D1.1 - Report on Current Biodiversity & Nature-Based Solutions Positioning

-1University of Hohenheim Report on Current Biodiversity & Nature-based Solutions Positioning DELIVERABLE D1.1 October 2024 Ref. Ares(2024)7763926 - 31/10/2024 Deliverable 1.1 -2- @enabls-eu @eNaBlS_eu @eNaBlS_eu @eNaBlS-eu [email protected] www.enabls.eu @enabls.eu Deliverable 1.1 -3Document Information Document ID D1.1 Title Report on current biodiversity & NBS positioning Work Package WP1 - MAPPING: Understanding current biodiversity and NBS positioning Due Date 31/10/2024 Delivery date 31/10/2024 Dissemination Level PU-fully open Partner Responsible University of Hohenheim Main Authors Sabiha Gökçen Zwack, UHOH Julia Klawitter, UHOH Sri Dhanya Adusimili, UHOH Ann-Catrin Fender UHOH Danas Augutis, VMU Gediminas Brazaitis, VMU Anželika Dautartė, VMU Silvija Šaudytė – Manton, VMU Vitas Marozas, VMU Rasa Pakeltienė, ICA Audronė Ispiryan, ICA Diana Surova, ICA Michael Jones, ICA Bart Kaptejns, ICA Contributors Christian Rheinbay, UHOH Nandni Shah, UHOH Peer Reviewers Reviewer 1 Birthe Ulhorn, BOKU Tigran Keryan, BOKU Verena Radinger-Peer; BOKU Reviewer 2 Vitas Marozas, VMU Gediminas Brazaitis, VMU (The reviewers from VMU reviewed the content in the whole document except Chapter 3.) Reviewer 3 Michael Jones, ICA (Reviewed the content in Chapter 3.) Coordinator Ann-Catrin Fender – University of Hohenheim (UHOH) Deliverable 1.1 -4Document History Version Date Main Modifications Author(s) 0.1 12/07/2024 First draft with table of contents and structure of the document Sabiha Gökçen Zwack 0.2 22/10/2024 Input received from all the responsible partners See the list of main authors of this document 0.3 22/10/2024 Final editing completed and draft send for internal review to VMU and BOKU Sabiha Gökçen Zwack, AnnCatrin Fender 1.0 31/10/2024 Final version ready for submission See the list of main authors, contributors, and reviewers of this document Views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Executive Agency (REA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. © 2024 by ENABLS consortium is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0. Deliverable 1.1 -5Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary .............................................................................. 16 2 Introduction .......................................................................................... 19 References ...................................................................................................................... 20 3 Current status and trends in addressing biodiversity loss with NBS . 21 3.1 Three core definitions for NBS ............................................................................. 21 3.2 NBS standards and protocols ............................................................................... 21 3.3 EU policy documents with specific focus on Green Deal and Common Agricultural Policy .......................................................................................................... 23 3.3.1 How EU policies work together for NBS .................................................................. 24 3.3.2 EU Biodiversity strategy ............................................................................................ 24 3.3.3 EU Nature Restoration Law ...................................................................................... 25 3.3.4 EU farm to fork strategy ........................................................................................... 26 3.3.5 European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) .......................................................... 27 3.3.6 EU Adaptation Strategy ............................................................................................ 31 3.3.7 EU Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation .............................. 32 3.4 EU-funded projects ............................................................................................... 33 3.4.1 Review of EU Funding programmes with NBS addressing biodiversity loss.......... 34 3.4.2 CORDIS EU Research results ..................................................................................... 36 3.4.3 NetworkNature database of EU research and innovation biodiversity projects on NBS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………37 3.5 Research objectives in NBS .................................................................................. 37 3.6 Summary ............................................................................................................... 41 References ...................................................................................................................... 43 4 Current biodiversity loss and NBS approaches in higher education and TVET ............................................................................................................ 45 4.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 45 4.1.1 Review of stakeholder institutions, similar projects and open educational resources ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………45 4.1.2 Survey methodology ................................................................................................. 46 4.1.3 Interview methodology ............................................................................................. 47 4.2 Results ................................................................................................................... 50 4.2.1 Results of the review ................................................................................................. 50 Deliverable 1.1 -64.2.2 Results of the survey ................................................................................................. 58 4.2.3 Results of the expert interviews ............................................................................... 64 4.3 Presence or absence of NBS in higher education and TVET curricula ............... 75 4.3.1 Discussion on survey results ..................................................................................... 76 4.3.2 Discussion on interview results ................................................................................ 77 4.4 Summary ............................................................................................................... 80 References ...................................................................................................................... 81 5 Networking and collaboration patterns among universities and universities – TVET ..................................................................................... 83 5.1 Nature-based solution as an interdisciplinary concept ...................................... 83 5.2 Methodology applied for online survey and experts’ interviews....................... 83 5.2.1 Sampling size and structure ..................................................................................... 83 5.2.2 Data collection .......................................................................................................... 84 5.2.3 Structure of the questionnaires ................................................................................ 84 5.2.4 Data analysis and methods ...................................................................................... 85 5.3 Results ................................................................................................................... 86 5.3.1 Understanding Interdisciplinary Collaboration Within the Institution .................. 86 5.3.2 Identifying obstacles to knowledge transfer ........................................................... 98 5.3.3 Potential pathways for interdisciplinary collaboration ........................................ 102 5.3.4 Identifying existing good practices ........................................................................ 105 5.3.5 Lessons learned about good practices from interviews and survey .................... 111 5.4 Summary ............................................................................................................. 111 6 NBS awareness and perceptions across society ............................... 113 6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 113 6.2 Hypotheses .......................................................................................................... 113 6.3 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 114 6.3.1 Overview .................................................................................................................. 114 6.3.2 Ethical considerations, Data collection, Data preparation .................................. 114 6.3.3 Data analysis and study design per question ........................................................ 118 6.3.4 Overall methodological challenges and recommendations ................................. 125 6.4 Results ................................................................................................................. 126 6.4.1 Presentation of the socio-demographic data ........................................................ 126 Deliverable 1.1 -76.4.2 Awareness of individuals on biodiversity and NBS (evaluation of research question a)…….. ................................................................................................................... 131 6.4.3 Results on how an individual’s origin, educational level, and age influence awareness and perceptions (evaluation of research questions b) ................................... 144 6.4.4 Results on how institutions perceive the challenges of biodiversity loss and climate change (evaluation of research questions c) ..................................................................... 165 6.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 175 6.5.1 Implications for individuals’ awareness of biodiversity and NBS (a) ................... 176 6.5.2 Implications of individuals’ origin, education level, and age on awareness and perceptions (b) ..................................................................................................................... 177 6.5.3 Implications for how organizations perceive the challenges of biodiversity loss and climate change (c) ............................................................................................................... 179 6.6 Summary ............................................................................................................. 180 References .................................................................................................................... 183 7 Overall conclusion .............................................................................. 185 Appendix I. The LIFE Programme ............................................................ 187 Appendix II. NBS and Projects ................................................................. 199 Appendix III. Stakeholder Mapping Table .............................................. 226 Appendix IV. Survey and Interview Questions in Task 1.1 .................... 231 Appendix V. Details on the Interviews in Task 1.1 ................................. 240 Appendix VI. Codes and Subcodes in Interview Analysis in Task 1.1 .... 244 Appendix VII. Details on the Survey and Interviews in Task 1.4 ........... 255 Appendix VIII. Additional Figures on Survey Results in Task 1.2........... 270 Appendix IX. Additional Tables on Survey Results in Task 1.2 .............. 277 Appendix X. Survey Questions in Task 1.2 .............................................. 293 List of Figures Figure 1 NBS projects by ecosystem. ....................................................................................... 34 Figure 2 Screenshot of NetworkNature database search options ........................................... 37 Figure 3 The number of publications from 2000 to 2024 related to “Nature-based solutions” or “Nature based solutions” and association with keywords “Biodiversity”, “Climate change”, “Forest”, and “Agriculture”. ..................................................................................................... 38 Deliverable 1.1 -8Figure 4 The number of publications related to “Nature-based solutions” or “Nature based solutions” and association with keywords “Biodiversity”, “Climate change”, “Forest”, and “Agriculture” in 2024................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 5 Percentage of keywords “Biodiversity”, “Climate change”, “Forest”, and “Agriculture” usage from 2000 to 2024. The trends of keyword usage were calculated from the total number of publications containing the four keywords. ............................................ 40 Figure 6 Number of “Nature-based solutions” or “Nature based solutions” publications related to keywords “Ecosystem services”, “Ecosystem restoration”, “Conservation”, “Sustainability”, “Carbon sequestration”, and “Circular economy” between 2000-2023. ..... 40 Figure 7 Workflow diagram to understand the current biodiversity loss and NBS approaches in HE and TVET ......................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 8 Number of interviews conducted according to the countries ................................... 49 Figure 9 Sampling strategy of the interviews........................................................................... 49 Figure 10 Type of educational institutions involved in the survey .......................................... 58 Figure 11 Occupation of the survey respondents .................................................................... 59 Figure 12 Likeliness to include biodiversity loss and NBS concepts in the curricula in future 64 Figure 13 Number of participants according to type of their educational institutions and inclusion criteria of NBS and biodiversity loss concepts in their curricula. ............................. 65 Figure 14 Inclusion criteria of NBS and biodiversity loss concepts according to the type of educational institutions ............................................................................................................ 66 Figure 15 Map of countries participated in the interviews and inclusion of the concepts. Note: Sampling of the qualitative expert interviews was purposeful and non-probable. ...... 67 Figure 16 Participants‘ approach to include the concepts in the curricula ............................. 68 Figure 17 Effective teaching methods according to the inclusion criteria of the concepts .... 73 Figure 18 Map of the institutions according to inclusion criteria of the concepts of NBS and biodiversity loss ........................................................................................................................ 76 Figure 19 Summary of the findings from the interviews ......................................................... 80 Figure 20 Online survey respondents’ definition of interdisciplinary collaboration within the context of biodiversity research and education, in percentage .............................................. 86 Figure 21 Summary of understandings of NBS in HE based on interviews with experts ........ 88 Figure 22 Online survey respondents’ responses on how widespread geographically the existing collaboration alliances are of their institution ........................................................... 88 Figure 23 Online survey respondents’ responses on what is their institutions progress over the last 10 years in improving the collaboration based on NBS and Biodiversity loss, in percentage ............................................................................................................................... 89 Figure 24 Online survey respondents’ responses on the types of collaboration between universities and TVETs that they could mention, in percentage ............................................. 89 Figure 25 Online survey respondents’ responses on the current functioning of curriculum development and review, in percentage ................................................................................. 90 Figure 26 Online Survey respondents’ responses on the current functioning of the research and development projects, in percentage ............................................................................... 90 Figure 27 Online survey respondents’ responses on the current functioning of the Workbased learning programs, in percentage ................................................................................. 91 Figure 28 Online survey respondents’ responses on the current functioning of the Professional Development and Training, in percentage .......................................................... 91 Figure 29 Online survey respondents’ responses on the current functioning of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Hubs, in percentage........................................................... 92 Deliverable 1.1 -9Figure 30 Online survey respondents’ responses on the current functioning of the CrossInstitutional Collaboration, in percentage ............................................................................... 92 Figure 31 Online survey respondents’ responses on the current functioning of the Community Engagement and Outreach ................................................................................... 93 Figure 32 Online survey respondents’ responses on the current functioning of the Quality Assurance and Accreditation, in percentage ........................................................................... 93 Figure 33 Online survey respondents’ responses on the current functioning of the technology Integration and Digital Learning, in percentage ...................................................................... 93 Figure 34 Online survey respondents’ responses on the current functioning of the Policy Advocacy and Reform, in percentage ...................................................................................... 94 Figure 35 Online survey respondents’ responses on the performance of resources used for interdisciplinary collaboration, in percentage. ........................................................................ 95 Figure 36 Online survey respondents’ responses on the obstacles for knowledge transfer, in percentages .............................................................................................................................. 98 Figure 37 Online survey respondents’ responses on the key factors improving knowledge transfer among different disciplines, in percentages (5 and 4 scores) .................................. 101 Figure 38 Online survey respondents’ responses on the Strategies/initiatives that could facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration, in percentage ........................................................ 102 Figure 39 Online survey respondents’ responses on what motivated or encouraged the institution to initiate or participate in collaborations, in percentage ................................... 104 Figure 40 Online survey respondents’ responses on the environmental conservation and restoration projects, in percentage ....................................................................................... 106 Figure 41 Online survey respondents’ responses on the urban planning and development projects, in percentage........................................................................................................... 107 Figure 42 Online survey respondents’ responses on the urban disaster resilience and risk management training, in percentage ..................................................................................... 107 Figure 43 Online survey respondents’ responses on the renewable energy technology integration, in percentage ...................................................................................................... 108 Figure 44 Online survey respondents’ responses on the water resource management initiatives, in percentage ........................................................................................................ 108 Figure 45 Online survey respondents’ responses on the green building and construction programs, in percentage ........................................................................................................ 109 Figure 46 The three ways to spread the Task 1.2 survey ....................................................... 115 Figure 47 Age of survey participants ...................................................................................... 127 Figure 48 Countries of residence of survey participants ....................................................... 128 Figure 49 Residency of survey participants............................................................................ 128 Figure 50 Educational background of survey participants ..................................................... 129 Figure 51 Current job status of survey participants ............................................................... 130 Figure 52 Understanding of nature of survey participants .................................................... 131 Figure 53 Correct and wrong responses to “What is biological diversity?” .......................... 132 Figure 54 Responses to “Is losing different types of plants and animals a problem in your area?” ..................................................................................................................................... 132 Figure 55 Responses to “Have you heard of the term “Nature-based solutions” (NBS)?” ... 133 Figure 56 Responses to “What is the closest description of NBS?” ....................................... 133 Figure 57 Responses to “Would new policies help to save biological diversity?” ................. 134 Figure 58 Concerns regarding the climate crisis and the loss of biological diversity ............ 141 Deliverable 1.1 -161 Executive Summary In recent years, there has been a significant increase in research exploring how nature-based solutions (NBS) can effectively promote biodiversity and address environmental challenges. These innovative approaches are gaining momentum across various fields, from policy development to urban planning. However, as the need for sustainable solutions grows, we must also ask: What role can higher education (HE) and Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) institutions play in supporting these efforts? How can we equip future professionals with the skills and knowledge needed to foster biodiversity through NBS? Current status and trends in addressing biodiversity loss with NBS (from here onwards, it will be named as Task 1.3, Chapter 3) The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has developed the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions as a voluntary framework for the design and implementation of effective NBS projects. NBS are defined as the actions that utilise natural resources to address a range of global challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss and food security. The IUCN posits that NBS can be integrated into key economic sectors to mainstream nature conservation and address the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change. The IUCN Global Standard for nature-based solutions provides a framework for the evaluation and enhancement of NBS initiatives, comprising eight criteria and twenty-eight indicators. The European Commission (EC) has developed a research and innovation policy with a specific focus on NBS, which it regards as a core instrument in the implementation of the European Green Deal, particularly concerning the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the EU Adaptation Strategy. The policy outlines six funding objectives for implementation, including the integration of NBS within research and innovation, the reinforcement of the European research and innovation community, the demonstration of the potential of NBS, the advancement of locally tailored NBS, the improvement of financing solutions, and the enhancement of framework conditions for NBS. Europe is a prominent contributor to the funding of initiatives aimed at addressing biodiversity loss through the utilisation of NBS, demonstrating a persistent and expanding dedication to this domain. The research objectives on NBS encompass a range of interrelated fields, including climate change, biodiversity, agriculture, and forestry. The primary subject areas within these fields are ecosystem services, ecosystem restoration, conservation, sustainability, carbon sequestration, and a circular economy. Current biodiversity and NBS approaches in higher education and TVET (from here onwards, it will be named as Task 1.1, Chapter 4) Using a structured questionnaire, we investigated in an online survey the integration of NBS in HE curricula across various institution types — universities, colleges, and TVETs. We primarily received responses from teaching staff. As only 58% of all respondents indicating NBS present in their courses, it turned out that overall, the inclusion of the concepts are limited. In comparison, NBS concepts are more commonly included in university curricula (65%) compared to colleges and TVETs (42% each). The participants named as main key barriers institutional constraints, along with insufficient financial and human resources. This is a finding consistent with our expert interviews. In addition to literature review and surveys, expert interviews were conducted by all ENABLS partners to have an in depth understanding of the presence and absence of NBS and biodiversity loss concepts in HE, including not only universities but also colleges, and TVET curricula. The results from the interviews revealed that the concepts of NBS and biodiversity are mostly included in the curricula by the experts involved in this study. However, there is not only one major reason behind the inclusion of these concepts. Instead, it is found that several factors at individual, institutional, national and even at Deliverable 1.1 -17European level can determine the presence and absence of these concepts. The results suggest that addressing resource limitations and providing practical instructional tools could enhance NBS inclusion across diverse educational settings in the EU. Additionally, although NBS education is predominantly theoretical, both survey and interview respondents emphasize the need for practical teaching methods to improve NBS integration. In Chapter 4 of this document, the results from the survey and expert interviews on NBS and biodiversity in HE and TVET can be found in detail. Networking and collaboration patterns among universities and universities – TVET (from here onwards, it will be named as Task 1.4, Chapter 5) Task 1.4 highlights essential insights into the factors shaping successful interdisciplinary collaboration between higher education institutions (HEIs) and TVET institutions, with a focus on integrating NBS into their programs. Findings from both expert interviews and the online survey underscore the value of collaborative, interdisciplinary projects, especially those aligning with the Living Labs (LLs) approach, where academia, industry, and communities co-create and test sustainable solutions in real-world environments. One key lesson is that the potential for collaboration between HEIs and TVETs is strong, particularly for projects that provide hands-on, practical experience. However, challenges such as logistical barriers, limited funding, and resource shortages often restrict the full realization of these partnerships. Both HEIs and TVETs recognize the need for more structured support, especially at the governmental and regional levels, to overcome these constraints. For instance, successful projects demonstrate that when institutions receive stable backing, the scope and impact of their interdisciplinary collaborations improve, which is crucial for sustained progress in NBS integration. Survey responses presented mixed perceptions, with some participants expressing optimism about the potential for collaboration while others noted significant practical limitations. In contrast, interviews highlighted more successful case studies, suggesting that strong institutional frameworks and dedicated resources are pivotal to achieving positive outcomes. This contrast indicates that while the appetite for collaboration exists, it requires standardized support mechanisms to bridge the gap between theoretical interest and practical implementation. Integrating NBS through a LLs model holds substantial promise, yet its success is contingent upon overcoming resource challenges that are barriers to collaboration. The task suggests that structured institutional and governmental support, clear frameworks for collaboration, and the sharing of good practices can enhance interdisciplinary efforts and help realize the full potential of these educational partnerships in contributing to sustainability and biodiversity goals. NBS awareness and perceptions across society (from here onwards, it will be named as Task 1.2, Chapter 6) Task 1.2 assessed societal awareness and perceptions of biodiversity and NBS across sectors via an online survey, gathering insights on biodiversity loss, NBS potential for conservation, and personal impact. Stakeholders from higher education, TVET, the professional sector, and the public were included, with a focus on diverse representation. The findings will inform ENABLS LLs and support new curricula to foster resilience through NBS awareness. Data, collected on EUSurvey, included 1,084 valid responses. The study shows that EU individuals generally have basic to moderate awareness of biodiversity and NBS, with stronger understanding of biodiversity. Many lack knowledge of NBS’s socio-economic benefits and lesser-known biodiversity threats, like urban planning and invasive species. Demographic factors—age, education, and origin—only slightly influenced awareness. Organizations show a rising demand for interdisciplinary skills in biodiversity and environmental science, with larger organizations more likely to have sustainability strategies, while smaller ones face resource and strategic challenges. From a policy perspective, the findings of the Task 1.2 survey underscore the need for targeted educational initiatives to enhance public understanding of biodiversity and NBS, particularly their Deliverable 1.1 -18broader benefits. This is especially important among less-informed demographic groups and in certain countries as identified in our study. Expanding awareness beyond partner countries would benefit from a large-scale survey across Europe targeting diverse audiences. Integrating biodiversity and NBS topics into school and university curricula is highly recommended, with "train-the-trainer" programs in HE and TVET providing an impactful means to equip educators for broader societal integration. In the professional sector, policies that offer targeted resources to organizations could enhance their participation in EU biodiversity and climate initiatives. Additionally, the demand for interdisciplinary skills in biodiversity and environmental science highlights an opportunity for educational institutions to incorporate these competencies into training programs. Deliverable 1.1 -192 Introduction Nature-based solutions (NBS) promote sustainable development and enhancing resilience, emphasizing the importance of nature in our well-being and the need to protect, restore, and sustainably manage it (Biancardi et al. 2023, Sowińska-Świerkosz and García 2022). NBS offer a huge potential to save biodiversity (Seddon et al. 2020). Higher education institutions (HEIs) play a crucial role to mainstream measures protecting biodiversity as they teach future leaders in economy and multipliers such as teacher and are role models within society. Accordingly, the European Commission has funded several projects aimed at fostering NBS knowledge through education. These include initiatives like the Biodiversa+ partnership and projects specifically designed for HE and TVET, such as NBS Academy, NBS EduWorld and ENABLS. The initial step of the ENABLS project was to identify and understand key elements that shape the current landscape of HE programs, biodiversity loss, and NBS awareness across society, as well as European and international frameworks, networking, and collaboration patterns. This foundation will provide all partners with a concrete context and baseline to implement ENABLS approaches for socioecological adaptation and resilience through transdisciplinary dialogue. Our mapping serves as an initial foundation toward the broader goal of mainstreaming NBS and biodiversity in HE and TVET. Specifically, we aim to enhance and better coordinate educational programs, raising awareness about biodiversity loss and its connection to climate change, particularly through NBS, within universities and technical schools. With this report, we aim to spot the starting point to develop networking and collaboration schemes on HE curricula and programmes including NBS. This way, we set the basis for the increased awareness and development of skills among young people, teachers, professional organisations, on biodiversity, climate change and NBS. The present report (D1.1) shows what we learned to the above-described objectives. The following chapters tackle the current status and trends on NBS standards, EU policies, documents, research objectives and EU funding of projects (Chapter 3). We subsequently show the recent situation of NBS and biodiversity in HE and TVET (Chapter 4) and networks (Chapter 5), which work on NBS for biodiversity. Finally, we look at the awareness and perceptions of society at large to NBS and biodiversity (Chapter 6). To sum up, we draw some overall conclusions about what we learned from discovering the topic (Chapter 7). The realisation of WP1 was a common effort with all ENABLS partners, which means, we came closer together and brought all our competences and knowledge in. For the realisation we needed to activate our national and European networks. The analyses for this deliverable were based on two online surveys and interviews with experts (academia & TVET) as well as an online survey targeting the nonexperts (citizens, students, NGOs, etc.). However, due to the examination period (spring semester) and the summer break, it became evident that it might not be possible to reach our foreseen targets (number of questionnaires completed and interviews carried out) in terms of collecting the necessary feedback to reach conclusive results. The D1.1 initially was thought to be submitted in M8 of our project, but we asked for an extension of the respective deadline to M10. The respective changes were accepted by our Project Officer of the European Research Executive Agency (REA) of the European Commission. Deliverable 1.1 -20References Bianciardi, A., Becattini, N., Cascini, G., 2023. How would nature design and implement naturebased solutions? Nature-based solutions 3, 100047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100047 Seddon, N., Chausson, A., Berry, P., Girardin, C.A.J., Smith, A., Turner, B., 2020. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 375, 20190120. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120 Sowińska-Świerkosz, B., García, J., 2022. What are nature-based solutions (NBS)? Setting core ideas for concept clarification. Nature-based solutions 2, 100009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100009 Deliverable 1.1 -213 Current status and trends in addressing biodiversity loss with NBS In order to gain insights into the current state and patterns of efforts to address biodiversity loss through nature-based solutions (NBS), a review and assessment of programmes funded by the European Union (EU) was conducted. One of the principal impediments to these endeavours is the precise delineation of the term "addressing biodiversity loss through NBS". The ENABLS concept, which has been the subject of deliberation and mutual acceptance by the project partners, states that 'biodiversity loss' is a contributing factor to increased disaster risk and that the objective of NBS is to restore biodiversity. Upon examination of the most common EC and UNEA definitions of NBS, it becomes evident that NBS should not only help people but also promote biodiversity. 3.1 Three core definitions for NBS NBS are defined by the European Commission as "solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social, and economic benefits and help build resilience." NBS must also support the delivery of a range of ecosystem services and improve biodiversity. These solutions, which involve locally appropriate, resource-efficient, and systemic interventions, increase the diversity of nature and natural processes and features in cities, rural landscapes, and seascapes. According to the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA). NBS are defined as “Actions to protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems, which address social, economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively, while simultaneously providing human well-being, ecosystem services and resilience and biodiversity benefits.” By ENABLS NBS encompass innovative and strategic approaches and actions to tackle societal and environmental challenges including food and water security, human health, climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity conservation, economic and social development, and disaster risk reduction. They aim to protect, restore, and sustainably use natural and human-modified ecosystems in a cost-effective, resource-efficient way adapted to local conditions. In summary, NBS represent a strategy for promoting sustainable development and enhancing resilience, emphasizing the importance of nature in our well-being and the need to protect, restore, and sustainably manage it. Through NBS, we work towards a more equitable, prosperous, and environmentally sustainable future for all. 3.2 NBS standards and protocols IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) is a membership Union uniquely composed of both government and civil society organizations. It provides public, private and non-governmental organizations with the knowledge and tools that enable human progress, economic development and nature conservation to take place together. IUCN mentions NBS in several documents and through is webpage, however, there are two official documents describing NBS and IUCN's position on the implementation and standardization of NBS approaches: 1. IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. This is the primary document outlining the framework and criteria for designing and implementing effective NBS projects. 2. Guidance for using the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. This document provides further explanation and scientific basis for using the IUCN Global Standard. Deliverable 1.1 -22The IUCN Global Standard for NBS is a voluntary framework that sets standards and benchmarks for designing and implementing effective NBS projects. IUCN's NBS involve utilizing nature to address climate change, biodiversity loss, and food security issues, such as flood control and tree planting. IUCN views NBS as strategy to mainstream nature conservation into key economic sectors. It hopes that governments and businesses to recognise NBS as useful tools, which are imperative for addressing the dual global crises of biodiversity loss and climate change. According to IUCN, a uniform approach to NBS is essential and will aid in its comprehension, creation, and application. The primary target audience for the Standard is the federal government, state and municipal governments, planners, corporations, foundations, and financial organizations, such as development banks and nonprofit organisations. The Standard is regarded as a framework that offers eight criteria, totalling twenty-eight indicators, with which to evaluate and enhance NBS initiatives. These standards guarantee that the initiatives are advantageous to the environment and people. The Criteria of IUCN’s Standard for Nature-based Solutions: 1. NBS effectively address societal challenges. Criterion ensures that NBS must target critical societal issues identified by the people directly affected. 2. The design of NBS is informed by scale. Criterion ensures that NBS designs must consider the complex interplay between nature, society, and economics across various scales within a landscape and seascape This means looking beyond the immediate project area and considering the wider region, while also accounting for local factors. This multi-scale approach in landscape planning helps assess risks and opportunities for success. 3. NBS result in a net gain to biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. Criterion states that the success of NBS relies heavily on healthy ecosystems, so NBS projects should be designed to improve, not degrade, the very ecosystems they depend on. 4. NBS are economically viable. NBS success hinges on balancing costs and benefits fairly. This criterion emphasizes considering the project's economic viability throughout its lifecycle, ensuring long-term sustainability and equitable distribution of financial gains and burdens. Short-term actions should be part of a larger, multi-generational plan for economic success. 5. NBS are based on inclusive, transparent and empowering governance processes. Simply following the law might not be enough. This criterion focuses on ensuring good governance in NBS projects. It requires involving stakeholders, especially those with rights to the land or resources, and adhering to legal regulations. Good governance practices minimize risks, gain community trust (the "social license to operate"), and ensure fair benefit-sharing. NBS projects should also actively empower local communities for long-term success. 6. NBS equitably balance trade-offs between the achievement of their primary goal(s) and the continued provision of multiple benefits. NBS projects inevitably involve trade-offs, as ecosystems offer various benefits valued differently by different people. This criterion emphasizes the need for open and inclusive processes to manage these trade-offs fairly across time and location. This includes transparent assessments, stakeholder agreements, and potentially compensating those impacted by the project. However, there are limits. Safeguards are crucial to ensure critical ecological functions and long-term benefits aren't permanently lost. 7. NBS are managed adaptively, based on evidence. This criterion highlights the importance of adaptive management in NBS projects. Since ecosystems are complex and dynamic, some level of uncertainty is inevitable. By regularly monitoring and incorporating scientific and local Deliverable 1.1 -23knowledge, NBS projects can adopt an adaptive management approach. This allows them to adjust and remain effective throughout their lifespan, reducing the risk of failure and wasted investments. 8. NBS are sustainable and mainstreamed within an appropriate jurisdictional context. This criterion ensures that NBS projects are designed for long-term success. It requires considering and aligning with relevant policies at various levels (sectoral, national, etc.). Strategic communication and outreach are crucial for the successful mainstreaming of NBS across different audiences. According to IUCN by following these criteria and meeting the indicators, NBS projects can be wellrounded solutions that address environmental challenges while creating social and economic benefits. 3.3 EU policy documents with specific focus on Green Deal and Common Agricultural Policy The European Commission prepared a research and innovation policy focusing on NBS. It recognizes NBS as a valuable tool in implementing the European Green Deal, especially the EU Biodiversity strategy for 2030 and the EU Adaptation Strategy. EU acknowledges NBS as one of the means to address biodiversity loss, climate change and risk reduction. The European Commission defines NBS as: “Solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social, and economic benefits and help build resilience. Such solutions bring more, and more diverse, nature and natural features and processes into cities, landscapes, and seascapes, through locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions.” It proposes a research policy and six funding goals for its implementation: 1. mainstream NBS in research and innovation, policy and practice at the EU, Member State, and global level, 2. strengthen and widen the European research and innovation community on NBS, 3. demonstrate the potential of NBS and provide the evidence base on their socio-economic costeffectiveness and long-term sustainability, 4. advance the development, uptake and upscale of locally attuned NBS, including through cocreation, co-governance, and citizen engagement, 5. improve financing solutions, including access to finance, to accelerate the market uptake of NBS, 6. improve framework conditions for NBS, including through bringing learning for sustainability and NBS in education curricula at all levels. The EC provides five possible direct sources of funding to implement the NBS research policy: 1. Horizon Europe; 2. EU funding programmes (2021-2027), including Regional Development and Cohesion funds, the Recovery and Resilience Facility, Agriculture and Maritime Policy funds; 3. COST actions; 4. Programme for environment and climate action (LIFE); 5. European Biodiversity Partnership (Biodiversa+). Deliverable 1.1 -243.3.1 How EU policies work together for NBS The EU tackles environmental challenges through a comprehensive and interconnected web of policies. These policies, while distinct in focus, work to promote NBS as a cornerstone for achieving environmental goals. Here's how these key EU policies create a supportive framework for NBS: 1. EU Biodiversity Strategy (2020) and EU Nature Restoration Law (2024): • Focus. These policies prioritise halting and reversing biodiversity decline and restoring degraded ecosystems. • Connection to NBS. NBS approaches like habitat restoration, green infrastructure creation, and sustainable management practices are crucial tools for achieving these goals. 2. EU Farm to Fork Strategy (2020) and EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): • Focus. The Farm to Fork Strategy outlines a vision for a sustainable food system. The CAP, the EU's main agricultural policy, translates this vision into action. • Connection to NBS. Both policies incentivize sustainable agricultural practices that align with NBS principles. This includes practices like reducing pollution, promoting soil health, and enhancing biodiversity on farms. 3. EU Adaptation Strategy (2021) and EU Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation (2024): • Focus. The Adaptation Strategy addresses the challenges posed by climate change, while the CRCF Regulation aims to achieve carbon neutrality through removals and storage. • Connection to NBS. Many NBS approaches contribute to both climate change adaptation and mitigation. For instance, restoring wetlands can enhance flood resilience (adaptation) while sequestering carbon (mitigation). Despite their areas of focus, these EU policies demonstrate a synergy when it comes to NBS. By working together, they create a supportive environment for developing, implementing, and scaling up NBS across the EU. 3.3.2 EU Biodiversity strategy IUCN's NBS involve utilizing nature to address climate change, biodiversity loss, and food security issues, such as flood control and tree planting. The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 was adopted by the European Commission in May 2020. It is a key component of the European Green Deal, aiming to halt and reverse biodiversity loss within the EU by 2030. The strategy sets out specific targets to be achieved by 2030: 1. Protection. Legally protect a minimum of 30% of the EU's land and sea areas, with 10% under strict protection. 2. Restoration. Restore degraded ecosystems across the EU. 3. Pollution reduction. Significantly reduce pollution levels that harm biodiversity. 4. Sustainable practices. Promote sustainable practices in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. Deliverable 1.1 -25IUCN's NBS involve utilizing nature to address climate change, biodiversity loss, and food security issues, such as flood control and tree planting. The EU Biodiversity Strategy heavily emphasises NBS as a key tool for achieving its goals. Here are some specific mentions: 1. Habitat restoration. The strategy explicitly calls for the restoration of degraded ecosystems, promoting natural solutions for improving biodiversity and ecosystem services: "The strategy will identify and promote the use of NBS for the restoration of ecosystems, such as the restoration of rivers, wetlands and peatlands". 2. Green infrastructure. Green infrastructure, a key concept in the strategy, is essentially a network of natural and semi-natural areas. Examples include urban green spaces, ecological corridors, and restored wetlands. The strategy encourages the development of green infrastructure that provides benefits for both biodiversity and people: "The strategy will promote the development of green infrastructure, including through the restoration of ecosystems and the creation of ecological corridors". 3. Sustainable management practices. The strategy acknowledges that some human activities can negatively impact biodiversity. It promotes sustainable management practices in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries that minimise harm to ecosystems and encourages the use of NBS for pest management and resource conservation: "The strategy will promote the use of NBS in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, for example for pest management, pollination and soil fertility". 4. Part of the solution for climate change. While the focus of the strategy is biodiversity, the strategy acknowledges the role of NBS in tackling climate change, another major environmental concern. Restoration of forests and wetlands can store carbon, making them valuable NBS tools. Quote: "The strategy recognizes the importance of NBS for climate change mitigation and adaptation, such as the restoration of forests and wetlands". In conclusion, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 integrates NBS as an approach to achieving its vision of a healthy and biodiverse Europe. It encourages member states to integrate NBS into their national strategies and use them for habitat restoration, green infrastructure development, and sustainable resource management in various sectors. 3.3.3 EU Nature Restoration Law The recently adopted EU Nature Restoration Law (June 2024) represents a significant milestone in European environmental policy. This legislation establishes a comprehensive framework for restoring degraded ecosystems across the continent, prioritising NBS as the primary approach. The law sets ambitious goals for restoring degraded ecosystems in the EU: • Overall objective: restore at least 20% of the EU's land and sea areas by 2030, aiming to restore all ecosystems in need by 2050. • Specific targets: the law also establishes time-bound targets for specific habitats, species, and ecosystems. For instance, there might be a target to restore 30% of specific types of wetlands by 2030. The EU Nature Restoration Law is an obligatory legal framework, but member states have some flexibility in implementation: 1. National restoration plans. Each member state will develop a national restoration plan outlining how they will achieve the set targets. Deliverable 1.1 -32and ecosystems for their role in climate change mitigation and adaptation, such as flood protection by coastal ecosystems". 3. Sustainable land management: The strategy calls for promoting sustainable land management practices like using cover crops and reducing soil degradation. These practices can improve soil health and water retention, making landscapes more resilient to climate change: "The Strategy encourages the use of nature-based solutions in agriculture and forestry, for example by promoting soil organic carbon sequestration and sustainable water management practices". This quote highlights how NBS principles can be applied in agriculture and forestry. Practices like increasing soil organic carbon and sustainable water management techniques align with NBS goals. Overall, the EU Adaptation Strategy encourages member states to consider NBS as valuable tools for building climate resilience. While there is no single section dedicated to, the strategy highlights its role in water management, ecosystem protection, and sustainable land management practices. 3.3.7 EU Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation The recently adopted EU Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation (April 2024) represents a significant step forward for the EU in its fight against climate change. This legislation establishes a framework to incentivize and validate carbon removal activities across the EU, aiming to contribute to the bloc's goal of achieving climate neutrality by 2050. Unlike traditional regulations that set reduction targets, the CRCF Regulation focuses on creating a system to encourage carbon removal activities. This framework aims to unlock the potential of negative emissions technologies and practices to achieve climate goals. The CRCF Regulation establishes a voluntary framework, allowing member states some flexibility in implementation: • Member states can develop national strategies to promote carbon removal activities within their territories, tailoring approaches to their specific contexts. • The regulation establishes a single, EU-wide certification system for carbon removals, carbon farming practices, and carbon storage in products. • Independent third-party bodies will verify and monitor carbon removal activities to ensure their credibility and permanence. The CRCF Regulation recognizes the valuable role of NBS in achieving carbon removal and promoting sustainable agriculture. While the regulation does not set specific targets for NBS implementation, it creates a framework that incentivizes and validates these approaches. Here is a deeper look at how NBS are integrated throughout the CRCF Regulation, along with quotes highlighting their importance: 1. Sustainable carbon farming. The CRCF Regulation focuses on promoting practices that enhance natural carbon sinks, which aligns with the core concept of NBS utilising natural processes for carbon removal. Quote: "[The Regulation] should promote practices that enhance natural carbon sinks, such as sustainable forest management and improved agricultural practices." Practices like cover cropping, reduced tillage, and improved manure management can qualify for certification under the CRCF Regulation. These practices not only enhance soil carbon storage but also improve soil health and fertility, exemplifying a holistic approach to sustainable agriculture. 2. Permanence and Leakage Prevention. The CRCF Regulation prioritises the permanence of removed carbon and preventing emissions associated with carbon removal activities (leakage), which NBS approaches like afforestation or restoring peatlands can often achieve. These practices can store carbon for prolonged periods and minimise the risk of leakage compared to some technological solutions. Deliverable 1.1 -333. Synergy with Biodiversity Goals. The CRCF Regulation acknowledges the potential for carbon removal activities to contribute to achieving biodiversity goals. Many NBS approaches, like restoring wetlands or forests, not only enhance carbon sequestration but also provide habitat for wildlife and improve overall ecosystem health. Overall, the EU Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Regulation establishes a framework for promoting and validating carbon removal activities across the EU. By recognizing the valuable role of NBS and promoting sustainable practices, the regulation paves the way for a more sustainable and carbon-neutral future for Europe. 3.4 EU-funded projects It is hard to distinguish which projects and to what extent they are benefiting biodiversity. Often “biodiversity is viewed as a co-benefit of the NBS rather than the primary objective” (Wild et al. 2020). Being of anthropocentric character NBS are “solving problems for society” and one of those problems to solve is biodiversity loss (White et al. 2021). Indirectly most projects involving nature would benefit biodiversity and many solutions can be considered as ‘NBS-like’. For example, climate change is a direct driver of biodiversity loss and there is significant attention and financing regarding climate change in the EU applying NBS. Biodiversity loss and climate change are closely interrelated problems, that should be solved together through enhanced conservation of nature (Dinerstein et al. 2020). Seddon et al. (2019) explore the replacement of forest ecosystems with plantations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and warn that without considering biodiversity such an approach can discredit positive outcomes. Dealing with the so-called dual global crises of biodiversity loss and climate change with NBS is increasingly being acknowledged by governments and businesses. One of the eight criteria set by the “IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions” requires that - NBS result in a net gain to biodiversity and ecosystem integrity (IUCN 2020). It is interesting to note that the project database built by NatureNetwork considers ‘Biodiversity Enhancement’ as a prerequisite for NBS and is not listed among societal challenges. In many cases, it is hard to single out biodiversity loss issues when a project broadly overarches the general state of the environment or climate change and thus indirectly improves the state of biodiversity. According to Eggermont et al. (2015), NBS relationships with biodiversity could be seen more clearly using three NBS divisions based on the level of ecosystem naturalness: a) Solutions that involve making better use of existing natural or protected ecosystems b) Solutions based on developing sustainable management protocols and procedures for managed or restored ecosystems c) Solutions that involve creating new ecosystems Davies et al. (2021) explore EU leadership on developing and implementing NBS through policies and funding and illustrate the diverse scope of EC projects with an rang of challenges addressed by diverse NBS. The primary website for comprehending the scope and situational map of NBS in the EU indicates three major pathways on how EU policy on NBS is fulfilled by financing research and innovation: • Horizon Europe (2021-2027, EU research and innovation funding programme) • Biodiversa+ (the European Biodiversity Partnership) • NetworkNature (Coordination and support action) We note that these platforms are closely interrelated. Deliverable 1.1 -34EU-funded NBS research and innovation projects were summarized and presented by a published brochure (European Commission and European Research Executive Agency 2023) which served as a good backbone source for information. In total, there are 76 EU-funded Horizon research and innovation projects active that address climate and biodiversity crises and implement NBS. The number of such projects is increasing significantly compared with previous years. Coincidently, the ENABLS project is also EU-funded and focused on NBS to address biodiversity decline. The NetworkNature built Database of EU research and innovation projects on NBS assembles European R&I projects on NBS from several major European research and innovation or implementation programmes: Biodiversa, Horizon 2020, Seventh framework programme (FP7), Interreg and LIFE over the years 2011–2021. Analysis of this database showed an increase in funding for NBS projects from 2011 to 2017 from < 25 to > 100 million euros per year with stabilised funding from 2017 to 2020 at just above 100M euros (about 30 projects) per year (El Harrak et al. 2023). Policies and funding trends place the EC in a leading role supporting NBS currently and in the future (European Commission 2023). Interesting and comprehensive conclusions are drawn by the European Investment bank showing financing distribution and the extent of applying NBS throughout the range of ecosystems. Figure 1 shows a clear concentration (76%) of NBS projects over two years addressing urban ecosystems. Figure 1 NBS projects by ecosystem. Note: (N=1 364 projects), 2000-2022 (European Investment Bank et al. 2023). Similar trends can be seen in the analysis by El Harrak et al. (2023), as the most represented ecosystems were urban and cropland, with 23% and 18% of all projects respectively, followed by coastal, shelf and open ocean, and forest environments, with 16.5% and 13% of projects respectively. From the above-provided sources on different types of ecosystems shared in NBS projects with urban and agro environments prevailing, higher emphasis should be placed on natural systems as hot spots for biodiversity. 3.4.1 Review of EU Funding programmes with NBS addressing biodiversity loss We also provide brief introductions to the main EU funding programmes that use NBS to address biodiversity loss (Appendix I). Using a variety of search platforms, we focus on projects that directly address problems of biodiversity loss and use the actual term ‘Nature-based solutions’ (NBS). Our review did not include searches on related terms ‘green infrastructure’, ‘ecosystem restoration’, and ‘ecosystem protection’ to avoid complication, even though the final agreed ENABLS definition of NBS acknowledges all these terms as part of NBS. Deliverable 1.1 -35The LIFE Programme is the EU’s funding instrument for the environment and climate action. The current LIFE programme 2021-2027 is divided into four sub-programmes: • Nature and biodiversity, • Circular economy and quality of life, • Climate change mitigation and adaptation, • Clean energy transition. Our main interest is in the Nature and Biodiversity sub-programme aiming at the protection and restoration of Europe’s nature and halting and reversing biodiversity loss. We performed search on Basic Search on the LIFE Public Database: Examples of search results: “Nature-based solutions” search as fixed phrase 40 projects “Nature-based solution” search as fixed phrase 45 projects “Nature-based solutions” key word search 48 projects “Nature-based solution” key word search 53 projects “Nature-based” key word search 77 projects example - nature-based tourism, nature-based flood protection “Nature-based solution for biodiversity” key word search 33 projects “Biodiversity” key word search 1300 projects In Annex II we provide extractions from summaries of 33 projects from Basic Search on LIFE Public Database with the key words “Nature-based solution for biodiversity”. Biodiversa+ is the European co-funded biodiversity partnership supporting excellent research on biodiversity with an impact on policy and society. It was jointly developed by BiodivERsA and the European Commission and was officially launched on 1 October 2021. Biodiversa+ is part of the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 that aims to put Europe’s biodiversity on a path to recovery by 2030. Biodiversa+ is committed to the Global 2050 Vision of ‘Living in harmony with nature’ adopted under the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the corresponding EU vision that, by 2050, biodiversity and its benefits to people will be protected, valued and restored. Among three general objectives to reach this vision, one is to deploy NBS at scale that contribute to people’s needs. The Partnership aims to connect science, policy and practice for transformative change. It currently gathers 81 research programmers funders and environmental policy actors from 40 European and associated countries to work on 5 main objectives: 1. Plan and support research and innovation on biodiversity through a shared strategy, annual joint calls for research projects and capacity-building activities 2. Set up a network of harmonised schemes to improve monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystem services across Europe 3. Contribute to high-end knowledge for deploying NBS and valuation of biodiversity in the private sector 4. Ensure efficient science-based support for policymaking and implementation in Europe 5. Strengthen the relevance and impact of pan-European research on biodiversity in a global context Deliverable 1.1 -36Biodiversa+ aims to contribute to high-end knowledge for deploying NBS for tackling pressing societal issues while improving the status of biodiversity and valuation of biodiversity in the private sector. More specifically it aims at: • Co-developing research and innovations activities on NBS with relevant stakeholders (practitioners, land planners, businesses, local authorities and citizens) • Reinforcing the knowledge base to make Europe a global leader in the development of NBS • Helping better accounting and valuation of biodiversity in private sectors • Reinforcing the uptake of NBS, as well as approaches/tools/methods to assess both the impact and dependency of business on biodiversity • In 2023 Biodiversa+ launched its flagship programme: • Better knowledge to develop, deploy and assess NBS (including the BiodivNBS Call) Currently the BiodivNBS call “Nature-based solutions for biodiversity, human well-being and transformative change” is open. This call will finance transnational, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and cross-sectoral research projects (3-year duration) in all parts of the world addressing one or more of the three (non-exclusive) themes below: THEME A: Synergies and trade-offs of NBS in the context of human well-being THEME B: NBS mitigating anthropogenic drivers of biodiversity loss THEME C: The contribution of NBS for just transformative change All realms (i.e. terrestrial, marine, coastal, and freshwater) will be eligible. The Biodiversa+ projects database provides information about past and current funding programmes on biodiversity in Europe, funding agencies, research organisations, and research projects in biodiversity research (a total of 13,919 projects). A quick search on “Nature-based solutions” in Europe gave 32 research projects. A list of these projects is presented in Annex II. Horizon 2020 framework programme 2014-2020 (The programme has been succeeded by Horizon Europe) Horizon Europe framework programme (Research and innovation funding programme until 2027). This Framework Programme (FP9 “HORIZON Europe” (2021–2027)), seeks to integrate NBS with other Research and Innovation areas, like health, bioeconomy and food systems, focussing on global challenges such as climate change while concentrating on uptake and mainstreaming of NBS in public and private solutions (Davies et al. 2021). In the complex structure of the Horizon Europe programme our focus is pillar II (Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness) and Cluster 6: Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment. Under Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe, the European Commission funds research and innovation projects that propose NBS to fight climate change and biodiversity loss, while improving our health and creating jobs. The Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS) is the European Commission's primary source of results from the projects funded by the EU's framework programmes for research and innovation, from FP1 to Horizon Europe. 3.4.2 CORDIS EU Research results A search was conducted using the following filters: • Field of Science: natural sciences, Framework Programme: Horizon Europe and key words 'nature-based solutions' AND 'biodiversity' 42 projects • Field of Science: natural sciences, Framework Programme: Horizon 2020 and key words 'nature-based solutions' AND 'biodiversity' 35 projects Deliverable 1.1 -373.4.3 NetworkNature database of EU research and innovation biodiversity projects on NBS The development and update of this database is part of NetworkNature’s facilitation of the development of the European roadmap to 2030 for research and innovation on NBS. The database consists of preselected 300 projects with 100 projects from H2020 and FP7, 35 NBS projects from BiodivERsA, 86 NBS projects from Interreg and 79 NBS projects from LIFE. Project years 2011–2021. It is a useful database because different most relevant EU funding platforms are included. For example, using the above described (Figure 2) database and selecting ‘NBS type 1’ (Solutions that involve making better use of existing natural or protected ecosystems) only 22 projects were found. Figure 2 Screenshot of NetworkNature database search options If we specify our search and look for a specific environment e.g. ‘forest’ and ‘NBS type 1’, we find no existing projects, while searching for ‘forest’ and ‘NBS type 2’ (Solutions based on developing sustainable management protocols and procedures for managed or restored ecosystems) we find 32 projects financed by different programmes e.g. Interreg, LIFE, H2020, FP7, BiodivERsA. The respective projects could be found in Appendix II. As mentioned before ‘Biodiversity Enhancement’ is not among societal challenges as it is considered a prerequisite for NBS. Oppla is an open EU platform, and resource hub (depository) of NBS. This project has received funding from the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement number 308393. Also, for functioning in the future it has established a business plan, developed in partnership with private companies. 3.5 Research objectives in NBS The trends and directions of NBS in the research objectives were determined by analysing the number of published articles which are available on “Google Scholar” search engine. The basic search included two keywords: “Nature-based solutions” or “Nature based solutions”. In total, the number of publications focusing on NBS between 2000 and 2024 added up to 52,569 articles. In general, the number of yearly published articles from 2000 to 2012 remained in two-digit numbers, although a steady growth was evident (Figure 3). From 2013 the publishing of articles related to NBS began to increase more rapidly. In 2017, the number scaled over 1,000 yearly publications and continued rapidly increasing to 2023. Deliverable 1.1 -38Figure 3 The number of publications from 2000 to 2024 related to “Nature-based solutions” or “Nature based solutions” and association with keywords “Biodiversity”, “Climate change”, “Forest”, and “Agriculture”. To determine the extent of nature-based solution articles, we identified the four most relevant keywords. We observed that NBS are often presented in the light of forestry, agriculture, biodiversity and climate change. In the search “Nature-based solutions” or “Nature based solutions” addition of the relevant keywords proved that over half of the articles include “Biodiversity”, “Climate change”, and “Agriculture”. The keyword “Forest” was observed in close to half of the publications relating to NBS. “Climate change” appeared as the most relevant throughout the years, and in 2023 accounted for the total number of 11,200 publications. In 2023, “Biodiversity” was mentioned in more than half of the publications, while “Forest” and “Agriculture” counted for a little less than half of the total number of articles. As of May 23rd, 2024, the yearly number of “Nature-based solutions” or “Nature based solutions” articles has already reached 5,880. Similarly, climate change, biodiversity, agriculture and forestry are the main topics associated with NBS. In 2024, “Climate change” has already been mentioned in 82.3 % of articles, “Biodiversity” was discussed in 57.1 %, “Agriculture” in 51.2 %, and “Forest” in 48.1 % of publications (Figure 4). The trends observed in 2023, remain consistent in 2024 regarding the four keywords and their relevance. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Number of publications Year "Nature-based solutions" or "Nature based solutions" and "Biodiversity" and "Climate change" Deliverable 1.1 -39Figure 4 The number of publications related to “Nature-based solutions” or “Nature based solutions” and association with keywords “Biodiversity”, “Climate change”, “Forest”, and “Agriculture” in 2024. Furthermore, we analysed the proportion of climate change, biodiversity, agriculture and forestry in nature-based solution articles from 2000 to 2024. It is evident that all four keywords remained relevant throughout the studied period with nature-based solutions (Figure 5). The keyword “Biodiversity” was most frequently mentioned in 2007 (29.6 %), and least frequently in 2003 (18.3 %). The “Climate change” had the highest percentage of publications in 2007 (35.2 %) and the lowest share in 2002 (25 %). In 2001, “Forest” was mentioned most frequently (27.8 %), while “Agriculture” had the highest number of publications in 2013 (25.7 %). The least amount of publications in 2000 focused on “Agriculture” (14.8 %). In 2007, the lowest number of “Forest” related articles was published (16.7 %). In 2024, 34 % of the articles shared the “Climate change” keyword, 23.9 % focused on “Biodiversity”, 21.4 % mentioned “Agriculture” and 20.2 % main focus was on “Forest”. In addition, six other keywords were determined to be relevant to “Nature-based solutions” or “Nature based solutions” articles. The relevant keywords included ecosystem services, ecosystem restoration, conservation, sustainability, carbon sequestration and circular economy. Between 2000 and 2014, the number of articles remained consistent for all six analysed keywords (Figure 6). After 2014, the “Sustainability”, “Conservation” and “Ecosystem services” association with nature-based solution publications increased rapidly. In 2023, the relevance of the three keywords had reached an all-time peak as “Sustainability” was a focus of 10,500 nature-based solution publications, “Conservation” – 8470 publications, and “Ecosystem services” – 6700. The number of articles related to “Carbon sequestration”, “Circular economy”, and “Ecosystem services” began steadily increasing after 2018. In 2023, “Carbon sequestration” was a focus in 20 % of articles, “Circular economy” was mentioned in 15.1 % of publications, and “Ecosystem restoration” related to 7.6 %. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 "Nature-based solutions" or "Nature based solutions" and "Climate change" and "Biodiversity" and "Agriculture" and "Forest" Number of publications Deliverable 1.1 -40Figure 5 Percentage of keywords “Biodiversity”, “Climate change”, “Forest”, and “Agriculture” usage from 2000 to 2024. The trends of keyword usage were calculated from the total number of publications containing the four keywords. Figure 6 Number of “Nature-based solutions” or “Nature based solutions” publications related to keywords “Ecosystem services”, “Ecosystem restoration”, “Conservation”, “Sustainability”, “Carbon sequestration”, and “Circular economy” between 2000-2023. In conclusion, articles focusing on NBS have gained a rapid number of publications in recent years. The peak number of articles related to this topic were published in 2023. In 2024, NBS remain a key topic related to climate change, biodiversity, agriculture and forests. Most of the other relevant keywords 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Year and "Biodiversity" and "Climate change" and "Forest" and "Agriculture" 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 Number of publications Year and "Ecosystem Services" and "Ecosystem Restoration" and "Conservation" and "Sustainability" and "Carbon Sequestration" and "Circular Economy" Deliverable 1.1 -41focus on ecological perspectives, although nature-based solution articles related to circular economy have steadily increased. 3.6 Summary NBS standards and protocols. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has developed the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions as a voluntary framework for the design and implementation of effective NBS projects. NBS are actions that utilise nature to address challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss and food security. The IUCN believes that NBS can be integrated into key economic sectors to mainstream nature conservation, thereby addressing global crises of biodiversity loss and climate change. The Standard provides a framework for evaluating and enhancing NBS initiatives, comprising eight criteria and twenty-eight indicators. These criteria include effectively addressing societal challenges, considering scale, resulting in a net gain to biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, being economically viable, based on inclusive, transparent, and empowering governance processes, equitably balancing trade-offs, managing adaptively based on evidence, and being sustainable and mainstreamed within an appropriate jurisdictional context. EU policy documents with a specific focus on Green Deal and Common Agricultural Policy. Documents produced by the EU with a specific focus on the Green Deal and the Common Agricultural Policy. The European Commission has developed a research and innovation policy with a particular emphasis on NBS as a core instrument in the implementation of the European Green Deal, particularly concerning the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the EU Adaptation Strategy. NBS are defined as solutions inspired by nature that provide environmental, social, and economic benefits while building resilience. The policy sets out six funding goals for implementation, including mainstreaming NBS in research and innovation, strengthening the European research and innovation community, demonstrating the potential of NBS, advancing locally attuned NBS, improving financing solutions, and improving framework conditions for NBS. The EU provides five direct sources of funding to implement the NBS research policy, including Horizon Europe, EU funding programmes (2021-2027), COST actions, the Programme for Environment and Climate Action (LIFE), and the European Biodiversity Partnership (Biodiversa+). The EU recognises the potential of NBS in agriculture and supports farmers who embrace them, paving the way for a more sustainable and carbon-neutral future for Europe. EU-funded projects. Europe is a leading region in terms of funding for projects aimed at solving biodiversity loss through the use of NBS, with a consistent and growing commitment to this area. The European Commission has clearly defined the term 'nature-based solutions' and it has gained acknowledgement over the past 10 years of EU policies and funding programmes. Projects such as NetworkNature and Oppla are ongoing efforts to unite, concentrate and provide access to information on NBS. Different database project analysis shows that the most targeted environments are urban. It is important to note that climate and biodiversity solutions are often interrelated, and any type of NBS solution is likely to benefit biodiversity. Currently, two major projects (NBS EduWORLD and ENABLS) focused on education promoting NBS are ongoing in Europe. Research objectives in NBS. The research analysed the number of published articles on Google Scholar focusing on NBS between 2000 and 2024. The number of articles increased rapidly, with over half mentioning climate change, biodiversity, agriculture, and forestry. The four most relevant keywords were forestry, agriculture, biodiversity, and climate change. As of May 23, 2024, the yearly number of nature-based solution articles reached 5,880, with climate change, biodiversity, agriculture, and forestry being the main topics. Other relevant keywords included ecosystem services, ecosystem restoration, conservation, sustainability, carbon sequestration, and circular economy. In 2024, NBS remain a key topic related to climate change, biodiversity, agriculture, and forests. The objective was to gain a comprehensive overview of the current status and trends in addressing biodiversity loss with NBS in the context of European policies, funding programmes and research objectives. Nevertheless, an additional objective would be to establish a comprehensive perspective Deliverable 1.1 -482. What can affect the presence and absence of NBS and biodiversity loss in the HE and TVET curricula? 3. How can these concepts be taught in an effective way in HE and TVET? 4. What can be improved to include these concepts in the HE and TVET curricula? In order to give the interviewer and the interviewee the flexibility, semi-structured interviews were conducted to find answers to the research questions mentioned above, because for expert interviews, semi-structured interview with pre-formulated questions is considered as the most appropriate format (Soest, 2023). Open-ended questions (see Appendix IV) were posed during the interview, which had an easy format to allow the interviewer to manoeuvre the interview according to the expertise of the interviewee. The questions of the interview were formulated based on the literature review conducted as mentioned in Section 4.1.1. Specifically, the research conducted by Leal Filho et al. (2021) on climate change education in universities as well as the one conducted by Versini et al. (2023) under the context of LIFE-ARTISAN project in France were considered in interview’s structural design. The following structure was used in the interviews: • General information about the respondent and their educational institution • Understanding of the NBS and biodiversity loss concepts • Inclusion of these concepts in the academic curriculum • Identification of gaps and challenges • Recommendations for improvements 4.1.3.2 Data collection and analysis In ENABLS project, it was aimed to conduct a minimum of 70 interviews with 10 responses from each Living Lab (LL) countries, which are Austria, Czechia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Lithuania and the Netherlands. The initial aim was to achieve this minimum number not only to understand the current biodiversity loss and NBS approaches in HE and TVET but also to understand the networking and collaboration patterns between HE and TVET. However, different interview questions were prepared to interview different stakeholders for these two topics. Therefore, the collected data exceeded the target number of the interviews which allowed a more comprehensive analysis and understanding of the current status of the HEIs and TVET in Europe. In total, 158 interviews were conducted, 77 of which were in between the months of May and August in 2024 and considered in the analysis to understand the current NBS and biodiversity approaches. Figure 8 shows the number of interviews conducted per LL country of ENABLS project and the countries in ICA network. 13 11 10 12 10 11 9 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Austria Czechia Finland Germany Greece Lithuania Netherlands Sweden Number of Interviews Countries Deliverable 1.1 -49Figure 8 Number of interviews conducted according to the countries The sampling of the qualitative expert interviews was purposeful and non-probable, since “expert judgements are inherently personal and not necessarily representative or replicable” (Soest, 2023, p.279). Therefore, the experts involved in these 77 interviews were teaching staff in HE or in TVET institutions, i.e. professors, lecturers, teaching assistants; as well as the administrator staff who are involved in teaching and they were selected from each partner’s and ICA network. As described previously, the stakeholder mapping activity helped the partners to identify the experts not only from HEIs but also from TVET organisation. Each partner was involved in stakeholder mapping and the identified experts were contacted by the respective ENABLS partner. Additionally, attention was given to contact experts from both biodiversity and non-biodiversity disciplines. Following representation in Figure 9 gives an ideal sample of the population of a country to take part in the interview. Figure 9 Sampling strategy of the interviews. Note: The numbers indicate the number of institutions to be contacted for interview invitations. Each interview took between 20 – 60 min to complete. The responses were entered directly at the online EU Survey platform by all the partners of ENABLS. While some partners used audio recording during the interviews and transcribed them to upload to the platform, others took notes during the interview and directly uploaded them to the platform. The interview responses collected in any other language were translated to English by the interviewer. All the interviews were retrieved from the EU Survey platform as PDFs to be used in the analysis. The interview data was analysed using qualitative content analysis and then quantified. No predetermined codes and categories were used. Instead codes and categories were allowed to flow from the data, namely as inductive category development (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). This method was specifically chosen to enable new insights to emerge from the data, and the advantage of it was to gain direct information from the experts without imposing preconceived theories (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). MAXQDA software was used for the analysis as it is a powerful and user-friendly tool to analyse text-based qualitative data (Flick et al., 2004). The following steps were used in semi-structured interview analysis: • Formation of analytical categories • Analytical categories into a guide for coding • Coding of the material • Quantifying the material (Flick et al., 2004, pp.253-258) The results from the analysis are presented in section 4.2.3 and the codes, code categories and their frequencies can be found in detail in Appendix VI. Deliverable 1.1 -504.2 Results 4.2.1 Results of the review The stakeholder mapping and a literature search for studies on NBS in education was the basis for our surveys and interviews. In total we contacted at least 97 academic and 28 TVET institutions (See Appendix III), whereas from each institution between one to eight persons were contacted. As the results of the project review in Chapter 3 and the present literature review, it was found that there are several projects and available literature on biodiversity in education, but it is limited when it comes to NBS in education. From the CORDIS search, 2005 projects were found with the search terms “biodiversity” AND “education”, but it was lowered to 574 projects when “higher education” was searched instead of “education”. Moreover, the number of hits were lowered to 198 drastically when the search term “nature-based solutions” AND “education” was used. This initial search provided an overview of the European projects, open or closed, and the position of NBS and education in the projects. The number of hits clearly showed that the projects on NBS and education were very limited in comparison to biodiversity and education. The result from the literature search with the terms “nature-based solutions” AND “university” was 1735 hits, while it was lowered to 285 when “Europe” was added to the search terms with conjunction. There were only 79 hits as the result of the search terms “nature based” AND “higher education” which was lowered to 5 when it was changed to “nature-based solutions” AND “higher education”, and only 2 of these hits were considered relevant. Although the search was not very comprehensive and conducted as an initial step to structure the survey and interview questions, it was clear that the projects as well as literature were very limited if NBS and HE were considered. However, it should be noted that the search was limited to only these two platforms, and a more comprehensive search should be conducted to give the overall picture of the literature and projects. Based on the review of the relevant literature and projects, two main research papers (Leal Filho et al., 2021; Versini et al., 2023), as well as the document from the European Commission (Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, 2021) shaped the survey and interview structure conducted to understand the current position of the NBS and biodiversity in HE and TVET (see 4.1.2 and 4.1.3). In 2023, the European Commission released a report on European research and innovation projects related to NBS. out of the reported EU funded projects, only two focus specifically on educating about NBS: ENABLS and NBS EduWorld (European Research Executive Agency (European Commission), 2023). It appears that especially HE on those topics has not received that much attention so far. As demonstrated in Chapter 3, numerous research and innovation projects are currently addressing NBS and biodiversity. Our research on the respective project webpages revealed that from those research projects just NetworkNature and NBS EduWorld offered OER materials, which are included in the Table 1 below. The list of all the different materials which could be found on different platforms and repositories shows that there are several more generic large repositories such as OERcommons, TEDtalks, Zenodo, Coursera or Scientix, which include some specific content on NBS and biodiversity for HE and TVET among other contents (Table 1). Additionally, there are institutional more generic repositories of universities, which offer materials on NBS and biodiversity as well. A topic-specific broad platform with a lot of material on NBS is the Oppla platform, funded by the European Commission, where one can find a lot of different materials to educate NBS in universities and TVET institutions. The NBS EduWorld project harvests as well many OER materials and might collect more in the close future as they are recently running their project. In total, we identified content on 31 platforms and webpages, which offer training materials on NBS and biodiversity. 21 videos/webinars and 26 complete MOOCS, modules and courses could be found. All these materials might be a good basis for the development of our own materials for TVET institutions planned in T2.3 and partially in T2.4. Deliverable 1.1 -51Table 1 Open educational resources (OER) and online platforms and training materials for higher education and TVET institutions. Name of OER Provider Material Type Subject Region Source NBS Biodiversity Other National European Global Ecology: Ecosystem Dynamics and Conservation American Museum of Natural history via coursera Course x x Generic repository Biobased Products for a Sustainable (Bio)economy Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) Course x x Bioecon omy x Generic institutional repository Introduction to Sustainable Energy Massachusetts Institute of Technology Course Sustaina ble Energy x Generic institutional repository Nature-Based Metropolitan Solutions TU Delft OpenCourseWare via OERcommons Course x (x) x Generic repository The Stories We Live By: a free online course in ecolinguistics University of Gloucestershire Course EcoNarrativ es x Topic specific webpage of UK project Biodiversity and Global Change: Science, Conservation and Policy Solutions University of Queensland via coursera Course x x Generic repository Introduction to ecosystems UK’s Open University Course (micro) x Ecosyste ms x Generic repository Deliverable 1.1 -52Diversity and Classification Baylor College of Medicine, Texas (USA) Courses, Videos, Presentatio ns/Slides for TVET, but not exclusively x x Topicspecific repository on biology in general NBS EduWORLD Deliverable D5.1: Knowledge Stream: Guidelines on Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions Activities in Education for Starters NBS EduWorld via Scientix Document x x Generic repository RESILIENT CITIES FOR RESILIENT CITIZENS NBS EduWorld via Scientix Document x x Generic repository Exploring citizen science in artpractice methodologies as forms of community practice in biodiversity monitoring Wandl-Vogt and Aleyda Rocha via Zenodo Document x x Generic repository but access via project webpage possible Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas Kabisch et al. 2024 via SpringerLink E-book x x Generic repository The Importance of Biodiversity to Human Life Rice University via OERcommons Module x x Generic repository Terra Mission European Schoolnet via Education for Climate MOOC (x) imp sustaina bility x Education of teachers Deliverable 1.1 -53licit ely Exploring Nature-Based Solutions in your classroom Eurpean schoolnet academy MOOC x x Topic specific repository Art and Ecology France Université Numérique MOOC Interdisc iplinary approac hes to Ecology X X Institutional generic repository Urban nature MOOC Naturvation MOOC x x Topic specific webpage of EU project Exploring Nature-Based Solutions in Your Classroom NBS EduWorld via Scientix MOOC x (x) x Generic repository Biological Diversity Open Educational Resources Commons MOOC x x Generic repository Nature-Based Solutions for Water Management and Climate Adaptation Reconect MOOC x x Topic specific webpage of an EU project Greenopolis Regreen / University of Arhus MOOC x x x Project webpage Deliverable 1.1 -54Nature-based Urban Regeneration RWTH Aachen university MOOC x x Generic repository DelftX: Urban Ecology Design TUDelft MOOC x x x Generic institutional repository Nature-based Solutions for Disaster and Climate Resilience UNEP MOOC x Climate resilienc e x Topic specific repository Biodiversity.now University of Helsinki MOOC x x Project website/ins titutional repository Introduction to Nature-based Solutions for Soil Management NBSoil Academy MOOC x (x) x Project website Biodiversity California Academy of Sciences Multiple modules x x Generic repository Results on nature-based on library for Learning Wageningen University Library for Learning Multiple modules x climate change & urban areas x Institutional repository Results on biodiversity on library for Learning Wageningen University; Library for Learning Multiple modules x climate change x Institutional repository Deliverable 1.1 -55ReGreen Podcasts Regreen / University of Arhus Podcast x x x Project webpage A Thinking Tool to Support You Find NBS Education Resources NBS Academy Report x x Project webpage with topicspecific repository Nature-Based Solutions Education Network (NBS EduWORLD) Deliverable D2.1 State of the Art Report NBS EduWorld Report x x Project webpage with topicspecific repository Nature-Based Solutions Education Network (NBS EduWORLD) Initial Report on NBS in Higher Education NBS Eduworld Report x x x Project webpage with topicspecific repository Sustainicum Collection uuU Several materials (x) Sustaina bility x Topicspecific project repository FörTax Portal FörTax Several materials x Taxono my x Project webpage with topicspecific repository Deliverable 1.1 -56NBS EduWorld resources NBS EduWorld Several materials x x x Project webpage with topicspecific repository Several topics NetworkNature Several materials x x x Project webpage with topicspecific repository not only on educational materials Oppla Marketplace Oppla Several materials x x x Topicspecific repository ReGreen Educational resources Regreen / University of Arhus Several materials x x x Project webpage Toolbox for biodiversity (in Dutch) Groen Kennisnet Toolbox x x Topic specific project repository FIELDS learning platform FIELDS project Training program Bioecon omy x Topic specific repository Turn your love for nature into a planet-saving career! NBS EduWorld via Scientix Video x (x) x Generic repository Deliverable 1.1 -57What is NBS education? NBS EduWorld via Scientix Video x (x) x Generic repository NBS EduWORLD Deliverable D6.1: Network Stream: Scenarios of Plausible Futures for NBS in Education NBS EduWorld via Scientix Video x x Generic repository What is ecosystem restoration? NetworkNature via Oppla Video Topicspecific repository Why Taxonomy matters Pyle, Richard L. via Zenodo Video x x Generic repository but access via project webpage possible Hi-Tech Nature: Nature-based solutions | Jim van Belzen TEDx talks via youtube Video x Generic repository Can people have a positive impact on biodiversity? | Kina Murphy TEDx talks via youtube Video x x x Generic repository Online Masterclass Biodiversity & Nature-based Solutions a WUR student challenges webinar WUR via youtube Video x x Generic repository Connecting Nature Webinar & Community Workshop Series Connecting Nature Webinar x x Project webpage Deliverable 1.1 -64e. Perception of NBS and biodiversity loss There seems to be a lack of understanding or awareness about what NBS entails, which prevents its integration into curricula. o Example: “The difficulty to well understand what NBS are.” Key phrases used to describe the inhibiting factors are "Curriculum rigidity": Mentioned by respondents discussing institutional barriers. "Lack of relevance": For respondents who say that NBS is not aligned with their field of study. "Practical vs. theoretical": A recurring theme where institutions focus on hands-on training rather than theory. "Lack of resources": Coded for responses about insufficient staff, funding, or materials. "Misunderstanding/awareness": For comments indicating a lack of clarity on what NBS is or its relevance. In summary, incorporating NBS into educational programs faces several challenges, including structural constraints such as rigid curricula and lengthy approval processes, as well as perceived irrelevance to certain disciplines. Furthermore, limitations in resources, including staff, funding, and materials, alongside a greater emphasis on practical rather than theoretical education, also hinder integration efforts. Additionally, a lack of understanding or awareness about NBS further impedes its inclusion in educational curriculums. Figure 12 Likeliness to include biodiversity loss and NBS concepts in the curricula in future 4.2.3 Results of the expert interviews In this section, the results from the analysis of the expert interviews will be presented in seven different parts in order to provide a comprehensive outline of the findings: i. An overview of the participants and their educational organisations, ii. Inclusion of NBS and biodiversity loss concepts in the curricula iii. Approaches of participants to include the concepts in the curricula iv. Motivation of participants to include the concepts in the curricula Deliverable 1.1 -65v. Factors affecting the presence and absence of the concepts in the curricula vi. Effective methods to teach NBS and biodiversity loss concepts vii. Recommendations for including the concepts in the curricula Overview of the participants and their educational organisations In total, 77 expert interviews were conducted in the partner countries of ENABLS Project and its network. The details of the interviews can be found In Appendix V. According to the responses received, it was found that the majority of the participants was working at the universities, which followed by TVET organisations and finally a few at colleges. Figure 13, shows the number of participants according to type of their educational institutions. Figure 13 Number of participants according to type of their educational institutions and inclusion criteria of NBS and biodiversity loss concepts in their curricula. Note: University: An institution for higher education and research, College: An institution for higher education, TVET: Technical and Vocational Education and Training Inclusion of NBS and biodiversity loss concepts in the curricula When the question was asked to participants to identify whether the concepts of NBS and biodiversity are included in the curriculum, it was found that the majority of the experts were using these concepts since it was included in their curricula. In Figure 13, the number of responses according to the inclusion criteria of NBS and biodiversity loss concepts can be found. In order to understand how different type of educational institutions include these concepts, the responses were compared, and it was found that these concepts were mostly included in university curriculum which followed by TVET organisations. However, it is important to note that most of the interviews were conducted with experts from universities. The results from this comparison can be found in Figure 14. 55 17 5 University TVET College A) 59 18 Included Not included B) Deliverable 1.1 -66Figure 14 Inclusion criteria of NBS and biodiversity loss concepts according to the type of educational institutions The map in Figure 15, shows the inclusion of these concepts in the curricula according to countries. The interviews were conducted in all the LL countries of ENABLS project. In addition to the LL countries, there was one interview conducted in Sweden as part of ICA Network, which included the concepts of NBS and biodiversity loss in the curriculum. If the other countries are considered, all of the experts participated in the interviews who are from Austria (13), Finland (10) and the Netherlands (9) included the concepts in the curricula, while in Greece there was more of a balanced overview with the inclusion criteria since half of the experts didn’t include the concepts. In Germany and Lithuania, majority of the experts stated that these concepts exist in the curricula, on the other hand, the experts from Czechia mostly didn’t use the concepts. 41 14 4 14 31 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 University TVET College Number of Responses Type of Educational Institution Included Not included Deliverable 1.1 -67Figure 15 Map of countries participated in the interviews and inclusion of the concepts. Note: Sampling of the qualitative expert interviews was purposeful and non-probable. Approaches of participants to include the concepts in the curricula The results show that those who did not include these terms in the curricula had different opinions when it was asked whether they see a possibility of incorporating the concepts of NBS and Biodiversity Loss into their institution's curricula. To identify whether the experts had positive, sceptical or negative approaches, several expressions in the text were considered and these expressions can be found in Figure 16. Although the majority of the experts were willing to include these concepts in the near future and had a positive approach, there were also some experts who were more sceptical and even had a negative approach. For example, one of the experts from Germany mentioned that there is not enough time and encouragement to include these concepts with the following words: “I am currently a postdoc, will leave in three years and not a permanent staff. I do not feel encouraged to include.” (Interviewee 36), while another expert from Greece showed a sceptical approach by stating “As long as mentalities don't change, I don't see any such possibility. Biodiversity, in the classical sense of the term, is obviously present within the curricula, but simply as a common 'description', an official recording. The need to protect and monitor it is acknowledged but nothing more. Biodiversity loss is not treated as an urgent problem that needs monitoring and actual solution.” (Interviewee 51). 3 5 98 10 13 8 5 0 1 0 4 10 10 0 Countries of the participants Not included Included Deliverable 1.1 -68Figure 16 Participants‘ approach to include the concepts in the curricula When these approaches were considered according to the countries (see Table 7), it was found that half of the experts from Czechia and Germany were willing to include these concepts in the curricula. Similarly, the majority of the experts from Greece were interested in including these concepts, in fact one of the experts already scheduled to be integrated in the following semesters as an internal curriculum restructuring were undertaken (Interviewee 49). However, there was only one expert from Lithuania who did not include the concepts in the curricula but also was sceptical about it. The expert could integrate these concepts in the curricula but only in limited extent since the students had limited knowledge where products, such as milk, come from and priorities should be given to different subjects such as food making traditions and sustainable thinking (Interviewee 66). Table 7 Participants‘ approach according to countries and type of their educational institutions The willingness of the experts to include these concepts in the curricula was also considered according to the type of their educational institutions. As it can be found in Table 7, four experts from universities and one expert from a college had negative approaches, while none of the experts from TVET organisations showed a negative approach to include these concepts in the curricula. Motivation of participants to include the concepts in the curricula As mentioned earlier, there were 59 experts who claimed that the concepts of NBS and biodiversity loss are included in the curriculum. When it was asked what their motivation was for including these concepts, a wide range of motivating factors were identified (see Table 8). First of all, among the experts who included these concepts, the most frequently mentioned motivation was to raise awareness and share knowledge on these topics. The following statement from an expert in Germany can be given as an example: “The motivation I have is the same for my daily work: we are facing a crisis that will lead us really big problems and doing something against it is my main motivation. Awareness raising - and teaching is awareness raising - is one of the biggest parts of it.” (Interviewee 41). The second frequently mentioned motivation was the personal interest of the experts in the subject and their experience, which followed by the importance of the subject. 10 5 3 Positive Approach Negative Approach Sceptical Approach •Need change in the mindsets (1) •In limited extend (1) •Need partners (1) •Extremely likely (2) •Under preparation (2) •In consideration (4) •Probably yes (2) •Not very likely (4) •No resources (time/funding) (1) Countries LithuaniaGreeceGermanyCzechia -424Positive Approach --14Negative Approach 111-Sceptical Approach 1548Total Type of the Educational Institution CollegeTVETUniversity -28 1-4 -12 1314 Deliverable 1.1 -69- “The most important one is that I'm intrinsically motivated to do that because I love insects, plants and biodiversity.” said an expert which can be given as example to importance of personal interest (Interviewee 35). The least frequent motivation identified in the analysis was to follow research and trends. Some experts considered it as “hot topic” to include the concepts in the curricula. The motivation of the following expert can be given as an example to following research and trends: “As engineers, we do not have much to do with biodiversity loss. That's where biologists usually come in. But nature-based solutions for an engineer are a ‘hot’ topic right now.” (Interviewee 47). There were also some experts who did not clearly stated their motivation. Table 8 Motivation of the participants to include the concepts in the curricula Secondly, when the motivation of the experts was analysed according to the countries, it was found that the experts from Austria frequently mentioned awareness raising and knowledge sharing, which followed by the personal interest and experience. None of the experts from Austria considered curricula and regulations as a motivating factor. A similar pattern was also found in the interviews from Germany. The only motivation mentioned by the experts from Czechia and Sweden was awareness raising and knowledge sharing. Personal interest and experience as well as research and trends played a similar role to motivate experts from Greece to include these concepts in the curricula. On the other hand, personal interest and experience was not commonly mentioned by the experts from Finland, instead they were mostly motivated to raise awareness and share knowledge which then followed by the consideration of curricula and regulations. The commonly mentioned motivation by the experts from Lithuania showed a different pattern than in the other countries. Awareness raising and knowledge sharing as well as research and trends were least mentioned motivations by the experts from Lithuania, while research and trends were not mentioned as motivating factor at all by the experts from the Netherlands. Table 9 summarizes the frequency of motivations according to the countries of the experts participated in the interviews. Table 9 Motivation of the participants according to their countries Thirdly, the frequency of motivations was analysed according to the type of the educational institutions. From this analysis, it was found that the experts who were working at the universities most mentioned awareness raising and knowledge sharing as their motivation similar to the experts from TVET organisations. However, the experts from college were mostly motivated by their personal interest and experience in the subject to include these concepts in the curricula. The least frequently mentioned motivation was research and trends by the experts in universities, while it was the PercentageSegmentsMotivation 42,1643Awareness raising and knowledge sharing 22,5523Personal interest and experience 10,7811The importance of the subject 9,8010Consideration of curricula and regulations 8,829Research and trends 5,886No clearly stated motivation 100,00102TOTAL Countries TotalSweden The Netherlands LithuaniaGreece Germany FinlandCzechiaAustriaMotivation 43161297215 Awareness raising and knowledge sharing 23-24371-6 Personal interest and experience 11-33-22-1 The importance of the subject 10--4--6-- Consideration of curricula and regulations 9--133--2 Research and trends 6 - 1-11 1 11 No clearly stated motivation Deliverable 1.1 -70importance of the subject in TVET organisations and colleges. Additionally, the experts in colleges did not consider the curricula and regulations as a motivating factor at all. The details can be found in Table 10. Table 10 Motivation of the participants according to their educational institutions Factors affecting the presence and absence of the concepts in the curricula The factors that can affect the presence and absence of the concepts of NBS and biodiversity loss in the curricula were asked to the experts during the interviews. Out of 77 experts interviewed, only two did not answer this question. The results were analysed and presented in the Table 11. Firstly, the most frequently mentioned factor was the individual interest and expertise of the teaching staff in the academia that can affect the inclusion of the concepts. Under this category, the expertise of the teacher/faculty and their interest were most commonly mentioned. Teacher’s competence was considered as an important and in fact as one major factor in inclusion of these concepts (Interviewee 25, Interviewee 34). The second common factor was the availability of resources. It is found that costs associated to education of NBS and biodiversity loss can determine the inclusion of these concepts and availability of funding was in fact the most frequently mentioned factor under this category. “Several factors influence the presence or absence of nature-based solutions and biodiversity loss issues in higher education curricula. One significant factor is cost.” Stated an expert (Interviewee 12). Not only funding but also time, tools and facilities, trained staff and networks/partnerships were also considered as important resources that can affect the presence of these concepts in the curricula. In addition to these factors, some experts talked about the effect of policies and regulations when teaching these concepts. For example, it was mentioned that the national legislation in Greece does not include the use of NBS for some disciplines, such as engineering (Interviewee 47) and not enough motivation was received from the Ministry of Education (Interviewee 56). Another claim was made by an expert from Lithuania stating that “The Lithuanian state puts a lot of emphasis on teacher training, but when it comes to biodiversity, it has no place in teacher training studies.” (Interviewee 63). Other frequently mentioned factors were related to institutions and their structure. Some experts found a correlation between the size of the universities with the age of the staff. It is claimed that there are ageing teaching and administrative staff in some of the big universities that can affect the existence of these concepts, while smaller universities usually have younger staff and fresher ideas to teach (Interviewee 48). The results also revealed that the priorities of the institutions can also play a role in the presence of these concepts in the curricula. During the interview, an expert stated the following: “One important determinant is institutional priorities—universities stressing sustainability are more likely to cover these issues.” (Interviewee 49), while another highlighted that “the inclusion or absence of nature-based solutions and biodiversity loss in higher education curricula can be influenced by institutional priorities and the way topics are categorized within academic processes.” (Interviewee 13). Type of the Educational Institution CollegeTVETUniversityMotivation 21031Awareness raising and knowledge sharing 3614Personal interest and experience 119The importance of the subject -28Consideration of curricula and regulations 2-7Research and trends -33No clearly stated motivation Deliverable 1.1 -71The least frequently mentioned factor was the influence of media and environmental activists. Table 11 Factors mentioned that can affect the inclusion of the concepts in the curricula Secondly, the factors mentioned by the experts that can affect the presence or absence of the concepts in the curricula were analysed according to the countries. The results showed that the experts from Austria and Czechia mostly talked about curricula and course content as a factor for inclusion of these concepts in HE and TVET curricula, while most frequently mentioned factor was individual interest and expertise by the experts from Germany and the Netherlands. The experts from Greece, mostly considered availability of resources as well as community perceptions and attitudes as important factors that can affect the presence of the concepts, while the least mentioned factors were subject specific ones and the role of media and activists. The most mentioned factor by the experts in Netherlands was also the community perceptions and attitudes. On the other hands, several factors were mentioned in equal number of times by the experts in Netherlands, such as individual interest and expertise, availability of resources, policies and regulations and subject specific factors. The frequency of mentioned factors by the experts from Lithuania also showed a similar pattern and availability of resources, curricula and course content as well as community perceptions and attitudes were equally mentioned. By the experts from Finland, the individual interest and expertise and the availability of the resources were mentioned in equal frequency as factors affecting the presence of the concepts, while the policies and regulations were not mentioned at all. In contrast, it was mentioned by the expert from Sweden in addition to the availability of resources. The frequency of the factors according to countries can be found in Table 12. Table 12 Factors mentioned according to the participants’ countries Effective methods to teach NBS and biodiversity loss concepts All the experts were asked to share their opinion on the methods that could be effective to teach the concepts of NBS and biodiversity loss. Several teaching methods were identified and categorised with the help of codes created during the analysis. The results showed that the experts most commonly PercentageSegmentsFactors 20,4229Individual interest & expertise 19,0127Availability of resources 17,6125Curricula & course content 14,7921Community perceptions & attitudes 9,8614Policies & Regulations 7,0410Institutions & its structure 5,638Subject-specific factors 2,113Factors related to economic system 2,113Influence of media & activists 1,412No answer 100,00142TOTAL Countries Total Sweden The Netherlands LithuaniaGreece Germany FinlandCzechiaAustria Factors 292635652 Individual interest & expertise 2712273624 Availability of resources 25-3223375 Curricula & course content 21-42742-2 Community perceptions & attitudes 14 1 2 1 34-- 3 Policies & Regulations 10 - - 1 4-13 1 Institutions & its structure 8-2-132-- Subject-specific factors 3---21--- Factors related to economic system 3---1-1-1 Influence of media & activists 2----1-1No answer Deliverable 1.1 -72mentioned teaching methods with real-world approach. Providing real-life examples and success stories was one of the methods mentioned in this category. For example, one of the experts mentioned that selecting and presenting successful case studies from A to Z with Life Cycle Assessment, if possible, could be an effective method to teach these concepts (Interviewee 51), while others mentioned inviting guest lecturers from the field (Interviewee 68) and speaking to experts who work in the field and have to really apply the NBS in their daily work could be helpful (Interviewee 42). Teaching methods such as outdoor activities, nature observation, going to excursions and field trainings were included under the category of outdoor learning, which was the second commonly mentioned method by the experts. To illustrate, an expert claimed that students enjoy exercises which are done outdoors, such as counting birds on the streets (Interviewee 59), while another mentioned “Hands-on experiences, such as fieldwork and case studies, are particularly effective in helping students understand the practical applications of these concepts.” (Interviewee 11). The least common mentioned teaching method among all the exports was gamification. Although it was only mentioned four times among all the interviews, it was found that some teachers are developing card games for biodiversity education in addition to development of apps where students can walk their own trails while learning about biodiversity (Interviewee 71). As it can be found in Table 13, some bureaucratical issues were also mentioned during the interview instead of effective teaching methods. The expert stated that there are some obstacles to use preferred teaching methods due to regulations with the following sentence: “I would like to take my trainees outside in order to visit specific companies, exhibitions and organizations but this is not permitted by the Greek TVET framework.” (Interviewee 56) Table 13 Effective methods mentioned to teach NBS and biodiversity loss Secondly, the effective teaching methods were analysed according to the inclusion criteria of the concepts in the curriculum. The results indicated that the experts who included the NBS and biodiversity loss concepts in their curriculum most commonly mentioned the teaching methods with real-world approach that can be effective to teach these concepts, which then followed by the outdoor learning and collaborative approach. On the other hand, gamification was the least frequently mentioned teaching method among the experts who included the concepts in the curriculum. Considering those who did not include, three different teaching methods were mentioned commonly, which were real-world approach, outdoor learning and theoretical approach. Another point commonly found among the experts who didn’t use these concepts in teaching was not answering the question. Figure 17 shows all the effective teaching methods that were mentioned by the experts according to the inclusion criteria of the NBS and biodiversity loss concepts. PercentageSegmentsEffective Teaching Method 22,6734Real-world Approach 16,6725Outdoor Learning 16,0024Collaborative Approach 14,6722Theoretical Approach 10,0015Practical Approach 6,6710Technology Integration 4,006Exploratory Approach 4,006No answer 2,674Gamification 2,003Not clearly mentioned 0,671Bureaucratical issues 100,00150TOTAL Deliverable 1.1 -73Figure 17 Effective teaching methods according to the inclusion criteria of the concepts Finally, the frequency of the teaching methods was compared according to the type of the educational institutions of the experts. As it can be found in Table 14, the real-world approach was commonly found effective by the experts from universities, which then followed by the outdoor learning and collaborative approach. Similarly, the experts from TVET organisations mostly mentioned real-world and practical approaches as effective teaching methods. In opposition to the experts from universities and TVET organisations, the real-world approach was one of the least mentioned methods, among the experts from colleges. Instead, practical approaches were commonly found effective by them. There were also some teaching methods that were mentioned by experts from universities and TVET organisations, but not by the ones in colleges, such as technology integration, exploratory approach and gamification. In short, there were several teaching methods mentioned in the expert interviews that can be effective in NBS and biodiversity loss education, however, their dispersion varied when the inclusion criteria and the educational organisations were considered. Table 14 Effective teaching methods according to educational institutions of the participants Recommendations for including the concepts in the curricula 28 19 19 16 14 8 5 32 6656 121 1 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Real-world Approach Outdoor Learning Collaborative Approach Theoretical Approach Pratcical Approach Technology Integration Exploratory Approach Gamification No answer Frequencies Effective Teaching Methods Included Not included Type of the Educational Institution CollegeTVET University Effective Teaching Method 1429Real-world Approach 1321Outdoor Learning 22 20 Collaborative Approach 1318Theoretical Approach 348Practical Approach -28Technology Integration -15Exploratory Approach -13Gamification 123No answer Deliverable 1.1 -80and collaborative approaches were commonly considered as effective methods to teach these concepts by the experts not only from universities but also TVET and colleges. 4.4 Summary Approximately 56% of survey respondents reported the presence of NBS and biodiversity loss concepts in the curricula of courses offered by their faculties, institutes, or departments in our survey. The current inclusion of NBS concepts is primarily found in educational programs focused on Ecology or Environmental Sciences. The depth of coverage appears to increase with the number of ECTS credits awarded to the courses, reflecting a moderate integration of these concepts. Notably, most NBS content is presently delivered in a theoretical format. Among respondents whose courses do not currently include NBS concepts, nearly 60% indicated no plans for future inclusion. Structural barriers, as well as shortages of financial and human resources, seem to hinder academic staff across various types of HEIs from integrating these concepts into course curricula. Addressing these institutional and resource constraints could significantly enhance the incorporation of NBS across HE programs and foster a more widespread integration of these essential concepts. To summarise the results from the interviews, it was revealed that the concepts of NBS and biodiversity are mostly included in the curricula by the experts involved in this study. However, there is not only one major reason behind the inclusion of these concepts. Instead, it is found that several factors at individual, institutional, national and even at European level can determine the presence and absence of these concepts. Figure 19 summarizes these factors which are mostly mentioned by the experts. Figure 19 Summary of the findings from the interviews NBS and Biodiversity Loss in Curricula National Organisations HE Institutions Experts in HE Research and Trends Public Media Resources European Organisations Awareness raising &knowledge sharing Institutional structures &priorities Whole institution approach Available funds & tools Policies ®ulations Following current research &trends Deliverable 1.1 -81References Albareda-Tiana, S., Vidal-Raméntol, S., Fernández-Morilla, M., 2018. Implementing the sustainable development goals at University level. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 19, 473–497. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2017-0069 Al-Kurdi, O., El-Haddadeh, R., Eldabi, T., 2018. Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions: a systematic review. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 31, 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2017-0129 Boeve-de Pauw, J., Van Hoof, J., Van Petegem, P., 2019. Effective field trips in nature: the interplay between novelty and learning. J. Biol. Educ. 53, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1418760 Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission), 2021. Evaluating the impact of nature-based solutions: a handbook for practitioners. Publications Office of the European Union. Dowling, C., 2024. Nature-Based Solutions Education Network (NBS EduWORLD) Initial Report on NBS in Higher Education. European Commission, 2024. Open Educational Resources (OER) - European Commission [WWW Document]. EU Sci. HUB. URL https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/what-openeducation/open-educational-resources-oer_en (accessed 10.4.24). European Research Executive Agency (European Commission), 2023. Nature-based solutions: EU funded NBS research projects tackle the climate and biodiversity crisis. Publications Office of the European Union. Flick, U., Kardorff, E. von, Steinke, I. (Eds.), 2004. A companion to qualitative research. Sage Publications, London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif. Fulton, C., 2020. Collaborating in online teaching: inviting e-guests to facilitate learning in the digital environment. Inf. Learn. Sci. 121, 579–585. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0116 Holst, J., 2023. Towards coherence on sustainability in education: a systematic review of Whole Institution Approaches. Sustain. Sci. 18, 1015–1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01226-8 Hsieh, H.-F., Shannon, S.E., 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual. Health Res. 15, 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 Leal Filho, W., Sima, M., Sharifi, A., Luetz, J.M., Salvia, A.L., Mifsud, M., Olooto, F.M., Djekic, I., Anholon, R., Rampasso, I., Kwabena Donkor, F., Dinis, M.A.P., Klavins, M., Finnveden, G., Chari, M.M., Molthan-Hill, P., Mifsud, A., Sen, S.K., Lokupitiya, E., 2021. Handling climate change education at universities: an overview. Environ. Sci. Eur. 33, 109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-021-00552-5 Manolis, E.N., Manoli, E.N., 2021. Raising awareness of the Sustainable Development Goals through Ecological Projects in Higher Education. J. Clean. Prod. 279, 123614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123614 Murthi, M., Bassett, R.M., 2022. Higher Education: Understanding demand and redefining values [WWW Document]. World Bank Blogs. URL https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/education/highereducation-understanding-demand-and-redefining-values (accessed 10.16.24). Owens, T.L., 2017. Higher education in the sustainable development goals framework. Eur. J. Educ. 52, 414–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12237 Deliverable 1.1 -82Peiser, G., Jones, M., 2014. The influence of teachers’ interests, personalities and life experiences in intercultural languages teaching. Teach. Teach. 20, 375–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.848525 Roper, L., 2021. Encouraging Interdisciplinary Collaboration: A Study of Enablers and Inhibitors Across Silos in Higher Education. Interdiscip. J. Partnersh. Stud. 8. Russo, N., 2013. Awareness Raising in Higher Education Through Real-Life Project Experiences. Eurasian J. Educ. Res. EJER 13, 75–92. Soest, C. von, 2023. Why Do We Speak to Experts? Reviving the Strength of the Expert Interview Method. Perspect. Polit. 21, 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592722001116 Towers, D., Loynes, C., 2018. Finding New Ways: Developing a Co-Constructed Approach to Excursions in Higher Education. J. Exp. Educ. 41, 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825918808329 Versini, P.-A., Al Sayah, M., Bordignon, F., Schertzer, D., 2023. How the concept of nature-based solutions for climate adaptation could be introduced in Master’s curricula. Insights from France. J. Clean. Prod. 395, 136364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136364 Visser-Wijnveen, G.J., Stes, A., Van Petegem, P., 2014. Clustering teachers’ motivations for teaching. Teach. High. Educ. 19, 644–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.901953 Deliverable 1.1 -835 Networking and collaboration patterns among universities and universities – TVET The objective of Task 1.4 was to collect information about existing networking and collaboration schemes to identify pathways and obstacles for multidisciplinary knowledge transfer among researchers and professionals across different disciplines, highlighting good practices (e.g. crossinstitutional agreements, national/international networks, researcher mobility initiatives, regional alliances, etc.). 5.1 Nature-based solution as an interdisciplinary concept Nature-based solutions (NBS) is an umbrella concept that includes a wide range of approaches to ecosystem restoration and various societal challenges such as climate change, food and water security and disaster risk reduction. Restoration may involve engineering solutions that change the geophysical environment to create new opportunities for plant growth and the emergence of new communities on severely degraded sites. Restoration may also involve the removal or reintroduction of species to change the dynamics of an ecosystem so that biodiversity is enhanced. Finally, restoration may include a mix of engineering and biological interventions to improve the biodiversity of a site. The NBS umbrella creates the need for collaboration between disciplines within universities, within Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) organisations and between the two because NBS has many parts that require different kinds of knowledge. Ecology, economics, engineering, landscape design and management, and social and political sciences may all have a role to play in a particular intervention. NBS project design and implementation require transdisciplinary approaches to incorporate the experiential knowledge of people who live and work on the land or in urban environments. Studying the social and political processes that lead to the design of an intervention and monitoring the outcomes to provide science-based evidence of what changed and how it changed are essential for learning about the dynamics of the ecosystems and landscapes within which the intervention was applied. NBS requires that universities and TVETs collaborate to share knowledge because working with dynamic living systems where outcomes are unpredictable is different from working with inert systems where the outcomes of an intervention can be predicted within an acceptable range of probability. Collaboration within and among research and educational organisations is essential because NBS represent a new and transformational relationship between humans and nature, to nurture and rebuild the capacity of nature to provide the ecosystem services necessary for human wellbeing. Building networks of collaborators enables knowledge to be shared so that, eventually, people in industrial societies learn how-to live in harmony with nature. 5.2 Methodology applied for online survey and experts’ interviews The data collection methods were planned and conducted according to the project proposal. The deadline for the data collection process was extended until the end of August 2024, due to a summertime holiday affecting many academic institutions and consequently a slow rate of response to the survey. The extension time allowed to obtain sufficient data for the quantitative and qualitative analysis. 5.2.1 Sampling size and structure The goal for Task 1.4 was to obtain 100 responses from the online survey and conduct at least 70 interviews with experts from ENABLS Living Lab (LL) countries (Austria, Czechia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Lithuania and the Netherlands, and ICA network). In total, number of online surveys achieved 72 responses and number of interviews conducted was 80. Therefore, data from the interviews with Deliverable 1.1 -84experts exceeded the target number which allowed a more comprehensive analysis and understanding of the status of the studied topic. Similarly, to Task 1.1, the target group for online survey and interview were experts, including teaching staff in higher education (HE) or in TVET institutions, i.e. professors, lecturers, teaching assistants; as well as the administration staff involved in teaching. The potential respondents were selected by project partners in their country. Additionally, the ICA team contacted potential respondents from the ICA network (in total over 150 institutional contacts from 54 ICA organisations). The complete list of respondent’s institutions and disciplines that participated in the online survey can be found in Appendix VII Annex 1. shows a high variety of disciplines involved in the inquiry topic, e.g. agriculture, forestry, management, engineering, etc. The sampling of interview respondents was purposeful, meaning that the project partners selected information-rich individuals, from which project partners could obtain a great deal of information about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry. In this case, teachers in HE or in TVET institutions having experience in NBS and/or biodiversity issues were a target group. The list of interviewed experts’ institutions can be found in Appendix VII Annex 2. 5.2.2 Data collection The Survey within the Task 1.4 consisted of two ways of data collection: 1. Online survey of the universities and TVET senior leadership 2. Individual semi-structured interviews with the experts on NBS Each interview took between 20 – 60 min to complete. The responses were entered to the online EU Survey platform by an interviewing person. Online survey: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/Nature_based_solutions_in_higher_education_and_TVET#pa ge0 Expert interviews: https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/Questionnaire_for_NBS_expert_interview#page1 Some partners used audio recording or took notes during the interviews and transcribed responses to the platform. The interview responses collected in any language others than English were translated to English by the interviewer. 5.2.3 Structure of the questionnaires While the online survey questionnaire was filled in directly by the respondents, the results of the expert interviews were filled in by members of the ENABLS project in partner countries simultaneously or after the interview was conducted. The questionnaire for online survey included a mixture of multiple-choice responses and Likert scale evaluations, using the following scores: 0 - I am not sure; 1 - very weak; 2 – weak; 3 – neutral; 4 – strong; 5 - very strong. Full online survey can be found in the Appendix VII Annex 3. The expert interviews contained open-ended questions allowing interviewed experts to express their statements freely. The questions and answer options were formulated according to the needs of the survey methods used. Full questionnaire for experts can be found in the Appendix VII Annex 4. Both, the online survey, and questionnaire for expert interviews followed a similar structure of topics addressed. Deliverable 1.1 -85The surveys started with a short introduction to the project, a statement of the project’s definition of NBS, the survey’s objectives, and a consent request to participate in the survey. The next part of the survey focused on the respondent’s characteristics. The second part of both the online survey and the expert interview focussed on Perceptions of Interdisciplinary Collaborations. Questionnaire respondents were asked: • To define interdisciplinary collaboration within the context of biodiversity research and education (multiple-choice) • To describe their involvement in any interdisciplinary biodiversity research or education projects. • To define the geographic spread of their collaboration (multiple choice) • How they perceive the organisation’s progress over the last 10 years in improving the collaborations based on NBS and Biodiversity loss (Likert scale) • To identify the types of collaboration between universities and TVETs (multiple-choice) • To evaluate the strength of interdisciplinary collaboration within their institution across ten types of collaboration (Likert-scale) • To evaluate the use of 16 types of resources that support collaboration (Likert-scale) The questionnaire for expert interview contained three open-ended questions about the definition of NBS, the role of universities and TVET institutions in promoting the integration of NBS and the importance of collaboration for integration. The third part of the survey explored the Obstacles to Knowledge Transfer. In the online survey, respondents were asked to identify the main obstacles to knowledge transfer among different disciplines in biodiversity research and education using multiple-choice. Next, respondents were asked to evaluate how they are improving knowledge transfer among different disciplines using the Likert scale and a list of performance factors. In the questionnaire for the interviews with experts, two openended questions addressed key challenges in fostering interdisciplinary collaboration between universities and universities and TVET institutions for integrating NBS into HE curricula and how these challenges can be addressed. The fourth part of the survey focussed on the Potential Pathways for Interdisciplinary Collaboration. The online survey contained two multiple-choice answers about strategies facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration in biodiversity research and education and about the motivations of institutions for such a collaboration. In the questionnaire for experts’ interviews, the same questions were applied in an open-ended way. The fifth part of the survey dealt with existing good practices in collaboration. The online survey applied the Likert scale evaluation to different good practices experienced in specific types of activity. The open questions within the interviews with experts dealt with expert’s experiences with some successful examples of interdisciplinary collaboration between universities and TVET institutions in integrating NBS into HE. At the end of the online survey and expert interviews, the respondents could add their comments and leave their contact emails in case they wanted to receive summarised survey results or have further engagement with ENABLS project activities. 5.2.4 Data analysis and methods After completing the data collection, quantitative data from the questionnaire were checked and coded into a dataset that was processed using the IBM SPSS Statistics (version 28.0). Quantitative analysis was based on the calculation of descriptive statistics. Deliverable 1.1 -86Qualitative data from the expert interviews was analysed using content analysis, in which no predetermined codes and categories were used. Instead, categories were developed by an inductive method. This method was specifically chosen to enable new insights to emerge from the data, and to gain information directly from the experts without imposing preconceived theories. Findings from the qualitative analysis are presented in respective sections of this report. 5.3 Results 5.3.1 Understanding Interdisciplinary Collaboration Within the Institution This section presents the combined results of the online survey and expert interviews. The insights from the expert interviews offer more detailed and in-depth responses, allowing for a clearer and more comprehensive interpretation of the findings. To gain insights into how interdisciplinary collaboration is perceived within HE respondents of the online survey were asked to define interdisciplinary collaboration in the context of biodiversity research and education (Figure 20). The question aimed to uncover the different ways in which collaboration is conceptualized, highlighting the diverse approaches and priorities that shape research and educational activities in this field. Understanding these perspectives is crucial for developing strategies that foster effective collaboration across disciplines and sectors, ensuring a holistic approach to addressing complex biodiversity challenges. Figure 20 Online survey respondents’ definition of interdisciplinary collaboration within the context of biodiversity research and education, in percentage Most survey respondents (51.4%) viewed collaboration as involving different disciplines with academic and non-academic partners. This indicates a preference for a comprehensive approach to collaboration that spans various academic fields and engages stakeholders outside traditional educational settings, such as industry, government, or community organizations. 33% of the respondents saw collaboration as an activity that only occurs across different academic disciplines. These respondents do not see the inclusion of non-academic partners as an essential part of collaboration for biodiversity research and education 12.5% of the respondents associate interdisciplinary collaboration specifically with academic and nonacademic actors without necessarily emphasizing different disciplinary perspectives. And only 2.8% of respondents provided other definitions suggesting that the definitions of most participants are aligned with the broader categories identified above. The results suggest that effective biodiversity research and education benefit from a holistic, inclusive approach. This emphasizes the need for collaborations that cut across disciplinary boundaries and boundaries between universities, vocational training organisations and various fields of practice. This reflects the complex and interconnected nature of biodiversity challenges. It also indicates an Deliverable 1.1 -87awareness that tackling these issues requires diverse expertise and the integration of different perspectives, including those from non-academic stakeholders. Therefore, it was important to ask NBS experts how they interpret and understand the NBS in the context of HE. Their responses to this question were grouped into the following categories: • Theoretical and conceptual understanding. Experts view NBS as a broad, somewhat ambiguous concept, often associated with sustainability themes, including biodiversity conservation, climate change adaptation, and sustainable resource management. Some respondents linked NBS to sustainability transitions in fields like agriculture, urban planning, and business. However, several responses critiqued NBS for being too expansive, encompassing a wide range of solutions from small-scale actions (e.g., flower boxes) to largescale ecological restoration (e.g., rewilding). There was a sense that NBS could mean “everything and nothing”, making it difficult to apply practically in some cases. • Interdisciplinary understanding. Other experts had a more interdisciplinary understanding and recognised existing examples and perspectives of NBS in HE. They stressed the importance of interdisciplinarity in NBS, advocating for cross-disciplinary study projects that include fields such as biology, ecology, social sciences, engineering, and even the arts. They argued that effective NBS implementation requires diverse expertise to address complex environmental challenges. • Comprehensive educational integration strategy. Respondents suggest that NBS should be incorporated into HE curricula across various study programs (undergraduate and postgraduate), covering topics like ecosystem management, biodiversity, and sustainable agriculture. There is an emphasis on blending theoretical knowledge with practical application. Some respondents suggested “incorporating traditional knowledge or retro-innovations, learning from past practices, and using them as NBS”. Moreover, there was an interest in fostering cultural connections between humans and nature and encouraging philosophical and ethical discussions about the human role in nature. • Research and partnerships. It was suggested that universities can serve as hubs for research and collaboration with external stakeholders (e.g., nature conservation authorities), thereby promoting applied NBS research and community-engaged projects. • Ecosystem-based and Circular Economy Thinking. NBS was often defined as a way of leveraging ecosystem processes to address socio-environmental challenges. Some responses focused on concepts like circular economy, organic farming, agroecological farming and harmoniously integrating human activity with natural cycles. • Technological and Engineering Perspectives. A few respondents related NBS to environmental engineering and technology, such as using green infrastructure to mitigate urban challenges or engineering solutions for biodiversity and climate adaptation. There was also mention of solutions that utilize biological processes or nature-inspired technologies (e.g., biotechnology). The summary of responses to the question of interpretation and understanding of NBS in HE are further summarized and presented as the “what”, “how”, “where” education is focused and “who” should be involved in this process (Figure 21). Deliverable 1.1 -88Figure 21 Summary of understandings of NBS in HE based on interviews with experts (compiled by authors) Online survey respondents were asked whether they had participated in any interdisciplinary biodiversity research or education projects. The results revealed an almost equal split, with 51.4% reporting involvement in such projects and 48.6% indicating they had not participated. Figure 22 graphically illustrates the responses to the multiple-choice survey question: “How geographically widespread are the collaborative alliances of your institution”. Figure 22 Online survey respondents’ responses on how widespread geographically the existing collaboration alliances are of their institution, in percentage/ Most of the collaboration occurs at either the national (58,3%) or European level (62,5%), while 30,6% of respondents are engaged on cross-continental exchanges. This finding suggests there may be a need to foster broader international collaborations. Responses to the multiple-choice question “What is their institution’s progress over the last 10 years in improving the collaboration based on NBS and Biodiversity loss” are illustrated in Figure 23. Deliverable 1.1 -89Figure 23 Online survey respondents’ responses on what is their institutions progress over the last 10 years in improving the collaboration based on NBS and Biodiversity loss, in percentage The figure shows that most respondents (46.3%) have between one and five collaborations, indicating that most respondents have a limited network of partnerships. A few respondents (1.5%) had no collaboration, and at the other end of the range, 9% of the respondents had over 20 collaborations. This distribution of responses suggests that some respondents had active networks through which they may exchange their knowledge and apply good NBS practice. Collaboration between Universities and TVETS was explored with a multiple-choice question “Which of the collaborations between their represented university and TVET they could mention” (Figure 24). Figure 24 Online survey respondents’ responses on the types of collaboration between universities and TVETs that they could mention, in percentage The results of Figure 24 suggest that training and professional internships are the most widely implemented forms of interdisciplinary collaboration in biodiversity research and education, while joint courses and study programs are relatively less common. To gain insight into the effectiveness of existing collaborative efforts, identify gaps or challenges, and understand how well these initiatives support biodiversity research and education goals, it was important to ask respondents to evaluate the current functioning of interdisciplinary collaboration at their institutions. Hopefully, this evaluation helps in assessing the capacity of institutions to foster cross-disciplinary integration, which is crucial for addressing complex environmental and societal challenges. The questions “Evaluate current functioning of interdisciplinary collaboration at their institutions” were grouped into following question sub-groups: Curriculum Development and Review Research and Development projects Work-based Learning Programs Deliverable 1.1 -96Experts were asked of “What role do they see for universities and TVET institutions in promoting integration of NBS?”, and their responses can be categorized into the key themes (Table 17). Table 17 Summarised Exert interviews responses on what role do they see for universities and TVET institutions in promoting the integration of NBS Key theme Description Educational Role Universities and TVET institutions play a crucial role in educating future generations about NBS, sustainability, and environmental issues. By integrating these topics into curricula, they can help develop professionals who are aware of and committed to sustainable practices. This includes developing interdisciplinary courses, offering training workshops, and providing students with hands-on experience in real-world applications of NBS. Collaboration and Partnerships A common theme is the need for collaboration between universities, TVET institutions, industry, government bodies, and NGOs. This collaboration can help bridge the gap between academic research and practical applications. Joint projects, research initiatives, and partnerships with various stakeholders can facilitate the successful implementation of NBS. Knowledge Transfer and Practical Applications Respondents emphasize the importance of universities in conducting research that generates new knowledge and data about NBS, which can be transferred to TVET institutions and applied in real-world settings. TVET institutions, in turn, focus on applied research and providing practical training that makes academic knowledge accessible and useful to a broader audience Overcoming Challenges Several respondents noted challenges such as a lack of common language between academia and practice, funding constraints, and the difficulty in translating complex academic research into practi cal solutions. Overcoming these hurdles will require sustained collaboration, sufficient financial support, and a focus on making academic research more relevant to societal needs Societal Impact Universities and TVET institutions are seen as key actors i n driving societal transformation. By promoting NBS, these institutions can influence policy, empower the next generation, and contribute to creating more sustainable and resilient communities. They also have the responsibility to lead by example, integrating NBS into their own operations and infrastructure. Systemic Thinking and Interdisciplinary Approaches Respondents highlighted the need for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches to NBS, incorporating not just natural sciences but also social sciences and economics. This approach will help ensure that NBS are implemented effectively and are socially and economically sustainable. Universities and TVET institutions have a pivotal role in promoting the integration of NBS by educating the next generation, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and translating academic research into practical solutions. Effective partnerships between these institutions and other stakeholders are essential for overcoming challenges and ensuring that NBS are implemented in a way that maximizes both environmental and societal benefits. Through research, education, and collaboration, these institutions can significantly contribute to a more sustainable future. Also, the experts were asked “How important do you think it is for universities and TVET institutions to collaborate on integrating NBS into HE, and why?”. The summary of their responses is provided in the Table 18. Deliverable 1.1 -97Table 18 Summarized Expert interviews responses on how important do they think it is for Universities and TVET institutions to collaborate on integrating NBS into HE and why Key Themes Description Strengthening Practical Experience Many respondents emphasized the importance of collaboration for providing students with hands-on, practical experience in their respective fields. TVET institutions are seen as more practice-oriented, while universities are considered more theoretical. Combining these strengths would prepare students better for the real-world application of NBS. Bridging theory and practice Universities often focus on high-level, conceptual frameworks that, while valuable, may not always translate into actionable solutions. TVET institutions, with their focus on practice, can help bridge this gap by providing the applied skills needed to implement NBS. This partnership is seen as key to ensuring that students not only learn about NBS but can also put that knowledge to practical use in various sectors. Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Learning Respondents highlighted the importance of collaboration in fostering interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary learning. By working together, universities and TVET institutions can align different views on NBS, enhance adaptive management practices, and combine research from multiple disciplines to create more effective solutions. Addressing Environmental Challenges Respondents viewed collaboration as vital to addressing pressing global issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem degradation. Integrating NBS into HE through partnerships between universities and TVET institutions is seen as a key step in equipping the next generation with the knowledge and skills needed to develop innovative, sustainable solutions. By working together, these institutions can ensure that students are better prepared to confront and mitigate the environmental crises of our time. Institutional barriers Respondents pointed out challenges such as competition between institutions, lack of resources, and time constraints. Teacher shortages and administrative burdens also make collaboration more difficult. Some respondents mentioned the need for strategic efforts to overcome these barriers, such as setting up networks, funding, and continuous cooperation. Mutual Learning and Exchange Respondents frequently mentioned the value of mutual learning through collaboration. Universities can contribute cuttingedge research, while TVET institutions provide practical insights and technical skills. This mutual exchange of knowledge enriches both institutions and helps them better meet societal and environmental needs. Global and Regional Collaboration Several respondents pointed out the importance of extending these collaborations beyond national borders. They argued that cooperation at a European or even global level would allow institutions to share expertise and resources, particularly in regions where capacities might be limited. This would help address global environmental challenges more effectively, as institutions could pool knowledge and resources to find solutions that are scalable and adaptable to different contexts. In summary, the survey responses reflect a clear consensus on the critical role that collaboration between universities and TVET institutions can play in integrating NBS into HE. This partnership is seen as essential for bridging the gap between theoretical education and practical application, fostering interdisciplinary learning, and preparing students to address complex environmental challenges. However, respondents also acknowledged the significant institutional barriers that must be overcome for these collaborations to be successful. By addressing these challenges and fostering a culture of continuous learning and cooperation, universities and TVET institutions can play a pivotal role in shaping a more sustainable and resilient future. Deliverable 1.1 -985.3.2 Identifying obstacles to knowledge transfer The online survey respondents and experts were asked questions to identify the obstacles to knowledge transfer. This section provides summarised results of their responses. The online survey respondent’s response to the multiple-choice question: “In your opinion, what are the main obstacles to knowledge transfer among different disciplines in biodiversity research and education?” are shown in Figure 36. Figure 36 Online survey respondents’ responses on the obstacles for knowledge transfer, in percentages Figure 36 presents the percentage of online survey respondents who identified various obstacles to knowledge transfer. The obstacles are ranked by the proportion of respondents who cited each as a challenge. Further insight into the nature of these categories of obstacles to knowledge transfer was gained from the interviews. The data clearly indicates that institutional barriers, time and resource constraints, and limited awareness are the most significant obstacles to knowledge transfer, affecting over half of the respondents. These findings suggest that addressing these structural and logistical challenges, such as improving institutional support, increasing resource allocation, and raising awareness about knowledge-sharing opportunities, could substantially enhance the effectiveness of knowledge transfer processes. Improved communication and efforts to bridge terminology differences could also contribute to smoother interdisciplinary collaboration. The information gathered from the online survey was further explored in the interviews with experts who were asked: “What are the key challenges you foresee in fostering interdisciplinary collaboration between universities and universities and TVET institutions for integrating NBS into HE curricula?” The content analysis from expert interviews on fostering interdisciplinary collaboration between universities and TVET institutions for integrating NBS into HE curricula highlighted three main challenges: Resources: Experts noted significant constraints in terms of time, energy, and finances required to support interdisciplinary collaboration efforts. Current Structure: Challenges were identified within the existing administrative hierarchy and education structure, including differing terminologies across institutions and disciplines, as well as competition between institutions and academic fields, which hinders collaboration. Missing Common Strategy: Experts pointed out the absence of unified guidelines and competencies, along with a lack of shared vision to align governance at different levels, from top leadership to grassroots actors, which limits effective collaboration. Deliverable 1.1 -99These findings underscore the need for better resource allocation, structural reforms, and a cohesive strategy to foster interdisciplinary collaboration. A follow-through question for the expert interviews asked: “How these challenges can be addressed?”. Responses to this question were groups in five key themes: the education system philosophy, education practice, research approach, societal values and availability of different resources (Table 19). Table 19 Overview of proposed actions addressing challenges for interdisciplinary collaboration according to expert interviews responses Key Themes Description of relevant aspects Education system philosophy Respondents think that some specific changes in education system philosophy could help address the challenges. Specifically, fostering partnerships at multiple vertical (universities, universities and TVET and between education institutions and companies) and geographical levels (from local to international) are necessary. Educational international collaborations need to explicitly focus on NBS and BD, and the joint committees and initiatives need to be created. The NBS programs should be designed with an active engagement of industry, government, and community stakeholders to ensure programs’ relevance and support. Moreover, educational system should accept multiple knowledge systems to allow a knowledge coconstruction for NBS solutions where not only institutional knowledge is valuable, but also knowledge gained in practice and in a specific local context. Also, the accreditation standards should be adapted to NBS and BD with interdisciplinary knowledge. Education practice Education practice needs to develop new conceptualization, knowledge, methodologies, and teaching materials for inter disciplinary collaboration. In this respect, the well-trained educators with pedagogical skills will be needed. Additionally, a LL approach to education focusing on solutions for real-life problems and using examples of good practices in teaching process were mentioned as some solutions for the issue. Moreover, focus on “challenge-based" learning, which include collaboration between disciplines (e.g. join students from different study programs) and non-academic stakeholders should be included in the education practice. Research approach Include interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in research projects, meaning to consider the quintuple helix idea with all relevant stakeholders involved in problems solutions. Moreover, a focus on context-specific solutions is also important. Establish interdisciplinary research teams and collaboration should also include a sharing of human resources, databases and available infrastructure. Societal values’ shift Respondents also mentioned some aspects from a general societal value setting. Multiple respondents agree that there is a need to make ethical values of all involved parties in a collaboration important. Moreover, motivation (including also economic incentives) for NBS, and biodiversity support should be increased in society. Some respondents also mentioned that the NBS and BD need better legislative support. Deliverable 1.1 -100The collaboration efforts and collaboration skills should be also considered as valuable and accessible to all stakeholders (e.g. include collaboration skills in teaching, support effective collaboration). Society and institutions should be also aware about a need for context specific solutions, and about additional time, space and energy required for collaboration in NBS and BD. Availability of resources Time was highlighted as one of the necessary resources for large projects preparation and for long term projects. In this regard, multiple respondents mentioned that more employees in education, research and practice is a solution to ensure appropriate cooperation. Other, frequently mentioned needed resources are the financial resources for the integration of NBS into HE and TVET curricula, and to encourage long-term collaboration between institutions. This support is also related to building trust through informal meetings, encourage personal connections and learning to collaborate. Few interviewees also mentioned a need for less bureaucracy to make collaborations easier. The online survey asked respondents a multiple-choice question: “Based on your experience, to what extent do the following factors improve knowledge transfer among different disciplines? Give a score (0 - I am not sure; 1 - very weakly; 2 – weakly; 3 – neutral; 4 – strongly; 5 - very strongly) to each item. The survey focused on key themes relevant to interdisciplinary collaboration, such as leadership, communication, funding, and engagement. The responses were analysed by aggregating the percentages of those who selected 4 (strongly) and 5 (very strongly) for each factor, representing how impactful respondents perceived these factors to be. The summary of these responses is provided in the Figure 37. Deliverable 1.1 -101Figure 37 Online survey respondents’ responses on the key factors improving knowledge transfer among different disciplines, in percentages (5 and 4 scores) The data indicates that respondents consider communication, funding, and leadership to be the most crucial resources for interdisciplinary collaboration, along with the need for adequate time and structured opportunities for collaboration. Although factors like cross-institutional partnerships, capacity building, and public engagement are also important, there is a clear hierarchy where logistical and financial support mechanisms take precedence. The lower ranking of certain factors, such as innovation hubs and boundary organizations, suggests that these areas may require further development or integration to be seen as more impactful. Overall, the results underscore the importance of financial and structural strategic support for fostering effective interdisciplinary collaboration. Figure 37 additionally highlights that the Effective Communication Channels, Long-Term Funding and Support, and financial resources were evaluated by the majority of respondents as having a “very strong” influence on interdisciplinary collaboration. On the other side the Evaluation and Assessment Mechanisms, Boundary Objects and Boundary Organizations, Innovation Hubs and Incubators, and Interdisciplinary Hackathons and Challenges were evaluated by most of the respondents as neutral or having weak or very weak influence. Deliverable 1.1 -1025.3.3 Potential pathways for interdisciplinary collaboration Respondents to the online survey were invited to consider the question: “What strategies or initiatives do you believe could facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration in biodiversity research and education?” The answers to this multiple-choice question are summarised in Figure 38. Figure 38 Online survey respondents’ responses on the Strategies/initiatives that could facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration, in percentage The data clearly shows that funding opportunities (70,83 %), and training workshops (63,89 %) are seen as the most impactful strategies for promoting interdisciplinary collaboration in biodiversity research and education. These are followed by the need for dedicated research centres (56,94%) and knowledge-sharing platforms (52,78%), which respondents believe are essential for fostering sustained collaboration across disciplines. While cross-listed courses were considered valuable, they rank lower compared to other strategies, indicating that institutional and financial support are seen as more significant drivers of interdisciplinary efforts. Overall, the number of mentions these pathways include the need for interdisciplinary training, the establishment of research centres, the creation of knowledge exchange hubs, and the development of multidisciplinary courses. Funding is an essential prerequisite for implementing strategies that develop collaboration in biodiversity research and education. Experts interviewed on the topic of potential pathways to collaboration were asked: “How do you think HEIs can better support and incentivize interdisciplinary collaboration in biodiversity research and education?” and their responses were categorized into five key themes (Table 20). Deliverable 1.1 -103Table 20 Key themes to identify the support and incentives for interdisciplinary collaboration in biodiversity research and education Key Themes Description Funding and incentives The importance of dedicated funding for interdisciplinary projects was mentioned. Joint grants funding should be developed to support collaborations across departments and institutions. This is important to encourage sustained interdisciplinary work. Almost as important is formal recognition. Ensuring that individuals are rewarded for their contributions to crossdisciplinary research and teaching. Structural and institutional support Embedding interdiscipli nary collaboration into the standard framework of universities is necessary. Project-based collaborations exist, a more systemic approach is needed to ensure this as an integral part of academic life. Providing faculties with time and resources to engage in such collaborations is one of the suggestions. Cultural and interpersonal factors This theme is alike but not the same as the one mentioned before. Individuals often step out of the standard framework and take the initiative to collaborate between departments. There is a need for more encouragement and freedom to facilitate this. This can be done through seminars, workshops, or informal networking events, to explore common interests and potential collaborations. Curriculum and educational programs Interdisciplinary projects and collaborations between faculties in the standard curriculum is a means to support this. Interdisciplinary collaboration should not be limited to research but should be a regular part of students' educational experiences. LLs or project-based assignments are mentioned as a practical approach to interdisciplinarity. External engagement Engaging external stakeholders such as local communities, indigenous groups, politics and activists in research projects is another suggestion. These partnerships would not only bring different perspectives to the table but also help apply interdisciplinary research to realworld biodiversity issues, ensuring broader societal impact. The table highland five fundamental themes that are imperative for facilitating and incentivizing interdisciplinary collaboration within the domains of biodiversity research and education. Funding and incentives are recognized as pivotal, advocating for the establishment of dedicated joint grant funding mechanisms. Structural and institutional support underscores the necessity of assimilating interdisciplinary collaboration into the university's framework, thereby guaranteeing that faculty possess the requisite time and resources. Cultural and interpersonal factors accentuate the significance of nurturing informal collaboration via workshops, seminars, and networking events. Curriculum and educational programs advocate for the integration of interdisciplinary collaboration within student experiences, proposing LLs and project-based assignments as viable methodologies. External engagement advocates for the formation of partnerships with external stakeholders to enhance perspectives and ensure the tangible impact of interdisciplinary biodiversity research. To further explore potential pathways for collaboration, experts were asked: “What strategies do you believe are effective in promoting interdisciplinary collaboration between universities and TVET institutions for the integration of NBS into HE programs?” Deliverable 1.1 -104The responses from the interviewees were searched for recurring topics with a focus on actionable steps that facilitate collaboration through practical initiatives. The themes that emerged were skills development and market relevance, funding and incentives, curriculum development and integration, and real-world projects and industry engagement (Table 21). Table 21 Key themes to identify strategies for promoting interdisciplinary collaboration between universities and TVET institutions for integrating NBS into HE programs Key Themes Description Skills Development and Market Relevance Focus on developing skills that are relevant to the job market and align educational programs with real-world needs, particularly around NBS. This includes emphasizing interdisciplinary thinking, conceptual skills, and creative problem-solving. Funding and Incentives Adequate financial support is needed, including reducing administrative burdens and funding for coordination. Also providing incentives (financial, and profes sional recognition) to motivate faculty and institutions will help establishing successful programs. Curriculum Development and Integration Jointly develop interdisciplinary curricula that combine theoretical and practical aspects. This includes integrati ng NBS topics into existing courses and ensuring longterm inclusion of sustainability in both university and TVET programs. Real-World Projects and Industry Engagement Engage students and faculty in community-based or industry-linked NBS projects. Partne r with the private sector to ensure the practical application of skills and knowledge and use pilot projects or success stories to demonstrate the benefits of interdisciplinary approaches. Respondents to the online survey were invited to consider the question: “What motivated or encouraged the institution to initiate or participate in such a collaboration?” The answers to this multiple-choice question are summarised in Figure 39. Figure 39 Online survey respondents’ responses on what motivated or encouraged the institution to initiate or participate in collaborations, in percentage The data indicates that the primary motivations for institutions to engage in interdisciplinary collaboration are the development of new partnerships and collaboration schemes (59.7 %) and the ability to access funding opportunities (55.6 %). Deliverable 1.1 -105Additionally, institutions are motivated by the potential for increased societal (55.6%) and environmental impact (52,8%), as well as the opportunity to share knowledge (50.0%) and influence strategic research and innovation agendas on NBS (44.4%). Workforce development, while important, is a lower priority compared to these broader collaborative goals. Overall, institutions are driven by a combination of practical (funding, partnerships) and impactoriented (societal, environmental) factors when deciding to participate in interdisciplinary collaborations. Both survey and interview data about pathways for interdisciplinary collaboration reflect the importance of building partnerships between universities and TVET institutions, encouraging joint efforts on projects, maintaining communication and working together with outside partners. Crossinstitutional partnerships is one of the most important factors in promoting interdisciplinary collaboration, supported by funding, incentives and open communication channels. Student-focused projects where university and TVET students collaborate on practical NBS, together with real-world partners is highlighted in both results. These kinds of real challenges for students are important. Interdisciplinary collaboration should focus on developing practical skills that students can apply in above mentioned real-world situations. The value of developing joint curricula and educational pathways as a means of fostering interdisciplinary collaboration is supported by the survey participants and interview answers. Institutional support, funding and incentives is essential for initiatives to succeed. This is further supported by the importance of leveraging technology and network platforms to facilitate interdisciplinary communication and learning. 5.3.4 Identifying existing good practices This section presents the results of the online survey and expert interviews focused on good examples of integrating NBS into academic and TVETs. The survey provides quantitative data on how these institutions implement NBS, while the interviews offer practical insights from those involved in these efforts. Combining both perspectives, highlights effective strategies, successful projects, and the challenges that still need to be addressed to enhance NBS adoption in education. To identify good practices related to the integration of NBS in HE and TVET, respondents of the online survey were asked to: “Evaluate which of the following exercised at your institution as good practices on the interdisciplinary collaboration and university-TVET collaboration”. The goal was to highlight activities that have successfully incorporated NBS principles. Understanding these practices is important for building a knowledge base and collection of strategies that other institutions can adapt to implement NBS. Survey responses were organized into 6 main categories of exemplary practices: 1. Environmental Conservation and Restoration Projects 2. Urban Planning and Development Projects 3. Disaster Resilience and Risk Management Training 4. Renewable Energy Technology Integration and Disaster Resilience 5. Water Resource Management Initiatives 6. Green Building Design and Construction Programs Deliverable 1.1 -112challenges. However, the success of such collaborations depends on several factors, including institutional support, financial resources, and effective communication channels. 1. The importance of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration is clear, with over 50% of respondents emphasizing the need for involvement from both academic and nonacademic actors. Major obstacles to this are differences in terminology and a lack of unified strategy between HEIs and TVETs limit collaboration. Institutional barriers, time constraints, and resource limitations also hinder effective knowledge transfer. 2. Secure funding, established research centres, interdisciplinary training and creating knowledge-sharing platforms are essential to improve collaboration. 3. Several successful case studies in environmental conservation, disaster resilience, renewable energy integration, and water resource management underscore the value of joint curriculum development, real-world projects, and strong partnerships between universities, TVET institutions, and external stakeholders. 4. Recommendations to support collaboration on NBS are evident from the obstacles to collaboration identified by the survey and should focus on enhancing institutional support by developing unified strategies between universities and TVET institutions, including structural and financial backing, interdisciplinary curricula, and joint research hubs. 5. Strengthening funding and incentives is crucial for sustaining interdisciplinary projects, with long-term financial support and incentives for faculty and students. Building crossinstitutional partnerships between academia, industry, and policymakers in accordance with the quintuple helix model will bridge the gap between theory and practice, improving the real-world application of NBS. Additionally, promoting interdisciplinary education through cross-listed courses, joint degree programs, and student mobility will cultivate the skills needed to address biodiversity challenges. 6. The results reveals diverse expert views on NBS in HE, highlighting its broad and sometimes ambiguous nature, often linked to sustainability themes like biodiversity and climate adaptation. Experts stress the need for interdisciplinary approaches, involving fields such as biology, social sciences, and the arts, to address complex environmental challenges. There is support for integrating NBS into curricula, blending theory with practice, incorporating traditional knowledge, and fostering cultural and ethical discussions. Additionally, experts suggest universities can be research hubs for NBS partnerships, emphasize ecosystem-based approaches, and explore technological and engineering solutions inspired by natural processes. Final Thoughts There are clear opportunities to enhance collaboration between universities and TVET institutions. By addressing the obstacles identified by the survey and leveraging successful strategies, these institutions can play a pivotal role in fostering sustainable responses to global environmental challenges through the implementation of NBS. As mentioned in some parts of the report, LLs are means to achieve successful NBS. LLs are open and dynamic ecosystems that could operationalize the need for changes identified in this report, serving as platforms for transdisciplinary collaboration, knowledge transfer, and real-world application of NBS. They show how universities and TVET institutions can work with external stakeholders to address global environmental challenges through practical, co-created responses to societal challenges such as food and water security, flood and health risks. By enhancing institutional support, fostering partnerships, and leveraging government backing, LLs offer a model for how the findings from the survey can be realized, driving sustainability education and innovation forward. Deliverable 1.1 -1136 NBS awareness and perceptions across society 6.1 Introduction By conducting a comprehensive online survey across partners' networks, Task 1.2 sought to provide an updated overview of nature-based solutions (NBS) positioning in society. Its objective was to gain a thorough understanding of the awareness, perceptions, concerns, preferences, and motivations regarding biodiversity loss, its socio-ecological and economic consequences, the potential of NBS for biodiversity conservation and climate resilience, and its impact on health and well-being among various stakeholders within the quintuple helix. This encompassed higher education (HE), Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET), professional circles, and society at large. A particular focus was on social groups in need, ensuring inclusivity at both regional/national and pan-European levels, and students and the youth, who appear to be considered as more ecologically aware and open to innovative approaches, enabling a comparison with other age groups. The results of this survey are intended to contribute to the knowledge base for the development of the Living Labs (LLs), which are an integral part of ENABLS and, in turn, address the stakeholders of the quintuple helix. Chapter 6.2 explains the hypotheses and the research questions of this survey. Chapter 6.3 describes the methodology for the different question types used in the survey and state the ethical considerations. Chapter 6.4 depicts the results proceeding from the stakeholder groups of the quintuple helix. Chapter 6.5 concludes this passage with a summary of key findings, implications, and actionable insights. 6.2 Hypotheses Based on the points outlined in the introduction, the following research hypotheses have been formulated for Task 1.2. For each hypothesis, a corresponding research question (or sets of questions) has been developed: Question: How do individuals in the EU within HE, TVET, professional sectors, and society at large, perceive biodiversity and NBS? What is their specific awareness and understanding of these topics? Hypothesis: Awareness and perception of biodiversity and NBS among individuals in the EU are generally limited. Question: Do an individual's origin, educational level, or age influence their awareness and perception of biodiversity and NBS (for example, are individuals aged 29 and younger more ecologically aware and receptive to innovative approaches compared to other age groups)? Hypothesis: Individuals with different educational levels and backgrounds have uneven levels of awareness and perception of biodiversity and NBS, with higher educational attainment and urban backgrounds likely leading to greater awareness and a more favourable perception of these topics. Younger individuals, particularly those aged 29 and below, are more ecologically aware and open to innovative approaches like NBS than older age groups. Question: How do different companies, institutions, and organizations perceive the challenges of biodiversity loss and climate change? Are they currently taking actions to address these issues? What types of job candidates do they require to succeed in combating these issues? Hypothesis: Different companies, institutions, and organizations of all legal forms and sizes perceive biodiversity loss and climate change as significant challenges. While they are already taking steps to address these issues, they increasingly seek candidates with interdisciplinary and sustainabilityfocused skills to drive these efforts forward. Deliverable 1.1 -1146.3 Methodology 6.3.1 Overview The methodology as set out in this chapter outlines the procedures for conducting both quantitative and qualitative analyses of the Task 1.2 questionnaire on NBS awareness and perceptions across society. The methods are based on scientific principles, the chosen techniques have been justified accordingly. The goal was to ensure that the data collected is analysed thoroughly and accurately to inform future actions on biological diversity and NBS. Quantitative analysis was used for questions that have fixed-choice answers, such as one-choice questions, multiple-choice questions, yes/no-questions, questions in Likert response format, and socio-demographic questions. These data types were analysed using statistical methods to identify trends, correlations, and differences among respondent groups. The methodology is presented in chapters 6.3.3.1 to 6.3.3.3 and focus on 27 questions in total. Qualitative analysis was applied to open-ended questions, which required coding responses into categories or themes. This analysis helped in understanding the deeper insights and perceptions of the respondents. The methodology is presented in chapter 6.3.3.4 and focuses on two questions in total. Apart from the methodology described, chapter 6.3.2 elaborates on ethical considerations, data collection, and data preparation. The section concludes with chapter 6.3.4, which presents the overall methodological challenges and offers recommendations for addressing these in future surveys. 6.3.2 Ethical considerations, Data collection, Data preparation 6.3.2.1 Ethical considerations To ensure that the rights and well-being of participants are protected, we adhered to the following guidelines and key aspects and displayed them within the first three sections (“Introduction”, “Instructions”, “Consent”) and the last section (“Farewell”) of our online questionnaire. Figures of the respective sections are displayed in Appendix X. Transparency: In the sections “Introduction” and “Instructions” we explained the purpose of the survey, how the data will be used, and who is conducting the research to be sure that participants are fully aware of what their participation entails. Also, we ensured transparency by documenting our methodology, including the processes of data collection, cleaning, analysis, and results in this chapter of our deliverable D1.1 about Task 1.2 as a whole. Data protection: We ensured that participants' data is kept confidential. The survey was anonymous, and where needed (for instance within the frame of open questions) personal identifiers were removed or anonymized. We complied with relevant data protection laws and thus adhered to the EU Data Protection Policy regarding the collection, storage, and use of personal data. We stored the data securely to protect it from unauthorized access or breaches and also clarified the details regarding the deletion process. All of these points were clarified in the section “Instructions” in our online questionnaire. Consent process: In that same section we also pointed out that participation is voluntary. In the section “Consent” we further included a consent form that participants had to agree to before proceeding. With this form, we ensured that participants were of legal age to consent to the survey and also provided them with a possibility to withdraw from participation by clicking “I do not agree to participate”, which was question 0 (Q0) of the questionnaire. Also, withdrawal was possible at any point throughout the survey without penalty. Data minimization: When creating the questionnaire, we emphasized collecting only the data necessary for the research objectives, avoiding any unnecessary socio-demographic information. We included only questions essential to our research and made them optional, allowing Deliverable 1.1 -115participants to skip these questions if they chose to. For additional details about this process, see chapter 6.3.3.1. Sensitive questions: We considered the potential psychological impact of the questions and avoided content that could cause distress or discomfort to participants, particularly regarding the climate crisis and the loss of biodiversity. We aimed to present the facts while also offering a positive outlook, encouraging participants by emphasizing that their voices matter and that they can contribute to making a positive change. Diversity: As explained in chapter 6.3.2.2, we implemented measures to reach a diverse population to avoid sampling bias and to ensure that the results are representative. Also, we aimed to use language that is inclusive and unbiased. Contact information: We provided contact details for participants to ask questions or express concerns about our survey. In the “Introduction” and “Farewell” sections, we encouraged participants to stay in touch with us by writing to us, subscribing to our social media channels, or signing up for our newsletter. This way, they had the opportunity to receive a summary of the survey results. 6.3.2.2 Data collection For the survey, a critical deliverable was the collection of at least 1,000 survey responses from employees, students, professional associations, NGOs, local authorities, and other relevant groups, with surveys available in both English and the partners' national languages. All partners contributed to this task, while the University of Hohenheim (UHOH) took the lead in designing questionnaire and methodology and compiled the report detailing NBS awareness and perceptions across society as set out in the following chapters and in the Appendix (from Appendix VIII to Appendix X). The questionnaire has been built up, managed, and distributed online by using the online survey tool “EUSurvey” (https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/home/welcome) for data collection and survey management. It has been translated into all EU languages plus, additionally, into Arabic, Turkish, and Ukrainian. The latter three have been translated by a translation agency. All other versions have automatically been translated by EUSurvey and then double checked by an ENABLS consortium partner. The survey was running from 05.06.2024 until 31.08.2024. Regarding the sample, we aimed to target a diverse demographic to ensure comprehensive representation. To achieve this, we sought to distribute the survey to various stakeholder groups through the entire Consortium. We provided the consortium partners with relevant information materials, including an invitation template in both English and the partners’ national languages, as well as a sheet with instructions on how to distribute the survey (“How-to Survey”). This sheet introduced three methods for spreading the survey (excerpt) as can be found in Figure 46. Figure 46 The three ways to spread the Task 1.2 survey We further gave an overview of all stakeholders we sought to address with the survey and encouraged partners to send the survey to such stakeholders in their professional and private networks: Deliverable 1.1 -116Table 23 Overview of stakeholders addressed with the Task 1.2 survey Professional sector (“Business”) Groups of people Members of the middle and higher management and representatives such as owners, directors, division managers, project managers, team leaders, forest managers, farm owners, landowners, etc. Organizations Companies, authorities, organisations, associations, projects, initiatives Sectors Agriculture, Business Administration, Chemicals, Construction, Crafts & Trade, Culture & Arts, Education, Engineering, Fashion & Design, Financial Services, Fishing, Forestry, Healthcare, Humanitarian A id, Hospitality, Information Technology, Journalism & Publishing, Law, Manufacturing, Marketing & Advertisement, Mining, Nature Protection, Politics, Processing, Rescue Services, Retail, Safety & Security, Social Services, Sports, Transportation & Logistics, Unions, Welfare Society at large (“Public”) Groups of people People in need: Migrants, young people (over 18 years), blind people, deaf people, old people, poor people, etc. Employees: Doctors, nursing staff, assistants, cleaners, janitors, civil servants, public service employees, schoolteachers, kindergarten teachers, music schoolteachers, social workers, sports club trainers, etc. Organisations Nature protection: Nature conservation planning offices, nature conservation authorities, nature conservation associations, nature conservation NPOs and NGOs , climate activists, etc. Social Sector: Hospitals, doctors' surgeries, health care centers, rescue organisations, technical assistance, social welfare offices, municipalities / public administration, welfare carriers, deaf & blind people’s organisations, refugees' organisations, food banks, poor people’s & homeless people’s organisations / salvation army, community centers, youth centers, youth organisations, sports clubs, kindergartens, etc. Sectors Just as above under “Professional sector”, “Sectors” Universities and TVET (“Academia & Research”) Groups of people Students, pupils in professional training schools, teachers, researchers, managers (deans, chancellors, presidents), administrative employees, etc. Organisations Universities and TVET schools Sectors Applied Sciences, Health Sciences, Humanities, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences In the questionnaire, data was collected through three or four sections (depending on the participants' job status) that followed the sections outlined in chapter 6.3.2.1. The sections “Awareness & Perceptions” and “Needs & Expectations” were mandatory for all participants, focusing on the survey's core content and aiming to understand participants' awareness, perceptions, needs, and expectations regarding biological diversity and NBS. The third section, “General Information”, gathered general socio-demographic information and was open to all participants; however, the questions were not mandatory (see chapter 6.3.3.1 for further details). The final section, “Questions for Companies, Institutions, and Organisations”, was specifically targeted at representatives of the bodies named. Within each section, the data was categorized based on individual questions to facilitate targeted analysis. For an overview of the sections mentioned in this paragraph, please see Appendix X, where the full questionnaire is attached. 6.3.2.3 Data preparation Data preparation for the quantitative analysis Deliverable 1.1 -117The data preparation for the quantitative analysis involved a thorough review and cleaning process to ensure data quality and consistency. Below are the specific steps taken to handle missing values, anonymize data, and standardize responses: • We anonymized the data by removing any identifying information. • We ensured that the data was free from missing values. This process involved 1) removing incomplete responses (we did not impute data to complete the dataset; instead, incomplete responses appear as “no answer”) and 2) removing responses where we did not receive consent to participate (defined by Q0 as the starting question). • For participants who chose “Other” in Q16, Q17, Q18, and Q20 (see full questionnaire in Appendix X for the questions), we assigned permissible values where appropriate (e.g., “Diploma” → “Master’s degree” since these values correspond). For responses where, sensible mapping was not possible, we assigned “No Answer.” Open answers in the language of partner countries were translated into English by the ENABLS Consortium partners. Answers we received in English were only corrected for spelling while the syntax was not changed. • Based on Arnett’s findings on age-related developmental stages, we aggregated participants into two groups: those aged 29 years and below, and those aged 30 years and above (Arnett 2000, pp. 469-472). As a result, out of the 1,093 participants who took part in the survey, we ended up with 1,084 valid entries. Eight participants did not agree to participate, and one faulty entry was deleted during the data preparation process. Data preparation for the qualitative analysis The qualitative data analysis process involved several key steps to ensure that the information gathered was accurately captured, organized, and interpreted according to the research objectives. Below is an outline of the measures taken: • Together with the partners of the ENABLS consortium, we translated specific responses related to the two questions outlined in chapter 6.3.3.4. These translations were crucial for maintaining consistency in understanding and analysing responses that were not in the primary language of the research. • We reviewed the gathered data to gain an initial understanding of the content. This helped us identify preliminary patterns and themes that might emerge from the responses and prepared the groundwork for more structured analysis. • During data cleaning, we refined the quality of the qualitative data. Irrelevant or unclear responses were removed to focus only on meaningful content that aligned with the research objectives. This ensured that the analysis was based on accurate and reliable information. • A coding scheme was developed to systematically categorize and organize the responses. An inductive coding process was employed, allowing themes to emerge naturally from the data rather than being predefined. This approach enabled the development of themes closely aligned with the research objectives and accurately reflected the participants' perspectives. Q9 and Q12, the two qualitative questions in the survey, were designed to gather open-ended, textbased responses about awareness, concerns, perceptions, and actions towards NBS, biodiversity, and climate change. Out of the 1,093 participants, 535 responded to Q9 (non-mandatory). These 535 responses were screened, and responses that were not relevant for the analysis (e.g., “0”, “Yes”, “No”, Deliverable 1.1 -118as well as responses for which no codes could be established — e.g., “Yes, everything concerns me”, “I am not worried”, etc.) were excluded. Finally, a total of 407 responses were included in the analysis for Q9. Similarly, a total of 488 respondents participated in Q12 (non-mandatory), and a similar screening process was employed, resulting in 408 relevant responses. Hence, the figures and percentages represented in the analysis results are respective to the number of relevant responses used for the final coding. 6.3.3 Data analysis and study design per question This chapter is divided into four sections following the segmentation of the questionnaire as stated in chapter 6.3.2.2 – but aggregated and in a different order: 6.3.3.1 Socio-demographic questions 6.3.3.2 Awareness & Perceptions/Needs & Expectations concerning biological diversity and NBS 6.3.3.3 Specific questions for representatives of companies, institutions, and organizations 6.3.3.4 Free-text questions 6.3.3.1 Socio-demographic questions For the online questionnaire, we chose not to begin with the socio-demographic section. However, we are including it at the beginning now to align with the structure in chapter 6.4, where we will detail the results. This approach provides an overview of our participants at the outset. In the questionnaire, we moved the socio-demographic section to the third part (see chapter 6.3.2.2 and the full questionnaire in Appendix X) to minimize the risk of participants abandoning the survey, as there is evidence that people may hesitate to provide this kind of data (Tourangeau and Yan 2007, p. 861). Additionally, all questions in this section were optional. In the questionnaire, we introduced this section with the following accompanying text: “Providing this information is voluntary but very helpful. It allows us to identify trends and patterns, making our data more accurate and ensuring the survey is inclusive and representative. Policymakers can use this information to tailor programs, and it helps explain why certain responses are common. Just like the information you have provided up until now, the information in this section cannot be traced back to you.” Details about the method for questions Q15-22 Method: Frequencies Description: We calculated the absolute and the relative frequency, the latter expressed in percentage, of each response to look for trends and significant demographic differences. As a mode of presentation, we opted for bar charts per question. We summarized the age data (Q15) to describe the respondent profile, the country data to describe the geographic distribution of respondents (Q16), the residence data (urban/rural) to describe the living environment of respondents (Q17), the education data to describe the educational background of respondents (Q18), the job status data to describe the employment status of respondents (Q19), the professional/personal knowledge about nature (Q20), the income data to describe the economic status of respondents (Q21), and the job sector data to describe the professional background of respondents (Q22). The answer option “Other (please specify)” was handled by providing an overview of the input for each applicable question, without conducting a qualitative evaluation in this instance. Tools: Python packages: scipy, pandas. Source: Frankfort-Nachmias et al. 2020, pp. 27-47 Deliverable 1.1 -1196.3.3.2 Awareness & Perceptions, Needs & Expectations This chapter focuses on the methodology for the sections in the questionnaire revolving around the analysis of Awareness & Perceptions and Needs & Expectations concerning biological diversity and NBS. In our analysis, we also evaluate the responses of some questions in relation to sociodemographic data as stated in chapter 6.3.3.1. One-choice Questions – Details about the methods we applied to Q1, Q7, and Q13 Method 1: Frequencies Description: We calculated the absolute and the relative frequency, the latter expressed in percentage, of each response to determine the most common understanding of biological diversity (Q1) and NBS (Q7) among respondents as well as to understand public opinion on policy impact by looking for consensus or significant disagreement (Q13). Tools: Python packages: scipy, pandas. Source: Frankfort-Nachmias et al. 2020, pp. 27-47 Method 2: Contingency Table Description: Additionally, we calculated the frequencies of the response options as selected above in relation to age (Q15; aggregated into two bins of people aged below 29 years and people aged 30 years and above), ENABLS partner countries (Q16; selection of the 7 partner countries), regional variations (Q17; urban/rural), education level (Q18; aggregated into five bins: 1) higher education (Bachelor, Master, professional degree), 2) up to secondary education (secondary/middle school or equivalent, no graduation), 3) doctorate degree, 4) trade school/vocational training, 5) high school degree or equivalent), and professional/personal knowledge about nature (Q20). Tools: Python packages: scipy, pandas. Sources: Bryman and Bell 2019, pp. 181-182; Agresti and Finlay 2009, pp. 221–234 For Q1, answer 1 was the correct answer and we considered the other answers wrong. We based this on the definition of biodiversity, which we also stated in the questionnaire. However, the definition only appeared once participants had already answered Q1. The definition reads as follows: Explanation: Biological diversity, or biodiversity, means all the different kinds of life on Earth, including plants, animals, fungi, and even tiny organisms like bacteria. Genetic diversity is the differences within a species, which helps it adapt and survive. Species diversity means all different species in one area, which keeps nature balanced. Ecosystem diversity means having different types of natural areas like forests, wetlands, and oceans, each supporting various forms of life (IUCN 2000; IPBES no date). For Q7, we followed the same process as for Q1. Here, answer 1 was the correct answer as well and we considered the other answers wrong. We based this on the definition of NBS, which we also stated in the questionnaire. Just like for Q1, the definition only appeared once participants had already answered Q7. The definition reads as follows: Explanation: NBS use natural processes to tackle challenges like climate change, food and water security, and disaster risks. They protect, restore, and manage ecosystems in ways that benefit both people and the environment. NBS combine traditional and natural methods to create adaptable, costeffective solutions tailored to local needs. They integrate nature into cities and other areas, promoting sustainability and resilience for a better future (IUCN, 2020; European Commission, 2023) Multiple-choice Questions – Details about the method we applied to Q3, Q4, Q5, and Q8 Method: Multiple Response Analysis Deliverable 1.1 -120Description: We analysed the absolute and the relative frequency of each reason selected for each question while all reasons were permissible. The answer options “I’m not sure” and “No Answer” form a separate category. The answer option “Other (please specify)” was handled by providing an overview of the input for each applicable question, without conducting a qualitative evaluation in this instance. Tools: Python packages: scipy, pandas. Source: Bryman and Bell 2019, pp. 170-196 For Q5, all answers were correct (just like for the other questions in this section, as stated under “Method 1” above). We based the answer options in this case on the definition of the importance of biodiversity, which we also stated in the questionnaire. However, the definition only appeared once participants had already answered Q5. The definition reads as follows: Explanation: Biological diversity is important for keeping nature healthy and supporting human life by providing us with clean water, fertile soil, and pollinated plants, which are essential for food. It also has economic, cultural, and recreational value. However, human activities such as cutting down forests, polluting, and overfishing are causing the loss if biological diversity, which threatens these benefits (IPBES 2019; Cardinale et al. 2012). Yes/No Questions – Details about the method we applied to Q2 and Q6 Method: Frequencies and Contingency Table Description: We calculated the absolute and the relative frequency, the latter expressed in percentage, in relation to age (Q15; aggregated into two bins of people aged below 29 years and people aged 30 years and above), ENABLS partner countries (Q16; selection of the 7 partner countries), regional variations (Q17; urban/rural), education level (Q18; aggregated into five bins, see chapter 6.3.3.2), and professional/personal knowledge about nature (Q20). Tools: Python packages: scipy, pandas. Sources: Frankfort-Nachmias et al. 2020, pp. 27-47; Bryman and Bell 2019, pp. 181-182; Agresti and Finlay 2009, pp. 221–234 For Q6, we also provided participants with a list of synonyms for the term NBS to help them determine whether they had previously encountered an NBS. The list has been compiled by experts from the ENABLS Consortium. “Other words and descriptions for NBS: • Biodiversity conservation • Blue-green infrastructure • Climate change adaptation • Climate change mitigation • Ecological resilience approaches • Ecological restoration • Ecosystem-based approaches • Ecosystem services • European green infrastructure • Green design • Green engineering solutions • Green infrastructure approaches • Green structures • Natural climate solutions • Natural infrastructure • Natural resource-based strategies • Nature-based planning Deliverable 1.1 -121- • Nature-inspired solutions • Nature-based thinking • Nature-positive solutions • Regenerative practices • Regenerative design“ Questions in Likert Response Format – Details about the methods we applied to Q10, Q11, and Q14 Method 1: Median and Frequencies Description: For the analysis of our Likert-type data, we followed Boone & Boone and applied statistical methods that are appropriate for ordinal data since we did an individual analysis of each Likert item. For ordinal measurement, we calculated the median for central tendency and the frequency for the distribution of the answers to understand the overall agreement/disagreement. We identified actions to protect biodiversity with high agreement and those with significant disagreement (Q10), the perceived most and least responsible entities (Q11), and the actions that are most likely to encourage involvement (Q14). The answer option “Other (please specify)” was handled by providing an overview of the input for each applicable question, without conducting a qualitative evaluation in this instance. Tools: Python packages: scipy, pandas. Sources: Frankfort-Nachmias, C. et al. 2020, pp. 27-47; Weiss 2012, pp. 90-92; Boone and Boone 2012, p. 4 Method 2: Contingency Table Description: Additionally, we analysed each item in relation to age (Q15; aggregated into two bins of people aged below 29 years and people aged 30 years and above), ENABLS partner countries (Q16; selection of the 7 partner countries), and education level (Q18; aggregated into five bins, see chapter 6.3.3.2). Tools: Python packages: scipy, pandas. Sources: Bryman and Bell 2019, pp. 181-182; Agresti and Finlay 2009, pp. 221–234 6.3.3.3 Questions for Companies, Institutions, and Organisations This chapter focuses on the methodology for the final section of the questionnaire, which specifically targets representatives and/or members of middle or higher management in companies, institutions, or organizations. Since this section was designed as a distinct part of the questionnaire, participants were required to answer Q23. If the response was “No”, the survey was terminated. If the response was “Yes”, the final section was made available for completion. Therefore, Q23 is excluded from the analysis. One-choice Questions – Details about the methods we applied to Q28 and Q29 The following questions, Q28 and Q29, are intended as additional socio-demographic questions for companies, institutions, and organizations. These questions inquire about the legal form and size of the organization, aiming to provide a brief socio-demographic profile of these entities. Method: Frequencies Description: We calculated the absolute and the relative frequency, the latter expressed in percentage, of each response to describe the types of organisations represented (Q28) and to evaluate the distribution of organisation sizes of our participants in this part of the questionnaire (Q29). Deliverable 1.1 -128Figure 48 Countries of residence of survey participants (Q16) 714 participants (66%) reported living in urban areas, 360 participants (33%) in rural areas, and 10 participants (1%) did not specify their residency (Figure 49). Figure 49 Residency of survey participants (Q17) The results on the educational level (Figure 50) show that 35% of participants (375 people) held a professional degree (PD, such as JD or MD), 24% (258 people) a master’s degree, 13% (136 people) completed trade school or vocational training, 5% (55 people) held a bachelor’s degree, 4% (42 people) had a PhD, and 3% (35 people) had a high school diploma or equivalent. Additionally, 4% (44 people) did not have any formal graduation, and 12% (134 people) preferred not to answer the question. Deliverable 1.1 -129Figure 50 Educational background of survey participants (Q18) The job status (Figure 51) of the majority of respondents, 389 individuals (36%), identified themselves as employees. This was followed by 174 students, making up 16% of the total sample. A smaller proportion of respondents, 101 individuals (9%) indicated that they are civil servants and 103 participants (9%) were self-employed. 81 participants (7%) were identified as retirees and 64 participants (6%) as workers. 34 participants were unemployed (3%), and those in care work or stayat-home roles represented 1% (9 participants). The management categories were also represented, with 49 respondents (5%) in middle management and 29 respondents (3%) in higher management. Additionally, 52 individuals (5%) indicated a role that did not fit into any of the predefined categories. Deliverable 1.1 -130Figure 51 Current job status of survey participants (Q19) The largest proportion of respondents, 122 individuals (11%), work in the education sector, followed by 111 participants (10%) in natural sciences, and 91 participants (8%) in nature protection. Several other sectors were also notably represented: 77 participants (7%) indicated that they work in agriculture, while 55 participants (5%) work in engineering, and 54 participants (5%) in social sciences. The healthcare sector accounted for 47 participants (4%), while 41 participants (4%) work in forestry. Smaller but still notable sectors include information technology (31 participants, 3%) and financial services (31 participants, 3%). Various other sectors had fewer participants, representing between 0% and 3% of the total respondents. Overall, the data shows that the survey sample includes a broad range of sectors, with education, natural sciences, and nature protection being the most prominent. The basic understanding of nature from the survey participants was revealed with the question “Does your profession/daily activity give you a basic understanding of nature?” (Figure 52). A total of 442 participants (41%) selected “strongly agree”, while 316 people (29%) selected “agree”. Meanwhile, 149 people (14%) responded with “I am not sure”, 119 people (11%) disagreed, and 41 people (4%) strongly disagreed. Deliverable 1.1 -131Figure 52 Understanding of nature of survey participants (Q20) Additional plots showing the average income of our survey participants as well as their current or former job or study field can be found in Appendix VIII. 6.4.2 Awareness of individuals on biodiversity and NBS (evaluation of research question a) For our research question a, “How do individuals in the EU within HE, TVET, professional sectors, and society at large, perceive biodiversity and NBS? What is their specific awareness and understanding of these topics?”, we divided the results chapter 6.4.2 into the following parts: • Results on how people perceive biodiversity and NBS (6.4.2.1) • Findings on the importance of biodiversity, explores the causes and consequences of biodiversity loss and the benefits of NBS (6.4.2.2) • Insights in concerns about the climate crisis and biodiversity loss, along with individual actions aiming at conserving biodiversity (6.4.2.3) 6.4.2.1 Results on how individuals perceive biodiversity and NBS For the question on what biological diversity is (Figure 53), out of the total 1,084 respondents, 944 (87%) provided the correct definition, indicating that they clearly understand biological diversity. Deliverable 1.1 -132Figure 53 Correct and wrong responses to “What is biological diversity?” (Q1) With our results, we additionally wanted to identify, if people perceive the loss of various types of plants and animals is a local issue (Figure 54). A significant majority of 83% (904 participants) believe that losing different types of plants and animals is a problem in their area. Just 10% (105 participants) answered “No” and 7% (75 participants) indicated uncertainty regarding the issue by answering “I’m not sure”. This depicts a high level of awareness and concern about local biodiversity loss among the respondents. Figure 54 Responses to “Is losing different types of plants and animals a problem in your area?” (Q2) To get the awareness of our participants on NBS, they were asked whether they were familiar with the term NBS (Figure 55). Indeed, 56% (604 respondents) indicated that they had heard of the term by answering “Yes”. 30% (325 respondents) stated they had not heard of NBS. 14% (155 respondents) were uncertain whether they had heard of NBS. These results suggest a moderate level of awareness among participants regarding NBS, indicating that just over half of those surveyed are familiar with the concept. Deliverable 1.1 -133Figure 55 Responses to “Have you heard of the term “Nature-based solutions” (NBS)?” (Q6) Furthermore, participants were asked to select the description they believed best represented the concept of NBS (Figure 56). 743 respondents (69%) provided the correct definition, while 341 (31%) selected an incorrect option. The results indicate that although a majority of respondents (69%) have a clear understanding of what NBS entails, a significant proportion (31%) could not identify the concept. Figure 56 Responses to “What is the closest description of NBS?” (Q7) On the question if new policies could contribute to preserving biodiversity (Figure 57), 799 respondents (73%) either agreed or strongly agreed that new policies would contribute positively to biodiversity conservation. Specifically, 469 participants (43%) strongly agreed, and 330 (30%) agreed with this statement. A notable proportion of participants, 223 (21%), selected the option “I’m not sure”, indicating uncertainty or lack of knowledge regarding the potential effectiveness of policy interventions. Deliverable 1.1 -134Figure 57 Responses to “Would new policies help to save biological diversity?” (Q13) 6.4.2.2 Importance of biodiversity, causes and consequences for the loss of biodiversity, and benefits of NBS As a first step, we asked our participants to identify the reasons why they consider biological diversity important. The top reasons selected by respondents emphasize both ecological and human-centred benefits (Table 24): • Health of nature: This was the most frequently chosen reason, selected by 931 respondents (86%). It reflects a high awareness of the role of biodiversity in supporting natural processes, such as insect pollination, which are crucial for maintaining healthy ecosystems. • Survival of humankind: Chosen by 841 respondents (78%), indicating that many participants perceive biodiversity as essential for human well-being, including the availability of food, safe water, and overall health. • Climate stability: Selected by 836 respondents (77%), emphasizing the role of biodiversity in regulating climate through processes such as carbon storage and temperature balance. • Resilience against natural disasters: Chosen by 763 respondents (70%), this option reflects the understanding that biodiversity helps protect against the impacts of natural disasters, such as floods and soil erosion. Respondents also highlighted other values associated with biodiversity, reflecting its multifaceted significance: • Ethical and moral values: Selected by 748 respondents (69%), this indicates that a majority of participants recognize the intrinsic value of biodiversity and the responsibility to preserve it for future generations. • Economic benefits: Chosen by 602 respondents (56%), demonstrating an awareness of the tangible contributions of biodiversity to sectors such as agriculture and pharmaceuticals. • Educational value: Identified by 588 respondents (54%), showing the perceived importance of biodiversity for learning and understanding natural interactions. • Cultural value: Selected by 580 respondents (54%), suggesting that biodiversity is appreciated for its role in cultural heritage, recreational opportunities, and artistic inspiration. Deliverable 1.1 -135Table 25 presents additional free text responses to why biological diversity is considered important, as provided by survey participants. These open-ended answers give insight into various motivations and perceptions surrounding biodiversity. The key themes include: • Spiritual and aesthetic value: Several participants highlighted the spiritual and innate value of nature, describing a “spiritual connection” with nature and the “divine value of life”. Beauty and enjoyment of diverse natural environments were also emphasized as significant. • Functioning of ecosystems: Some responses focused on ecosystem functioning and stability. Participants mentioned the role of biodiversity in maintaining ecological balance, supporting adaptation to changing conditions, and contributing to the overall stability of life on Earth. Table 24 Result to the question why biological diversity is important (Q3; multiple choices were possible) Why do you think biological diversity is important? Absolut e Percen t 3. Health of nature (e.g., insects pollinating flowers to help them grow) 931 86% 2. Survival of humankind (e.g., availability of food, safe water sources, being healthy) 841 78% 7. Climate stability (e.g., storing carbon, balancing temperatures) 836 77% 8. Resilience against natural disasters (e.g., flood reduction, soil stabilization) 763 70% 1. Ethical and moral values (e.g., all forms of life are valuable, responsibility to future generations) 748 69% 4. Economic benefits (e.g., in the form of agriculture and pharmaceuticals) 602 56% 6. Educational value (e.g., learning opportunities, understanding interactions in nature) 588 54% 5. Cultural value (e.g., cultural heritage, recreational opportunities, inspiration for art) 580 54% 11. Other (please specify) 13 1% 10. I'm not sure 11 1% 9. I don't think biodiversity is important 11 1% Table 25 Free text answers why respondents think biological diversity is important (Q3) Why do you think biological diversity is important? Input language Spiritual connection: we are part of nature and connection with nature I think is important for a meaningful and happy life. English Innate spiritual / divine value of life. English Beauty (more diversity is more enjoyable to be around and discover new things). English The big picture. Many animals and plants cannot survive without symbiosis with others. German Functioning of ecosystems, indicator for this. German Higher biodiversity has a greater potential for nature to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Lithuanian Keeping the natural balance and stability (impact on every organism on the planet). English A biodiversity environment is more pleasant to live in. English Adaptability of ecosystems to changing conditions. German Too many toxins and pollutants in nature (e.g. glyphosate), insect killer vespa velutins nigrithorax. German Improve the species that are in trouble right now, such as the bee and hedgehog. English Human health: The more diverse nature is, the fewer opportunities viruses have to jump to humans (e.g., the Corona pandemic, Spanish flu, Zika virus, avian influenza virus, etc.). This also applies to other diseases, not only those transmitted by animals but also plant diseases and pests in, for example, our food crops. German Ecosystem functioning and intactness. English Deliverable 1.1 -136Subsequently, participants were asked to identify the factors they believe contribute to the loss of biological diversity, again with multiple responses allowed (Table 26). The majority of respondents demonstrated a high level of awareness regarding the major causes of biodiversity loss, selecting pollution, climate change, and deforestation as the top contributing factors: • Pollution was identified by 86% of respondents (935 individuals) as a significant cause of biodiversity loss. Pollution, including plastic waste in oceans, chemicals in rivers, and dirty air, is recognized as one of the most critical threats to ecosystems. • Climate change was noted by 81% of participants (880 individuals). The impact of changing habitats, which affects both animals and plants, was commonly recognized as a major driver of biodiversity loss. • Cutting down forests was highlighted by 79% of respondents (856 individuals). Deforestation, which often involves clearing land for development or agriculture, remains a leading contributor to habitat loss and species decline. • Overfishing was chosen by 77% of respondents (831 individuals), reflecting concerns over the negative impacts on marine life due to excessive fishing activities. • City planning, involving the expansion of cities and soil sealing that reduces natural areas, was selected by 74% of participants (797 individuals). • Agricultural expansion, referring to the conversion of natural areas into farmland, was cited by 70% (758 individuals). • Land degradation from poor land-use practices, such as soil erosion and declining soil fertility, was recognized by 67% (731 individuals). • Harmful non-native species (e.g., invasive animals and plants that disrupt local ecosystems) were chosen by 67% (730 individuals), indicating a widespread understanding of the issues associated with invasive species. • Overhunting and poaching were noted by 63% of respondents (686 individuals), highlighting concerns about the overexploitation of wildlife. • Global trade, which can spread diseases and pests, was also identified by 63% (680 individuals). The open-ended responses on the causes for the loss of biodiversity were numerous (Table 27). They highlight a range of perceptions and underscore the complexity of the issue. We identified the following key themes: • Pollution and pesticides: Pesticides and pollution were frequently mentioned, particularly their harmful effects on plant and insect populations. The use of harmful chemicals is seen as a key driver of biodiversity decline. • Overconsumption and economic growth: Some responses linked overconsumption and current economic models, such as capitalism and consumerism, to biodiversity decline. Participants noted that excessive resource use and prioritizing economic growth are major contributors to environmental degradation. • Human expansion and overpopulation: A frequent theme was human expansion and overpopulation, often described as a significant driver of biodiversity loss. Humans were referred to as an “invasive species”, highlighting the negative impact of growing human demands on natural ecosystems. • Land use practices: Participants pointed to land use methods, especially the shift from traditional extensive grazing to large-scale mowing, which reduces habitat diversity that biodiversity has adapted to over millennia. Deliverable 1.1 -137- • Attitudes toward nature: There was also criticism of the anthropocentric approach in conservation, with nature being valued mainly for its usefulness to humans. Some advocated for recognizing nature as having inherent rights, suggesting it should be considered a “legal entity”. • Infrastructure and habitat fragmentation: Infrastructure development (e.g., roads, urban areas) and overprotection leading to imbalances in ecosystems were also highlighted. Traffic, which fragments habitats and contributes to direct species mortality, was a specific concern. Table 26 Replies regarding causes for the loss of biological diversity (Q4; multiple choices were possible) Which of the following do you think cause the loss of biological diversity? Absolute Percen t 2. Pollution (e.g., plastic waste in oceans, chemicals in rivers, dirty air) 935 86% 3. Climate change (e.g., by changing habitats, which affects animals and plants) 880 81% 1. Cutting down forests (e.g., to build houses or slopes) 856 79% 4. Overfishing (e.g., catching too many fish, harming ocean life) 831 77% 5. City planning (e.g., growing cities and soil sealing reducing natural areas) 797 74% 8. Agricultural expansion (e.g., turning natural areas into farmland) 758 70% 10. Land degradation from poor land use practices (e.g., soil erosion making land less fertile) 731 67% 6. Harmful non-native species (e.g., non-native animals or plants disrupt local nature) 730 67% 7. Overhunting and poaching (e.g., killing too many animals) 686 63% 9. Global trade (e.g., spreading diseases and pests worldwide) 680 63% 12. Other (please specify) 26 2% 11. I'm not sure 6 1% Table 27 Free text answers regarding causes for the loss of biological diversity (Q4) Which of the following do you think cause the loss of biological diversity? Input language At least indirectly: Underlying economic paradigm that is still taught to economics students worldwide and influences business and policy making (based on endless economic growth) and values linked to consumption and identity. English Consumption or better over consumption (we use a lot of cheap stuff which causes depletion of natural resource and causes waste). English Monoculture, roads. English Human activity in general. Finnish Pesticide use. English Overconsumption, especially Western consumerism and the capitalist world order. Finnish In one word: human. Finnish Human separation from the rest of nature causes destructive paradigms. English I see the economy as a whole as one of the biggest drivers of biodiversity loss. Nature is subject to economic rules. We don’t see nature’s intrinsic value, let alone its contribution to the continuity of humanity. Finnish Traffic (especially cars, airplanes), wars, number of humans on the planet. English Overprotection and the lack of decision making in population control when originally protected species overpopulate their native areas and destroy their habitats. English Industry, construction of factories and plants, construction of wind turbines and solar power plants. Lithuanian Out of control idiots working in academia and science. English High percentage of ground area closed-off (buildings, streets, parking space, etc) thus unable to provide for nature. English Deliverable 1.1 -144Figure 61 Detailed summary of the themes for nature and biodiversity conservation (Q12) 6.4.3 Results on how an individual’s origin, educational level, and age influence awareness and perceptions (evaluation of research questions b) For our set of research questions b), “Does an individual's origin, educational level, or age influence people’s awareness and perception of biodiversity and NBS (for example, are individuals aged 29 and younger more ecologically aware and receptive to innovative approaches compared to other age groups)?”, we divided the results section into the following subchapters: • Results on how people perceive biodiversity and NBS depending on their socio-demographic values. For better resolution, the corresponding plots can be found in the Appendix VIII (chapter 6.4.3.1) • Findings on the importance of biodiversity, explores the causes and consequences of biodiversity loss and the benefits of NBS depending on their socio-demographic value (chapter 6.4.3.2). Participants’ responses to the "Other" option for the questions and respective results introduced in Chapter 6.4.3.2 are available in Appendix IX. They provide valuable insights and are strongly recommended for further reading. 6.4.3.1 Results on how individuals perceive biodiversity and NBS in relation to their socio-demographic background On the question on what biological diversity is (Q1), the corresponding plot (see Appendix VIII) presents the distribution of correct and incorrect answers based on demographic factors, including origin (country; urban/rural), education (education level; self-assessed basic understanding of nature), and age. The key findings are as follows: Deliverable 1.1 -145- • Age – young/old: Respondents categorized as “Old” (older than 29, N=743) had a higher percentage of correct answers compared to the “Young” group (younger than 30, N=314). Both groups showed a substantial understanding of biological diversity, but older participants generally demonstrated a better grasp of the concept. • Origin – country of origin: Responses by country reveal that participants from the Netherlands (N=80) showed a particularly high proportion of correct answers. Participants from Germany (N=258), Lithuania (N=155), Greece (N=134), Finland (N=99), and Austria (N=88) generally had a high rate of correct answers. and Czechia (N=145) a particularly high proportion of incorrect answers. However, most respondents across countries demonstrated a good understanding of biological diversity. • Origin – urban/rural setting: Participants from urban areas (N=714) and rural areas (N=360) had a comparable understanding of biological diversity, with a higher percentage of correct answers in both groups. There is no significant difference between urban and rural responses, suggesting that knowledge of biodiversity is relatively consistent across these environments. • Education – education level: Doctorate holders (N=132) and individuals with HE (N=670) had the highest percentage of correct responses, indicating that a higher educational attainment is positively associated with understanding biological diversity. Those with trade school or vocational training (N=55) also displayed a good level of understanding, whereas participants with a high school degree or equivalent (N=135) and participants up to secondary education (N=40) had a noticeably lower proportion of correct answers. • Education – basic understanding of nature: Respondents who strongly agreed (N=442), agreed (N=316), disagreed (N=119), and strongly disagreed (N=41) all showed similar proportions of correct and incorrect answers. Across these groups, the percentage of correct answers is consistently high, suggesting that self-assessment of understanding, whether positive or negative, does not significantly affect the actual ability to accurately define biological diversity. The I'm not sure-group (N=149) showed a slightly lower proportion of correct answers compared to the other groups. This group stands out somewhat, with participants showing less certainty in their understanding and slightly under performing in the task of correctly identifying what biodiversity means. However, the difference is not extreme. With our results, we additionally aimed to identify whether people perceive the loss of various types of plants and animals as a local issue (Q2) considering socio-demographic factors. The corresponding plot can be found in Appendix VIII. The key findings by demographic group are as follows: • Age – young/old: Both “Young” and “Old” respondents have a comparable mix of responses. There is a significant proportion of “Yes” responses in both groups, indicating awareness of biodiversity loss as an issue. The proportions of “No” and “I'm not sure” responses are also quite similar between the groups. This suggests that there is no significant difference in awareness between the younger and older participants. The level of concern appears to be relatively consistent across age groups. • Origin – country of origin: Overall, there is a consistently high level of concern about biodiversity loss across all surveyed countries, with most participants selecting “Yes”. Austria (N=88), Finland (N=99), Lithuania (N=155), and Czechia (N=145) show the strongest awareness, although Austria and Lithuania still have a notable share of “No” responses. Czechia has the fewest “No” responses but also the highest uncertainty, as indicated by the large proportion of “I’m not sure” answers, followed by Finland. Germany (N=258) ranks in the middle, with over 35% selecting “No.” Greece (N=134) and the Netherlands (N=80) have similar levels of “Yes” responses, but the Netherlands has the highest proportion of “No” responses at nearly 40%. Deliverable 1.1 -146- • Origin – urban/rural setting: Urban respondents (N=714) were slightly more likely to respond "Yes" compared to rural respondents (N=360). This indicates a slightly higher level of concern about biodiversity loss among those living in urban environments. • Education – education level: Respondents with trade school or vocational training (N=55) show the largest proportions of both “Yes” and “No” responses, and the lowest for “I’m not sure,” with nearly 60% selecting “Yes,” indicating the highest awareness of biodiversity loss. They are followed by high school graduates (N=135), with significant “Yes” responses but greater uncertainty. Participants with up to secondary education (N=40) and HE (N=670) are similar in “Yes” responses, but differ in uncertainty—secondary education has the most uncertainty, while HE shows more “No” responses. Respondents with a doctorate (N=132) have the lowest “Yes” rate, indicating less concern compared to others, with uncertainty falling in the mid-range. • Education – basic understanding of nature: Participants who strongly agreed (N=442) or agreed (N=316) with having a basic understanding of nature were more likely to respond “Yes”, showing a high level of concern about biodiversity loss. This group demonstrated consistent awareness of the issue. Those who were not sure about their understanding of nature (N=149) had a higher frequency of “No” and “I'm not sure” responses, suggesting less concern or awareness about the issue. Respondents who disagreed (N=119) or strongly disagreed (N=41) about their understanding of nature had by far the lowest proportions of “Yes” responses, indicating that a lack of perceived understanding of nature correlates with a lower level of awareness or concern about biodiversity loss. Considering socio-demography, the plot illustrating the awareness of NBS (Q6) can be found in Appendix VIII. The key findings by demographic group are as follows: • Age – young/old: Older respondents (N=743) demonstrated the highest familiarity, with a majority answering “Yes”. Only a small proportion selected “No” or “I'm not sure”. Younger respondents (N=314) were less familiar with NBS. They had a higher percentage of “No” and “I'm not sure” responses compared to the older group. • Origin – country of origin: Participants from the Netherlands (N=80) demonstrated the highest awareness, with a vast majority answering “Yes”. They were followed by Greece (N=134), which ranked clearly in second place. Participants from Germany (N=258), Finland (N=99), and Austria (N=88) showed slightly lower levels of awareness, with a notable proportion selecting “No” or “I'm not sure”. Lithuania (N=155) and especially Czechia (N=145) demonstrated comparatively lower awareness, with more participants choosing “No” or “I'm not sure” than the other countries. Nevertheless, awareness in these two countries can still be considered good. Overall, the results suggest some variation in awareness levels across countries. • Origin – urban/rural setting: The proportion of “Yes” responses was slightly higher among urban respondents (N=714) compared to those from rural areas (N=360). Rural respondents (N=360) were somewhat less familiar, with more “No” and “I'm not sure” responses. However, the difference between urban and rural respondents is not pronounced, suggesting that awareness of NBS does not vary significantly between these groups. • Education – education level: Awareness of NBS was most pronounced among those with HE or doctoral degrees (N=670 and N=132, respectively), with a high proportion answering “Yes”. Respondents with up to secondary education (N=40) also reported a comparably high rate of “Yes” responses, which suggests that familiarity is not limited to highly educated individuals. In contrast, respondents with trade school or vocational training (N=135) and high school degrees (N=55) showed the highest proportion of “No” and “I'm not sure” responses. • Education – basic understanding of nature: Participants who strongly agreed with having a basic understanding of nature (N=442) demonstrated the highest level of awareness of NBS, Deliverable 1.1 -147with the majority selecting “Yes”. Interestingly, those who disagreed (N=119) ranked second, followed by those who agreed (N=316) and those who were not sure (N=149). Participants who strongly disagreed (N=41) about their understanding of nature had the highest proportion of “No” responses. The understanding of NBS (Q7), based on the investigated socio-demographic data, is illustrated as follows (please find the corresponding plot in Appendix VIII): • Age – young/old: Both the “Old” (N=743) and “Young” (N=314) respondents show similar levels of understanding of NBS, with the correct responses being fairly consistent. However, the younger group has a larger proportion of incorrect answers, suggesting that older respondents tend to have a slightly better understanding of NBS. • Origin – country of origin: Differences in understanding of NBS were also observed across countries. Respondents from Finland (N=99) displayed the highest rates of correct answers, indicating a better understanding of NBS compared to other countries. Germany (N=258), Greece (N=134), the Netherlands (N=80), and Austria (N=88) also showed a strong understanding, although especially for the Netherlands and Austria there was still a significant number of incorrect answers. Lithuania (N=155) had higher proportions of incorrect responses, suggesting a lower level of awareness of NBS in this country. Czechia (N=145) stands out with the largest share of incorrect answers, indicating a need for targeted educational interventions. • Origin – urban/rural setting: Urban respondents (N=714) show a slightly higher rate of correct answers compared to rural respondents (N=360). This suggests that urban participants are more familiar with the concept of NBS. • Education – education level: Respondents with HE levels, such as those with a doctorate degree (N=132) and HE (N=670), show a strong proportion of correct answers. However, incorrect responses are still present, particularly among those with HE. Respondents with trade school or vocational training (N=55) show almost the same results as the group with a PhD. Participants with up to secondary education (N=40) also displayed a relatively strong understanding of NBS, though incorrect answers were also present. The group of high school graduates or equivalent (N=135) had the fewest correct answers compared to the other groups, although they still performed reasonably well. • Education – basic understanding of nature: Self-reported understanding of nature strongly correlates with the ability to correctly identify NBS. Participants who strongly agreed (N=17) or agreed (N=442) that they have a basic understanding of nature were more likely to provide correct answers, suggesting a higher awareness of NBS among those confident in their understanding. Those who were unsure (N=316) or strongly disagreed (N=41) about their understanding had a higher frequency of incorrect answers. Notably, those who disagreed (N=119) had slightly more correct answers regarding the NBS definition compared to those who agreed when asked if they have a basic understanding of nature. The role of new policies for preserving biodiversity (Q13), considering of the included sociodemographic values, can be described as follows (please find the corresponding plot in Appendix VIII): • Age – young/old: The response patterns of both “Young” (N=314) and “Old” (N=743) participants are almost identical. A significant portion of respondents in both groups selected “Agree” or “Strongly agree”, indicating general support for new policies aimed at conserving biological diversity. Also, in both age groups, uncertainty is more prominent than disagreement, with more respondents choosing “I'm not sure” compared to the combined “Disagree” or “Strongly disagree” responses. Overall, there seems to be a shared sentiment across the different age groups. Deliverable 1.1 -148- • Origin – country of origin: Respondents from different countries showed some variability in their views on new biodiversity policies. Participants from Austria (N=88) and Czechia (N=145) demonstrated the highest levels of agreement, with a significant proportion selecting “Agree” or “Strongly agree”. Lithuania (N=155) and Finland (N=99) followed closely behind, with similar levels of support among each other. Germany (N=258) ranked third, while Greece (N=134) and the Netherlands (N=80) had lower overall agreement compared to other countries, although the majority still supported new policies. Greece, Germany, and the Netherlands had higher rates of uncertainty, with more participants selecting “I'm not sure”. • Origin – urban/rural setting: Urban respondents (N=714) were more inclined to “Agree” or “Strongly agree” compared to rural respondents (N=360). Rural participants showed a relatively higher proportion of disagreement or uncertainty, although there is still a significant level of agreement. • Education – education level: Participants with up to secondary education (N=40) showed the highest level of support for new policies, with most selecting “Agree” or “Strongly agree”. Those from trade schools or vocational training (N=55) followed, while participants with HE (N=670) ranked third, closely followed by those with a high school degree (N=135). Participants with a doctorate degree (N=132) showed the lowest level of support, though the majority still favoured new policies to preserve biodiversity. Notably, respondents from trade schools or vocational training had the highest rates of uncertainty, with many selecting “I'm not sure”, while doctorate holders had the highest rates of disagreement, with more choosing “Disagree” or “Strongly disagree”. • Education – basic understanding of nature: Respondents across all categories—regardless of whether they considered themselves to have a very great or rather small understanding of nature—mostly supported new policies, predominantly selecting either “Agree” or “Strongly agree”. The highest overall support came from those who selected "Agree" and those who selected "Disagree" regarding their understanding of nature. Interestingly, the greatest level of disagreement with new policies (options “Disagree” and “Strongly disagree”) was found among those who self-assessed as having a strong understanding of nature. Overall, support for new policies was widespread, though the level of certainty varied based on participants' perceived understanding of nature. 6.4.3.2 Importance of biodiversity, causes and consequences for the loss of biodiversity, and benefits of NBS, depending on the socio-demographic background of individuals With the questions "What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?" (Q10), "Who do you think should be responsible for the protection of biological diversity?" (Q11), and "What actions would encourage you to get more involved with biodiversity conservation and climate resilience?" (Q14), we observed that predominantly “Agree” or “Strongly agree” responses were given on the importance of biodiversity, indicating their relevance within our study group. As a result, we provided summaries that highlight the three to five most relevant items along with the one or two least prominent items for each question, based on the significance of the respondent agreement levels. Additionally, we evaluated the results for the three most relevant Likert scale items for each question based on the demographic factors country of origin, education level, and age (young/old). For these three questions, we included the responses participants provided under "Other" in Appendix IX, where you will find all the answers that were submitted. They provide valuable insights and are strongly recommended for further reading. Overview for Q10: What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity? “Teach people about biological diversity in schools, universities, and through media”, received the highest level of agreement, with 1,035 participants agreeing overall, including 708 (65%) who strongly agreed and 327 (30%) who agreed. It was followed by “Encourage eco-friendly farming and forestry Deliverable 1.1 -149methods” (1,010 participants agreeing overall, 680 (63%) strongly agreeing, 330 (30%) agreeing); “Support restoring damaged natural habitats” (1,005 participants agreeing overall, 676 (62%) strongly agreeing, 329 (30%) agreeing); “Boost global teamwork to protect key areas of biological diversity” (1,002 participants agreeing overall, 646 (60%) strongly agreeing, 356 (33%) agreeing); and “Encourage using local plants in gardens and landscapes instead of harmful non-native species” (983 participants agreeing overall, 604 (56%) strongly agreeing, 379 (35%) agreeing). The least prominent item was “Reward businesses for eco-friendly practices” (846 participants agreeing overall, 417 (38%) strongly agreeing, 429 (40%) agreeing). Despite differences in prominence, all items received substantially more agreement than disagreement. Figure 62 Responses of “Teach people about biological diversity in schools, universities, and through media” as answer to the question “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?”(Q10) The results for the most relevant items based on demographic factors are in detail: “Teach people about biological diversity in schools, universities, and through media” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by age (young/old) (Figure 63): The pie charts show responses from “Old” (N=750) and “Young” (N=315) age groups regarding the item “Teach people about biological diversity in schools and through media” to protect biodiversity. Both groups showed great support, with 68.1% of older and 59.4% of younger participants selecting “Strongly agree”. Including “Agree”, support reached 96.8% among older and 92.4% among younger participants. 6.0% of younger respondents selected “I’m not sure”, compared to 2.5% of older participants, indicating slightly more uncertainty in the younger group. Disagreement levels were minimal for both groups, with only a small fraction selecting “Disagree” or “Strongly disagree”. Deliverable 1.1 -150Figure 63 “Teach people about biological diversity in schools, universities, and through media” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by age; young ≤ 29 years, old > 29 years (Q10) “Teach people about biological diversity in schools, universities, and through media” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by country of origin (Figure 64): Support is strong in all countries, with “Strongly agree” ranging from 43.4% (Czechia) to 78.0% (Finland). When including “Agree”, overall support remains consistently high, showing a broad consensus on the importance of education for biodiversity. Czechia (43.4% “Strongly agree” and 46.2% “Agree”) and Lithuania (61.1% “Strongly agree” and 32.5% “Agree”) had lower levels of strong agreement, indicating slightly less conviction. Disagreement is minimal, highest in Czechia at 3.5%, while uncertainty is most notable in Lithuania (6.4%) and Czechia (6.9%). Figure 64 “Teach people about biological diversity in schools, universities, and through media” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by country (Q10) “Teach people about biological diversity in schools, universities, and through media” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by education level (Figure 65): Approval for education on biodiversity is strong across all educational levels. Over 90% of respondents in each group indicated either “Agree” or “Strongly agree” for this action. Those with trade school or vocational training showed especially high levels of support, having the largest overall agreement among all groups. Among doctorate holders, “Strongly agree” was the most common response compared to the other groups. Deliverable 1.1 -151Figure 65 “Teach people about biological diversity in schools, universities, and through media” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by education level (Q10) “Encourage eco-friendly farming and forestry methods” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by age (young/old) (Figure 66): Both age groups displayed a strong preference for this action, with over 90% in each group expressing agreement (“Agree” or “Strongly agree”). Among the older participants, 68.1% strongly agree, while 31.1% agree, indicating a strong consensus. The younger respondents were also largely supportive, though to a slightly lesser extent, with 62.5% selecting “Strongly agree” and 28.6% selecting “Agree”. Notably, uncertainty (“I’m not sure”) is more prevalent among younger respondents (6.0%) compared to older ones (3.7%). Figure 66 “Encourage eco-friendly farming and forestry methods” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by age; young ≤ 29 years, old > 29 years (Q10) “Encourage eco-friendly farming and forestry methods” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by country of origin (Figure 67): The plots show broad support for encouraging eco-friendly farming and forestry methods across all partner countries. Austria (78.7%) and the Netherlands (77.5%) show the highest levels of strong agreement, while Germany (71.2%) and Finland (68.0%) also display substantial support. Czechia has slightly lower levels of “Strongly agree” (46.2%) but high overall agreement. Czechia, Lithuania, and Greece have lower strong agreement rates, with 46.2%, 49.7% and 55.2% respectively, and higher uncertainty — particularly in Czechia and Lithuania, where 8.3% respectively 10.2% chose “I’m not sure”. Both countries also show the comparably highest levels of disagreement, with 3.4% disagreeing in Czechia and 7.7% in Lithuania. Despite some variability, support remains widespread, though more divided in Czechia and Lithuania. Deliverable 1.1 -152Figure 67 “Encourage eco-friendly farming and forestry methods” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by country of residence (Q10) “Encourage eco-friendly farming and forestry methods” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by education level (Figure 68): Encouraging eco-friendly farming and forestry methods received similarly high levels of support across educational backgrounds. Around 90% or more of respondents from each group either agreed or strongly agreed with this action. The highest levels of support (“Agree” and “Strongly agree”) were seen among those with up to secondary education and HE, indicating broad support regardless of education level. Only a small percentage of all participants expressed disagreement or uncertainty. Figure 68 “Encourage eco-friendly farming and forestry methods” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by educational level (Q10) “Support restoring damaged natural habitats” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by age (young/old) (Figure 69): “Old” as well as “Young” participants showed strong support for the restoration of damaged natural habitats, with 62.7% of older participants and 61.6% of younger participants selecting “Strongly agree”. The option “Agree” was the second most popular response, accounting for 30.9% among older respondents and 28.9% among younger ones. The level of disagreement is minimal in both groups, with less than 2% selecting “Disagree” or “Strongly disagree”. However, younger participants again express more uncertainty compared to older participants, with 7.9% selecting “I’m not sure” versus 4.7% in the older group. Deliverable 1.1 -153Figure 69 “Support restoring damaged natural habitats” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by age; young ≤ 29 years, old > 29 years (Q10) “Support restoring damaged natural habitats” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by country of origin (Figure 70): Austria shows the highest level of strong agreement at 80.9%, followed by the Netherlands at 73.8% and Germany at 71.2%, indicating widespread positive attitudes towards restoration in these countries. In contrast, Greece (54.5%), Czechia (47.6%), and Lithuania (46.5%) display lower levels of strong agreement, with a considerable proportion choosing “Agree” however (40.7% in Czechia, 38.8% in Greece, 38.2% in Lithuania). Lithuania, Czechia, and Greece have notable uncertainty, with 10.2%, 10.3%, and 6.0% respectively choosing “I'm not sure”. Additionally, Lithuania shows the highest levels of disagreement (5.0%), including 2.5% who "Strongly disagree." Despite these variations, the general consensus supports restoring natural habitats. Figure 70 “Support restoring damaged natural habitats” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by country of origin (Q10) “Support restoring damaged natural habitats” as answer to “What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity?” by education level (Figure 71): Support for restoring damaged natural habitats was strong across all education levels. Participants with up to secondary education and those with a high school degree showed the highest overall agreement, with most selecting “Strongly agree” or Deliverable 1.1 -256Masaryk University Masaryk University Social Studies Masaryk University Masaryk University Admin Medical university of Vienna Infection biology Mendel University in Brno Mendel University in Brno Mendel University in Brno MFR de Richerenches Work-linked professional training National Institute of Research and Development for Biological Sciences Biotechnology Radboud University Savonia UAS Academic Siauliai Vocational Training Centre Production and processing Technical University Brno nonacademic Technical university in Liberec Technopolis Green & Digital Skills Technopolis VET Centre Green Skills TECHNOPOLIS VET CENTRE CONSULTING Thomas More Hogeschool Science Tomas Bata University TU Graz Universität für Bodenkultur Wien Department für Raum, Landschaft und Infrastruktur University of Augsburg Philosophy and Social Sciences University of Eastern Finland Biology University of Graz Biology University of Hohenheim Biodiversity University of Macedonia Utrecht University Environmental Sciences Vilnius University Education studies Vilnius University Business Management VUT FAST Brno VUT in Brno (Brno University of Technology) non-academic Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Vytautas Magnus University Vytautas Magnus University Academic Wageningen University & Research Education for Sustainable Development Warsaw University of Life Sciences food technology and nutrition Windesheim University of Applied Sciences Urban Child Care and Education Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien Deliverable 1.1 -257Annex 2 List of interview respondent’s institutions Aeres University of Applied Sciences AGES / EURL (european reference lab) Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Avans University of Applied Science BOKU University BUT Brno, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Institute of Railway Structures and Buildings Centre for Global Change and Sustainability, BOKU University CIV Groen, Aeres groep Czech University of Life Sciences Prague DCTerra Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management Deula Nienburg,Nienburg Head of the Coordination Office, Netzwerk Stiftungen und Bildungen ids Consulting Institute of History of Charles University and Archive of Charles University Jugendschule Strausberg, Montessori Campus Berlin Köpenick Kaunas applied art school Kaunas Food Industry and Trade Training Center Kaunas Forestry and Environmental Engineering University of Applied Sciences Kauno kolegija Higher Education Institution Kelmė vocational training center Kolping University of Applied Sciences Klaipėda University Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry Maastricht University Masaryk University Mathilde Weber Schule Tübingen Mendel University in Brno, Faculty of Business and Economics MFR Richerenches Music Academy Vytautas Magnus University National and Kapodistrian University of Athens National Institute of Research and Development for Biological Sciences - NIRDBS OEAD - Austria’s Agency for Education and Internationalisation OnePlanet research centre - Radboud university Perrotis College / American Farm School Radboud University Raseiniai Technology and Business School, TVET Savonia University of Applied Sciences SPŠCH Brno TVET Staatschule für Gartenbau, Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg Sweedish University of Agricultural Sciences Tampere University Technical University Brno, Faculty of Civil Engineering/ Institute of Technology, Mechanization and Construction Management Technical University in Liberec, Faculty of Science, Humanities and Pedagogy, Department of Philosophy Technopolis VET Centre TECHNOPOLIS VET CENTRE Deliverable 1.1 -258Tomas Bata University, Faculty of Humanities TU Delft, AMS Institute Amsterdam TU Vienna UEF University of Bayreuth University of Eastern Finland University of Hohenheim Univesrity of Eastern Finland VUT FAST Brno Vytautas Magnus University VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Academy Warszaw Univercity of Life Sciences WUR Yuverta (TVET) Deliverable 1.1 -259Annex 3 Online survey questionnaire A. General Information about the respondent 1. Name of the academic institution: ________________________________________________ 2. Department / Institute: _________________________________________________________ 3. Academic/ non-academic discipline of the Department / Institute: ________________________ 4. Job title of the respondent: ______________________________________________________ B. Understanding Interdisciplinary Collaboration Within Your Institution 1. How would you define interdisciplinary collaboration within the context of biodiversity research and education? • Collaboration between different scientific disciplines (e.g., biology, ecology, sociology) • Collaboration between academic disciplines and non-academic stakeholders (e.g., policymakers, community organizations) • Other (If “Other”, please specify): _________________________________________________________ 2. Have you been involved in any interdisciplinary biodiversity research or education projects? • Yes (If yes, please briefly describe your experience): __________________________________ • No 3. How widespread are the collaborating alliances of your Institution – Geographically? (Multiple choice) • State • Country • European • Cross-continental 4. What is the Institutions progress over the last 10 years in improving the collaborations based on NBS and BD-Loss? • 0 collaborations • 1 – 5 collaborations • 6 – 10 collaborations • 11 – 15 collaborations • 16 – 20 collaborations Deliverable 1.1 -260- • > 20 collaborations 5. Which of the collaborations between your represented university and TVET you could mention? (Multiple choice) • Joint study Programs • Joint and complementary courses • Professional Internship / Professional practice • Training Opportunities • Other • Other (If “Other”, please specify): _________________________________________________________ 6. Please, evaluate the current functioning of the following interdisciplinary collaboration aspects at your institution. Scores: 0 - I am not sure; 1 - very weak; 2 – weak; 3 – neutral; 4 – strong; 5 - very strong Your scores 5 4 3 2 1 0 Curriculum Development and Review Incorporation of industry-relevant skills, alignment with national qualifications frameworks Joint committees for curriculum design, regular industry consultations, competency-based curriculum development Research and Development projects Addressing industry challenges, fostering innovation, promoting sustainability Joint grant applications, collaborative research teams, technology transfer programs Work-based learning Programs Bridging theory and practice, enhancing employability skills, fostering industry connections Internships, apprenticeships, co-operative education programs, industrysponsored projects Professional Development and Training Lifelong learning, upskilling, and reskilling, meeting industry demands Workshops, seminars, short courses, online learning modules, industry-led training sessions Entrepreneurship and Innovation Hubs