Environmental Science and Policy 163 (2025) 103979

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Unpacking the politics of Nature-based Solutions governance: Making space

for transformative change
Caitlin Hafferty a,* , Emmanuel Selasi Tomude a,b, Audrey Wagner c, Constance McDermott a ,
Mark Hirons a
a
Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK
b
School of Geography, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, UK
c
Nature-based Solutions Initiative, Department of Biology, University of Oxford, OX1 3SZ, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Nature-based Solutions (NbS) have gained global attention for their transformative potential to simultaneously
Nature-based Solutions address biodiversity loss, climate change, and human well-being. However, there are concerns that dominant
Transformation framings reinforce vested interests, marginalise alternative perspectives, and lead to persistent patterns of
Governance
inequality and injustice. While participatory governance of NbS is widely acclaimed to support more equitable
Framings
and ‘just’ outcomes, it is unclear to what extent the necessary changes can occur within dominant framings and
Politics
Participation approaches. To address this gap, this paper foregrounds the messy, contested, and discontinuous politics of
sustainability transformations to explore how different framings influence the transformative potential of NbS.
Drawing from interviews and a survey with NbS practitioners and policy makers in the UK, we critically unpack
the interplay between techno-scientific and market-oriented approaches, risk and uncertainty, and participatory
governance processes in shaping transformative NbS. Our findings demonstrate that, despite numerous efforts to
rethink and reframe NbS, there remains a need to make space for different conceptualisations, practices, and
alternative approaches to transformation. We suggest that this requires transcending dominant techno-market
framings that demand certainty and control over sustainability outcomes, and caution against “democracy
washing” through NbS that perpetuates superficial participation and unequal power relations. These debates
indicate that transformational NbS will require an explicit recognition of these power inequalities and a
commitment to cultivate and open up - rather than control and close down - alternative perspectives, pathways,
and possibilities that foster justice and well-being for both humans and nature.

1. Introduction tackle climate impacts and broader societal issues while delivering
ecosystem and socio-economic benefits (see Fig. 1 for a summary; also,
Nature-based Solutions (NbS) have gained international attention in NbSI, 2024). NbS are often seen as “open innovations” requiring active
policy, practice, and the private sector for their potential to deliver collaboration with local communities and other relevant groups, deliv­
multiple sustainability goals by addressing climate change, biodiversity ering what Raymond et al. (2017) describe as “co-benefits” that span
decline, inequality, and well-being issues (IPBES, 2019; IPCC, 2019a; social, environmental, and economic interests.
2019b; United Nations, 2019; WEF, 2020). In the UK, NbS are supported However, there are growing concerns that NbS can perpetuate in­
by agricultural and environmental policies, including the Environmental equalities and injustices. Research in environmental science and policy
Land Management schemes (including Landscape Recovery, see DEFRA, has highlighted how certain framings and practices can reinforce he­
2024) and the Environment Bill DEFRA (2020), as well as initiatives gemony and human-nature dichotomies (Cooper et al., 2023; Melanidis
promoting private investment in natural capital markets (e.g., the Nat­ and Hagerman, 2022; Rees and Doyon, 2023; Welden et al., 2021;
ural Capital Market Framework; Crown Estate, 2024). These solutions Woroniecki et al., 2020). Melanidis and Hagerman (2022) caution that
encompass diverse interventions, such as habitat creation, restoration, powerful actors with vested interests may uphold the status quo instead
protection, and sustainable food production (IUCN, 2020), aiming to of fostering innovation and co-benefits, thereby perpetuating unequal

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Hafferty).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103979
Received 1 August 2024; Received in revised form 28 November 2024; Accepted 17 December 2024
1462-9011/Crown Copyright © 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
C. Hafferty et al. Environmental Science and Policy 163 (2025) 103979

power dynamics and further excluding historically marginalised groups. certain knowledge systems, actors, and institutions, and exploring how
Hirons (2021) highlights the significant implications that framings have risk and uncertainty exacerbates hegemony and the co-option of
for the governance of NbS in terms of shaping different definitions of the participation. We build on these debates to examine how dominant
problem, determining the types of solutions that are considered appro­ conditions shape NbS governance by “controlling” through top-down
priate and feasible, and influencing which actors and institutions are structures or embracing open-ended approaches that make space for
perceived as influential and authoritative in addressing sustainability participatory and democratic struggle. In doing so, we enrich current
challenges (also see Bulkeley, 2012). These trends reflect broader pat­ debates around how and why NbS can undermine transformative
terns in environmental science (Turnhout, 2024), where dominant change, and how these issues can be overcome for more plural, equi­
norms restrict transformative change by promoting a model that seeks table, and socially ‘just’ futures.
objective truth, overlooks the connections between science and society, This paper is organised into six sections. Section 2 examines how
and ultimately obstructs the necessary changes for human-ecological dominant framings shape the transformative potential of NbS gover­
well-being (Beck, 2011). nance and how these interplay with questions of politics, power, and
Efforts to address inequalities in NbS governance emphasise partic­ participation. Section 3 outlines the research methodology. Section 4
ipatory approaches, calling for NbS to be ‘with and for people’ (Seddon presents the findings from interviews and a survey with NbS practi­
et al., 2021 p. 1525) through engagement with diverse actors to inte­ tioners, policy makers, and actors from business and civil society. Sec­
grate knowledge, foster empowerment, and co-develop actionable so­ tion 5 discusses the findings in the context of the broader politics of
lutions (Ferreira et al., 2020; Frantzeskaki, 2019; Hölscher et al., 2024; sustainability transformations, and finally, Section 6 offers conclusions
King et al., 2023). While participation is frequently positioned as a key and suggestions for practitioners and policymakers.
driver of transformative change in the pursuit of sustainability agendas
(Davies and Lafortezza, 2019; Katsou et al., 2020; Maes and Jacobs, 2. Understanding the governance of NbS for transformative
2017; Palomo et al., 2021), it often falls short of its promises and can change: framings, risk, and participation
paradoxically exacerbate the inequalities it aims to challenge and
dismantle (e.g., Cooke and Kothari, 2001; Few et al., 2007; Stirling, 2.1. Framing different narratives of sustainability transformations
2008, 2015; Turnhout et al., 2020). Decades of research highlights how
participatory processes can be blind to issues of politics and power, Different framings of sustainability transformation shape how
reinforcing and ultimately legitimising the problems that they intend to problems are defined, which solutions are proposed, and the roles of
solve, leading to participation notably being described as tyrannical actors and institutions in governing NbS (Bulkeley, 2012; Hirons, 2021;
(Cooke and Kothari, 2001). While participation is widely valued in NbS, Leach et al., 2010). This affects who is considered authoritative in
insufficient attention to its inherent controversies can end up reinforcing making decisions, whose interests are served, whose livelihoods are
unequal power relations that hinder transformative change. impacted, who benefits and who loses out (Cooper et al., 2023; Martin
NbS are widely championed for advancing multiple sustainability et al., 2023; Tozer et al., 2020; Tallent and Zabala, 2024). These dy­
goals, fostering participation, and are ultimately expected to catalyse namics influence the transformative potential of NbS, where “trans­
broader transformations (Kiss et al., 2022; Raymond et al., 2017; Seddon formation” involves challenging and destabilising power imbalances to
et al., 2021; Welden et al., 2021). However, it is unclear whether these achieve progressive social change through democratic struggle, char­
expectations are being met. There is limited empirical evidence that acterised by ongoing efforts for ‘access by the least powerful, to the
clarifies specifically what changes can occur within dominant framings capacities for challenging power’ (Stirling, 2014a p. 10, 2014b). Pat­
that ultimately undermine transformation. By foregrounding the politics terson and Paterson (2024) suggest that transformations happen
of sustainability transformations in the context of NbS in the UK, this ’through, rather than despite’ messy and discontinuous political conflict
paper aims to critically unpack whether current framings support or (p.2, emphasis in original), which can be suppressed when controlled by
undermine transformative change, focusing on how framings privilege some groups at the expense of the agency of others (Stirling, 2014b,

Fig. 1. Examples of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) projects delivering multiple climate, ecological, and socio-economic benefits: A summary of themes found in 36 UK
case studies.
Source: case study map developed by the Nature-based Solutions Initiative; https://nbshub.naturebasedsolutionsinitiative.org/case-studies/ (see NbSI, 2024).

