Carly D. Ziterb

ªTree Canada, 245 Cooper Street, Suite 300, Ottawa, ON K2P 0G2, Canada; ᵇConcordia University, Faculty of Biology, 7141 Sherbrooke Avenue Ouest, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada; ᶜDepartment of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada; ᵈCanadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, 580 Booth Street, Ottawa, ON K1A 0E8, Canada; ᵉUniversity of Windsor, Faculty of Law, 401 Sunset Boulevard, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada; ᶠCentre d'étude de la forêt (CEF), Faculté de Foresterie, Géographie, et Géomatique, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada; ᵃScience and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1V 6T9, Canada; ᵇScience and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, 105 rue McGill, Montreal, QC H2Y 2E7, Canada; ᶠCentre for Cities/Faculty of Law, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada; ᶠMcGill University, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 2111 Lakeshore Road, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9, Canada; ᶠService des grands parcs, du Mont-Royal et des sports, Ville de Montréal, 801 Brennan, Montréal, QC H3C 0G4, Canada; ᶠCBCL, 1505 Barrington St Suite 901, Halifax, NS B3J 2R7, Canada; ᶠIntegrative Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada; ᶠKahnawà:ke Environment Protection Office, Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke, PO Box 720, Kahnawake, QC J0L 1B0; ᵈNature Canada, 300-240 Bank St, Ottawa, ON K2P 1X4, Canada; ᵉGreat Lakes Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Services, Natural Resources Canada, 1219 Queen St E, Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 2E5, Canada; ᵃScience and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, National Wildlife Research Centre, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3, Canada; ᶠScience and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada; Pacific Wildlife Research Centre, 5421 Robertson Rd, Delta, BC V4K 3N2, Canada; ᵃUniversité du Québec à Montréal, Département des sciences biologiques, Chaire de recherche sur la forêt urbaine, 141 avenue du Président-Kennedy, Montréal, QC H2X 1Y4, Canada; ᶠUrban Parks and Ecological Corridors, Parks Canada, 105 rue McGill, Montréal, QC H2Y 2E7, Canada; ᵈService des grands parcs, du Mont-Royal et des sports, Ville de Montréal, 801 Brennan, Montréal, QC, H3C 0G4, Canada; ᵈScience and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Pacific Wildlife Research Centre, 5421 Robertson Rd. RR#1, Delta, BC V4K 3N2, Canada; ᵈService de grands parcs, du Mont-Royal et des sports, Ville de Montréal, 801 Brennan, Montréal, QC H3C 0G4, Canada; ᵈDavid Suzuki Foundation, 50 Saint-Catherine St W, bureau 540, Montreal, QC H2X3V4, Canada; ᵈUrban Parks and Ecological Corridors, Parks Canada, 105 McGill Street, Montreal, QC H2Y 2E7, Canada; ᵈDepartment of Biology and Integrated Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada; ᵈConcordia University, Faculty of Biology, Sherbrooke Avenue Ouest, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada; ᵈRichmond Street West, Studio 119, City Builder's Lab, Toronto, ON M5V 3A8, Canada; ᵈDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Toronto Scarborough, 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, ON M1C 1A4, Canada; ᵈScience and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, 351 blvd Saint-Joseph, Gatineau, QC J8Y 3Z5, Canada; ᵈUniversité Laval, Faculté de Foresterie, Géographie, et Géomatique, Pavillon Abitibi-Price, 2405 rue de la terrasse, Québec, QC, G1V0A6, Canada, Le Centre d'étude de la forêt (CEF), Québec, QC G1V0A6, Canada; ᵈCentre for Surveillance and Applied Research, Public Health Agency of Canada, 785 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1A 0K9, Canada; ᵈRichmond Street West, Studio 119, City Builder's Lab, Toronto, ON, M5V 3A8, Canada; ᵈNature Canada, 240 Bank Street, Suite 300, Ottawa, ON Canada. K2P 1X4; ᵈService de grands parcs, du Mont-Royal et des sports, Ville de Montréal, 801 Brennan, Montréal, QC H3C 0G4, Canada

Corresponding authors: Kayleigh Hutt-Taylor (email: khutttaylor@treecanada.ca), and Barbara Frei (email: barbara.frei@ec.gc.ca)
**Abstract**

Nature-based solutions (NbS) have garnered attention as a vital approach to tackling the complex challenges of biodiversity loss, climate change, and human well-being in urban areas. With growing local and international support for urban NbS, professionals in diverse roles face barriers to cross-sectoral collaboration despite increasingly being asked to integrate complex information to deliver clear and innovative goals. We gathered NbS actors working in government, academia, and nongovernmental organizations for a 2-day workshop to identify (1) existing barriers and (2) leverage points to enhance collaboration within and across sectors. Led by two facilitators, participants engaged in activities designed to enable discussion and co-creation. Through a qualitative thematic analysis, our team identified several common truths experienced across sectors, including the importance of soft skills, lack of time, resources and institutional support, and increased need for Indigenous-led work. We also discuss six broad themes related to sectoral changes: rethinking academic incentives and enduring cultures, building horizontal bridges in government, promoting Indigenous leadership, trust-building in municipal government, NGO leadership roles, and expanding opportunities for knowledge-sharing across all sectors. We outline leverage points and provide recommendations to improve cross-sectoral collaboration for urban NbS.

**Key words:** nature-based solutions, collaborative governance, interdisciplinary, co-creation, collaborative work, co-production

**Introduction**

Communities today are facing the triple challenge of reversing biodiversity loss, mitigating climate change, and supporting human well-being (Baldwin-Cantello et al. 2023). As 55% of the world's population resides in urban areas, which is projected to increase to 70% by 2050 (World Health Organization 2021), cities are at the intersection of coping with the impacts of these crises while simultaneously being responsible for providing solutions. Central to the challenges of biodiversity loss, climate change, and human well-being in cities is the protection and management of green and blue spaces. Nature-based solutions (NbS), defined as strategies that conserve, sustainably manage, and restore ecosystems to benefit both people and biodiversity, have garnered attention as a vital tool in urban green and blue space management that targets ecological and human well-being goals (Seddon et al. 2019, 2020; Castellar et al. 2021). Examples of NbS include tree planting along urban waterways to mitigate soil erosion and flooding, while promoting recreation or installing green roofs to capture stormwater (Hobbie and Grimm 2020). Beyond the myriad of ecological and social benefits of quality urban green spaces (Cilliers 2021; Li and Wang 2021; Pataki et al. 2021), city dwellers also have a growing desire to spend more time in urban green spaces and natural areas (Joffe and Smith 2016), which has contributed to increased local, subnational, and national government greening programs. Notably, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity adopted in 2022 the Global Biodiversity Framework 2030, which has specific targets to increase the area and quality of urban green and blue spaces globally (target 12). Internationally, organizations have adopted plans that support urban biodiversity and greening. Examples in Canada are also on the rise, including programs like the "Greening Communities Fund", "National Urban Parks Program", new Provincial Urban Parks (e.g., Uxbridge Ontario), and the "Municipal Protected Areas Program". As local and international support for NbS work grows, the need to build capacity, maximize resources, and ensure that knowledge-sharing and collaboration also grow to effectively tackle these in-

terdisciplinary and interconnected socio-ecological problems (Parrott 2017).

The inherent strength, and simultaneously the challenge, of nature-based solutions is that they draw together diverse actors and approaches (O'Leary et al. 2024), and nowhere is this more evident than in the implementation of NbS in cities. Planning and implementation of urban NbS are often undertaken through collaborative governance arrangements, yet may be locally led by different actors (e.g., public, private, and community), resulting in sectoral silos (Dorst et al. 2022; Battisti et al. 2024). Urban NbS initiatives are often championed by local governments, whereby municipal actors are at the forefront of planning and implementing specific projects often competing with multiple demands for limited public urban space. However, as in many countries, NbS governance and funding in Canada typically follow a top-down or public-led model. It is common for federal funding to move through NGOs to address community needs. For example, the Partners for Climate Protection program funded by the Government of Canada and Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), supports Canadian municipalities reducing their carbon emissions leveraging NGO partnerships with organizations such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Top-down governance of NbS can be beneficial by streamlining implementation, providing resources and support, and ensuring consistency. For example, top-down interventions (e.g., endorsed urban forest strategies) can contribute to concept mainstreaming, leading to paradigmatic shifts in urban planning and governance (Adams et al. 2024). Streamlining guidance structures through national legislation and policy drivers can facilitate communication and funding access (O'Leary et al. 2024). In addition, public-led governance may help ensure that NbS projects align with broader policy goals and targets, such as climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation.

Yet, a centralized decision-making process for NbS can also lead to broad and vague guidelines. This can complicate local implementation, potentially resulting in projects that are ill-suited to place-based needs or priorities (Battisti et al. 2024),
as well as continue to exclude historically marginalized communities (Tozer et al. 2020; Melandidis and Hagerman 2022; Ziter and Buxton 2025). Urban NbS projects can struggle with a lack of coordination among actors—including limited space for Indigenous governance (Moola et al. 2024; Martin et al. 2025)—often resulting in equity issues in urban NbS implementation (Scott and Tenneti 2024) as well as potential misalignment of ecological and societal goals (Stanley and Galbraith 2024). For top-down governance to be effective and lead to sustainable outcomes, it requires engagement with local communities and other stakeholders and rightsholders. Building collaborative governance structures for NbS requires involving local or grassroot actors at initial stages of the work to cultivate a sense of care and stewardship and building relationships that facilitate frequent engagement (Battisti et al. 2024; O'Leary et al. 2024).

