Nature-based solutions and restoration are intertwined but not identical: Highlighting implications for societies and ecosystems

Kerry A Waylen , Mark E. Wilkinson , Kirsty L. Blackstock , Mary Bourke
{"title":"Nature-based solutions and restoration are intertwined but not identical: Highlighting implications for societies and ecosystems","authors":"Kerry A Waylen ,&nbsp;Mark E. Wilkinson ,&nbsp;Kirsty L. Blackstock ,&nbsp;Mary Bourke","doi":"10.1016/j.nbsj.2024.100116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) and ecosystem restoration are often conflated, but cannot be assumed to be identical. Understanding and choosing between these different framings is important. It affects our ambitions for reinvigorating natural systems, the range of actors and resources that can be drawn on to achieve them, and every part of how interventions are planned, delivered and appraised.</p><p>To explore the differences and relationships between NbS and restoration we focus on freshwater catchment management initiatives, but our points are relevant to initiatives in other settings or framed in other terms. We firstly identify the potential differences by analysing accepted definitions of restoration and Nature-Based Solutions; and we then illustrate these with examples of catchment management in UK and Ireland, with which we are familiar from our own work and collaborations.</p><p>These real-world cases demonstrate that the framings of restoration and NbS can lead to different priorities for how ecosystems and natural processes are managed; and who is involved and how projects develop. The cases also show that interventions may be somewhere on a continuum somewhere in between the two concepts, and potentially shift over time. There is often a lack of clarity over why these terms are used, causing sometimes unacknowledged confusion and potentially missed opportunities to improve catchment management.</p><p>Different stakeholder groups involved in catchment management could benefit from more opportunity to explicitly reflect on preferred goals, and the implications for how to achieve this. We need more explicit reflection on the purpose of an intervention, and then different actors from site-managers to policy and other enabling groups can plan to achieve that vision. Given the time lags between interventions and outcomes, it is particularly important to use these insights in adaptive approaches to understand the changing drivers shaping current and future action.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100945,"journal":{"name":"Nature-Based Solutions","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772411524000077/pdfft?md5=c5a40be6a56b29e5bf0e58557b89cb88&pid=1-s2.0-S2772411524000077-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature-Based Solutions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772411524000077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) and ecosystem restoration are often conflated, but cannot be assumed to be identical. Understanding and choosing between these different framings is important. It affects our ambitions for reinvigorating natural systems, the range of actors and resources that can be drawn on to achieve them, and every part of how interventions are planned, delivered and appraised.

To explore the differences and relationships between NbS and restoration we focus on freshwater catchment management initiatives, but our points are relevant to initiatives in other settings or framed in other terms. We firstly identify the potential differences by analysing accepted definitions of restoration and Nature-Based Solutions; and we then illustrate these with examples of catchment management in UK and Ireland, with which we are familiar from our own work and collaborations.

These real-world cases demonstrate that the framings of restoration and NbS can lead to different priorities for how ecosystems and natural processes are managed; and who is involved and how projects develop. The cases also show that interventions may be somewhere on a continuum somewhere in between the two concepts, and potentially shift over time. There is often a lack of clarity over why these terms are used, causing sometimes unacknowledged confusion and potentially missed opportunities to improve catchment management.

Different stakeholder groups involved in catchment management could benefit from more opportunity to explicitly reflect on preferred goals, and the implications for how to achieve this. We need more explicit reflection on the purpose of an intervention, and then different actors from site-managers to policy and other enabling groups can plan to achieve that vision. Given the time lags between interventions and outcomes, it is particularly important to use these insights in adaptive approaches to understand the changing drivers shaping current and future action.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于自然的解决方案与恢复相互交织但并不相同:强调对社会和生态系统的影响
基于自然的解决方案 (NbS) 和生态系统恢复经常被混为一谈,但不能认为两者完全相同。理解和选择这些不同的框架非常重要。为了探索 NbS 与恢复之间的区别和关系,我们将重点放在淡水集水区管理项目上,但我们的观点也适用于其它环境中的项目或以其它方式制定的项目。首先,我们通过分析公认的恢复和基于自然的解决方案的定义来确定潜在的差异;然后,我们用英国和爱尔兰的集水区管理案例来说明这些差异,我们在自己的工作和合作中对这些案例非常熟悉。这些实际案例表明,恢复和基于自然的解决方案的框架可导致生态系统和自然过程管理方式、参与人员和项目发展方式的不同优先级。这些案例还表明,干预措施可能处于介于这两个概念之间的连续统一体中的某处,并有可能随着时间的推移而改变。参与集水区管理的不同利益相关者群体可以从更多的机会中获益,明确思考首选目标以及如何实现这些目标的影响。我们需要对干预措施的目的进行更明确的思考,然后从现场管理者到政策制定者和其他有利团体的不同参与者就可以制定计划来实现这一愿景。鉴于干预措施与成果之间存在时间差,在适应性方法中利用这些见解来了解影响当前和未来行动的不断变化的驱动因素尤为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effect of compost and compost-derived biochar on the growth of lettuce irrigated with water and treated wastewater Time in and for nature-based solutions. No quick fix solutions for complex ecological and social processes Numerical modelling of the hydrodynamics driven by tidal flooding of the land surface after dyke breaching Nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation and resilience in urban informal settlements: Insights from kibera, kenya and Villa 20, Argentina A basic study on tree growth and landscape greening in Coastal Urban areas: The case of Hakata port in Fukuoka City, Japan
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1