2
C. Hafferty et al. Environmental Science and Policy 163 (2025) 103979

2015). heart of decisions about climate and biodiversity to create the space for
Scoones et al. (2015) identify four overarching narratives, each the negotiation of competing priorities, interests, and values that are
including distinct framings with different implications for the politics of essential for transformation to happen.
sustainability transformations: technocentric, market-oriented, stat­ Uncertainties remain in understanding sustainability challenges and
e-led, and citizen-led. Technocentric framings emphasise technological measuring progress (Hulme, 2018). Efforts to address these often focus
innovation within existing governance frameworks to address sustain­ on identifying and assessing risk more precisely through advanced
ability issues (Strand et al., 2018), however, critics argue that this technologies, however, as Leach et al. (2010) discuss, many of the un­
perspective often neglects the political, cultural, and socio-economic certainties tied to environmental and socio-economic changes are
complexities enmeshed with technologies (e.g., Turnhout et al., 2014; difficult to quantify or mitigate, which complicates decision-making. As
Stanley, 2024). These framings often align with market-oriented ap­ a result, the impact of decisions, like NbS interventions, is unpredictable,
proaches, which position markets as central to driving transformation and the desirability and value of outcomes is often unclear, whether in
through pricing mechanisms and creating markets for assets like carbon terms of capital value or other measures. This uncertainty points to a
and biodiversity, including “natural capital” and “green finance” ini­ more fundamental tension between dominant natural capital method­
tiatives that seek to assign economic value to natural resources (DEFRA, ologies and advances in the understanding and complexity in socio­
2023; OECD, 2021; UNEP, 2023). Together, technocentric and ecological systems (Wells et al., 2023). Top-down approaches to
market-oriented framings interact to represent distinct meanings, poli­ managing uncertainty often focus on techno-managerialist solutions
tics, and imperatives such as “putting a price on nature” (Costanza et al., that use quantitative assessments and probabilistic modelling (Mehta
1997). While these approaches are important for addressing sustain­ et al., 2019), narrowing the valuation of environments and overlooking
ability challenges, their dominance can leverage the authority of tech­ lived experiences that are ‘diverse, context specific and draw on local
nical and private actors (Melanidis and Hagerman, 2022), risk “green knowledge systems and may differ from the dominant prescriptions
grabbing” that harms local livelihoods (Fairhead et al., 2014), and made by some bureaucratic and scientific actors’ (ibid, p. 1529; also see
exacerbate socio-spatial inequalities by prioritising aspects of ecosys­ Mehta and Srivastava, 2020; McDermott, 2014; Nightingale et al.,
tems that are valued financially or scientifically (McDermott, 2014; 2020). Transforming complex systems inherently involves high stakes,
Stanley, 2024). Anguelovski et al. (2018 p.134-5) comment that such both in terms of the investment needed and societal impacts of pursuing
approaches have resulted in landscapes reshaped into ‘aesthetically or delaying change (Wynne, 1992). For NbS to foster transformation,
controlled and “acceptable nature for some”’. State-led narratives focus they must open up to, rather than narrow and distract from, questions
on governments steering markets within stronger frameworks of social about how sustainability transformations are co-produced, whose values
control (e.g., policy mechanisms and regulation), with associated and livelihoods are recognised, who decides, and who benefits.
framings emphasising state-backed research, innovation, finance, and While robust science is vital, transformative change requires more
regulation for greener economies (e.g., Crown Estate, 2024; UNEP, than evidence and measurement; it needs (re)framings that recognise
2023). However, these approaches may concentrate power by empha­ the co-dependence of people and nature, and the co-construction of
sising top-down decision-making, neglecting local needs and leading to knowledge. In response, research has investigated decision-making ap­
disconnected policies that do not reflect realities on the ground, and proaches that embrace uncertainty and adaptability, moving away from
(further) exclude historically marginalised communities (Martin et al., traditional “predict and act” models (Haasnoot et al., 2024; Stanton and
2023; Melanidis and Hagerman, 2022; Tozer et al., 2020). Citizen-led Roelich, 2021). This shift acknowledges that uncertainties should not
narratives tend to challenge dominant norms and assumptions, sug­ always be eliminated, and NbS must be developed within this context.
gesting alternative framings of the problem and solutions needed, However, dominant framings that prioritise urgent action can margin­
including advocating for bottom-up and grassroots action. This includes alise ways of knowing that are focused on slower, everyday lives
diverse approaches ranging from multi-institution partnerships to co­ (Nightingale et al., 2020; Pickering et al., 2020). With increasing ur­
operatives and pooled resources, to entirely community owned and led gency to “save the planet”, participation and democracy are often
initiatives (e.g., Doyle, 2023; McIntosh, 2023). viewed as obstacles to urgent change that need to be “put on hold” in
These framings often intersect to shape distinct understandings of times of crisis (see Stirling 2014a, 2014b; Willis, 2020). Such narratives
knowledge, actors, and institutions in terms of their transformative often frame scepticism and critique as undesirable deviations from ur­
potential. Each plays a crucial, yet different, role in the (often messy, gent goals, disagreements and trade-offs as something that should be
contested, and uncertain) power dynamics, politics, and governance of mitigated against (Stirling, 2015), concealing deeper questions of power
NbS. The aim of this paper is to unpack these political dynamics, and politics. If dominant framings emphasise control and certainty,
including the conflicts and trade-offs between different framings, rather participatory processes may be seen as risky, and democracy as an
than to suggest that one approach is inherently opposed to another. “unaffordable luxury” (Stirling, 2015) in times of crisis. This becomes
While techno-science, markets, the state, and citizens each play vital more problematic if, as Willis (2020 p.3) argues, the root of sustain­
roles in transformation, problems arise when this is narrowly framed ability challenges is ‘too little, not too much, democracy’ (emphasis in
and there is an over-emphasis on one strategy at the expense of another. original).
This can become even more problematic within framings that prioritise There is a tension between controlling sustainability transformations
certainty, scalability, and fast-paced action, particularly within wide­ and embracing uncertainty to foster new possibilities. Attending to
spread declarations of a “climate and biodiversity crisis”. politics and power in transformations should involve pluralistic and
creative responses that diversify and democratise knowledge, rather
2.2. Beyond techno-scientific fixes: the politics of risk and uncertainty than framings that prioritise easily controlled options, precise assess­
ments and top-down actions (Leach et al., 2010; Nightingale et al.,
The urgency to address the climate crisis is widely acknowledged. 2020). Section 2.3 explores these issues in more detail, drawing from
However, there are concerns that an increasing focus on emergency literature that emphasises the “culturing” rather than “controlling” of
politics can end up diverting attention and resources away from other transformations.
political concerns, including a wider set of justice and well-being goals
(Hulme, 2011, 2018, 2019). For example, sustainability targets often 2.3. From “controlling” to “culturing” transformations: the role of
consist of a narrow and reductive set of indicators (Hulme, 2011) and participatory collectives
the links between climate change and societal change is often sidelined
in the pursuit of technological breakthroughs and new climate models Participation and democracy are central to understanding how
(Devine-Wright et al., 2022). Solutions must place multiple goals at the transformations are either “controlled” through top-down approaches or

