IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i5p2657-d508826.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing the Invaluable(?)—A Framework to Facilitate Stakeholder Engagement in the Planning of Nature-Based Solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Sophie Mok

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering IAO, Fraunhofer IAO, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Ernesta Mačiulytė

    (Institute of Human Factors and Technology Management (IAT), University of Stuttgart, 70741 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Pieter Hein Bult

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering IAO, Fraunhofer IAO, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany)

  • Tom Hawxwell

    (Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering IAO, Fraunhofer IAO, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
    Faculty of Urban Planning and Regional Development, HafenCity University, 20457 Hamburg, Germany)

Abstract

Nature-based solutions (NBS) have emerged as an important concept to build climate resilience in cities whilst providing a wide range of ecological, economic, and social co-benefits. With the ambition of increasing NBS uptake, diverse actors have been developing means to demonstrate and prove these benefits. However, the multifunctionality, the different types of benefits provided, and the context-specificity make it difficult to capture and communicate their overall value. In this paper, a value-based framework is presented that allows for structured navigation through these issues with the goal of identifying key values and engaging beneficiaries from the public, private, and civil society sector in the development of NBS. Applied methods such as focus groups, interviews, and surveys were used to assess different framework components and their interlinkages, as well as to test its applicability in urban planning. Results suggest that more specialized “hard facts” might be needed to actually attract larger investments of specific actors. However, the softer and more holistic approach could inspire and support the forming of alliances amongst a wider range of urban stakeholders and the prioritization of specific benefits for further assessment. Consequently, it is argued that both hard and soft approaches to nature valuation will be necessary to further promote and drive the uptake of NBS in cities.