Encouraging entrepreneurship, fostering a culture of innovation, supporting startups Incubator programs, maker spaces, business plan competitions, mentorship schemes Cross-Institutional Collaboration Sharing resources, pooling expertise, maximizing impact Joint research centers, consortiums for curriculum development, shared facilities Deliverable 1.1 -261and equipment Community Engagement and Outreach Addressing societal needs, promoting inclusivity, fostering local development Community service projects, outreach programs for underprivileged groups, partnerships with NGOs and local governments Quality Assurance and Accreditation Ensuring program quality, maintaining standards, enhancing credibility Mutual recognition agreements, joint accreditation processes, benchmarking against international standards Technology integration and digital learning Enhancing accessibility, leveraging digital tools, preparing for the future of work Online courses, virtual laboratories, blended learning approaches, educational technology research projects Policy advocacy and reform Influencing policy decisions, advocating for TVET advancement, addressing systemic issues Policy research initiatives, participation in government committees, lobbying efforts, knowledge sharing platforms Other (please specify): 7. Evaluate the performance of the following resources listed below your institution use for interdisciplinary collaboration. Scores: 0 - I am not sure; 1 - very weak; 2 – weak; 3 – neutral; 4 – strong; 5 - very strong Resources Your scores 5 4 3 2 1 0 Material resources Financial Capital Databases and other Information sources Infrastructure Equipment and goods Project management platforms Joint study programs management systems Shared research facilities and infrastructure Collaborative online learning and communication platforms Collaborative document management systems Video conferencing Software Task and Time tracking Software Deliverable 1.1 -262Survey, Self-assessment and Feedback Tools Non-material resources Skills and experience Connections with target population Connections with policy makers Influence and ability to bring university and TVET people together for meetings and activities Other (please specify): C: Identifying Obstacles to Knowledge Transfer 1. In your opinion, what are the main obstacles to knowledge transfer among different disciplines in biodiversity research and education? (Multiple choice) • Lack of communication channels between disciplines • Differences in terminology and conceptual frameworks • Limited awareness of other disciplines' methodologies and approaches • Institutional barriers (e.g., departmental silos, funding structures) • Time and resource constraints • Other • Other (If “Other”, please specify): _________________________________________________________ 2. Based on your experience, to what extent the following factors improve knowledge transfer among different disciplines. Give a score to each item listed in the table. Scores: 0 - I am not sure; 1 - very weakly; 2 – weakly; 3 – neutral; 4 – strongly; 5 - very strongly Potential factors improving knowledge transfer among researchers and professionals across different disciplines Your scores 5 4 3 2 1 0 Leadership Effective Communication Channels Financial resources Complementary Expertise for researchers / professors Interdisciplinary Research Opportunities Reputation and Visibility Student Mobility and Exchange Deliverable 1.1 -263Capacity Building and Knowledge Transfer Regional Development and Economic Impact Social Impact and Community Engagement In-kind resources (e.g., skills, expertise, information, data, connections, influence, space, equipment, goods) Time for collaboration Administrative and management activities Interdisciplinary Collaboration Platforms Incentives and Recognition Training and Capacity Building Shared Resources and Infrastructure Interdisciplinary Education and Training Programs Boundary Objects and Boundary Organizations Engagement with Stakeholders and End-Users Cultural Change and Institutional Support Interdisciplinary Networking Events Community of Practice Knowledge Brokers and Facilitators Cross-Institutional Partnerships Transdisciplinary Research Approaches Innovation Hubs and Incubators Interdisciplinary Conferences and Journals Co-Creation and Co-Design Workshops Interdisciplinary Mentoring and Coaching Long-Term Funding and Support Online Collaboration Platforms and Virtual Communities Deliverable 1.1 -264Interdisciplinary Advisory Boards and Committees Public Engagement and Science Communication Evaluation and Assessment Mechanisms Interdisciplinary Hackathons and Challenges Other (please specify): D. Potential Pathways for Interdisciplinary Collaboration 1. What strategies or initiatives do you believe could facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration in biodiversity research and education? (Multiple Choice) • Establishing interdisciplinary research centers or institutes • Providing interdisciplinary training and workshops for students and faculty • Promoting interdisciplinary research funding opportunities. • Encouraging cross-listed courses that involve multiple disciplines • Creating platforms or forums for interdisciplinary knowledge sharing and networking • Other • Other (If “Other”, please specify): _________________________________________________________ 2. What motivated or encouraged the institution to initiate or participate in such a collaboration? (Multiple Choice) • Increasement of environmental impact • Increasement of societal impact • Influence on strategic research and innovation agendas on NBS • Preparing and training specialists required by the market • Accessing existing funding opportunities • Opportunities to share knowledge • Development of new partnerships and collaboration schemes • Other (Please specify): _________________________________________________________ E. Identifying existing good practices 1. Evaluate which of the following exercised at your institution as good practices on the interdisciplinary collaboration and university-TVET collaboration. Scores: 0 - I am not sure; 1 - never; 2 – very sometimes; 3 – sometimes; 4 – often; 5 - very often Your scores 5 4 3 2 1 0 Deliverable 1.1 -265Green building design and construction programs Partnership between a university's architecture/engineering department and a TVET institution offering construction trades. Jointly developed curriculum integrating principles of sustainable design, energy efficiency, and green building techniques. Practical training through on-site construction projects with supervision from both academic and industry experts Environmental conservation and restoration projects Collaboration between environmental science departments of universities and TVET institutions offering landscaping and horticulture programs. Joint research and practical projects focusing on ecological restoration of degraded landscapes, such as wetlands, forests, or urban green spaces. Students engage in fieldwork, data collection, and habitat restoration under the guidance of faculty and industry mentors. Water Resource Management Initiatives Partnership between universities' water resource management departments and TVET institutions specializing in plumbing and water technology. Joint workshops and training programs on water conservation, wastewater treatment, and sustainable water management practices. Students participate in hands-on activities like designing water recycling systems or conducting water quality assessments in local water bodies. Urban Planning and Development Projects Collaboration between urban planning/architecture departments of universities and TVET institutions offering surveying and urban infrastructure programs. Collaborative urban planning exercises focused on real-world urban development challenges. Students work together to analyze urban landscapes, develop comprehensive plans for sustainable urban growth, and utilize GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and other technologies for mapping and spatial analysis. Renewable Energy Technology Integration Partnership between universities' renewable energy research centers and TVET institutions offering electrical engineering and r enewable energy technology programs. Joint research projects on renewable energy technologies such as solar photovoltaics, wind turbines, or biomass energy. Students gain practical experience through lab experiments, installation projects, and maintenance training, contributing to the development and deployment of sustainable energy solutions. Disaster Resilience and Risk Management Training Collaboration between universities' disaster management departments and TVET institutions offering emergency response and construction safety programs Integrated training programs focusing on disaster preparedness, risk assessment, and resilient infrastructure design. Students engage in simulations, case studies, and field exercises to develop practical skills for mitigating natural hazards and enhancing community resilience. Other (please specify): Deliverable 1.1 -272Answers to “What is biological diversity?” by age (young ≤ 29 years, old > 29 years), education, country of origin, residency (urban/rural), and basic understanding of nature; see Chapter 6.4.3.1 (Q1) Deliverable 1.1 -273Answers to “Do you think losing different types of plants and animals is a problem in your area?” by age (young ≤ 29 years, old > 29 years), education, country of origin, residency (urban/rural), and basic understanding of nature; see Chapter 6.4.3.1 (Q2) Deliverable 1.1 -274Answers to “Have you heard of the term nature-based solutions (NBS)?” by age (young ≤ 29 years, old > 29 years), education, country of origin, residency (urban/rural), and basic understanding of nature; see Chapter 6.4.3.1 (Q6) Deliverable 1.1 -275Answers to “Please select the closest description of NBS from what you think” by age (young ≤ 29 years, old > 29 years), education, country of origin, residency (urban/rural), and basic understanding of nature; see Chapter 6.4.3.1 (Q7) Deliverable 1.1 -276Answers to “Do you think new policies would help to save biodiversity?” by age (young ≤ 29 years, old > 29 years), education, country of origin, residency (urban/rural), and basic understanding of nature; see Chapter 6.4.3.1 (Q13) Deliverable 1.1 -277Appendix IX. Additional Tables on Survey Results in Task 1.2 Coding analysis for “Are you worried about the climate crisis and the loss of biological diversity? If yes, please comment on what concerns you.” (Q9) Coding analysis for “What could you do yourself to help nature and conserve biodiversity? Please comment.” (Q12) Deliverable 1.1 -278Participants’ responses to the “Other” option for “What actions should be taken to protect biodiversity?” (Q10) Inp ut no. What actions should be taken to protect biological diversity? Input language 1 Build a strong international policy network for transformative (system) change. English 2 Learn to connect with ourselves and thus create happiness without the need of consuming a lot. English 3 Wildfires prevention with drones and sensors to protect nature, fauna and flora. English 4 educate people about the pros of keeping natural and native green spaces in their area, about how it impacts their day-to-day life and its consequences in the future. English 5 Sustainable housing policy in the city, banning cars in the city, preservation and expansion of green spaces. German 6 In a long-term way worldwide coordinated abolition of military and defence industry. English 7 Increase tax on harmful products and practices, energy consumption and water, promote. happiness and natural health to make people less consumptive English 8 Boost local teamwork to protect key areas of biological diversity. Encourage using non-invasive local and non-native plants in gardens and landscapes instead of banning everything non-native. English 9 Facilitate local ecological community development. English 10 Working with the local to solve conflicts and reframe sovereignty. Methodologically move away from big ”N” nature. English 11 Engage people in your social network, take them out for walks in (semi-)nature, show them the beauty and intricacies of even the most obvious phenomena in nature (blackbird or house sparrow activities; plants growing on pavements ...). English 12 Stricter rules for businesses and their emissions, pesticide use, extractive practices etc., transitioning towards a circular economy inc. less resource usage, fair distribution of the benefits of economic development to create democratic support for protecting commons such as nature, empowering local communities to steward their environment. English 13 Aim to a cultural shift through media, art and entertainment industry. English 14 Increase eco-social literacy and understanding of human dependence on biodiversity. This should start in basic education, which currently lags behind in Finland in terms of environmental and biodiversity knowledge. Public discourse, municipalities, and the public sector must promote a sustainable society. Finnish 15 Start “natural education” regarding biodiversity from childhood. Finnish 16 We know enough about the loss of biodiversity although not about the mechanisms behind it. Every species is affected. English 17 Answers of I am not sure mean that there are arguments both for and against as well as examples that support and argue against these. Basically these are not simple questions that can be quantified by 5 simple answers. English 18 Develop transformative ecological education to shift paradigms toward deep ecological awareness of our interconnectedness to the natural world. English 19 I think there should be more talks with many people across bubbles to share concerns and challenges and help with agency. I think all kinds of concerns. People can otherwise not connect their concerns to nature protection and how these can be synergised. For example flood cases damage and prevention is less in costs. English Deliverable 1.1 -27920 Work together on smaller impact for “regular” people. Make the electric network bigger so clean energy can reach everybody, make biological products cheaper so everyone can have access, reward farmers that make the change to more diverse farming. Make sure that there is enough green in and around the cities to cool down, boost biodiversity and help to drain heavy rains better. English 21 Tougher regulations are ineffective without enforcement. This was evident when drainage work in Kainuu (Finland) led to ecological damage, with lax regulations failing to protect a nearby lake. Strict enforcement, education, and social considerations are essential. Finnish 22 Punish businesses for practices that destroy biological diversity. English 23 Companies should not be rewarded for environmentally friendly practices; they should be held accountable for climate damage. Rewards feel unjustified. Better to impose severe punishments for not adopting green technology. Finnish 24 Incorporate social issues as well and ask the different groups to participate according to their abilities. English 25 Wealth and luxury tax, degrowth of harmful sectors. English 26 Control global population growth. Finnish 27 Protect by using, and use by protecting. Lithuania n 28 Better law enforcement and increased penalties for nature harming crimes. English 29 Increase taxation of consumer behaviours (e.g., SUVs, cruises, etc.). German 30 Less money laundering, environmental conservation, and biology. Lithuania n 31 Enforce existing rules and monitor their implementation. German 32 Avoid working on biodiversity in isolation. E.g. it is closely linked to climate action. English 33 In terms of urban planning and surface sealing, one should at least ensure that no more land is sealed. Contributions such as parks, flowers and green roofs are not enough. English 34 Show as many people as possible simple, little things that they can do themselves in their everyday life to support biodiversity. English 35 (Mandatory) training for decision-makers; more time outdoors for children and youth in education settings. German 36 Abolish municipalities' planning authority in Germany due to conflicts of interest influenced by conservative business entities. German 37 Cancel subsidies for environmentally and climate-damaging activities (e.g., intensive farming, transport). German 38 Laws and strict regulations, no more fossil fuels. English 39 Encourage farmers to use sustainable technologies. Lithuania n 40 Ban fossil fuels. English 41 Reduce sealing, land use, and energy consumption; abolish capitalism. German 42 Enforce laws and inspire broad public support for nature. German 43 Encourage environmentally friendly living, promote a circular economy, and prioritize environmental protection. Lithuania n 44 Fund local non-profit organizations in every community in every country for restoration and conservation purposes, including as relates to cultural relevance. Additionally, the one-size-fitsall form of landscape, agricultural and urban development must be put aside in favour of traditional ethos in a modern context. English Deliverable 1.1 -28045 Teach people (not only in school) is the most important thing to do. First and foremost the blue-collar workers. English 46 Hold companies accountable for environmental damage, enforce global responsibilities, and close loopholes. German 47 Enforce control and penalties for theft (e.g., plants), vandalism, and destruction; mandatory removal of certain invasive species. German 48 Punish harmful practice for the environment in all fields by law. English 49 Care for forests to prevent harmful pests from spreading. Finnish 50 Key aspect should be government funded private conservation efforts (could be based on PES). English 51 Establish holistic concepts that optimally combine nature conservation and land use. For example, large-scale, extensive grazing to preserve nutrient-poor meadows. Allow forest grazing. German 52 Do not use agricultural land ONLY for pure energy production (“squeeze out”). German 53 Pollution and carbon emissions should stop. English 54 Enforce environmental laws. German 55 Support private individuals who have a garden, terrace, or balcony but lack the resources themselves. German 56 Control of implementation of laws, introducing fines. English 57 Put more responsibility on the rich and environmentally damaging companies and states, ban environmentally harmful practices/methods. German 58 Improve science communication with policy makers. English 59 Stop using pesticides on farms but also garden shops. English 60 Do not make it a choice to protect biological diversity. Make it a crime to destroy it. English 61 Limit consumption behaviour. Make nature and environmental protection compulsory subjects in schools. German 62 Consider all aspects (feasibility/practicability of measures, interactions, financial viability), pragmatic thinking. German 63 Less consumption especially in industrial countries. English 64 Teach people why all of these measures are necessary to save humanity. English 65 More individual initiative from people (society), companies, and municipalities, churches, etc., within their own capabilities. German 66 The wording of this question prompts the respondent to tick on the positive response of the Likert scale. Thus it can be considered Biased. It may produce low reliability indices (e.g. Cronbach's a). Negative worded items would balance the responses. English 67 Incentives for citizens to follow certain rules for the environment. Greek 68 Reduced consumption, law implementation and enforcement, prohibit toxic chemicals. English 69 Do not agree with any type of wealth re-distribution. There are other - milder and more acceptable methods. English 70 Stop clothing production for at least 10 years. Also, stop transporting food. People should feed themselves with locally produced food. Greek 71 Constantly informing people about the consequences and educating people how to protect the biological diversity ... as well as the companies of industry ...and sever punishment when the companies don t comply with the regulations English 72 Re-wilding lands made barren by industrial farming and re-introduce local/native livestock for extensive production of food. English Deliverable 1.1 -28173 Move away from consumption maximization. German 74 Ecological social market economy as a world dictatorship. German 75 Strengthen the enforcement of legal requirements. German 76 Focus more on supporting land and forest owners, farmers, and foresters who farm sustainably and thereby directly ensure the long-term implementation of biological diversity goals in their areas. Lithuania n 77 Make industrial agriculture use certification and labelling to inform consumers what has gone into food, rather than he current system of certifying organic farming to prove they haven't used pesticides, artificial fertilisers, imported feed or low welfare practices. English 78 Manage for 100 years. English 79 More personnel in forestry to implement existing laws and regulations faster. German 80 Promote organic farming. Promote ecological plant breeding. Regulate new and old gen omic techniques as before. Maintain genetic engineering law with labelling, risk assessment, traceability, etc. Ban herbicide-resistant and insecticide plants. Ban patents on animals and plants. German 81 The “I'm not sure” is not an apt description for my view on rewarding businesses. 50/50 would be better because eco-friendly practices are the best long-term business strategies in the long term. English 82 Heavily tax the billionaires English 83 Reduce population English 84 Please note that not all non-native plant species are harmful. Most of our food crops, for example, are not native or local to their areas of cultivation. But also most ornamental plants are “well behaved” and do not cause issues. English 85 I believe that if a fraction of the billions wasted on net zero, which creates billionaires not climate change, we're spent on biodiversity projects the World would be a much nicer place. English 86 Tell the story and get in people’s minds. English 87 Particularly support access to land for small scale nature friendly farming (including regenerative grazing); and all work to reconnect all ages with nature / food growing / natural cycles English 88 Better enforcement of existing protective regulations. German 89 Less strict laws that make no sense locally or individually (e.g., special species protection). More room for manoeuvre for authorities in their decisions without the risk of being sued. German 90 Regarding point 1: The laws we have are good, but lack implementation/enforcement. German 91 Significant expansion of educational efforts through direct experience of the value of nature and biodiversity with all senses. Expand engagement opportunities (e.g., local sponsorships) to preserve nature and biodiversity. German 92 Provide more information on how everyone can practically contribute to the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. Lithuania n 93 Nature can live without humans, but humans cannot live without nature. German 94 Give sustainable protection more weight than short-term gains. German 95 Start in privacy school English 96 Participation offers for the population, preventing unnecessary land sealing, making renovation/sanitation more attractive again. German Deliverable 1.1 -2888 My “I don’t know” responses has to do with possessing knowledge about each question. Much of what is in the public domain is either greenwashing or fake news and propaganda. My opinion is that within the sustainability industry complex is too narrow in scope and scale and little attention is being paid to the sociology of sustainability and sustainability education that can open up the field where more can be accomplished with whatever time frame remains. English 9 It is also a mindset to think further and not eat away the chicken with the golden eggs. People need to get chances to bring further problems of all kinds. English 10 Clean-up. English 11 Possibility to travel economically also at work (no flying even if train takes longer). Possibility to use working hours on climate and diversity matters, e.g. planting trees or removing alien species. English 12 Not blaming people for doing “not enough” but show different form of participation / support in that matters, that work for people with different backgrounds/jobs/daily lives. English 13 Doing everything I can to reduce my harm to the environment. Lithuania n 14 Seeing clear advantages of changing the live style for myself and my surroundings. English 15 We need drastic solutions which everyone is afraid to take because public opinion is based on stupid people. English 16 None of the above because I'm already very involved. English 17 Funding only for sustainable land use at all levels and areas (e.g., CAP and similar). German 18 Integration of environmental protection into all human activities. Lithuania n 19 Funding for community-based solutions. English 20 I would be motivated if I see that large companies are contributing a lot to this topic so that the smaller ones follow suit. German 21 More time for engagement. I am a father of three children. German 22 Making it easier in supermarkets to make the sustainable choices English 23 Distributing free plants. German 24 Disadvantages for environmental offenders, further natural disasters. German 25 Organic food should be the standard. Non-organic should no longer be an option you have to make in a supermarket. The same goes for packaging—stop accepting plastic packaging. This should apply across all sectors. German 26 There is already so much good information; many people are already overwhelmed with information an d participation, so more information and participation do not necessarily add value, in my opinion. German 27 Maybe mandatory volunteer work for everyone. German 28 All of the above are essential to improve our situation. English 29 Enforcement of all our relevant laws, regulations, and rules by the responsible authorities in public administrations, companies, institutions, and in society— everyone. German 30 Consistent prosecution and punishment of “environmental damage” and fair redistribution (especially on a large scale, e.g., the super-rich). Rapid abolition of incentives for harmful behaviour (e.g., certain advertising, subsidies in the fossil sector, etc.). German 31 Contact with local and indigenous communities, living with them, genuine contact with agricultural and ecological processes. Greek Deliverable 1.1 -28932 Financial pressure or rewards, pricing environmentally harmful behaviour at a global level—otherwise the e conomy will move to countries with the least restrictions, and nothing will be gained globally. German 33 Everything making everyone aware of the importance of all this is beneficial. English 34 Better public transport, food declaration regarding environmental burden, good and realistic concept for home heating. English 35 Increased promotion of organic farming. Output control. Enforcement. German 36 I'm already very involved. English 37 I'm not sure what you mean by 'get more involved'. English 38 Whilst I don’t need motivation to do this. I am answering for others. English 39 Production of extensive exemplar models and case studies for where things have worked. Emphasis on before and after. Make this information freely available. Show that this can be done by everyone, and most importantly, there is a financial argument for it. Unfortunately, the ethical argument will not move the majority. English 40 I believe the money is there, there are people willing to help and there is a big desire within the population to help with projects in a practical way. Time and again we get money spent on inaction and government and councils and companies doing endless scientific studies, feasibility studies, impact reports, health and safety and at the end of it all very few trees get planted, beavers released or salmon farms moved / shut down. English 41 Make sustainable actions easier/cheaper, make unsustainable habits more difficult, e.g., through consistent eco-social taxation. German 42 Lower living costs through a sustainable lifestyle. German 43 Reduction of subsidies for all nature-damaging and climate-harmful activities in our societies. German 44 Clearly indicate the importance for all population groups; more publicity, more attention on social media to involve the youth. Dutch 45 A well-known central body that manages all the information, coordinates all related activities, where one can seek answers to all relevant questions. Lithuania n 46 I don't understand why this question is not differentiated and why biodiversity and climate stability are queried together in one question. The answer would be different. German 47 Target privacy schools. English 48 Good small examples that encourage action even without financial incentives. German 49 Note: I think the media reports sufficiently. German 50 Educational programs, yes, but practical ones—not just theoretical. German 51 I am already involved in many ways, but none of the above points motivated me. Parental upbringing, environmental awareness, and pers onal interest have contributed to it. German 52 Cross-sectoral, holistic concepts (e.g., agriculture and nature conservation authorities). German 53 I think it's essential to get involved. My encouragement is therefore not lacking. However, I doubt that the mentioned measures will have any effect. Today, there are already many pieces of information, actions, and instructions that just bounce off people. However, since I also have no alternatives or ideas, it probably just has to keep being tried. German 54 I am a climate activist and actually don't need any more motivation—it is more about perseverance. German 55 Clear political responsibility and corresponding action. German Deliverable 1.1 -29056 I do not need more involvement: I am highly involved. English 57 I'm not sure if I can get even more involved, as I'm already dedicating my whole life to it, by working in a job in conservation, being activist & being politically active, supporting several NGOs and trying to live as sustainably as possible and working voluntarily in environmental education in schools. English 58 More time, for example potential to “buy out” hours from contracted work for nature conservation activities, e.g. as part of corporate social responsibility. English 59 My commitment needs no further encouragement. I am well aware that this issue is important. German 60 Political consequence—as long as the EU doesn't commit, nothing will move forward. German 61 More control opportunities for environmental associations over authorities. Easy litigation opportunities and financial support in nature conservation matters. German 62 I miss social aspects related to NBS in these questions. Dutch 63 I'm already quite involved. English 64 Involvement of youth organisations. English 65 I'm already motivated and am already informing myself. German 66 Education (knowledge) is the key, not a religion (climate resilience). German 67 I am already doing what I can. German 68 As mentioned above: The questions are one-sidedly positive. As long as almost anything that leads to economic growth is allowed and even promoted by the state, nothing will change. Financial “rewards” for more natureand environmentally friendly behaviour are far from sufficient to compensate for the damage of economic growth at the expense of nature and the environment, even in third countries. A general turnaround is needed, and quickly. German 69 If these action would work is another question. English 70 Trust that those given responsibility will take that responsibility and act accordingly. Finnish 71 Spaces to reflect on one's world view and values because those effect the way we operate on the world and if we see sustainability issues are important. English Participants’ responses to the “Other” option for “What challenges do you face professionally related to the loss of biodiversity and climate change?” (Q24) Inp ut no. What challenges do you face professionally related to the loss of biological diversity and climate change? Input language 1 For the NBS environment the challenges are ridiculously simple (let's not call it an industry). English 2 Lack of motivation? English 3 This question is not applicable to my work, as I am not working on biodiversity questions. English 4 Resources such as money and people who can devote thei time for these issues are scarse. English 5 In leadership positions, incompetent employees are working. Lithuania n 6 Lack of professional communication strategies to convey alarming messages about global ecological problems. German 7 Lack of funding for the on-going promotion of community-based solutions and decent pay for local NGO staff, including myself. English Deliverable 1.1 -2918 Too much bureaucracy and documentation requirements, which tie up valuable working time that could otherwise be used for sustainable forestry. German 9 Political will and accountability. Greek 10 Lack of overarching will to implement measures (especially in global politics), excessive bureaucracy, no financial incentive, competition from countries without strong regulations - the economy goes where it is cheapest (that is its nature). German 11 Project-based financing’ for environmental protection, where what is protected is not what is rationally needed, but what has received project funding. Lithuania n 12 Some of these are not relevant to my work, but I did not see an option for 'not applicable'. English 13 Lack of action and knowledge. English 14 I am on the board of an association, so the questions do not apply. German 15 In my opinion, the greatest challenge is the missing acceptance in society. English 16 None. English 17 Instruments and solutions often exist. The will is lacking in large parts of the population. German 18 My company does not have a direct link with NBS. English 19 The term 'climate change' is neither technically nor factually correctly translated from English; it should be 'weather change,' which initially has nothing to do with biodiversity. German 20 These are questions for companies, which I cannot answer as I do not work in a commercial enterprise. German 21 The only challenges to save biodiversity and mitigate climate change are people. English Participants’ responses to the “Other” option for “What skills and education should a good job candidate have?” (Q25) Inp ut no. What skills and education should a good job candidate have? Input language 1 Leadership (connective leadership) and inner drive. English 2 Most important is not knowledge but skills and attitude, way of thinking to change systems. English 3 I don't understand this question. Doesn't it depend on the vacancy? English 4 Not applicable to my work, as I am not working on biodiversity questions. English 5 Which potential employee? Are we talking about all employees here? It seems unrealistic and unnecessary for every employee to undergo this training. Dutch 6 Science provides knowledge, but it does not add wisdom. Lithuanian 7 A good candidate for WHAT JOB? This question is unclear. No one needs a university degree to work on direct action, community-based reforestation. English 8 I do not understand the question. I think it's really strange to expect an answer when we don't kow what job you are applying for. English 9 Studies in Foreign Languages and Cultures, Anthropology, Postcolonial Studies, Gender Studies, Political Science, Fine Arts. Greek 10 The question misses the point! It’s not a matter of qualification/knowledge - we know a lot, but lack the framework and the political will for implementation on a global and political level. German 11 Different ones, with a job as NBS advisor in mind. German 12 Agricultural education and farming practice. German Deliverable 1.1 -29213 Social science research experience. English 14 For what type of job? I don't understand the question. English 15 As long as biodiversity projects are run by climate change zealots then little will be achieved. There are climate "scientists" out there who will tell you that increasing beaver numbers release carbon from permafrost. English 16 All are important, but a candidate can't have them all in one person combined. English 17 Depends on the field of activities. English 18 Depends on the character of the job. English 19 For the fields of education, public relations, and narratives, we need interdisciplinary knowledge and work, where humanities must also be integrated. They usually have better means to translate technical and scientific knowledge into compelling narratives. Involving only STEM subjects is too one-sided. German 20 Depends on the open job - all of the above-mentioned jobs are certainly important. English 21 Perseverance and acceptance of full-time positions. German 22 I am on the board of an association, so the questions do not apply. German 23 This is a weird question-a job for what? English 24 Not clearing WHAT job candidate? English 25 It depends on the specific position. English 26 The above depends on nature of the industry. English 27 Please make it fully scientifically based. German 28 Applicants for what? The question should not be posed so generally, nor can it be answered so generally. German 29 Depends on the type of job you are applying for. So without that information I cannot answer. English Deliverable 1.1 -293Appendix X. Survey Questions in Task 1.2 Questions [Document text truncated for crawler view.]