D2.5 – Report on typology of NBS Lighthouses (R)

1 MORE THAN GREEN Lighthouses of transformative nature-based solutions for inclusive communities 2 D2.5 – Report on typology of NBS Lighthouses (R) Lead partner UNIROMA1 Type Report Dissemination level PU - Public Work package WP2 Deliverable D2.5 Due date month 24 Version Coordinator(s) Authors Contributors 02 Alessandra Capuano Federica Morgia, Anna Irene Del Monaco, Dorotea Ottaviani Antoine Warrant (STADT BRUSSELS) Charalampos Spanos, Georgios Artopoulos (CYI) Eduardo Mendes, Sara Marques (CME) Andreia Coelho (CMB) Dorotea Ottaviani, Anna Irene Del Monaco, Federica Morgia (UNIROMA1) Anya Umantseva, Jonas Egmose (RUC) Eduardo Marques, Paula Silva (UAc) Eduardo Marques (UAc) Isabel Ferreira (CES) 3 Gerd Lupp, (TUM) Manuel Hefti (IRSTV-CNRS) Project More than green – Lighthouses of transformative nature-based solutions for inclusive communities Acronym TRANS-lighthouses Grant agreement ID 101084628 Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or European Commission. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. 4 List of Authors, Contributors and Reviewers Authors Federica Morgia UNIROMA1 Dorotea Ottaviani UNIROMA1 Anna Irene Del Monaco UNIROMA1 Contributors Eduardo Mendes (CME) Annex 1 Andreia Coelho (CMB) Annex 2 Eduardo Marques, Paula Silva (UAc) Annex 3 Georgios Artopoulos, Charalampos Spanos (CyI) Annex 4 Federica Morgia, Anna Irene Del Monaco, Dorotea Ottaviani (UNIROMA1) Annex 5 Anya Umantseva, Jonas Egmose (RUC) Annex 6 Antoine Warrant (STADT BRUSSELS) Annex 7 Borja Izaola, Franco Llobera (EBR) Annex 8 Antoine Warrant (STADT BRUSSELS) Annex 9 Federica Morgia, Anna Irene Del Monaco, Dorotea Ottaviani (UNIROMA1) Annex 10 Manuel Hefti (IRSTV-CNRS) Annex 11 Borja Izaola, Franco Llobera (EBR) Annex 12 Anya Umantseva, Jonas Egmose (RUC) Annex 13 Andreia Coelho (CMB) Annex 14 Gerd Lupp (TUM) Annex 15 Georgios Artopoulos, Charalampos Spanos (CyI) Annex 16 Eduardo Marques, Paula Silva (UAc) Annex 17 Eduardo Mendes (CME) Annex 18 Isabel Ferreira (CES) Reviewers Jonas Egmose (RUC) Document history 5 Date Version Author Summary of change 26/04/2025 01 Morgia, Del Monaco, Ottaviani 28/05/2025 02 Morgia, Ottaviani Introduction, executive summary, section 1, section 3, section 4, section 5.1, figure 10 Fonts Raleway Designed by Matt McInerney, Pablo Impallari, Rodrigo Fuenzalida 6 Table of contents List of Authors, Contributors and Reviewers 3! Table of contents 6! List of tables 8! List of figures 8! Purpose of deliverable Error! Bookmark not defined.! Executive Summary 11! 1. The importance of Typologies in NBS 15! 1.1. Typologies: why? 16! 1.2 Current trends in classification of NBS 17! 2. Definitions 18! 2.1. Material and Immaterial NBS Definitions 18! 2.2. Territorial Typologies Definitions 19! 3. Methodology 20! 3.1. Text Analysis methodology 21! 4. Analysis 23! 4.1. Immaterial and Material NBS 24! 4.2. Stakeholders of interest 34! 4.3. Stakeholders directly involved in the co-creation 42! 4.4. Territorial Typology 48! 4.4. URBINAT Categories 62! 4.5. Objectives/goals typologies 51! 5. Main Findings and Results 66! 5.1. Territorial typologies 66! 5.2. Immaterial and Material typologies in connection with territorial typologies 70! 5.3. Objectives and goals in connection with territorial typologies 72! 5.4. URBINAT categories in connection with territorial typologies 76! Conclusions 79! References 81! Annexes 84! Annex 1: Pilot Case Estarreja Table 84! Annex 2: Pilot Case Barcelos Table 86! Annex 3: Pilot Case Lagoa/Azores Table 88! Annex 4: Pilot Case Strovolos Table 91! Annex 5: Pilot Case Rome Table 93! Annex 6: Pilot Case Denmark/Roskilde Table 95! Annex 7: Pilot Case Brussels Table 97! Annex 8: Pilot Case Càcares Table 99! Annex 9: Assessment Case Brussels Table 101! Annex 10: Assessment Case Bologna Table 103! 7 Annex 11: Assessment Case Moisdon Lariviere Table 105! Annex 12: Assessment Case Madrid Table 107! Annex 13: Assessment Case Denmark (Regenerative Farming) Table 110! Annex 14: Assessment Case Barcelos Table 111! Annex 15: Assessment Case Upper Allgäu Table 113! Annex 16: Assessment Case Troodos Table 119! Annex 17: Assessment Case Lagoa Table 121! Annex 18: Assessment Case Estarreja Table 123! 8 List of tables Table 1: Immaterial NBS, collection of inputs coming from Table/Matrix filled in by assessment case and pilot cases Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Table 2: Material NBS collection of inputs coming from Table/Matrix filled in by assessment case and pilot cases Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Table 3: Categories of Stakeholders of interest for the NBS (that are affected or that can affect the NBS), inputs coming from the Table/Matrix Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Table 4: Categories of Stakeholders of directly involved in the co-creation process, inputs coming from the table/matrix Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Table 5: Typologies of territorial conditions of the pilots and assessment cases, inputs coming from the table/matrix Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Table 6: Typologies from URBINAT project, inputs coming from the Table/matrix Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Table 7: Objective/goals categorized by four key facets of sustainability, inputs coming from the table /matrix Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Table 8: Number of Pilots and assessments cases according to Territorial Typologies Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Table 9: Number of Immaterial and Material NBS according to Territorial Typologies Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Table 10: Distribution of the territorial typologies of the Pilots and assessments cases according to the four URBINAT categories Source: Dorotea Ottaviani List of figures 9 Figure 1: Immaterial NBS Pie Chart, percentage of different categories of immaterial NBS in Pilot and Assessment Cases Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Figure 2: Material NBS Pie Chart, categories distribution among Pilot and Assessment Cases Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Figure 3: Immaterial/Material NBS Pie Chart, distribution among Pilot and Assessment Cases Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Figure 4: Pie Chart with the percentage of Categories of Stakeholders of interest for the NBS (that are affected or that can affect the NBS) Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Figure 5: Pie chart with Categories of Stakeholders directly involved in the cocreation process Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Figure 6: Pie chart with the percentage of the typologies of territorial conditions of the pilots and assessment cases Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Figure 7: Pie charts with percentage of Typologies from URBINAT project among pilots and assessment cases Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Figure 8: Pie chart describing the percentages of Objective/goals by four key facets of sustainability Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Figure 9: Distribution of Pilots and assessments cases according to Territorial Typologies Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Figure 10: Diagram connecting Immaterial and Material NBS categories to Pilot and Assessment Cases Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Figure 11: Distribution of Pilots and assessments cases according to the four pillars of sustainability Source: Dorotea Ottaviani Figure 12: Distribution of the territorial typologies of the Pilots and assessment cases according to the four pillars of sustainability Source: Dorotea Ottaviani 16 Secondly, typologies enhance the scalability and transferability of NBS by allowing for the comparison of case studies across different geographic, ecological, and socio-political contexts. This comparative perspective supports evidence-based decision-making and the formulation of best practices. Thirdly, typologies support policy development and governance by aligning specific types of NBS with regulatory frameworks, funding mechanisms, and strategic goals. For example, distinguishing between green infrastructure, ecosystem restoration, and urban greening enables targeted policy instruments and performance indicators. Lastly, typologies aid in monitoring and evaluation, as they provide criteria for assessing the ecological, social, and economic outcomes of different NBS types. This is particularly important for measuring co-benefits and trade-offs, thus contributing to adaptive management strategies. 1.1. Typologies: why? Typology refers to the systematic classification of phenomena into distinct types or categories based on shared characteristics or defining features. In academic discourse, typologies are analytical tools used to simplify complex realities by organizing diverse elements into coherent structures, thereby facilitating comparison, interpretation, and theoretical development. Typologies serve several critical functions in scholarly research. Firstly, they provide conceptual clarity, enabling researchers to delineate boundaries within a field of study and to distinguish between different manifestations of a phenomenon. For instance, in the social sciences, typologies are frequently employed to differentiate governance models, institutional arrangements, or policy approaches. Secondly, typologies contribute to theoretical generalization by identifying patterns or regularities across cases. This allows scholars to move beyond idiosyncratic observations and toward broader explanatory frameworks. Thirdly, typologies function as heuristic devices, guiding empirical inquiry and hypothesis formation. By establishing predefined categories, typologies help in structuring data collection and analysis, particularly in comparative and case study research. It is important to note that typologies are not fixed or absolute; rather, they are context-dependent constructs that reflect the assumptions, goals, and epistemological orientations of the researcher. As such, their development requires careful consideration of the criteria for classification, the internal consistency of categories, and their relevance to the research objectives. 17 In summary, typology is a fundamental methodological and theoretical instrument in academic research, used to classify, interpret, and analyze complex phenomena in a systematic and meaningful way. 1.2 Current trends in classification of NBS As Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) gain increasing recognition as multifunctional strategies for addressing environmental and societal challenges, the need for coherent and systematic classification frameworks has become more urgent. The diversity of NBS applications across different ecological, social, and spatial contexts has led to the emergence of various typologies in recent literature. These classifications aim not only to organize the wide range of interventions under the NBS umbrella but also to support effective planning, implementation, and evaluation. This section explores current trends in the classification of NBS, highlighting key dimensions such as type of intervention, scale, governance models, targeted ecosystem services, degree of naturalness, and implementation context. - Type of Intervention The IUCN categorizes NBS into five broad types: ecosystem restoration approaches, issue-specific ecosystem-related approaches, infrastructure-related approaches, ecosystem-based management approaches, and ecosystem protection approaches (Anderson and Gough, 2022). - Targeted Ecosystem Services A typology for urban Green Infrastructure emphasizes the importance of aligning NBS with specific ecosystem services, such as regulating, provisioning, and cultural services. (Jones et al., 2022, Abson,2014, Bennett, 2009) - Scale FEMA identifies NBS applications at various scales, including neighbourhood or site scale, watershed or landscape scale, and coastal areas, highlighting the adaptability of NBS to different spatial contexts. (Anderson and Gough, 2022, Schumacher, 2012). - Governance Model The IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions outlines criteria emphasizing inclusive, transparent, and participatory governance structures, acknowledging the role of community-led and public-private partnerships in NBS implementation. (IUCN, 2020, FEMA 2021) - Degree of Naturalness The IUCN's classification includes both natural infrastructure (e.g., forests, wetlands) and green infrastructure (e.g., green roofs, rain gardens), reflecting a spectrum from fully natural to engineered ecosystems. (Anderson and Gough, 2022). - Implementation Context 18 The IUCN Global Standard emphasizes the importance of context-specific NBS, adaptable to various social and ecological settings, including urban and rural environments across different geographic regions. (IUCN, 2020, Nehren et al. 2023, Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016) While the classification proposed in the referenced articles represent an important contribution, it must be emphasized that it constitutes only few of the many possible typologies for categorizing Nature-Based Solutions (NBS). However, broader academic literature highlights that NBS can be categorized based on a variety of alternative criteria, depending on the specific focus of analysis. For instance, Nehren et al. (2023) propose a classification system rooted in disaster risk reduction objectives, emphasizing the protective and adaptive functions of NBS in mitigating natural hazards. Similarly, Cohen-Shacham et al. (2016) offer a typology based on the societal challenges addressed by NBS, such as climate change adaptation, human health, food security, and economic development. It is important to note that the reviewed state-of-the-art typologies, including the one presented in the aforementioned article, do not incorporate a classification of NBS according to their material (e.g., projects in the built or natural environment) or immaterial (e.g.,processes, associations, networking etc) dimensions. Moreover, they do not systematically engage with the territorial aspects of NBS, such as the influence of specific geographical, socio-economic, or ecological contexts on their design and implementation. Addressing these dimensions is crucial for a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the diverse manifestations and impacts of Nature-Based Solutions. 