water

Article
Evaluating Nature-Based Solutions for Water Management in
Peri-Urban Areas
Sarah E. Hale 1, * , Loretta von der Tann 1 , Alanna J. Rebelo 2,3 , Karen J. Esler 3 , Ana Paula Morais de Lima 4,5 ,
Aline F. Rodrigues 4,5 , Agnieszka Ewa Latawiec 4,5,6,7 , Nancy Andrea Ramírez-Agudelo 8 ,
Elisabet Roca Bosch 8 , Lina Suleiman 9 , Nandita Singh 10 and Amy M. P. Oen 1

1 Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), Ullevål Stadion, P.O. Box 3930, N-0806 Oslo, Norway
2 Agricultural Research Council, Natural Resources and Engineering, Water Science Unit,
Cedara 3245, South Africa
3 Department of Conservation Ecology & Entomology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag x1,
Matieland 7602, South Africa
4 International Institute for Sustainability, R. Dona Castorina 124, Rio de Janeiro 22460-320, Brazil
5 Department of Geography and Environment/Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre,
Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, R. Marquês de São Vicente, 225-Gávea,
Rio de Janeiro 22451-000, Brazil
6 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Opole University of Technology, ul. St, Stanisława Mikołajczyka 5,
45-271 Opole, Poland
7 Norwich Research Park, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
8 Institute for Sustainability Science and Technology, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Jordi Girona 1-3,
08034 Barcelona, Spain
9 Department of Urban Planning and Environment, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH,
Royal Institute of Technology, 10044 Stockholm, Sweden
10 School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Södertörn University,
141 89 Huddinge, Sweden
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The term nature-based solutions (NBS) has gained traction in recent years and has been
applied in many settings. There are few comprehensive assessment frameworks available that can
Citation: Hale, S.E.; Tann, L.v.d.; guide NBS planning and implementation while at the same time capturing the short- and long-term
Rebelo, A.J.; Esler, K.J.; de Lima, impacts and benefits of the NBS. Here a recently presented framework, which builds on the theory of
A.P.M.; Rodrigues, A.F.; Latawiec, change and was developed to assess NBS at different phases of the project cycle, was applied to seven
A.E.; Ramírez-Agudelo, N.A.; Bosch, diverse case studies. The case studies addressed water quality and quantity issues in peri-urban areas
E.R.; Suleiman, L.; et al. Evaluating across the global north and south. Framework indicators covering the sustainability dimensions
Nature-Based Solutions for Water (environmental, social and economic) were assessed at three stages of the framework: context, process
Management in Peri-Urban Areas. and results. The work sought to investigate the following research objectives: (1) Can this framework
Water 2023, 15, 893. https://doi.org/
be robust and yet flexible enough to be applied across a diverse selection of NBS projects that are at
10.3390/w15050893
different phases of the project cycle and address different kinds of water challenges within varied
Academic Editor: Oz Sahin ecological, social and economic contexts? (2) Is it possible to draw generalisations from a comparative
analysis of the application of the framework to the case studies? Results showed that the framework
Received: 3 February 2023
was able to be applied to the case studies; however, their diversity showed that NBS projects designed
Revised: 17 February 2023
Accepted: 20 February 2023
in one context, for a specific purpose in a specific location, can not necessarily be transferred easily
Published: 25 February 2023 to another location. There were several process-based indicators that were universally significant
for the case studies, including expertise, skills and knowledge of the involved actors, roles and
responsibilities of involved actors and political support. The result-based indicators were case study-
specific when environmental indicators were case study-specific, and important social indicators
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. were environmental identity and recreational values. Overall, the use of the framework benefits the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
recognition of the implementation’s advances, such as the change in context, the processes in place
This article is an open access article
and the results obtained.
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Keywords: peri-urban; case study; indicators; environmental; social; economic
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Water 2023, 15, 893. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15050893 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2023, 15, 893 2 of 29

1. Introduction
Against the backdrop of global challenges such as climate change and ongoing ur-
banisation, nature-based solutions (NBS) have emerged as systemic interventions that,
inspired and supported by nature and adapted to their local setting, contribute to both
sustainability and resilience [1]. The use of the term “solutions” in NBS suggests that
these interventions respond to a problem, or something perceived as such. “Nature based”
describes the fact that they draw on natural processes in contrast to grey or built solutions.
By stating that interventions need to be systemic, the European Commission highlights that
any intervention will necessarily impact a larger socio-ecological system. In cases where in-
terdependencies between different challenges and our responses to them are not identified,
unintended consequences may arise [2]. Recognising these interdependencies, on the other
hand, can facilitate interventions that result in multiple benefits beyond the initial purpose
they were designed to respond to. These “co-benefits for health, the economy, society and
the environment” [1] have become a guiding feature of NBS [3]. Considering co-benefits
thus emphasises the systemic nature of the respective interventions, highlighting that each
intervention will necessarily have multiple impacts. A systems approach is needed to
design and evaluate NBS so that lasting benefits to nature, including biodiversity and
society, are realised.
The establishment of NBS as an umbrella concept has its roots in research primarily
related to urban challenges [4]. The concept is also inherently related to other established
concepts such as ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA), ecological infrastructure (EI) [5] and
green infrastructure (GI) [2], and in recent years many worldwide organisations have
embraced NBS as an integrated approach that addresses a wide variety of challenges.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change included the term in their recent report
on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability as an innovative idea that can “expand the
climate solution space” but added a few words of caution related to NBS being construed
as providing a stand-alone solution to climate change as well as to the use of NBS for
large-scale conversion of land use [6].
Several authors have expressed the need for a comprehensive assessment framework
that can guide NBS planning and implementation while at the same time capturing the
short- and long-term impacts and benefits of the NBS [7–10]. These authors emphasise that
such a framework should provide a basis for comparison between, and for learning from,
different case studies and ultimately could be used to increase confidence in NBS [7,8].
Many frameworks that have been suggested in the literature address different project
phases [9] or specific areas of concern, such as climate-proofing of NBS [7] or circularity
challenges [10]. Recent evaluation frameworks [7,8] use the Theory of Change (ToC) to
address challenges of prioritisation and increase understanding of impacts for particular
case studies. ToC builds on backcasting, a planning methodology which begins with a
vision of the future [11]. Somewhat inverse to the idea of forecasting that starts with a
description of the present and then analyses what changes specific interventions might
bring about, backcasting starts from a description of the desired future. It then explores
what specific steps need to be taken in the short or mid-term for the desired future scenario
to materialise [12]. Through backcasting, causal pathways or result chains can be traced that
lead to the desired change and which help to identify necessary actions for moving from the
current situation to an intended outcome [13]. For a specific project, the development of a
ToC can provide a concrete method to identify desired outcomes and ways to achieve them
and take into consideration the wider context of the intervention. The ToC has been used
under different contexts; however, a vast resource database has been built by the United
States Agency for International Development, including a workbook and examples [14].
Two of the main objectives of NBS are that they address societal challenges and that
they provide multiple benefits beyond their primary purpose [15]. To evaluate whether
these objectives are met, specific indicators need to be formulated such that baselines can
be established and the performance of a specific NBS can then be measured at a later
stage. Applying a ToC approach can support this formulation and the development of
Water 2023, 15, 893 3 of 29

evaluation and monitoring schemes by making expected outcomes and impacts explicit [16].
Few authors have used ToC in the development and evaluation of NBS. One example,
the Connecting Nature Impact Assessment Framework [8], aims to create a joint vision
between different stakeholders, map different viewpoints of how NBS could contribute to
this vision and select specific indicators that can be measured to monitor the impact of NBS.
Calliari et al. [7] do not mention ToC, but apply systems analysis and backcasting to map out
the overall objective of the NBS based on the current situation, external factors that might
influence the desired future and different intervention alternatives that could contribute to
reaching the defined objectives. Arlati et al. [17] describe how developing a ToC guided the
process of co-designing NBS interventions in Hamburg, particularly for moving from an
initial problem understanding to the formulation of a shared understanding of objectives.
All three examples emphasise the ToC or backcasting as a valid methodology to capture
the transformation of an area or community that a specific NBS is expected to bring forth
over the long term.
The current paper presents the application of a novel framework recently developed
by de Lima et al. This framework, which also builds on the ToC, was developed as a
comprehensive, adaptive framework which can be applied to assess NBS at different
phases of the project cycle, namely, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation
phases. The framework can be used to show if, or how, the NBS resulted in medium and/or
long-term changes. The context within which the framework can be applied is wide, and
includes different water management scenarios in different contexts [18].
The above framework was developed within the scope of a project called ‘NATWIP:
Nature based solutions for Water Management in the Peri-Urban’ (http://www.natwip.
solutions/accessed on 15 December 2022), where it was further applied to assess various
NBS case studies concerning water management in peri-urban areas. Peri-urban areas are
transition zones between cities and their rural surroundings. They are located in between,
and generally in close proximity to, both an urban environment dominated by infrastructure
and high-density residential areas and a more natural environment, such as a forest [19] or
agricultural landscapes. Peri-urban areas provide a range of ecosystem services (ES) to the
city and, owing to vast and rapid urban development, are often in a dynamic transition
process [20]. Yet, peri-urban areas often have smaller populations compared to urban areas,
and therefore finance for NBS and their governance can be weaker than in the large urban
hubs [21]. In addition, the complex setting of peri-urban areas also implicates uncertainties
that need to be met with comprehensive communication, monitoring and accounting of the
delivered benefits [4].
This paper aims to build knowledge based on the application of the de Lima et al. [18]
NBS assessment framework for seven case studies from across the world. The research
aimed to address two basic research questions: (1) Is this framework robust yet flexible
enough to be applied across a diverse selection of NBS projects that are at different phases
of the project cycle and address different kinds of water challenges within varied ecological,
social and economic contexts? (2) What generalisations can be drawn from a comparative
analysis of the application of the framework to diverse case studies regarding planning,
designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating NBS? The case studies presented
in this work span five countries and different phases of the project cycle, from planning
to evaluation. For all the case studies, the framework was applied either retrospectively,
meaning that the NBS had already been implemented, or it was applied to the NBS project
at a specific project phase. This work builds on previous studies and moves the scientific
field further through the following novel aspects; the use of a framework rooted in ToC, the
application of this framework to seven very diverse case studies, and the methodological
freedom in the assessment of indicators.

2. Materials and Methods

This study comprised the application of the de Lima et al. framework [18] on case
studies based on water-related challenges in peri-urban areas. Towards this end, local
 rooted in ToC, the application of this framework to seven very diverse case studies, and
the methodological freedom in the assessment of indicators.

