# Monitoring and assessment in the context of governance of nature-based solutions. Shared challenges and opportunities in CELAC and EU cities

Martina van Lierop, Cynnamon Dobbs, Camila Flores, Alexander van der Jagt, Andrea Skiba, Giuliano Maselli Locosselli, Denise Duarte, Arjen Buijs, Aude Zingraff-Hamed, Stephan Pauleit

► To cite this version:

Martina van Lierop, Cynnamon Dobbs, Camila Flores, Alexander van der Jagt, Andrea Skiba, et al.. Monitoring and assessment in the context of governance of nature-based solutions. Shared challenges and opportunities in CELAC and EU cities. Nature-Based Solutions, 2024, 6, 10.1016/j.nbsj.2024.100170. hal-04934345

HAL Id: hal-04934345

https://hal.science/hal-04934345v1

Submitted on 7 Feb 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished 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_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Monitoring and assessment in the context of governance of nature-based solutions. Shared challenges and opportunities in CELAC and EU cities

Martina van Lierop<sup>a,c,*</sup>, Cynnamon Dobbs<sup>b</sup>, Camila Flores<sup>a</sup>, Alexander van der Jagt<sup>c</sup>, Andrea Skiba<sup>a</sup>, Giuliano Maselli Locosselli<sup>d</sup>, Denise Duarte<sup>e</sup>, Arjen Buijs<sup>f</sup>, Aude Zingraff-Hamed<sup>g,h</sup>, Stephan Pauleit<sup>a</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

**Keywords:**

Knowledge acquisition

Evaluation

Indicators

Barriers

Green infrastructure

Urban

## ABSTRACT

The concept of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) has gained interest as an approach to make significant contributions to the transformation towards more liveable, sustainable, and climate-resilient cities. However, the uptake of NbS into urban development practice is hindered by knowledge and governance barriers. Knowledge plays an essential role in evidence-based decision-making processes and in building the capacity to co-design sustainable pathways. In turn, governance processes can greatly support the acquisition, dissemination and application of knowledge. However, little is known about how these interactions between governance and knowledge manifest in practice. Therefore, we aim to understand the interplay between governance and monitoring & assessment (M&A) and the associated challenges and opportunities for NbS implementation in European and Latin American cities. Considering different socio-economic and cultural contexts allows us to draw from a wider range of practitioners' experiences in different governance settings. We conducted an explorative qualitative content analysis on ten semi-structured expert interviews with thirteen city experts from local governments and academia based in seven cities: Bogota (CO), Buenos Aires (AR), Santiago (CL), São Paulo (BR), Barcelona (ES), Lisbon (PT) and Turin (IT). Our findings show that M&A provides agency for individual, institutional actors to steer political commitment and can support integrated working. The potential of collaborative M&A with non-governmental actors is still largely untapped, which requires acknowledgement of the capacities of non-governmental actors to contribute to M&A and raise awareness of the value of M&A to civil society. Furthermore, we recommend integrating more reflective learning opportunities in M&A processes, paying more attention to data sharing, and considering of more feasible M&A processes.

# 1. Introduction

## 1.1. Rationale

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are promoted as a means for the

positive transformation of cities into healthy, climate-resilient and bio-diverse environments. The United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme defines NbS as existing and novel "actions to protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Chair for Strategic Landscape Planning and Management, School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Emil-Ramann-Straße 6, Freising 85354, Germany</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Connecticut, 1376 Storrs Road, Unit 4087, Storrs, CT 06269-0132, United States</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Institute for Place, Environment and Society, School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society, Heriot-Watt University, William Arrol Building, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, United Kingdom</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> Center for Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Av. Centenário, 303 - São Dimas, CEP, Piracicaba, SP 13416-000, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup> University of São Paulo, School of Architecture and Urbanism, Rua do Lago 876 Cidade Universitária, São Paulo-SP 05508-080, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote><sup>f</sup> Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 67, 6700 AC, Wageningen, the Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote><sup>g</sup> ENGEES National School for Water and Environmental Engineering, 1 cour des cigarières, CS 61039, Strasbourg 67070, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>h</sup> CNRS, ENGEES, UMR 7362 LIVE (Image, City, Environment Laboratory), Université de Strasbourg, 3 rue de l'Argonne, 67000, Strasbourg, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: martina.van-lierop@tum.de (M. van Lierop).</footnote>
ecosystems, which address social, economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively, while simultaneously providing human wellbeing, ecosystem services, resilience, and biodiversity benefits" [1]. The concept of NbS builds on and acts as an umbrella term for related concepts such as blue and green infrastructure, ecosystem-based approach, and ecosystem services [2,3]. Due to its broadness, NbS can be viewed from different perspectives depending on one's disciplinary background and familiarity with related concepts [4]. For example, within spatial planning, NbS might be linked to green infrastructure with a stronger focus on larger green corridors, while in urban water management, the focus may lay on sustainable urban drainage systems. These perspectives can differ across regions and languages depending on previous experiences, local challenges, and planning traditions [5].

Despite its relevance, the uptake of NbS and related concepts into mainstream urban development practices is hindered by a myriad of factors [6–8]. Major barriers to (urban) NbS implementation are related to governance and knowledge gaps [9–11]. Dorst et al. [11] indicate the limited awareness, knowledge, and knowledge exchange on NbS. More evidence is needed on the effectiveness of NbS in comparison with traditional grey solutions, on the natural processes and dynamics underlying NbS, on the benefits and trade-offs of NbS and their long-term costs and benefits [12–17]. According to Wihlborg et al. [18], the lack of leadership and political support, asynchrony with regulations, and siloed organisational structures are hindering NbS governance. Castelo et al. [6] point out that there is also a knowledge gap on the governance of NbS. Governance of NbS is the collection of processes in which public and private actors work together towards social-environmental transformations [19,20]. Within NbS governance, monitoring and assessment (M&A) play a fundamental role in providing the knowledge for evidence-based decision-making and building capacity for the collaborative development and implementation of innovative actions [13,21]. For this study, we define M&A as the process of systematically assessing, evaluating and monitoring NbS, their effectiveness and impact through indicators [22,23], like the ones proposed in the EU Handbook "Evaluating the impact of nature-based solutions" [4]. We understand assessment as the short-term analysis or evaluation of a given situation to answer specific questions and/or to weigh against specific values and monitoring as the continuous process over a longer time period to assess the progress of a project or the performance of NbS in relation to a set baseline or objectives [4,13,24].

Practitioners are slowly becoming more interested in conducting M&A due to the growing awareness of the need for evidence-based decision-making on NbS, its benefits and the complex related challenges, such as climate change [25–27]. Although city administrations carry out M&A in support of local decision-making [28], M&A on NbS is still insufficiently taken up in practice [6,25]. To ensure a sound evidence base for NbS through M&A in the practice of urban governance, selecting and measuring indicators is just one step [13]. We see the need to consider M&A as a process with steps prior to and after data collection, such as defining objectives, data sharing, communication of results, and reflection based on the outcomes [24,29]. In practice, the uptake and effectiveness of M&A are largely dependent on the various conditions and processes within the local governance context, such as stakeholder participation, policies, and resources [30–32]. These governance conditions and processes are interdependent and act rather reciprocal [33], meaning that M&A, in turn, can also influence governance processes. Finding synergies between M&A and governance processes would help to align and solidify M&A within its governance context [34] and further promote the uptake of NbS in practice. However, so far, the wider governance context influences M&A, or vice versa, has been largely neglected in studies.

So far, most studies on M&A on NbS have an academic perspective focusing on credibility and comprehensive data collection through the development of indicator frameworks and the application of - often - for practitioners complicated assessment methods [12,16,27,35,36]. Also, descriptions of M&A applications in practice are often written from a

research perspective, indicating the role research plays in the M&A process [e.g. 37,38]. Contextual governance conditions and processes are mentioned, yet mainly as the barriers and opportunities to the uptake and implementation of M&A for NbS [39,40], neglecting the reciprocal relationship between M&A and its governance context. When interactions with governance processes are addressed, studies tend to limit to one or two facets or dimensions of governance, often collaboration or citizen involvement [41,42]. Rödl and Arlati [24] and van der Jagt et al. [29] provide guidance on collaborative indicator selection and the inclusion of environmental justice in M&A. Yet, these efforts tend to have a narrow scope, focusing on the alignment of specific steps of the M&A process with a few governance dimensions. When only the interaction with a few dimensions is considered, the opportunity to understand how barriers and opportunities are shaped by forces from multiple dimensions can be missed. In addition, we need to acknowledge that governance contexts differ across regions depending on their socio-political-economic realities [43]. So far, research on NbS and associated M&A largely focuses on or has its origins in high-income regions, such as Western Europe, North America and Australia [44,45].

In this explorative study, we aim to get a more comprehensive understanding of the reciprocal interactions between M&A and its wider NbS governance context, which encompasses multiple dimensions. Moreover, we take a practitioners’ perspective while considering governance contexts in different regions. Ultimately, we want to know how these interactions can play a role in the effective implementation of M&A processes and can support further uptake of NbS in urban governance practices. Therefore, we seek to answer the following questions:

* How does M&A interact with governance processes in different NbS urban governance settings?

* Which challenges and opportunities associated with these interactions do city practitioners face?

## 1.2. Theoretical framework

The study builds on the framework of governance indicators developed by van der Jagt et al. [46] to understand NbS implementation and mainstreaming. Although this study set out to develop relevant indicators for NbS governance, in the process the authors categorised NbS governance into nine dimensions, with M&A as one of the governance dimensions. As different dimensions are defined within this framework, it allows for gaining more detailed insights into the reciprocal interactions of M&A with different governance dimensions. Moreover, in light of the framework, city administrations are considered major drivers of NbS implementation. In addition, the framework is not confined to the institutional context, but it also covers the interactions of city administrations with other actors. Applying the framework would allow us to see the challenges practitioners encounter when they aim to promote and implement M&A in support of NbS within their own institutional context, as well as the opportunities M&A offers to its wider governance context Fig. 1.