2. Definitions 2.1. Material and Immaterial NBS Definitions For the purpose of this research some definitions are required to better understand and share the limits and the characteristics of some topics that will be covered in this report. Definition of Immaterial Nature-Based Solutions (Immaterial NBS) "Immaterial Nature-Based Solutions (Immaterial NBS) refer to non-physical, procedural-based interventions that enhance human well-being, natural conservation and enhancement, nature-human relationships, social cohesion, and environmental sustainability through knowledge dissemination, behavioral change, cultural practices, and governance mechanisms. These solutions leverage ecological principles to foster education, awareness, community engagement, and policy development without requiring significant material infrastructure." Raymond et al. (2017) define NBS as actions inspired by nature that provide environmental, social, and economic benefits. Immaterial NBS, in particular, focus 19 on cultural, educational, and governance-based interventions rather than physical infrastructure. Eggermont et al. (2015) highlight the role of NBS in fostering social well-being and education, recognizing that interventions such as environmental awareness programs and participatory governance are crucial in integrating nature into society. Albert et al. (2019) discuss the intangible benefits of nature-based solutions, emphasizing that beyond physical interventions like green infrastructure, knowledge-sharing, co-design processes, and social innovation are fundamental to ensuring long-term success. Definition of "Material Nature-Based Solutions (Material NBS) Definition of "Material Nature-Based Solutions (Material NBS) refer to physical, nature-inspired interventions designed to address environmental and societal challenges by leveraging ecosystem processes. These solutions include tangible infrastructure, such as green roofs, urban forests, permeable surfaces, and wetland restoration, which provide measurable ecological, social, and economic benefits while enhancing climate resilience and biodiversity." IUCN (2020) defines NBS as actions that protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems to address societal challenges. Material NBS specifically refer to physical interventions, such as urban green spaces or coastal protection structures, that provide direct ecosystem services. European Commission (2015) categorizes NBS into different types, highlighting the role of engineered green infrastructure (e.g., green roofs, constructed wetlands) as a key component of Material NBS. Cohen-Shacham et al. (2016) emphasize that Material NBS include solutions that physically modify landscapes or urban environments to enhance resilience, reduce flooding, and improve biodiversity. 2.2. Territorial Typologies Definitions Forestry Definition: Forestry areas refer to landscapes dominated by forests or woodland ecosystems, including both managed and natural forests. In the context of NBS, these areas are leveraged for ecosystem restoration, carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable resource use. Typical interventions include reforestation, afforestation, and integrated forest landscape management. European Commission (2021). Coastal Definition: Coastal territories are located along the land-sea interface and encompass features such as beaches, dunes, estuaries, and coastal wetlands. These areas are particularly susceptible to climate-related risks including sea-level rise and storm surges. NBS in coastal zones focus on enhancing natural buffers—such as 20 mangroves, seagrasses, and salt marshes—to mitigate erosion, reduce flood risks, and support marine biodiversity. European Commission (2021). Urban Definition: Urban areas are densely built environments with high population concentrations and extensive infrastructure. In urban contexts, NBS aim to address challenges like stormwater runoff, air pollution, biodiversity loss, and the urban heat island effect. Common solutions include green roofs, permeable surfaces, urban tree planting, and the creation of green and blue infrastructure networks. European Commission (2015). Rural Definition: Rural areas are sparsely populated regions typically dominated by agricultural, pastoral, or natural landscapes. NBS in these areas support sustainable land management, water conservation, and biodiversity enhancement. They also play a crucial role in maintaining ecosystem services that benefit both local communities and broader environmental health. European Commission (2023). Semi-Rural Definition: Semi-rural areas are transitional zones between urban and rural environments, often featuring a mix of built infrastructure and open or agricultural land. These areas may experience urban sprawl or peri-urban development. NBS in semi-rural contexts often address land fragmentation, habitat connectivity, and landscape multifunctionality—balancing ecological, social, and economic functions. European Commission (2021). 3. Methodology For the purpose of this report, the research group developed a structured table/matrix designed to systematically collect information from the pilot and assessment cases within the project. The primary objective was to obtain comparable qualitative data concerning the key aspects that characterize NatureBased Solutions (NBS) across diverse contexts. To guide data collection, the matrix was structured around questions that would define the principal characteristics of the NBS: • Who: Identifying the stakeholders involved in the co-creation processes, as well as those affected by the implementation of the NBS. • Where: Determining the territorial typology or context in which the NBS is implemented. • What: Describing the type of solutions being co-created and coimplemented. 1 21 • When: This category was deemed less relevant, as all pilot and assessment cases are either currently ongoing or were recently completed. • Why: Understanding the underlying goals, motivations, and intended outcomes driving the co-creation of NBS. An additional entry was incorporated into the table to identify which of the territorial categories proposed by the URBiNAT project best aligned with the specific characteristics of each pilot and assessment case. This inclusion aimed to build upon an existing typological framework, philologically close to the nature of this project, thereby enriching the analysis with a comparative lens and offering further contextual insights into the nature of each case. The matrix was distributed to all pilot and assessment cases. Upon receiving their responses, the research team conducted a review to identify gaps, inconsistencies, or unclear information, and followed up with additional inquiries to pilot and assessment cases where necessary. Subsequently, the methodology and preliminary findings were presented to the Work Package (WP) leaders for review and feedback. Furthermore, the approach and results were shared in a dedicated workshop with representatives from the pilot and assessment cases. Comments and suggestions received during these interactions were incorporated to refine the analysis and enhance the overall quality and robustness of the research outcomes. 3.1. Text Analysis methodology The Tables/matrixes included in this deliverable were investigated through a text analysis methodology involving a systematic examination and interpretation of the textual data to extract meaningful information. Below is a description of the key steps of this methodology: Define Objectives: Purpose: the goal was to identify themes and measure frequency of terms. Data Preparation: Collection: the collection of the textual data, the Tables/matrixes happened in the months of January and February 2025, the eight Pilot and the ten Assessment Caserepresentatives were requested to fill in the tables. Cleaning: the Tables were cleaned of typos, and standardized in the formatting. Organizing: The Tables were subdivided into manageable units of text. Analysis Techniques: Quantitative Analysis: Frequency Analysis: Measure word or phrase occurrences. Qualitative Analysis: Thematic Coding: Identify and categorize recurring themes. Narrative Analysis: Explore how stories or arguments are structured. Tools and Software: Manual: Conducted using spreadsheets and word processors. Interpret Findings: Synthesize Results: Combine insights from different techniques. 22 Contextualize: Relate findings to the research question or objectives (finding recurring themes and red threads among tables/matrixes). Reporting: Present the results through visualizations (charts, tables, diagrams) and written summaries. The text analysis focused on the following aspects: • Material and Immaterial NBS This distinction highlights the different forms that Nature-Based Solutions can take. Material NBS refer to physical interventions such as green infrastructure, water management systems, or reforestation projects. Immaterial NBS, on the other hand, emphasize non-physical dimensions like community engagement, education, social cohesion, and cultural heritage. Analyzing both types allows for a more complete understanding of how NBS address ecological and social challenges. • Stakeholders of Interest This aspect identifies the broader group of actors who are affected by or have a vested interest in the NBS initiatives. These may include local communities, policymakers, researchers, businesses, and civil society organizations. Understanding who the stakeholders are is essential for assessing the potential impact, relevance, and sustainability of NBS in a given context. • Stakeholders Directly Involved in the Co-Creation Process Beyond general interest, this point focuses on those actively participating in the design, development, and implementation of NBS. These stakeholders play a central role in ensuring that solutions are locally grounded, inclusive, and responsive to community needs. Their engagement is key to fostering ownership and long-term success. • Territorial Typologies This refers to the classification of NBS based on the characteristics of the territories where they are implemented, such as urban, rural, forestry, or coastal environments. By mapping the distribution and performance of NBS across different territorial types, the analysis uncovers how geographical and socio-ecological conditions influence the choice, design, and impact of nature-based interventions. • URBINAT Categories Derived from the URBINAT project framework, these categories capture cross-cutting themes and values embedded in NBS, such as Social and solidarity economy, Participatory, Technological, Territorial. Applying these categories to the analysis allows for a richer interpretation of the social innovation dimensions that NBS can support. • Objectives/Goals Typologies This component explores the underlying aims of each NBS initiative, whether focused on environmental sustainability, economic resilience, social inclusion, or cultural preservation. Classifying NBS by their goals helps to clarify their intended outcomes and facilitates comparison across projects and regions, highlighting trends, synergies, and potential gaps in strategic orientation. 23 4. Analysis This section presents the analysis of the data collected through the table/matrix distributed to both the assessment cases and the pilot cases. The analysis is structured according to a set of predefined categories aimed at identifying relevant typologies for the classification of Nature-based Solutions (NBS). Specifically, the following analytical dimensions were employed: • Material and Immaterial NBS: This category distinguishes between NBS that involve tangible, physical interventions and those that are primarily based on processes, practices, or intangible activities, thereby offering a deeper understanding of the nature of each solution. • Stakeholders of Interest: This dimension examines the societal groups that the NBS are primarily intended to benefit or address, helping to map the broader societal relevance and inclusivity of the interventions. • Stakeholders Directly Involved in the Co-Creation Process: This aspect focuses on identifying which segments of the population were actively engaged in the co-creation and development of the NBS, highlighting participatory dynamics and the inclusiveness of the design processes. • Territorial Typologies: This category analyzes the type of territorial contexts (urban, peri-urban, rural, coastal, etc.) represented in the projects, allowing for a better understanding of how NBS are adapted to different spatial and environmental conditions. • URBiNAT Categories: By applying the URBiNAT project’s classification framework—a sister initiative—this analysis offers a comparative lens to further characterize the nature and scope of the NBS implemented. The URBINAT categories are the following: o Territorial NBS are interventions sustained by nature that will make a significant contribution towards urban biodiversity, urban resilience to climate change, and storm-water management. These solutions promote urban regeneration and entail social and economic benefits through locally adapted implementations of a wide range of ecosystem services. o Technological Nature-Based Solutions are characterized by the use of advanced techniques and materials for their design and manufacturing processes and by the integration of ICT systems for their maintenance and monitoring. o Social and Solidarity Economy NBS are defined by URBiNAT as opportunities for changing social, political and economic relations among people who live in the neighbourhoods covered by the project. The project recognizes this as part of a broader socioeconomy dimension based on practices whose ultimate goal is not profit (or its absence), but solidarity and cooperation. o Participatory NBS aim to address the needs, aspirations and knowledge of residents and users of public spaces in URBiNAT intervention areas. The aim of Participatory NBS is to operationalize 1 24 the co-creation process by putting in dialogue those needs, aspirations and knowledge with political, technical and scientific views. As URBiNAT operates within an urban governance framework, the main actors to design and implement participatory NBS are residents and users, municipal actors and academic practitioners. • Objectives and Goals Typologies: This category seeks to identify the primary challenges and aspirations that the NBS aim to address, such as climate resilience, social cohesion, biodiversity enhancement, or health improvement. Through the application of these categories, the analysis seeks to construct a nuanced set of typologies that capture the diversity, intent, and operational characteristics of the NBS under investigation. 