Next Article in Journal
Consumer Financial Knowledge and Cashless Payment Behavior for Sustainable Development in Poland
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Tourist Risk Perceptions—The Case Study of Porto
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/su13116400
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Maximizing Benefits to Nature and Society in Techno-Ecological Innovation for Water

by
Isaac Dekker
1,†,
Shabnam Sharifyazd
2,†,
Evans Batung
3,† and
Kristian L. Dubrawski
1,2,*
1
Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada
2
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada
3
Department of Geography and Environment, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Authors contributed equally.
Sustainability 2021, 13(11), 6400; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116400
Submission received: 9 April 2021 / Revised: 7 May 2021 / Accepted: 20 May 2021 / Published: 4 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nature-Based Solutions as Sustainable Engineering for Improving Water Security)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Nature-based solutions (NbS) build upon the proven contribution of well-managed and diverse ecosystems to enhance resilience of human societies. They include alternatives to techno-industrial solutions that aim to enhance social-ecological integration by providing simultaneous benefits to nature (such as biodiversity protection and green/blue space) and society (such as ecosystem services and climate resiliency). Yet, many NbS exhibit aspects of a technological or engineered ecosystem integrated into nature; this techno-ecological coupling has not been widely considered. In this work, our aim is to investigate this coupling through a high-level and cross-disciplinary analysis of NbS for water security (quantity, quality, and/or water-related risk) across the spectrums of naturalness, biota scale, and benefits to nature and society. Within the limitations of our conceptual analysis, we highlight the clear gap between “nature” and “nature-based” for most NbS. We present a preliminary framework for advancing innovation efforts in NbS towards maximizing benefits to both nature and society, and offer examples in biophysical innovation and innovation to maximize techno-ecological synergies (TES).

1. Introduction

Globally, biodiversity, natural areas, and water security are in dramatic decline due to an unprecedented combination of climate, consumption, and pollution crises. Despite increased recognition of humanity’s dependence on the ecosystem services (ES) that the natural world provides, status-quo trajectories suggest the overshoot of several planetary boundaries [1]. Nature-based solutions (NbS) are “living solutions inspired by, continuously supported by and using nature, which are designed to address various societal challenges in a resource-efficient and adaptable manner and to provide simultaneous economic, social, and environmental benefits” [2]. While no panacea, NbS aim to reconcile economic development and ecosystem stewardship, with the potential to reduce consumption of natural capital by substituting accrued ‘natural interest’ from enhancement of ES [3,4]. NbS for water security (acceptable quantity, quality, and/or water-related risk) are highly relevant for both society and nature: 4 billion people face severe water scarcity [5], 1.32 trillion USD is needed annually for water infrastructure just to maintain business-as-usual [6], and changes in environmental flows and water quality are dramatically impacting terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity [7].
As an emerging concept, the terminology and ideology of NbS, and how they differ from existing approaches, are still under debate [8,9,10,11,12,13,14], although there are general criteria [15], including: (i) simultaneous benefits for society and nature; and (ii) its use as a transdisciplinary umbrella that encompasses existing concepts such as ‘ecological engineering’ and ‘blue-green infrastructure’ in engineering, ‘natural capital’ and ‘ecosystem services’ in economics, ‘ecosystem-based principles’ and ‘ecological intensification’ in agriculture, ‘landscape functions’ and ‘rewilding’ in environmental planning, and the family of other nature-based approaches, such as ‘ecohydrology’, ‘ecosystem-based adaptation’, ‘ecosystem-based mitigation’, ‘eco-disaster risk reduction’, and ‘natural climate solutions’ [11]. The NbS concept has had significant academic discourse on implementation, barriers, policy, and innovation, often with an emphasis on the urban or rewilding context [3,4,9,11,13,16,17,18]. On the other hand, science, technology, and innovation ‘with and for nature’ still remains a minor topic in the NbS literature, despite the acknowledgement of their importance in sustainability transitions [16,19,20,21]. Recently, a nature-based innovation system (NBIS) was described [16], and differentiated from technological innovation systems (TIS) for several key reasons: (i) NbS can be a product or process phenomenon; (ii) NbS generate dispersed, multifunctional, and mainly public values that are difficult to capture by sectoral organizations and markets; and (iii) NbS involve non-human species and ecosystems that may not be easy or desirable to control.
In this work, our aim is to build on the NBIS concept through a high-level and cross-disciplinary analysis of NbS for one sector, water (quantity, quality, and/or water-related risk). To this effort, our analysis examines naturalness, biota scale, and techno-ecological innovation as part of the broader NBIS. We begin development of operational frameworks for innovation efforts in NbS for water to support maximizing long-term benefits for both nature and society.