The Agency dimension describes the need for sustained Institutional Commitment to NbS on different decision- and policy-making levels [47–49] along with Advocacy by Non-governmental Actors [50]. Commitment can be conveyed through actions supporting NbS, such as ensuring funds, promoting innovation, and developing and rethinking regulations and policies [50]. Broad policy support for NbS and related activities such as M&A can be advanced through Integrated Working [51], which refers to reconfiguring institutional structures to promote cross-departmental collaboration and knowledge sharing [34,49,52] through, e.g., boundary-spanning actors [25]. Legislation, Regulation & Policies are the formal and informal rules and their consolidating activities to protect and mainstream NbS strategically, tactically, and operationally. They are needed to ensure NbS are included in standards and regulations at national and international levels [48,53], which can further support the inclusion of NbS in land use policies and
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Governance dimensions and sub dimensions categorised into themes (based on van der Jagt et al. [46]). Image credit: Sze Wai (Cynthia) Chan.</figcaption></figure>

comprehensive planning along with municipal ordinances [50,54]. *Collaborative Arrangements* with institutions and organisations are crucial to NbS by contributing to sharing resources, skills, and knowledge [8,34,50] while also fostering innovation, cross-scale policy coordination, and stakeholder empowerment [13,54]. The *Active Community Engagement* dimension refers to the active participation of various actors in different governance processes through local initiatives and participatory methods [34,48], such as citizen science [54], to help improve the user experience of NbS, their public support, and benefits such as social cohesion and environmental justice [34,51]. The *Monitoring & Assessment* dimension, as discussed in the Introduction, is about the short-term evaluation of questions and long-term tracking of project progress, which is crucial for learning from outcomes, ensuring sustainable investment, and addressing potential negative effects, such as urban inequalities [13,55]. There is a need for *Knowledge Development & Sharing* on NbS from across a broad range of sectors [13,52], which requires *Access to Relevant Expertise* adapted to local settings [54,56]. Meanwhile, new insights and experiences can lead to improvements through the iterative process of *Social Learning through Reflectivity* [13, 49,51] and *Environmental Education* raises awareness of NbS and connects people with nature [57], for example, through ecosystem monitoring [8]. Various *Financing Mechanisms* for NbS should be explored, including fiscal mechanisms, grants, subsidies, public-private

co-funding, and incentives, such as tax increment financing and developer fees [8,54,58]. Finally, *Valuing Diversity, Equity & Inclusion* involves the alignment of NbS and M&A with the knowledge, needs and values of local communities, *Recognising the Diverse Perspectives* of these place-specific communities, and ensuring *Fair Representation of Stakeholders* in design and decision-making processes whilst also *Ensuring Equitable Access to NbS Outcomes* [59,60].

As governance contexts can differ depending on socio-political-economic conditions, and with that the challenges and opportunities of the interactions between M&A and governance processes within this context, we consider cases from EU and CELAC countries. Both EU and CELAC countries are highly urbanised, respectively 75 % and 82 % [61] and face increasing urbanisation rates [62]. This urbanisation affects biodiversity and ecological integrity within urban areas and their surroundings [63], which is especially relevant for CELAC cities, as they are located in or near global biodiversity hotspots [56]. CELAC cities are characterised by urban sprawl and ample public housing [64] while facing larger socio-economic disparities, with 17,7 % of the urban population living in informal settlements [65], weaker governance structures and less appropriate planning policies than their EU counterparts [5,43,56,66]. In line with this marked inequality and the lack of planning, the distribution and quality of urban green spaces are unbalanced and unfair [67–69]. CELAC cities’ population is a mix of
indigenous and migrant communities [70] that contribute to the bio-cultural diversity of discourses of nature's values [71]. This means that ideas on and approaches to ecological urban planning and NbS can differ completely between CELAC and EU cities [72]. The NbS concept has only recently received attention from policy-makers in CELAC countries, although it is rapidly taken up [73]. In contrast, NbS has been promoted through a European agenda with accompanying funding for over a decade [74]. In spite of the differences between the two regions, we do not aim to make a direct comparison, but rather look for shared challenges and opportunities in support of M&A.

## 2. Methods and materials

The study is conducted in the context of the H2020 CONEXUS project, which brings together community, private, public and research partners to deliver NbS innovations in so-called 'Life-Labs' in the seven large cities and metropolitan areas of Bogota (CO), Buenos Aires (AR), Santiago (CL), São Paulo (BR), Barcelona (ES), Lisbon (PT) and Turin (IT). Within this project setting, our intent was to support the Life-Labs with knowledge co-production by developing a participatory M&A process to strengthen the rationale underpinning NbS implementation [46] while also improving knowledge transfer to stimulate further uptake of NbS through guidance material, such as handbooks and manuals. In order to build on ongoing M&A processes and understand how these interact with current governance contexts, we conducted at the beginning of the project ten semi-structured expert interviews [75] with a total of thirteen experts: one expert from academia and twelve city or regional experts with leading technical positions (e.g. head of department, programme manager) in environmental or planning departments of local governments (see table 1 for an overview of the interviewees). The interview started with general questions regarding the challenges related to sustainability and governance within their city, followed by questions on the topics of M&A and guidance within their organisations (see Appendix A for the interview questions). The interviewees were identified through their involvement in the CONEXUS Life-Labs, or they were suggested by CONEXUS partners. Besides their willingness to participate, the interviewees were selected for their expertise on the relevant topics as well as their long-standing work experience and leading positions, which were likely to provide them with insight into the different governance processes within the city administration. The interviewees had between eleven and 28 years of work experience at the time of the interviews. Their disciplinary backgrounds are diverse, although environmental, planning and public administration disciplines prevail.

The interviewees were contacted through email. On request, the interview questions were sent with the consent form by email prior to

<table><caption>**Table 1**
Overview of interviewees per city.</caption><thead><tr><td>Interview code</td><td>Number. of interviewees</td><td>City</td><td>Organisation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1BC</td><td>3</td><td>Barcelona</td><td>City of Barcelona & Barcelona Regional</td></tr><tr><td>2BO</td><td>1</td><td>Bogota</td><td>Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Cómo Vamos Initiative</td></tr><tr><td>3BO</td><td>2</td><td>Bogota</td><td>City of Bogota</td></tr><tr><td>4BA</td><td>1</td><td>Buenos Aires</td><td>Municipality of La Matanza</td></tr><tr><td>5BA</td><td>1</td><td>Buenos Aires</td><td>Buenos Aires City Government</td></tr><tr><td>6LI</td><td>1</td><td>Lisbon</td><td>Municipality of Lisbon</td></tr><tr><td>7SA</td><td>1</td><td>Santiago</td><td>Regional Government of Metropolitan Santiago</td></tr><tr><td>8SA</td><td>1</td><td>Santiago</td><td>Ministry of Housing and Urban Development</td></tr><tr><td>9SP</td><td>1</td><td>São Paulo</td><td>City of São Paulo</td></tr><tr><td>10TO</td><td>1</td><td>Torino</td><td>City of Torino</td></tr></tbody></table>

the interview. All interviewees signed and sent back the consent form. The interviews were conducted from March to July 2021. Interviewees were questioned in their language of choice, if possible. Seven interviews were conducted in Spanish, two in Portuguese, and one in English. To support the team of seven interviewers, an interview questionnaire (see Appendix B) was developed and translated into Spanish and Portuguese. The interviews were conducted through video conferences (e.g., Zoom, Google Meet). They were audio recorded either directly in the video conference or with a recorder, transcribed orthographically [76] with the free version of Descript [77], if needed, translated to English with the support of DeePL [78], and anonymised. The translations were checked for comprehensibility and revised by native speakers.

The transcribed interviews were analysed through an explorative qualitative content analysis [79,80] (see Appendix B for a methodological figure). First, the transcriptions were sectioned into excerpts of one to ten sentences encompassing an interviewee's description of a single idea, experience or action related to the topics addressed in the interview. Each excerpt was provided with a tag (e.g. 4BA#58), indicating respectively the number of the interview, the abbreviation for the city, and an individual number for the excerpt. To analyse the excerpts through coding, an initial coding system was developed including the governance dimensions and sub-dimensions of the theoretical framework. Based on the content, each excerpt was coded for addressing the governance (sub) dimensions. Excerpts could be coded for multiple governance (sub) dimensions. Through this first coding process, the codes and the code rules were further defined. All excerpts coded for M&A were selected for further analysis. These excerpts could also be coded for other governance dimensions, but should at least be coded for M&A. These selected excerpts were then coded and categorised in a second round to determine whether they described an idea, experience, or action associated with interactions between M&A and the governance dimensions, e.g., between M&A and financial incentives. For each category of interaction, the excerpts were then analysed in a third round of inductive coding for patterns in challenges and opportunities based on frequency and meaningfulness [76]. These patterns provided the input for descriptive summaries for each category of interaction. The inclusion of the excerpt tags (e.g. 4BA#58) for summarised ideas, experiences, and actions supported tracking the frequency, associated cities, and their potential differences. A second researcher with Spanish and Portuguese language skills checked the interpretation of the summaries with the translations and, if needed, with the original transcripts and recordings. These summaries are included in the results section. Finally, through reflection on the summaries of the interactions, their commonalities and linkages, we identified five pathways forward that are described in the discussion.

## 3. Results

Below, we describe the ideas, insights and experiences of the practitioners associated with the identified interactions between M&A and governance dimensions. References to specific contexts are provided in text or in interview codes in brackets. The references are used exemplary and do not imply that similar ideas or actions are not considered or done in other cities.