4.1. Immaterial and Material NBS This paragraph examines the relationship between material and immaterial Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) within the project. In the analysis of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), the distinction between material and immaterial approaches serves as a useful lens through which to understand the different dimensions and impacts of NBS initiatives. However, it is essential to recognize that these are not fixed or mutually exclusive categories, but rather perspectives that reflect the entry point or primary focus of a given solution. Material NBS are typically associated with tangible, physical interventions in the environment. These may include green infrastructure such as parks, urban forests, rain gardens, permeable pavements, or river restoration. The emphasis is often on visible, ecological transformations—addressing issues like climate adaptation, biodiversity enhancement, or flood control through concrete, place-based measures. Immaterial NBS, by contrast, center on intangible elements such as community building, cultural identity, local knowledge, education, governance, and social cohesion. These solutions often manifest through processes like participatory planning, environmental education programs, cultural regeneration activities, or initiatives that strengthen networks of trust and collective action. Crucially, this distinction is not absolute. Many NBS that begin from an immaterial starting point—such as building community awareness or fostering social networks—ultimately lead to material outcomes, like the creation of a community garden or the revitalization of public space. Conversely, materially focused NBS often have profound immaterial impacts, such as fostering a sense of belonging, improving mental health, or reshaping social dynamics within a neighborhood. 25 This interdependence underscores the dynamic and evolving nature of NBS. The material and immaterial aspects are interwoven, often reinforcing each other in a virtuous cycle of transformation. As such, rather than categorizing NBS rigidly, it is more appropriate to view them along a continuum, where the emphasis can shift over time depending on local needs, stakeholder engagement, and contextual factors. Recognizing this fluidity encourages a more holistic understanding of NBS and highlights the importance of considering both physical and social dimensions in their planning, implementation, and evaluation. It also invites practitioners and policymakers to remain open to the co-evolution of ecological and social systems, ensuring that nature-based interventions contribute not only to environmental goals but also to the transformation of social structures, relationships, and values. As shown in the pie chart (Figure 3), there is minimal dominance of material NBS over immaterial NBS among the pilot and assessment cases of the TRANSLighthouses project. Furthermore, the analysis highlights the existence of distinct categories within both material and immaterial NBS, as well as their respective distributions across the project's pilot and assessment cases. 32 conserve biodiversity and restore areas of high ecological value,preserve the cultural and historical heritage of Estarreja.) Table 2: Material NBS collection of inputs coming from Table/Matrix filled in by assessment case and pilot cases 33 34 Figure 2: Material NBS Pie Chart, categories distribution among Pilot and Assessment Cases Overall, the distribution emphasizes a priority towards green infrastructure, sustainable land use, and biodiversity conservation, while also recognizing the role of community engagement, urban planning, and renewable energy in advancing material NBS initiatives. Figure 3: Immaterial/Material NBS Pie Chart, distribution among Pilot and Assessment Cases 4.2. Stakeholders of interest This paragraph examines the diverse nature of the stakeholders targeted by the co-creation activities of the Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), specifically those stakeholders identified as relevant to each NBS. As will be discussed in the following paragraph, these stakeholders may or may not coincide with those who are actively involved in the co-creation process. Definition of the categories of stakeholder identified for grouping the inputs coming from the pilot cases and assessment cases in their Matrix/tables: Locals/Individual Residents Community members and citizens living in or near the area where the NBS is implemented. They hold vital local knowledge and are often the direct users, stewards, and beneficiaries of NBS initiatives. Their engagement ensures solutions are adapted to real local needs and contexts. 35 Education (Primary, Secondary) Schools, students, and educational staff at primary and secondary levels. They play a role in raising environmental awareness, building a culture of sustainability from a young age, and often participate through educational programs linked to NBS projects. Tertiary/Vocational Education Institutions of higher learning (universities, technical colleges) and vocational training centers. They contribute through research, technical knowledge, capacity building, innovation, and training the next generation of NBS practitioners and advocates. Leisure/Tourism/Wellbeing Stakeholders Organizations, businesses, and individuals related to recreation, tourism, and wellness sectors. They have an interest in how NBS enhance the attractiveness, health benefits, and recreational value of places, promoting both environmental and economic sustainability. Vulnerable Groups Communities or individuals at greater risk of environmental, social, or economic marginalization (e.g., low-income groups, elderly, minorities, disabled individuals). Their inclusion in NBS projects is critical for ensuring social equity, justice, and resilience. Artists Creative practitioners including visual artists, performers, and designers who contribute by enhancing the cultural and aesthetic dimensions of NBS. Their involvement fosters community engagement, storytelling, and emotional connection to the natural environment. Authorities Governmental bodies and public sector institutions at local, regional, or national levels. They provide regulatory frameworks, policy support, funding opportunities, and governance structures necessary for enabling, legitimizing, and scaling up NBS. NGOs/Civil Society Organizations Non-governmental organizations and civil society groups that advocate for environmental and social issues. They often act as bridges between local communities and institutions, facilitate community organization, and contribute expertise in project implementation and monitoring. Business/Economy Stakeholders Private sector actors such as companies, business associations, and entrepreneurs. They can support NBS through funding, innovation, services, or integration into corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies, aligning economic interests with ecological benefits. 36 Associate Professionals Group Technical and professional experts such as urban planners, landscape architects, engineers, and consultants. They play key roles in designing, implementing, and maintaining NBS, translating community visions and policy goals into practical, functional interventions. 37 Group name Inputs from text Pilots Assessments Estarrej a Barcel os Lagoa/Azor es Strovol os Rom e Roskild e Brusse ls Càcer es TOTA L (pilots ) TOTAL CATEGORI ES (pilots) Brusse ls Bologn a Moisdo nLarivier e Madri d Denma rk Barcel os Uppe r Allgä u Trood os Lago a Estarrej a TOTAL Assessme nts Locals individual residences Families 1 1 7 1 1 2 Local communities/Citizens/Priv ate housing owners 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Residents of rural communities 1 1 1 1 Social housing tenants 1 1 0 Education (Primary, Secondary) Students (Primary, secondary, highschool) 1 1 1 1 4 5 1 1 2 teachers 1 1 0 Tertiary/vocational education Students (University) 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 Researchers/Academia 0 1 1 Leisure/Tourism/wellb eing Hikers/Cyclists/Joggers 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 People looking to reconnect with nature/benefit from eco therapies, (e.g. forest bathing); 0 1 1 Tourists 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 Vulnerable groups Homelesses 1 1 6 0 Drug Users 1 1 0 Social Services Clients 1 1 0 Youth 1 1 1 3 1 1 Artists Artists 1 1 1 0 Authorities Authorities/Municipality/p ublic services 1 1 1 1 1 2 NGOs/Civil Society NGOs / Civil Society 1 1 1 1 1 2 Business/economy stakeholders Consumers 1 1 2 1 1 38 Businesses 0 1 1 Farmers 1 1 1 1 1 3 Local markets 0 1 1 Associate professionals group Technicians 0 0 1 1 Practitioners 0 1 1 2 Table 3: Categories of Stakeholders of interest for the NBS (that are affected or that can affect the NBS), inputs coming from the Table/Matrix 39 This pie chart (Figure 4) illustrates the stakeholders of interest affected or that can affect in the co-creation of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS). Each sector of the chart represents a different group, along with their relative proportion of involvement as defined by the Pilots and Assessments cases. Here's a breakdown of the stakeholder groups and their respective percentages: • Business/economy stakeholders: 17.9% (largest group) • Locals (individual residences): 16.1% • Education (Primary, Secondary): 12.5% • Vulnerable groups: 12.5% • Tertiary/vocational education: 8.9% • NGOs/Civil Society: 5.4% • Artists: 5.4% • Authorities: 5.4% • Leisure/Tourism/Wellbeing: 5.4% • Associate professionals group: 14.3% The most prominent stakeholders are business/economy stakeholders, followed by locals and education/vulnerable groups, highlighting the significance of involving both economic and community actors in NBS efforts. Education sectors (both primary/secondary and tertiary/vocational) collectively form over 21% of the total, showing a strong emphasis on learning and knowledge transfer. Groups such as artists, NGOs, authorities, and leisure/tourism each make up smaller but still meaningful parts, pointing to the interdisciplinary nature of the cocreated NBSolutions. This chart reflects a diverse and balanced stakeholder ecosystem, an essential and wished outcome for an inclusive, sustainable, and context-sensitive implementation of NBS. 40 Figure 4: Pie Chart with the percentage of Categories of Stakeholders of interest for the NBS (that are affected or that can affect the NBS 41 48 Figure 5: Pie chart with Categories of Stakeholders directly involved in the co-creation process 4.4. Territorial Typology This section introduces the distribution of territorial typologies represented across the Pilot and Assessment cases within the project. The accompanying pie chart provides an overview of the diverse environments in which Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) are being co-created and implemented. The data reveal a predominant focus on rural and urban contexts, which collectively account for more than 64% of the total cases. It is important to note that many cases demonstrate an overlap of multiple territorial typologies, resulting in complex forms of territorial intersections, a phenomenon that will be further explored in the following section. Additionally, the emergence of a new territorial classification, "semi-rural," derived from the project's action descriptions, enhances the ability to more precisely contextualize specific cases, such as the pilot in Roskilde and the assessment case in Denmark. This refinement underscores the project's commitment to accurately capturing the nuances of the territorial contexts in which NBS initiatives are being developed. (A definition of the territorial typologies can be found in section 2.2) The pie chart (figure 6) in this paragraph illustrates the distribution of territorial typologies represented in the Pilot cases and Assessment cases of the project, providing insight into the types of environments where Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) are being co-created and implemented. This distribution shows a strong emphasis on rural and urban contexts, which together make up over 64% of the total cases. It is noteworthy that the majority of the pilot and assessment cases exhibit an overlap of multiple territorial typologies, giving rise to various forms of territorial intersections. This phenomenon will be further illustrated in the following section. Moreover, an additional territorial category—“semi-rural”—has emerged from the project’s action descriptions. This newly introduced classification proves particularly valuable in more accurately contextualizing specific cases, such as the pilot in Roskilde and the assessment case in Denmark. 49 TRANS-Lighthouses Typologies Pilots Assessments Estarreja Barcelos Lagoa/Azores Strovolos Rome Roskilde Brussels Càceres TOTAL Pilots Brussels Bologna MoisdonLariviere Madrid Denmark Barcelos Upper Allgäu Troodos Lagoa Estarreja TOTAL Assessments TOTAL Rural 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 10 Forestry 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 5 Urban 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 8 Coastal 1 1 2 1 1 3 Semi-rural 1 1 1 1 2 Table 5: Typologies of territorial conditions of the pilots and assessment cases, inputs coming from the table/matrix 50 51 Figure 6: Pie chart with the percentage of the typologies of territorial conditions of the pilots and assessment cases 4.5. Objectives/goals typologies In the TRANS-Lighthouses project, the Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) developed across pilot and assessment cases have been co-created through an inclusive, participatory approach involving a wide range of local actors. This section presents an analysis of the objectives and goals emerging from these collaborations, offering insights into the collective visions shaping each initiative. To structure this analysis, the identified objectives have been categorized according to the four pillars of sustainability — social, cultural, environmental, and economic — following the framework proposed by Keith Nurse (2006). This categorization allows for a deeper understanding of how the TRANS-Lighthouses NBS contribute to holistic sustainability, addressing interconnected challenges and opportunities across different local contexts. By mapping these goals, we aim to illuminate the pathways through which the project fosters transformative change at multiple levels. 