Nature-based solutions are becoming increasingly recognized as effective tools for addressing various environmental problems. This study presents a novel approach to selecting optimal blue–green infrastructure (BGI) solutions tailored to the unique environmental and climatic challenges of Istanbul, Türkiye. The primary objective is to utilize a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) model for assisting in the identification of the most effective BGI solutions, considering the city’s distinct environmental conditions and vulnerabilities to climate change. Our methodology integrates comprehensive data collection, including meteorological and land use data, and employs a BBN model to analyze and weigh the complex network of factors influencing BGI suitability. Key findings reveal the model’s capacity to effectively predict BGI applicability across diverse climate scenarios, with quantitative results demonstrating a notable enhancement in decision-making processes for urban sustainability. Quantitative results from our model reveal a significant improvement in decision-making accuracy, with a predictive accuracy rate of 82% in identifying suitable BGI solutions for various urban scenarios. This enhancement is particularly notable in densely populated districts, where our model predicted a 25% greater efficiency in stormwater management and urban heat island mitigation compared to traditional planning methods. The study also acknowledges the limitations, such as data scarcity and the need for further model refinement. The results highlight the model’s potential for application in other complex urban areas, making it a valuable tool for improving urban sustainability and climate change adaptation. This study shows the importance of incorporating detailed meteorological and local climate zones data into urban planning processes and suggests that similar methodologies could be beneficial for addressing environmental challenges in diverse urban settings.

Through the provision of drinking and agricultural irrigation water, groundwater resources fundamentally underpin the existence of modern human society across large regions of the world. Despite this, decades of unsustainable exploitation have led to acute degradation of groundwater quantity and quality, creating pressing challenges that society must address if we are to maintain viable access to this crucial resource for future generations. Taking stock of the current situation, in this contribution we begin by reviewing some of the major global groundwater resource pressures, before exploring a range of technological, engineering, societal and nature-based solutions to address these challenges. We look at examples of emerging groundwater resource threats and potential innovative solutions to tackle them, before concluding with a forward look at future research opportunities that can ultimately enhance our management of this vital resource.

This case study uses the concept of ecosystem services and specifically payments for ecosystem services, alongside five experiences from the Westcountry Rivers Trust (WRT), which celebrates its 30th anniversary in 2024, to demonstrate the need for integrated catchment management (ICM). It highlights the multifaceted benefits that ecosystems provide to human well-being, the challenges faced in managing these often-siloed services and the role of ICM in preserving and enhancing multiple ecosystem services, focusing on the water-related drivers of flooding, drought, water quality and aquatic biodiversity. Through WRT projects this case study highlights practical applications and successes in managing ecosystem services at the catchment level and what considerations are needed for future integration and delivery of multi-benefit solutions. This paper is derived in part from the interviews and workshops undertaken as part of the Atlantic Area Interreg funded Triple C project (EAPA_772/2018), as well as contributions from the Horizon funded, InnWater project (Horizon EUROPE No. 101036683 and UKRI No. 10066637) and the OFWAT-funded, mainstreaming Nature-based Solutions.

Evidence consistently shows that the benefits Nature-based Solutions generate are determined by several individual characteristics such as gender, age, sexuality, ethnicity and disability. As a result, Nature-based Solutions can perpetuate existing inequalities and even create new inequalities partly because diverse minority and marginalized people are underrepresented in the process of designing and implementing Nature-based Solutions. Therefore, some Nature-based Solutions scholars have highlighted the necessity to actively involve diverse minority and marginalized groups into the co-creation processes of Nature-based Solutions and to investigate who benefits from the Nature-based Solution and why. Within the GoGreenRoutes H2020 project a transdisciplinary gender, inclusion and diversity panel was established in order to map existing challenges within the consortium. Concordantly, relevant scientific resources and policy documents were identified. Both were blended during consensus meetings in order to develop a common understanding leading to a theoretical gender, inclusion and diversity framework. This framework consists of five domains: (1) gender equality; (2) LGBTQI + rights; (3) social, cultural and ethnic background; (4) people with disabilities; (5) integration of refugees and immigrants; and (6) intergenerational perspectives. Further, the framework was operationalized through the development of a checklist for researchers and practitioners.