### 3.1. Commitment to M&A

On a decision-making level, commitment to M&A is often indirectly linked to the political commitment to environmental objectives, such as tackling climate change in Buenos Aires and São Paulo and increasing green space per capita in Barcelona. Some of these commitments can be associated with the ratification of agendas, for example, with the SDG agenda (9SP), the joining of networks, such as the C40 (6LI, 9SP), competitions, such as European Green Capital (6LI), or local objectives (10TO). All cities included in this study, except Torino, are members of
the C40 city network (https://www.c40.org/cities). Such commitments are further developed and formalised through plans, policies and regulations (5BA, 9SP). According to the São Paulo interviewee, decision-makers can show direct commitment to M&A by setting up a monitoring, evaluation and reporting system or by investing in professional development, although support for the latter is lacking. Interviewees from Buenos Aires and Santiago mentioned that, at times, environmental M&A is not high on the political agenda. In that case, political and institutional commitment to environmental M&A needs to be created (9SP). As an example of Buenos Aires shows, building such commitment can also come from individuals or departments:

> "We go and look for information or basic data that would serve to wake up our authorities. We went out into the street to measure the temperature of the asphalt on a hot day for an hour, the temperature under a tree, etc. With that, we managed to put together a presentation for the president of the Environmental Protection Agency, and based on that data, he said, "Ah, look, it's important"." (5BA, translated from Spanish).

As one interviewee stated, commitment is often dependent on personal commitment, the expertise of staff, and resource availability.

## 3.2. M&A's interdependence with regulation, legislation and policies

Four cities recognize the importance of M&A for regulation, legislation, and policies. They use M&A data and information to develop or update regulation, legislation, and policies (6LI, 10TO) and to define objectives, actions and next steps (8SA, 9SP, 10TO). In turn, regulation, legislation and policies can provide a mandate and aim for M&A as indicated for Lisbon's municipal Master Plan and São Paulo's Agenda 2030. As exemplified in the interviews from Torino, Lisbon, and Bogota, environmental regulation can compel or encourage city administrations to conduct M&A to determine whether environmental criteria are met. Furthermore, environmental regulations can form the basis for developing environmental assessment indicators, as in the case of Bogota. Strategic planning instruments also include complementary monitoring plans or frameworks (1BC, 5BA, 6LI, 10TO) with indicators for monitoring progress towards the completion of policy objectives and actions. Even though these monitoring plans or frameworks exist within policies, they might not be formalised (1BC). Three interviewees see the value of M&A, as it supports regular reflection (9SP) over extended periods (9SP) on the progress (8SA), performance, and impact in order to learn from success and failures and revise plans and policies accordingly (1BC, 9SP). However, the interviewees did not provide any actual experiences with reflection and revision of regulation, legislation, and policies based on M&A outcomes. As one interviewee from Barcelona explains:

> "... we put a lot of effort into all this planning and strategy, but when it comes to evaluating these policies, we don't put the same amount of effort into it." (1BC, translated from Spanish)

## 3.3. Integrated working and M&A

Seven interviewees mentioned that conducting M&A compelled integrated working between different departments across the city administration (3BO, 5B, 10TO), including regulatory and enforcing bodies (9SP), or in the case of Santiago, across different ministries and regional governments (7SA, 8SA). The interviewee from Lisbon recounted:

> "... a very important moment was when we started to apply for the European Green Capital. ... Because we had to compile all this data to apply. ... Green Capital have [sic] very clear form with indicators. ... And there were indicators for lots of things that we didn't know about until we put a team together." (6LI, translated from Portuguese)

This example shows that especially mandatory multidimensional indicator frameworks, such as from the C40 and the European Green

Capital, seem to support integrated working. The relevance of M&A for NbS might, however, not be seen by other departments (5BA) or staff might find it difficult or lack the willingness to deal with the additional demands for data collection on top of their normal tasks (7SA, 9SP). Interviewees from Buenos Aires and Torino mentioned that working across different departments requires building a culture of commitment to environmental topics. The São Paulo interviewee pointed out that building such a culture takes time, but also ensures long-term institutionalisation of M&A and integrated working. Yet, the interviewees from Buenos Aires and São Paulo both see that the very act of integrated working on M&A can support building such a culture. From Bogota and São Paulo comes the suggestion to support building a culture of integrated working on M&A by establishing an intersectoral technical team to coordinate M&A-related actions across departments, such as data collection, inventarisation of possible indicators, and data management, storage and communication. Integrated working on M&A can be further supported by clear organisation and communication of the M&A process to ensure all involved understand and feel comfortable with the M&A process (9SP). For example, São Paulo aims to provide a central data repository connecting the different departments and to map each step of the M&A process in an easily understandable way.

## 3.4. M&A and collaborative arrangements

In all cities, collaborative arrangements in relation to M&A are mentioned. They include other governmental institutions and agencies on national, metropolitan, regional and district level (1BC, 3BO, 7SA, 8SA, 10TO); semi-public or private actors related to green space management, and water, waste, energy and transport services and facilities (1BC, 3BO, 6LI, 9SP); universities (3BO, 4BA, 7SA, 9SP); and non-governmental organisations, such as environmental associations (6LI, 9SP). Collaboration with the private sector seems limited to the above-mentioned sectors. Yet, as an interviewee stated:

> "... it would be essential that the private sector developers do it [referring to M&A]. Now, it is difficult to find the incentive to do it. ... The private sector does not know how to turn to their researchers or is not interested. ... The pressure is again on the public sector to tell me how it regulates and generates [sic] incentives to make it happen." (4BA, translated from Spanish)

In CELAC cities, we see rather a focus on collaboration with universities and NGOs. Active collaboration with academia was particularly mentioned for Bogota, Buenos Aires, and São Paulo. For the first two cities, a wish for even closer collaboration with research groups was expressed, as exchange with academia supports gaining knowledge on NbS through research projects.

The M&A processes described in the interviews were mainly coordinated by governmental institutions in which other actors played a supporting role in ensuring data collection on indicators, especially when mandatory multidimensional indicator frameworks were applied. However, no collaborations with universities and NGOs on data collection were mentioned. Universities and NGOs rather analyse, aggregate and systematise data from city administrations and other sources (2BO, 3BO, 4BA, 9SP), and they conduct indicator assessments independently (2BO, 9SP). An interviewee from Bogota gave the community indicator system of *Como Vamos* as a good example with their annual survey on inhabitants' perception of wellbeing in the city, but also indicated that some organisations find it important to maintain a level of independence. Collaborations with other governmental institutions, but especially academia, extend to other M&A process steps besides data collection, for example, developing indicator and assessment frameworks (7SA, 10TO), testing new monitoring instruments (8SA), and communicating M&A data and information (3BO, 9SP). For Bogota and São Paulo, the support of academia with the conceptualisation and development of a monitoring, evaluation, and reporting system was mentioned. Examples the interviewees from
Bogota provided were support for determining data availability, data relevance, and data preparation, for selecting indicators, and for methods to aggregate indicators. In addition, they said that interns support the M&A in the Bogota city administration by validating instruments, reviewing metadata of indicators, and verifying and updating information.

### 3.5. Citizen involvement in M&A

With regard to citizen involvement, three interviewees acknowledged the potential of M&A and the resulting data and information to raise awareness (4BA), inform on how their city is doing (3BO), and take away concerns, for example by showing that the soil quality is safe for urban gardening (6LI). In Barcelona, the general public also asks for access to data on indicators, yet for Bogota, one interviewee mentioned that civil society could take more ownership of M&A data to pressure city administrations on environmental issues. In Barcelona, Bogota and Santiago, the interviewees wished for more citizen involvement, such as the citizen science activity Bioblitz in Barcelona. Yet, as the interviewee from São Paulo commented:

> "In the imagination of the citizen, it [referring to M&A] should be the responsibility of public management, but it is not." (9SP, translated from Portuguese)

In Bogota and Buenos Aires, more support through guiding information on collaborative and participatory approaches for M&A was requested. Interviewees were aware that in order to raise citizen awareness and involvement, communication of M&A data and information needs to be understandable and relatable (7SA, 8SA), for example, by linking to local problems (7SA), additional explanations through digital channels (3BO), and consolidated indicators (2BO, 9BO). However, communicating and sharing M&A data and information might be insufficient if perspectives and values do not align. For example, the Lisbon interviewee mentioned a debate between the city administration and citizens on whether cutting down existing trees can be justified by planting new trees. Other hindrances to collaboration and citizen involvement were opposing work cultures (9SP), the lack of mutual benefit (1BC), and different perspectives on assessment approaches or the relevance of assessment (10TO). Yet, an interviewee from Santiago claimed that the inclusion of different perspectives through citizen involvement and collaborative arrangements could result in more creative potential, for example, in finding more apt indicators. As pointed out in the interviews from Bogota, this also requires that data from external actors be acknowledged by public management, even when it is critical of public management actions.

### 3.6. Providing access to M&A data and information

Nine interviewees indicated sharing data with other departments (8SA); with decision-makers (6LI); with other government institutions (4BA, 5BA, 7SA, 8SA); and with the general public (2BO, 3BO) to allow others to learn from it (1BC, 10TO). Making M&A data and information available and accessible is a prerequisite for integrated working, collaborative arrangements and environmental education. As one interviewee (9SP#89) explains:

> "It is in the interest of the technical monitoring team that this [referring to M&A outcomes] is accessible, that we implement the indicators for priority actions and that it is possible to follow up closely." (9SP, translated from Portuguese)

For example, in Bogota, indicator data sets are made available for open access. Some city administrations publish (mandatory) annual and biannual reports on M&A outcomes (1BC, 2BO, 9SP) and progress (6LI), as well as policies, plans, projects, guidelines, protocols and manuals (1BC, 3BO, 6LI). The most frequently mentioned channels for sharing data and information were websites (1BC, 6LI, 9SP), online platforms

(1BC, 3BO) and repositories (9SP), which, according to the Bogota and São Paulo interviewees, can be part of a larger information system linking internal databases and external information platforms. The interviewee from São Paulo, being closely involved in the set-up of an information system, mentioned that it requires presenting M&A data and information from a technical, management, and citizen perspective. For both internal and external actors, information systems need to be logically structured, for example, according to thematic topics as mentioned for Bogota and São Paulo. Yet, as indicated for São Paulo, a well-structured and broadly accessible information system needs to be managed and requires reviewing and updating of methods and data every year. Yet, as pointed out in the Barcelona interview, this brings costs in resources and capacities.