52 Economic Sustainabil ity Cultural Sustainabi lity Social Sustainabilit y Environment al Sustainability Inputs from text Pilots Assessments Estarreja Barc elos Lagoa/Az ores Strov olos Rome Roskil de Brussels Càceres TOTA L Brussels Bolog na Moisdon - Lariviere M ad rid Den mark Barcelos Upper Allgäu Trood os Lago a Estarreja TOTAL Cultural Social Appropriation of natural systems for human recreation; 1 1 0 Cultural Social Promote intergenerational interaction and integration as an instrument for preserving and enhancing the ecological and cultural heritage of school playgrounds; 1 1 0 Cultural Social Environment al Appropriation of natural systems for human recreation; 1 1 0 Cultural Social Encouraging leadership among young people and the educational community; 1 1 0 Environment al Increasing the environmental resilience of local communities in adapting to climate change; 1 1 0 Cultural Social Provide creative leisure among students, the ability to play freely and in contact with nature, autonomy in recreational relationships with sustainable playgrounds; 1 1 0 Cultural Social Diversifying the sources of play and recreation among the youth community; 1 1 0 Cultural Transmitting ancestral knowledge about free play and youth leadership. 1 1 0 Social self-sufficient and eco-community 0 1 1 53 Cultural Social Environment al Natural Trail as a space for community wellbeing 1 1 0 Cultural Trail as a space of Open Science Schooling (OSS), 1 1 0 Environment al Trail as space for health and wellbeing 1 1 0 Social Trail for community development and inclusion, 1 1 0 Cultural Trail for art and culture 1 1 0 Environment al Trail for biodiversity conservation 1 1 0 Social improve social cohesion 1 1 0 Environment al Natural Trails as a tool to reconnect with nature 0 1 1 Environment al Mitigation of heat island effects, 1 1 0 Environment al reduction of flooding, 1 1 0 Environment al refuge for urban biodiversity. 1 1 0 Environment al opportunity to improve urban space through an innovative and inclusive approach 1 1 0 Cultural Environment al Inspire other actions of redevelopment of open spaces around Sapienza University 1 1 0 Environment al To reinvent nature in the city 1 1 0 Cultural learn from each other, inspire future farming practices, in order to scale out regenerative practices. 1 1 0 Cultural Social Environment al solutions for integrated rainwater 1 1 0 54 management by engaging local residents, schools, and associations in Laeken. Cultural Environment al enhance environmental awareness, 1 1 0 Cultural Social Environment al strengthen the connection between people and water, and 1 1 0 Cultural Social Environment al create long-term benefits for the local ecosystem and community. 1 1 0 Environment al mitigate flooding, 1 1 0 Environment al enhance biodiversity, 1 1 0 Social and improve social cohesion 1 1 0 Environment al reduces energy consumption and transport, 1 1 0 Economic creates local employment and 1 1 0 Environment al agro-ecological transition, 1 1 0 Cultural and contributes to improving the organic culture of farmers 1 1 0 Environment al and the quality and resilience of soil and microbiodiversity, 1 1 0 Environment al carbon sequestration 1 1 0 Economic Run different models of circular economy closure on organic matter in the territory, 1 1 0 Cultural Social balance public and social governance, and governance model to maximise the circular flow of organic matter in Territorial Food Systems, with food and fertiliser production and soil 1 1 0 55 organic matter demand. Environment al environmental challenges, including flooding, droughts, and urban heat islands 0 1 1 Cultural Social Environment al Lack of urban green space in the city center of Bologna,intended also as places to relax, socialise, and do some physical activity, 0 1 1 Environment al enhance ecological resilience 0 1 1 Economic Social address socioeconomic disparities within the community, considering psychological, social, and biophysical indicators. 0 1 1 Cultural framework for societally marginalized knowledge and practices, and the reemergence of these as potentials for transforming human-nature relations. 0 1 1 Cultural didactic objective, such as supporting basic and secondary education 0 1 1 Cultural Environment al permanent incentive to defend the natural environment; and promoting knowledge of Portuguese autochthonous flora. 0 1 1 Cultural Social Retrospective Learning case: Changing paradigms and understanding of authorities changing from top0 1 1 56 down (sovereign role) towards collaborative governance (partners of forest owners) , Environment al enhance the situation of forests in mountain areas. 0 1 1 Environment al The region faces challenges to adapt to climate change as impacts are amplified in mountain areas. 0 1 1 Environment al The goal is to regenerate and adapt forests with more mixed tree species to adapt to climate change and at the same time providing a multitude of Ecosystem Services 0 1 1 Cultural Environment al create more awareness around forests in the regional society as well as among tourists 0 1 1 Environment al Regional or local trails need to be adapted to include other possibilities to use. 0 1 1 Cultural Environment al enables citizens and visitors to get to know the region and its natural values, promoting the contact with nature, and boosting outdoors leisure and sporting activities 0 1 1 Cultural “Conhecer para preservar” [know it, to protect it]. 0 1 1 Cultural to visit the council’s natural values, and to share knowledge about it and communicate its richness and importance. 0 1 1 57 Environment al protect local biodiversity and ecosystems. 0 1 1 Environment al Sustainable development 1 1 2 1 1 Cultural Social Environment al Natural school spaces 1 1 1 1 Cultural Social Youth environments 1 1 2 1 1 Environment al Climate change impact mitigation/Urban Heat effect reduction 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 4 Economic Nature and landscape as a natural asset; 1 1 0 Economic Green Torusim and Green/circular Economy 1 1 2 1 1 2 Cultural Social Environment al Wellness through Nature 1 1 1 Cultural Environment al Art and Culture in Nature 1 1 1 Social Social Inclusion 1 1 1 Cultural Environment al Human-non human relation (human/Nature relation) 1 1 1 Economic Cultural Social Collaborative Governance 1 1 Cultural Open Science Schooling 1 1 1 Environment al Relieve Urban pressure/Improve urban spaces/urban regeneration 1 1 1 3 1 Cultural Environment al Green classroom 1 1 Economic Regenerative Farming 1 1 Economic Social Socio-economic sustainability of regenerative farmers 1 1 1 Economic Cultural Social Regenerative farming transforming 1 1 1 64 Inputs from text Pilots Assessments Estarreja Barcelos Lagoa/Azores Strovolos Rome Roskilde Brussels Càceres TOTAL Pilots Brussels Bologna MoisdonLariviere Madrid Denmark Barcelos Upper Allgäu Troodos Lagoa Estarreja TOTAL Assessments TOTAL Territorial 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 13 Technological 1 1 0 1 Social and Solidarity economy 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 10 Participatory 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 12 Table 6: Typologies from URBINAT project, inputs coming from the Table/matrix 65 66 Figure 7: Pie charts with percentage of Typologies from URBINAT project among pilots and assessment cases 5. Main Findings and Results This section presents the results of the analysis conducted on the data collected from both the pilot and assessment cases. The primary aim of this analysis is to explore potential connections—or the absence thereof—between territorial typologies and various other categories identified throughout the pilot and assessment phases. These categories include material and immaterial NatureBased Solutions (NBS), URBINAT categories, stakeholder typologies, and the diverse goals and objectives associated with each case. By examining these relationships, the analysis seeks to uncover underlying patterns and insights that may inform future strategies for integrating NBS in different territorial contexts. 5.1. Territorial typologies This section provides an in-depth analysis of the distribution of territorial contexts across the pilot and assessment cases involved in the TRANS-Lighthouses project. Understanding how territorial typologies are represented among the cases is essential for interpreting the contextual relevance of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) and for identifying potential patterns of implementation and impact across different geographical settings. The territorial typologies adopted by the TRANS-Lighthouses framework are based on four primary classifications: urban, rural, forestry, and coastal. These categories reflect the diverse environmental, socio-economic, and governance conditions within which NBS are developed and implemented. Each typology brings with it a unique set of challenges, priorities, and opportunities for the design and co-production of NBS, as well as different constellations of actors and stakeholder interests. Urban territories are typically characterized by high population density, significant infrastructure development, and complex governance structures. In such contexts, NBS are often deployed to address challenges such as urban heat islands, air pollution, and social fragmentation, while also contributing to improved quality of life, accessibility to green spaces, and inclusive governance mechanisms. The presence of urban territories among the pilot and assessment cases offers insight into how NBS can respond to the multifaceted pressures of urbanization. Rural contexts, by contrast, are marked by lower population densities, stronger connections to natural landscapes, and often more traditional or communitybased forms of governance. NBS in rural areas may focus more intensively on biodiversity conservation, agricultural sustainability, and the reinforcement of cultural heritage and local knowledge. The representation of rural territories in the case studies provides an opportunity to examine how NBS contribute to ecological restoration while also supporting rural development and resilience. 67 Forestry areas represent another distinct territorial typology, defined by extensive woodland ecosystems and often linked to conservation and climate mitigation goals. In these settings, NBS initiatives may prioritize forest management, carbon sequestration, and the preservation of ecosystem services, while also navigating issues of land ownership, traditional land use practices, and rural livelihoods. Their inclusion in the TRANS-Lighthouses cases allows for an exploration of the ecological and social co-benefits of forest-related NBS. Coastal territories, meanwhile, face unique vulnerabilities related to climate change, including sea-level rise, erosion, and saline intrusion. NBS in these areas may involve dune restoration, wetland conservation, or the creation of natural buffers to protect against storm surges. At the same time, coastal areas are often sites of tourism and intensive economic activity, raising important questions about the balance between ecological integrity and economic interests. The coastal cases within the project highlight the potential of NBS to act as adaptive strategies in the face of environmental risks. Overall, this section aims to map how these four territorial typologies—urban, rural, forestry, and coastal—are distributed across the pilot and assessment cases. By doing so, it seeks to establish a foundational understanding of the territorial contexts in which NBS are embedded, and to set the stage for further analysis of how these contexts influence the types of NBS adopted, the stakeholders involved, and the objectives pursued. This territorial mapping is a crucial step toward identifying both context-specific strategies and transferable insights for the advancement of socially and ecologically just NBS. 68 Figure 9: Distribution of Pilots and assessments cases according to Territorial Typologies Territorial typology Number of Pilot and assessment cases per Territorial Typology Rural 4 Urban 6 Forestry 1 69 Costal 0 Rural/Urban/Forestry 1 Rural/Forestry/coastal 2 Urban/coastal 1 Rural/Forestry 1 Rural/Semirural 2 Table 8: Number of Pilots and assessments cases according to Territorial Typologies The distribution of territorial typologies among the pilot and assessment cases within the TRANS-Lighthouses project reveals a diverse, yet uneven representation of territorial contexts. Among the cases, urban areas are the most frequently represented, with a total of six cases falling under this typology. This indicates a strong emphasis on addressing the challenges and opportunities that urban environments present for the implementation of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), such as managing environmental pressures from dense infrastructure, fostering community well-being, and enhancing green infrastructure. Rural territories also feature prominently, with four cases categorized strictly as rural. This reflects a significant interest in exploring how NBS can support ecological conservation, local development, and socio-cultural cohesion in less densely populated, often agriculturally oriented regions. Additionally, two cases are defined as rural/semi-rural, suggesting an interest in transitional or peri-urban landscapes where urban and rural characteristics may intersect, potentially requiring hybrid approaches to NBS design. Mixed or hybrid territorial typologies are also present. Notably, two cases are situated in rural/forestry/coastal settings, while other falls under the rural/urban/forestry category. These configurations suggest more complex territorial dynamics where overlapping ecological and socio-economic systems coexist. Such contexts may provide fertile ground for testing integrative NBS strategies that address multifaceted sustainability challenges. Other combinations include one rural/forestry case and one urban/coastal case, indicating a more limited representation of forestry and coastal dimensions either independently or in combination with other types. In fact, pure forestry contexts are represented by only one case, and no cases are classified exclusively as coastal. This absence of strictly coastal cases may suggest an area for further exploration, given the pressing environmental vulnerabilities many coastal areas face. In summary, while urban and rural contexts dominate the distribution, the presence of hybrid typologies such as rural/urban/forestry and rural/forestry/coastal points to the project's recognition of territorial complexity. However, the underrepresentation of pure forestry and the complete lack of standalone coastal cases suggest a potential gap in the current territorial coverage, which may limit the generalizability of findings to those specific environments. This distribution underscores the importance of contextualizing NBS strategies according to the unique characteristics and needs of each territorial setting. It is also noteworthy that, over the course of the project’s development, one of the pilot cases underwent a significant shift in its territorial classification—from urban to rural. This reclassification pertains to the case of Cáceres, which was initially identified as an urban pilot site. However, as the project progressed, the local implementation team encountered persistent challenges in establishing a stable and constructive dialogue with the municipal authorities of the city of Cáceres. 