Solutions to the complex and interrelated issues of biodiversity loss, climate change, and climate-related threats to human well-being in cities must be gathered by the wide range of individuals implicated, namely Indigenous Peoples, community groups, all levels of government, and a range of academic and private sector individuals. Although diverse actors have opportunities to communicate across sectors, they often lack structured and routinized mechanisms that support deeper forms of collaboration. Despite a surge in interest and knowledge advancement in urban NbS (Baró and Gómez-Baggethun 2017; Seddon et al. 2020; Castellar et al. 2021; Cheng et al. 2023) and increased calls for collaborative governance (Malekpour et al. 2021), communications, shared projects, and data remain largely siloed within sectors. Yet, NbS professionals (e.g., researchers, practitioners, and educators) are increasingly required to gather complex information, work across disciplines and sectors, prioritize targets, and deliver clear, and innovative goals to end-users. In essence, practitioners and researchers are being called on to produce integrated solutions that speak to the multiple needs of those who manage and restore urban areas. To do this effectively, professionals need to have access to accurate data, build strong partnerships, pull on diverse forms of knowledge, and secure adequate resources. Thus, growing capacities for urban NbS necessitate increased collaboration across sectors to improve knowledge exchanges, encourage relationship-building, and support problem-solving across sectors and expertise. Consequently, urban NbS work could be better supported in practice by bridging the knowledge of key actors to identify gaps in understanding, priorities, and processes governing each sector.

This study aimed to gather NbS actors in government (municipal, federal, and Indigenous), academia (primarily in natural sciences), and nongovernmental organizations to identify (1) the existing barriers to cross-sectoral collaboration and (2) opportunities and leverage points to enhance external collaboration within and across sectors. Knowledge gained through survey responses and workshop sessions will provide the foundation for recommendations and road-mapping towards actionable goals that support cross-sectoral collaboration in urban NbS.

# Methodology

## Workshop conceptualization

A core team of five organizers planned and delivered workshop activities, including a government research scientist (BF), university professor (CDZ), university research associate (KHT), and two externally hired professional facilitators (EYC, KP) with expertise in community organizing and inclusive group dynamics. We undertook a two-step expert elicitation process. First, we distributed a pre-workshop survey on questions related to cross-sectoral collaboration and experienced barriers and opportunities (see Supplemental File 1). We used the results of the survey to inform workshop activities through results discussion with professional facilitators during the workshop design process and by presenting survey summary results directly to participants in advance of facilitated dialogue activities. We also posted survey response quotes anonymously in the workshop common area for participants to passively reflect on between formal sessions. Participants were encouraged to add checkmarks to quotes that resonated with their experiences. The workshop aimed to explore the existing barriers and potential solutions to cross-sectoral collaboration in urban NbS work in Canada. An explicit goal of the workshop was to identify key barriers facing each participating sector (e.g., government, academia, and nongovernmental organizations) as well as their unique capacities to improve collaboration. Ethics approval was granted by Concordia University's Research and Ethics Board (30018529).

## Workshop participants

The 36 participants from 16 organizations in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec represented target actors in each sector. We sought to include participants spanning a range of career stages and targeted axes of diversity across gender and minority groups (e.g., Indigenous representation). Participants also represented various roles within their organizations, including managers, researchers, directors, technicians, coordinators, and executives, to capture various perspectives in NbS work. In our selection of academic participants, we chose to focus on researchers working in the natural sciences since they often lack the structures and support to work across sectors in comparison to social scientists, although some natural science researchers are prioritizing across-sector work when working in applied contexts (DORA 2024; Wickenberg 2024). Workshop participants were concentrated in Ontario and Quebec both to reduce carbon impact and accommodate logistical planning. Moreover, many participants work and collaborate in many different locations across Canada. Due to resource and networking constraints, provincial governments and the private sector were not represented at our workshop; however, we stress the importance of their integration and involvement in NbS collaboration in future knowledge-building exercises.

## Pre-workshop survey

Prior to the workshop, we distributed a bilingual survey (see Supplemental File 1) using a snowball sampling method
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Working definitions for each participating sector in workshop activities.</caption><thead><tr><td>Sector</td><td>Definition</td><td>Number of participants</td><td>Participating organizations</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Academia</td><td>Participants working in higher education establishments, or in organizations for whom the main objective is the pursuit of research.</td><td>10</td><td>Concordia University, University of Toronto, Carleton University, University of Windsor, Université Laval, Université du Québec à Montréal</td></tr><tr><td>Government</td><td>Participants working in First Nations, municipal, provincial, or federal government service or agencies.</td><td>20</td><td>Environment and Climate Change Canada, Parks Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Services des grands parcs du Mont-Royal, et des sports de la Ville de Montréal, Kahnawà:ke Environment Protection Office of the Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke</td></tr><tr><td>Nongovernmental organization</td><td>Participants working for nongovernmental organizations, in advocacy, knowledge translation, mobilization, community organizing, and/or social change.</td><td>6</td><td>Tree Canada, Nature Canada, David Suzuki Foundation, Park People</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Survey participants responses to (A) ranking the barriers to cross-sectoral collaboration by level of importance and (B) ranking the factors that enabled cross-sectoral collaboration.</figcaption></figure>

to gather responses from individuals (170 initial contacts) working in urban NbS in academia, government, and non-governmental organizations (Goodman 1961; Parker et al. 2019). KHT developed a survey with consideration of online surveys as tools for qualitative research (Braun et al. 2021). Two additional members of the core research team (BF, CDZ) provided feedback on survey questions for revision after which the survey professional members of Concordia University's Human Research Ethics committee provided feedback on initial survey questions. The survey was developed to target key descriptors (sector identification, geographic location, time in position, etc.), and professional experiences (positive and negative) related to cross-sector collaboration. The final survey was approved by the ethics committee of Concordia University (see Supplemental File 1). Participants were asked to self-identify their work sector and answer a series of questions related to their experiences in collaborative work. Self-identified sectors reflected participants' current positions; however, many participants also had experience working for different sectors in their previous roles. We chose to define sectors with a primary focus on work mandate and organization type rather than position titles (see Table 1). We acknowledge that multiple definitions could align with one individual. For example, a researcher working for the Federal Government may self-identify with academic and govern-

ment sectors. Respondents chose a single sector according to their expertise. We then asked respondents to identify (1) key barriers and solutions to cross-sectoral work based on their professional experiences, (2) provide at least one successful cross-sector project sample, and (3) rank potential solutions to existing barriers based on resources and feasibility. For example, survey respondents ranked the feasibility of their proposed solutions on a scale of 1–5, where one was complex and costly and five was simple and affordable. We received a total of 68 responses, which were used to facilitate workshop activities and discussion (Fig. 1).

## Workshop participation

In early November 2023, participants gathered to take part in a bilingual workshop through facilitated discussions about cross-sectoral collaboration in NbS. The workshop was opened by Mohawk Elder and Faith-Keeper Otsitsaken:ra from the nearby Kanien'keha:ka community of Kahnawá:ke and closed by a member of the Kahnawá:ke community taking part in the workshop. Otsitsaken:ra acknowledged the importance of centering gratitude, humility, and care in our communications throughout workshop activities. Two professional facilitators facilitated all workshop sessions and structured dialogue as needed. Facilitators specifically structured activities and discussions to promote understanding
**Box 1.** Approach to workshop activities and facilitation

The workshop focused on active participation and movement with a mix of one-on-one and group activities. We chose to integrate creative exercises that go beyond group discussions to foster a dynamic environment that incorporated body movement, one-on-one discussion, and chosen participation rather than stagnant exchanges.

For example, the “Fishbowl Exercise” had participants separate into smaller groups. In each room, a set of four chairs were placed in a circle in the middle of the room. The remaining chairs are placed around the center. Participants in the four chairs of the “inner circle” were given a prompt to begin discussion. Only participants in the “inner circle” provided input to the discussion, while the surrounding participants took on a listening role. When a participant finished their thought, they moved to the exterior chairs so to facilitate someone new entering the “inner circle” for continuous discussion.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

of each other’s experiences, including opening the work-
shop with a discussion of ground rules to guide participants
away from debate, towards open dialogue with one another.
Facilitators pulled on concepts of “Theory U”, a facilitation
design that emphasizes a “u-shaped” journey towards new
possibilities. The framework focuses on listening, observing,
sensing, crystalizing, and prototyping towards practical solu-
tions (Scharmer 2018). Facilitators also pulled on knowledge
from Deep Democracy, Open Systems Theory, and World Café
methodologies (Löhr et al. 2020; Wilson 2008). The workshop
was held over two full days and involved various sessions with
activities specific to facilitating dialogue, including fishbowl
exercise, dynamic shuffle, a “listening session” with virtual
invited speakers, and prototyping sessions (see Box I and Sup-
plemental File 1). Three invited speakers from local place-
based NGOs across Canada were asked to bring in “on the
ground” experiences working across sectors in collaborative
projects and highlight key leverage points, or barriers to their
work—through a series of 15 min presentations. Selected
workshop participants also delivered 3 min “speed” talks fo-
cusing on a high-level overview of their work and examples
of their cross-sector initiatives. Subsequent group sessions
explored questions related to barriers, sectoral differences,
solutions, capacities, and needs for change in more depth
through facilitated activities. Participants were asked to dis-
cuss, respond, and brainstorm questions or prompts for a cer-
tain time-period for each topic. Results of individual work-
ing groups were presented when applicable after sessions to
encourage and deepen understanding across groups. A mini-
mum of two notetakers were assigned to each workshop ac-
tivity or breakout session. Notetakers were asked to capture
dialogue amongst participants with as much detail as possi-

ble (names and sectors where possible). After workshop activ-
ities concluded, notetakers were asked to clean their notes
and provide themes emerging from each activity based on
their notes. Some other workshop materials were collected
by notetakers, including brainstorming poster pads and in-
dividual notepads from prototyping activities. Most authors
of this article were participants at the cross-sectoral work-
shop. We acknowledge that since members of our team par-
ticipated in workshop activities, their reflections and interac-
tions about the contexts they work and develop research in
are integrated in workshop data making. To encourage objec-
tivity, we assigned data coding to two team members who did
not formally participate in workshop activities. Further, our
team kept focus on self-reflexivity and transparency through-
out analysis by actively auditing our perspectives (ideals, be-
liefs), background, and pre-existing knowledge to identify
and reduce bias (Tracy 2010; Richards and Morse 2013).