### 3.7. Access to M&A expertise

In half of the interviews, the interviewees requested expertise for M&A related to systematic methods, such as impact and performance assessment (1BC, 2BO, 7SA), comparison of solutions - green and grey - (1BC, 2BO, 4BA, 9SP), quality assessment of NbS implementation and management (9SP), and cost-benefit analyses (1BC, 9SP). All the while, financial, material, and human resources and their interlinkages (1BC, 4BA, 9SP) should be considered across all project phases, including management and maintenance (1BC, 2BO, 7SA) and different time frames to include short-, medium-, and long-term (3BO, 9SP) impacts and benefits (1BC). Half of the interviewees requested more attention to issues such as education, health, mobility, and quality of life (10TO, 3BO, 4BA, 7SA, 9SP), as these issues matter to citizens and decision-makers, according to the São Paulo interviewee. Interviewees from Bogota, Buenos Aires and São Paulo mentioned that this means alongside the services and disservices of NbS, their trade-offs with social and economic benefits and values of society should be considered. They also understood that such comprehensive assessments require an improved, yet difficult-to-obtain, understanding of the different and realistic impacts and benefits of various NbS. The Barcelona interviewees suggest that to include issues such as wellbeing and quality of life, more comprehensive indicator frameworks and the increased application of qualitative assessments are needed. Yet, this can be an issue, as indicated for Torino:

> "for instance, the improvement in terms of quality of life, which is obviously the primary objective of the project. ... we're going to be measuring that in terms of ecosystem services ... what we won't have ... is a very qualitative [analysis] where we can measure people's sort of wellbeing improvement through these actions. So I guess what I'm trying to say is..., we will be lacking [in] the qualitative analysis." (10TO)

To conduct comprehensive M&A, interviewees from Bogota and Torino commented that it calls for the knowledge and skills to apply methods and tools and to have the necessary software and hardware, as pointed out by the São Paulo interviewee. An interviewee from Bogota mentioned that substantial data had already been produced, but the question was how this data could be collected and systematised. M&A often requires a sufficient critical mass of professionals, which might only be available in bigger cities, according to a Buenos Aires interviewee. Meanwhile, the São Paulo interviewee raises the issue that a lack of expertise delays and weakens the M&A and the NbS implementation process. One interviewee from Santiago requested that evaluations are not so complex to ensure that a broader audience can understand them. Interviewees from Bogota and São Paulo requested basic information on developing effective indicators, measuring indicators, conducting fieldwork, and interpreting data. As pointed out for São Paulo, training can support building expertise, but it costs time. Training on M&A for NbS can be provided by external networks, such as C40, or internally within the city administration. For example, in São Paulo, the team responsible for M&A provides guidelines and training to other departments on how to collect data or specific assessment
methods.

## 4. Discussion

Based on the ideas, insights and experiences from the interviews, we identified the challenges and opportunities related to the interaction of M&A and its governance context. The identified challenges and opportunities are described in five clusters of interrelated processes of NbS governance and M&A. Between CELAC and EU cities, there was not much difference regarding the perspectives on M&A and its interactions with governance processes. Both regions responded similarly in terms of the value of M&A, barriers to implementation, and the necessity to better facilitate M&A. The only difference found was in the collaborative arrangements for M&A, where in CELAC cities, there seems to be more collaboration with academia than in Europe.

### 4.1. M&A builds political, institutional and individual commitment

M&A can support building political, institutional, and individual commitment to NbS implementation within governmental administrations. Although political commitment to NbS can form an indirect starting point for M&A [54], it does not always translate into practical support. International agendas, networks, and competitions provide opportunities in this regard [81] as they foster political commitment. While such opportunities might be more prevalent in Europe [73], networks such as C40 provide guidance globally and leverage actions.

Applying the mandatory and multidimensional frameworks required by international agendas, networks, and competitions is also a starting point for building a culture of integrated working and institutional commitment for NbS across the organisation. However, integrated working can also be supported by indicator frameworks linked to internal policies. The multidimensionality of the framework seems important, as it requires multiple disciplines to collaborate to conduct M&A effectively [34]. Other factors that might play a role are accountability to conduct M&A and the time required to build a culture committed to M&A in support of NbS, which are likely to be better supported through long-term M&A commitments. Research projects of three to four years can ignite integrated working through M&A, but to ensure continuity, M&A needs to be linked with other long-term internal or external governance frameworks.

Building a culture of commitment can be supported by the very act of integrated working on M&A. An intersectoral technical team can support integrated working on M&A [34] by coordinating M&A-related actions across departments, but also with other governmental and non-governmental actors [48]. Integrated work on M&A benefits from a comprehensible organisation, clear communication, transparent processes, and supporting information systems [82]. Such procedures also require commitments on the decision-making level to provide the required resources [48,83]. However, such procedures likely increase individual commitment to M&A from technical staff or single departments [84]. For such ‘champions’, M&A data and information can provide agency to steer decision-making and create political commitment for NbS [34], but they might also need to have a feeling of agency to influence decision-making.

### 4.2. Bringing reflectivity into policy-making with M&A

Underpinning the underlying decisions of legislation, regulation and policies based on M&A results can ensure sound, evidence-based decision-making [85,86]. In turn, legislation, regulation, and policies, their objectives and described actions provide a mandate for M&A [48,54] or a basis for the development and selection of indicators to monitor their progress. Both ways to support evidence-based decision-making seem to become common practice in governmental administrations, although they might not be formalised. The linking of M&A data and information, objectives, actions and indicators, as applied in several cases in this study, shows that consciously or unconsciously, the rationale of the

Theory of Change [87] is used in practice. The idea behind the ‘Theory of Change’ is to define objectives and actions to tackle local issues and select indicators that can assess the progress towards these objectives and to steer and adjust actions based on the indicator assessment outcomes [15,87,88]. Applying this rationale in practice as well as in research-practice collaborations provides an opportunity to make M&A more relevant by aligning it with existing local objectives [87,88]. Moreover, several assessment frameworks built on this rationale aim to introduce more inclusive and comprehensive assessment processes into practice [e.g. 15,24,29].

Social learning through reflectivity is considered an integral part of M&A [7]. Ideally, there is a feedback loop in which, on a regular basis, M&A outcomes are collaboratively reflected to learn from successes and failures. Accordingly, legislation, regulation and policies are revised [13]. Such collaborative, reflective processes are still rarely taken up in practice, yet they are worth promoting. They can support long-term learning to improve decision-making for NbS [89] and hinder M&A outcomes from being used to support favourable, less evidence-based decisions [90]. Settings that promote reflective learning, such as Urban Living Labs, Learning Alliances, and pilot projects, can play a crucial role in introducing reflective learning within the processes of M&A and legislation, regulation and policy development [91–93].

### 4.3. Tapping into the potential of collaborative M&A

Although collaboration on M&A processes is still lagging behind other NbS-related processes (e.g. planning, design, implementation) [29], for most city administrations, collaborative arrangements with external actors are mentioned. Yet, roles differed between actor groups and M&A steps. Whereas semi-public and private actors played mainly a supporting role in data collection, universities collaborated more on M&A steps prior to and after data collection. Academic partners often have the knowledge and skills to support by developing assessment frameworks, employing comprehensive M&A methods, and applying approaches to communicate and share M&A data and information [94]. Moreover, research projects provide opportunities to test new M&A indicators and approaches collaboratively [37]. Universities and NGOs also conduct M&A independently, but often supplementary to, and at times critical of, M&A data and information from city administrations. The involvement of the private sector is limited at the moment, but they can possibly be incentivized to collaborate on data collection or to share or make their collected data open access when working for city administrations.

The examples of the interviews showed that collaboration with external actors supports M&A, but also that there is potential to further collaborate in various M&A steps and different roles. M&A does not need to be the sole responsibility of city administrations [58]. External actors can take over some of the responsibilities [50], which is especially relevant in the CELAC cities due to weaker governance structures [56], where universities and NGOs already play a stronger role in M&A. External actors can conduct M&A on topics not covered by public management. As pointed out in one of the interviews, there is a lot of data and information available, but only limited resources and capacities to aggregate it. Further collaboration with non-governmental actors would allow the pooling of resources together to assess NbS, their benefits and impacts, and in such a way, enhance the effectiveness and capacity of the overall organisation of M&A [34]. Moreover, this could help to address the lack of in-house expertise, as other institutions or actors have the expertise to generate the data and make it available. This could also mitigate the risks of experts changing jobs [34,54]. Acknowledging the role external actors can play is the first step to opening up M&A processes for other actors, but further opportunities to engage external actors, in particular the private sector, need to be explored.
## 4.4. Involving citizens in M&A for fair and just NBS governance

The inclusion of different actors in the M&A process would introduce new, more critical and possibly more locally relevant socio-ecological perspectives on nature [29,55]. The involvement of citizens and civil society also helps to raise awareness, promote learning about environmental issues and sense of place, and support citizen empowerment, shared ownership, and local stewardship [95,96]. Engaging civil society would make the process more inclusive and would allow the inclusion of topics in M&A that are considered relevant by citizens and civil society [29]. To support environmental justice, which is especially relevant in CELAC cities [5], important environmental and socio-economic inequalities could be highlighted in spatial data. Moreover, M&A allows civil society to push the public agenda and pressure decision-makers by taking ownership of M&A data, providing evidence and improving their argumentation. However, this potential is insufficiently acknowledged or taken up by civil society. More good practice examples, include involvement in pilot projects on M&A of NbS, which might provide opportunities for citizens to learn the value of M&A while allowing city administration to learn how citizens can be involved and contribute to M&A. In the same fashion, city administrations need to start acknowledging the contribution external actors can provide to the M&A process.