3
C. Hafferty et al. Environmental Science and Policy 163 (2025) 103979

“cultured” by opening up to diverse knowledge types, embracing un­ 3. Methods

certainty, and considering how participatory collectives interact with
wider political and institutional systems (Chilvers et al., 2018; Stirling, 3.1. Practitioner interviews
2015). Although participatory governance is widely acclaimed in NbS
for its benefits (e.g., Ferreira et al., 2020; Hafferty, 2022a; Hafferty, To examine how different framings shape the transformative po­
2022b; Hafferty et al., 2024;; Seddon et al., 2021; Raymond et al., 2017), tential of NbS, thirty interviews were conducted with UK practitioners
proponents often do not appreciate how it can support or undermine involved in NbS strategy, design, and/or delivery (Table 1). The data
transformative change, particularly when implemented within estab­ collection was collaborative and co-designed with practitioners to
lished frameworks that prioritise particular framings. Moreover, NbS ensure relevance to real-world applications (also see Hölscher et al.,
proponents often seek to mitigate complexities, conflicts, and undesir­ 2024). A semi-structured interview protocol with open-ended questions
able trade-offs through more clear messaging and best practices (e.g., was developed, generating rich insights into practitioners’ perspectives
Frantzeskaki, 2019; Seddon et al., 2021), which is problematic if and experiences of delivering NbS (for recent examples, see Roitsch
transformations happen through rather than despite messy and discon­ et al., 2024; Tallent and Zabala, 2024). The interview questions were
tinuous political conflict (Patterson and Paterson, 2024). As Nightingale informed by a literature review and co-design workshops NbS practi­
and colleagues argue, within dominant framings ‘truly transformative tioners, policymakers, and civil society actors (see NbSI, 2024). The
change - founded on change in knowledge systems and the opening of protocol covered four areas: (i) organisational and project background;
deliberative space for defining futures - fails to gain traction’ (2020 p. (ii) views on meeting multiple sustainability objectives; (iii) perspec­
344). tives on the participatory governance; (iv) policy and finance support.
Participatory processes have been widely critiqued for being domi­ Ethical approval was granted through the University of Oxford’s Central
nated by a depoliticised discourse that prioritises rational, techno- University Research Ethics Committee (approval number:
scientific arguments to promote generalisable ideas about what partic­ SOGE1A2021–247_Amendment_01).
ipation means and how it is practiced (Chilvers and Kearnes, 2020; Kiss Participants were recruited using purposive, convenience, and
et al., 2022; Turnhout et al., 2010, 2020). Dominant framings often snowball sampling methods (Creswell and Poth, 2016; Valerio et al.,
render participation, and who and what is involved, as fixed and 2016), drawing initially on the NbSI case studies (NbSI, 2024) and the
external factors in decision-making, often focusing on judging “success” research team’s networks, and continuing until the interviews encom­
against pre-established “best practices”, and viewing communities as passed a variety of governance approaches, understandings, and prac­
homogenous entities with pre-existing knowledge that can be “tapped tices of NbS. The interviewees – from a range of public, private, and third
into” through participation (Chilvers, Kearnes, 2015, 2020). While best sector organisations (see Table 1) – held roles ranging from scientists,
practice frameworks are important for impact, they risk depoliticising land managers, consultants, and advisors, to entrepreneurs and activists.
environmental challenges and overlook the power politics at play. Interviews were conducted online from February to August 2023, lasted
Well-documented problems include integrating participation into 31–76 minutes, and totalled 30 hours and 38 minutes. Transcripts were
decision-making processes with pre-set ideas of what counts as valid analysed using NVivo 12 (QSR International, 2018).
knowledge and reasonable action, often demarcated by scientific and A coding framework combining inductive and deductive approaches
market-based goals (Kiss et al., 2022; Melanidis and Hagerman, 2022); (Thornberg and Charmaz, 2014) was developed using an iterative
treating communities as homogenous entities and overlooking diverse grounded theory approach (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Maher
views, interests, knowledge systems, and relationships to place (Chilvers et al., 2018). The initial framework was informed by the literature re­
and Kearnes, 2020); and focusing on mitigating conflict and achieving view and research questions (Siccama and Penna, 2008), with salient
consensus among radically different, and often conflicting, ways of passages coded against this framework (Braun and Clarke, 2019) until
knowing (Klenk and Meehan, 2015). By overlooking the messy politics data saturation was reached (Guest et al., 2020). Coding was completed
of how participation interacts with dominant framings of science and by Hafferty and Tomude, with verification by Hirons and McDermott.
rationality, NbS can diminish and delimit, rather than open and The final coding framework revealed three themes which are presented
empower, transformation by not engaging with, or explicitly chal­ in Sections 4.1–3. The findings are described qualitatively to capture the
lenging, the power structures that are inherent to participation. This has rich context and nuances of participants’ experiences, illustrated by
led to calls for a re-thinking and re-politicisation of participation that quotations (see Pyett, 2003). The results are critically interpreted within
makes questions of politics and power explicit (Kiss et al., 2022; Stirling, the broader literature in Section 5, examining the circumstances,
2008, 2015; Turnhout et al., 2020; Woroniecki et al., 2020). structures, and constraints shaping these views.
Instead of procedural and fixed, participation should be understood
as a dynamic process emerging through collective action and continuous
3.2. Survey
co-construction. Chilvers and Longhurst (2016) describe participation as
relational, emergent, and continuously evolving, analogous to broader
To situate the interview findings and explore broader themes, a
ideas of “culturing” sustainability (Stirling, 2015). Participation is not
survey was developed with twenty-three Likert and multi-selection
merely a feature that is added onto existing decision-making processes;
questions and was distributed via Jisc Online Surveys (see supplemen­
it is integral to collectives of people, systems, and ecologies, deeply
tary material). It aimed to capture perspectives from a wider sample of
intertwined with socio-material systems that shape environmental
governance (Bulkeley and Mol, 2003) and broader sustainability trans­
Table 1
formations (Pickering et el., 2020; Stirling, 2015). This perspective of­
Research data - interviews.
fers valuable insights into the role of participation in shaping
transformative NbS, however, research often over-emphasises the vir­ Organisation type Number of
participants
tues of participation for more inclusive and equitable outcomes (e.g.,
Frantzeskaki, 2019; Raymond et al., 2017; Tallent and Zabala, 2024) Private sector (e.g., limited company, partnerships, small- 10
and overlooks how it interacts with dominant framings to support or medium enterprises, joint venture, non-profit)
Public sector (e.g., local government, government 7
undermine the transformative potential of NbS. department, non-departmental public body, research and
education)
Third sector (e.g., charities / not-for-profit, voluntary and 13
community-led organisations, social enterprises,
cooperatives)

4
C. Hafferty et al. Environmental Science and Policy 163 (2025) 103979

NbS practitioners to produce broad indicative themes to complement the inherent by-products of NbS interventions targeting climate and biodi­
in-depth qualitative data. As a result, the analysis was descriptive rather versity issues, with practitioners often assuming that ‘ecosystem services
than inferential and the results do not contain any reference to statistical might lend straight into social and economic benefit’ (#11, Private Sector),
significance which would apply to a probabilistic random sample. often with social benefits emerging as ‘completely unexpected’ and ‘spin-
Sampling errors were minimised (Assael and Keon, 1982) by recruiting off’ outcomes from science-led biophysical interventions (#06, Third
survey participants through mailing lists, direct emails to project part­ Sector). Survey respondents similarly emphasised the socio-economic
ners, and social media. The survey collected sixty-three responses goals that aligned with, and emerged from, ecological and climate
(Table 2). Results were analysed in Microsoft Excel and are included in outcomes, such as increased access to nature, event attendance, envi­
the next section to supplement the interview analysis. ronmental education and awareness (Fig. 4). One interviewee com­
mented that their NbS projects not only ‘hadn’t {been} done from a social
4. Results aspect’, but were ‘done partly transactionally’ (#04, Third Sector), with
socio-economic benefits being included as direct, measurable outcomes
4.1. Techno-scientific and market-focused framings limit the space for from people’s engagement with NbS initiatives.
pursuing multiple objectives The interviewees also described various ways that space could be
created for integrating social dimensions alongside ecological and
Most interviewees recognised the importance of implementing NbS climate objectives. While most practitioners acknowledged socio-
holistically - ‘it’s about embedding nature and all these different things for economic benefits were not fully accounted for or delivered satisfacto­
social benefits’ (#03, Public Sector) - aiming to deliver ‘multiple benefits’ rily, many emphasised the need for improvement: ‘the key long-term
(#09, Third Sector) for people, nature, and climate through NbS that objective would be to demonstrate much more socio-economic benefit com­
‘need to all be tackled together’ (#11, Private Sector). However, socio- ing from land management, including community ownership of varying de­
economic dimensions were often deprioritised, with projects focusing grees’ (#02, Private Sector). Challenges included ensuring that
on more easily measurable outcomes like carbon and biodiversity: ‘{our organisations delivering NbS balanced their priorities to keep social
project is} focused very specifically on scientific research on carbon seques­ objectives ‘at the core of what we’re doing’ and integrated the whole way
tration’ (#12, Third Sector). Several practitioners felt that ‘the social through projects, ‘even right at the start when we might have different ob­
element {is} just not considered enough’ in their NbS work (#23, Private jectives’ (#11, Private Sector). As explored in Section 4.2, decentralised
Sector). This gap between aspirations and practice was reflected in the governance approaches, like multi-level partnership working, emerged
survey (Fig. 2), where biodiversity and climate objectives ranked above as key to delivering more integrated NbS, involving ‘community-led
well-being, poverty, and equity concerns. The following sections explore projects {working} with national partners, environmental charities, NGOs…’
why socio-economic outcomes were often not being considered or fully (#27, Third Sector) in collaborative ways. ‘Not taking a monopolistic
delivered, and how NbS practitioners were navigating this in practice. approach’ (#27, Third Sector) was central to this, ensuring that projects
Around one-third of survey participants reported insufficient guid­ were not being owned and/or led by a single actor with narrow objec­
ance for achieving socio-economic outcomes, compared to only 14 % for tives but genuinely embraced different knowledges, values, and prior­
ecological guidance (Fig. 3). While 52 % of respondents identified clear ities for land management.
socio-economic objectives in their projects, 84 % reported clear
ecological goals. Interviewees pointed to capacity constraints, such as 4.2. Efforts to mitigate risk and uncertainty can reinforce the need for
limited expertise and staff, as well as systemic institutional bias towards centralised control
quantifiable outcomes within a science-driven, market-oriented
approach to NbS which ‘really privileges the science’ over diverse per­ Efforts to manage risk and uncertainty in NbS governance were
spectives and expertise (#05, Private Sector). The culture of environ­ evident throughout the interviews, with land use and ownership
mental organisations played an important role in what knowledge was emerging as a central factor: ‘Land is the key to everything when you come
considered relevant and useful for solutions, with practitioners com­ to nature recovery. Without access to land, you can forget it’ (#22, Public
menting that ‘what is being prioritised is based on what we can use in nature- Sector). Land access and ownership was often cited as essential for the
based solutions to sell natural capital, and we’re not selling the social side, are long-term resilience of NbS, however, opinions varied on centralised
we? […] The social side of it hasn’t been a priority.’ (#21, Private Sector). versus decentralised approaches: ‘we’re trying to balance the need for ur­
Even when socio-economic aspects were considered, they were often gency and action to upscale, in terms of tackling climate crisis and biodi­
constrained by market approaches that commodify nature: ‘{We’re} versity crisis, and how that wouldn’t be achieved quickly enough just from
trying to generate the maximum social benefits as we can within a sort of communities doing it themselves in terms of community owned land’ (#11,
profitable framework… And the profit is coming from… well, we anticipate it Private Sector). The majority of interviewees did not see bottom-up and
coming from biodiversity increase and carbon’ (#02, Private Sector). The top-down approaches as inherently in tension, however, with many
impact of this is further explored in Section 4.2. describing how these approaches could work simultaneously. For
Despite aspirations to integrate socio-economic and ecological goals, example, several practitioners had implemented a range of partnership,
the focus on quantitative outcomes not only restricted the inclusion of cooperative, shared ownership, and blended funding models, often with
socio-economic dimensions but changed the ways in which they were direct community benefits schemes (e.g., shared revenue, landowner­
understood and addressed. Social benefits were frequently described as ship, housing, jobs). Nevertheless, the practical limitations of securing
land for project resilience, amidst growing pressure for meeting funded
requirements and delivering outcomes within required timescales,
Table 2
Research data - survey. encouraged the need for a centralised authority to ultimately steer de­
cisions: ‘Working collaboratively is all very well, but at the end of the day you
Organisation type Number of
need a body to take overall responsibility for it to either negotiate agreements
participants
with landowners or to buy the land’ (#22, Public Sector).
Private sector (e.g., limited company, partnerships, small- 18
The decentralised and collaborative governance of NbS was often
medium enterprises, joint venture, non-profit)
Public sector (e.g., local government, government 17 viewed as too high risk when land security, funding and finance
department, education) mechanisms required a top-down approach. Several interviewees
Third sector (e.g., charities / not-for-profit, voluntary and 28 described how involving diverse, often conflicting, interests and prior­
community organisations, social enterprises and ities was a ‘real high risk and nervous place to be signing money off’ from the
cooperatives)
perspective of NbS funders and investors (#04, Third Sector). One