Thematic analysis

Two team members (KHT and SCF) conducted qualitative thematic analyses on two datasets: pre-workshop survey responses and workshop activities. Pre-workshop survey responses were converted into summary spreadsheets including all participant responses. Workshop activity notes were compiled from notetakers (in digitized format). If there was more than one notetaker in a session, both sets of notes were included in thematic analysis, and redundancies were removed. We conducted an inductive thematic analysis as a method to identify, analyze, and report patterns (or themes) within our datasets (Braun and Victoria 2006). Using the thematic coding software Atlas. TI, KHT, and SCF performed a detailed reading of all dataset materials and identified a set
<table><caption>Fig. 2. Levels of collaboration in NbS (from Malekpour et al. 2021). NbS, nature-based solutions.</caption><thead><tr><th>Level of Collaboration</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Level 1: Coordination</td><td>Individuals and organisations acting independently with limited engagement as needed</td></tr><tr><td>Level 2: Informal Connections</td><td>Informal collaborations are formed between individuals across stakeholder groups</td></tr><tr><td>Level 3: Coordinated Forums</td><td>Individuals and/or organisations establish coordinated forums for knowledge sharing</td></tr><tr><td>Level 4: Temporary Structures</td><td>Dedicated temporary structures are established with resource sharing on an ad hoc basis</td></tr><tr><td>Level 5: Ongoing Structures</td><td>Formal ongoing collaborative structures are established and embedded in practice</td></tr></tbody></table>

of codes for each dataset. We used this initial round of coding as a basis for identifying recurrent themes. Once recurrent themes were identified, we re-engaged workshop participants via email to provide them with detailed methodology, and preliminary data analysis summaries (e.g., tables) and discussion for feedback. Co-authors (participants) provided written comments and feedback to validate that the thematic analysis captured the general themes and outcomes of workshop activities and maintain a dialogue with the research team (Slettebø 2021; Lindheim 2022). Specifically, participants were asked whether results accurately captured workshop experiences, if specific themes did not resonate with their experiences, and to correct any inaccuracies in the data and interpretation. This feedback was solicited through written feedback shared electronically to validate our findings. Thematic coding was finalized upon validation from participants. Co-authors were also re-engaged in writing at each step of the peer review process to ensure that their perspectives and viewpoints were represented in the final work.

## Results

Using workshop and pre-survey data, our team identified the barriers and solutions to cross-sectoral collaboration, which were grouped by sector: (1) government (including municipal, federal, and Indigenous), (2) academia, and (3) non-governmental organization. We also coded for Indigenous perspectives as its importance in NbS conversations has been identified in previous work (Reed et al. 2024), and “common truths”, which represented barriers or changes that spanned all sectors. The themes gathered reflected a wide range of tangible and intangible barriers, including institutional restrictions, lack of time and resources, position mandates, necessary soft skills (e.g., communication, teamwork, and leadership), and a lack of incentives to collaborate (e.g., organizational mandates, value in the workplace, agenda, and timeline mismatches). Pre-workshop survey responses confirmed that a lack of time and resources is a critical barrier to collaboration

(Fig. 1), as well as collaboration not being recognized in job mandates and a lack of funding. Cross-sectoral collaboration initiation was most often a result of directly engaging with a partner or driven by a funding opportunity (Fig. 1). Respondents ranked success markers of collaboration (in order of importance) as (1) on-the ground implementation, (2) community engagement, (3) network expansion, (4) policy impact, (5) published output, (6) future financing prospects, followed by (7) media attention and recognition (see Supplemental File 1, Fig. S1). Finally, we identified specific leverage points for each sector, which describe the key changes necessary in moving forward to address barriers and capitalize on capacities (Figs. 2 and 3).

## Government

The key barriers identified for collaboration in government were related to administrative, regulatory, and procedural barriers that slow the pace and momentum of collaborative work. Participants described the additional processes and steps required to push projects forward (e.g., approvals, forms), which makes working with small contractors and collaborators outside of government difficult, as small contractors (e.g., NGOs, nonprofits) often lack the capacity to move ahead with collaborative work while awaiting funding and long approval timelines.

"[A major barrier is] bureaucracy of working within the federal government. Everything is harder with all the forms and processes. Small contractors don't want to work with us [because] it can take months to get them paid..." [Survey response, Government]

Participants also acknowledged a lack of flexibility that arises due to top-down engagement from policy mandates and managerial hierarchies. One participant highlighted their experienced difficulties with government bureaucracy related to lengthy approval systems and the hierarchical structures needed to support projects. These processes are intended to enhance transparency and accountability in the use of public funds but may inadvertently lead to negative perceptions and interpretations of their efficiency, trust (as
**Fig. 3.** Survey and workshop themes related to barriers for cross-sectoral collaboration in nature-based solutions (NbS) across three sectors (government, academia, nongovernmental organizations). N represents the number of times a theme appeared in the survey and workshop transcripts.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

seen in the quote below), or engagement in moving projects forward. For example, existing government policy mandates determine where resources are allocated, and which projects take priority. This leads to existing legislative, regulatory, and program commitments that limit capacity to engage in new activities in a timely manner, particularly when they are multi-sectoral. Compounded with tightened budgets, reduced staff support, and increasing demands on managers and executives (reporting, core activities), the time needed to invest in these projects is constrained. Consequently, projects struggle to get off the ground or lose momentum at critical stages to enable completion. This lack of flexibility also extended to government collaborations being limited by political climates.

> "...To take an idea through to actual action can take years due to government bureaucracy. Upper managers and executives don't trust middle managers to sign off on projects/funding..." [Survey response, Government]

In general, participants representing the Federal government speculated that collaborative projects in green infrastructure and NbS may be lower priority across the whole of government when compared to competing pressures for Canada's largest lobbied industries (e.g., healthcare, oil and gas, and banking) or, in the case of municipal-level govern-

ment, competing with land-use planning (residential and economic development), which forces funding towards other priorities. These financial pressures and changing political climates are a reality in governments that often take priority over NbS work which may take a longer time horizon to realize results and thus may be considered a less urgent need. Compounded by the fact that cross-sectoral collaboration requires additional funding, time, and effort on the part of the government, the possibility for well-funded projects is weakened.

## Academia

The academic sector identified the greatest abundance of barriers to cross-sectoral collaboration in comparison to other sectors. The main barriers identified for the academic sector followed three main themes: lack of recognition and valuation for external collaborative work, funding constraints, and a generally low public appetite for science. Lack of value or recognition for external collaboration in the natural sciences was the most recognized barrier in academia. Numerous participants perceived that despite shifts towards supporting interdisciplinary work in science, there is still a lasting academic culture that collaborative projects, especially those that involve nonacademic partners, are viewed as "not real science" (Broder et al. 2024).
"[I was] told that since [my] research was cross-disciplinary it would not be published in "Science". Do we really want to open doors if big journals are still biased in this way? The ones that do accept that, their impact factor is low and so it makes it harder to get tenure when trying to do this." [Workshop Day 1, Fishbowl exercise room 2, Academic]

Some participants even noted a rejection of working with humanities and Indigenous partners amongst their peers, because it “does not have a place in science”. These cultural constraints stretch even further when scientists seek journal venues for their work. Interdisciplinary journals often do not have as high impact factors and can take more time to publish in, versus their disciplinary counterparts; meaning academics are discouraged from taking on cross-sectoral research projects if they are looking to publish in traditionally prestigious journals recognized by their peers. For example, reviewers ask more questions on interdisciplinary research submissions and more generally researchers’ publications decrease when working on interdisciplinary research (Leahey et al. 2017; Zhang and Wang 2024).

Academics also identified a lack of adequate funding opportunities and recognition for collaborative projects. In Canada, large funding agencies are divided amongst the Natural, Social, and Health Sciences (i.e., the Tri Council: NSERC, SSHRC, and CIHR). Generally, academics felt there are fewer venues, specifically in the natural sciences, for cross-sectoral or interdisciplinary projects. With restricted access to funding opportunities, there are fewer chances for projects to get off the ground. Academics also expressed the need for diversified incentives and value for cross-sectoral collaboration within academic institutions and culture. For example, one participant stated:

"It would be nice if time spent on relationship-building with partners could be counted to the same degree that time spent within the scientific community is..." [Survey response, Academic]

Academics, specifically in government, also identified barriers related to the competing value of science and scientific research with other demands for policy and change. Decisions on policy and programming are often made in the context of meeting multiple objectives and may be made by executives that are not familiar with the scientific method and complexities of interpreting results. Rather, they felt that the public and government may respond more readily to media or human reaction and backlash, which encourages reactionary rather than proactive decisions and weakens the need for scientific inquiry.

