In a rapidly urbanizing world, many people have little contact with natural environments, which may affect health and well-being. Existing reviews generally conclude that residential greenspace is beneficial to health. However, the processes generating these benefits and how they can be best promoted remain unclear. During an Expert Workshop held in September 2016, the evidence linking greenspace and health was reviewed from a transdisciplinary standpoint, with a particular focus on potential underlying biopsychosocial pathways and how these can be explored and organized to support policy-relevant population health research. Potential pathways linking greenspace to health are here presented in three domains, which emphasize three general functions of greenspace: reducing harm (e.g. reducing exposure to air pollution, noise and heat), restoring capacities (e.g. attention restoration and physiological stress recovery) and building capacities (e.g. encouraging physical activity and facilitating social cohesion). Interrelations between among the three domains are also noted. Among several recommendations, future studies should: use greenspace and behavioural measures that are relevant to hypothesized pathways; include assessment of presence, access and use of greenspace; use longitudinal, interventional and (quasi)experimental study designs to assess causation; and include low and middle income countries given their absence in the existing literature. Cultural, climatic, geographic and other contextual factors also need further consideration. While the existing evidence affirms beneficial impacts of greenspace on health, much remains to be learned about the specific pathways and functional form of such relationships, and how these may vary by context, population groups and health outcomes. This Report provides guidance for further epidemiological research with the goal of creating new evidence upon which to develop policy recommendations.

Nature-based solutions (NBS) are inspired and supported by nature but designed by humans. Historically, governmental stakeholders have aimed to control nature using a top-down approach; more recently, environmental governance has shifted to collaborative planning. Polycentric governance and co-creation procedures, which include a large spectrum of stakeholders, are assumed to be more effective in the management of public goods than traditional approaches. In this context, NBS projects should benefit from strong collaborative governance models, and the European Union is facilitating and encouraging such models. While some theoretical approaches exist, setting-up the NBS co-creation process (namely co-design and co-implementation) currently relies mostly on self-organized stakeholders rather than on strategic decisions. As such, systematic methods to identify relevant stakeholders seem to be crucial to enable higher planning efficiency, reduce bottlenecks and time needed for planning, designing, and implementing NBS. In this context, this contribution is based on the analysis of 16 NBS and 359 stakeholders. Real-life constellations are compared to theoretical typologies, and a systematic stakeholder mapping method to support co-creation is presented. Rather than making one-fit-all statements about the “right” stakeholders, the contribution provides insights for those “in charge” to strategically consider who might be involved at each stage of the NBS project.

Living Labs are recognized as a progressive form to foster innovation and the strengthening of collaborative planning. The concept has received strong attention by the European Union (EU) research and innovation agendas recently. This contribution investigates how a Living Lab approach could be used for the design and implementation of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS). NBS are gaining acceptance as a more sustainable solution for reducing the exposure to natural hazards and vulnerability to events, such as increased flooding in changing climate. However, a lack of collaborative approaches hinders their broader implementation. A literature review on the theoretical aspects of the Living Labs concept in the context of NBS is conducted, and we compare the theoretical findings with practices that were observed by case studies implementing NBS in a collaborative manner. The Isar-Plan River Restoration in Munich, Germany, and the Mountain Forest Initiative (Bergwaldoffensive). Both of the case studies have already started well before the concept of Living Labs gained wider popularity. Both award-winning cases are recognized good practice for their exemplary in-depth stakeholder involvement. The paper discusses the concepts and approaches of Living Labs and reflects on how it can serve and support in-depth participatory stakeholder involvement.

Nature-based solutions (NBS) for mitigating climate change are gaining popularity. The number of NBS is increasing, but research gaps still exist at the governance level. The objectives of this paper are (i) to give an overview of the implemented NBS for flood risk management and mitigation in Germany, (ii) to identify governance models that are applied, and (iii) to explore the differences between these models. The results of a hierarchical clustering procedure and a qualitative analysis show that while no one-size-fits-all governance model exists, polycentricism is an important commonality between the projects. The study concludes by highlighting the need for further research on traditional governance model reconversion and paradigm changes. We expect the findings to identify what has worked in the past, as well as what is important for the implementation of NBS for flood risk management in future projects.

Planners and engineers increasingly discovered nature as a source of inspiration to mitigate hydro-meteorological risks resulting from extreme weather events. Actors are realizing advantages of such solutions known as Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) to rapidly adapt to changing climate patterns and related impacts such as flooding, landslides, mudflows or rockfalls. NBS also provide multiple co-benefits such as an increased landscape value for society and biodiversity. Because of their inherent characteristics, NBS implementation are more efficient when supported by participative approaches. At the same time, strengthening democratic and collaborative planning into Living Labs approaches generates an increase in interest. This helps to overcome bottlenecks when implementing measures and provide common ground to provide space for new ideas, to promote innovation and to develop solutions with high acceptance. While co-design and implementing NBS has already been applied and well documented for urban areas, there are few publications on collaborative planning, stakeholder perception and NBS co-implementation in rural mountain areas. In our case study analysis from the EU-funded H2020 project PUSICOS, we present stakeholder views on NBS, their possibility to reduce natural hazards in different mountainous case study areas, different discussed measures, NBS types and stages of implementation. We analyze expectations on Living Lab processes to co-design NBS and important topics to be addressed in these processes from the view, perspective and perception of local stakeholders. Despite the importance of NBS on political and research agenda, in both the literature and the interviews, the concept and ideas are less familiar to stakeholders. NBS are mainly encountered within river restoration measures. The main interest was to reduce risks and to find solutions that were attractive and interesting also from an economical point of view e.g. business models for farmers and landowners and less of the multiple benefits that are most important for stakeholders in urban areas. The collaborative planning approach was seen as important for engaging stakeholders and creating knowledge about NBS. These insights will contribute to the understanding and address the management of intense stakeholder involvement processes, identify barriers that arise, and support in-depth participatory processes.