Framework identifies social factors shaping well-being outcomes in nature-based solutions, indicating critical planning insights.
Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are designed and implemented to address societal challenges, including climate change and biodiversity loss, by protecting, restoring and sustainably managing ecosystems. Yet their social dimension remains poorly defined and inconsistently integrated into planning and implementation. Existing research and guidance often prioritise ecological functions, providing less clarity on how social realities shape outcomes and long-term effectiveness. In this article, we develop a conceptual framework that explores the social dimensions of NbS through two connected facets: the social principles and processes that shape how NbS are developed, implemented and governed, and the social outcomes of NbS interventions, whether intended or unintended. The framework groups key social shaping factors into three domains: social inclusion and justice, knowledge integration and cultural values, and institutional arrangements, and links them to outcomes related to well-being and livelihood security, knowledge, values and culture, and social cohesion and inclusive governance. It is informed by a structured literature review and empirical insights from the BioClimSocial research and development project, including comparative case study analysis, survey evidence and an in-person expert workshop. The framework models how applied principles and designed processes may shape social benefits or trade-offs and how social outcomes may reinforce or weaken future performance of NbS through feedback loops. This perspective positions social outcomes as both indicators of NbS impact and drivers of NbS durability and legitimacy. The article concludes with implications for policy and practice, emphasising early integration of justice-based, context-specific social considerations, systematic monitoring of social outcomes and long-term, adaptive governance approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kamar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: