Mainstream organizational research is based on science and the humanities. Science helps us to understand organized systems, from an outsider position, as empirical objects. The humanities contribute to understanding, and critically reflecting on, the human experience of actors inside organized practices. This paper argues that, in view of the persistent relevance gap between theory and practice, organization studies should be broadened to include design as one of its primary modes of engaging in research. Design is characterized by its emphasis on solution finding, guided by broader purposes and ideal target systems. Moreover, design develops, and draws on, design propositions that are tested in pragmatic experiments and grounded in organization science. This study first explores the main differences and synergies between science and design, and explores how and why the design discipline has largely moved away from academia to other sites in the economy. The argument then turns to the genealogy of design methodologies in organization and management studies. Subsequently, this paper explores the circular design methodology that serves to illustrate the nature of design research, that is, the pragmatic focus on actionable knowledge as well as the key role of ideal target systems in design processes. Finally, the author proposes a framework for communication and collaboration between the science and design modes, and argues that scholars in organization studies can guide human beings in the process of designing and developing their organizations toward more humane, participative, and productive futures. In this respect, the organization discipline can make a difference.

Climate change and urbanization have resulted in several societal challenges for urban areas. Nature-based solutions (NBS) have been positioned as solutions for enhancing urban resilience in the face of these challenges. However, the body of conceptual and practical knowledge regarding NBS remains fragmented. This study addresses this gap by means of a systematic review of the literature, to define NBS as a theoretical concept; its broader significance with respect to societal challenges; the key stakeholders in NBS planning, implementation and management; and major barriers to and enablers of NBS uptake. The results of this review reveal that, despite a lack of consensus about the definition of NBS, there is a shared understanding that the NBS concept encompasses human and ecological benefits beyond the core objective of ecosystem conservation, restoration or enhancement. Significant barriers to and enablers of NBS are discussed, along with a proposed strategic planning framework for successful uptake of NBS.

Cities increasingly have to find innovative ways to address challenges arising from climate change and urbanization. Nature-based solutions (NBS) have been gaining attention as multifunctional solutions that may help cities to address these challenges. However, the adoption and implementation of these solutions have been limited due to various barriers. This study aims to identify a taxonomy of dominant barriers to the uptake and implementation of NBS and their relationships. Fifteen barriers are identified from the literature and expert interviews and then ranked through a questionnaire. Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) serves to identify the mutual interdependencies among these barriers, which results in a structural model of six levels. Subsequently, Cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification (MICMAC analysis) is used to classify the barriers into four categories. The results suggest that political, institutional and knowledge-related barriers are the most dominant barriers to NBS. Cities that intend to apply NBS can draw on these findings, especially by more effectively prioritizing and managing their actions.