Citizen involvement in M&A, as acknowledged by practitioners, focuses on either communicating M&A data and information to support environmental education or collecting data from citizens through, for example, citizen science [29,54]. Several practitioners still seem to be unfamiliar with the multiple opportunities citizen involvement can bring. The request for more guidance related to citizen involvement in M&A seems to indicate an uncertainty among practitioners on how to organise it, how to deal with it, and how to motivate people to partake. In support of more participatory M&A, Rödl and Arlati [24] and van der Jagt et al. [29] developed step-by-step approaches and suggested to identify different stakeholders at the start of the M&A process as one of the first steps and to ensure their engagement through a local agency [97]. Citizen involvement might require city administrations to invest in supporting structures and to open up and permit new perspectives to enter the discourse. For example, indicators relevant to local communities can be added to the assessment framework, and data can be made open access. It also requires acknowledgement of data from external actors, for example, produced through citizen science [98], even when the data is critical of actions of the public management organisation, without considering it as a tradeable commodity [99].

## 4.5. Accessing and giving access to M&A expertise and evidence

Making M&A data and information available is an integral part of the M&A process and is a prerequisite to support other governance processes [54,96]. Sharing data supports practice, education and research [34,54], while open data initiatives can help to make collaborations more effective by building a platform of trust [100]. However, making data publicly available should not pose a risk to persons, communities or other living beings, especially not to those who are vulnerable [101]. For example, regarding the protection of privacy or of pressure on sensitive natural areas [101]. Different communication channels support sharing M&A data and information internally and externally [96], although online reports and platforms are the most popular channels for city administrations. New technologies make it faster and easier to share a large number of data sets and information with a large number of people [8,102]. The insights from Bogota and São Paulo in digital information systems, such as the Bogota Observatory, indicate the need for regular updates and a logical structure for internal and external actors [103], which brings costs in resources and capacities [96]. Managing digital information systems might, therefore, not be feasible for all city administrations [104]. Pooling resources together with other city administrations might be a way to ensure successful platform development, while it might also act as a gateway for collaboration on shared issues.

Although costs have been mentioned before as a limiting factor for M&A [105], neither financial issues nor incentives related to M&A were directly addressed by the interviewees. However, the appeal for more elaborate costs-benefit analyses could be considered as a motivation for raising awareness, setting priorities and understanding economic liability and viability [106]. In line with previous studies on M&A for NbS [13,15,25,56], the interviewees requested more expertise on comprehensive NbS impact and performance evaluations to support decision-making, including the assessment of co-benefits, disservices and trade-offs, as well as recognition of people's local values across spatial and temporal scales. In addition, more expertise was called for to include issues relevant to society and human wellbeing [4,107]. However, the complexity of these comprehensive evaluations and the interdisciplinarity of the task also require the knowledge, skills, resources and capacities to conduct them. Even though there is the wish to conduct comprehensive NbS cost-benefit and performance evaluations, other ways to conduct M&A need to be sought if the resources are not present. It is therefore recommended that the available resources and capacities or possible collaborations be assessed before setting up the M&A process [29,96]. To support practitioners on M&A, one should not solely focus on scientific accuracy, but also consider applicability and feasibility [29], as these increase the chances that M&A will be applied, even over longer time periods. Free online M&A training in local languages can strengthen the capacities of practitioners, particularly in CELAC countries [56], while in the long term, M&A could be further incorporated into the curriculum of future city practitioners.

## 4.6. Reflection on method and framework

We were able to gain insights into the interactions of M&A with six of the other eight governance dimensions besides M&A from the governance framework (see Fig. 2). Most governance dimensions were sufficiently defined by van der Jagt et al. [46] to identify related ideas and experiences in the interviews. Although the dimension of *Valuing Diversity, Equity & Inclusion* was placed at the centre of the governance framework, the inclusion of environmental justice in M&A processes still seems to be in its infancy [108]. Due to the intersectionality of the concept, the few related ideas and experiences could be assigned to other dimensions. Ideas and experiences related to the dimension of *Financial Incentives* were also insufficiently addressed in the interviews in order to describe interactions with M&A. The same accounts for some of the sub dimensions. The few experiences mentioned related to the sub dimension NbS Advocacy by *Non-governmental Actors* were included in the dimensions of *Collaborative Arrangements* and *Active Community Engagement*. The ideas and experiences linked to the dimension of *Active Community Engagement* and the sub dimension of *Environmental Education* were so similar and few (e.g. citizen science) that these were clustered together. Although a distinction between these two (sub) dimensions was not viable within this study, in relation to other NbS governance processes, such as NbS design, we see that a distinction between citizen involvement in decision-making and knowledge co-production is relevant. The sub dimensions related to *Knowledge Development & Sharing* often overlapped with other governance dimensions, as experiences of knowledge sharing, reflection and learning are often embedded within activities and procedures of other dimensions. The sub dimension of *Access to Relevant Expertise* overlapped with the M&A dimension, as we understand M&A as a process that goes beyond data collection and includes key steps, such as data sharing and reflection. As data sharing for M&A was given relevance in the interviews, we described it in a separate section. The sub dimension *Social Learning Based on Reflectivity* was difficult to grasp, as a good understanding of the different dimensions and their relationships seem to be needed to determine the moments of reflective learning. However, we saw reflective learning as particularly relevant in relation to updating and improving *Legislation, Regulation & Policies*. For the sub dimension of *Institutional Commitment*, we brought in a distinction between political
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** The interactions between M&A and the governance dimensions or sub dimensions (based on van der Jagt et al. [46] as identified in the interviews. The intensity of the interactions is indicated by the line type. Image credit: Sze Wai (Cynthia) Chan.</figcaption></figure>

commitment and individual commitment as, from the interviewees, it became evident they do not always align. In conclusion, the governance framework helped to understand NbS urban governance [109] and to analyse the experiences of practitioners within this context, but due to the more messy reality, dimensions had to be merged or newly defined.

As the governance framework is developed through a review of good NbS governance practices [46], it seems to build on the assumption that NbS is accepted and understood by the majority of practitioners in city administrations. Although all interviewees accepted NbS as a concept supporting the sustainable transition of their city, this might not hold true for their colleagues or practitioners in other cities. Moreover, the understanding of NbS still varied between the interviewees. When concepts are only recently being introduced, as in CELAC countries, there is still ambiguity and variety about their interpretation [8,110]. The comments of some interviewees on the lack of specific NbS indicators, while indicating several indicators for green space management and NbS-related challenges, show a rather narrow or limited understanding of NbS. While different understandings of NbS allow the concept to be malleable in different contexts, a certain degree of commonality is required to keep the concept sound and prevent misuse [111]. For these reasons, we propose to add an additional dimension to the framework, namely ‘acceptance and shared understanding’.

The ten experts from CELAC and EU cities showed awareness of the

processes related to M&A in their city's NbS governance context, and they were able to pinpoint needs and provide recommendations related to M&A. The different contexts of the interviewees allowed us to understand M&A in a broader variety of governance contexts. However, the limited sample of interviewees and the application of an exploratory qualitative approach did not allow us to draw conclusions for specific contexts or compare cities. However, we were able to identify common experiences about the interactions between M&A and the dimensions of its governance context across the case cities, as well as shared challenges and opportunities related to M&A and its role in NbS governance. In addition, specific differences between global regions were highlighted.

## 5. Conclusions

M&A plays a key role in closing knowledge gaps on NbS and improving evidence-based decision-making in urban NbS governance. To support the uptake of M&A on NbS in urban governance practice, we took a closer look at how M&A relates to different dimensions of urban NbS governance and how these dimensions and M&A could support each other. Based on ten interviews with thirteen experts in EU and CELAC cities, we identified that M&A can promote integrated working within city administrations through mandatory multidimensional indicator frameworks and can provide agency to individual practitioners and
departments to create political commitment in support of NbS. Additional supportive measures are: building a culture committed to NbS, setting up an intersectoral team, and an integrated information system. Reflective practices are needed to ensure learning from M&A data and information to improve decision-making and policy-making. As the rationale of the Theory of Change is applied in practice, this could be a good starting point to link legislation, regulation and policies through reflective practices with M&A. Collaborative arrangements hold largely untapped potential for city administrations to ensure more efficient decision-making by sharing responsibilities for M&A. Environmental justice is barely addressed in M&A, while the potential of citizen involvement is insufficiently taken up by both civil society and city administrations. On the one hand, the value of M&A for citizens needs to be better communicated, while city administrations need guidance on how to support citizen involvement in M&A. Sharing data is an essential part of M&A, which can be greatly supported by digital information platforms and channels. However, practice requires a better understanding of how such platforms can be feasibly managed for or by smaller and less affluent city administrations, and awareness of the perils of these technologies on vulnerable people and nature is also needed. Instead of complex, comprehensive assessment approaches, M&A needs to be feasible and accessible for a range of actors. Researchers have a role to play in ensuring that M&A frameworks and methods can be implemented in practice. The biggest challenge ahead may lie in promoting further uptake of M&A and testing the provided recommendations in practice. Besides including the identified recommendations in future research-practice collaborations, we recommend conducting more studies to gain insights from more and other global regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, South-east Asia and Eastern Europe. As our interviewees were from CELAC and EU cities with large city administrations, we also recommend further study in smaller city administrations in rural areas, as their situations might be quite different.

## NBS impacts and implications

**Environmental:** Understanding how the governance context hinders or promotes monitoring and assessment strategies (M&A) enhances the impact of M&A outcomes on policy. This increases the awareness, understanding, and knowledge of nature and natural processes of different actors and allows including NbS and its supporting services in evidence-based decision-making.

**Social:** The study shows that the role of non-governmental actors as recipients and active participants within M&A processes is still limited, but looking at collaboration and involvement in different M&A steps reveals new opportunities to engage non-governmental actors and, in turn, improve inclusive decision-making on socially relevant issues.

**Economic:** Understanding how the governance context hinders or promotes M&A within governmental institutions allows for streamlining governance processes, making them more efficient and effective in support of M&A on NbS. For example, a multidimensional indicator framework can promote increased collaboration between sectoral departments that might go beyond the M&A process.

## Funding

This research has been funded by the Brazilian FAPESP 2019/08783-0 grant and the European Commission's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No. 867564 and participating partners in the CONEXUS Project.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Martina van Lierop:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.
**Cynnamon Dobbs:** Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Funding acquisition.
**Camila Flores:** Writing – review & editing, Validation, Data curation.