2. Methodology

For this analysis, we chose twenty-seven NbS from diverse fields to bridge disciplinary boundaries, including: restoration ecology, blue-green infrastructure, ecological engineering, and environmental engineering. The NbS were selected to highlight the breadth of techno-ecological innovation across time (from present, to near-term future), and place (from local/niche to globally widespread). NbS included are those that both directly sustain existing or create new ecosystems in nature (e.g., forests, wetlands, coastlines, greenspaces) and address water security challenges for society, specifically: improving quality, improving quantity, and/or reducing water-related risk. Thus, indirect supports of nature (e.g., wastewater resource recovery that could displace land use by bioenergy crops [22,23]) were excluded. To limit scope, we focus our discussion on product-like NbS (e.g., restoration, blue-green infrastructure, ecological engineering), and exclude process-like NbS (e.g., conservation, demand management, governance and finance innovation), recognizing that these are complementary, often with greater imperative, to sustainability transitions [24,25,26,27]. We include NbS involving ecosystems across biota scales, from microbiota (e.g., bacteria, archaea, fungi, phytoplankton, zooplankton, protozoa, etc.), to macrobiota (e.g., plants, insects, bivalves, fish, mammals, etc.). We include large and small-scale NbS across spatial landscapes—not just in the urban context (although we include urban greenspaces a part of nature for the purposes of this analysis). We acknowledge that most NbS discussed here are ecosystems designed for the benefit of humans; purported benefits to nature are often those that are also valued by humans (e.g., biodiversity protection, climate change mitigation, aesthetics) [28]. We draw inspiration from both NBIS [16] and techno-ecological synergy (TES) [29] frameworks in our comparitively simplified methodology and discussion on innovation in NbS for water.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Analysis of Naturalness in NbS for Water

NbS occur with varying degrees of ‘naturalness’ (closeness to an uninfluenced reference ecosystem), from minimal human influence, to modified environments, to human-built grey landscapes [4,10,11,30,31,32,33,34]. Defining naturalness for NbS is challenging; it invokes a classic dichotomy between nature and technology [35,36,37,38], and the ‘uninfluenced’ reference state is itself the subject of debate [39]. Martin et al. (2016) argue that technology is best reserved for the “emergency room” and “techno-fix” options should not be the default approach to protecting nature [37]. Schaubroek (2018) rightly suggests a threshold value of naturalness to qualify as an NbS [10], although no such quantitative threshold value has been developed. Thus, for simplified classification purposes here, we use a gradient of naturalness between ‘low’, ‘medium’, and ‘high’; qualitative approximations to nature somewhat paralleling Eggermont et al.’s (2015) three types of NbS relating to level of human intervention [40]. While this classification might be considered subjective and oversimplified [31], it is a useful starting point when comparing and contrasting NbS from seemingly disparate fields. For example, the difference in naturalness between wetland restoration and hypolimnetic oxygenation might be apparent, but significant evaluation would be warranted if comparing and ranking naturalness between, hypothetically speaking, green roofs and floating treatment wetlands. Of course, naturalness will clearly depend on how a specific NbS is implemented, e.g., a wastewater-fed wetland that results in anoxic conditions and low biodiversity would certainly be less natural than one that promotes the health of native plants and fish [18]. Certainly, a more quantitative assessment of naturalness is needed to evaluate contributions of techno-ecological innovation to NbS; i.e., contextual evaluation of process impacts on ES and biodiversity such as that seen in TES frameworks [22,29,41,42]. Table 1 summarizes direct benefits to society and nature for the selected NbS for water in order of decreasing naturalness. We iterate that Table 1 is not exhaustive; the NbS selected highlight the diversity across the analyzed spectrums—all variations of wetland restoration, bioretention, and living infrastructure would number hundreds. We select only several articles per NbS to highlight the breadth of transdisciplinary research.
As seen in Table 1, we find that, other than afforestation and restoration, few of the NbS analyzed approximate a natural ecosystem, with most having significant technological/designed attributes. This is not necessarily problematic, all NbS we analyzed are more natural than conventional techno-industrial solutions for water. However, it does highlight the clear gap between “nature” and “nature-based”, indicating a major priority for ecological design in NbS for water. It also suggests a need for (i) accepted definitions of NbS including threshold values of naturalness and benefits to nature [10], and (ii) a better understanding of the role of technology in a NBIS, as has been sought for sustainability more broadly [19,20,101]. Within the NbS that fall under the ‘engineering’ categories, a spectrum of naturalness also exists, ranging from the more natural ecological engineering approaches (e.g., wetland restoration [102,103]), to hybrid blue-green infrastructure (e.g., green roofs and constructed wetlands [104]), to the less natural eco-industrial environmental engineering (e.g., bioremediation, some forms of wastewater resource recovery [105,106]). From a transdisciplinary perspective, we note that this naturalness offers somewhat of a disciplinary correlation. ‘Technology’ has been defined as the “subset of knowledge that includes the full range of devices, methods, processes, and practices that can be used to fulfill certain human purposes in a specifiable and reproducible way” [19,107]. While not discretely defined, ecological engineering often encourages self-design which is not necessarily specifiable and reproducible, and thus can be considered less technological [10,102,103,108]. Blue-green infrastructure and environmental engineering, on the other hand, certainly have more technological characteristics, often aiming to be specifiable and reproducible, and thus “validated” by researchers and industry.

3.2. Analysis of Biota Scale in NbS for Water

As within nature, we find that NbS involve a wide range of biota scale (Table 2), ranging from microbiota (e.g., denitrification walls, reductive dechlorination in bioremediation, algae ponds), to macrobiota (e.g., plants in bioretention, oysters in living reefs, fish in wetland restoration). However, we find no clear trend between range of biota scale and naturalness. In most cases, a greater range of biota scale typically has a higher degree of naturalness, e.g., highly diverse and interacting micro and macro ecological networks are found in highly natural NbS such as wetland restoration. But this is not always the case—bioremediation, biomanipulation, and sub-surface infiltration can involve engineering habitat specific to microbiota while maintaining a relatively high degree of naturalness. We do observe some relationship between biota scale and implementation timescale. Many of the NbS that span the biota spectrum tend to be longer-term interventions on the order of years to decades (e.g., restoration, afforestation), partly because these typically involve ecosystems with slower-growth species (e.g., trees). However, some NbS spanning the biota spectrum mature far more quickly (<5 years), often those that have economic outputs or are hazard-reducing (e.g., agroecology, living infrastructure, riparian planting). Likewise, NbS utilizing microbiota are often far more rapid interventions on the order of weeks to months (e.g., subsurface ecological sanitation, denitrification walls) due to their inherently shorter lifecycles. Again, this is not always the case—e.g., aquifer bioremediation can take years to be successful. We also note discontinuities across many fields involving ecosystem engineering at different biota scales. Ecological engineering, ecohydrology, and blue/green infrastructure tend to focus on diversity and abundance of macrobiota, perhaps due to higher visibility and ease of monitoring; e.g., freshwater invertebrates are often prioritized over the underlying microbial ecology. On the other hand, environmental engineering is often associated with controlled microbiomes [109,110], rarely scaling up to higher trophic biosystems. This is despite a clear interdependence between biota scales, and calls for a more unified ecology [111,112].

3.3. Analysis of Benefits to Nature and Society through Techno-Ecological Synergies throughout the Development and Diffusion of NbS

Technological innovation has been defined as the “process by which technology is conceived, developed, codified, and deployed”, as one part of a broader innovation system [19,101,107]; i.e., innovation does not occur in a vacuum. Here, we consider technological innovation that enables connections between technological and ecological systems. We recognize considerable work has developed this concept in the TES approach [29], although, for the purposes of our simplified analysis, we distinguish two types of innovation processes: (i) innovation to biophysically integrate natural and ecological systems, and (ii) innovation to maximize ES synergies. These clearly have significant overlap, and both can be thought to operationally advance “availability of technologies supporting NbS development” [16].