70 These difficulties, which are elaborated in detail in Annex 8, impeded the intended urban-focused collaboration and limited the project's capacity to mobilize institutional support within the city context. In response to these obstacles, the local actors strategically redirected their engagement efforts toward smaller towns and rural villages located within the broader territorial area surrounding Cáceres. This adaptive shift resulted in the development of more meaningful, participatory, and context-sensitive interactions with rural stakeholders. These new partnerships proved to be not only more responsive but also more conducive to the co-creation and implementation of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) tailored to rural realities. As a result, the focus of the pilot evolved to better reflect the priorities, challenges, and opportunities of rural territories, leading to its reclassification within the project’s territorial typology framework. 5.2. Intersection between Immaterial and Material typologies and territorial typologies The research undertaken by the TRANS-lighthouses project examines both material and immaterial Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) to better understand and address the complex interplay between social and ecological justice in creating sustainable and equitable NBS. By exploring both material (e.g., green infrastructure, habitat restoration) and immaterial (e.g., social cohesion, community engagement, cultural heritage) outcomes, the project aims to provide evidence that reframes and broadens our understanding of how NBS can contribute to just and transformative processes in local contexts. This dual focus allows the research to capture a more comprehensive view of the potential of NBS, addressing both the tangible, physical benefits and the intangible, socio-cultural, and governancerelated dimensions. 71 Figure 10: Diagram connecting Immaterial and Material NBS categories to Pilot and Assessment Cas 72 Territorial typology Immaterial NBS Material NBS Rural 12 8 Urban 6 8 Forestry 2 1 Costal 0 0 Rural/Urban/Forestry 1 1 Rural/Forestry/coastal 1 1 Urban/coastal 1 9 Rural/Forestry 3 0 Rural/Semirural 2 0 Table 9: Number of Immaterial and Material NBS according to Territorial Typologies From the data retrieved from the Pilot and Assessment cases in TRANSLighthouses it seems that Immaterial Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) are most prevalent in rural areas, while the lowest prevalence is observed in Rural/Urban/Forestry, Rural/Forestry/Coastal, and Urban/Coastal settings. The second highest prevalence of immaterial NBS occurs in urban environments. In contrast, material NBS exhibit a more balanced distribution across rural, urban, and rural/forestry settings. These patterns suggest that rural areas are striving to implement a higher quantity of both material and immaterial NBS, whereas urban and urban/coastal areas display a more pronounced emphasis on material NBS over immaterial ones. 5.3. Intersection between Objectives and goals and territorial typologies This section offers a detailed analysis of the potential relationships between the goals and objectives—referred to in the matrix table as the "motivations" behind the implementation of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)—and the territorial typologies that characterize the pilot and assessment cases. The aim is to investigate whether specific types of goals or intended outcomes are more frequently associated with certain territorial contexts, and to what extent these associations reveal consistent patterns or meaningful divergences. By examining the motivations behind the NBS initiatives in relation to the distinct territorial classifications—such as rural, urban, coastal, forestry, or hybrid configurations—this analysis seeks to understand how local environmental, social, and economic conditions may shape or influence the prioritization of certain objectives. These objectives may range from ecological restoration and climate resilience to social inclusion, health promotion, or economic regeneration, and their articulation within different territorial settings may reflect the specific challenges, opportunities, and stakeholder dynamics present in each context. 73 Figure 11: Distribution of Pilots and assessments cases according to the four pillars of sustainability 80 • This absence highlights the need for future research to explore NBS in coastal and forest-exclusive contexts, given their particular vulnerabilities to climate change. Dynamic Evolution of Territorial Classifications • The case of Cáceres demonstrates the adaptability of pilot projects: originally classified as urban, it shifted to rural due to governance challenges, leading to more effective, community-driven NBS implementation. • This reclassification underscores the importance of flexibility and local responsiveness in territorial approaches to NBS. Material vs. Immaterial Nature-Based Solutions • Rural areas show the highest prevalence of immaterial NBS, focusing on social cohesion, cultural heritage, and community engagement. • Urban and urban/coastal areas emphasize material NBS (e.g., green infrastructure) more heavily than immaterial ones. • This distribution suggests differing priorities and strategies in urban versus rural settings. Goals and Objectives by Territorial Typology • Across all cases, there is a dominant focus on environmental sustainability, especially in urban and rural contexts. • Cultural sustainability often intersects with environmental goals in rural/forestry/coastal areas, emphasizing the role of cultural identity and local knowledge. • Social and economic sustainability goals are primarily concentrated in rural and semi-rural settings, reflecting the need for economic resilience alongside ecological initiatives. Partial Integration of Sustainability Pillars • No case simultaneously addresses all four pillars of sustainability (social, cultural, economic, and environmental). • This fragmentation suggests that while multi-dimensional approaches exist, fully integrated, holistic NBS strategies are still rare, pointing to an opportunity for future NBS development. Territorial Typologies and URBINAT Categories • Social and Solidarity Economy aspects are most prevalent in rural settings. • Territorial and Participatory aspects are strong across most typologies but are particularly notable in urban and mixed rural/urban/forestry settings. • Technological innovations appear only in the urban/coastal typology, suggesting a niche for integrating tech-based NBS in complex, multipressure environments. 81 References Abson, D., von Wehrden, H., Baumgärtner, S., Fischer, J., Hanspach, J., Haerdtle, W., Heinrichs, H., Klein, A., Lang, D., Martens, P., and Walmsley, D. 2014. "Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability." Ecological Economics 103: 29– 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012. Albert, C., Schröter, B., Haase, D., Brillinger, M., Henze, J., Herrmann, S., ... and von Haaren, C. 2019. "Addressing societal challenges through nature-based solutions: How can landscape planning and governance research contribute?" Landscape and Urban Planning 182: 12-21. Anderson, V., and Gough, W.A. 2022. "A Typology of Nature-Based Solutions for Sustainable Development: An Analysis of Form, Function, Nomenclature, and Associated Applications." Land 11 (1072). https://doi.org/10.3390/land11071072. Bennett, E.M., Garry, D.P., and Line, J.G. 2009. "Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services." Ecology Letters 12(12): 1394-1404. Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., and Maginnis, S. (Eds.) 2016. NatureBased Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges. IUCN. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en. Eggermont, H., Balian, E., Azevedo, J.M.N., Beumer, V., Brodin, T., Claudet, J., ... and Roux, X. 2015. "Nature-based solutions: New influence for environmental management and research in Europe." GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 24(4): 243-248. European Commission. 2015. Towards an EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-Based Solutions and Re-Naturing Cities. SWD(2015) 24 final. European Commission. 2021. Evaluating the Impact of Nature-Based Solutions: A Handbook for Practitioners.Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/244577. European Commission. 2021. Nature-Based Solutions: State of the Art in EU-Funded Projects. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/236007. European Commission. 2021. Handbook on Sustainable Urban Development Strategies. URBACT Programme & DG REGIO. European Commission. 2023. Nature-Based Solutions and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. EC Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity. 82 FEMA. 2021. Building Community Resilience with Nature-Based Solutions. Available online: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_riskmapnature-based-solutions-guide_2021.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2025). Grant, M.J., and Booth, A. 2009. "A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies." Health Information & Libraries Journal 26: 91–108. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2020. IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions: A User-Friendly Framework for the Verification, Design and Scaling up of NbS: First Edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.08.en. Jones, L., Anderson, S., Læssøe, J., Banzhaf, E., Jensen, A., Bird, D.N., Miller, J., Hutchins, M.J., Yang, J., Garrett, J., Taylor, T., Wheeler, B.W., Lovell, R., Fletcher, D., Qu, Y., Vieno, M., and Zandersen, M. 2022. "A Typology for Urban Green Infrastructure to Guide Multifunctional Planning of Nature-Based Solutions." Nature-Based Solutions 2: 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100041. Nehren, U., Arce-Mojica, T., Barrett, A.C., Cueto, J., Doswald, J., Janzen, S., Lange, W., Ortiz Vargas, A., Pirazan-Palomar, L., Renaud, F.G., Sandholz, S., Sebesvari, Z., Sudmeier-Rieux, K., and Walz, Y. 2023. "Towards a Typology of Nature-Based Solutions for Disaster Risk Reduction." Nature-Based Solutions 3: 100057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2023.100057. Nurse, Keith. 2006. "Culture as the Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development." Small States: Economic Review and Basic Statistics 11: 28–40. Raymond, C.M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M.R., ... and Calfapietra, C. 2017. "A Framework for Assessing and Implementing the Cobenefits of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Areas." Environmental Science & Policy 77: 15–24. Schumacher, E.F. 2012. "Small is Beautiful: Economics as If People Mattered (An Excerpt)." Translated by Daniil Aronson. Journal of Economic Sociology 13. United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA). 2022. Nature-Based Solutions for Supporting Sustainable Development. UNEP/EA.5/Res.5. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme, adopted at the fifth session, 22–23 February 2021 and 28 February–2 March 2022. URBES. 2014. Green Infrastructure, a Wealth for Cities. Fact Sheet. Available online: https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/urbes_factshe et_06_web.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2025). 83 84 Annexes Annex 1: Pilot Case Estarreja Table NBS Description ECO - Estarreja Colaborativa e Orientadora [Collaborative and Guiding Estarreja] ECO intends to co-create a strategy for the promotion and conservation of Estarreja natural values, achieved through participatory approaches. Six LKLs will be implemented at a local-level, covering all parishes/towns of the council, and two at a council-level - one for institutions, and one exclusive for CME collaborators. These will allow a detailed codiagnostic of the territory, the co-creation of solutions to be implemented, and the definition of frameworks/strategies for the future work on local natural patrimony. Additionally, the pilot case extends to schools, in which two 8th grade and two 11th classes are challenged to co-create NbS to implement in the council. Partners (Municipalities/ Universities/ NGOs etc) Estarreja Municipality | CES | Council parishes | Schools General Typology Rural Specific Types Farming / Forestry / Livestock Environmental and Tourist education Biodiversity conservation Sustainable development Specific Info Data: Population of 26 224, population density of 242.4 hab/km2. 