## Nongovernmental organizations

Similar to academia, nongovernmental organizations identified challenges related to securing adequate resources as a key barrier to collaboration. NGOs also identified barriers related to opportunities to connect with other sectors (e.g., government, academia) and solidifying commitments from other sectors for partnerships. Generally, NGO participants felt less professionally connected to other sectors because they lacked opportunities to meet and exchange with other sectors at conferences, workshops, informal meetings, or through digital platforms. A lack of opportunities and venues

to exchange means NGOs have little information about what projects are ongoing, where specific expertise lies, and more generally whom to contact.

"Workshops are also a way of meeting other people that we would be unlikely to meet because of the limitations we have in our own lines of work..." [Workshop Day 1, Fishbowl exercise (Room 2), Non-Governmental Organization]

NGOs also noted that funding instabilities (availability and longevity) increase employee turnover and negatively affect team continuity and project stability. This is compounded by difficulties in encouraging other sectors (government and academia) to commit their involvement in all stages of collaborative projects. Furthermore, NGOs are forced to juggle advocating for their mandate and goals while also negotiating with collaborators to join projects, who may have diverging agendas or timelines. This can create barriers to finding the right collaborators within the right time frame. Finally, NGO participants also acknowledged the mismatched timelines of academia with NGO timelines particularly. For example, academic work requires longer timelines for data collection, synthesis, and eventual publication, which does not align well with the pace of work in other sectors, particularly NGOs who follow budgetary time constraints and prioritize outputs that reach their audiences in a prompt and accessible manner. Participants felt this prevents the initiation of projects with academia or stalls progress on ongoing projects.

## Common truths

Across sectors, participants identified themes we classified as “common truths” because these are documented realities of collaborative work efforts that transcend sectors. We identified four common truth themes: (1) the importance of “soft” skills, (2) lack of time and resources, (3) lack of institutional support, and (4) increased need for Indigenous-led work, and the trust and time needed to do so. Workshop participants unanimously agreed that collaborative work requires a toolkit of soft skills, notably effective communication, courage, patience, and openness. Beyond strong soft skills, our participants also agreed that effective collaborative work requires more time, effort, and resources than non-collaborative projects and sometimes even extends beyond their capacities. Currently, collaborative and noncollaborative projects are treated similarly by funding agencies with regards to budget and timelines, which leads to collaborative projects having insufficient time to build relationships and to find common language and goals amongst partners, which are key to successful outcomes.

"Fear of getting involved in cross-sectoral work due to the amount of effort it takes or the potential of letting collaborators down" [Workshop Day 1, Dynamic shuffle, Unknown]

The need for more Indigenous-led projects, where Indigenous partners are project leads rather than consulted rights holders or collaborators, was another identified need across sectors (Fig. 2). Participants agreed there is a strong need and desire amongst involved sectors to bring noncolonial values into projects and shift away from the default of western science. Participants felt this could be achieved by center-
ing projects on listening to Indigenous Knowledge, ensuring projects are led by Indigenous communities, and restoring trust from historically transactional and extractive relationships. Some participants also identified the need for adapted modes of governance and tools for working with Indigenous communities, for example, storytelling, and case studies of successful projects.

> "As an Indigenous community, [we] want to be equal partners and need to set a model for working with Indigenous communities. Communities should be let the power to make decisions." [Workshop day 1, Fishbowl exercise (Room 1), First Nations Government]

## Discussion

The many perspectives gathered through our research have highlighted the diverse sectoral needs and capacities required for continued momentum towards improved cross-sectoral collaboration in urban NbS. Below, we discuss six broad themes resulting from our research and identify the needs, leverage points, and recommendations to address the existing barriers to successful cross-sectoral collaboration. While these emerging lessons were discussed by actors working in the urban sector, many lessons apply beyond urban contexts and speak broadly to cross-sectoral collaboration in science.

## Rethinking academic incentives, funding mechanisms, and enduring cultures to better support cross-sectoral collaborations

In our research, academic participants revealed a significant interest in developing partnerships beyond academia to tackle urban NbS challenges. Academics have a high potential to build long-standing relationships and collaborations with other sectors, especially given their propensity to stay in their positions for the length of their careers. They also mentor students and early career researchers, providing additional capacity, ongoing interest, and energy to the collaborative process. However, effective cross-sectoral collaborations require a departure from the paradigm of academics as the main knowledge producers and holders (Alonso-Yanez et al. 2019), especially in a dynamic setting such as cities. In practice, NbS knowledge is co-produced by many partners, including academics, NGOs, Indigenous Knowledge holders, various levels of government, and local communities (McPhearson et al. 2016; Frantzeskaki 2019; Malekpour et al. 2021). Collaborations with academics and universities are known to drive urban sustainability initiatives by co-designing and co-producing innovative solutions, fostering partnerships to enable transformative change, and facilitating the transfer of sustainability knowledge across cities (Trencher et al. 2013, 2014; Withycombe Keeler et al. 2018).

However, our findings indicate that some academics working on urban NbS feel that collaboration is not adequately valued or incentivized by their institutions (Fig. 2). For instance, institutions place emphasis on publications as the primary metric of academic success, and do not sufficiently recognize the time and difficulties inherent to building strong partnerships (Schuitema and D. Sintov 2017; Lanterman and Blithe

2019; Bell and Lewis 2023; Broder et al. 2024). Institutional hurdles also complicate and undervalue science communication efforts, which are central to reaching out to partners outside of academia (Broder et al. 2024). This may be particularly strongly felt by academics working on urban NbS within more traditional disciplinary departments (e.g., biology, ecology, and evolution), where working in urban contexts is already seen as somewhat of a “new” field or departure from disciplinary norms. Because of this, indirectly constrain individual academics when they engage in cross-sectoral collaboration, which hinders their interest and availability to collaborate (Schuitema and D. Sintov 2017; Bell and Lewis 2023). Academics participating in our workshop reported engaging with other sectors outside of their usual activities by extending work hours, increasing their workload (also true of other participating sectors), and reducing opportunities for publication. Our research highlights the need for rethinking academic structures and incentives in a way that recognizes the value of cross-sectoral collaboration, engagement with civil society, and knowledge co-production; for example, by better implementing frameworks such as the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) (DORA 2024). Without this cultural shift among academics to reward slow and careful partnership-building as a valid and valuable part of the research process, academia could remain a “weak link” in the chain of collaboration across sectors. This shift will likely need action beyond individual academics, but rather their championing and recognition by academic institutions and upper management. Fortunately, the work here has already begun, and clear guidance exists that academics can use in advocating for institutional reform, including best practices for re-defining systems of tenure and promotion, fostering engaged leadership and training, and promoting action-oriented scholarship (Keeler and Locke 2022).

Beyond the need for tangible supports and incentives that support cross-sectoral collaboration in academia, it was evident that enduring dominant perspectives and views of scientific inquiry continue to act as intangible barriers to collaboration. Despite many recent strides in widening views of science to better serve society and the planet (Keeler et al. 2017), acknowledging the value of science beyond academia (Kharouba 2024), and strengthening diverse values and voices (Tallis and Lubchenco 2014), the enduring beliefs of “good” and “bad” science still permeate academic circles. Many workshop participants expressed that they still receive criticism and negative feedback from their superiors and peers when pursuing interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral, or applied research, further perpetuating intangible barriers in spite of recent and ongoing system changes. Although there are growing examples of interdisciplinary departments, working groups, and research networks, it seems widespread cultures in academia have not kept pace with these systemic changes. Power dynamics may also feed into these cultures when senior academics share these sentiments with early career researchers. Recognizing and naming these enduring cultures can help shift towards the systemic changes that reduce enduring biases towards more collaborative and interdisciplinary research in the natural sciences.
Funding agencies are also responsible for shaping incentives for cross-sectoral collaboration. Targeted funding programs have allowed academics to successfully co-create knowledge, particularly at the urban scale, by collaborating with various levels of government and NGOs (Trencher et al. 2014; Keeler et al. 2017; Withycombe Keeler et al. 2018) (Fig. 2). While partnership grants are increasingly available (e.g., Canadian examples include NSERC Alliance, MI-TACS, CIHR Planning and Dissemination Grants for Healthy Cities), funding that supports the early stages of partnership can be particularly challenging to obtain in the natural sciences. For example, while SSHRC (the Canadian research funding agency for social sciences and humanities) offers three levels of partnership grants (engage, development, and partnership) that specifically support relationship building, mutual cooperation, and shared intellectual leadership, there is no equivalent offered via NSERC (natural sciences). Partnership-building can be perceived as outside the scope of natural sciences; for example, our workshop on urban NbS underlying this paper was determined by program advisors as an inappropriate use of NSERC partnership funds. As a result, academics often have limited financial support to develop nonacademic collaborations, particularly with partners who do not have substantial funds of their own to contribute, which is common among smaller community-based organizations prevalent in the urban sector. This is aligned with the survey result that the beginning stage of the project process was deemed as the time that most barriers to cross-sectoral collaboration occur. In 2024, the Canadian Government announced a new Budget item creating a capstone research funding organization to foster diverse, cross-disciplinary perspectives, and collaborative, mission-driven research (Government of Canada 2024). If such new organizations promote collaboration without prioritizing scientific publications as the primary indicator of success, it could mark a potential step toward institutional change.