2. Materials and Methods

Water 2023, 15, 893 4 of 29
This study comprised the application of the de Lima et al. framework [18] on case
studies based on water-related challenges in peri-urban areas. Towards this end, local re-
searchers with different disciplinary backgrounds applied the framework to seven case
researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds applied the framework to seven case
studies (all in peri-urban areas) in five countries, addressing various water challenges to
studies (all in peri-urban areas) in five countries, addressing various water challenges to
obtain the dataset used in this work.
obtain the dataset used in this work.
2.1. The
2.1. The Framework
Framework
The framework
The framework developed
developed by by de
de Lima
Lima etet al.
al. [18]
[18] is
is composed
composed of of three
three stages
stages to
to assess
assess
the context, the NBS implementation process and the results. For
the context, the NBS implementation process and the results. For each stage (hereafter: each stage (hereafter:
context, process
context, process and and results),
results), the
the framework
framework guidesguides thethe case
case study
study description
description and and the
the
development of indicators. Figure 1 provides a schematic of the stages
development of indicators. Figure 1 provides a schematic of the stages of the framework of the framework
showing how
showing how they
they fit
fit together
together with
with the
the project
project phases,
phases, indicators
indicators and
and steps
steps taken
taken inin the
the
actual application
actual application of of the
the framework
framework to to the
the case
case studies.
studies. Predefined indicators are
Predefined indicators are grouped
grouped
into the three dimensions of sustainability: environmental,
into environmental, economic and social social indicators.
indicators.
When the
When the original
original list of indicators was being developed, a screening process was carried
out to establish
out to establish wherewhere data
data could
could be collected
be collected for each
for each of theofcase
thestudies.
case studies.
Those Those areas
areas where
where the greatest amount of data (both qualitative and quantitative)
the greatest amount of data (both qualitative and quantitative) could be collected across thecould be collected
across
case the case
studies thenstudies
became thenthebecame thefurther
focus of focus of further development.
indicator indicator development. In accord-
In accordance with
anceToC,
the withthethe ToC, the allows
framework framework
for theallows for the development
development of additional
of additional categories and categories
indicators
and describe
that indicators thethat describe
intended the intended
future outcome(s) future outcome(s)
for each for each
specific case study specific case study
the framework is
the framework
applied to. is applied to.

Figure 1. The figure shows the way in which the project phases, framework stages and indicators
Figure 1. The figure shows the way in which the project phases, framework stages and indicators fit
fit together, as well as the steps that are taken when applying the framework. The ToC is reflected
together, as well as the steps that are taken when applying the framework. The ToC is reflected in the
in the way the framework was developed and subsequently applied.
way the framework was developed and subsequently applied.
The first stage of the framework, the context, serves to provide a wider description
The first stage of the framework, the context, serves to provide a wider description of
of the environmental
the environmental andand socio-economic
socio-economic setting
setting the the
NBSNBS is situated
is situated in andin and responds
responds to.
to. The
The description
description of theofcontext
the context may include
may include many aspects,
many aspects, such as household
such as household income,
income, property
property value or water treatment costs. In this stage, targets can also be
value or water treatment costs. In this stage, targets can also be defined that describe defined that de-
scribe the desired outcome of the project. To facilitate the evaluation of these
the desired outcome of the project. To facilitate the evaluation of these targets, outcome targets, out-
come indicators need to be developed. If these indicators require comparison
indicators need to be developed. If these indicators require comparison to the status before to the status
before
the the project,
project, the samethe same indicators
indicators should be should be evaluated
evaluated as a baselineas ainbaseline in the
the context context
stage.
stage.For the implementation stage of the framework, covering the detailed project planning
For the implementation
and implementation, stage indicators,
process-based of the framework,
describingcovering
inputs the
and detailed
outputs ofproject plan-
the project
ning and implementation, process-based indicators, describing inputs and
are developed and assessed to evaluate the NBS. The input indicators are used to quantify outputs of the
project are developed and assessed to evaluate the NBS. The input indicators
and qualify the resources invested in the project, for example, number of seedlings planted, are used to
number of green roofs implemented and campaigns that are launched to support the socio-
cultural values within NBS. The output indicators are used to describe and quantify direct
short-term results that arise as a result of the NBS [22], for example, the area of alien trees
cleared or the quantifiable area of artificial wetlands created (Table 1).
Water 2023, 15, 893 5 of 29

Table 1. Process indicators developed for the framework proposed by de Lima et al., 2022.

Dimension Category Input/Output Indicators

Number of seedlings planted
Number of green roofs implemented
Number of roads recovered
Area that received the green and blue infrastructure
Rate of plants planted survival
Area of alien trees cleared
Area of active rehabilitation
Number of propagules planted
Number of pipes installed
Greywater water disposal points constructed
Vertical wetlands constructed
Tree gardens (water filtering sites) constructed
Stormwater management (improved road surface with permeable paving)
Collection and separation of household solid waste in wheelie bins
(compostables, recyclables, non-recyclables)
Environmental Intervention
Fabrication of ecomachines (which are water treatment systems using plants
and microbes most often housed in a greenhouse)
Number of water harvesting structures created and/or restored (e.g., lake,
pond, tank)
Number and types of watershed structures created and/or restored
Number and area of encroachment cleared from water harvesting structures
and their network
Number and types of nature-based wastewater treatment units installed
and/or renovated
Location of intervention—individual property or community level
Wetlands
Permeable paving
Water harvesting structures and their network
Infiltration facilities
Other
Driving forces for the NBS project
The design of NBS
Social governance Project Management
Expertise, skills and knowledge of the involved actors
Personal values and attributes that facilitate the NBS process
Roles and responsibilities of involved actors
Power
Social governance Governance
Societal groups’ role in the NBS at the different phases of planning cycle and
whether it is top-down or bottom-up
Political support and commitment to driving, planning and implementation of
the NBS
Social governance Political support
Political support and commitment after implementation of the NBS—in
maintenance, monitoring, evaluation phases
Identified societal/cultural values that are incorporated in the planning and
designing of NBS
Activities/campaigns that are launched to support the socio-cultural
approach/values within NBS
Cultural awareness or
Social governance Identified local knowledge that is incorporated in the planning and designing
education
of NBS
Identified awareness and educational programs for system users and relevant
societal groups that are associated with the planning cycle processes of
the NBS
Conflictual/tension/collaborative interaction among actors involved
Co-design
Social governance Working culture
Joint and integrated authorship of NBS
Single/divided ownership of NBS
Economic Risk Non-secure financing
Economic Benefit Possibility for co-financing from other sources
Water 2023, 15, 893 6 of 29

Table 1. Cont.

Dimension Category Input/Output Indicators

Who pays
Economic Financial Support What kind of costs are supported
Business model to support private involvement
Integrating the learning outcomes by actors involved and their representative
organisations for adjustment of NBS, standardisation, producing guidelines, etc.
Technical Learning Integrating the learning outcomes by actors involved and their representative
organisations for adjustment of NBS in the existing NBS or new NBS
Recommendations by community members
Challenges like technical uncertainty, hydrology, soil, geology, lack of technical
Technical Challenges
expertise, lack of space or space optimisation

For the results stage, result-based indicators are developed to support the evaluation
and monitoring of the NBS following implementation. These indicators are used to assess
whether the planned NBS results in the desired outcome and impact and whether the
indicators capture benefits and longer-term challenges that might not have been foreseen
(Table 2). They focus on medium- and long-term results and include aspects such as water
quality change, which can be quantified by the concentration of pollutants and saved
costs associated with water treatment. The result indicators should ideally be developed
during the research and planning phase so that baselines can be established and the project
assessed against the expectations project participants had at the beginning of the project.
They also include information about the wider long-term results and changes promoted
by the NBS, which can be more difficult to place a value on. Results can be assessed at
several time points and over longer time periods to monitor the project impact, given that
the measured indicators might continue changing over different timescales.

Table 2. Results indicators developed for the framework proposed by de Lima et al., 2022.

Dimension Category Outcome/Impact Indicators

Environmental identity
Social Cultural Recreational values
Cultural values and practices
Effects of water quality
Social Health and well-being
Effects of water supply
Equitable water access for daily use
Water availability for different productive uses
Improving water-related social values and
Social Gender equity
services
Crime
Social cohesion
Social Social learning and institutionalisation Policies related to NBS
Social Threats identified Lack of legislation, absence from the state
Social Opportunities identified Labour, participatory community
Recreational use
Aesthetic improvement
Social/cultural values for ecosystems and biodiversity
Spiritual, symbolic and other interactions with natural
environment
Tourism (aquatic, farm, Forest)
Amount of standing water
Depth to groundwater
Measures (qualitative/quantitative) showing
Water Table Level
Environmental improvement (augmentation) of water
Number of springs recharged
quantity (groundwater, surface water)
Streamflow improved/revived
Other surface water bodies revived, e.g., pond, lake
Streamflow variation
Reduction in groundwater abstraction for human use
Soil moisture (green water improvement)
Increased water availability
Improved groundwater quality
Sediment load
Water 2023, 15, 893 7 of 29

Table 2. Cont.

Dimension Category Outcome/Impact Indicators

Turbidity
Dissolved oxygen concentration
Nutrient (N, P) concentration
Cyanobacteria bloom events
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Total coliforms
Total nitrogen (Kjehldahl N)
Nitrates
Nitrite
Nitrate & Nitrite combined
Ammonium
Dissolved inorganic phosphate (PID)
Total dissolved phosphates (PTD)
Heavy metals (Nickel (Ni), Lead (Pb), Zinc (Zn))
Pesticides: Chlorpyrifos µg/L, Diazinon (ng/L), PCE (µg/L), TCE (µg/L)
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC)
Dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC)
pH
Cations SUM(cations): (sodium (Na), calcium (Ca), potassium (K),
magnesium (Mg))
Measures (qualitative/quantitative) showing Anions SUM(anions): (carbonates (CO3), bicarbonates (HCO3), chlorides
Environmental improvement/maintaining of water quality of (Cl), Sulfates (SO4), nitrates (NO3))
both surface and groundwater Total hardness
Chlorophyll
Oils and greases
Salinity: Sodium (Na), Potassium (K), Chlorides (Cl), Sulfates (SO4),
Electric conductivity (20 ◦ C)
Electric conductivity (field)”
Alkalinity: Bicarbonates (HCO3), Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg),
Sodium (Na), Potassium (K)
Presence of aquatic macrophytes
Hormones
Antibiotics
Surfactants
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Escherichia coli
Virus
Salmonella
Electric conductivity
Phytoplankton Algae
Colour
Biotic Indices of Environmental Quality (IBI)
Total Suspended solids
Soil Permeability
Environmental Soil Regulation and Maintenance Services
Erosion prevention (% bare ground)
Food
Water Provisioning
Materials
Energy
Genetic
Medicinal
Ornamental
Water Purification
Water Regulation
Air Quality Maintenance
Environmental Ecosystem Services Soil Quality Maintenance
Soil Retention
Climate Regulation
Pollination
Life Cycle Maintenance
Biological Control
Recreation
Science & Education
Heritage
Aesthetic
Symbolic
 Water 2023, 15, 893 8 of 29

Table 2. Cont.