63% of its population is between 15 and 64 yo, and 24% is over 65 yo Motivation Pilot: To co-create a strategy for the promotion and conservation of Estarreja natural values with the stakeholders present in the territory. To involve local actors in biodiversity conservation, in NbS design and implementation, and in the decision-making processes. This may also improve human-nature relations in the council as well as environmental awareness. Challenges: Intensification of agricultural activities, lack of environmental awareness, profit approach in farming and forestry, large diversity of stakeholders and interests present in the territory, lack of participatory culture in the council. Existing NBS applications - The main NBS already implemented in the focus area of this pilot is BioRia, a Nature Tourism and Environmental Education project. Other relevant NbS in the council include initiatives promoted by NGOs in partnership with local governments and research organizations, for instance the micro-reserve “Lusitânica” 85 (Associação BioLiving) and the initiative “Plantar o Futuro” (Associação Agora Aveiro). NBS categories - Mostly Territorial and Participatory, also Social & Solidarity Economy What typology/ies of people is this NBS for? The typologies will depend on the NbS co-created. Globally: Local communities Students What typology/ies of people are/were involved in the co-creation process? Local NGOs (cultural, social, sporting and environmental) Farmers Foresters Citizens Local businesses Industry Public authorities Academia Teachers Students Technicians 86 Annex 2: Pilot Case Barcelos Table NBS Description Playground is Nature The Barcelos municipality's pilot project is entitled Playground is Nature, and will be implemented in three schools in different parishes in the municipality of Barcelos. The António Fogaça Basic School, a School Centre that covers pre-school and 1st cycle; the Abel Varzim 2,3 Basic School, with 2nd and 3rd cycle students; and the Vila Cova Basic and Secondary School, with students from 1st to 12th grade. The ‘’Playground is Nature‘’ pilot project has the following objectives: ▪ Co-create playground spaces through Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), involving those who use them (students, teachers and operational assistants) and a participatory process for selecting a proposal based on the students' ideas; Promote intergenerational interaction and integration as an instrument for preserving and enhancing the ecological and cultural heritage of school playgrounds; Appropriation of natural systems for human recreation; Encouraging leadership among young people and the educational community; Increasing the environmental resilience of local communities in adapting to climate change; Provide creative leisure among students, the ability to play freely and in contact with nature, autonomy in recreational relationships with sustainable playgrounds; Diversifying the sources of play and recreation among the youth community; Transmitting ancestral knowledge about free play and youth leadership. Partners (Municipalities/ Universities/ NGOs etc) Barcelos Municipality | CES | Youth associations/groups | Selected schools and teaching community | Parents' Associations Cultural | Environmental associations General Typology Forestry, Rural and Urban Specific Types Nature as an integral part of school spaces Youth environments Climate change impact mitigation Specific Info Data:The Municipality of Barcelos had, in 2021, a population of 116.766, a density of 308 hab/km2 where 24,5% of its population is below 24 years old, and 20% is over 65. The area of the pilot project is located in rural, forestry and urban areas. It has a universe of 13,765 students from pre-school to secondary education. Challenges: 87 Very urbanized school playgrounds, with few opportunities for contact with nature and few opportunities for creative play. Overly protective playgrounds, with few opportunities to experience the risks and challenges of free play in natural or less artificial environments. To promote climate adaptation and mitigation to climate changes. Stimulate the participation of the critical mass, promote environmental awareness among stakeholders and implement the NBS agreed. Stimulating a sense of community among the project stakeholders. Promote the transmission of ancestral knowledge of free play and youth leadership. Develop more environmentally sustainable playgrounds; diversify sources of play and recreation among the youth community. Motivation of the pilot - Intergenerational interaction and integration as an instrument to preserve and enhance the ecological and cultural heritage of the school’s playgrounds. Appropriation of the natural based systems to the human life recreation. Promotion of leadership with youth and educational community. Promote environmental resilience of local communities in adapting to climate change. Promote creative leisure among students, the ability to play freely and in contact with nature, autonomy in recreational relationships with sustainable playgrounds Define the NBS category/ies of your action according to the URBINAT definition of NBS categories ( Territorial, Technological, Social and Solidarity Economy, Participatory) in this catalogue : Please select the category/ies As the students are at the design and proposal stage, we don't yet know all the types of NbS that will be covered. At the moment, they are Territorial. What typology/ies of people is this NBS for? Students What typology/ies of people are/were involved in the co-creation process? Students Teachers Technicians 88 Annex 3: Pilot Case Lagoa/Azores Table NBS Description Natural Trail as a space for community wellbeing At Lagoa Municipality territory exists a natural asset called “Water trail/hells window” that belongs to the Network of Pedestrian Routes Classified by the Regional Government of the Azores, in order to ensure the safety and tranquility of hikers during their walks. To adapt this Trail and promote it as a NBS some steps are needed to cover different dimensions that are important to us: Trail as a space of Open Science Schooling (OSS), as space for health and wellbeing, for community development and inclusion, for art and culture and biodiversity conservation. To achieve these different objectives the first step is work on security dimensions. For the safety of the “Water Route Trail", it is important to start with initiatives that allow us to understand and mitigate risks associated with the use of this nature trail, as well understand the cargo capacity of the natural site and for that it is necessary to monitor local biodiversity. Here are some points that may be relevant to this project: a-About Trail Safety: Risk Perception Surveys-: Applying surveys to trail users is a way to understand how people perceive the risks associated with the trail. This can include questions about terrain conditions, signage, and other users' behavior. b-About Cargo Capacity: To research on Cargo Capacity we need to know how many users are at the trail every day: For that we installed EcoCounters, which are an effective tool for monitoring the number of trail users. This can help us understand the popularity of the trail and develop a plan for improvements on accessibility infrastructure and nature conservation. Biodiversity IdentificationIdentifying the local flora is crucial to understanding the biodiversity of the area. A team dedicated to cataloguing the species found there can contribute to a valuable database that can be used for future research or conservation c-About the profile of users and know the motivation behind the decision to hike on these trail: We need to know the profile of users and their motivations: for that we have designed a series of instruments /surveys to collect data about this important dimension. d-Open Science Schooling (OSS): Learning can increasingly be carried out in three environments: formal, non-formal and informal, where different areas of society collaborate beyond strictly educational settings. Through these we can promote citizen 89 science and a natural platform for experiential learning as well virtual learning through our Trilho do mundo platform. https://trilhodomundo.org OSS will help us to promote activities that involve the community, schools, partners and trail users in environmental awareness, environmental education, and about the importance to preserving biodiversity can the engagement in sustainable practices e-Space for health and well-being This trail will be the site to develop activities on forest therapy like forest bath and Forest mind walks. We will conduct research to understand the impact of these natural environments on human well being. Forest and nature for human well-being has been confirmed by many studies that have been conducted in recent years and by various reports. Forest is a natural place for mental skills pursuit. d-The trail as an economic asset for sustainable development Using co-creation and participatory governance we are working neighbouring communities (lugar dos remedios) to visioning possibilities for sustainable local business and the sharing of profits generated by tourism. Local mapping using a walkthrough was conducted on the neighborhood. eConnecting with nature through art and culture Different initiatives were organized to promote the Trail as a site for cinema, exhibitions, concerts as a strategy to approach communities with nature., Partners (Municipalities/ Universities/ NGOs etc) Collaborative governance between University, municipality Lagoa , Kairós and environmental organisations, NGO’s tourism enterprises and schools General Typology Coastal, Forestry, rural Specific Types Nature and landscape as an natural asset; -Sustainable Development; -Green Tourism and green economy; -Wellness through nature -Biodiversity conservation; - Art and culture on nature; -Social inclusion: nature for all; - Reciprocity between human and non human - Collaborative governance; - Open Science Schooling Specific Info Data: The municipality of Lagoa has 14,442 inhabitants and has a global area of 45.6km², and five parishes. Motivation of the pilot -Lagoa is a small city that aims to establish a more sustainable development for a positive symbiosis of contrasts: between a past and a future, the sea 96 decentralized collaborative governance for local small-scale farming integrating farmers, municipalities, citizens. Existing NBS applications - A FabLab project led by Roskilde University initiated a series of meetings between interested actors related to regenerative agriculture topic. (Please check if this info are still relevant/updated) Define the NBS category/ies of your action according to the URBINAT definition of NBS categories( Territorial, Technological, Social and Solidarity Economy, Participatory) in this catalogue : Participatory Solidarity economy What typology/ies of people is this NBS for? Farmers Residents of rural communities Consumers What typology/ies of people are/were involved in the co-creation process? Academia NGO (Regenerative Farming association) Farmers Municipal actors 97 Annex 7: Pilot Case Brussels Table NBS Description Integrated Stormwater Management Flooding risks occur more and more. Mostly socially vulnerable groups live near the basins where water damage occurs the most. Giving more room to water within the city (passive approach towards water threads) by integrating NBS for water management with regard to the complex social challenges. The pilot seeks to address local socio-economic and ecological needs using Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) to mitigate flooding, enhance biodiversity, and improve social cohesion in the zone PRIOR Laeken (Priority Intervention Zone), For now, the pilot actions are focused on the Verregat neighborhood in Laeken, targeting improved integrated stormwater management (ISWM) through co-creation with local residents, associations, and the Comensia social housing cooperative. This pilot Verregat's selection is based on its upstream watershed position, green infrastructure, and active community, enabling feasible infiltration projects and participatory processes. Additional initiatives may arise in other areas of PRIOR Laeken within the pilot case, where the social and environmental conditions are met. Partners (Municipalities/ Universities/ NGOs etc) Brussels Municipality | Univ. Louvain General Typology Urban Specific Types > Sustainable water management > Climate change effects mitigation and adaptation > Urban pressure > Improve urban Spaces > Biodiversity Enhancement > Flood risk reduction > Urban Heat Effect Reduction Specific Info Data: The Brussels pilot focuses on Laeken, a densely populated area with approximately 58,000 residents, part of the City of Brussels. The neighborhood combines diverse demographics, with a mix of young families, working professionals, and older residents. Laeken is a vibrant urban district marked by challenges such as flooding risks, limited green infrastructure, and the need for better water management strategies. Motivation for the Pilot: The pilot aims to co-create solutions for integrated rainwater management by engaging local residents, schools, and 98 associations in Laeken. This initiative seeks to foster community collaboration, improve resilience to urban flooding, and promote sustainable water practices. By involving citizens in co-designing Nature-based Solutions, the project also aims to enhance environmental awareness, strengthen the connection between people and water, and create long-term benefits for the local ecosystem and community. Challenges: Laeken faces multiple challenges, including recurring floods in the lowest parts of the neighbourhood, aging water infrastructure, and a lack of awareness about sustainable water management practices. The high urban density and diverse population add complexity to addressing these issues, as stakeholder interests and priorities vary significantly. Additionally, there is a need to overcome a limited participatory culture in local decision-making processes, which is crucial for the success of communitydriven NbS initiatives. Existing NbS Applications and Categories: Current initiatives in Laeken include projects such as the creation of infiltration spaces in local parks, private gardens and green spaces, and the promotion of rainwater harvesting systems for public and private buildings. Awareness-raising activities, such as guided tours of the Sewer Museum and the “Après la Pluie” exhibition, also raise awareness about rainwater management. The Brussels pilot focuses on Territorial and Participatory NbS, emphasizing social and environmental solidarity. Territorial solutions, such as rainwater harvesting and infiltration spaces, are co-designed through participatory workshops, ensuring community involvement and sustainable outcomes. What typology/ies of people is this NBS for? Citizens / Private owners Social housing tenants Young people What typology/ies of people are/were involved in the co-creation process? Citizens / Private owners Social housing tenants Animals (dog) Municipality Social housing agents 99 Annex 8: Pilot Case Càcares Table NBS Description Composting organic waste Decentralised composting (different from centralised composting) offers different treatments (domestic, communal, agro-composting...) closer to the places where the biowaste is generated. Decentralised composting is a synergistic successor that reduces energy consumption and transport, creates local employment and agro-ecological transition, and contributes to improving the organic culture of farmers and the quality and resilience of soil and microbiodiversity, carbon sequestration among other synergistic environmental benefits. Partners (Municipalities/ Universities/ NGOs etc) Pool of municipalities of Sierra de Montánchez (province of Cáceres) like Botija, Albalá, Montánchez, Salvatierra de Santiago, Valdemorales, Zarza, among others | Univ. Extremadura | Economías BioRegionales *Note: we are in the process of signing a participatory agreement proposed in October 2024 to the Mancomunidad de Sierra de Montánchez (association of waste management municipalities). General Typology Rural Initially the pilot was planned to be ‘urban/rural’, and to be done with the City Council of Cáceres who neither responded nor signed the collaboration agreement presented. And at the moment, by collaborating with the pool of municipalities of Sierra de Montánchez), it has become rural. Specific Types Decentralised management of bio-waste composting Green circular economy Territorial food systems Sustainable land and soil management in urban and rural areas Bioregional and municipal ecological-socio-economic sustainability Climate and biodiversity crisis Climatic migration Learning from marginalized knowledges Green employment for people at risk of exclusion Specific Info Data: The Mancomunidad Sierra de Montánchez (association of 21 rural municipalities in the south of the province of Cáceres. We elaborated a collaboration agreement focused on 7 local municipalities of the association, where local systems of decentralised composting and Living Knowledge laboratory in composting were trained and implemented. 