## Building horizontal bridges in federal government and valuing holistic impacts

In the governmental sector, participants repeatedly reported difficulties operating within government silos and mandates, mentioning rigid decision-making structures, and a lack of flexible approaches to collaboration. Many studies have described the organization of government at all levels (municipal, provincial, and federal) as “vertical silos”, structured to collaborate efficiently only within internal departments (Crawford Urban 2018; Deslatte and Stokan 2020; Scott and Gong 2021). The challenge is that cross-cutting “wicked” problems, such as designing and managing NbS, require horizontal collaboration due to their interdisciplinary, multiactor, and complex nature (Scott and Gong 2021). This is true both internally for a whole-of-government approach, and externally when collaborative mandates require engaging with noncivic actors (Crawford Urban 2018). When prompted for solutions, our study participants mentioned the need for champions to build bridges with other organizations, particularly at Federal scales. This can take the form of individuals with honed communication skills to develop good work-

ing relationships with new actors; a “circuit breaker” willing to clear away institutional obstacles; or a dedicated resource within government, such as a Center of Expertise designed to facilitate exchanges and share best practices (Crawford Urban 2018). An example of such efforts is a large “Unconference” on building an Interdisciplinary Urban Research Mobilization Network, recently hosted by Environment and Climate Change Canada. The network aims to connect diverse groups and sectors to support research mobilization and drive action at the local scale (Government of Canada 2024). Building and maintaining relationships is crucial, especially in environments (such as public service) where people frequently change roles, so long-term bridge-builders are especially needed.

However, some authors argue that the problem lies not in the silos themselves but in the lack of effective coordination mechanisms between them (Scott and Gong 2021). Correspondingly, government departments should consider incentivizing horizontal coordination, such as embedding them in performance agreements and aligning departmental responsibilities with broader government priorities. Canada's landmark 2020 investments in NbS through the Natural Climate Solution Fund—a portion of which is earmarked for urban tree planting and supporting urban forest plans—were constructed as a horizontal initiative through multiple government departments. As such, there is an opportunity to explore synergies of mandates across departments and learn from scales of government excelling in collaborative work. For example, various large Canadian municipalities already have collaboration across sectors or expertise embedded in their mandate, particularly in urban contexts. Because of the need for experimentation, departments should provide flexible environments for employees to explore horizontal coordination and out-of-the box avenues for collaboration with other sectors and local communities within structures primarily designed for vertical coordination.

## Trust-building and inclusivity within municipal government

Municipal governments are the primary actors responsible for developing and implementing urban NbS because they have jurisdiction over municipal lands. Their responsibility over urban NbS positions them to benefit significantly from cross-sectoral collaborations on NbS. This can address capacity constraints within municipal government and strengthen public support, ultimately helping to overcome political barriers to NbS implementation (Doucet et al. 2024). Municipalities increasingly rely on partnerships with NGOs, which improves municipalities' capacity to deliver NbS effectively and enhance transparency in decision-making processes (Doucet et al. 2024). For example, programs like “Un arbre pour mon quartier/A tree for my neighborhood”, a collaboration between the City of Montreal and Soverdi (a local environmental NGO), have helped build capacity for urban tree planting at local scales. These partnerships are associated with improved public trust and buy-in because of the increased transparency and capacity to address the community's needs (Ordóñez et al. 2020). To improve collaborations with NGOs,
municipal governments should consider investing in trust and relationship-building with community members as early as possible during the collaboration to ensure a shared understanding of the purpose, problems to be addressed, and potential solutions (Malekpour et al. 2017; Ugolini et al. 2015).

Furthermore, municipal governments often develop cross-sectoral collaborations with academic institutions to bridge the science-policy gap. Academic partners can help develop and provide evidence-based insights on NbS, urban ecology, and sustainability (Withycombe Keeler et al. 2018). Academics have a high capacity for research, particularly via graduate student training, and students in turn benefit strongly from on-the-ground experience offered by collaboration with municipalities. Effective NbS rely on knowledge transfer, for which municipalities have often acted as facilitators (Ugolini et al. 2015). Through targeted collaboration with academic knowledge-holders, municipalities can more effectively address knowledge gaps arising from complex urban issues.

NbS are also fundamentally built on the trust between the city and its residents. Cities need to collaborate with their residents, support local initiatives, and develop participatory mechanisms beyond traditional consultations to implement NbS (Frantzeskaki 2019). Open governance models based on active citizenship can enable cities to implement and upscale local greening solutions and offer residents avenues for urban transformations (Buijs et al. 2019). An important step towards this transformation would be for cities to support spaces of NbS experimentation led by residents and strengthen their ties with these groups to learn and replicate solutions (Frantzeskaki 2019). This approach relies on open, inclusive, and flexible approaches to collaboration to include diverse populations in NbS implementation.

## Examining the role of ngos in cross-sectoral leadership and NbS service delivery

In recent decades, governments have increasingly relied on partnerships with NGOs to address institutional limitations and deliver public services at various local, regional, and national levels. These collaborative arrangements have, in turn, enabled NGOs to collaborate with a wide range of other nongovernment, and nontraditional partners to expand their audiences and inform programming (Nordin et al. 2024; Doucet et al. 2024). In Canada, for example, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has partnered with Tree Canada, a national environmental NGO, for the Growing Canada's Community Canopies program (GCCC), which leverages federal funding from the Natural Climate Solution Fund to support community greening, innovation, and stewardship initiatives in Canadian cities.

Our research suggests that while NGOs successfully implement urban NbS and collaborate with a wide range of partners, they struggle to secure adequate and consistent financing. Financial barriers are known to constrain NGOs' activities in NbS and place uncertainty on their ability to deliver future services (Doucet et al. 2024). NGOs are also sometimes limited by restricted funds by sponsors or donors for specific programs or projects. Some organizations, like Tree Canada,

are integrating unrestricted funding models to allocate funds where they are most needed to serve organizational mission goals and communities, irrespective of their origin.

In knowledge gathering, NGOs also employ a “what works” approach, often prioritizing evidence-based success on professional experiences. Since NGOs do not always have in-house expertise to design and conduct scientific studies—or a mandate to conduct primary research—more regularly partnering with academics can both encourage applied outcomes from researchers and support robust scientific results for the practicing community. There has also been a shift towards more intentionally engaging nontraditional or unconventional partners within NGO networks to diversify their capacities and revenue streams. For example, some environmental NGOs are partnering with public health or faith-based organizations. Moving forward, increasing these types of collaborations is critical for success.

## Promoting Indigenous leadership and bridging, braiding, and weaving Indigenous knowledge into NbS

This research adds to the call for greater institutional support and decision-making space for Indigenous leadership and Indigenous Knowledge for land caretaking in urban contexts (Moola et al. 2024; Martin et al. 2025). Indigenous Peoples have been caring for the land since time immemorial, guided by knowledge deeply rooted in local context (Townsend et al. 2020; Vogel et al. 2022). In fact, in most Indigenous languages there is no direct translation for “nature”, with land, water, and identity being inseparable (Reed et al. 2024). Today, the majority of Indigenous Peoples live in urban areas, and while support for NbS and the recognition of the long-standing role of Indigenous Peoples in advancing conservation solutions have similarly grown in recent years, their intersection has been a lot slower to advance (Statistics Canada 2021; Reed et al. 2024). Given the harmful history of colonial approaches to conservation in Canada, there have been important criticisms as to the impact on, and vulnerability of, NbS implementation on Indigenous Peoples (Moola et al. 2024). For example, conventional protected areas still restrict Indigenous governance to stakeholder or advisory roles, and many Indigenous land practices such as cultural burning have been criminalized, which inhibits Indigenous People's right to engage in stewardship activities (Moola et al. 2024). While NbS cannot be separated from its legacy of colonization and capitalism (Deranger et al. 2022), we can work to center decolonization as an interpretive framework of NbS, placing Indigenous Peoples as leaders and right holders for directing and producing NbS (Reed et al. 2024). Growing Indigenous leadership, and bridging, braiding, and weaving Indigenous and Western sciences are critical components for the success of NbS, including those in urban areas.

Recently, programs have been created to support Indigenous NbS in Canada, such as the Indigenous-Led Area-Based Conservation (ILABC), the Indigenous Guardians program, and Indigenous-led Natural Climate Solutions (co-designed, co-developed and co-delivered by the First Nations National Guardians Network and ECCC). Yet, apart from emerging
work in the National Urban Parks Program, which explores Indigenous-led land stewardship and co-governance models, urban NbS work still prioritizes traditional western science models and lacks Indigenous-led projects in urban contexts. This is despite the fact that Canadian urban areas directly coincide with territories under Indigenous jurisdictions (Moola et al. 2024) and that the majority of Indigenous Peoples in Canada live in urban areas (Statistics Canada 2021). We identified the need to support and elevate Indigenous-led urban NbS projects as a common truth, as workshop participants demonstrated interest in incorporating Indigenous Knowledge and science in building urban NbS. Workshop participants also note concern with the potential of partnerships exhibiting a transactional dynamic. Building meaningful, respectful, Indigenous-centered relationships could be reinforced by elevating Indigenous representations across institutions, including culturally rich communication tools such as storytelling, and learning from successful collaborative projects.

Recent work highlights the potential for new urban conservation governance grounded in Indigenous Knowledge, science, and biocultural priorities (Menzies et al. 2024; Moola et al. 2024). Existing government programs such as IALBC, the Indigenous Guardians program, and the National Urban Parks program all have the potential to support Indigenous-led governance of urban NbS but are still lacking certain mechanisms and pathways to do so (Moola et al. 2024). The validity of NbS can also be improved by valuing diverse knowledge systems, especially those held by Indigenous communities. This approach, termed epistemic inclusivity (Frantzeskaki et al. 2023), recognizes the importance of fostering diverse knowledge systems and can be applied to the planning, design, and management of NbS. Indigenous-led NbS are critical to the healing and improved well-being of the majority of the Indigenous Peoples in Canada currently residing in cities (Wendt and Gone 2012; Finegan 2021; Moola et al. 2024; Reid et al. 2024). As such, it is clear there is a need to create a space, both physical and within NbS governance, in urban areas for Indigenous Peoples to design, lead, and implement NbS based on their ways of knowing, doing, and being (Reed et al. 2024).

## Expanded opportunities for collaboration and knowledge-sharing across all sectors

All participating sectors agreed on the need to develop deeper forms of cross-sectoral collaboration for urban NBS. In a framework proposed by Malekpour et al. (2021), cross-sectoral collaboration in NbS spans five escalating levels: coordination, informal connections, coordinated forums, temporary structures, and ongoing structures (see Fig. 4). While workshop participants identified opportunities for collaboration at levels one and two, they identified a need for more coordinated forums to facilitate knowledge sharing on urban NBS across sectors, online forums for data exchange, as well as ongoing structures to align mandates through regular interactions.

In addition to increased opportunities to collaborate, participants from all sectors were interested in improving

information-sharing mechanisms, for instance, by developing a public platform for tracking ongoing projects and associated staff. This platform is especially relevant to navigate the NbS field at a time when local initiatives in Canada are increasing rapidly, which poses a challenge to practitioners to stay informed and avoid project duplication.

Workshop participants also voiced the need for a central coordinating actor to facilitate NbS collaborations across Canada. Provincial and federal governments are often identified as the logical candidates to become NbS central coordinating actors because of the scale at which they operate. However, a Canadian study on urban forest governance success factors reported that federal and provincial government involvement and participation in NbS were limited, with reservations from participating experts on expanding their role (Wirtz et al. 2021). Albeit, in recent years, the Canadian federal government has made significant advances in their NbS involvement, including the Natural Climate Solutions Fund, efforts in mapping urban canopy cover and carbon, and the initiation of an Interdisciplinary Urban Research Mobilization Network in 2024. Nonetheless, NGOs may be better positioned to assume a coordinating function. A recent study on this topic found that the inclusion of NGOs in municipal forest management is associated with positive outcomes such as good relationship dynamics, individual personnel satisfaction, and community support (Doucet et al. 2024). A similar impact could reasonably be had at the national level by appointing an NGO as the central coordinating actor.

## Lessons learned

Looking ahead, future knowledge-building organizers may learn from our experiences by reflecting on several lessons learned. Although the government sector encompassed the majority of workshop participants, our team noted that academics dominated discussions and conversations across all workshop activities. Academics are regularly expected to discuss their research and ideas with their peers or with individuals who disagree with their point of view. Academics also experience a unique liberty of speech, given their academic freedom and tenure processes that may encourage them to provide their input more candidly compared to other sectors. Additionally, academics' professional profiles are based on their individual contributions and autonomy—for example, despite working in a faculty within a university institution, their opinions and perspectives are recognized as their own. Whereas, in many other disciplines or sectors, individuals are often considered representatives of the organization for which they work and approach challenges historically for the various perspectives that they represent. As such, speaking “on behalf” of an organization as a whole is different from expressing an opinion. Thus, there is more of an emphasis to distinguish expert opinion guided by research or science versus an official organizational stance. Similarly, government participants in managerial roles who may not consider themselves “subject experts” could have employed a listen-and-learn approach, rather than an advocating role. This culture may have contributed to aca-
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Survey and workshop themes related to capacities and leverage points for cross-sectoral collaboration in nature-based solutions (NbS) across three sectors (government, academia, nongovernmental organizations). N represents the number of times a theme appeared in the survey and workshop transcripts.</figcaption></figure>

demic voices occupying large parts of discussion compared to other sectors. Additionally, although we sought targeted axes of diversity in our participants, our workshop overall lacked representation of racialized people. Future research should prioritize the unique perspectives, barriers, and experiences of racialized populations particularly considering their history of inequitable access to NbS and the enduring discrimination they face when visiting and participating in stewardship activities in urban green spaces (Kephart 2022; Linnerooth-Bayer et al. 2023; Scott and Tenneti 2024; Hassen 2025).

It is also critical to acknowledge the levels of comfort participants feel (and how they may differ) in communicating their ideas. For example, although all material was bilingual and facilitators frequently spoke French and reminded participants to communicate in their language of choice, most conversations occurred in English and may have still posed

a barrier for francophone participants. We found that engaging professional facilitators and alternative forms of contributing ideas can alleviate some of these barriers to participation; for example, by hosting activities where all participants answer in writing rather than verbally. This ensures participants who are less likely to engage in verbal exercises are integrated into workshop knowledge. We recommend both types of exercises be prioritized equally in workshop activities. Increasing the number of NGOs, provincial government, and private sector representatives may also help level the playing field and remind participants that their voices are crucial to generating change. We also want to highlight the importance and value of time for networking outside of formal workshop activities. We opted to have long lunch breaks and frequent “bio breaks” to encourage participants to pause, reflect, and engage in professional networking with other participants. Although these exchanges cannot be captured
in note-taking, they are invaluable to building cross-sectoral connections and establishing trust and understanding in relationship building (Pavelin et al. 2014). All participants were also given a contact list (in person or electronically) for reference post-workshop to encourage continued communication and knowledge-sharing.

## Conclusions

Our workshop highlighted several sectoral barriers and capacities to cross-sectoral collaborative work in urban NbS in Canada. We identified a series of leverage points unique to each sector to address current barriers to collaboration (Fig. 2). We found that government sectors have a high capacity to operationalize collaboration by expanding funding opportunities to prioritize success measures and reporting that specifically consider the unique needs of collaborative projects. Academics can play a role in this funding transition by formally advocating for alternative funding options and emphasizing the value of collaborative research, particularly in the natural sciences. We also identified key leverage points in the academic sector to enhance training for collaboration outside of academia. Despite most academics being well-versed in collaborative research and team science, academics still lack formal training or knowledge of how to lead collaborative work with nonacademic partners. For example, what skills are needed, what to expect, and who to contact. Beyond training, we found that NGOs may serve as appropriate central coordinators to convene and connect people working in NbS to support deeper levels of integration for collaborative work.

Finally, our analysis identified ‘common truths’ that are experienced across sectors: the additional time and resources needed for collaborative work, the need for Indigenous-led projects, and insufficient institutional support for collaboration. All sectors recognized that NbS partners need a more formalized venue to exchange expertise, resources, and ideas. An increased focus on building a platform and creating networking opportunities where all sectors can cooperatively grow projects, share resources, and gather ideas regularly is essential to building capacity for cross-sectoral work. By documenting the needs and capacities of key sectors working in NbS, our research provides insights and clarity to tailor expectations when working with government, academia, or nongovernmental organizations. This work can guide best practice suggestions and system changes to bridge the gaps between barriers and solutions.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Samantha Song and Patrice Simon during workshop activities. We would also like to thank our facilitators Emily Yee Clare and Kira Page from Saltwater Consulting for their time and expertise. We appreciate you creating a comfortable, safe space for exchange and dialogue. Finally, Niá:wenkó:wa (thank you) to Otsi:tsaken:ra and Niioie:ren Patton for the opening and concentration ceremony to help open the minds and hearts of our workshop participants to work together.

## Article information

### Editor(s)

David Lesbarrères, Bethann Garramon Merkle

### History dates

Received: 31 January 2025

Accepted: 13 August 2025

Version of record online: 14 November 2025

### Copyright

©2025 Hutt-Taylor, Chamberland-Fontaine, Bardekjian, Khan, Mokdad, Munson, Morales, Smit, Cousineau, Daniel, Magar-Bisson, Cull, Jacobs, Delisle, Rawlyk, Cameron, Bacon, Roy LeFrançois, Vilanova, Bujold, Gosselin, Fortin Faubert, Savary, Buxton, Kinnunen, Bortolin, Munro, Macivor, Marshall, Sivarajah, Arndt, Cheskey, Angers, Frei, Ziter; and The Crown. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

### Data availability

Data generated or analyzed during this study are provided within the published article and its supplementary materials. Data transcripts and workshop notetaker summaries are not publicly available to meet our ethical requirements.