Dimension Category Outcome/Impact Indicators

Diversity Index
Composition—aquatic and terrestrial species
Presence of bioindicators species—fauna and flora
Habitat Connectivity (unitless)
Environmental Enhancing or conserving biodiversity
Aquatic species richness
Percentage of cover native vegetation
r 2023, 15, 893 Benthic organisms
Percentage of Invasive exotic vegetation
Income-generating activities created directly/ indirectly
Jobs created directly/indirectly
Economic Income and jobs
Property value
Household income
Water treatment costs
Economic
2.2. Case Studies
Avoided costs
Fertilizers costs
Water supply costs
The case studies are located in Brazil, Norway, South Africa (two
Irrigation costs

and Sweden (two case studies) [18], and with this geographical sca
2.2. Case Studies
Global South and Global North. The Norwegian case study is in the
The case studies are located in Brazil, Norway, South Africa (two case studies), Spain
opment
and Swedenand planning
(two case phases,
studies) [18], and withthe two Swedish
this geographical caseboth
scale include studies are in t
the Global
South and Global North. The Norwegian case study is in the research and development
struction and implementation phases, and the Spanish, Brazilian and
and planning phases, the two Swedish case studies are in the planning or construction and
case studiesphases,
implementation are in andthe monitoring
the Spanish, Brazilian and evaluation
and both South Africanphases.
case studiesThe
are case
in the monitoring and evaluation phases. The case studies represent a divergent mixture of
divergent mixture of NBS for water management focused on issues s
NBS for water management focused on issues such as water excess, water shortage and
water shortage
water quality (Figureand
2). water quality (Figure 2).

TheThe
Figure 2. 2.
Figure case case
studiesstudies
grouped according
grouped to whether the NBS
according toaddresses
whether water
thequality,
NBSwater
addresse
excess or water shortage problems.
excess or water shortage problems.

The NBS that were planned, under consideration or implemente

included a planned river opening with landscape alteration and leach
erside park and constructed wetlands, water ponds integrated into a
Water 2023, 15, 893 9 of 29

The NBS that were planned, under consideration or implemented in the case stud-
ies included a planned river opening with landscape alteration and leachate treatment,
a riverside park and constructed wetlands, water ponds integrated into a city park, the
restoration and conservation of degraded land and native vegetation, respectively, estab-
lishing tree gardens and riparian rehabilitation. Detailed descriptions of each case study
can be found in previous publications [4,23–28] and in NATWIP project case study briefs
(http://www.natwip.solutions/Pages/publications.html (accessed on 7 January 2023)). A
description of the case studies can be found below.

2.2.1. Brazil—Water and Forest Producers Project

In 2009, the Water and Forest Producers Project in Rio Claro, Rio de Janeiro State began,
with the aim of improving the quality and quantity of water in a stretch of the Guandu
River basin. The river basin is a vital source of drinking water for 12 million people. The
Water and Forest Producers Project was designed as a tool for environmental management,
and the NBS used in the program were twofold: forest conservation and restoration; and
payment for ecosystem services to improve water quality and quantity in the basin. In the
first five years of project operation, USD 1.6 million was invested. In total, 4562 hectares
of conservation areas and 564 hectares of restored area are now included in the follow-up
monitoring, which is supported by 70 rural landowners [29–34].

2.2.2. Norway—Kjørbekk Stream

Kjørbekk stream is located in the Skien municipality, Norway, and is 4 km long. The
water in the Kjørbekk stream is led into a pipe that was constructed in the 1960s, and then
travels via the pipe system to the Skien River. The piped system is buried up to 15 m
deep and, in certain places, is buried under two disused landfills that received mixed
waste and that do not have bottom membranes. The main challenge at the site is related to
the possibility of excess surface water resulting from increases in precipitation caused by
climate change, or stream water leaking from the ageing pipe infrastructure, coming into
contact with waste in the disused landfills, and being contaminated. The case study is in
the planning phase where NBS are being considered as part of a strategy to open up the
buried stream. More details about this case study can be found in Hale et al. [23].

2.2.3. Spain—Besòs River

The Spanish case study is located in the Besòs River, Barcelona. The project was
initiated in response to poor water quality (and general degradation) and problems with
water quantity in the river [35]. Water quality was impaired in the river due to industrial
pollution, and water quantity issues were seen with both a shortage due to extraction
and an excess due to flooding caused by heavy rainfall events [36]. The surrounding
Metropolitan area has a higher concentration of socially vulnerable inhabitants, with a
much lower income, compared to Barcelona city [37]. The large-scale restoration project
began in 1996 in order to address these issues as well as open up the river’s banks for
passive recreational activities. The restoration project included two types of NBS, namely
constructed wetlands and a riverside park. The constructed wetlands were used to improve
water quality in the lower river basin by removing phosphorus through natural depuration.
The riverside park is 9 km long and combines urban and natural landscapes via blue–
green infrastructure. The park has become an area of high multifunctionality, providing
opportunities for relaxation and as a meeting space, integrating different municipalities
at the metropolitan level. This approach is explained by the leadership of the Consorci
Besòs, a technical support consortium that promoted “The Agenda Besòs”, a shared and
agreed-upon action strategy between the five municipalities comprising the end of the
Besòs river axis [38].
Water 2023, 15, 893 10 of 29

2.2.4. South Africa—Genius of SPACE (Systems for People’s Access to a Clean Environment)
Langrug is a relatively recently formed and continuously expanding informal settle-
ment (slum) near Franschhoek, South Africa [39]. The Stiebeuel River drains the Langrug
Catchment (about 4.37 km2 ) and enters the Berg River, which is an important agricultural
river for the Western Cape (predominantly winter wheat, vineyards and fruit) entering
the sea at the Velddrif Estuary (St Helena Bay), supporting important fisheries [40]. The
settlement suffers from several problems, including the accumulation of wastewater and
solid waste in its streets due to lack of service provision and sewerage and localised
flooding. These factors combined increase the risk of disease and other associated health
issues [41]. The problems in Langrug result in eutrophication and pollution of the Berg
River, which creates further problems for agriculture downstream, especially in relation
to import standards of overseas trading partners [42]. The Genius of SPACE project used
a number of NBS to attempt to treat and manage wastewater and greywater entering the
storm water system, to manage solid waste, to empower local community members and
to improve the living conditions and promote social upliftment [43–46]. The NBS used
were the installation of 27 greywater disposal points to manage greywater run-off, the
installation of underground wastewater pipes to reduce local flood risk and storm water
management and the establishment of 15 tree gardens for water infiltration [47].

2.2.5. South Africa—Dwars River

The Dwars River is a tributary of the Berg River in the Western Cape, South Africa.
The area suffers from an infestation of the riparian zone by invasive alien trees and weeds,
which consume a lot of water relative to the indigenous vegetation and thus reduce water
supply, increase fire risk and negatively impact biodiversity [48,49]. The NBS that has
been implemented to manage the infestation includes clearing invasive alien trees from
the riparian zone and active rehabilitation via planting indigenous riparian vegetation [24].
Running parallel to the NBS was a scheme to engage the community, where employment
opportunities were created through this rehabilitation programme, a recycling scheme was
set up and a native tree growing program was trialled [27].

2.2.6. Sweden—Årstafältet
Årstafältet is a large, open grass field located in a suburb in southern Stockholm,
Sweden, where an NBS project encompassing several solutions spanning the planning,
design and construction project phases is being carried out. Initially, a water dam or pond,
a distribution ditch and a small stream “valla” were constructed that were planned to
be integrated into a landscape park for purifying run-off water from the surroundings,
thus restoring the natural water flow and maintaining the ecological value of the grass
field [50]. However, due to the huge housing demand, the landscape plan was altered
towards urbanising the area and constructing residential buildings. The new plan, ‘New
Årstafältet’, replaced the landscape plan but was substantially challenged by civic groups’
opposition and appeals [25]. In the new plan, the city decided to capitalise on existing
NBS. It has enlarged the water pond and redesigned the “valla” stream into three water
ponds, integrating them into a city park. Furthermore, the city extended the existing NBS
to include rainfall management parks, open ditches, trees being planted along roads, green
rooves and courtyards, swales (shallow channels), allotment gardens and deciduous forests.
These NBS run in parallel with plans to urbanise the area in order to counterbalance the
negative effects of the desired urban development. However, the planning and construction
of the NBS, mainly the water ponds, have been greatly challenged by technical uncertainties,
high cost and investments and contestation over roles of actors in planning and design,
financing issues, ownership, division of responsibilities for maintaining NBS, but also the
very dynamic and long-term planning process that is exposed to contingencies and change.
Water 2023, 15, 893 11 of 29

2.2.7. Sweden—Norrtälje
Norrtälje is a municipality in the Stockholm Archipelago—the second-largest one
in the Baltic Sea. The municipality has the largest number of summer cottages (13,900),
many of which lie outside the reach of municipal water supply and sewerage. This poses
challenges of access to safe water in adequate quantities for the inhabitants, while also
contributing to the eutrophication (excessive increase in nutrients and minerals) of the
Baltic Sea. The conversion of many of these houses into permanent residences and the
impact of climate change on the precipitation pattern further aggravate the problem. Given
this context, it is imperative to implement solutions that can sustainably address the water
cycle gap in this coastal municipality. According to Swedish law and municipal regulations,
this responsibility lies with the property owners, who can act individually or as collectives.
A large variety of technical solutions exist in the market, and though not explicitly marketed
as a category, many of these solutions can be described as ‘nature-based.’ This case study
aimed to gain an understanding of the major opportunities, barriers and benefits related to
nature-based solutions as a means for greywater treatment at a decentralised scale.