100 Although the agreement is not yet signed, it has been initiated from the pilot neighbourhood assemblies chaired by the mayor of information and co-designed. The co-design includes as part of the waste ordinances to be approved according to European and national regulations in 2025-2026. Motivation of the pilot - Run different models of circular economy closure on organic matter in the territory, and how to balance public and social governance, and governance model to maximise the circular flow of organic matter in Territorial Food Systems, with food and fertiliser production and soil organic matter demand. Challenge: Connecting organic matter management with the Food System, and not only with pure waste management. Demonstrate its positive impact on the environment. Existing NBS applications - The composting process is being initiated on the ground, reducing costs and emissions in a more decentralised way. On the other hand, and in line with the EU's Mission Soil line of work, increasing the low presence of organic matter, less than 2% in average arable land, sequestering carbon and increasing water resilience and micro biodiversity. Define the NBS category/ies of your action according to the URBINAT definition of NBS categories: Territorial, Participatory, and Social and Solidarity Economy What typology/ies of people is this NBS for? What typology/ies of people are/were involved in the co-creation process? 101 Annex 9: Assessment Case Brussels Table NBS Description The Brussels assessment case addresses pressing environmental challenges, including flooding, droughts, and urban heat islands, by deploying and monitoring the Municipal Water Plan (PCE). Adopted on March 25, 2024, the PCE aims to transition Brussels into a "Water City" by 2050 through integrated water management. It defines six key water objectives, seven sub-zones, and 28 project sheets, ranging in scale from XS (stormwater management on private properties) to XL (city-wide policy actions). The Laeken area, part of the "Heysel as a sponge" sub-zone, is a focal point for implementing these strategies. Projects include disconnecting roofs and paved surfaces, installing rainwater tanks at schools, and large-scale public space renovations. These efforts require collaboration between municipal authorities, private actors, and local residents, highlighting the importance of engaging stakeholders to relieve pressure on sewer systems and improve rainwater management. A priority map identifies areas with the greatest flooding risks, enabling targeted interventions that align with the PCE’s objectives and the overarching goal of building resilience at every scale—from individual homes to city-level initiatives. Partners (Municipalities/ Universities/ NGOs etc) University of Louvain (UCL) Ville de Bruxelles - Stad Brussel (STAD BRUSSEL) General Typology Urban Specific Types > Sustainable water management > Climate change effects mitigation and adaptation > Urban pressure > Improve urban Spaces > Biodiversity Enhancement > Flood risk reduction > Urban Heat Effect Reduction Specific Info Data : The Brussels assessment case operates within existing governance structures, involving local stakeholders engaged in initiatives such as the Municipal Water Plan (PCE)/. The focus area is the territory of the City of Brussels that integrates diverse demographic and socio-economic profiles, with ongoing projects like Brusseau and URBiNAT fostering collaboration between public authorities, private actors, and residents. Motivation Assessment case: Driven by the urgent need to address environmental challenges such as floods, droughts, and urban heat islands, 102 the assessment case in Brussels focuses on the deployment and monitoring of the Municipal Water Plan (PCE), Recognizing water as a crucial resource, the plan aims to advance Brussels towards its goal of becoming a globally renowned water city by 2050. This underscores the necessity for integrated water management within urban spaces, signalling a departure from reliance only on technological solutions to confront climate-related issues. To operationalize that, the municipal council of the City of Brussels adopted the Municipal Water Plan (GWP) on March 25, 2024. Challenges: The Brussels assessment faces challenges aligned with SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). These include ensuring sustainable urban development, reducing resource consumption, fostering climate adaptation, and managing conflicting priorities across diverse stakeholders. NBS Categories: The NBS categories applied in this assessment are Territorial. Territorial NbS involve projects such as rainwater harvesting, infiltration systems, and green-blue infrastructure. Throughout the development of the Water Municipal Plan, several working sessions have been held involving a wide range of water-related stakeholders, including the City’s administrative staff, public organizations, and citizen associations, such as Vivaqua, Hydria, Perspective, BrusselsEnvironment, EGEB, Pool is Cool, and Coordination Senne. What typology/ies of people is this NBS for? Citizens NGOs and local associations Municipality and public services What typology/ies of people are/were involved in the co-creation process? Municipality, public services and NGOs (citizens and non experts were specifically not integrated to the co-creation process due to the complexity of the topic but where represented by NGOs and local associations). 103 Annex 10: Assessment Case Bologna Table NBS Description A new public Space in the historic center of Bologna,previously used as a parking lot. The NBS addressed the transformation of a square in the historic center of bologna, within the Univerisity area, from a car parking lot into a pedestrian square with a temporary patch of grass to lay down and relax for people and students living and passing in the nearby. It was co-created by the students of the university of Bologna together with Fondazione Innovazione Urbana and the support of the local Municipality. Partners (Municipalities/ Universities/ NGOs etc) Sapienza Università di Roma (UniRoma1) General Typology Urban Specific Types Tactical urbanism action Participatory workshops and transformative actions (university - municipality) Specific Info Data: The city of Bologna had a population of approximately 392,800 residents as of December 31, 2022, a number that remained stable compared to 2021 (with an increase of about a hundred residents). However, Istat estimates that beyond the resident population, excluding tourists and those travelling for business or medical reasons, the daily population of the city exceeds 507,000 people. With over 90,000 students, the University of Bologna is one of the largest universities in Europe, of which 8,526 are international. A total of 1,036,109.13 square meters of space is allocated for teaching and extracurricular activities, distributed among the campuses in Bologna, Cesena, Forlì, Ravenna, and Rimini. Motivation of the assessment case: renovation of the Piazza Rossini area is the transformation of a parking area into a green area. The lack of urban green space in the city center of Bologna,intended also as places to relax, socialise, and do some physical activity, urged the transformation of piazza Rossini. (Please check if this info are still relevant/updated) Challenges: Good health and well-being (3 SDG); sustainable cities and communities (n. 11 SDG); life on land (n. 15). Define the NBS category/ies of your action according to the URBINAT definition of NBS categories( Territorial, Technological, Social and Solidarity Economy, Participatory) in this catalogue : Participatory What typology/ies Students Local citizens Tourists 104 of people is this NBS for? What typology/ies of people are/were involved in the co-creation process? Academia, researchers Local Administration, Civil Society Students 105 Annex 11: Assessment Case Moisdon Lariviere Table NBS Description Pioneer case of a self-sufficient and eco-community The pioneers of la Maison Autonome aim to demonstrate the feasibility of a self-sufficient lifestyle using simple and affordable technologies, while promoting a sustainable and environmentally respectful way of living. To achieve this, they have implemented Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) such as sustainable water management, permaculture, and decentralized energy production from solar panels and wind turbines. The case study defines its objectives by focusing on the ecological and socio-economic challenges associated with these innovative practices. The primary goal is to identify key success factors to enhance ecological resilience and address socio-economic disparities within the community, considering psychological, social, and biophysical indicators. This approach aims to establish replicable models for the pilot cases of the TRANS Lighthouses project. Partners are engaged in a scientific approach based on participatory processes to gather a variety of local knowledge, representations, and practices. A retrospective long-term evaluation of the psychological, social, and biophysical impacts of la Maison Autonome House is envisioned to define and disseminate effective strategies. The Case Study aims to serve as a lighthouse for the transition to resilient and autonomous communities, influencing broader changes towards sustainable development in society. Partners (Municipalities/ Universities/ NGOs etc) CNRS Ecole Centrale de Nantes General Typology Rural Specific Types Ecosystemic approach, long time-scale to evaluate social and ecological impacts. The potential of dissemination and adaptation of the solutions. -alternative ecosystem approaches for stormwater management -creation of microclimates favorable to alternative agriculture -adoption of environmentally friendly agricultural practices including food autonomy and permaculture (such as the Mandala Garden) -soil regeneration through domestic waste management and soil water purification -plant ecosystem services like phyto-depuration -low-tech energy self-production (via solar and wind technologies). 112 What typology/ies of people is this NBS for? Students What typology/ies of people are/were involved in the co-creation process? Students, Teachers, Technicians 113 Annex 15: Assessment Case Upper Allgäu Table NBS Description On NUTS3 level ( small regions ) (the entire district has 1.527,97 km2 , the neighbouring district of Lindau has 323 km² , the city of Kempten, 63 km² also are covered by the forest agency and work of the mountain forest initiative covers all three districts). Forest Regeneration, multifunctional forest management, additional aspect: creating value chains for forest products (Please briefly describe the NBS action) The aim of the district and the local administration is to enhance the situation of forests in mountain areas. The region faces challenges to adapt to climate change as impacts are amplified in mountain areas. Forests are one of the most threatened ecosystems. A lot of especially private forests are composed of planted Norway Spruce stands most affected by climate change (threats are droughts, bark beetle, storm damages due to shallow roots). The goal is to regenerate and adapt forests with more mixed tree species to adapt to climate change and at the same time providing a multitude of Ecosystem Services. A very important aspect of mountain forests is that they are important for protection against natural hazards (avalanches, floods, water storage,…) Challenges to change the situation are related to poor maintenance often linked to scattered small-scale ownership, lack of interest, lack of knowledge and skills. Forest Authorities realized that a change in governance is needed and shifted from a sovereign role to participatory project based approaches to address the challenges with the Mountain Forest Initiative. First activities in the region began as early as 1989 to reestablish a disintegrating forest at a steep mountain slope in Hinterstein exposing the village to severe threat of rockfall and avalanches. Intense activities in several project areas are ongoing for around 15 years now. Experiences with participatory approaches and forest as well as forest management as NBSs will be shared with TRL. The region and partners would like to learn from TRL to better work on challenges related to communication and outreach as a specific interest for the practitioners in the region. Challenges are to reach more forest owners and create more awareness around forests in the regional society as well as among tourists (e.g. visitor management in sensitive areas, providing knowledge as part of the educational commitment of the forest administration. 