5
C. Hafferty et al. Environmental Science and Policy 163 (2025) 103979

Fig. 2. Practitioners’ perspectives on the sustainability challenges prioritised in NbS (average score, N = 63). *The chart shows the mean score for the ranking of each
sustainability challenge, with higher numbers indicating a lower ranking.

structures, others advocated for models that diversified ownership and

financing mechanisms: ‘if you’ve got community investors, you’ve got a
range, you diversify, you’re less dependent on one particular source that
dictates the terms’ {#26, Public Sector). Several practitioners emphasised
the importance of financing NbS based on more flexible processes that
did not rely on specific, quantifiable and measurable outcomes over
particular time periods, allowing for the consideration of diverse aspects
that are not as easily measured. For example, investment could be made
on a ‘no regrets basis, where we feel that it’s obviously going to have a benefit,
we can’t tell you exactly how much, but the investment is made on that basis’
(#23, Private Sector). Diverse benefits could also be encouraged by
standards that require landowners to ‘demonstrate that what they’re doing,
and what they’re going to do, is in the public interest’ (#27, Third Sector).
One practitioner explained that their intention was to act as ‘accelera­
tors’ for community benefit, with the ‘eventual idea that we look to transfer
ownership of land into local communities through people buying plots of land’
(#11, Private Sector). However, the desire to mitigate risk through
centralised, top-down, and often expert-led governance ultimately
Fig. 3. Availability of adequate socio-economic and ecological guidance for impacted who made decisions, who and what was included, who
NbS (% of respondents, N = 63). benefitted, and what these benefits looked like.

practitioner described how their NbS project ‘deliberately went below the 4.3. Invited engagement and nudge politics risk perpetuating fixed and
radar’ (#29, Public Sector) to minimise wider engagement until the procedural views of participation
initial stages of the project – which included acquiring land, securing
financing, and completing baselining - were complete. The role of ex­ Interviewees highlighted various nuances, conflicts, and trade-offs
perts – such as in business, finance, land, and science - was frequently between science-driven, market-focused approaches to governance
described as essential for ensuring stability and centralised decision- and bottom-up, community-led governance. These issues were not al­
making in NbS governance: ‘We have a Board of Directors who we feel ways in opposition but became problematic when one strategy domi­
are very much experts in both business and nature recovery, land manage­ nated, limiting the inclusion of others. While the majority of
ment, and generally {they} have the right priorities for rural prosperity at practitioners saw participation as vital, their motivations and un­
heart. Most of the decisions that we’re making, in majority, will be decided by derstandings varied. Throughout the interviews, participation was often
the Board.’ (#07, Private Sector). practiced to raise awareness, gain support and align people with project
While some favoured more centralised and expert-led governance goals. Participation was frequently understood and practiced as a way to

Fig. 4. Socio-economic objectives of NbS projects (% of respondents, N = 63).

6
C. Hafferty et al. Environmental Science and Policy 163 (2025) 103979

‘get people on board.’ (#01, Private Sector), promote ‘alignment with the
mission’ (#12, Third Sector), ‘believe in and trust the organisation’ (#12,
Private Sector). Engagement was also seen as a way to change envi­
ronmental views and behaviours, allowing practitioners to ‘listen to
people so you can gently nudge them in a correct way’ (#25, Third Sector).
In the survey, the most common engagement type conducted was in­
formation provision and awareness raising (50 participants, 79 %)
(followed by collaboration, see Fig. 5), and the majority of interviewees
emphasised the value of engaging through communicating through on-
Fig. 6. The main perceived benefits from engagement in NbS governance (% of
site signage, open days and educational events, increased public access,
respondents, N = 63).
and so forth. Generating support, raising awareness and educating were
the top two reported main benefits from engaging (71 % and 70 %
respectively; see Fig. 6).
However, several interviewees highlighted the problematic and
contradictory nature of viewing participation as a means to gain sup­
port, raise awareness, or even persuade people. Instead of imposing top-
down ideas and aiming to align people with pre-existing goals, the
participatory governance of NbS should involve ‘understanding the spe­
cific needs in communities before going down the route of trying to design
what the nature-based solutions might be’ (#04, Third Sector). This in­
volves not only incorporating specific types of expertise (e.g., scientific,
business, finance), but being open to embracing more diverse forms of
expertise and treating people as ‘creative and intelligent to be able to come Fig. 7. The main perceived risks for engagement in NbS governance (% of
up with their ideas’ (#05, Private Sector). Rather than as an instrument to respondents, N = 63).
align people with pre-existing ideas and goals, participation can be an
ongoing and open-ended process that ‘builds the space for cultural ex­ risk and uncertainty, understandings and practices of participation.
change’ (#27, Third Sector) where communities of place have genuine Taken together, the findings can enrich current debates around NbS that
agency, can veto aspects of land-use management, and receive benefits explicitly identify and challenge power imbalances for outcomes that are
defined on their terms. more plural, equitable, and socially ‘just’. Rather than setting these
The principles of participation often did not translate into practice different framings in opposition to one another, or dismissing the need
due to capacity constraints, including lack of funding and time: for science, markets, and mechanisms of control, our findings demon­
‘{Engagement} to us means developing management with the community, strate how their domination can narrow, simplify, and obscure alter­
supporting the community’s objectives, {but} it has tended to be informing native knowledges and approaches.
and getting feedback about ideas and plans. In principle, it is a much more The findings highlighted a disparity between the practitioners’
collaborative process.’ (#02, Private Sector). Limited resources were also recognition of the importance of integrated approaches to NbS that
the most reported risk for delivering engagement among survey partic­ deliver multiple benefits, and the limited extent to which social di­
ipants (66 %; see Fig. 7). Beyond inviting people into pre-defined deci­ mensions were considered and fully delivered in practice. While NbS are
sion-making spaces, many interviewees advocated for systemic shifts in increasingly framed as ‘with and for people’ (Seddon et al., 2021 p. 152;
the ownership, financing, and management of NbS that allowed for also Chausson et al., 2024; Welden et al., 2021), the dominance of
genuine community agency to deliver tangible benefits from the bottom- techno-scientific and market-oriented framings often undermines ho­
up. listic approaches from the outset. This creates an irony where, despite
good intentions for the inclusive reframing of NbS, entrenched power
5. Discussion imbalances prioritise certain objectives and approaches over others
unless these issues are explicitly exposed and addressed (e.g., Turnhout,
5.1. Unpacking and nuancing NbS for transformative change: why we 2024). The focus on measurable, predictable outcomes to qualify for
need to open up the debate funding sidelines less tangible social aspects, which are often treated as
unintended consequences or inherent “goods” from NbS interventions
Our analysis identified three themes that reveal how current fram­ rather than deeply intertwined with landscapes and ecosystems through
ings of NbS shape political and power dynamics that have the potential long histories of co-existence between people and nature (Mehta et al.,
to support, or undermine, transformative change. This section explores 2019; Welden et al., 2021). As embedded in Scoones et al.’s (2015)
these themes in the context of the literature, foregrounding the messy analysis of the politics of sustainability transformations, the
politics of transformation in NbS to nuance and unpack the interplay over-emphasis on measurable outcomes in NbS demonstrates how
between the prioritisation of techno-market approaches, perceptions of dominant framings, like the financialisaton of nature, can further nar­
row valuations of landscapes and, at the same time, promote simplistic
and instrumental understandings of social dimensions. This can lead to
what McDermott (2014 p.18) describes as ‘displaced decision-making
about controversial issues’, which includes the equity implications of
natural capital markets, and all non-carbon and biodiversity environ­
mental and social values. Prioritising measurable evidence to justify the
value of nature and ecosystems, particularly for financing NbS, risks
fundamentally closing down meaningful opportunities to embrace
bottom-up knowledge systems and alternative, participatory forms of
governance.
Beyond calls for reframing NbS to be more plural or inclusive, the
Fig. 5. Type of engagement conducted in NbS projects (% of re­ results indicated that achieving transformative change requires more
spondents, N = 63). explicit attention on systemic shifts that address power imbalances and

7
C. Hafferty et al. Environmental Science and Policy 163 (2025) 103979

problematise the domination of specific knowledge types, interests, and success and long-term resilience. This is problematic because, as Walter
values. Transformative NbS must consider proactive community rights and Wansleben (2020) argue, financing mechanisms not only result in
and empowerment, agency to veto land-use decisions, tangible com­ the ‘transformation of uncertainty into risk’ to rationally calculate new
munity benefit schemes, decentralised landownership, and cooperative knowledge about what these risks might be (and how to avoid them), but
finance structures (e.g., see Doyle, 2023; Martin et al., 2023; McIntosh, also reinforces the ‘assumption of a fundamentally static and continuous
2023). It is also important to recognise the potential trade-offs between world that does not undergo any fundamental substantive changes’
equity and community-led goals, and objectives for biodiversity and (ibid, p. 34). Such assumptions are at odds with more transformative
carbon (McDermott et al., 2023). However, instead of pitting democracy approaches that embrace, rather than seek to control, the inevitable
and conservation imperatives against one another - as implied by some complexity and uncertainty that arises from continuous democratic
of our interviewees and also in several recent studies, e.g., Martin et al. struggle, contested interests, and the diverse co-construction of knowl­
(2023) - NbS proponents can build on understandings of different edge (see Turnhout, 2024; Turnhout et al., 2020; Scoones et al., 2015;
pathways to sustainability transformations as not mutually exclusive but Welden et al., 2021).
as strategically combined to serve specific purposes and objectives An overemphasis on controlling uncertainty often leads to gathering
(Scoones et al., 2015). Recognising the limited likelihood of short-term more data through increasingly precise measurements and technological
radical change, while staying committed to longer-term transformative advances, as seen in many NbS projects described by interviewees.
shifts, means understanding that various routes to sustainable outcomes Nightingale et al. (2020) caution that this perpetuates a “technical trap”
can coexist. It also requires acknowledging that conflict between focused on identifying threats and responding to impacts to create
different pathways is inevitable, and that contestation and democratic change. As a result, NbS can succumb to addressing sustainability issues
debate around multiple priorities is essential for transformation, rather through primarily techno-scientific measures and top-down manage­
than an obstacle that needs to be overcome or mitigated against ment systems, despite their widely acknowledged limitations and im­
(Patterson and Paterson, 2024; Stirling, 2015; Willis, 2020). Governance plications (McDermott, 2014; Nightingale et al., 2020; Stanley, 2024).
approaches for NbS must create the space and time for a wide range of These problems stem from wider technocentric framings that do not
actors to enact their own priorities without the need for consensus and to challenge existing political systems and power imbalances (Turnhout
promote meaningful dialogue, learning, and shifting power dynamics et al., 2020) and marginalise the experiences, interests, and lived re­
between different actors. alities of local communities (Mehta and Srivastava, 2020). Conceptu­
ally, the prioritisation of centralised finance and land ownership
5.2. It is important that NbS embrace (rather than try to control) risk and arrangements in NbS reinforces static realities and understandings of
uncertainty society and the environment as separate (e.g., Welden et al., 2021). This
is not only ontologically incorrect because society is not discrete from
The findings revealed a central tension in NbS between embracing nature (Walter and Wansleben, 2020) but also overlooks the emergent
complexity as an opportunity for creative and innovative responses to and continuously co-constructed nature of societies and environments
sustainability challenges, or as a risk that needs controlling in times of (Jasanoff, 2013). As discussed in Section 5.3, this has profound impli­
crisis. The literature suggests that NbS can be “controlled” (Stirling, cations for the ways in which participation is understood and practised,
2015) to ensure positive (often carbon and biodiversity) outcomes and obscuring co-constructivist views (Chilvers, Kearnes, 2015, 2020)
mitigate negative impacts, undesirable trade-offs and complexities (also through an over-emphasis on fixed, procedural understandings and
see Mehta and Srivastava, 2020; Nightingale et al., 2020; Scoones and “best practices”.
Stirling, 2020). In reality, as Section 5.1 considers, attempts to measure Our findings highlighted practical ways for NbS to embrace risk and
and control NbS often obscure issues and relationships that cannot be uncertainty rather than merely control it. Practitioners proposed “no
quantified. As discussed below, the tendency to reduce uncertainty often regrets” investments that acknowledge the unpredictability of strategies
promotes centralised governance by "expert” authorities. designed to deliver multiple benefits. This aligns with Decision-making
Centralised approaches to landownership emerged from the in­ under Deep Uncertainty (DMDU) methods (Stanton and Roelich, 2021;
terviews as archetypal mechanisms for exercising control and ensuring Wells et al., 2023), like Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning (DAPP)
precise, measurable, and verifiable conditions for financing and scal­ (Haasnoot et al., 2024), which have emerged to address the limitations
ability. Decentralised and participatory approaches were often of traditional predictive approaches to addressing environmental chal­
perceived as too risky, introducing undesirable levels of complexity lenges by emphasising adaptability across future scenarios. DMDU and
through navigating trade-offs, contested priorities, and diverse knowl­ DAPP guide adaptive plans with flexible, near-term actions that avoid
edge types. As Chausson et al. (2023) suggest, transformative shifts investing too much too early, or locking in resources, often using
away from hegemony require a critical re-thinking and re-structuring of participatory processes that integrate both qualitative and quantitative
market mechanisms and policies that value landscapes holistically, data (e.g., Vizinho et al., 2021). While NbS decision-making often pri­
incorporating diverse benefits and values grounded in justice, rather oritises scientific over local knowledge, adaptive approaches can evolve
than focusing narrowly on efficiency, upscaling, increasingly precise strategies in light of emerging uncertainties (Stanton and Roelich,
measurement, and commodifying nature. This could involve trans­ 2021), asserting that uncertainty cannot always be reduced or elimi­
ferring land assets to communities of place (e.g., McIntosh, 2023) and nated but is fundamental to more creative, dynamic and resilient path­
mechanisms to bring land into a local common pool resource, ways to sustainability transformation (Leach et al., 2010).
strengthening local democracy and community power over land-use
decisions (Doyle, 2023). 5.3. Proponents of NbS must avoid perpetuating “democracy washing”
If dominant framings prioritise more centralised governance systems
to finance and upscale NbS, they may unintentionally exacerbate power More than two decades after Cooke and Kothari’s (2001) seminal
imbalances and injustices through legitimising and reinforcing top- work on the tyranny of participation, our analysis reveals how dominant
down strategies for controlling uncertainty (Nightingale et al., 2020; framings within NbS perpetuate the normative assumption of partici­
Pickering et al., 2020). If it is increasingly assumed, as suggested by pation as an inherent “good” that can be leveraged for multiple benefits.
many interviewees, that ‘the better and more established the link be­ Participation was also frequently understood and implemented by the
tween a land use change and the beneficial impact on ecosystem services interviewees and survey participants as an instrument to increase
and sustainability is, the higher the likelihood of project success’ community and public support for existing goals, rather than to embrace
(Blignaut, 2019 p. 3), then any uncertainty around delivering these different understandings of the problem and solutions needed. Within
benefits is seen as unnecessary or undesirable complication to project dominant NbS framings that prioritise certainty and control,

8
C. Hafferty et al. Environmental Science and Policy 163 (2025) 103979

participation becomes a tool to help stabilise and maintain, rather than and so reinforce bower imbalances between what “counts” as legitimate
challenge and unsettle, existing interests and power imbalances. knowledge and authoritative actors in NbS, but also exacerbates narrow
Dominant conditions in NbS can perpetuate what Chilvers, Kearnes valuations of landscapes and simplistic understandings of social di­
(2015; 2020) describe as “residual realist” views of participation that mensions as by-products from ecosystem services. Second, these domi­
prioritise fixed and procedural views of participation (also see Chilvers nant framings risk heightening existing patterns of concentrated land
and Longhurst, 2016). These views are problematic because they treat ownership and financing mechanisms in NbS, particularly through the
participation and “communities” (or “publics”) as singular, external prioritisation of centralised governance systems to secure measurable,
entities with pre-given characteristics (Brown, 2009) and demarcate the verifiable, and predictable outcomes and mitigate risk and uncertainty.
limits of participation and establish specific characteristics of what Finally, despite good intentions for promoting the participatory gover­
“good” looks like (e.g., representative, inclusive) through frameworks nance of NbS, participation itself can become a tool to stabilise and
and standards of best practice (see Newig et al., 2023; Raymond et al., maintain, rather than challenge and unsettle, existing interests and
2017). NbS focusing on aligning external actors, like local communities power imbalances. This risks “democracy washing” where participation
or broader members of the public, to pre-determined project goals also exacerbates the very inequalities that NbS claims to help dismantle. This
risks exacerbating the widely acknowledged undemocratic implications suggests that the current way in which NbS are understood and imbal­
of participation, where opportunities for contestation and struggle for anced can not only undermine transformative change, but ends up
power are overridden by a focus on consensus and representative poli­ obscuring and diverting attention away from more pertinent questions
tics (Kiss et al., 2022; Rees and Doyon, 2023; Stirling, 2008, 2015; about politics, power, and democracy. Transformative NbS must
Turnhout et al., 2020; Woroniecki et al., 2020). explicitly address these issues and foster a shift away from framings and
In viewing participation – and who and what is involved – in terms of approaches that privilege certainty towards more open-ended framings
specific, discrete, or invited activities, such perspectives fail to recognise that embrace conflict, uncertainty, and continuous democratic struggle.
the evolving multiplicity and multivalence of participation. This can These arguments do not undermine the importance of robust science,
undermine transformation and reinforce static understandings of people technology, or private finance, nor do they imply that science, tech­
as separate to NbS (Welden et al., 2021), rather than as active pro­ nology and finance are necessarily fundamentally at odds with partici­
tagonists in their production and our knowledge of them. Instead, patory, bottom-up governance. Instead, this paper has unpacked the
Chilvers, Kearnes (2015), (2020) argue for a (re)conceptualisation of complex power dynamics and issues that arise when transformations are
participation as continuously (co-)constructed through performance narrowly framed, leading to an over-emphasis on one approach at the
with wider systems, institutions, and socio-material practices (also see expense of another. Furthermore, although radical transformative shifts
Turnhout et al., 2010). It is important that NbS create space for these are needed, this is unlikely to happen in the short term, and environ­
diverse forms of participation, which often have different framings of mental organisations often face lack of capacity and institutional biases
problems and solutions, to encourage transformations through discon­ that hinder their ability to deliver on multiple sustainability goals
tinuous political struggle rather than structured management and (Hafferty, 2022a; 2022b). In recognition of these issues, we also offer
control. pragmatic governance guidance for NbS practitioners on the
The current assumptions about participation within NbS risks “de­ Nature-based Solutions Initiative Knowledge Hub (see Hafferty et al.,
mocracy washing”, akin to greenwashing, but focused on manipulating 2023; NbSI, 2024; also see Davis et al., 2023).
participatory democratic principles for superficial purposes (Cooke and This study also has limitations that highlight areas for further
Kothari, 2001; Few et al., 2007; also see McIntosh, 2023 p. 31, on research. Notably, while our UK-based findings are arguably relevant
“community washing”). Democracy washing involves projecting an illu­ further afield, it was out of scope of the study to provide a robust
sion of democratic engagement while undermining genuine participa­ comparison between the results of NbS implemented in a UK context
tory processes by concealing deeper questions of power and equity. against international case studies. Future studies could compare NbS
While this may not always be intentional, NbS proponents must be projects between the UK and other developed countries, as well as
cautious about key assumptions, norms, and practices being naïve to, or against developing nations. The research also focused only on practi­
concealing, these issues. Alongside growing calls for the reframing of tioners and decision-makers implementing NbS projects, rather than the
NbS (Chausson et al., 2024; Welden et al., 2021) to be delivered with and beneficiaries and/or affected groups (e.g., local and Indigenous com­
for people (Seddon et al., 2021), it is vital that NbS proponents advocate munities). Further studies would benefit from capturing and integrating
for an urgent critical reassessment of participation that highlights the the voices of those who are seldom heard, harder-to-reach, or frequently
need for vigilance in assessing the authenticity of participatory pro­ left behind and marginalised within dominant NbS initiatives.
cesses, holds institutions accountable, and explicitly challenges the To achieve genuine transformation, there are hopeful ways that NbS
power imbalances that undermine genuine participation and can move towards more adaptive and open-ended approaches that
empowerment. explicitly recognise the implications of dominant framings for closing
down, rather than opening up, diverse pathways to sustainability that
6. Conclusion and suggestions for practice nurture human-nature relationships. This must ultimately involve
making a commitment to cultivate and create space for – rather than
NbS is a powerful concept that aims to deliver co-benefits, integrate control and close down – alternative perspectives, pathways, and pos­
diverse knowledge types, and leverage participatory governance to sibilities for justice and well-being.
support broader sustainability transformations. However, despite
numerous efforts to rethink and reframe NbS, dominant framings can CRediT authorship contribution statement
end up narrowing and obscuring, rather than opening up and
embracing, the messy and conflicted democratic struggles that are Caitlin Hafferty: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original
essential for transformation to happen. Drawing from interviews with draft, Visualization, Validation, Project administration, Methodology,
practitioners, policy makers, private and civil actors in the UK, this Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.
paper has highlighted three themes that demonstrate how these issues Emmanuel Selasi Tomude: Writing – review & editing, Validation,
unfold. First, many NbS projects prioritise techno-scientific and market- Formal analysis, Data curation. Audrey Wagner: Writing – review &
driven objectives that favour measurable and verifiable evidence, often editing, Methodology. Constance McDermott: Supervision, Funding
privileging the role of scientific, financial, and business expertise over acquisition. Mark Hirons: Writing – review & editing, Supervision,
other actors and knowledge systems. This not only fails to challenge Funding acquisition.
existing hierarchies between different actors and knowledge systems,

9
C. Hafferty et al. Environmental Science and Policy 163 (2025) 103979

Declaration of Competing Interest 3x88HLlKgEWRuEmk6tsil8/8464c382301e2636711e945ccb8ffb2c/High-Integrity_