2.3. Application of the Framework to the Case Studies

Owing to the diverse nature of the seven case studies, the way in which the local
researchers applied the framework varied. As has been mentioned, the framework was
applied either retrospectively, meaning that the NBS had already been implemented, or it
was applied to the NBS project at a specific project phase (Figure 2). Thus, the framework
was applied at a defined moment in time under a static situation, rather than it being used
as a dynamic tool running alongside the conception, design and implementation of the
NBS. This research setting meant that it was not possible for an assessment of the same
indicators before and after implementation to be made. Thus, the achievement of targets
could be assessed in a qualitative or quantitative manner for those case studies that were
already implemented, for example, by asking the affected community if they had seen or
perceived changes.
For the context stage, information was gathered for each case study related to the
project area and the type of affected settlement. Threats, opportunities, problems (and their
scales), as well as the involvement of stakeholders, were mapped and recorded. For the
implementation stage of the framework, the specific NBS intervention was described (for all
case studies except the Norwegian one, which is still in the planning stage), both in terms
of type and scale. Process indicators were chosen or developed to capture the resources
invested and direct short-term results of the NBS. These indicators were assessed for those
case studies that were already implemented, and estimates for required resources were
given for those still in the development phase. Relevant stakeholders that were identified
and mapped in the context stage were included in the assessment of the process indicators
where possible. For the third stage of the framework—the results stage—result-based
indicators were used. These could only be assessed for the case studies where the NBS
were in the monitoring or evaluation stages to show how, or if, the NBS resulted in medium
and/or long-term change.
The local researchers were given freedom in how to apply the framework so that it
could be used as a tool to enhance their understanding of their case study. As each of the
case studies had its own environmental, social and economic settings, this was important.
This approach enabled learning not only about the specific case studies but also about the
flexibility and applicability of the framework in a study setting. In addition, the approach
inspired some innovation and variation in how the data were gathered. The methods
used to develop and assess the indicators in the different case studies are summarised
in Figure 3. Different methods were used, including consulting literature and reports,
sending out questionnaires and carrying out surveys and interviews with stakeholders.
In Brazil, interviews and meetings were conducted with relevant stakeholders who are
currently working on monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the NBS project. In
addition, reports and academic literature were consulted [29–33]. In Norway, the context
Water 2023, 15, 893 12 of 29

was assessed by drawing upon reports and publicly available databases. Certain process
indicators, mainly the actors involved and their roles, could be assessed via discussions
with the main Norwegian stakeholder involved at the site. In both South African case
studies, the NBS was fully implemented at the time the study was conducted. In these
case studies, a semi-structured interview was carried out with community members and
implementers to assess the defined indicators. Feedback for specific interview questions
was captured in a database, and all interviews were recorded for transcription. In Spain,
data were gathered from academic literature, policy instruments, direct observation, in-
terviews with various stakeholders, including citizens and surveys [51]. In the Swedish
case studies, key municipal, private and community-level actors involved in the planning
and implementation of NBS were identified, along with an analysis of relevant policy and
planning documents. Thereafter, in-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with
the identified actors. In the Norrtälje case study (Sweden), interviews with local property
owners (who are key actors in this NBS) were preceded by a survey administered to a
larger group which helped identify a varied representation of actors. Given the fact that the
researchers were able to select the indicators that were most suitable for their case studies
Water 2023, 15, 893 and their settings, a direct quantitative comparison between indicators could not always
15 of 34 be
made. Further methodological details can be found in the NATWIP project handbook [52].

Figure
Figure 3. 3.The
The way
way in
inwhich
which thethe
casecase
studies are distributed
studies in termsin
are distributed of terms
project of
phases and phases
project the meth-and the
ods used for the definition and evaluation of indicators.
methods used for the definition and evaluation of indicators.
3. Resultsand
3. Results andDiscussion
Discussion
3.1.3.1. ContextStage
Context Stage
TheThe resultsofofthe
results thefirst
firststage
stageininthe
the framework
framework application
applicationdescribing
describing thethe
context
contextof of the
the case studies are summarised below in Table 3.
case studies are summarised below in Table 3.
The information collected in the context stage of the framework (Table 3) demon-
The information collected in the context stage of the framework (Table 3) demonstrates
strates that NBS can be adopted as a solution for addressing a wide range of water-related
that NBS can be adopted as a solution for addressing a wide range of water-related chal-
challenges in peri-urban areas. Here the challenges were water excess or shortage as well
lenges in peri-urban
as water areas. Here
quality degradation. The the
casechallenges
studies werewere water
mostly at theexcess
local ororneighbourhood
shortage as well as
water
scale, and this was also mirrored in the scale at which the effects of the NBSor
quality degradation. The case studies were mostly at the local neighbourhood
implementa-
scale, and this was also mirrored in the scale at which the effects
tion were felt. The information collected showed that a wide range of actors may of the NBS implementation
be in-
were felt. The information collected showed that a wide range of actors
volved with the NBS process, including government at local and national levels, industry, may be involved
with thebusinesses,
local NBS process, civil including
society, andgovernment at local
local communities. and national
Ownership of NBSlevels, industry,
can be public local
(government)
businesses, civilassociety,
well asand private (local
local community).Ownership
communities. The case studies
of NBS indicated
can be apublic
need for
(govern-
a more
ment) explicit
as well as emphasis on NBS
private (local within relevant
community). Thepolicy frameworks.
case studies In many
indicated countries,
a need for a more
there emphasis
explicit are overarching
on NBS policies
withinconcerning
relevantwater
policyquality, though In
frameworks. themany
link tocountries,
NBS is morethere are
overarching policies concerning water quality, though the link to NBS is morearising,
often felt on a smaller scale. The majority of case studies described social benefits often felt on
which were felt with recreation, physical and mental health improvements and social in-
a smaller scale. The majority of case studies described social benefits arising, which were
clusion. The most common barriers to the adoption of NBS were seen as institutional, fi-
felt with recreation, physical and mental health improvements and social inclusion. The
nancial, political (governance), technical, as well as societal.
most common barriers to the adoption of NBS were seen as institutional, financial, political
(governance), technical, as well as societal.
Water 2023, 15, 893 13 of 29

Table 3. Summary of the main information collected in the context stage of the framework.

Case Study/
South Africa–Genius South Africa–
Context Brazil Norway Spain Sweden–Årstafältet Sweden–Norrtälje
of Space Dwars River
Information
Location Rio Claro Skien Langrug Pniel Barcelona Årstafältet - Stockholm Norrtälje
Variety of NBS for
Green infrastructure
Riparian greywater treatment,
Restoration and Planned river (permeable paving,
rehabilitation through Restoration including e.g., infiltration with/
conservation of opening, landscape integrated grey water Blue and Green Infrastructure: Water ponds
NBS type alien tree clearing and constructed wetlands without biomodule,
degraded land and alteration and disposal points with integrated in city parks
replanting of and a riverside park bio-treatment plant,
native vegetation leachate treatment tree and
indigenous vegetation greywater dam
herb gardens)
(wetland)
Individual property
NBS scale Local to municipal Neighbourhood Local Neighbourhood Municipal to National Local to Regional
to Neighbourhood
Planning, conceptual design, detailed design
NBS project Research and Planning, design
Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring and early construction of the city park and
phase development and monitoring
water ponds
European Water The European Water Framework Directive is
Framework Directive. enforced in Sweden through Environmental
National policy Quality Norms (MKN in Swedish) and is
related to water written into the Swedish Environmental Act. EU Water Framework
quality including The regional plan for Stockholm indirectly Directive, the Baltic
At the local level
criteria for monitoring mentions NBS by highlighting the Sea Region Action
there is the National
and evaluating the importance of innovations, green and blue Plan, the
Environmental
quality of surface infrastructure, circular and blue green cycles, Environmental Code,
Management Act 107
Supporting policies water. Metropolitan and using ecosystem services. The 2000 enacted by the
Lessons learnt from of 1998 through
for embarking on support in the form of Comprehensive plan of Stockholm mentions Swedish Parliament,
the NBS which penalties
NBS include the National planning the proposed Urban the intention to implement ecosystem 1992 Swedish Local
Supporting policy demonstration phase should be enforced
forest code, the guidelines highlight Master Plan to enable services and green infrastructure. The Government Act.
considered of were used to facilitate for those who don’t
water resources and the importance of and create a global Stockholm stormwater strategy promotes Though none of them
relevance policy learning [53] comply with the act
National Plan for considering NBS green and blue locally managed stormwater approaches. "A explicitly mention
for other informal (i.e. clearing invasive
the recovery of infrastructure, which greener Stockholm" is a strategic document NBS, the need and
networks elsewhere. alien vegetation from
Nature Vegetation. reinforces ecosystem that discusses where nature can help with obligation of property
their properties).
functions, and climate change and water issues such as owners to install
In reality these
functions for public storm water and floods However; the Water sustainable solutions
penalties are
use and leisure. Services Act and accompanying documents for wastewa-
poorly enforced.
Local via a document as well as the Planning and Building Act and ter/greywater
that integrates the Environmental Code are not coherent in treatment is evident.
territorial concerns supporting the NBS and stormwater strategy.
and the different The political budget sets a framework for
aspects of the area. NBS possibilities.
Water 2023, 15, 893 14 of 29

Table 3. Cont.

Case Study/
South Africa–Genius South Africa–
Context Brazil Norway Spain Sweden–Årstafältet Sweden–Norrtälje
of Space Dwars River
Information
Degraded
groundwater quality
Water excess due to as well as
climate change and eutrophication of the
Water excess due to
pipes being unable to Baltic Sea caused by
torrential rains as a
accommodate, discharge of
Water shortage, Water excess and result of climate chain.
leachate water Water excess, flooding risk and pollution contaminated
water is polluted water quality. Other Water shortage. Other Water shortage as a
becoming of stormwater and run off reaching the greywater into nature
Challenge and which creates a challenges cited: lack pressures are related result of
contaminated as it recipient. The area is being developed via due to inefficient
pressure addressed health threat, of (and theft of) water to social issues such Mediterranean dry
flows over the urbanisation / housing needs and the NBS and/or inoperational
by the NBS reduced property related infrastructure, as litter, drug and conditions. Pollution
disused landfills and needs to be able to tackle the increase in decentralized
value due to health issues due to alcohol abuse in the form of
threatens water water due to more impervious surfaces greywater treatment
water pressures water pollution, crime moderate
quality, ground systems. Also, water
eutrophication
stability when shortage during
and mineralisation.
re-opening the river is summer (dry period)
a challenge due to
over-withdrawal
of groundwater.
Private property
owners as individuals
and collectives,
Government at the
Government at the companies producing
Government, Government, regional, municipal
Government at the municipal and NBS technologies,
industry, civil society, industry, civil society, and local levels, water Government at the municipal, national and
Actors involved municipal level and national levels, entrepreneurs who
universities, other universities, other related actors, local levels, industry and civil society
civil society. industry and help install these
water related actors water related actors universities, industry
civil society systems, other private
and civil society
actors, government at
municipal and
county scales
The Water Hub (green The Water Hub (green
infrastructure), Alien infrastructure), Alien
One: Rio Claro Yes, in other coastal
Similar projects None Clearing Programmes, Clearing Programmes, None Yes similar projects in Stockholm
Amphibians municipalities
Wetlands for Wetlands for
water filtration water filtration
Water 2023, 15, 893 15 of 29

Table 3. Cont.