3.3.1. Biophysical Innovation

Biophysical innovation is specific to mechanisms that couple the metabolic and information flows between ecological and technological systems. Self-design is a primary example of biophysically linking technological and ecological systems, in which an ecological system adapts to the environmental constraints of the technological system it finds itself in, with minimal human interference [102]. Constructed wetlands that are built to evolve and adapt to fluctuations in runoff quantity and quality are an example of this. Innovation processes that encourage self-design thus lead to higher naturalness (green vertical arrow in Figure 1A). Another biophysical innovation approach, albeit far less natural, is ecological forcing by a technological system. Ecological enrichment is an example of this approach, e.g., forcing a desired microbiome community structure through human activity (e.g., aquifer bioremediation, hypolimnetic oxygenation). This has the opposite effect of self-design, constraining evolution and adaptation of the ecological system, resulting in decreased naturalness (grey arrow in Figure 1) and obligate reliance on human intervention. Less natural solutions, such as ecological forcing, are often justified with techno-economic efficacy rationale. This is despite the fact that many highly natural NbS are lower cost than industrial counterparts over long time horizons [24,32]. New York City’s provisioning of drinking water is an oft-cited example, where conservation of watershed lands was far lower cost than installing improved technology. Reliability concerns are another common driver of ecological forcing and/or lower naturalness, e.g., mangrove restoration has shown mixed success in different locations [44], and some NbS for stormwater management have shown up to 6 orders of magnitude of variation in the efficacy of reducing coliforms [113]. NbS that do not reliably achieve societal objectives incentivize actors to revert to readily available industrial technology or stimulate demand for less-natural industrial innovation. Root causes of unreliability include “pervasive knowledge gaps” [24], and variation in local social-ecological systems that suggest challenges for the scalability of “proven” NbS [32,114]. Driving adoption of more natural NbS (horizontal green arrow in Figure 1A) relies on advancing reliability in place and time; e.g., UN Water indicates a need to “test NbS in different hydrological, environmental, socio-economic and management conditions” [32]. Innovation processes that increase naturalness and reliability prior to widespread adoption are thus critical to maximizing long-term benefits.
Yet, this does present a paradox-how can biophysical innovation both increase naturalness (i.e., less controlled and specifiable), and also increase efficacy and reliability (typically more controlled and specifiable)? Technological innovation systems have historically trajected towards advancing efficiency metrics (output divided by input energy/resources), usually accompanied by decreased naturalness. For example, wastewater-fed wetlands were mostly displaced by technologically “efficient” activated sludge tanks—less natural, but more reliable effluent water quality. Moving in the opposite direction presents significant challenges—naturalness is not typically seen as something that can be increased by human activity; rather, it needs be included in ecological design objectives. A major challenge to this is that more natural NbS are more complex systems—decomposing the larger system does not necessarily elucidate its understanding [115]. One plausible workaround to increasing naturalness in NbS is to supplement specific objectives with broader ones, promoting environment-guided function [115]. A rainforest is certainly not a technology, yet effectively and reliably produces food, water, oxygen, and biodiversity. Techno-ecological innovation could better invoke nature by including broad non-specifiable objectives [116] along with one or several specifiable objectives. Agroforestry is a food-system example of this biophysical innovation, coupling unspecifiable biodiversity in tree canopies (facilitating naturalness) with crop production (e.g., coffee) in the understory with high efficacy and reliability, and still maintaining some degree of naturalness. For water, Shijun (1985) describes a millennia-old innovation for utilizing wastewater and forest debris in an aquaculture-sericulture pond-forest biosystem [108,117]. The complete system mimics nature and produces non-specific trophic interactions, water treatment, oxygen, and biodiversity, while concurrently achieving several specifiable objectives (fish, silk) within a (relatively) natural biosystem. Technological efficiency is low as it is certainly more efficient to keep silkworms in a single-trophic captivity system; this is because natural systems do not necessarily organize themselves according to efficiency [118]. On the other hand, efficacy and reliability are high; the system continuously produces fish and silk with few non-renewable inputs and maintains itself due to engineered resiliency. Todd et al. (2003) give contemporary examples of utilizing multitrophic engineered ecologies for both broad (biodiversity, carbon fixation, aesthetics) and specific (wastewater treatment, food) objectives [119]. Biophysical innovation for broad and/or multiple objectives also allows for a more adaptive NbS that works with the complexity of nature, and is less likely to experience “catastrophic failure” [120].

3.3.2. Innovation to Maximize ES Synergies

Maximizing ES synergies between technological and ecological systems is the core concept of the TES framework [29], and innovation in NbS can aspire to maximize this synergy. As one (highly simplified) example in the water sector, innovation in technological systems for green roofs can augment synergistic ES in ecological systems. For example, well designed green roof systems will improve water storage, habitat, and nutrient cycling that support the ecological system—plants, microbes, soil animals, urban fauna. By augmenting the ecological system, reciprocal synergistic ES result, e.g., increased transpiration of urban runoff, biotransformation of xenobiotics, strong root systems to prevent soil loss, etc. Design for co-benefits may also result in a solution with increased ES synergies for both nature and society. For example, a single objective of flood control might utilize dams or levees, but adding an additional design objective to also reduce nutrient loading might lead to distributed denitrifying bioswales with greater naturalness and less technological aspects (Table 2) and cascading co-benefits (i.e., aesthetics, interconnected greenspaces). On the other hand, introducing multifunctionality has the potential to increase complexity, introduce unintended consequences such as positive feedback loops, or deliver sub-optimal benefits [121], e.g., both a poorly functioning wetland and a poorly functioning wastewater treatment system can result from inadequate ecological design [119].
Figure 1B shows high-level categorizations of benefits to nature and society, again acknowledging limitations of the qualitative and subjective conceptualization of “benefits” and “naturalness”. Quantitative valuation of ES to society is an ongoing (and contentious) discussion with major consequences for NbS development and diffusion [11]. Likewise, quantitative evaluation of benefits to nature (e.g., restoration, enhancement) requires a broader suite of metrics under current development, such as trophic relationships, gene flows, meta-community interactions [122], and net-positive outcomes [123]. Despite examples that offer tangible benefits to human society and suggest at least some benefit to nature (at least compared to techno-industrial solutions), there has been no longitudinal analysis of quantifying benefits to nature from these types of initiatives, perhaps due to the same incongruencies that challenge ES valuation.

4. Conclusions

From this work, several key findings emerge:
  • NbS for water exist across a wide spectrum of naturalness and biome scale, all generally showing some technological characteristics. While not inherently problematic, we further highlight the significant gap between “nature” and “nature-based”, demonstrating the major challenge for both ecological design and innovation systems in NbS that needs to be addressed for comparative analysis and future policy. We find evidence of innovation mechanisms in NbS with potential to increase naturalness. These include, amongst others, biophysical innovation and innovation to maximize ES synergies, and specific examples include design for broad objectives to supplement specific ones, and design for co-objectives.
  • While increasing naturalness in innovation stages prior to widespread adoption has potential to maximize longer-term benefits to nature and society, this coupling of technological and ecological systems does not come without the possibility of unintended consequences, such as positive feedback loops creating uncontrollable novel ecosystems. “The road to extinction is paved with good intentions” resonates. To mitigate this risk, robust evaluation methodologies for these coupled systems are urgently needed.
  • We find examples of innovations, such as the forest-pond biosystem described, that have been ongoing for millennia and purposefully provide benefits to both society and nature. Many Indigenous societies, and even some Western ideals such as permaculture, have a belief system that supports natural systems while achieving societal objectives. Indeed, the Brundtland Report remarked over thirty years ago that the only people with a proven record to achieve sustainability within their ecological limits are Indigenous societies. Despite historical and ongoing environmental and economic injustices, many of these knowledge systems continue and are as relevant today as ever. Innovation policies should acknowledge, learn from, and respectfully invoke at large-scale these “ecological civilization” philosophies before planetary boundaries are further compromised.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.L.D.; Software, E.B., I.D., K.L.D.; Resources, E.B., I.D., S.S., K.L.D.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, K.L.D.; Writing—Review and Editing, E.B., I.D., S.S., K.L.D.; Visualization, E.B., I.D., K.L.D.; Funding Acquisition, K.L.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Canada Research Chairs Program for Community-led Water Innovation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful for the administrative and technical support provided by the University of Victoria, Canada.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Steffen, W.; Rockström, J.; Richardson, K.; Lenton, T.M.; Folke, C.; Liverman, D.; Summerhayes, C.P.; Barnosky, A.D.; Cornell, S.E.; Crucifix, M.; et al. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 8252–8259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. European Commission. Towards an EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-Based Solutions & Re-Naturing Cities; Directorate-General for Research and Innovation: Brussels, Belgium, 2015; ISBN 978-92-79-46051-7. [Google Scholar]
  3. Keesstra, S.; Nunes, J.; Novara, A.; Finger, D.; Avelar, D.; Kalantari, Z.; Cerdà, A. The superior effect of nature based solu-tions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 610–611, 997–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Maes, J.; Jacobs, S. Nature-Based Solutions for Europe’s Sustainable Development. Conserv. Lett. 2017, 10, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, e1500323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. WEF. The Green Investment Report: The Ways and Means to Unlock Private Finance for Green Growth; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  7. Tickner, D.; Opperman, J.J.; Abell, R.; Acreman, M.; Arthington, A.H.; Bunn, S.E.; Cooke, S.J.; Dalton, J.; Darwall, W.; Edwards, G.; et al. Bending the Curve of Global Freshwater Biodiversity Loss: An Emergency Recovery Plan. Bioscience 2020, 70, 330–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nesshöver, C.; Assmuth, T.; Irvine, K.N.; Rusch, G.M.; Waylen, K.A.; Delbaere, B.; Haase, D.; Jones-Walters, L.; Keune, H.; Kovacs, E.; et al. The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 579, 1215–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hanson, H.I.; Wickenberg, B.; Olsson, J.A. Working on the boundaries—How do science use and interpret the nature-based solution concept? Land Use Policy 2020, 90, 104302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Schaubroeck, T. Towards a general sustainability assessment of human/industrial and nature-based solutions. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1185–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Seddon, N.; Chausson, A.; Berry, P.; Girardin, C.A.J.; Smith, A.; Turner, B. Understanding the value and limits of na-ture-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2020, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Dorst, H.; van der Jagt, A.; Raven, R.; Runhaar, H. Urban greening through nature-based solutions—Key characteristics of an emerging concept. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 49, 101620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mendes, R.; Fidélis, T.; Roebeling, P.; Teles, F. The Institutionalization of Nature-Based Solutions—A Discourse Analysis of Emergent Literature. Resources 2020, 9, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Faivre, N.; Fritz, M.; Freitas, T.; De Boissezon, B.; Vandewoestijne, S. Nature-Based Solutions in the EU: Innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental challenges. Environ. Res. 2017, 159, 509–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Albert, C.; Spangenberg, J.H.; Schröter, B. Nature-based solutions: Criteria. Nat. Cell Biol. 2017, 543, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. van der Jagt, A.P.; Raven, R.; Dorst, H.; Runhaar, H. Nature-based innovation systems. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2020, 35, 202–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sarabi, S.E.; Han, Q.; Romme, A.G.L.; De Vries, B.; Wendling, L. Key Enablers of and Barriers to the Uptake and Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Settings: A Review. Resources 2019, 8, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Oral, H.V.; Carvalho, P.; Gajewska, M.; Ursino, N.; Masi, F.; van Hullebusch, E.D.; Kazak, J.K.; Exposito, A.; Cipolletta, G.; Andersen, T.R.; et al. A review of nature-based solutions for urban water management in European circular cities: A critical assessment based on case studies and literature. Blue-Green Syst. 2020, 2, 112–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Anadon, L.D.; Chan, G.; Harley, A.G.; Matus, K.; Moon, S.; Murthy, S.L.; Clark, W.C. Making technological innovation work for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 9682–9690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Cash, D.W.; Clark, W.C.; Alcock, F.; Dickson, N.M.; Eckley, N.; Guston, D.H.; Jäger, J.; Mitchell, R.B. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8086–8091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Kanger, L.; Schot, J. Deep transitions: Theorizing the long-term patterns of socio-technical change. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019, 32, 7–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Trimmer, J.T.; Miller, D.C.; Guest, J.S. Resource recovery from sanitation to enhance ecosystem services. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 681–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dubrawski, K.L.; Woo, S.; Chen, W.; Xie, X.; Cui, Y.; Criddle, C. In-vivo polymerization (“hard-wiring”) of bioanodes enables rapid start-up and order-of-magnitude higher power density in a microbial battery. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 14732–14739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ozment, S.; DiFrancesco, K.; Gartner, T. Natural Infrastructure in the Nexus; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  25. Cohen-Shacham, E.; Walters, E.; Janzen, C.; Maginnis, S. Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  26. Albert, C.; Brillinger, M.; Guerrero, P.; Gottwald, S.; Henze, J.; Schmidt, S.; Ott, E.; Schröter, B. Planning nature-based solutions: Principles, steps, and insights. Ambio 2020, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Frantzeskaki, N. Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 93, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Higgs, E. Novel and designed ecosystems. Restor. Ecol. 2016, 25, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bakshi, B.R.; Ziv, G.; Lepech, M.D. Techno-Ecological Synergy: A Framework for Sustainable Engineering. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1752–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Triest, L.; Stiers, I.; Van Onsem, S. Biomanipulation as a nature-based solution to reduce cyanobacterial blooms. Aquat. Ecol. 2015, 50, 461–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Potschin, M.; Kretsch, C.; Haines-Young, R.; Furman, E.; Berry, P.; Baro, F. Nature-Based Solutions. In OpenNESS Ecosystem Services Reference Book; EC FP7 Grant Agreement No. 308428. 2016. Available online: http://www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book (accessed on 10 May 2001).
  32. UN Water. 2018 UN World Water Development Report, Nature-Based Solutions for Water; United Nations: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  33. Depietri, Y.; McPhearson, T. Integrating the Grey, Green, and Blue in Cities: Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Change Adaptation and Risk Reduction. Urban. Sustain. Transit. 2017, 91–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Grimm, N.B.; Cook, E.M.; Hale, R.L.; Iwaniec, D.M. A broader framing of ecosystem services in cities. In The Routledge Handbook of Urbanization and Global Environmental Change; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 202–212. ISBN 9780415732260. [Google Scholar]