Marine_Natural_Capital_Markets_Roadmap.pdf〉. Accessed: 30/07/2024.
Davies, C., Lafortezza, R., 2019. Transitional path to the adoption of nature-based
The authors declare that they have no known conflict of interests that solutions. Land Use Policy 80, 406–409.
could have influenced this paper. Davis, J., Hafferty, C., Ingram, J., and Short, C. 2023. The Nattergal Report on
Engagement Best Practice for Landscape-scale Nature Recovery Projects. Countryside
and Community Research Institute. Available at: 〈https://www.nattergal.co.uk/resear
Acknowledgements ch〉. Accessed: 03/11/2024.
DEFRA. 2020. Environment Secretary speech at the COP26 Business Leaders Event. GOV.
UK. Online at: 〈https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/environment-secretar
This work was financially supported by a grant from the Natural y-speech-at-the-cop26-business-leaders-event〉. Accessed: 20/07/2024.
Environment Research Council (NERC) (grant number NE/W004976/1) DEFRA. 2023. Green Finance Boost for Nature in UK: New Green Finance Strategy and
as part of the Agile Initiative at the Oxford Martin School and the Nature Markets Framework to develop growth of green finance. Department for
Environment, Food, & Rural Affairs. Online at: 〈https://www.gov.uk/government
Nature-based Solutions Initiative. The work was also financially sup­ /news/green-finance-boost-for-nature-in-uk〉. Accessed: 20/07/2024.
ported by a grant from the Leverhulme Trust (grant number RC- DEFRA. 2024. Agricultural Transition Plan update January 2024. Policy paper.
2021–076) as part of the Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery. Any Department for Environment, Food, & Rural Affairs. Online at: 〈https://www.gov.
uk/government/publications/agricultural-transition-plan-2021-to-2024/agricultura
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in l-transition-plan-update-january-2024〉. Accessed: 20/07/2024.
the material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the Devine-Wright, P., Whitmarsh, L., Gatersleben, B., O’Neill, S., Hartley, S.,
views of the funder or collaborating initiatives. The authors are grateful Burningham, K., Sovacool, B., Barr, S., Anable, J., 2022. Placing people at the heart
of climate action. PLOS Clim. 1 (5), e0000035.
to the three anonymous reviewers and our editors, whose constructive
Doyle, C., 2023. Rethinking communities, land and governance: land reform in scotland
feedback has helped us to greatly improve and clarify the contributions and the community ownership model. Plan. Theory Pract. 24 (3), 429–441.
of this paper. Fairhead, J., Leach, M., Scoones, I., 2014. Green grabbing: a new appropriation of
nature? In Green Grabbing: a new appropriation of nature. Routledge, pp. 11–36.
Fereday, J., Muir-Cochrane, E., 2006. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A
Appendix A. Supporting information hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int. J.
Qual. Methods 5 (1), 80–92.
Ferreira, V., Barreira, A.P., Loures, L., Antunes, D., Panagopoulos, T., 2020.
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the Stakeholders’ engagement on nature-based solutions: a systematic literature review.
online version at doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103979. Sustainability 12 (2), 640.
Few, R., Brown, K., Tompkins, E.L., 2007. Public participation and climate change
adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Clim. Policy 7 (1), 46–59.
Data availability Frantzeskaki, N., 2019. Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities.
Environ. Sci. Policy 93, 101–111.
The data that has been used is confidential. Guest, G., Namey, E., Chen, M., 2020. A simple method to assess and report thematic
saturation in qualitative research. PloS One 15 (5), e0232076.
Haasnoot, M., Di Fant, V., Kwakkel, J., Lawrence, J., 2024. Lessons from a decade of
References adaptive pathways studies for climate adaptation. Glob. Environ. Change 88,
102907.
Hafferty, C., 2022a. Embedding an evidence-led, best practice culture of engagement:
Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J., Masip, L., Pearsall, H., 2018. Assessing green
learning from the evidence. Natural England Research Resport NECR448. htt
gentrification in historically disenfranchised neighborhoods: a longitudinal and
ps://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5365328451469312.
spatial analysis of Barcelona. Urban Geogr. 39 (3), 458–491.
Hafferty, C. 2022b. Engagement in the digital age: practitioners’ perspectives on the
Assael, H., Keon, J., 1982. Nonsampling vs. sampling errors in survey research. J. Mark.
challenges and opportunities for planning and environmental decision-making. PhD
46 (2), 114–123.
thesis, University of Gloucestershire. https://doi.org/10.46289/MM76Y4T8.
Beck, S., 2011. Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? IPCC and the test of
Hafferty, C., Hirons, M., Tomude, E.S., and McDermott, C. 2023. A Recipe for
adaptation. Reg. Environ. Change 11, 297–306.
Engagement in Nature Recovery and Nature-based Solutions. Agile Initiative
Blignaut, J.N., 2019. Making investments in natural capital count. Ecosyst. Serv. 37,
Research Report. Available at: 〈https://nbshub.naturebasedsolutionsinitiative.
100927.
org/governance/〉. Accessed: 23/11/2024.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual. Res. Sport,
Hafferty, C., Reed, M.S., Brockett, B.F., Orford, S., Berry, R., Short, C., Davis, J., 2024.
Exerc. Health 11 (4), 589–597.
Engagement in the digital age: Understanding “what works” for participatory
Brown, M., 2009. Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. MIT
technologies in environmental decision-making. J. Environ. Manag. 365, 121365.
Press, Cambridge.
Hirons, M., 2021. Governing natural climate solutions: prospects and pitfalls. Curr. Opin.
Bulkeley, H., 2012. Governance and the geography of authority: modalities of
Environ. Sustain. 52, 36–44.
authorisation and the transnational governing of climate change. Environ. Plan. A 44
Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., Kindlon, D., Collier, M.J., Dick, G., Dziubała, A.,
(10), 2428–2444.
Lodder, M., Osipiuk, A., Quartier, M., Schepers, S., Van De Sijpe, K., 2024.
Bulkeley, H., Mol, A.P., 2003. Participation and environmental governance: consensus,
Embedding co-production of nature-based solutions in urban governance: Emerging
ambivalence and debate. Environ. Values 12 (2), 143–154.
co-production capacities in three European cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 152, 103652.
Chausson, A., Welden, E.A., Melanidis, M.S., Gray, E., Hirons, M., Seddon, N., 2023.
Hulme, M., 2011. Reducing the future to climate: a story of climate determinism and
Going beyond market-based mechanisms to finance nature-based solutions and
reductionism. Osiris 26 (1), 245–266.
foster sustainable futures. PLoS Clim. 2 (4), e0000169.
Hulme, M., 2018. Gaps” in climate change knowledge: do they exist? Can they be filled?
Chausson, A., Bugre, A., Spiegelenberg, F., Welden, E.A., Melanidis, M. 2024. Nature-
Environ. Humanit. 10 (1), 330–337.
based Solutions: narratives, frames, and future horizons. Unearthodox. Available at:
Hulme, M., 2019. Climate emergency politics is dangerous. Issues Sci. Technol. 36 (1),
〈https://unearthodox.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Unearthodox-NatureBase
23–25.
dSolutions-v4.pdf〉. Accessed 23/07/2024.
IPBES. 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity
Chilvers, J., Kearnes, M., 2015. Remaking participation: Science, environment and
and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental SciencePolicy Platform on
emergent publics. Routledge.
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
Chilvers, J., Kearnes, M., 2020. Remaking participation in science and democracy. Sci.,
IPCC, 2019a. Summary for policymakers. In: Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Masson-
Technol., Hum. Values 45 (3), 347–380.
Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A.,
Chilvers, J., Longhurst, N., 2016. Participation in transition (s): Reconceiving public
Nicolai, M., Okem, A., Petzold, J., Rama, B., Weyer, N.M. (Eds.), IPCC special report
engagements in energy transitions as co-produced, emergent and diverse. J. Environ.
on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate. In press.
Policy Plan. 18 (5), 585–607.
IPCC. (2019b). Summary for policymakers. In P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V.
Chilvers, J., Pallett, H., Hargreaves, T., 2018. Ecologies of participation in socio-technical
Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van
change: The case of energy system transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 42, 199–210.
Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal
Cooke, B., Kothari, U. (Eds.), 2001. Participation: The new tyranny?. Zed books.
Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate
Cooper, C., Cunningham, N., Bracken, L.J., 2023. Exploring different framings of nature-
Change and Land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land
based solutions with respect to governance, and citizen participation, beneficiaries,
degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes
and quality of life outcomes. Environ. Sci. Policy 150, 103592.
in terrestrial ecosystems.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
IUCN. (2020). IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. International Union for
Naeem, S., O’neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., 1997. The value of the world’s
Conservation of Nature. First edition Gland.
ecosystem services and natural capital. nature 387 (6630), 253–260.
Jasanoff, S., 2013. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social
Creswell, J.W., Poth, C.N., 2016. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
order. Routledge, London.
among five approaches. Sage publications.
Katsou, E., Nika, C.E., Buehler, D., Marić, B., Megyesi, B., Mino, E., Babí Almenar, J.,
Crown Estate. 2024. High integrity marine natural capital markets in the UK: A roadmap
Bas, B., Bećirović, D., Bokal, S., Đolić, M., 2020. Transformation tools enabling the
for action. The Crown Estate. Online at: 〈https://assets.ctfassets.net/nv65su7t80y5/

10
C. Hafferty et al. Environmental Science and Policy 163 (2025) 103979

implementation of nature-based solutions for creating a resourceful circular city. Scoones, I., Newell, P., Leach, M., 2015. The politics of green transformations. In:
Blue-Green. Syst. 2 (1), 188–213. Scoones, I., Leach, M., Newell, P. (Eds.), The politics of green transformations.
King, P., Martin-Ortega, J., Armstrong, J., Ferré, M., Bark, R.H., 2023. Mainstreaming Taylor & Francis.
nature-based solutions: what role do Communities of Practice play in delivering a Seddon, N., Smith, A., Smith, P., Key, I., Chausson, A., Girardin, C., House, J.,
paradigm shift? Environ. Sci. Policy 144, 53–63. Srivastava, S., Turner, B., 2021. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions
Kiss, B., Sekulova, F., Hörschelmann, K., Salk, C.F., Takahashi, W., Wamsler, C., 2022. to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 27 (8), 1518–1546.
Citizen participation in the governance of nature-based solutions. Environ. Policy Siccama, C.J., Penna, S., 2008. Enhancing validity of a qualitative dissertation research
Gov. 32 (3), 247–272. study by using NVivo. Qual. Res. J. 8 (2), 91–103.
Klenk, N., Meehan, K., 2015. Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Stanley, T., 2024. Carbon ‘known not grown’: Reforesting Scotland, advanced
problematizing the integration imperative. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 160–167. measurement technologies, and a new frontier of mitigation deterrence. Environ. Sci.
Leach, M., Scoones, I., Stirling, A., 2010. Governing epidemics in an age of complexity: Policy 151, 103636.
Narratives, politics and pathways to sustainability. Glob. Environ. Change 20 (3), Stanton, M.C.B., Roelich, K., 2021. Decision making under deep uncertainties: a review
369–377. of the applicability of methods in practice. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 171,
Maes, J., Jacobs, S., 2017. Nature-based solutions for Europe’s sustainable development. 120939.
Conserv. Lett. 10 (1), 121–124. Stirling, A., 2008. Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism
Maher, C., Hadfield, M., Hutchings, M., De Eyto, A., 2018. Ensuring rigor in qualitative in the social appraisal of technology. Sci., Technol., Hum. Values 33 (2), 262–294.
data analysis: A design research approach to coding combining NVivo with Stirling, A., 2014b. Transforming power: Social science and the politics of energy
traditional material methods. Int. J. Qual. Methods 17 (1), 1609406918786362. choices’. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1, 83–95.
Martin, A., Fischer, A., McMorran, R., 2023. Who decides? The governance of rewilding Stirling, A., 2014a. Emancipating Transformations: From controlling ‘the transition’ to
in Scotland ‘between the cracks’: Community participation, public engagement, and culturing plural radical progress, 64. STEPS Centre, Brighton (STEPS Working
partnerships. J. Rural Stud. 98, 80–91. Paper).
McDermott, C.L., 2014. REDDuced: From sustainability to legality to units of Stirling, A., 2015. Emancipating transformation: from controlling ‘the transition’ to
carbon—The search for common interests in international forest governance. culturing plural radical progress. In: Scoones, I., Leach, M., Newell, P. (Eds.), The
Environ. Sci. Policy 35, 12–19. politics of green transformations. Taylor & Francis.
McDermott, C.L., Montana, J., Bennett, A., Gueiros, C., Hamilton, R., Hirons, M., Strand, R., Saltelli, A., Giampietro, M., Rommetveit, K., Funtowicz, S., 2018. New
Maguire-Rajpaul, V.A., Parry, E., Picot, L., 2023. Transforming land use governance: narratives for innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 1849–1853.
Global targets without equity miss the mark. Environ. Policy Gov. 33 (3), 245–257. Tallent, T., Zabala, A., 2024. Social equity and pluralism in Nature-based Solutions:
McIntosh, A. 2023. The cheviot, the stag and the black black carbon. Community Land Practitioners’ perspectives on implementation. Environ. Sci. Policy 151, 103624.
Scotland Policy Resource. Available at: 〈https://www.communitylandscotland.org. Thornberg, R., Charmaz, K., 2014. Grounded theory and theoretical coding. SAGE
uk/resources/the-cheviot-the-stag-and-the-black-black-carbon/〉. Last accessed: 24/ Handb. Qual. data Anal. 5 (2014), 153–169.
07/2024. Tozer, L., Hörschelmann, K., Anguelovski, I., Bulkeley, H., Lazova, Y., 2020. Whose city?
Mehta, L., Srivastava, S., 2020. Uncertainty in modelling climate change: The Whose nature? Towards inclusive nature-based solution governance. Cities 107,
possibilities of co-production through knowledge pluralism 1. In: Scoones, I. and 102892.
Stirling, A. 2020. The Politics of Uncertainty. Routledge, pp. 99–112. Turnhout, E., 2024. A better knowledge is possible: transforming environmental science
Mehta, L., Srivastava, S., Adam, H.N., Alankar, Bose, S., Ghosh, U., Kumar, V.V., 2019. for justice and pluralism. Environ. Sci. Policy 155, 103729.
Climate change and uncertainty from ‘above’and ‘below’: perspectives from India. Turnhout, E., Van Bommel, S., Aarts, N., 2010. How participation creates citizens:
Reg. Environ. Change 19, 1533–1547. participatory governance as performative practice. Ecol. Soc. 15 (4).
Melanidis, M.S., Hagerman, S., 2022. Competing narratives of nature-based solutions: Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., Louder, E., 2020. The politiccs of co-
Leveraging the power of nature or dangerous distraction? Environ. Sci. Policy 132, production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
273–281. 42, 15–21.
NbSI (2024). Nature-based Solutions Knowledge Hub. Nature-based Solutions Initiative. Turnhout, E., Neves, K., De Lijster, E., 2014. Measurementality’ in biodiversity
Available at: 〈https://nbshub.naturebasedsolutionsinitiative.org/〉. Last accessed: governance: knowledge, transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
03/11/2024. Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environ. Plan. A 46 (3),
Newig, J., Jager, N.W., Challies, E., Kochskämper, E., 2023. Does stakeholder 581–597.
participation improve environmental governance? Evidence from a meta-analysis of UNEP. 2023. State of Finance for Nature. United Nations Environment Programme. Online
305 case studies. Glob. Environ. Change 82, 102705. at: 〈https://www.unep.org/resources/report/state-finance-nature〉. Accessed: 20/
Nightingale, A.J., Eriksen, S., Taylor, M., Forsyth, T., Pelling, M., Newsham, A., Boyd, E., 07/2024.
Brown, K., Harvey, B., Jones, L., Bezner Kerr, R., 2020. Beyond technical fixes: United Nations (UN). 2019. United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration Strategic
Climate solutions and the great derangement. Clim. Dev. 12 (4), 343–352. Plan. Online at: 〈https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/strategy〉. Accessed 20/07/
OECD. 2021. Biodiversity, natural capital and the economy: A policy guide for finance, 2024.
economic and environment ministers. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Valerio, M.A., Rodriguez, N., Winkler, P., Lopez, J., Dennison, M., Liang, Y., Turner, B.J.,
Development. Online at: 〈https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2021/05/biodivers 2016. Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in
ity-natural-capital-and-the-economy_940af1d4.html〉. Accessed: 20/07/2024. research priority setting. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 16, 1–11.
Palomo, I., Locatelli, B., Otero, I., Colloff, M., Crouzat, E., Cuni-Sanchez, A., Gómez- Vizinho, A., Avelar, D., Fonseca, A.L., Carvalho, S., Sucena-Paiva, L., Pinho, P., Nunes, A.,
Baggethun, E., González-García, A., Grêt-Regamey, A., Jiménez-Aceituno, A., Branquinho, C., Vasconcelos, A.C., Santos, F.D., Roxo, M.J., 2021. Framing the
Martín-López, B., 2021. Assessing nature-based solutions for transformative change. application of adaptation pathways for agroforestry in mediterranean drylands. Land
One earth 4 (5), 730–741. Use Policy 104, 105348.
Patterson, J., Paterson, M., 2024. Embracing the politics of transformation: policy action Walter, T., Wansleben, L., 2020. The assault of financial futures on the rest of time. Polit.
as “battle-settlement events”. Rev. Policy Res. Uncertain. 31–44.
Pickering, J., Bäckstrand, K., Schlosberg, D., 2020. Between environmental and WEF. 2020. Nature risk rising: Why the crisis engulfing nature matters for business and
ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus. the economy. World Economic Forum. Online at: 〈https://www.weforum.org/publi
J. Environ. Policy Plan. 22 (1), 1–15. cations/nature-risk-rising-why-the-crisis-engulfing-nature-matters-for-business-and-
Pyett, P.M., 2003. Validation of qualitative research in the “real world. Qual. Health Res. the-economy/〉. Accessed: 20/07/2024.
13 (8), 1170–1179. Welden, E.A., Chausson, A., Melanidis, M.S., 2021. Leveraging Nature-based Solutions
Raymond, C.M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M.R., for transformation: Reconnecting people and nature. People Nat. 3 (5), 966–977.
Geneletti, D., Calfapietra, C., 2017. A framework for assessing and implementing the Wells, G., Pascual, U., Stephenson, C., Ryan, C.M., 2023. Confronting deep uncertainty in
co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 77, 15–24. the forest carbon industry. Science 382 (6666), 41–43.
Rees, A., Doyon, A., 2023. Unsettling NbS: a pathway towards shifting colonial power Willis, R., 2020. Too hot to handle?: The democratic challenge of climate change. Bristol
relations in nature-based solutions research and practice. PLOS Clim. 2 (11), University Press.
e0000307. Woroniecki, S., Wendo, H., Brink, E., Islar, M., Krause, T., Vargas, A.M., Mahmoud, Y.,
Roitsch, D., da Schio, N., Ostoić, S.K., Zivojinovic, I., Vuletic, D., Armstrong, A., 2020. Nature unsettled: how knowledge and power shape ‘nature-based’ approaches
Czaplarska, A., Baró, F., Whitehead, I., Bujis, A., De Vreese, R., 2024. Co-production to societal challenges. Glob. Environ. Change 65, 102132.
of urban forests as nature-based solutions: Motivations and lessons-learnt from Wynne, B., 1992. Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and
public officials. Environ. Sci. Policy 157, 103764. policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 2 (2), 111–127.
Scoones, I., Stirling, A., 2020. Uncertainty and the politics of transformation. In: Scoones,
Stirling (Eds.), The politics of uncertainty: Challenges of transformation. Taylor &
Francis.

11