Towards conceptual clarity in nature‐based solutions: Comparing academic definitions with practitioner perspectives

Nature‐based Solutions (NbS) are increasingly embedded within academic and institutional discourse as strategies inspired by natural processes to address climate, biodiversity and social challenges. However, their institutional framework has been widely criticised for adopting market‐oriented approaches and for insufficiently integrating considerations of environmental and ecological justice. The conceptual ambiguity that characterises NbS represents a significant barrier to its implementation. This study addresses this limitation by comparing academic definitions of NbS with operational perspectives, drawing on a systematic review of the scientific literature, an analysis of institutional documents, and interviews with experts and practitioners involved in the European CLEVER Cities project. This study identifies four approaches to the concept of NbS (eco‐technocratic, holistic, anthropocentric and biocentric) that reflect the epistemological assumptions that guide its conceptualisation, design, and implementation. In practice, eco‐technocratic perspectives predominate, resulting in a partial misalignment with the conceptual approaches identified in the literature. Although academic contributions emphasise the multifunctionality and adaptability of NbS, operational applications tend to focus on addressing specific problems. This lack of alignment stems from the absence of a shared conceptual framework, reinforcing inconsistencies between theory and practice and limiting the scalability of NbS interventions. Practical implication . The analytical framework developed here, which identifies four approaches, helps to explain why interventions that are technically efficient or economically viable may fail to deliver social or environmental outcomes. By providing a tool to assess the benefits of NbS, the framework enables practitioners and public officials to identify the underlying approach of each intervention and move towards more transparent, context‐sensitive and accountable design and governance processes.