Climate change and human-modified landscapes have led to an increase in global flood and drought risks, while biodiversity has declined. The concept of using nature-based solutions (NbS) to improve the water retention capacity at the landscape scale, also known as ‘sponge functioning of catchments,’ has been recognised to help reduce and delay peak flows and stimulate infiltration to the groundwater, thus reducing flood and drought risks. Although various effects of NbS have been demonstrated, there is limited evaluation of the combined multiple benefits for flood risk reduction, drought risk reduction, and biodiversity. To address this gap, we analysed various online databases on NbS and additional literature on the evaluated combined effects of NbS. We found that the quantitative evaluation of NbS is fragmented and not standard practice in many projects. Although many successfully implemented NbS have been reported in different environments globally, most cases lack evidence for their response to the combined impacts of floods, droughts, and biodiversity. Therefore, we propose four components to facilitate planning, design, implementation, and monitoring of NbS that improve sponge functioning for floods and droughts. First, we suggest increased understanding of how NbS affects the hydrological processes of both flood and drought events along the full range of potential conditions. Second, we recommend evaluating the effect of potential NbS measures at a landscape scale. Third, we propose that integrated modelling and upscaling techniques should be improved to quantify the impacts of NbS. Finally, we suggest using a consistent and socially relevant set of indicators to evaluate the NbS and communicate this with stakeholders. In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates a need for more comprehensive and standardised evaluation of NbS, particularly in relation to their combined impacts on floods, droughts, and biodiversity.

Although coasts are frequently seen as at the frontline of near-future environmental risk, there is more to the understanding of the future of coastal environments than a simple interaction between increasing hazards (particularly related to global sea level rise) and increasing exposure and vulnerability of coastal populations. The environment is both multi-hazard and regionally differentiated, and coastal populations, in what should be seen as a coupled social–ecological–physical system, are both affected by, and themselves modify, the impact of coastal dynamics. As the coupled dance between human decisions and coastal environmental change unfolds over the coming decades, transdisciplinary approaches will be required to come to better decisions on identifying and following sustainable coastal management pathways, including the promotion of innovative restoration activities. Inputs from indigenous knowledge systems and local communities will be particularly important as these stakeholders are crucial actors in the implementation of ecosystem-based mitigation and adaptation strategies.

Although Indigenous Peoples' rights to own, control and manage their lands and territories are well established under international law, Indigenous Peoples affected by forest conservation and climate protection programmes continue to denounce interventions that fail to uphold their rights. This article focuses on the internationally funded Visión Amazonía REDD Early Movers programme in the Colombian Amazon. Drawing on observations and critiques by Indigenous rightsholders in the Middle Caquetá River and human rights insights from a legal complaint raised by one Indigenous community against the programme, we demonstrate the programme's inadequate protection of collective rights, especially relating to the fundamental right to free, prior and informed consent and the resulting inequitable benefit sharing. We focus on conflicting views between Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors over the definition of direct effects on Indigenous Peoples (which triggers the requirement for prior consultation and consent), the basis for inclusion of Indigenous Peoples as programme beneficiaries, and the role accorded to Indigenous science in such programmes. Notions of permission and consent in the customary law and economic practices of the concerned Indigenous Peoples are central to the conviviality and reproduction of human and non-human societies within their territories. To ensure more accountable and sustainable international environmental finance and conservation interventions, and to ensure respect for Indigenous Peoples' self-determination and territorial and cultural rights, we recommend that these initiatives adopt human rights-based, pluri-legal and intercultural approaches centring on the right to free, prior and informed consent as a structuring principle. Additionally, we call for more robust measures in forest and climate protection programmes, to recognize and respect customary law, collective property, traditional livelihoods and Indigenous science.