**Alexander van der Jagt:** Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Investigation.
**Andrea Skiba:** Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Investigation.
**Giuliano Maselli Locosselli:** Writing – review & editing, Investigation.
**Denise Duarte:** Writing – review & editing, Investigation.
**Arjen Buijs:** Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Funding acquisition.
**Aude Zingraff-Hamed:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
**Stephan Pauleit:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

## Acknowledgements

We are especially grateful to all interviewees for contributing their time and for sharing their experiences and insights with us. We would like to thank Alice Mendes de Freitas for her contribution to the data collection and Sze Wai (Cynthia) Chan for the graphical design of the figures. In addition, we are grateful for the comments made by the three anonymous reviewers, which greatly helped to improve the manuscript.

## Supplementary materials

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.nbsj.2024.100170.

## References

[1] UNEP, Resolution on Nature-based Solutions for supporting sustainable development. United Nations Environment Programme UNEP/EA.5/Res.5, United Nations Environment Assembly UNEA 5.2, (2022). http://www.unep.org/environmentassembly/unea-5.2/proceedings-report-ministerial-declaration-resolutions-and-decisions-unea-5.2 (accessed June 9, 2022).

[2] E. Cohen-Shacham, G. Walters, C. Janzen, S. Maginnis, Nature-based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges, IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2016, https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en.

[3] S. Pauleit, T. Zölch, R. Hansen, T.B. Randrup, C. Konijnendijk van den Bosch, Nature-Based solutions and climate change – four shades of green, in: N. Kabisch, H. Korn, J. Stadler, A. Bonn (Eds.), Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017, pp. 29–49, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_3.

[4] A. Dumitru, L. Wendling, S. Eiter, F. Pilla, Evaluating the Impact of Nature-based Solutions: A Handbook For Practitioners, EU Publications Office, Luxembourg, 2021, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10757.47843.

[5] S. Pauleit, A. Vasquez, S. Maruthaveeran, L. Liu, S.S. Cilliers, Urban green infrastructure in the global south, in: C.M. Shackleton, S.S. Cilliers, E. Davoren, M.J. Du Toit (Eds.), Urban Ecology in the Global South, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021, pp. 107–143, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67650-6_5.

[6] S. Castelo, M. Amado, F. Ferreira, Challenges and opportunities in the use of nature-based solutions for urban adaptation, Sustainability 15 (2023) 7243, https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097243.

[7] J.G.C. Martin, A. Scolobig, J. Linnerooth-Bayer, W. Liu, J. Balsiger, Catalyzing innovation: governance enablers of nature-based solutions, Sustainability 13 (2021) 1971, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041971.

[8] S.E. Sarabi, Q. Han, A.G.L. Romme, B. de Vries, L. Wendling, Key enablers of and barriers to the uptake and implementation of nature-based solutions in urban settings: a review, Resources 8 (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030121.

[9] T. Croeser, G.E. Garrard, F.M. Thomas, T.D. Tran, I. Mell, S. Clement, R. Sánchez, S. Bekessy, Diagnosing delivery capabilities on a large international nature-based solutions project, Npj Urban Sustain. 1 (2021) 32, https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00036-8.

[10] K.P. Dhakal, L.R. Chevalier, Managing urban stormwater for urban sustainability: barriers and policy solutions for green infrastructure application, J. Environ. Manage. 203 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.065.
[11] H. Dorst, A. van der Jagt, H. Toxopeus, L. Tozer, R. Raven, H. Runhaar, What's behind the barriers? Uncovering structural conditions working against urban nature-based solutions, Landsc. Urban Plan. 220 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104335.

[12] A. Dumitru, N. Frantzeskaki, M. Collier, Identifying principles for the design of robust impact evaluation frameworks for nature-based solutions in cities, Environ. Sci. Policy 112 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.024.

[13] N. Kabisch, N. Frantzeskaki, S. Pauleit, S. Naumann, M. Davis, M. Artmann, D. Haase, S. Knapp, H. Korn, J. Stadler, K. Zaunberger, A. Bonn, Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action, Ecol. Soc. 21 (2016), https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239.

[14] A. Pagano, I. Pluchinotta, P. Pengal, B. Cokan, R. Giordano, Engaging stakeholders in the assessment of NBS effectiveness in flood risk reduction: a participatory System Dynamics Model for benefits and co-benefits evaluation, Sci. Total Environ. 690 (2019) 543–555, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.059.

[15] C.M. Raymond, N. Frantzeskaki, N. Kabisch, P. Berry, M. Breil, M.R. Nita, D. Geneletti, C. Calfapietra, A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas, Environ. Sci. Policy 77 (2017) 15–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008.

[16] M. Viti, R. Löwe, H.J.D. Sørup, M. Rasmussen, K. Arnbjerg-Nielsen, U. S. McKnight, Knowledge gaps and future research needs for assessing the non-market benefits of Nature-Based Solutions and Nature-Based Solution-like strategies, Sci. Total Environ. 841 (2022) 156636, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156636.

[17] L.J. Watkin, L. Ruangpan, Z. Vojnović, S. Weesakul, A.S. Torres, A framework for assessing benefits of implemented nature-based solutions, Sustainability 11 (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236788.

[18] M. Wihlborg, J. Sörensen, J. Alkan Olsson, Assessment of barriers and drivers for implementation of blue-green solutions in Swedish municipalities, J. Environ. Manage. 233 (2019) 706–718, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.018.

[19] K. Emerson, T. Nabatchi, S. Balogh, An integrative framework for collaborative governance, J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 22 (2011) 1–29, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011.

[20] J. Kooijman, Governing As Governance, Sage Publications, 2003.

[21] C. Cvitanovic, J. McDonald, A.J. Hobday, From science to action: principles for undertaking environmental research that enables knowledge exchange and evidence-based decision-making, J. Environ. Manage. 183 (2016) 864–874, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.038.

[22] D. Haase, N. Larondelle, E. Andersson, M. Artmann, S. Borgström, J. Breuste, E. Gomez-Baggethun, Å. Gren, Z. Hamstead, R. Hansen, N. Kabisch, P. Kremer, J. Langemeyer, E.L. Rall, T. McPhearson, S. Pauleit, S. Qureshi, N. Schwarz, A. Voigt, D. Wurster, T. Elmqvist, A quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments: concepts, models, and implementation, Ambio 43 (2014) 413–433, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0.

[23] P. Kumar, S.E. Debele, J. Sahani, N. Rawat, P. Cardi-Martona, S.M. Alfieri, B. Basu, A.S. Basu, P. Bowyer, N. Charizopoulos, J. Jaakko, M. Louisip, M. Menenti, S.B. Mickovski, J. Pfeiffer, F. Pilla, J. Pöll, B. Pulvirenti, M. Rutzinger, S. Sannigrahi, C. Sprou, H. Tuomenvirta, Z. Vojnović, T. Zieher, An overview of monitoring methods for assessing the performance of nature-based solutions against natural hazards, Earth Sci. Rev. 217 (2021) 103603, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103603.

[24] A. Rödl, A. Arlati, A general procedure to identify indicators for evaluation and monitoring of nature-based solution projects, Ambio 51 (2022) 2278–2293, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01740-0.

[25] N. Frantzeskaki, T. McPhearson, M.J. Collier, D. Kendal, H. Bulkeley, A. Dumitru, C. Walsh, K. Noble, E. Van Wyk, C. Ordóñez, C. Oke, L. Pintér, Nature-Based solutions for urban climate change adaptation: linking science, policy, and practice communities for evidence-based decision-making, Bioscience 69 (2019) 455–466, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz042.

[26] L. Thomas-Walters, E.A. Nyboer, J.J. Taylor, T. Rytwinski, J.F. Lane, N. Young, J. R. Bennett, V.M. Nguyen, N. Harron, S.M. Aitken, G. Auld, D. Browne, A.L. Jacob, K. Prior, P.A. Smith, K.E. Smokorowski, S.M. Alexander, S.J. Cooke, An optimistic outlook on the use of evidence syntheses to inform environmental decision-making, Conserv. Sci. Prac. 3 (2021) e426, https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.426.

[27] A.P.E. van Oudenhoven, M. Schröter, E.G. Drakou, I.R. Geijzendorffer, S. Jacobs, P.M. Van Bodegom, L. Chazee, B. Czúcz, K. Grunewald, A.I. Lillebo, L. Mononen, A.J.A. Nogueira, M. Pacheco-Romero, C. Perennik, R.P. Remme, S. Rova, R.-U. Syrbe, J.A. Tratalos, M. Vallejos, C. Albert, Key criteria for developing ecosystem service indicators to inform decision making, Ecol. Indic. 95 (2018) 417–426, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.020.

[28] L.D. Santos, I. Martins, Monitoring urban quality of life: the porto experience, Soc. Indic. Res. 80 (2007) 411–425, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-0002-2.

[29] A.P.N. van der Jagt, A. Buijs, C. Dobbs, M. van Lierop, S. Pauleit, T.B. Randrup, T. Wild, An action framework for the participatory assessment of nature-based solutions in cities, Ambio 52 (2023) 54–67, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01772-0.

[30] N. Frantzeskaki, P. Vandergerert, S. Connop, K. Schipper, I. Zwierzchowska, M. Collier, M. Lodder, Examining the policy needs for implementing nature-based solutions in cities: findings from city-wide transdisciplinary experiences in Glasgow (UK), Genk (Belgium) and Poznań (Poland), Land Use Policy 96 (2020) 104688, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104688.

[31] N. Seddon, A. Chausson, P. Berry, C.A.J. Girardin, A. Smith, B. Turner, Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change

and other global challenges, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 375 (2020) 20190120, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120.

[32] B. Sowińska-Świerkosz, J. García, A new evaluation framework for nature-based solutions (NBS) projects based on the application of performance questions and indicators approach, Sci. Total Environ. 787 (2021) 147615, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147615.

[33] H. Dorst, A. van der Jagt, H. Runhaar, R. Raven, Structural conditions for the wider uptake of urban nature-based solutions – A conceptual framework, Cities 116 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103283.

