This article examines the socio-economic importance and valuation of different types of wetland restoration as nature-based solutions (NBS). Wetlands, like other NBS, generate positive externalities in the form of ecosystem services, with benefits accruing to a wide range of societal beneficiaries beyond landowners. However, the implementation of wetlands and other NBS is often constrained by several barriers, including limited awareness of their socio-economic benefits. Qualitative and quantitative assessments of ecosystem services can help address this gap by providing evidence-based arguments for public communication and decision-making. The study demonstrates such assessments using three case studies of wetlands implemented in different contexts: a rural wetland, an urban wetland, and large-scale floodplain restoration. Cost–benefit analysis is applied to illustrate how these measures can be evaluated and how their socio-economic feasibility can be communicated. In the first case study, the restoration of a natural pond with a wetland in Bratčice, Czech Republic, representing a rural wetland, the monetised benefits reach EUR 562,000 over a 25-year period and exceed costs by approximately EUR 60,000, with a payback period of 15 years. In the second case study, an urban wetland implemented as part of park revitalisation in Pilsen, Czech Republic, monetised benefits of EUR 14.2 million exceed costs by EUR 12.9 million over 25 years, resulting in a payback period of one year. For the floodplain restoration case study in Germany, the results indicate that, even without monetising the primary flood protection function, the economic case for large-scale restoration can be substantial. Monetising only a single benefit (nutrient retention) accounts for half or more of total costs, highlighting the relevance of conservative economic valuation for supporting investment decisions in wetland restoration. Wetlands are important nature-based solutions providing positive externalities; Results show that the monetised benefits significantly exceed the costs; Payback period for wetland case studies from a social perspective is 1 to 15 years; Socio-economic analysis offers arguments for planning and decision-making; Benefits in monetary terms are an important input for better communication.

The functions of community gardens (CGs) are determined by the preferences of their users and external factors such as government restrictions or the situation of the food market. Recent food prices increases and COVID-19 restrictions have shown the importance of CGs as a place for both food self-provisioning (FSP) and relaxation. These have influenced how much the benefits provided by CGs in the form of ecosystem services (ES) are appreciated. This study aims to demonstrate how ES provided by the CG ‘Žížala na Terase’ in Czechia are affected in times of crisis related to the COVID-19 pandemic and to increased food prices, which trigger a demand for greater FSP. The results indicate that the importance of social interaction and educational ES decreased significantly in the COVID-19 scenario. On the contrary, the role of CGs as places for recreation increased. In the FSP scenario, the provisioning ES increased at the expense of recreational ES. The results of the economic assessment further show that the most important monetarily valued ES provided by CGs are cultural ES, followed by provisioning ES. This study demonstrates both the multifunctionality and adaptability of CGs to the current social crises and dynamic urban conditions.

Municipality representatives in Czech cities are increasingly aware of the need to implement measures to adapt cities to climate change. Rainwater management is one pillar in national and local strategies; however, the measures are still not implemented in sufficient quantity and quality. Low enforceability is the result of low public awareness of measures and insufficient communication on the part of both state and municipalities. Besides the low capacity of local authorities to communicate these topics, the cities face little response and lack of interest from residents. In many cases, this is caused by inappropriate choice of communication and participation tools and methods. Based on examples of good practice identified by semi-structured interviews from six Czech cities, however, it is possible to achieve effective communication, for instance by means of annual local participatory meetings with residents, involving independent experts or implementation of online tools to easily share information and to discuss and propose measures and options.