Citizen participation in Nature-based Solutions: Design that cares

Nature-based solution (NbS) is more than planting more trees and make cities greener!

I am a doctoral researcher in digital citizen participation in Design. I recently delved into the concept of NbS, following an EU-funded project, and found it fascinating.* I want to reflect on why it is important and why citizens should be more aware of and involved in this. (*This is my open note for my research, thoughts, and feedback are welcome!)

Photo by Nerea Martí Sesarino on Unsplash

What is NbS

About ten years ago, the term “Nature-based Solutions (NbS)” started making waves. The IUCN led the way, defining it through an ecological lens: using the restoration of nature to solve human problems. However, the European Commission takes a slightly different tack. They see NbS as “nature-inspired” innovations that aren’t just good for the planet, but are also cost-effective ways to strengthen our infrastructure and economy.

The three pillars

To make it easier to grasp, I believe a successful NbS should rest on three main pillars. These pillars don’t just define the project; they highlight the multifunctionality that makes NbS transformative:

1. Care for People (Social Equity & Inclusive Co-design): NbS should prioritise social justice and ensure that participation is truly inclusive. For instance, as our cities become unbearably warm, a good NbS project doesn’t just plant trees; it protects people’s right to health and outdoor life. By blending “lay knowledge” (the lived experience of residents) with “expert knowledge,” we co-design spaces that truly serve the community’s needs.
2. Care for Nature (Biodiversity & Climate Resilience): This is about moving beyond “green decoration” to functional ecology. It involves careful planning, for example, selecting native species that do more than just look good — they actively cool the air, absorb storm water, and enrich the soil. A successful NbS creates a habitat where both humans and other species can thrive in an increasingly volatile climate.
3. Care for Governance (Long-term systemic approach): A “green” solution is effective only if it endures. Governance in NbS is not only about “low cost”, but also about creating sustainable and adaptable management frameworks. It also goes beyond institutional maintenance to foster a sense of community ownership, keeping the project a high-impact, low-burden asset for the city.

In short, NbS is not merely a renovation that seeks “aesthetic”. It is a redesign of the urban space that “cares”.

Why Citizen Participation Matters?

Photo by John Matychuk on Unsplash

A story of reflection

Let’s imagine that the city council decides to remake the asphalt surface at the public parking space into a grass filtration surface, as part of the NbS initiatives. Why do we need citizens’ input?

To be honest, as a citizen myself, I would not be so sure why my feedback matters in this scenario in the first place. I am no expert in these different kinds of construction material; I am not the person who can decide which one is better than the other. I don't see how a different decision would affect my day — I don't drive.

But if we look closer, would this mean the summer would be slightly less warm in my neighbourhood? Would this mean I do not need to worry about flooding as much? Would this mean traffic sound gets lower? Would this mean there will be more butterflies around my garden? Would this mean a cleaner neighbourhood?

We're not sure, but all of the above are possible, and there are indeed all that NbS seeks to achieve. This is why citizen participation is crucial — (1) learning and experimenting with what works well for our community, additionally, learning to care also about non-human actors that are currently suffering and hidden in the concrete jungle; (2) sharing local knowledge, co-designing and taking ownership of our communities that make the local community stronger and advance social justice against flood, heat and other cliamte harzards.

But equity in citizen participation is challenging

One reason why citizen participation is challenging is that citizens differ greatly from one another. Their cultural backgrounds, lived experiences, levels and fields of education, and other characteristics are highly diverse.

In terms of activeness, some people are highly engaged and eager to share their political views, others mostly observe and speak up only when they feel it is necessary, and some do not believe participation makes a difference or simply do not care about politics. (Milbrath, 1965, refers to these three types of people accordingly as gladiators, spectators, and apathetics). In terms of expertise, some citizens may possess greater experience and knowledge in a particular domain, while others may be less knowledgeable, even though the issue in question substantially affects their everyday lives. (Fariana, 2014, has placed emphasis on this aspect and analysed this difference into four quadrants)

These forms of heterogeneity inevitably exclude certain groups from participation. If a city launches a digital platform, older residents may be left out by the digital divide. If it hosts pop-up events, many cannot attend during working hours or may feel unsafe voicing honest opinions. If it uses highly technical questionnaires, only experts feel qualified to respond.