Case Study/
South Africa–Genius South Africa–
Context Brazil Norway Spain Sweden–Årstafältet Sweden–Norrtälje
of Space Dwars River
Information
The blue-green
corridor is expected to Expected to support Compared to grey
have a positive effect health and wellbeing Expected to support infrastructural
on environmental through a reduction recreation and solutions, NBS have
identify, pathway for in runoff of grey well-being by higher aesthetic and
walking and cycling water, and resultant providing an area for recreational value,
The NBS are expected to safeguard the
to be included along reduction in health relaxing, swimming, help maintain
water quality and quantity in the recipient
Expected social sections of the river, risk (through walking/hiking, physical and mental
Not described Not described Årstaviken. Biodiversity increase in certain
benefits cultural heritage water-borne diseases). picnicking. Job health (directly and
areas, added value caused by recreation
(buildings and Job creation through creation through the indirectly), and
and social inclusion
monuments) along the project was project is expected to empower users
Kjørbekk, a expected to improve improve gender through participation
restoration would be gender equality equality within in sustainable
viewed positive, within the community. environmental
urban flooding can be the community. stewardship
an issue
Main
Financial, political,
challenges/barriers Legal, financial, Institutional, financial, Institutional, financial,
Institutional, financial, Institutional, organisational arrangement and societal (lack of
for NBS planning technical, political, Financial and societal technical, and technical, and
political, and societal and technical awareness and
and and societal societal (governance) societal (governance)
education)
implementation
Public Private (property
Public (government), Public (government),
Ownership (government), as Public/government Public/government Public/government owners as individuals
as well as private as well as private
well as private or collectives)
Local and regional
Scale of impacts Currently local Regional Local Local Local and regional Local and regional
(Baltic Sea)
Water 2023, 15, 893 16 of 29

3.2. Process and Result Stages

Following the context, process and results stages of the framework, which cover the
detailed planning and implementation, the evaluation and monitoring phases of the project
can be assessed (see Figure 1). A full list of processes and results-based indicators in the
framework, and additional indicators developed, is given in Tables 1 and 2. Of this list,
input indicators are used to quantify and qualify the resources invested in the project
and output indicators used to describe and quantify direct short-term results that arise
because of the NBS. Result-based indicators provide information about the results of the
implemented activities in the medium and long term and changes (direct or indirect and
intentional or unintentional) resulting from the NBS. The most relevant input, output,
outcome and impact indicators for each of the case studies were assessed according to the
methods described in Section 2.3. Owing to the varying nature of the assessment process,
standardised quantitative classification schemes were not always used. Despite this, the use
of the framework rooted in the ToC and the indicators developed are considered suitable for
this analysis. The European Commission has recently published a Practitioner Handbook
entitled “Evaluating the impact of Nature-based solutions”, which aims to provide detailed
information to guide the development and implementation of an NBS monitoring and
evaluation plan and the use of the NBS impact indicators presented as a query tool [54].
The handbook also contains a very comprehensive list of suggested indicators reflecting
economic, environmental and social aspects of NBS implementations. These indicators
draw on qualitative and quantitative methods of assessment, and there are many parallels
with the indicators developed here.
The indicators selected for this study range from very specific project-related infor-
mation to very general, descriptive assessments of the process and changes that were
induced or realised by the project at the time when this study was carried out. In addition
to the predefined indicators, some additional indicators were developed for specific case
studies. For the Norwegian case study where the NBS had not been implemented, expected
impacts were described for the result stage, and descriptions were by category rather than
by indicator.
The indicators listed as environmental, both in the process and result stages of the
framework (see Table 1), are mostly well established and can be measured in a quantitative
manner. Tables 4 and 5 show the environmental indicators for the process and results stages
of the framework and which case studies were able to obtain information to assess them.
For example, water quality can be monitored by determining the concentration of specific
chemicals and additional water parameters. Water quantity can also be measured. Yet,
the application of the framework to the case studies shows that such data are not always
readily available. A range of measures showing improvement in water quantity was only
described in the three European case studies, and measures showing an improvement
in water quality were only described for the Swedish and Spanish case studies. Two
indicators describing water quantity (tourism and streamflow improvement) and three
indicators describing water quality (pH, electric conductivity and total suspended solids)
were considered relevant for the Brazilian case study. For both of the South African case
studies, a list of ecosystem services was introduced as environmental indicators in the result
stage and assessed by asking community members and implementers about their perceived
improvement. This was because monitoring was not explicitly budgeted for as part of these
NBS projects, and therefore no quantitative approaches could be used. Therefore, water
quantity and quality were assessed in a qualitative manner by asking community members
and implementers their perceptions about whether water provision and purification had
improved following the project (roughly half of the respondents answered “yes” for both
points in both projects). Monitoring the impacts of NBS in South Africa is not always
explicitly budgeted for in implementation projects, and this is characteristic of many
finance-constrained countries.
Water 2023, 15, 893 17 of 29

Table 4. Process-based environmental indicators according to whether each case study considered the indicator as relevant to be assessed (indicated with ‘Y’ for yes).

South South
Africa— Africa— Sweden— Sweden—
CATEGORY Inputs/Outputs Indicators Brazil Norway Spain
Genius of Dwars Årstafältet Norrtälje
Space River
Number of seedlings planted Y
Number of green roofs implemented
Number of roads recovered

general description of interventions given rather than specific indicators

Area that received the green and blue infrastructure Y Y
Survival rate of plants planted Y Y
Area of alien trees cleared Y
Area of active rehabilitation Y Y
Number of propagules planted Y
Number of pipes installed
Compliance with health & safety plans?
Greywater water disposal points constructed Y
Vertical wetlands constructed Y
Tree gardens (water filtering sites) constructed Y
Stormwater management (improved road surface with
Y
Interventions permeable paving)
Collection and separation of household solid waste in
Y
wheelie bins (compostables, recyclables, non-recyclables)
Fabrication of ecomachines
Number of water harvesting structures created and/or
restored (e.g., lake, pond, tank)
Number and types of watershed structures created
and/or restored (e.g., gabion, checkdam, water
absorption trench (WAT), etc.)
Number and area of encroachment cleared from water
harvesting structures and their network
Number and types of nature-based wastewater treatment
Y Y
units installed and/or renovated
Wetlands Y Y
Water harvesting structures and their network
Infiltration facilities Y
Other: Reduction of critical water floods Y
Other: Re-meandering of river Y
Water 2023, 15, 893 18 of 29

Table 5. Result-based environmental indicators according to whether each case study had data available to assess them (indicated with ‘Y’ for yes).

South South
Africa— Africa— Sweden— Sweden—
Category Outcomes/Impacts Indicators Brazil Norway Spain
Genius Dwars Årstafältet Norrtälje
of Space River
Recreational use Y Y Y
Aesthetic improvement Y Y Y
Social/cultural values for ecosystems and biodiversity Y Y Y
Spiritual, symbolic and other interactions with natural environment Y Y
Tourism (aquatic, farm, Forest) Y Y
Amount of standing water
Depth to groundwater Y
Measures (qualitative/quantitative)
Water Table Level Y Y
showing improvement (augmentation) of
Number of springs recharged Y Y Y
water quantity (groundwater,
Streamflow improved/revived Y Y Y
surface water)
Other surface water bodies revived, e.g., pond, lake
Streamflow variation Y
Reduction in groundwater abstraction for human use
Soil moisture (green water improvement)
Increased water availability
Improved groundwater quality Y Y
Sediment load
Turbidity
Dissolved oxygen concentration Y
Nutrient (N, P) concentration Y Y
Cyanobacteria bloom events Y
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Total coliforms Y
Total nitrogen (Kjehldahl N)
Nitrates Y
Nitrite Y
Nitrate & Nitrite combined
Ammonium Y
Dissolved inorganic phosphate (PID)
Total dissolved phosphates (PTD)
Heavy metals: (Nickel (Ni), Lead (Pb), Zinc (Zn)) Y
Pesticides: Chlorpyrifos µg/l, Diazinon (ng/l), PCE (µg/l), TCE (µg/l) Y
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC)
Dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC)
Measures (qualitative/quantitative) pH Y Y
showing improvement/maintaining of Cations SUM(cations): (sodium (Na), calcium (Ca), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg)) Y
water quality of both surface Anions SUM(anions); (carbonates (CO3 ), bicarbonates (HCO3 ), chlorides (Cl), Sulfates (SO4 ), nitrates (NO3 )) Y Y
and groundwater Total hardness Y
Chlorophyll
Oils and greases
Salinity
Sodium (Na)
Potassium (K)
Chlorides (Cl) Y
Sulfates (SO4 )
Electric conductivity (20 ◦ C)
Electric conductivity (field)
Water 2023, 15, 893 19 of 29

Table 5. Cont.

South South
Africa— Africa— Sweden— Sweden—
Category Outcomes/Impacts Indicators Brazil Norway Spain
Genius of Dwars Årstafältet Norrtälje
Space River
Alkalinity: (Bicarbonates (HCO3), Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), Sodium (Na),
Y
Potassium (K))
Presence of aquatic macrophytes Y
Hormones
Antibiotics
Surfactants
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Y
E. coli Y Y
Virus
Salmonella
Electric conductivity Y Y
Phytoplankton Algae
Colour
Biotic Indices of Environmental Quality (IBI) Y
Total Suspended solids Y Y
Soil Permeability Y
Soil Regulation and Maintenance Services Y
Erosion prevention (% bare ground) Y Y
Food Y Y
Water Provisioning Y Y Y
Materials Y Y
Energy Y Y
Genetic Y Y
Medicinal Y Y
Ornamental Y Y
Water Purification Y Y Y
Water Regulation Y Y Y
Air Quality Maintenance Y Y
Ecosystem Services Soil Quality Maintenance Y Y
Soil Retention Y Y
Climate Regulation Y Y
Pollination Y Y
Life Cycle Maintenance Y Y
Biological Control Y Y
Recreation Y Y Y
Science & Education Y Y
Heritage Y Y
Aesthetic Y Y Y
Symbolic Y Y
Diversity Index Y Y
Composition (aquatic and terrestrial species) Y Y
Presence of bioindicators species (fauna and flora) Y Y Y
Habitat Connectivity (unitless)
Enhancing or conserving biodiversity Y
Aquatic species richness
Percentage of cover native vegetation Y
Benthic organisms Y
Percentage of Invasive exotic vegetation Y Y
Water 2023, 15, 893 20 of 29

Whilst many environmental aspects tend to be represented by a defined numerical pa-

rameter, social aspects—and the assessment of social and governance indicators—often rely
on surveys or interviews. In a study setting such as the one here (used by the researchers
in the NATWIP project), the impact of a (NBS) project on, for example, well-being or power
struggles, can be investigated by asking survey participants about their perception of
change related to these aspects. To assess these points during a project, it could be beneficial
to provide guidelines that can support aspects such as survey scale, types of interview
questions and format, especially whether these factors were to be assessed before and after
implementation. Thus, awareness of data availability and the planning of data collection
and assessment alongside the development of indicators is particularly important for these
aspects. By considering and building in monitoring aspects at the start of an NBS project,
the overall assessment and evaluation of the NBS implementation and results can be carried
out both before and after implementation. Tables 6 and 7 show the social indicators for
the process and results stages of the framework according to which case studies were able
to compile data to assess them. Overall, there are more apparent data available for the
social indicators for the case studies used here. This may be because the formulation of
the social indicators allowed more room for interpretation and for the researchers to assess
them in a more flexible manner. In addition, it may have been because it was possible for
the researchers to ask questions to probe social indicators that applied to the before and
after scenarios.
As for the environmental aspects, some economic indicators are well established and
can be assessed in a quantitative manner, for example, the number of jobs or the training
opportunities created through a project. However, especially if done retrospectively, data
availability may be scarce, as can again be seen for the South African case studies where
the evaluation of indicators was conducted with interviews. When carrying out the data
collection for this study, it became apparent that many case studies had not measured
and publicly reported specific data. For example, the indicator framed around jobs as:
“jobs created directly/indirectly from the NBS project” was assessed by asking different
stakeholders the following questions: “Did the project create new jobs in your community?”,
“Were you directly employed in the project?” and “Were jobs created indirectly through
tourism?”. In the Spanish case study, a numerical value was reported for the number of
indirectly created jobs. There are many reasons for this difference in reporting that may be
centred around financial, political and social support for the implementation of the NBS.
The comparison of the process-based environmental indicators (Table 4) shows that
a wide variety of environmental indicators may be relevant for assessing the process
of planning, designing, constructing and monitoring NBS. These generally tend to be
case study specific. Among the process-based social indicators used for assessing the
case studies (Table 6), expertise, skills and knowledge of the involved actors, as well as
their personal values and attributes, were found to be universally significant for project
management. Among governance-related social indicators, roles and responsibilities of
involved actors, importance of power, and societal groups’ role in the NBS at the different
phases of planning cycle and its character as top down or bottom up were found to be
universally relevant for assessment. Political support is yet another social indicator found
to be critically important for all the case studies, being important for driving, planning
and implementation of the NBS as well as for maintenance, monitoring and evaluation.
Among the cultural indicators, identified societal/cultural values that are incorporated
in the planning and design of NBS and identified awareness and educational programs
for system users and relevant societal groups were found to be important in the majority
of case studies. Indicators related to working culture were also found to be significant in
most of the case studies, particularly the ones regarding conflictual/tension/collaborative
interaction among actors involved and co-design.
Water 2023, 15, 893 21 of 29

