Abstract
Nature-based solutions (NbS) have in recent years occupied a central position in conservation and climate discussions among both scientists and policy makers. NbS generally identify a set of strategies which use nature, or natural objects, to address societal (human) issues while simultaneously supporting the broader environment. Rather than criticize NbS on the grounds that the concept is too vague to be truly action-guiding (a criticism that is already well-recognized), I instead argue, through an examination of the literature, that the term NbS should be understood as referring to the protection and implementation of “blue/green” areas and infrastructure. I then investigate whether NbS, conceived of in this way, can be justified as a category worthy of our serious consideration. I argue that the environmental impact of artificial analogues, human-made constructions that share certain functional features with natural (non-human-made) structures, gives us reason to doubt that blue/green forms of infrastructure can truly be prioritized over other strategies on biodiversity grounds. Yet rather than reject the category of NbS completely, I suggest that these strategies may nevertheless have an advantage insofar as they play a vital aesthetic role in developing a healthier relationship between humans and the nonhuman world.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is an international organization made up of both governmental and non-governmental parties whose mission is to assist in the conservation of nature and the equitable and sustainable use of natural resources. The European Commission is part of the executive of the European Union which, among other things, funds research and projects in areas like agriculture, health, and the environment.
The Convention on Biological Diversity is an environmental treaty aimed at the protection of biological diversity and the sustainable use and development of resources. A Conference of the Parties (COP) is held every other year; the ecosystem approach was adopted by the Parties as “the primary framework for action under the Convention” in 1995 (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2004).
The term “green” or “blue/green” in these cases refers to not only those places which are actually blue and green (oceans and forests) but to all places that possess the “natural aesthetic”. A desert, for example, might be considered a blue/green area, despite being yellow.
Although the term “biodiversity” has been recognized as problematically vague (Maclaurin and Sterelny, 2008; Santana 2014), a common understanding is provided by the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity: “‘Biological diversity’ means the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems” (Article 2).
Note that my question here concerns general reasons for preferring NbS over other strategies. It is obviously true that the success of particular instances of NbS will depend on specific factors; in certain cases, a particular form of NbS will be capable of providing more benefits than a particular conventional solution, and vice-versa. But given the amount of attention and funding that the concept of NbS currently enjoys, there is value in attempting to understand the broader vision and justification for these kinds of strategies.
One potential complication to consider is the possibility that certain NbS might increase local biodiversity by their very presence. For example, although constructing a sea wall made of mangroves instead of suitably adjusted grey material may not make much of a difference to already existing local wildlife, perhaps the very presence of the mangroves increases local biodiversity, thereby fulfilling a policy maker’s mission of both implementing a climate solution and supporting biodiversity. Although this strikes me as certainly possible, unsettled ideas about what exactly counts as a relevant increase in biodiversity make the point difficult to consider (does planting 5 mangroves of a native species count as increased biodiversity? 100 mangroves? 5 or 100 mangroves of a rare species?) My inclination is that any NbS that can truly be said to increase local biodiversity would have to be quite large-scale – and in that case, the project may be moving into the realm of conservation-focused NbS.
Other considerations that would need to be taken into account in order to make the best all-things-considered judgement include a strategy’s predicted cost, risk, possible co-benefits, maturity, ethical and political constraints, etc. Although various advantages are commonly associated with NbS, evidence does not support a clear distinction between NbS and more “conventional” solutions in terms of oft-stated benefits like cost-effectiveness, maturity, co-benefits, and ethical governance (Osaka, Bellamy, and Castree 2021).
Spending time in blue/green areas has been shown to improve mental health; even the presence of indoor plants can improve concentration and productivity (Xing et al. 2017, 4–5). Compared with urban grey environments, interactions with blue/green areas more successfully restore cognitive functioning, including directed attention and memory (Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan 2008, 1207). Studies on the psychological effects of green urban areas report that such spaces have the power to create a renewed sense of place and community belonging (Frantzeskaki 2019, 102–104), and “set the stage for meaningful social relationships, identity development, and ecological awareness” (Grimwood 2016, 513).
According to Cronon, this point applies not just to wilderness areas, but also to the plants, animals, and landscapes closer to home: “The tree in the garden is in reality no less other, no less worthy of our wonder and respect, then the tree in an ancient forest…Both trees stand apart from us; both share our common world” (1995, 24).
Works cited
Abram D (1996) The spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a more-than-Human World. Pantheon books, New York
Berman MG, Jonides J, and Stephen Kaplan (2008) The cognitive benefits of interacting with Nature. Psychol Sci 19(12):1207–1212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x
Birch J, Rishbeth C, and Sarah R. Payne (2020) Nature doesn’t Judge You – How Urban Nature supports Young People’s Mental Health and Wellbeing in a diverse UK City. Health Place 62(March):102296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102296
Bulleri F, Chapman MG (2010) The introduction of Coastal infrastructure as a driver of change in Marine environments. J Appl Ecol 47(1):26–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01751.x
Casetta E (2020) Making sense of Nature Conservation after the end of Nature. Hist Philos Life Sci 42(2):18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-020-00312-3
Chandrasekhar A (2021) and Giuliana Viglione. “Q&A: Can ‘Nature-Based Solutions’ Help Address Climate Change?” Carbon Brief. December 1, 2021. https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-nature-based-solutions-help-address-climate-change
Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Janzen C, Maginnis S (eds) (2016) Nature-Based solutions to address Global Societal Challenges. IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en
Cole DN, and Laurie Yung (2010) Beyond naturalness: Rethinking Park and wilderness stewardship in an era of Rapid Change. Island Press
Cronon W (1996) The trouble with wilderness: or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environ History 1(1):7–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/3985059
Crucitti P, Malori M, and Giovanni Rotella (1998) The Scorpions of the Urban Habitat of Rome (Italy). Urban Ecosyst 2(2):163–170. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009537817029
“Defining Nature-Based Solutions Resolution.” n.d. Accessed December 13 (2021) https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/documents/wcc_2016_res_069_en.pdf
European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2015) Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities: final report of the Horizon 2020 expert group on ‘Nature-based solutions and re-naturing cities’: (full version). Publications Office. https://doi.org/10.2777/479582
Fleming A (2020) The case for … making low-tech ‘dumb’ cities instead of ‘Smart’ ones. The Guardian, January 15, 2020, sec. Cities. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2020/jan/15/the-case-for-making-low-tech-dumb-cities-instead-of-smart-ones
Frantzeskaki N (2019) Seven Lessons for Planning Nature-Based solutions in cities. Environ Sci Policy 93(March):101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.033
Grimwood B (2016) An Ecofeminist Narrative of Urban Nature connection. Leisure Sci 39:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2016.1216812
Herath DN, Byron B, Lamont NJ, Enright, and Ben P. Miller (2009) Comparison of Post-Mine Rehabilitated and Natural Shrubland Communities in Southwestern Australia. Restor Ecol 17(5):577–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00464.x
Hofmann M, Westermann JR, Kowarik I, Elke van der, Meer (2012) Perceptions of Parks and Urban Derelict Land by Landscape Planners and residents. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11(3):303–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.04.001
“Increasing Resilience Through Natural Solutions | UNFCCC.” n.d. Accessed February 23 (2022) https://unfccc.int/news/increasing-resilience-through-natural-solutions
Jones E (2021) Distinguishing regeneration from degradation in Coral Ecosystems: the role of Value. Synthese 199(1):5225–5253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03023-9
Kabisch N, Frantzeskaki N, Pauleit S, Naumann S, Davis McKenna, Artmann M, Dagmar Haase, et al (2016) Nature-Based solutions to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Urban Areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and Opportunities for Action. Ecol Soc 21 (2). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26270403
Lundholm, Jeremy T., and Paul J. Richardson. (2010). “Habitat Analogues for Reconciliation Ecology in Urban and Industrial Environments.” Journal of Applied Ecology 47(5):966–75.
Mackay CML, Schmitt MT (2019) Do people who feel connected to Nature do more to protect it? A Meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol 65:101323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101323
Maclaurin J (2008) and Kim Sterelny. What Is Biodiversity? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo5772547.html
Marris E (2013) Rambunctious garden: saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, Paperback ed edn. Bloomsbury, New York
Mental HF (2021) “Nature: How Connecting with Nature Benefits Our Mental Health.” Mental Health Foundation. May 7, 2021. https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/campaigns/nature/nature-research
“Nature-Based Solutions (IUCN Website).” (2020) IUCN. January 31, 2020. https://www.iucn.org/theme/nature-based-solutions/about
“Nature-Based Solutions (Openess).” n.d. Accessed December 13, 2021. https://networknature.eu/sites/default/files/uploads/spnature-based-solutions.pdf
Nesshöver C, Assmuth T, Irvine KN, Rusch GM, Waylen KA, Delbaere B, Haase D et al (2017) The Science, Policy and Practice of Nature-Based solutions: an interdisciplinary perspective. Sci Total Environ 579(February):1215–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106
Parke P. “Dumping Subway Trains into the Ocean … in a Good Way.” CNN., February (2015) 26, 2015. https://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/world/subway-cars-coral-reef/index.html
Ratcliffe DA, Dunham KC, Poore MED (1974) Ecological Effects of Mineral Exploitation in the United Kingdom and their significance to Nature Conservation. Proc Royal Soc Lond Math Phys Sci 339(1618):355–372. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1974.0126
Reznicek AA (1980) Halophytes along a Michigan Roadside with comments on the occurrence of Halophytes in Michigan. Mich Botanist 19(1):23–30
Richardson M, Passmore H-A, Barbett L, Lumber R, Thomas R, and Alex Hunt (2020) The Green Care Code: how Nature Connectedness and simple activities help explain pro-nature conservation Behaviours. People and Nature 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10117
Santana C (2019) “Natural Diversity: How Taking the Bio- out of Biodiversity Aligns with Conservation Priorities.” In From Assessing to Conserving Biodiversity: Conceptual and Practical Challenges, edited by Elena Casetta, Jorge Marques da Silva, and Davide Vecchi, 401–14. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10991-2_19
Santana C (2014) Save the planet: eliminate Biodiversity. Biology &Philosophy 29(6):761
Schiel F-J, and Michael Rademacher (2008) Species diversity and succession in a gravel pit South of Karlsruhe - results of a Monitoring Programme in the Nature Reserve ‘Kiesgrube Am Hardtwald Durmersheim’ 40 (March): 87–94
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2004) “The Ecosystem Approach, CBD Guidelines.” Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
Seddon N, Chausson A, Berry P, Girardin CAJ, Smith A, and Beth Turner (2020) Understanding the value and limits of Nature-Based solutions to Climate Change and Other Global Challenges. Philosophical Trans Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 375(1794):20190120. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120
Sober E (2007) “Problems for Environmentalism.” In Philosophy of Biology, edited by Mohan Matthen and Christopher Stephens, 144–365. Elsevier
Xing Y, Phil Jones, and Iain Donnison (2017) Characterisation of Nature-Based solutions for the built environment. Sustainability 9(1):149. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010149
Acknowledgements
My thanks to my colleagues, especially Clarissa Busch, Jacqueline Wallis, Eugene Vaynberg, and Maja Sidzińska, the members of the 2022 meeting of Philosophy in the Wild, Michael Weisberg, and two anonymous reviewers, for their guidance and helpful suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Hoffman, K.N. Justifying nature-based solutions. Biol Philos 38, 38 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-023-09926-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-023-09926-w