Abstract
AbstractDespite growing scholarly consensus on the need for nature-based solutions (NBS) as holistic and sustainable alternatives to traditional engineering solutions, stakeholder acceptance and implementation of NBS remain low. This study investigates stakeholder narratives on implementing nature-based solutions (NBS) for mitigating hydro-meteorological risks across five European river basin sites in Eastern and Central Europe. Utilising the Q-methodology and narrative analysis, we identified three ideal–typical narratives: idealist, reformist, and sceptic—each providing distinct perspectives on evidence-based policy formation and NBS integration. Our results demonstrate that: (1) idealists’ optimistic outlook risks overlooking critical engagement with implementation challenges; (2) neglecting sceptic concerns may impede NBS adoption and invite accusations of green-washing, and (3) reformists promote evidence-based approaches and transparent stakeholder engagement to bridge narrative divides. The study underscores the importance of identifying shared values, stakeholder collaboration, and a nuanced understanding of contextual factors in fostering NBS implementation. The study contributes to a practical framework aligning NBS projects with prevailing narratives, offering guidance for navigating the complex landscape of NBS implementation. Future research should prioritize in-depth analysis of agent perspectives, place-specific influences on narratives, and the application of narrative analysis to other emerging technologies and environmental topics (e.g. circular economy), deepening our understanding of the socio-political dynamics shaping the acceptance and implementation of sustainable solutions.
Funder
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung GmbH - UFZ
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference38 articles.
1. Anderson CC, Renaud FG, Hanscomb S, Munro KE, Gonzalez-Ollauri A, Thomson CS, Pouta E, Soini K, Loupis M, Panga D, Stefanopoulou M (2021) Public acceptance of nature-based solutions for natural hazard risk reduction: survey findings from three study sites in Europe. Front Environ Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.678938
2. Anderson CC, Renaud FG, Hanscomb S, Gonzalez-Ollauri A (2022) Green, hybrid, or grey disaster risk reduction measures: what shapes public preferences for nature-based solutions? J Environ Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114727
3. Brown SR (1997) The history and principles of Q methodology in psychology and the social sciences. In: Red at the British Psychological Society symposium on, a quest for a science of subjectivity: the lifework of William Stephenson, University of London
4. Castro CV, Carney C, de Brito MM (2023) The role of network structure in integrated water management: a case study of collaboration and influence for adopting nature-based solutions. Front Water 5:1011952
5. Climate ADAPT (2021) Country profiles. Retrieved Aug 29th from https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/countries-regions/countries