114 Another interesting aspect in the region could be learning opportunities about mechanisms to create regional value chains for forests and their products. Germany has a strong culture and support for forming associations and the forest sector could provide some examples for TRL on mechanisms and framing. Partners (Municipalities/ Universities/ NGOs etc) Technical University of Munich (TUM), Agency for Food, Agriculture and Forestry General Typology Forestry Specific Types Knowledge and taking action in forests and forest management in mountain areas as NBS; building and creating networks to develop regional value chains for forest, timber and end users Broad range of topics relevant for TRL for analysing lessons learned - e.g. communication, learning, involving children and adolescents, forest owners to broader public, shift in Governance model, from top down to collaborative NBS: multifunctional mountain forest management as NBS, forests as NBS, especially in terms of reducing risks of natural hazards. Discussions and activities are linked also with interests in mountain areas, e.g. cattle keeping, tourism, outdoor recreation, hunting with numerous institutionalized, NGOs and non-organized stakeholders Specific Info Data: The Upper Allgäu pre-alpine and alpine areas from 630 m to 2600 m above sea level. The Iller River runs through the district from south to north. The city of Kempten with around 68 000 inhabitants is the largest city in the region. Motivation of the assessment – Retrospective Learning case: Changing paradigms and understanding of authorities changing from top-down (sovereign role) towards collaborative governance (partners of forest owners) , variety of management activities; a key issue for the area is to learn more about communication, outreach and tools. Responsible consumption and production (n. 12 SDG); climate action (13), many others are also relevant for this case, e.g. education. (Please check if this info are still relevant/updated) Define the NBS category/ies of your action according to the URBINAT definition of NBS categories( Territorial, Technological, Social and Solidarity Economy, Participatory) in this catalogue : Please select the category/ies Territorial NBS, work with forest and forest management to enhance biodiversity, resilience to climate change, flash floods, water retention, water storage, soil erosion, avalanches, landslides. 115 Note that most of the URBiNAT catalogue is for small scale interventions and the Upper Allgäu case could be the one to “translate” them into the context of the larger countryside and forest management - very many activities and management practices could be or are NbS - e,g. magnify /are large scale interventions of described activities in urban areas, mirror things or can be put to different contexts. To some extent also social and solidarity economy aspects are visible in the area: Actors from the forest and timber sector are building networks (e.g. Holzforum Allgäu) to create local value chains for forest, timber and end products (e.g. school built with timber from local forests), district heatings operated with wood chips from local forests etc. What typology/ies of people is this NBS for? Main idea is to provide healthy forests providing a multitude of ecosystem services for future generations to have as many or more opportunities and benefits from forest and having a better place to live) , long benefits from decisions and management actions taken now might materialize only after decades or centuries (trees need >100 years until the tree gets mature and can be used e.g. as a log for building a roof or a house) authorities, administration: Forest administration as stimulator and organizer to start processes together with advisory board political and elected representatives Want to address problems and solve issues about forests in their community, (degradation, loss of biodiversity, conflicts with recreational uses, hunting, …, important aspect is if forests are not well maintained, increasing risk of natural hazards such as rock fall, landslides, flooding) community is often also one of the forest owners but broader action is needed together with other private owners - also sometimes “champion” motivating others for action NGOs/Civil Society Main actors: Nature conservation (biodiversity, wildlife habitats, management) and representatives (also having a Nature Experience Centre with offers) for outdoor recreation (climbing clubs, mountain bike associations; “hybrid”: German Alpine Club other group such as hunting associations Businesses/Economy (Small/medium enterprises; bigger ones Forest owners, farmers (especially those depending on generating significant income from forest and farming); to a lesser/small extent, tourism associations, local business marketing association, entrepreneurs and construction, building companies (at more advanced stages e.g. when discussing construction of trails or stand management) 116 Academia, Research Involved for monitoring and providing evidence-based data, but could be more as quite away from universities with respective disciplines Students Some involved e.g. through theses or project work, but relatively few due to distance to university with related subjects Quite a lot of work with schools and through nature park (partner school programs), a lot of environmental education activities, also some outreach to adolescents and training programs with companies such as Bosch Children A lot of environmental interpretation activities users of trails Tourists Relevant as users of the forest but very difficult to reach, yet to engage - visitor management concepts, trail information, offers by the nature park on informing about the nature; also mountain farming museum has exhibit and items to forestry and information about the mountain forests and the Mountain Forest Initiative; ideas exist to engage tourists (e.g. plant a tree) to create “customer relation” and encourage to come back. but would need to be developed teachers important group as the ones who drive things like partner school programs and fill things with life, reach out for educational programs and use resources such as Nature Park offers phd students Lack, as away from respective universities, local university of applied sciences is focussed on engineering and ”hard” tourism with main focus on hospitality management and economical aspects/traditional tourism Practitioners See above - main group would be foresters and forest owners with abilities to manage forests themselves families Offers through nature park and its activities in the nature park building, exhibition and activities; also nature experience centre by NGO offers programs agricultural farmers See above local markets Local initiative to bring together stakeholders from the forest and timber value chain (forest owners, timber 117 harvesting/hauling, sawmills, carpenters), very active with projects and ideas, some nice examples, e.g. wooden buildings made from local timber, “Green Centre” (where forest administration and forest related groups are based), nature park building, local school,... Technicians See above What typology/ies of people are/were involved in the co-creation process? authorities, administration Most active groups, develop further ideas from tables, organize moderation, provide information, initiate and bring together actors (also based on access to information such as ownership of land etc., organizing invitations or voting for representatives to be at the table, information in official channels, etc. political and elected representatives Important to motivate on project area level, as community/village is starting point, also interest of being role model with their community, solve problems related to forest/recreation, NGOs/Civil Society Represent interests, e.g. advocate for nature conservation and concepts, can be supportive for action (e.g. visitor management, more natural species, more mixed stands) but also in conflict with management proposals (e.g. trail/access, management of forests vs. conservation when e.g. focus is reducing hazards on slopes); recreation, supportive or challenging partner, e.g. climbing/hiking/mountain biking vs. protection of a forest and closure of trails to create wildlife habitats; Alpine Club as a hybrid (both as advocate for conservation and recreational use) Hunting associations, depending on persons in the area - stretching from very good cooperation to active, relevant blockers Businesses/Economy (Small/medium enterprises; bigger ones Outside farming and forest owners, neutral experts and the ones doing management or building Academia, Research Provision of expertise and monitoring, also moderation, but could be more from my perspective as area is quite away from respective universities and knowledge providers Students A lot of environmental interpretation activities including planting etc. 118 children A lot of environmental interpretation activities including planting etc. Not engaged but a challenge sometimes (e.g. overuse, trampling, ignoring rules), attempts to inform and educate with offers (information boards, nature park centre, offers for tours and experiences, exhibition in the Mountain Farming Museum) users of trails Tourists, families Teachers Especially through engagement and organizing environmental programs with their pupils, quite active in terms of partner schools etc.; could be perhaps even more in terms of real co-creation of designing measures and ideas. phd students Some activities, but very little practitioners agricultural farmers Land owners are decisive, without their will or agreement, no action will take place. Several forest owners are farmers and offer farm holidays, a few still full–time and have skill and knowledge to manage, but quite often little awareness of climate change and impact on forests, stick to narratives on best tree species and current market situations, majority is part time farmers besides a job in service or industry, an increasing number of forest owners (about half) are not related to farm and in many cases, no/little skills and possibilities to work in the forests themselves, also a significant number does not live close to the forests any more (e.g. have moved to cities like Munich) Local markets For timber, start to play a more important role as awareness for local, environmental products with small carbon footprint increases., active initiatives to raise awareness, e.g. stands at festivities, good practice examples etc. technicians 119 Annex 16: Assessment Case Troodos Table NBS Description Rural communities cultural landscape. Communal maintenance of mountain terraces, using local expert knowledge to maintain and transfer the traditional knowledge of dry stone wall construction Partners (Municipalities/ Universities/ NGOs etc) > The Cyprus Institute (CyI) General Typology > Rural > Forestry Specific Types > Co-creation of knowledge and community empowerment. > Construction activities contribute to the reduction of soil erosion, conserve productive agricultural land and maintain cultural landscape. Specific Info Data: Troodos Mountains are the central mountain massif of Cyprus, covering nearly 30% of the Republic and accommodating more than 100 small rural communities. Motivation of the assessment: The research team and a local SME invite the community council to host a terrace construction and maintenance event. Challenges: The main concern of farmers and farm managers is agricultural production. Maintenance of drystone terraces is not their first priority. Terrace maintenance requires hard and dedicated manual labor. Many farmers are elderly and agricultural land is slowly abandoned. The number of older generation farmers with dry-stone terrace wall construction skills that can be actively involved as leaders in dry-stone wall terrace construction events is diminishing. An institutional framework needs to be developed to oversee dry-stone wall construction training activities.. The Troodos assessment case addresses the Sustainable Cities and Communities (n. 11 SDG) and Life on the Land (n. 15 SDG) NBS Categories based on URBiNAT:: > Territorial > Participatory What typology/ies of people is this NBS for? > Local residents > Agricultural farmers What typology/ies of people are/were involved in the > Authorities > Local residents > Agricultural farmers > Academia, Research > NGOs / Civil Society 120 co-creation process? 121 Annex 17: Assessment Case Lagoa Table NBS Description Natural Trails as a tool to reconnect with nature The NBS action has focused on the development of a participatory culture for the creation of a more inclusive trail, from which new relationships between nature and the surrounding community and its users are co-constructed. Using this approach, the NBS aims to inform and contribute to local public policies. This includes meetings with stakeholders (including a participatory workshop/focus group), group activities named “We are Nature!” that involves working with local schools and NGOs; Walkthrough involving students, questionnaires/interviews to develop the cultural mapping, monitor the governance model and the humannature relations, and open events for the community (e.g: Night Cinema), among other actions. Partners (Municipalities/ Universities/ NGOs etc) Main partners: a. Municipality of Lagoa; b. University of Azores; c. KAIRÓS – Solidarity Economy Initiatives Incubation Cooperative. Other partners: OGVA, Expolab, Cefal, Vaga, ARRISCA, ONGs like “Casa do Povo de Água de Pau” CDIJ - “Youth Inclusion Development Center” Local schools Parish council General Typology Forestry / Rural/ Coastal Specific Types Trails have a positive impact in wellness, health, economic development, citizen science, art, culture, and awareness of nature conservation Specific Info Data: The municipality of Lagoa, occupying 46 km² of surface area, has a population of 14,189 people (50,8% being women). In 2021, 10.6% of the population on the island of São Miguel lived in Lagoa, making it the third largest municipality. Lagoa is a territory with a population density of 322,7 inhabitants/km² and is considered a municipality with a large young population – in 2022, there were 80,2 elderly people for every 100 young people. Lagoa has an active population of 10,024 people, with the activity rate in the municipality being 70.6% (Census, 2021). Motivation of the assessment: Regional or local trails need to be adapted to include other possibilities to use. For that it is