The tension is clear: if citizen participation is meant to share power more fairly, what do we make of those who are missing? And can we still call the process democratic when key stakeholders are absent — whether through disinterest, distrust, or exclusionary design?

The solution?

Honestly, we don’t have a “silver bullet” yet. I personally believe that citizen participation in NbS is, and will continue to be, a large-scale, ongoing social experiment.

In my conversations with practitioners, one thing becomes clear: participation is a culture, not a checklist. It takes years, even decades, to foster. There is no immediate remedy to bring everyone together for a project that is inherently transitional, multi-lens, and cross-disciplinary. Much like the trees we plant, the results of NbS often take years to become visible. There are still significant gaps that research needs to fill to clear the clouds of uncertainty.

However, we are seeing a shift. More cities are implementing digital tools to make participation more accessible and adopting Digital Twins to monitor NbS impacts in real-time. Looking ahead, I see three directions that are particularly exciting to explore:

1. Inclusivity in participation: How do we make digital participation more inclusive for all when contributing to the co-design of societal challenges, such as those inevitably inherent in NbS? How do we harness heterogeneity among people to accelerate and advance the sustainable transition?
2. Data-driven approach: Digital twins largely rely on “hard data” from sensors. But how do we position the “soft data” gathered from citizens — and even non-human actors? We need to trace NbS from a multi-lens perspective. Data should tell a human (and ecological) story, not just a technical one.
3. Sustain the culture of care: The most vital shift is moving from one-off workshops to a long-term culture of care. Participation shouldn’t end when the design is done. If we find the right balance in using digital tools to keep citizens engaged in the growth of their local NbS, we can deepen the bond between people and their land, ensuring that the “care” we put in today grows into tomorrow's resilience.

Closing note

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this. I truly appreciate it and would be happy to hear your thoughts if you'd like to share them. If you would like to learn more about NbS around you and participate, check out the following page! You might find something interesting!

• Urban Nature Atlas: https://una.city/?page=1
• URBREATH: https://urbreath.eu/
• GreeninCities: https://www.greenincities.eu/
• The guide to Nature-based solutions in the Nordics: https://pub.norden.org/temanord2024-558/index.html

Bibliography

• IUCN. (2020). Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. A user-friendly framework for the verification, design and scaling up of NbS. First edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.08.en
• Mendes, R., Fidélis, T., Roebeling, P., & Teles, F. (2020). The Institutionalization of Nature-Based Solutions — A Discourse Analysis of Emergent Literature. Resources, 9(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9010006
• European Commission. (2026). Nature-based solutions. European Commission. European Commission: Research and Innovation. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/environment/nature-based-solutions_en
• Santos, E. (2025). Nature-Based Solutions for Water Management in Europe: What Works, What Does Not, and What’s Next? Water, 17(15), 2193. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17152193
• Wickenberg, B., McCormick, K., & Olsson, J. A. (2021). Advancing the implementation of nature-based solutions in cities: A review of frameworks. Environmental Science & Policy, 125, 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.016
• Farina, C. R., Epstein, D., Heidt, J., & Newhart, M. J. (2014). Designing an Online Civic Engagement Platform: Balancing “More” vs. “Better” Participation in Complex Public Policymaking. International Journal of E-Politics, 5(1), 16–40. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijep.2014010102
• Hansen, N. B., Dindler, C., Halskov, K., Iversen, O. S., Bossen, C., Basballe, D. A., & Schouten, B. (2019). How Participatory Design Works: Mechanisms and Effects. Proceedings of the 31st Australian Conference on Human-Computer-Interaction, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1145/3369457.3369460
• Mariani, I., Mortati, M., Rizzo, F., & Deserti, A. (2025). Design Thinking as a Strategic Approach to E-Participation: From Current Barriers to Opportunities. Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72160-1

Acknowledgement: Funded by the European Union under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant Agreement №101120074 (CoDesign4Transitions). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the Research Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the Research Executive Agency can be held responsible for them.