## Author information

### Author ORCIDs

Amie L. Black https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3514-8710

Élise Deschênes https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1910-7305

Elizabeth Gow https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8890-4503

Jordi Vilanova https://orcid.org/0009-0009-3685-4343

Krista De Groot https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7207-838X

Maxime Fortin Faubert https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5816-0523

Paul Savary https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2104-9941

Scott MacIvor https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2443-8192

Sivajanani Sivarajah https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0530-4615

Stephanie A. Prince https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6729-5649

### Author contributions

Conceptualization: KHT, RB, BF, CDZ

Data curation: KHT, SCF, AK, AM, AMC, CC, ESB, JV, RK, CDZ

Formal analysis: KHT, SCF

Funding acquisition: BF, CDZ

Investigation: AD, AM, AM, ALB, AS, AD, CMB, CJ, CD, DR, ÉD, EG, EG, EC, FL, JRL, KDG, MCB, MG, MFF, PS, RB, RB, SM, SM, SM, SS, SAP, SA, TC, VA, BF, CDZ

Methodology: KHT, ACB, OB, BF, CDZ, SCF

Project administration: KHT, BF, CDZ

Resources: ACB

Supervision: BF, CDZ

Validation: KHT, SCF, AK, AD, AM, AM, ALB, AM, AS, AMC, AD, CMB, CC, CJ, CD, DR, ÉD, EG, EG, EC, ESB, FL, JRL, JV, KDG, MCB, MG, MFF, OB, PS, RB, RK, RB, SM, SM, SM, SAP, SA, TC, VA, BF, CDZ
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Visualization: KHT, BF, CDZ

Writing – original draft: KHT, SCF, ACB, BF, CDZ

Writing – review & editing: KHT, SCF, ACB, AK, AD, AM, AM, ALB, AM, AS, AMC, AD, CMB, CC, CJ, CD, DR, ÉD, EG, EG, EC, ESB, FL, JRL, JV, KDG, MCB, MG, MFF, OB, PS, RB, RK, RB, SM, SM, SM, SS, SAP, SA, TC, VA, BF, CDZ

## Competing interests

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

## Funding information

This project was undertaken with the financial support of the Government of Canada provided through the Federal Department of Environment and Climate Change (BF). Additional funding from Concordia University Research Chair in Urban Ecology and Sustainability (CDZ) and Environment and Climate Change Canada Grants and Contributions (CDZ).

## Supplementary material

Supplementary data are available with the article at https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2025-0035.

## References

Adams, C., Moglia, M., and Frantzeskaki, N. 2024. Realising transformative agendas in cities through mainstreaming urban nature-based solutions. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, **91**(January): 128160. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128160.

Alonso-Yanez, G., House-Peters, L., Garcia-Cartagena, M., Bonelli, S., Lorenzo-Arana, I., and Ohira, M. 2019. Mobilizing yransdisciplinary collaborations: collective reflections on de-centering academia in knowledge production. Global Sustainability 2: e5. doi:10.1017/sus.2019.2.

Baldwin-Cantello, W., Tickner, D., Wright, M., Clark, M., Cornelius, S., Ellis, K., et al. 2023. The triple challenge: synergies, trade-offs and integrated responses for climate, biodiversity, and human well-being goals. Climate Policy, **23**: 782–799. doi:10.1080/14693062.2023.2175637.

Baró, F., and Gómez-Baggethun, E. 2017. Assessing the potential of regulating ecosystem services as nature-based solutions in urban areas. In Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas: linkages between science, policy and practice, theory and practice of urban sustainability transitions. *Edited by* N. Kabisch, H. Korn, J. Stadler and A. Bonn. Springer International Publishing, Cham. pp. 139–158. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_9.

Battisti, L., Cuomo, F., and Manganelli, A. 2024. Collaborative governance arrangements: what makes nature-based solutions endure? Territory, Politics, Governance, **0**(0): 1–21. doi:10.1080/21622671.2024.2355317.

Bell, M., and Lewis, N. 2023. Universities claim to value community-engaged scholarship: so why do they discourage it? Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), **32**(3): 304–321. doi:10.1177/09636625221118779.

Braun, V., and Victoria, C. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology (United Kingdom) **3**(2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Braun, V., Clarke, V., Boulton, E., Davey, L., and McEvoy, C. 2021. The online survey as a qualitative research tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, **24**(6): 641–654. doi:10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550.

Broder, E.D., Merkle, B.G., Balgopal, M.M., Weigel, E.G., Murphy, S.M., Caffrey, J.J., Hebets, E.A., et al. 2024. Use your power for good: collective action to overcome institutional injustices impeding ethical science communication in the academy. Bioscience, **74**(11): 747–769. doi:10.1093/biosci/biae080.

Buijs, A., Hansen, R., Jagt, S.V.D., Ambrose-Oji, B., Elands, B., Rall, E.L., Mattijssen, T., et al. 2019. Mosaic governance for urban green infrastructure: upscaling active citizenship from a local government perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, **40**(April): 53–62. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.06.011.

Castellar, J.A.C., Popartan, L.A., Pueyo-Ros, J., Atanasova, N., Langergraber, G., Säumel, I., et al. 2021. Nature-based solutions in the urban context: terminology, classification and scoring for urban challenges and ecosystem services. Science of the Total Environment, **779**: 146237. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146237.

Cheng, S.H., Costedoat, S., Sigouin, A., Calistro, G.F., Chamberlain, C.J., Lichtenthal, P., et al. 2023. Assessing evidence on the impacts of nature-based interventions for climate change mitigation: a systematic map of primary and secondary research from subtropical and tropical terrestrial regions. Environmental Evidence, **12**: 21. doi:10.1186/s13750-023-00312-3.

Cilliers, J. 2021. Towards green(er) cities: contextualizing green benefits for urban spaces and contemporary societies.

Crawford Urban, Michael. 2018. Abandoning silos how innovative governments are collaborating horizontally to solve complex problems. 178. Mowat Research, Mowat Centre. Available from https://utoronto.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/0c6cd424-2e61-4416-b352-a9b16ecc8571/content [accessed 9 June 2025].

Deranger, E.T., Sinclair, R., Gray, B., McGregor, D., and Gobby, J. 2022. De-colonizing climate research and policy: making space to tell our own stories, in our own ways. Community Development Journal, **57**(1): 52–73. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsab050.

Deslatte, A., and Stokan, E. 2020. Sustainability synergies or silos? The opportunity costs of local government organizational capabilities. Public Administration Review, **80**(6): 1024–1034. doi:10.1111/puar.13237.

DORA [WWW Document]. 2024. DORA. Available from https://sfdora.org/[accessed 25 September 2024].

Dorst, H., van der Jagt, A., Toxopeus, H., Tozer, L., Raven, R., and Runhaar, H. 2022. What's behind the barriers? Uncovering structural conditions working against urban nature-based solutions. Landscape and Urban Planning, **220**(April): 104335. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104335.

Doucet, T.C., Duinker, P.N., Zurba, M., Steenberg, J.W.N., and Charles, J.D. 2024. Perspectives of successes and challenges in collaborations between non-governmental organization and local government on urban forest management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, **93**: 128220. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128220.

Finegan, C. 2021. How can urban parks support urban Indigenous peoples? Exploratory cases from Saskatoon and Portland. Aboriginal Policy Studies 9. doi:10.5663/aps.v9i2.29381.

Frantzeskaki, N. 2019. Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities. Environmental Science & Policy, **93**: 101–111. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.033.

Frantzeskaki, N., Wijsman, K., Clare, A., Kabisch, N., Malekpour, S., Pinto, M.P., and Vandergert, P., 2023 Chapter 11: Governance of and with nature-based solutions in cities. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcoll/chap-oa/book/9781800376762/book-part-9781800376762-22.xml [accessed 26 July 2025].

Goodman, L.A. 1961. Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, **32**(1): 148–170.

Government of Canada, Canada Research Coordinating Committee. 2024. What we heard: tri-agency engagement with the research community on modernization of the federal research support system. Available from https://www.canada.ca/en/research-coordinating-committee/services/publications/progress-reports/2024/what-we-heard-t-ri-agency-engagement-with-the-research-community-on-modernization-of-the-federal-research-support-system.html [accessed 2 July 2025].

Government of Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada. 2024. What we heard report: environment and climate change Canada's national conversation—building an interdisciplinary urban research mobilization network 2024. Available from https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.949563/publication.html [accessed 2 July 2025].

Hassen, N. 2025. Narratives of exclusion: a photovoice study towards racial equity and justice in public urban greenspaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, **254**(February): 105233. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105233.

Hobbie, S.E., and Grimm, N.B. 2020. Nature-based approaches to managing climate change impacts in cities. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, **375**(1794): 20190124.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0124.

Joffe, H., and Smith, N. 2016. City dweller aspirations for cities of the future: how do environmental and personal wellbeing feature? Cities, **59**(November): 102-112. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2016.06.006.

Keeler, B.L., and Locke, C. 2022. Beyond the academy. Guidebook for the Engaged University: Best Practices for Reforming Systems of Reward, Fostering Engaged Leadership, and Promoting Action Oriented Scholarship, Available from https://beyondtheacademynetwork.org/guidebook/ [accessed 8 May 2025].

Keeler, B.L., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Guerry, A.D., Addison, P.F.E., Bettigole, C., Burke, I.C., et al. 2017. Society is ready for a new kind of science—Is academia?. Bioscience **67**(7): 591-92. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix051.

Keeler, B.L., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Guerry, A.D., Addison, P.F.E., Bettigole, C., Burke, I.C., Gentry, B., et al. 2017. Society is ready for a new kind of science—Is academia? Bioscience **67**(7): 591-592. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix051.

Kephart, L. 2022. How racial residential segregation structures access and exposure to greenness and green space: a review. Environmental Justice, **15**(4): 204-213. doi:10.1089/env.2021.0039.

Kharouba, H.M. 2024. Now is the time for academics to think and act beyond academia. FACETS **9**(January): 1-3. doi:10.1139/facets-2023-0070.

Lanterman, JL., and Blithe, S.J. 2019. The benefits, challenges, and disincentives of interdisciplinary collaboration. Commoning Ethnography, **2**(1): 149-165. doi:10.26686/ce.v2i1.5399.

Leahey, E., Beckman, C.M., and Stanko, T.L. 2017. Prominent but less productive: the impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists' research. Administrative Science Quarterly, **62**: 105-139. doi:10.1177/0001839216665364.

Li, P., and Wang, Z-H. 2021. Environmental co-benefits of urban greening for mitigating heat and carbon emissions. Journal of Environmental Management, **293**: 112963. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112963.

Lindheim, T. 2022. Participant validation: a strategy to strengthen the trustworthiness of your study and address ethical concerns. Springer Books. pp. 225-239.

Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Martin, J., Fresolone-Caparrós, A., Scolobig, A., Rodriguez, J.A., Solheim, A., et al. 2023. Learning from NBS implementation barriers. Available from https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/19283/1/deliverable-d5-4.pdf [accessed 8 May 2025].

Löhr, K., Weinhardt, M., and Sieber, S. 2020. The 'World Café' as a participatory method for collecting qualitative data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, **19**(January): 1609406920916976. doi:10.1177/1609406920916976.

Malekpour, S., Rebekah, R.B., Fjalar, J., D.H., and Tony H., F.W. 2017. Preparing for disruptions: A diagnostic strategic planning intervention for sustainable Development. Cities **63**(March): 58-69. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2016.12.016.

Malekpour, S., Tawfik, S., and Chesterfield, C. 2021. Designing collaborative governance for nature-based solutions. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, **62**: 127177. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127177.

Martin, A.J.F., Bacon, E.S., Migizikwe, N., Soucy, S., Grant, A., and Conway, T.M. 2025. History, engagement, and visibility of Indigenous peoples in urban forest management plans from Canada and the United States. Environmental Science & Policy, **166**(April): 104026. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104026.

McPhearson, T., Pickett, S.T.A., Grimm, N.B., Niemelä, J., Alberti, M., Elmqvist, T., et al. 2016. Advancing urban ecology toward a science of cities. Bioscience, **66**: 198-212. doi:10.1093/biosci/biw002.

Melanidis, M.S., and Hagerman, S. 2022. Competing narratives of nature-based solutions: leveraging the power of nature or dangerous distraction? Environmental Science & Policy, **132**(June): 273-281. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2022.02.028.

Menzies, A.K., Bowles, E., McGregor, D., Ford, A.T., and Popp, J.N. 2024. Sharing Indigenous values, practices and priorities as guidance for transforming human-environment relationships. People and Nature, **n/a**. doi:10.1002/pan3.10707.

Moola, F., Jolly, H., Borah, J., and Roth, R. 2024. The potential for Indigenous-led conservation in urbanized landscapes in Canada. Frontiers in Human Dynamics, **6**. doi:10.3389/fhumd.2024.1340379.

Nordin, N., Khatibi, A., and Azam, S.F. 2024. Nonprofit capacity and social performance: mapping the field and future directions. Management Review Quarterly, **74**(1): 171-225. doi:10.1007/s11301-022-00297-2.

O'Leary, B.C., Wood, L.E., Cornet, C., Roberts, C.M., and Fonseca, C. 2024. Practitioner insights on challenges and options for advancing blue nature-based solutions. Marine Policy, **163**(May): 106104. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106104.

Ordóñez, C., Threlfall, C.G., Livesley, S.J., Kendal, D., Fuller, R.A., Davern, M., et al. 2020. Decision-making of municipal urban forest managers through the lens of governance. Environmental Science & Policy, **104**: 136-147. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.11.008.

Parker, C., Scott, S., and Geddes, A. 2019. Snowball sampling. SAGE Research Methods Foundations. Available from http://methods.sagepub.com/foundations/snowball-sampling.

Parrott, L. 2017. The modelling spiral for solving 'wicked' environmental problems: guidance for stakeholder involvement and collaborative model development. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, **8**: 1005-1011. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12757.

Pataki, D.E., Alberti, M., Cadenasso, M.L., Felson, A.J., McDonnell, M.J., Pincetl, S., et al. 2021. The benefits and limits of urban tree planting for environmental and human health. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, **9**. doi:10.3389/fevo.2021.603757.

Pavelin, K., Pundir, S., and Cham, J.A. 2014. Ten simple rules for running interactive workshops. PLOS Computational Biology, **10**(2): e1003485. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003485.

Reed, G., Brunet, N.D., McGregor, D., Scurr, C., Sadik, T., Lavigne, J., and Longboat, S. 2024. There is no word for 'nature' in our language: rethinking nature-based solutions from the perspective of Indigenous Peoples located in Canada. Climatic Change, **177**(2): 32. doi:10.1007/s10584-024-03682-w.

Reid, A.J., McGregor, D.A., Menzies, A.K., Eckert, L.E., Febria, C.M., and Popp, J.N. 2024. Ecological research 'in a good way' means ethical and equitable relationships with Indigenous Peoples and Lands. Nature Ecology & Evolution, **8**: 595-598. doi:10.1038/s41559-023-02309-0.

Richards, L., and Morse, J.M. 2013. Readme first for a user's guide to qualitative methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781071909898.

Scharmer, O. 2018. The essentials of theory U: core principles and applications. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Schuitema, G., and Sintov, N.D. 2017. Should we quit our jobs? Challenges, barriers and recommendations for interdisciplinary energy research. Energy Policy, **101**(February): 246-250. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.043.

Scott, I., and Gong, T. 2021. Coordinating government silos: challenges and opportunities. Global Public Policy and Governance, **1**(1): 20-38. doi:10.1007/s43508-021-00004-z.

Scott, J.L., and Tenneti, A. 2024. Race in nature stewardship: an autoethnography of two racialised volunteers in urban ecology. Environmental Research: Ecology, **3**(3): 035006. doi:10.1088/2752-664X/ad7033.

Seddon, N., Chausson, A., Berry, P., Girardin, C.A.J., Smith, A., and Turner, B. 2020. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, **375**: 20190120. doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0120.

Seddon, N., Turner, B., Berry, P., Chausson, A., and Girardin, C. 2019. Grounding nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity science. Nature Climate Change, **9**: 84-87. doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0405-0.

Slettebø, T. 2021. Participant validation: exploring a contested tool in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, **20**(5): 1223-1238. doi:10.1177/1473325020968189.

Stanley, M.C., and Galbraith, J.A. 2024. Connecting people with place-specific nature in cities reduces unintentional harm. Environmental Research: Ecology, **3**(2): 023001. doi:10.1088/2752-664X/ad3f22.

StatisticsCanada, G. of C.I.S. 2021. An update on the socio-economic gaps between Indigenous Peoples and the non-Indigenous population in Canada: highlights from the 2021 Census (report).

Tallis, H., and Lubchenco, J. 2014. Working together: A call for inclusive conservation. Nature **515**(7525): 27-28. doi:10.1038/515027a.

Townsend, J., Moola, F., and Craig, M.-K. 2020. Indigenous Peoples are critical to the success of nature-based solutions to climate change. FACETS, **5**: 551-556. doi:10.1139/facets-2019-0058.
Tozer, L., Hörschelmann, K., Anguelovski, I., Bulkeley, H., and Lazova, Y. 2020. Whose City? Whose nature? Towards inclusive nature-based solution governance. Cities, 107(December): 102892. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2020.102892.

Tracy, S.J. 2010. Qualitative quality: eight 'big-tent' criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10): 837-851. doi:10.1177/1077800410383121.

Trencher, G., Bai, X., Evans, J., McCormick, K., and Yarime, M. 2014. University partnerships for co-designing and co-producing urban sustainability. Global Environmental Change, 28: 153-165. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.009.

Trencher, G.P., Yarime, M., and Kharrazi, A. 2013. Co-creating sustainability: cross-sector university collaborations for driving sustainable urban transformations. Journal of Cleaner Production, Special Issue: Advancing sustainable urban transformation, 50: 40-55. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.047.

Ugolini, F., Massetti, L., Sanesi, G., and Pearlmutter, D. 2015. Knowledge transfer between stakeholders in the field of urban forestry and green infrastructure: results of a European survey. Land Use Policy, 49(December): 365-381. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.019.

Vogel, B., Yumagulova, L., McBean, G., and Charles Norris, K.A. 2022. Indigenous-led nature-based solutions for the climate crisis: insights from Canada. Sustainability, 14: 6725. doi:10.3390/su14116725.

Wendt, D.C., and Gone, J.P. 2012. Urban-indigenous therapeutic landscapes: a case study of an urban American Indian health organiza-

tion. Health & Place, 18: 1025-1033. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.06.004.

Wickenberg, B. 2024. Collaborating for nature-based solutions: bringing research and practice together. Local Environment, 29(1): 118-134. doi:10.1080/13549839.2023.2254797.

Wilson, PA. 2008. Deep democracy: creating a culture of dialogue. LBJ Journal of Public Affairs, 19: 33.

Wirtz, Z., Hagerman, S., Hauer, R.J., and Konijnendijk, C.C. 2021. What makes urban forest governance successful?—A study among Canadian experts. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 58: 126901. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126901.

Withycombe Keeler, L., Beaudoin, F.D., Lerner, A.M., John, B., Beecroft, R., Tamm, K., et al. 2018. Transferring sustainability solutions across contexts through city-university partnerships. Sustainability, 10: 2966. doi:10.3390/su10092966.

World Health Organization. 2021. Health topics: urban health. Available from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/urban-health [accessed 12 September 2021].

Zhang, Y., and Wang, Y. 2024. Understanding delays in publishing interdisciplinary research. Information Processing & Management, 61: 103826. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2024.10382.

Ziter, C.D., and Buxton, R.T. 2025. Anti-racist, decolonial, and transdisciplinary approaches for nature-based solutions that benefit biodiversity and human well-being. Environmental Research: Ecology, 4(2): 020201. doi:10.1088/2752-664X/addd27.