[34] C. Wamsler, B. Wickenberg, H. Hanson, J. Alkan Olsson, S. Stålhammar, H. Björn, H. Falck, D. Gerell, T. Oskarsson, E. Simonsson, F. Torffvit, F. Zelmerlow, Environmental and climate policy integration: targeted strategies for overcoming barriers to nature-based solutions and climate change adaptation, J. Clean. Prod. 247 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119154.

[35] A.-S. Stevance, P. Bridgewater, S. Louafi, N. King, T.D. Beard, A.S. Van Jaarsveld, Z. Ofir, R. Kohsaka, K. Jenderedijan, M. Rosales Benites, K.J. Mulongoy, K. L. Chaudhari, J. Painter, A. Meter, The 2019 review of IPBES and future priorities: reaching beyond assessment to enhance policy impact, Ecosystem. People 16 (2020) 70–77, https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1702590.

[36] J. Wang, S. Pauleit, E. Banzhaf, An Integrated Indicator Framework for the Assessment of Multifunctional Green Infrastructure—Exemplified in a European City, Remote Sens. 11 (2019) 1869, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11161869.

[37] S.-R. Saarela, J. Rinne, Knowledge brokering and boundary work for ecosystem service indicators. An urban case study in Finland, Ecol. Indic. 61 (2016) 49–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.07.016.

[38] H. Saarikoski, E. Primmer, S.-R. Saarela, P. Antunes, R. Aszalós, F. Baró, P. Berry, G.G. Blanko, E. Gómez-Baggethun, L. Carvalho, J. Dick, R. Dunford, M. Hanzu, P. A. Harrison, Z. Izakovicova, M. Kertész, L. Kopperoinen, B. Köhler, J. Langemeyer, D. Lapola, C. Liquete, S. Luque, P. Mederly, J. Niemelä, I. Palomo, G.M. Pastur, P.L. Peri, E. Preda, J.A. Priess, R. Santos, C. Schleyer, F. Turkelboom, A. Vadineanu, W. Verheyden, S. Vikström, J. Young, Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice, Ecosystem. Services 29 (2018) 579–598, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019.

[39] D.B. Lindenmayer, G.E. Likens, The science and application of ecological monitoring, Biol. Conserv. 143 (2010) 1317–1328, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.013.

[40] A. McQuatters-Gloppl, I. Mitchell, C. Vina-Herbon, J. Bedford, P.F.E. Addison, C. P. Lynam, P.N. Geetha, E.A. Vermeulan, K. Smit, D.T.I. Bayley, E. Morris-Webb, H.J. Niner, S.A. Otto, From science to evidence – how biodiversity indicators can be used for effective marine conservation policy and management, Front. Mar. Sci. 6 (2019) 109, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmar.2019.001009.

[41] P.D.A.L. Constantino, H.S.A. Carlos, E.E. Ramalho, L. Rostant, C.E. Marinelli, D. Teles, S.F. Fonseca-Junior, R.B. Fernandes, J. Valsecchi, Empowering local people through community-based resource monitoring: a comparison of Brazil and Namibia, E&S 17 (2012) art22, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05164-170422.

[42] R. Giordano, I. Pluchinotta, A. Pagano, A. Scrieciu, F. Nanu, Enhancing nature-based solutions acceptance through stakeholders' engagement in co-benefits identification and trade-offs analysis, Sci. Total Environ. 713 (2020) 136552, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136552.

[43] A. Breen, E. Giannotti, M.Flores Molina, A. Vásquez, From “government to governance”? A systematic literature review of research for urban green infrastructure Management in Latin America, Front. Sustain. Cities 2 (2020) 572360, https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2020.572360.

[44] A. Chausson, B. Turner, D. Seddon, N. Chabaneix, C.A.J. Girardin, V. Kapos, I. Key, D. Roe, A. Smith, S. Woroniecki, N. Seddon, Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation, Glob. Chang. Biol. 26 (2020) 6134–6155, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15310.

[45] A. Mercado, T. Wild, J. Hernandez-Garcia, M.D. Baptista, M. van Lierop, O. Bina, A. Inch, Å. Öde Sang, A. Buijs, C. Dobbs, A. Vásquez, A. van der Jagt, F. Salbitano, R. Falanga, J.D. Amaya-Espinel, M. De Matos Pereira, T.B. Randrup, Supporting nature-based solutions via nature-based thinking across European and Latin American cities, Ambio 53 (2024) 79–94, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01920-6.

[46] A.P.N. van der Jagt, A. Buijs, C. Dobbs, M. van Lierop, S. Pauleit, T.B. Randrup, A. Skiba, T. Wild, With the process comes the progress: a systematic review to support governance assessment of urban nature-based solutions, Urban Forest. Urban Green. 87 (2023) 128067, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128067.

[47] A. Ibrahim, K. Bartsch, E. Sharifi, Green infrastructure needs green governance: lessons from Australia's largest integrated stormwater management project, the River Torrens Linear Park, J. Clean. Prod. 261 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121202.

[48] W.Y. Shih, L. Mabon, J.A.P. de Oliveira, Assessing governance challenges of local biodiversity and ecosystem services: barriers identified by the expert community, Land Use Policy 91 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104291.

[49] L. Suleiman, Blue green infrastructure, from niche to mainstream: challenges and opportunities for planning in Stockholm, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 166 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120528.

[50] E.C. O'Donnell, N.R. Netusil, F.K.S. Chan, N.J. Dolman, S.N. Gosling, International perceptions of urban blue-green infrastructure: a comparison across four cities, Water 13 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/w13040544.

[51] T.B. Randrup, A. Buijs, C.C. Konijndijk, T. Wild, Moving beyond the nature-based solutions discourse: introducing nature-based thinking, Urban Ecosystem. 23 (2020) 919–926, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00964-w.

[52] H. Kvåmsas, Addressing the adaptive challenges of alternative stormwater planning, J. Environ. Plann. Policy Manage. 23 (2021) 809–821, https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.1921568.
[53] A. Shkaruba, H. Skryhan, O. Likhacheva, A. Katona, O. Maryskevych, V.ireyeu, K. Sepp, I. Shpakivska, Development of sustainable urban drainage systems in Eastern Europe: an analytical overview of the constraints and enabling conditions, J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 64 (2021) 2435-2458, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1874893.

[54] A.A. Zuniga-Teran, C. Staddon, L. de Vito, A.K. Gerlak, S. Ward, Y. Schoeman, A. Hart, G. Booth, Challenges of mainstreaming green infrastructure in built environment professions, J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 63 (2020) 710-732, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1605890.

[55] N.M. Gulsrud, K. Hertzog, I. Shears, Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne?: investigating "green placemaking" as a nature-based solution, Environ. Res. 161 (2018) 158-167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.005.

[56] C. Dobbs, F.J. Escobedo, N. Clerici, F. de la Barrera, A.A. Eleuterio, I. MacGregor-Fors, S. Reyes-Paecke, A. Vásquez, J.D. Zea Camaño, H.J. Hernández, Urban ecosystem Services in Latin America: mismatch between global concepts and regional realities? Urban Ecosyst. 22 (2019) 173-187, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0805-3.

[57] C. Ordóñez, C.G. Threlfall, D. Kendal, D.F. Hochuli, M. Davern, R.A. Fuller, R. van der Ree, S.J. Livesley, Urban forest governance and decision-making: a systematic review and synthesis of the perspectives of municipal managers, Landsc. Urban Plan. 189 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.04.200.

[58] I. Mell, The impact of austerity on funding green infrastructure: a DPSIR evaluation of the Liverpool Green & Open Space Review (LG&OSR), UK, Land use policy 91 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104284.

[59] J. Langemeyer, J.J.T. Connolly, Weaving notions of justice into urban ecosystem services research and practice, Environ. Sci. Policy 109 (2020) 1-14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.021.

[60] H. Toxopeus, P. Kotsila, M. Conde, A. Katona, A.P.N. van der Jagt, F. Polzin, How 'just' is hybrid governance of urban nature-based solutions? Cities 105 (2020) 102839 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102839.

[61] Population Reference Bureau, Share of urban population worldwide in 2023, by continent, (2023). https://www.statista.com/statistics/270860/urbanization-on-by-continent/(accessed June 4, 2024).

[62] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision, United Nations, New York, 2019. https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-Report.pdf. accessed June 4, 2024.

[63] K.C. Seto, B. Güneralp, L.R. Hutyra, Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109 (2012) 16083-16088, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211658109.

[64] UN Habitat, Habitat III: Regional report, Latin America and the Caribbean: Sustainable cities With Equality, United Nations, Nairobi, 2016. https://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/HabitatIII-Regional-Report-LAC.pdf (accessed June 4, 2024).

[65] SDG /United Nations Global SDG Database / United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), Proportion of urban population living in slums, informal settlements or inadequate housing (SDG indicator 11.1.1), (2024). http://consensomontevideo.cepal.org/en/indicadores/proportion-un城市人口-11.1.1-informal-settlements-or-inadequate-housing-sdg (accessed June 4, 2024).

[66] I.C. Fernández, J. Wu, A GIS-based framework to identify priority areas for urban environmental inequity mitigation and its application in Santiago de Chile, Appl. Geogr. 94 (2018) 213-222, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeogr.2018.03.019.

[67] F. de la Barrera, S. Reyes-Paecke, J. Harris, D. Bascúnán, J.M. Farías, People's perception influences on the use of green spaces in socio-economically differentiated neighborhoods, Urban Forest. Urban Green. 20 (2016) 254-264, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.09.007.

[68] C. Dobbs, A.A. Eleuterio, A. Vásquez, M. Cifuentes-Ibarra, D. Da Silva, T. Devisscher, M.D. Baptista, A. Hernández-Moreno, E. Meléndez-Ackerman, N. M. Navarro, Are we promoting green cities in Latin America and the Caribbean? Exploring the patterns and drivers of change for urban vegetation, Land Use Policy 134 (2023) 106912, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106912.