Suggested Citation

  • Sophie Mok & Ernesta Mačiulytė & Pieter Hein Bult & Tom Hawxwell, 2021. "Valuing the Invaluable(?)—A Framework to Facilitate Stakeholder Engagement in the Planning of Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:5:p:2657-:d:508826
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/5/2657/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/5/2657/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sara Khoshkar & Berit Balfors & Antoienette Wärnbäck, 2018. "Planning for green qualities in the densification of suburban Stockholm – opportunities and challenges," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(14), pages 2613-2635, December.
    2. Raymond, Christopher M. & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Kabisch, Nadja & Berry, Pam & Breil, Margaretha & Nita, Mihai Razvan & Geneletti, Davide & Calfapietra, Carlo, 2017. "A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 15-24.
    3. Vera Ferreira & Ana Paula Barreira & Luís Loures & Dulce Antunes & Thomas Panagopoulos, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Engagement on Nature-Based Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-27, January.
    4. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 641-672, June.
    5. Munda, Giuseppe, 2004. "Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(3), pages 662-677, November.
    6. Kallis, Giorgos & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Zografos, Christos, 2013. "To value or not to value? That is not the question," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 97-105.
    7. Farley, Joshua, 2012. "Ecosystem services: The economics debate," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 40-49.
    8. Bauwens, Thomas, 2019. "Analyzing the determinants of the size of investments by community renewable energy members: Findings and policy implications from Flanders," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 841-852.
    9. Thompson, Mary Anne & Owen, Susan & Lindsay, Jan M. & Leonard, Graham S. & Cronin, Shane J., 2017. "Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: Early attitudes, expectations, and tensions," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 30-39.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eleanor Chapman & Viktor Bukovszki & Martina van Lierop & Silvia Tomasi & Stephan Pauleit, 2024. "Towards More Equitable Urban Greening: A Framework for Monitoring and Evaluating Co-Governance," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9.
    2. Alikhanova, Shahzoda & Milner-Gulland, Eleanor Jane & Bull, Joseph William, 2024. "Exploring the human-nature nexus towards effective nature-based solutions: the Aral Sea case," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    3. Michaelides, Marios & Laouris, Yiannis, 2024. "A cascading model of stakeholder engagement for large-scale regional development using structured dialogical design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 315(1), pages 307-323.
    4. Shahryar Sarabi & Qi Han & A. Georges L. Romme & Bauke de Vries & Rianne Valkenburg & Elke den Ouden & Spela Zalokar & Laura Wendling, 2021. "Barriers to the Adoption of Urban Living Labs for NBS Implementation: A Systemic Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-15, November.
    5. Ananya Tiwari & Luís Campos Rodrigues & Frances E. Lucy & Salem Gharbia, 2022. "Building Climate Resilience in Coastal City Living Labs Using Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-29, August.
    6. Wendel Henrique Baumgartner, 2021. "Parque Augusta (São Paulo/Brazil): From the Struggles of a Social Movement to Its Appropriation in the Real Estate Market and the Right to Nature in the City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, May.
    7. Israa H. Mahmoud & Eugenio Morello & Giuseppe Salvia & Emma Puerari, 2022. "Greening Cities, Shaping Cities: Pinpointing Nature-Based Solutions in Cities between Shared Governance and Citizen Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-7, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rembrandt Koppelaar & Antonino Marvuglia & Lisanne Havinga & Jelena Brajković & Benedetto Rugani, 2021. "Is Agent-Based Simulation a Valid Tool for Studying the Impact of Nature-Based Solutions on Local Economy? A Case Study of Four European Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Remme, Roy P. & Meacham, Megan & Pellowe, Kara E. & Andersson, Erik & Guerry, Anne D. & Janke, Benjamin & Liu, Lingling & Lonsdorf, Eric & Li, Meng & Mao, Yuanyuan & Nootenboom, Christopher & Wu, Tong, 2024. "Aligning nature-based solutions with ecosystem services in the urban century," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    3. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & von Haaren, Christina & Settele, Josef, 2014. "The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 22-32.
    4. Alec Foster, 2021. "Volunteer Urban Environmental Stewardship, Emotional Economies of Care, and Productive Power in Philadelphia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-13, July.
    5. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    6. Balaine, Lorraine & Gallai, Nicola & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2020. "Trading off environmental goods for compensations: Insights from traditional and deliberative valuation methods in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    7. Barbara Sowińska-Świerkosz & Julia Wójcik-Madej & Malwina Michalik-Śnieżek, 2021. "An Assessment of the Ecological Landscape Quality (ELQ) of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) Based on Existing Elements of Green and Blue Infrastructure (GBI)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.
    8. Bliss, Sam & Egler, Megan, 2020. "Ecological Economics Beyond Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    9. Kolinjivadi, Vijay, 2019. "Avoiding dualisms in ecological economics: Towards a dialectically-informed understanding of co-produced socionatures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 32-41.
    10. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    11. Ananya Tiwari & Luís Campos Rodrigues & Frances E. Lucy & Salem Gharbia, 2022. "Building Climate Resilience in Coastal City Living Labs Using Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-29, August.
    12. Eckehard Rosenbaum & Biagio Ciuffo, 2017. "Sustainability via Intergenerational Transfers in a Stock-Flow-Consistent Model," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 147-184, February.
    13. Israa H. Mahmoud & Eugenio Morello & Chiara Vona & Maria Benciolini & Iliriana Sejdullahu & Marina Trentin & Karmele Herranz Pascual, 2021. "Setting the Social Monitoring Framework for Nature-Based Solutions Impact: Methodological Approach and Pre-Greening Measurements in the Case Study from CLEVER Cities Milan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-28, August.
    14. Adam P. Hejnowicz & Murray A. Rudd, 2017. "The Value Landscape in Ecosystem Services: Value, Value Wherefore Art Thou Value?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-34, May.
    15. Victor, Peter A., 2020. "Cents and nonsense: A critical appraisal of the monetary valuation of nature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    16. Hai-Ying Liu & Marion Jay & Xianwen Chen, 2021. "The Role of Nature-Based Solutions for Improving Environmental Quality, Health and Well-Being," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-56, October.
    17. Maria Bonaventura Forleo & Nicola Gagliardi & Luca Romagnoli, 2015. "Determinants of Willingness to Pay for an Urban Green Area: A Contingent Valuation Survey of College Students," International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, International School for Social and Business Studies, Celje, Slovenia, vol. 4(1), pages 7-25.
    18. Nadirah Hazwani Najib & Syuhaida Ismail & Rohayah Che Amat & Serdar Durdyev & Zdeňka Konečná & Abdoulmohammad Gholamzadeh Chofreh & Feybi Ariani Goni & Chitdrakantan Subramaniam & Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Impact Factors of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Sustainable Mixed Development Projects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-19, August.
    19. Giachino, Chiara & Bollani, Luigi & Truant, Elisa & Bonadonna, Alessandro, 2022. "Urban area and nature-based solution: Is this an attractive solution for Generation Z?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    20. Lei Li & Ali Cheshmehzangi & Faith Ka Shun Chan & Christopher D. Ives, 2021. "Mapping the Research Landscape of Nature-Based Solutions in Urbanism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-41, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:5:p:2657-:d:508826. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.