Table 6. Process-based social indicators according to whether each case study considered the indicator as relevant to be assessed (indicated with ‘Y’ for yes).

South South
Africa— Africa— Sweden— Sweden—
Category Inputs/Outputs Indicators Brazil Norway Spain
Genius of Dwars Årstafältet Norrtälje
Space River
Project Management (throughout all Driving forces for the NBS project Y Y
stages: research and development, The design of NBS Y Y
planning, pilot study, conceptual Expertise, skills and knowledge of the involved actors Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
design, construction and monitoring) Personal values and attributes that facilitate the NBS process Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Roles and responsibilities of involved actors Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Governance Power Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Societal groups’ role in the NBS at the different phases of
Y Y Y Y Y Y
planning cycle and whether it is top down or bottom up
Political support and commitment for driving, planning and
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Political support implementation of the NBS
Political support and commitment after implementation of the
Y Y Y Y Y
NBS in maintenance, monitoring, evaluation phases
Identified societal/cultural values that are incorporated in the
Y Y Y Y
planning and designing of NBS
Activities/campaigns that are launched to support the
Y Y Y
socio-cultural approach/values within NBS
Cultural/Awareness or educational Identified local knowledge that is incorporated in the planning
Y Y Y
and designing of NBS
Identified awareness and educational programs for system
users and relevant societal groups that are associated with the Y Y Y
planning cycle processes of the NBS
Conflictual/tension/collaborative interaction among
Y Y Y Y Y Y
actors involved
Working Culture Co-design Y Y Y Y
Joint and integrated authorship of NBS Y Y
Y
Single/divided ownership of NBS Y Y
Water 2023, 15, 893 22 of 29

Table 7. Result-based social indicators according to whether each case study considered the indicator as relevant to be assessed (indicated with ‘Y’ for yes).

South
South Africa—
Africa— Sweden— Sweden—
Category Outcomes/Impacts Indicators Brazil Norway Dwars Spain
Genius of Årstafältet Norrtälje
River
Space
Environmental identity Y Y Y Y Y
Cultural Recreational values Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Cultural values and practices Y Y Y Y
Effects of water quality Y Y Y Y Y
Health and well being Y
Effects of water supply Y Y Y
Equitable water access for daily use Y Y Y
Water availability for different productive uses Y Y Y Y
Improving water-related
Gender equity Y Y Y
social values and services
Crime Y Y
Social cohesion Y Y
Social learning and
Policies related to NBS Y Y Y Y Y
institutionalisation
Threats identified Lack of legislation, absence from the state Y Y Y Y Y
Opportunities identified Labour, participatory community Y Y Y Y Y
Water 2023, 15, 893 23 of 29

The comparison of result-based environmental indicators across the different case stud-
ies (Table 5) shows that these are case-specific and can relate to one or more of the following
categories: qualitative/quantitative measures showing augmentation of water quantity,
improvement/maintenance of water quality, soil regulation and maintenance services,
ecosystem services, enhancing/conserving biodiversity. The comparison of result-based so-
cial indicators (Table 7) shows that under the category of cultural indicators, environmental
identity, recreational values, as well as cultural values and practices were found to be almost
universally relevant for assessment. Under the category of health and well-being, the effect
of water quality was similarly found to be universally relevant. The social learning and
institutionalisation category was found to be important for consideration, under which
the existence of policies related to NBS was considered significant. Among threats, lack
of legislation and lack of involvement from the state were found important, while among
opportunities, labour and participatory community were most highlighted.
The above presentation of results demonstrates that the framework for planning
and evaluation of NBS for water in peri-urban areas developed by de Lima et al. [18] is
robust and yet flexible. In this study, the framework was successfully applied to seven
different NBS projects located across the Global North and South. The case studies are at
different phases of the project cycle, namely, planning, design, construction and monitor-
ing/evaluation, and address a variety of water challenges.
The results also demonstrated the process that needs to be adopted for applying the
framework to assess pragmatic NBS case studies. For example, for the context stage, infor-
mation should be gathered in relation to the project area, the type of affected settlement,
threats, opportunities, problems (and their scales) as well as the involvement of stakehold-
ers. For the process and results stages of the framework, appropriate process-based and
result-based indicators should be chosen/developed to capture the details. The framework
should also be used in a flexible setting in order to allow each NBS project that uses the
framework to develop specific indicators to use. It is also clear that making generalisations
across such diverse case studies can be difficult. This must not be viewed as a negative
point but should merely highlight the importance of ensuring that the framework used
to assess a case study consists of relevant indicators in order that as much information as
possible can be obtained.

3.3. Lessons Learnt

Per definition, NBS should bring about “co-benefits for health, the economy, society
and the environment” (EC, 2015). Considering the interdependencies between challenges
and our response to them, by working systemically, these co-benefits of NBS can be re-
alised [55]. Indeed, it becomes apparent that NBS should be included in decisions taken
related to water resources. The varied nature of the case studies presented here shows just
how complex the design, implementation and monitoring processes for NBS projects in
peri-urban areas can be. Indeed, the use of NBS in any area (be they urban or rural) can
present challenges owing to the highly variable environmental, economic, social, cultural
and health settings. This only serves to highlight the importance of ensuring the goals of
the NBS match those of the local setting. Experts with different backgrounds, working in
different sectors, must come together with practitioners working on the ground as well as
other relevant stakeholders to facilitate a successful process [56,57]. Co-benefits become
greater if, for example, economic feasibility can be linked to social improvements and
environmental benefits can be linked to overall economic performance. In order to link
these dimensions, it is important that experts with the correct backgrounds are bought
together and work in close exchange with the local communities [53,58]. It is also crucial
that the local community is involved in the development of the NBS as well as the indicators
by which it will be evaluated [59], as their engagement will also bring about a sense of
ownership and facilitate long-term success. Despite the diversity of the case studies, it is
important to acknowledge that both quantitative and qualitative approaches that foster
learning are needed. By identifying the positive aspects and longer-term benefits of NBS,
Water 2023, 15, 893 24 of 29

it should be possible to show that, given time, the NBS may be able to provide a more
economic and sustainable solution.
An important finding from the case studies in Brazil and South Africa (Dwars River)
was that different understandings of the general principles, e.g., ecological principles,
at play could be a barrier to an NBS project. For example, there are misperceptions of
the universal value of trees [60]. Understanding the negative impacts of invasive alien
trees on nature, water and fire risk in South Africa can empower communities to more
constructively participate in NBS projects. Conversely, knowledge transfer in this area is a
potential benefit of an NBS project [61]. The local people participating in the interviews
carried out in South Africa stated that they would have benefited from training related
to the ecological principles and the potential ecological benefits that could be achieved
by implementing the NBS prior to the project start. This would also have given them an
opportunity to reflect and comment on the chosen solution as well as the potential effects
it might generate. Assuming all local actors have a good understanding of ecological
principles or that their understanding is similar to the local implementers’ applying the
framework, may not hold true. Rather, language needs to be found that allows mutual
exchange amongst project participants. Topics such as how natural systems work (e.g.,
ecological functions and ecosystem services), their value to society and different techniques
that can be used to implement NBS lend themselves to training and education. Related to
this is the way in which the data were collected, as using interviews to collect perceptions
can be a very powerful process and one that other case studies may employ. By empowering
people by giving them the possibility to share insights, resistance to the implementation
of an NBS can be reduced as the advantages and disadvantages of the given NBS are
contemplated and tested. Of importance from the economic side is that funding is often
difficult to come by and even more difficult to maintain throughout the duration of an
NBS project. Taking these aspects into consideration from the outset of the project was
highlighted as being beneficial by the Norwegian and the Spanish case studies in order to be
able to plan accordingly. The South African case studies noted sustainable funding for NBS
to be a particular challenge. If diverse funding sources are targeted and flexible funding
models are used to support the implementation of the NBS, outcomes could potentially
be more positive. The Norwegian case study also identified the importance of linking
economic benefits such as increase in property value to be reinvested in the development of
the project as common goods [62] and the ability of the landscape to be able to resist natural
climatic negative events to the implementation of NBS. By promoting positive economic
benefits and the feasibility that are relevant in the specific case study country or region, a
positive financing loop may be created and assessed [63].
Many countries in the global North are beginning to recognise the importance of
NBS in policies at the local level. For example, in Norway, key government planning
guidelines for adaptation encourage municipalities and counties to use NBS in their land-
use and general planning processes. Indeed, in 2018, a requirement was introduced
whereby municipalities must consider NBS, and if they are not chosen, they must justify
why not [64] (Table 1). The policies detailed in Table 1 for Sweden, Spain and Brazil
show that there are currently no specific policies for NBS and that the supporting policies
identified address specific topics such as water quality. The connection of these topics is
then captured in urban and regional plans, such as in the formulation of the Metropolitan
Masterplan in Barcelona, in which the Besòs implementation is recognised as a key GI
for the water cycle [51]. In Sweden, the interplay of policies that support water quality,
climate change adaptation and GI is captured by the national and regional documents
of relevance. Despite this, there is no coherent policy that is able to push system change
towards NBS [65]. Working with NBS can reveal these interdependencies and lead to an
increased understanding of the local situation and even to changes in, or the introduction
of, new policies. For example, the processes around the Swedish case study, even if not
implemented yet, have led to stricter regulation for stormwater management.
Water 2023, 15, 893 25 of 29

4. Conclusions
The framework designed by de Lima et al., [17] is an effective tool for considering a
variety of case study contexts from around the world, both the Global South and North.
The framework can be applied at any phase of an NBS project to develop and structure
indicators that allow the NBS to be assessed in terms of whether the planned outcome
and desired impact materialise. It can also be used to identify co-benefits and unintended
consequences that might not have been foreseen, but that could inform future projects of
the same kind or in a similar context. As a result, the use of the framework benefits the
recognition of the implementation’s advances, such as the change in context, the processes
in place and the results obtained, as well as the specific arrangements, tools and perceptions
that have supported, or are still needed for this purpose.
The clear diversity of the case studies used in this work shows that NBS projects
designed in one context, for a specific purpose in a specific location, can not necessarily be
transferred easily to another location and thus generalisations can be difficult to draw [66].
Each NBS project addresses a problem that is specific to the area where the NBS will be
implemented and thus it must be designed to match the local environmental, socio-political
and economic context. However, some similarities between diverse case studies exist. All of
the case studies described here act on and/or are planned at a local or municipal governance
level and participating actors and project ownership are mostly public and this indicates
that the described NBS are of importance to their respective cities of implementation. It
is also clear that these peri-urban projects are complex, as they deal with a multitude of
interdependent inputs and effects and thus have to be overseen on a public level and
revisited in time.
The importance of establishing multi-level collaboration and engagement at different
governmental levels and with all stakeholders from the start of the project, has been
repeatedly emphasised in the literature [67]. This is particularly true for building a ToC,
as involving the affected people in the development of a desired future as well as the
path to it will ensure more active involvement during implementation and evaluation and
stronger identification with the project in general. The integration of quantitative data and
qualitative descriptions by various stakeholders can help us to understand the complex
interrelations that can hinder or support the development and implementation of an NBS
as well as potential feedback loops [68]. In the current study, the description of the process
carried out in most of the discussed case studies was stated as “top down” (apart from
one South African case study—Genius of Space), which stands somewhat in contrast to
this idea of co-design. These findings suggest that there is still a way to go until inclusive,
participatory processes are established around NBS interventions. Overall, it is important
to remember that even if not directly transferrable, a consistent framework allows for
mutual learning.
It is also worth considering the broad experience that different parts of the world
have with NBS, both in terms of implementation and monitoring. The Global Environment
Facility (GEF) is a multilateral fund dedicated to confronting biodiversity loss, climate
change, pollution and strains on land and ocean health and GEF has vast experience in
monitoring water projects. GEF’s work focusing on marine and freshwater ecosystems and
their conservation and management involves a strong element of monitoring. The United
States Agency for International Development is another organisation leading with experi-
ence related to the use of NBS for water management. Learning from such organisations is
of great benefit.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation: S.E.H. and L.v.d.T.; methodology: S.E.H., L.v.d.T., A.J.R.,
K.J.E., A.P.M.d.L., A.F.R., A.E.L., N.A.R.-A., E.R.B., L.S., N.S. and A.M.P.O.; formal analysis: S.E.H.,
L.v.d.T., A.J.R., K.J.E., A.P.M.d.L., A.F.R., A.E.L., N.A.R.-A., E.R.B., L.S., N.S. and A.M.P.O.; inves-
tigation; S.E.H., L.v.d.T., A.J.R., K.J.E., A.P.M.d.L., A.F.R., A.E.L., N.A.R.-A., E.R.B., L.S., N.S. and
A.M.P.O.; resources: S.E.H., L.v.d.T., A.J.R., K.J.E., A.P.M.d.L., A.F.R., A.E.L., N.A.R.-A., E.R.B., L.S.,
N.S. and A.M.P.O.; writing—original draft preparation, S.E.H. and L.v.d.T., writing—review and
editing S.E.H., L.v.d.T., A.J.R., K.J.E., A.P.M.d.L., A.F.R., A.E.L., N.A.R.-A., E.R.B., L.S., N.S. and
Water 2023, 15, 893 26 of 29

A.M.P.O.; project administration: S.E.H.; funding acquisition: N.S. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors would like to thank the European Commission and the Research Council of
Norway (RCN-project number 300560), Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development
(FORMAS-project number 2018-02777), the Water Research Commission (WRC) in South Africa
(Project: 2019/2020-00034) and Spain Ministry of Science and Innovation (MCIU/AEI/FEDER)
(PCI2019- 103674,2019), for funding the research in the frame of the collaborative international
consortium NATWIP financed under the 2018 Joint Call of theWaterWorks2017 ERA-NET Cofund.
This ERA-NET is an integral part of the activities developed by the Water JPI. We also acknowledge the
International Institute for Sustainability for providing an in-kind contribution to this research. We also
acknowledge that AEL received a grant from the Newton Advanced Fellowship (NAF/R2/18676),
CAPES (001), CNPQ (308536/2018-5), FAPERJ (E-26/202.680/2018).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All data will be made available on request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. European Commission. Towards an EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-Based Solutions & Re-Naturing Cities;
European Commission: Brusels, Belgium, 2015; ISBN 978-92-79-46051-7.
2. Seddon, N.; Chausson, A.; Berry, P.; Girardin, C.A.J.; Smith, A.; Turner, B. Understanding the Value and Limits of Nature-Based
Solutions to Climate Change and Other Global Challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2020, 375, 20190120. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
3. Rebelo, A.; du Plessis, N.S.; Esler, K.J. A Systematic Review of the Benefits of Water-Related Nature-Based Solutions in the
Peri-Urban: A Global South Perspective. Under Review.
4. Ramírez-Agudelo, N.A.; Porcar Anento, R.; Villares, M.; Roca, E. Nature-Based Solutions for Water Management in Peri-Urban
Areas: Barriers and Lessons Learned from Implementation Experiences. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9799. [CrossRef]
5. Rebelo, A.J.; Holden, P.B.; Esler, K.; New, M.G. Benefits of Water-Related Ecological Infrastructure Investments to Support
Sustainable Land-Use: A Review of Evidence from Critically Water-Stressed Catchments in South Africa. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2021,
8, 201402. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Pörtner, H.-O.; Roberts, D.C.; Tignor, M.; Poloczanska, E.S.; Mintenbeck, K.; Alegría, A.; Craig, M.; Langsdorf, S.; Löschke, S.;
Möller, V.; et al. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2022. Available online: https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/
(accessed on 20 November 2022).
7. Calliari, E.; Staccione, A.; Mysiak, J. An Assessment Framework for Climate-Proof Nature-Based Solutions. Sci. Total Environ.
2019, 656, 691–700. [CrossRef]
8. Dumitru, A.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Collier, M. Identifying Principles for the Design of Robust Impact Evaluation Frameworks for
Nature-Based Solutions in Cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 112, 107–116. [CrossRef]
9. Wickenberg, B.; McCormick, K.; Olsson, J.A. Advancing the Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions in Cities: A Review of
Frameworks. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 125, 44–53. [CrossRef]
10. Langergraber, G.; Castellar, J.A.C.; Andersen, T.R.; Andreucci, M.-B.; Baganz, G.F.M.; Buttiglieri, G.; Canet-Martí, A.; Carvalho,
P.N.; Finger, D.C.; Griessler Bulc, T.; et al. Towards a Cross-Sectoral View of Nature-Based Solutions for Enabling Circular Cities.
Water 2021, 13, 2352. [CrossRef]
11. Holmberg, J.; Robert, K.-H. Backcasting—A Framework for Strategic Planning. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2000, 7, 291–308.
[CrossRef]
12. Dreborg, K.H. Essence of Backcasting. Futures 1996, 28, 813–828. [CrossRef]
13. Innocenti, U.O. of R.- Theory of Change: Methodological Briefs - Impact Evaluation No. 2. Available online: https://www.unicef-
irc.org/publications/747-theory-of-change-methodological-briefs-impact-evaluation-no-2.html (accessed on 13 October 2022).
14. Theory of Change Workbook: A Step-by-Step Process for Developing or Strengthening Theories of Change | USAID Learning
Lab. Available online: https://usaidlearninglab.org/resources/theory-change-workbook-step-step-process-developing-or-
strengthening-theories-change (accessed on 17 February 2023).
15. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B.; García, J. What Are Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)? Setting Core Ideas for Concept Clarification.
Nat.-Based Solut. 2022, 2, 100009. [CrossRef]
16. Rogers, P. Theory of Change. Methodological Briefs Impact Evaluation No. 2. UNICEF. 2014. Available online: https://www.
entwicklung.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumente/evaluierung/theory_of_change/unicef_theory_of_change.pdf (accessed on
16 October 2022).
Water 2023, 15, 893 27 of 29

17. Arlati, A.; Rödl, A.; Kanjaria-Christian, S.; Knieling, J. Stakeholder Participation in the Planning and Design of Nature-Based
Solutions. Insights from CLEVER Cities Project in Hamburg. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2572. [CrossRef]
18. de Lima, A.P.M.; Rodrigues, A.F.; Latawiec, A.E.; Dib, V.; Gomes, F.D.; Maioli, V.; Pena, I.; Tubenchlak, F.; Rebelo, A.J.; Esler,
K.J.; et al. Framework for Planning and Evaluation of Nature-Based Solutions for Water in Peri-Urban Areas. Sustainability 2022,
14, 7952. [CrossRef]
19. Mortoja, M.G.; Yigitcanlar, T. How Does Peri-Urbanization Trigger Climate Change Vulnerabilities? An Investigation of the
Dhaka Megacity in Bangladesh. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3938. [CrossRef]
20. Spyra, M.; La Rosa, D.; Zasada, I.; Sylla, M.; Shkaruba, A. Governance of Ecosystem Services Trade-Offs in Peri-Urban Landscapes.
Land Use Policy 2020, 95, 104617. [CrossRef]
21. Peri-Urban Futures: Scenarios and Models for Land Use Change in Europe|SpringerLink. Available online: https://link.springer.
com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-30529-0 (accessed on 13 October 2022).
22. GIZ; UNEP-WCMC; FEBA. Guidebook for Monitoring and Evaluating Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Interventions; Deutsche Gesellschaft
Für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH: Bonn, Germany, 2020; Available online: https://Www.Adaptationcommunity.
Net/Download/ME-Guidebook_EbA.Pdf (accessed on 20 January 2020).
23. Hale, S.E.; Folde, M.S.; Melby, U.H.; Sjødahl, E.U.; Smebye, A.B.; Oen, A.M.P. From Landfills to Landscapes—Nature-Based
Solutions for Water Management Taking into Account Legacy Contamination. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2022, 18, 99–107.
[CrossRef]
24. Ramírez-Agudelo, N.A.; de Pablo, J.; Roca, E. Exploring Alternative Practices in Urban Water Management through the Lens of
Circular Economy–A Case Study in the Barcelona Metropolitan Area. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 329, 129565. [CrossRef]
25. Suleiman, L. Blue Green Infrastructure, from Niche to Mainstream: Challenges and Opportunities for Planning in Stockholm.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 166, 120528. [CrossRef]
26. Suleiman, L.; Olofsson, B.; Saurí, D.; Palau-Rof, L.; García Soler, N.; Papasozomenou, O.; Moss, T. Diverse Pathways—Common
Phenomena: Comparing Transitions of Urban Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Stockholm, Berlin and Barcelona. J. Environ. Plan.
Manag. 2020, 63, 369–388. [CrossRef]
27. du Plessis, N.S.; Rebelo, A.J.; Richardson, D.M.; Esler, K.J. Guiding Restoration of Riparian Ecosystems Degraded by Plant
Invasions: Insights from a Complex Social-Ecological System in the Global South. Ambio 2022, 51, 1552–1568. [CrossRef]
28. Paiva, R.D.P.; Coelho, R.C. The Program “Produtor de Água e Floresta” in Rio Claro/RJ as a Tool for Environmental Management:
The Profile and Environmental Awareness of Participant Producers. Desenvolv. E Meio Ambiente 2015, 33, 51–62.
29. Ruiz, M. Pagamento Por Serviços Ambientais: Da Teoria à Pratica; ITPA: Rio Claro, Brazil, 2015; pp. 1–180. ISBN 9788569611004.
Available online: http://www.inea.rj.gov.br/cs/groups/public/@inter_digat_geget/documents/document/zwew/mtew/
~edisp/inea0110596.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2023).
30. Fidalgo, E.C.C.; Prado, R.B.; Turetta, A.P.D.; Schuler, A.E. Manual Para Pagamento Por Serviços Ambientais Hídricos: Seleção de Áreas e
Monitoramento; Embrapa: Brasília, Brazil, 2017; p. 80.
31. de Lima, A.P.M.; Prado, R.B.; Latawiec, A.E. Payment for Water-Ecosystem Services Monitoring in Brazil. Rev. Ambient. Água
2021, 16. [CrossRef]
32. Turetta, A.P.D.; Fidalgo, E.C.C.; Prado, R.B.; Schuler, A.E.; Coutinho, H.L.D.C. Participatory Assessment to Define Indicators for
Monitoring Water-Based Payment of Ecosystem Services Programs in Brazil. Rev. Ambient. Água 2022, 17. [CrossRef]
33. The Nature Conservancy Brasil The Nature Conservancy Brasil, Annual Report, 29p, 2020. Available online: https://www.tnc.
org.br/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/brasil/tnc-relatorioanual2020-en.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2022).
34. Petry Case Study 6- Guandu, Brazil in: Bridging Theory and Practice for Hydrologic Monitoring in Water Funds. 2015. Available
online: https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj9321/f/publications/study-cases-monitoreo-hidrico-
water-funds_1.pdf (accessed on 18 October 2022).
35. Santasusagna Riu, A. La Gestion Des Cours d’eau Dans La Barcelone Métropolitaine (Espagne): Les Enjeux de La Valorisation
Des Espaces Fluviaux Du Llobregat et Du Besòs. Sud-Ouest Européen [En Ligne] 2019, 47, 11–23. [CrossRef]
36. Pol Masjoan, M.; Alarcón i Puerto, A.; Pugi i Pons, F. Recuperación Medioambiental Del Tramo Final Del Río Besòs. Rev. Del Col.
Of. Ing. Caminos Canales Y Puertos. 1999, pp. 80–85. Available online: http://hispagua.cedex.es/sites/default/files/hispagua_
articulo/op/46/op46_8.htm#introduccion (accessed on 3 November 2022).
37. Antón-Alonso, F.; Porcel, S. La Vulnerabilitat Urbana a Barcelona. Papers Regió Metropolitana Barcelona Territori Estratègies
Planejament 2021, 63, 50–67.
38. Consorci Besòs Agenda Besòs. 2017. Available online: https://consorcibesos.cat/documents-agenda-besos/ (accessed on 6
September 2022).
39. Stellenbosch Municipality. Langrug Settlement Enumeration Report Informal Settlement Network; Stellenbosch Municipality Langrug
Community Leadership and Community Organisation Resource Centre: Stellenbosh, South Africa, 2011.
40. Cameron, K.J. A Bio-Indicator Assessment towards the Rehabilitation of the Stiebeuel River; University of Cape Town: Franschhoek,
South Africa, 2018.
41. Olsson, B. Health Impact in Children of a Water and Sanitation Intervention in the Langrug Informal Settlement; Uppsala University:
Western Cape, South Africa, 2019.
42. Cameron, K. A Bio-Indicator Assessment towards the Rehabilitation of the Stiebeuel River. Master’s Thesis, Faculty of Humanities,
Franschhoek, South Africa, 2019.
Water 2023, 15, 893 28 of 29

43. Armitage, N.P.; Winter, K.; Spiegel, A.; Kruger, E. Community-Focused Greywater Management in Two Informal Settlements in
South Africa. Water Sci. Technol. 2009, 59, 2341–2350. [CrossRef]
44. Carden, K.; Winter, K.; Spiegel, A.; Armitage, N. Approaching Community-Level Greywater Management in Non-Sewered
Settlements in South Africa. Access to Sanitation and Safe Water-Global Partnerships and Local Actions. In Proceedings of the
33rd WEDC International Conference, Accra, Ghana, 7–11 April 2008; pp. 150–153.
45. Muniz, E. A Proposed Sustainable Sanitation System for the Zwelitsha Section of Langrug Informal Settlement in Stellenbosch
Municipality South Africa. Ph.D. Thesis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA, 2013.
46. Wolfaart, G. A Case Study of Transdisciplinarity and Biomimicry: The Restoration of Water Systems Using Eco-Machines within
the Informal Berg River Community. Ph.D. Thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2017.
47. Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. Final Report Implementation of the Genius of Space Project.
Cape Town, South Africa. 2018. Available online: https://www.westerncape.gov.za/dept/eadp (accessed on 1 February 2023).
48. Le Maitre, D.C.; Versfeld, D.; Chapman, R. The Impact of Invading Alien Plants on Surface Water Resources in South Africa: A
Preliminary Assessment. Water Res. Comm. 2000, 26, 397–408.
49. Rebelo, A.J.; Holden, P.B.; Hallowes, J.; Eady, B.; Cullis, J.D.S.; Esler, K.J.; New, M.G. The Hydrological Impacts of Restoration: A
Modelling Study of Alien Tree Clearing in Four Mountain Catchments in South Africa. J. Hydrol. 2022, 610, 127771. [CrossRef]
50. Stockholm City-Development Office. Omledning Av Vatten Från Årstafältet. Valla å, Och Valla Dam B.57, Slutrapport. 2008. Avail-
able online: https://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/content/docs/vp/ars/Slutrapport_restaurering_Arstabacken.pdf (accessed
on 2 February 2023).
51. Ramírez-Agudelo, N.A.; Badia, M.; Villares, M.; Roca, E. Assessing the Benefits of Nature-Based Solutions in the Barcelona
Metropolitan Area Based on Citizen Perceptions. Nat.-Based Solut. 2022, 2, 100021. [CrossRef]
52. Rebelo, A.; Esler, K.; Singh, N. Nature-based solutions for water in the peri-urban: A handbook for practitioners. 2022. [CrossRef]
53. Raymond, C.M.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Kabisch, N.; Berry, P.; Breil, M.; Nita, M.R.; Geneletti, D.; Calfapietra, C. A Framework for
Assessing and Implementing the Co-Benefits of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 77, 15–24.
[CrossRef]
54. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (European Commission). Evaluating the Impact of Nature-Based Solutions: A
Handbook for Practitioners; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021; ISBN 978-92-76-22821-9.
55. Principles for Urban Nature-Based Solutions | SpringerLink. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280
-021-01685-w (accessed on 19 October 2022).
56. Adem Esmail, B.; Cortinovis, C.; Suleiman, L.; Albert, C.; Geneletti, D.; Mörtberg, U. Greening Cities through Urban Planning: A
Literature Review on the Uptake of Concepts and Methods in Stockholm. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 72, 127584. [CrossRef]
57. Sitas, N.; Reyers, B.; Cundill, G.; Prozesky, H.E.; Nel, J.L.; Esler, K.J. Fostering Collaboration for Knowledge and Action in Disaster
Management in South Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 19, 94–102. [CrossRef]
58. Biggs, R.; Clements, H.S.; Cumming, G.S.; Cundill, G.; de Vos, A.; Hamann, M.; Luvuno, L.; Roux, D.J.; Selomane, O.; Blanchard,
R.; et al. Social-Ecological Change: Insights from the Southern African Program on Ecosystem Change and Society. Ecosyst. People
2022, 18, 447–468. [CrossRef]
59. Stakeholders’ Engagement on Nature-Based Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review. Available online: https://www.mdpi.
com/2071-1050/12/2/640 (accessed on 19 October 2022).
60. Bond, W.J.; Stevens, N.; Midgley, G.F.; Lehmann, C.E.R. The Trouble with Trees: Afforestation Plans for Africa. Trends Ecol. Evol.
2019, 34, 963–965. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Nesshöver, C.; Assmuth, T.; Irvine, K.N.; Rusch, G.M.; Waylen, K.A.; Delbaere, B.; Haase, D.; Jones-Walters, L.; Keune, H.; Kovacs,
E.; et al. The Science, Policy and Practice of Nature-Based Solutions: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2017,
579, 1215–1227. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Wild, T.C.; Henneberry, J.; Gill, L. Comprehending the Multiple ‘Values’ of Green Infrastructure–Valuing Nature-Based Solutions
for Urban Water Management from Multiple Perspectives. Environ. Res. 2017, 158, 179–187. [CrossRef]
63. Nika, C.E.; Gusmaroli, L.; Ghafourian, M.; Atanasova, N.; Buttiglieri, G.; Katsou, E. Nature-Based Solutions as Enablers of
Circularity in Water Systems: A Review on Assessment Methodologies, Tools and Indicators. Water Res. 2020, 183, 115988.
[CrossRef]
64. Miljødepartementet, K. Statlige Planretningslinjer for Klima-og Energiplanlegging og Klimatilpasning. Available online: https:
//www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/statlige-planretningslinjer-for-klima--og-energiplanlegging-og-klimatilpasning/id2
612821/ (accessed on 28 October 2022).
65. Swedish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). To Develop Action Plans for Green Infrastructure; Swedish Environment Protection
Agency (SEPA): Stockholm, Sweden, 2022.
66. Slingsby, J.A. Forest Restoration or Propaganda? The Need for Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Scores to Uphold Research
Integrity. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2020, 116, 1–4. [CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 893 29 of 29

67. Foxon, T.J.; Reed, M.S.; Stringer, L.C. Governing Long-Term Social–Ecological Change: What Can the Adaptive Management and
Transition Management Approaches Learn from Each Other? Environ. Policy Gov. 2009, 19, 3–20. [CrossRef]
68. Gómez Martín, E.; Giordano, R.; Pagano, A.; van der Keur, P.; Máñez Costa, M. Using a System Thinking Approach to Assess the
Contribution of Nature Based Solutions to Sustainable Development Goals. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 738, 139693. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.