[69] M. Scopelliti, G. Carrus, C. Adinolfi, G. Suarez, G. Colangelo, R. Lafortezza, A. Panno, G. Sanesi, Staying in touch with nature and well-being in different income groups: the experience of urban parks in Bogotá, Landsc. Urban Plan. 148 (2016) 139-148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.002.

[70] World Bank Group, Indigenous Latin America in the Twenty-First Century The First Decade, The World Bank, Washington, DC, 2015. https://documents1.world.bank.org/curated/en/145891467991974540/pdf/Indigenous-Latin-America-in-the-twenty-first-century-the-first-decade.pdf. accessed June 4, 2024.

[71] R. Rozzi, et al., Earth Stewardship and the Biocultural Ethic: latin American Perspectives in: R. Rozzi, F.S. Chapin Iii, J.B. Callicott, S.T.A. Pickett, M. E. Power, J.J. Armesto, et al. (Eds.), Earth Stewardship, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015, pp. 87-112, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12133-8_8.

[72] A.M. Matsler, S. Meerow, I.C. Mell, M.A. Pavao-Zuckerman, A 'green' chameleon: exploring the many disciplinary definitions, goals, and forms of "green infrastructure, Landsc. Urban Plan. 214 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104145.

[73] B. Kauark-Fontes, C.E. Ortiz-Guerrero, L. Marchetti, J. Hernández-Garcia, F. Salbitano, Towards adaptive governance of urban nature-based solutions in Europe and Latin America—a qualitative exploratory study, Sustainability 15 (2023) 4479, https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054479.

[74] C. Davies, W.Y. Chen, G. Sanesi, R. Lafortezza, The European Union roadmap for implementing nature-based solutions: a review, Environ. Sci. Policy 121 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.03.018.

[75] U. Flick, An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 5th ed., SAGE, London, 2014.

[76] V. Braun, V. Clarke, Successful Qualitative research. A practical Guide for Beginners, 1st ed., SAGE, London, 2013.

[77] Descript. (n.d.). descript.com.

[78] J. Kutylowski, DeepL, (2017). deepL.com/translator.

[79] S. Lamnek, C. Krell, Qualitative Sozialforschung: Lehrbuch 5, überarbeitete Auflage, Beltz, Weinheim Basel, 2010.

[80] P. Mayring, Einführung in Die Qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Anleitung zu Qualitativem Denken, 6, überarbeitete Auflage, Beltz, Weinheim Basel, 2016.

[81] T. Dubo, I. Palomo, A. Zingraff-Hamed, E. Bruley, G. Collain, S. Lavorel, Levers for transformative nature-based adaptation initiatives in the Alps, PLOS Clim. 2 (2023) e0000193, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000193.

[82] A. Zingraff-Hamed, F. Hükeser, C. Albert, M. Brillinger, J. Huang, G. Lupp, S. Scheuer, M. Schlätel, B. Schröter, Governance models for nature-based solutions: seventeen cases from Germany, Ambio 50 (2021) 1610-1627, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01412-x.

[83] L.W. Habtemariam, L.B. Herslund, P. Mguni, What makes a champion for landscape-based storm water management in Addis Ababa? Sustainable Cities Soc. 46 (2019) 101378 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.12.006.

[84] A. Scolobig, J. Linnerooth-Bayer, M. Pelling, J.G.C. Martin, T.M. Deubelli, W. Liu, A. Oen, Transformative adaptation through nature-based solutions: a comparative case study analysis in China, Italy, and Germany, Reg. Environ. Change 23 (2023) 69, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-023-02066-7.

[85] J. Newman, A. Cherney, B.W. Head, Policy capacity and evidence-based policy in the public service, Public Manage. Rev. 19 (2017) 157-174, https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1148191.

[86] D. Von Winterfeldt, Bridging the gap between science and decision making, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110 (2013) 14055-14061, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213532110.

[87] L.E. Oakes, G.Peterson St-Laurent, M.S. Cross, T. Washington, E. Tully, S. Hagerman, Strengthening monitoring and evaluation of multiple benefits in conservation initiatives that aim to foster climate change adaptation, Conserv. Sci. Prac. 4 (2022) e12688, https://doi.org/10.1111/csp.12688.

[88] J. Reed, C. Chervier, J.R. Borah, D. Gumbo, K.B. Moombe, T.M. Mbanga, A. O'Connor, F. Siangulube, M. Yanou, T. Sunderland, Co-producing theory of change to operationalize integrated landscape approaches, Sustain. Sci. 18 (2023) 839-855, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01190-3.

[89] M. Buizer, B. Elands, K. Vierikko, Governing cities reflexively—The biocultural diversity concept as an alternative to ecosystem services, Environ. Sci. Policy 62 (2016) 7-13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.003.

[90] A. Sharman, J. Holmes, Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence gathering? Biofuels, the EU and the 10% target, Env. Pol. Gov. 20 (2010) 309-321, https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.543.

[91] G. Lupp, J.J. Huang, A. Zingraff-Hamed, A. Oen, N. Del Sepia, A. Martinelli, M. Lucchesi, T. Wulff Knutsen, M. Olsen, T.F. Fjøsne, E.M. Balaguer, I. Arauzo, A. Solheim, B. Kalsnes, S. Pauleit, Stakeholder perceptions of nature-based solutions and their collaborative co-design and implementation processes in rural mountain areas—a case study from PHUSICOS, Front. Environ. Sci. 9 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.678446.

[92] E.C. O'Donnell, J.E. Lamond, C.R. Thorne, Learning and Action Alliance framework to facilitate stakeholder collaboration and social learning in urban flood risk management, Environ. Sci. Policy 80 (2018) 1-8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.10.013.

[93] Y. Voytenko, K. McCormick, J. Evans, G. Schliwa, Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: towards a research agenda, J. Clean. Prod. 123 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.053.

[94] P. Mickwitz, M. Melanen, The role of co-operation between academia and policymakers for the development and use of sustainability indicators – a case from the Finnish Kymenlaakso Region, J. Clean. Prod. 17 (2009) 1086-1100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.12.003.

[95] M.L. Cardenas, V. Wilde, A. Hagen-Zanker, I. Seifert-Dähnn, M.G. Hutchins, S. Loiselle, The circular benefits of participation in nature-based solutions, Sustainability 13 (2021) 4344, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084344.

[96] K.A. Evans, M.R. Guariguata, Success from the Ground up: Participatory monitoring and Forest Restoration, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 2016, https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/006284.

[97] A. Arlati, A. Rödl, S. Kanjaria-Christian, J. Knieling, Stakeholder participation in the planning and design of nature-based solutions. Insights from clever cities project in Hamburg, Sustainability 13 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052572.

[98] R. Bonney, C.B. Cooper, J. Dickinson, S. Kelling, T. Phillips, K.V. Rosenberg, J. Shirk, Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy, Bioscience 59 (2009) 977-984, https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9.

[99] A. Lawrence, E. Turnhout, Personal meaning in the public sphere: the standardisation and rationalisation of biodiversity data in the UK and the Netherlands, J. Rural Stud. 26 (2010) 353-360, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rurstud.2010.02.001.

[100] G.V. Pereira, M.A. Macadar, E.M. Luciano, M.G. Testa, Delivering public value through open government data initiatives in a Smart City context, Inf. Syst. Front. 19 (2017) 213-229, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9673-7.

[101] C. Anhalt-Depies, J.L. Stenglein, B. Zuckerberg, P.A. Townsend, A.R. Rissman, Tradeoffs and tools for data quality, privacy, transparency, and trust in citizen
science, Biol. Conserv. 238 (2019) 108195, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108195.

[102] W.K. Michener, Ecological data sharing, Ecol. Inform. 29 (2015) 33–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.06.010.

[103] A.P.N. van der Jagt, R. Raven, H. Dorst, H. Runhaar, Nature-based innovation systems, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 35 (2020) 202–216, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.09.005.

[104] B. Schröter, A. Zingraff-Hamed, E. Ott, J. Huang, F. Huesker, C. Nicolas, N.J. S. Schröder, The knowledge transfer potential of online data pools on nature-based solutions, Sci. Total Environ. 762 (2021) 143074, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143074.

[105] N. Van Cauwenbergh, P.A. Dourojeanni, P. van der Zaag, M. Brugnach, K. Dartee, R. Giordano, E. Lopez-Gunn, Beyond TRL – Understanding institutional readiness for implementation of nature-based solutions, Environ. Sci. Policy 127 (2022) 293–302, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.09.021.

[106] T. Wild, M. Baptista, J. Wilker, J.M. Kanai, M. Giusti, H. Henderson, D. Rotbart, J.-D.A. Espinel, J. Hernández-Garcia, O. Thomasz, D. Kozak, Valuation of urban nature-based solutions in Latin American and European cities, Urban Forest. Urban Green. 91 (2024) 128162, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128162.

[107] F. Pugliese, G. Caroppi, A. Zingraff-Hamed, G. Lupp, C. Gerundo, Assessment of NBSs effectiveness for flood risk management: the Isar River case study, J. Water Supply 71 (2022) 42–61, https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2021.101.

[108] P.H.C. Torres, D.T.P.D. Souza, S. Momm, L. Travassos, S.B.N. Picarelli, P. R. Jacobi, R. Da Silva Moreno, Just cities and nature-based solutions in the Global South: a diagnostic approach to move beyond panaceas in Brazil, Environ. Sci. Policy 143 (2023) 24–34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.02.017.

[109] B. Wickenberg, K. McCormick, J.A. Olsson, Advancing the implementation of nature-based solutions in cities: a review of frameworks, Environ. Sci. Policy 125 (2021) 44–53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.016.

[110] V.A. Neumann, J. Hack, Revealing and assessing the costs and benefits of nature-based solutions within a real-world laboratory in Costa Rica, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 93 (2022) 106737, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106737.

[111] R. Hansen, M. van Lierop, W. Rolf, D. Gantar, I. Erjavec, E. Rall, S. Pauleit, Using green infrastructure to stimulate discourse with and for planning practice: experiences with fuzzy concepts from a pan-European, a national and a local perspective, Socio-Ecological Practice Res. 3 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-021-00087-2.