  35. Schumacher, E. Small is Beautiful: Economics As if People Mattered (an excerpt) (translated by Daniil Aronson). J. Econ. Sociol. 2012, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Voulvoulis, N.; Burgman, M.A. The contrasting roles of science and technology in environmental challenges. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 49, 1079–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Martin, J.-L.; Maris, V.; Simberloff, D.S. The need to respect nature and its limits challenges society and conservation science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 6105–6112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Blok, V.; Gremmen, B. Ecological Innovation: Biomimicry as a New Way of Thinking and Acting Ecologically. J. Agric. Environ. Ethic 2016, 29, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Ridder, B. The Naturalness versus Wildness Debate: Ambiguity, Inconsistency, and Unattainable Objectivity. Restor. Ecol. 2007, 15, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Eggermont, H.; Balian, E.; Azevedo, J.M.N.; Beumer, V.; Brodin, T.; Claudet, J.; Fady, B.; Grube, M.; Keune, H.; Lamarque, P.; et al. Nature-based Solutions: New Influence for Environmental Management and Research in Europe. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2015, 24, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Watkin, L.J.; Ruangpan, L.; Vojinovic, Z.; Weesakul, S.; Torres, A.S. A Framework for Assessing Benefits of Implemented Nature-Based Solutions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Rugani, B.; de Souza, D.M.; Weidema, B.P.; Bare, J.; Bakshi, B.; Grann, B.; Johnston, J.M.; Pavan, A.L.R.; Liu, X.; Laurent, A.; et al. Towards integrating the ecosystem services cascade framework within the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) cause-effect methodology. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 690, 1284–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Thorslund, J.; Jarsjo, J.; Jaramillo, F.; Jawitz, J.W.; Manzoni, S.; Basu, N.B.; Chalov, S.R.; Cohen, M.J.; Creed, I.F.; Goldenberg, R.; et al. Wetlands as large-scale nature-based solutions: Status and challenges for research, engineering and management. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 108, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kodikara, K.A.S.K.; Mukherjee, N.; Jayatissa, L.P.; Dahdouh-Guebas, F.; Koedam, N. Have mangrove restoration projects worked? An in-depth study in Sri Lanka. Restor. Ecol. 2017, 25, 705–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Van Loon, A.F.; Brake, B.T.; Van Huijgevoort, M.H.J.; Dijksma, R. Hydrological Classification, a Practical Tool for Mangrove Restoration. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0150302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Skłodowski, M.; Kiedrzyńska, E.; Kiedrzyński, M.; Urbaniak, M.; Zielińska, K.M.; Kurowski, J.K.; Zalewski, M. The role of riparian willows in phosphorus accumulation and PCB control for lotic water quality improvement. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 70, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ma, W.; Li, Z.; Ding, K.; Huang, B.; Nie, X.; Lu, Y.; Xiao, H. Soil erosion, organic carbon and nitrogen dynamics in planted forests: A case study in a hilly catchment of Hunan Province, China. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 155, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cerdà, A.; Borja, M.E.L.; Úbeda, X.; Martínez-Murillo, J.F.; Keesstra, S. Pinus halepensis M. versus Quercus ilex subsp. Rotundifolia L. runoff and soil erosion at pedon scale under natural rainfall in Eastern Spain three decades after a forest fire. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 400, 447–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Branch, O.; Wulfmeyer, V. Deliberate enhancement of rainfall using desert plantations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 18841–18847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Liu, Q.; Zhang, Q.; Yan, Y.; Zhang, X.; Niu, J.; Svenning, J.-C. Ecological restoration is the dominant driver of the recent reversal of desertification in the Mu Us Desert (China). J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 268, 122241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Drury, D.M.; Kelso, W.E. Invertebrate colonization of woody debris in coastal plain streams. Hydrobiologia 2000, 434, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Thomas, H.; Nisbet, T.R. Modelling the hydraulic impact of reintroducing large woody debris into watercourses. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2012, 5, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Vymazal, J. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Five Decades of Experience†. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ochoa-Tocachi, B.F.; Bardales, J.D.; Antiporta, J.; Pérez, K.; Acosta, L.; Mao, F.; Zulkafli, Z.; Gil-Ríos, J.; Angulo, O.; Grainger, S.; et al. Potential contributions of pre-Inca infiltration infrastructure to Andean water security. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 584–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Amare, T.; Zegeye, A.D.; Yitaferu, B.; Steenhuis, T.S.; Hurni, H.; Zeleke, G. Combined effect of soil bund with biological soil and water conservation measures in the northwestern Ethiopian highlands. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2014, 14, 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bednarek, A.; Szklarek, S.; Zalewski, M. Nitrogen pollution removal from areas of intensive farming—comparison of various denitrification biotechnologies. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2014, 14, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tangsir, S.; Moazed, H.; Naseri, A.A.; Garmdareh, S.E.H.; Broumand-Nasab, S.; Bhatnagar, A. Investigation on the performance of sugarcane bagasse as a new carbon source in two hydraulic dimensions of denitrification beds. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 1176–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Christianson, L.E.; Collick, A.S.; Bryant, R.B.; Rosen, T.; Bock, E.M.; Allen, A.L.; Kleinman, P.J.A.; May, E.B.; Buda, A.R.; Robinson, J.; et al. Enhanced Denitrification Bioreactors Hold Promise for Mid-Atlantic Ditch Drainage. Agric. Environ. Lett. 2017, 2, 170032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Li, R.; Feng, C.; Xi, B.; Chen, N.; Jiang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Li, M.; Dang, Q.; Zhao, B. Nitrate removal efficiency of a mixotrophic denitrification wall for nitrate-polluted groundwater in situ remediation. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 106, 523–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zalewski, M.; Santiago-Fandiño, V.; Neate, J. Energy, water, plant interactions: ‘green feedback’ as a mechanism for environmental management and control through the application of phytotechnology and ecohydrology. Hydrol. Process. 2003, 17, 2753–2767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Morris, R.L.; Konlechner, T.M.; Ghisalberti, M.; Swearer, S.E. From grey to green: Efficacy of eco-engineering solutions for nature-based coastal defence. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 1827–1842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Temmerman, S.; Meire, P.; Bouma, T.J.; Herman, P.M.J.; Ysebaert, T.; De Vriend, H.J. Ecosystem-based coastal defence in the face of global change. Nat. Cell Biol. 2013, 504, 79–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Stive, M.J.; de Schipper, M.; Luijendijk, A.P.; Aarninkhof, S.G.; Van Gelder-Maas, C.; Vries, J.S.V.T.D.; De Vries, S.; Henriquez, M.; Marx, S.; Ranasinghe, R. A New Alternative to Saving Our Beaches from Sea-Level Rise: The Sand Engine. J. Coast. Res. 2013, 290, 1001–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Alleway, H.K.; Gillies, C.L.; Bishop, M.J.; Gentry, R.R.; Theuerkauf, S.J.; Jones, R. The Ecosystem Services of Marine Aquaculture: Valuing Benefits to People and Nature. Bioscience 2019, 69, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pontee, N.; Narayan, S.; Beck, M.W.; Hosking, A.H. Nature-based solutions: Lessons from around the world. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Marit. Eng. 2016, 169, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hellweger, F.L.; Vick, C.; Rückbeil, F.; Bucci, V. Fresh Ideas Bloom in Gut Healthcare to Cross-Fertilize Lake Management. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 14099–14112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wang, R.; Tai, Y.; Wan, X.; Ruan, W.; Man, Y.; Wang, J.; Yang, Y.; Yang, Y. Enhanced removal of Microcystis bloom and microcystin-LR using microcosm constructed wetlands with bioaugmentation of degrading bacteria. Chemosphere 2018, 210, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yuan, Q.-B.; Shen, Y.; Huang, Y.-M.; Hu, N. A comparative study of aeration, biostimulation and bioaugmentation in contaminated urban river purification. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2018, 11, 276–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sana, B. Bioresources for Control of Environmental Pollution. Blue Biotechnol. 2014, 147, 137–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wu, W.-M.; Carley, J.; Fienen, M.; Mehlhorn, T.; Lowe, K.; Nyman, J.; Luo, J.; Gentile, M.E.; Rajan, R.; Wagner, D.; et al. Pilot-Scale in Situ Bioremediation of Uranium in a Highly Contaminated Aquifer. 1. Conditioning of a Treatment Zone. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 3978–3985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Garner, G.; Malcolm, I.A.; Sadler, J.P.; Hannah, D. The role of riparian vegetation density, channel orientation and water velocity in determining river temperature dynamics. J. Hydrol. 2017, 553, 471–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kaylor, M.J.; Warren, D.R. Linking riparian shade and the legacies of forest management to fish and vertebrate biomass in forested streams. Ecosphere 2017, 8, e01845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Snepvangers, J.; Kamerling-Baake, A.; van Rooij, S.A.M.; Steingröver, E.G. Plannen Met Multifunctionele Groenblauwe Netwerken in Salland; Wageningen University Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  74. Mitchell, M.; Hamilton, T.; Uebel-Niemeier, C.; Hopfensperger, K.; Buffam, I. Nitrogen cycling players and processes in green roof ecosystems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 132, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Löffler, F.E.; Edwards, E.A. Harnessing microbial activities for environmental cleanup. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2006, 17, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Bunting, S.W.; Pretty, J.; Edwards, P. Wastewater-fed aquaculture in the East Kolkata Wetlands, India: Anachronism or archetype for resilient ecocultures? Rev. Aquac. 2010, 2, 138–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Cappello, S.; Viggi, C.C.; Yakimov, M.; Rossetti, S.; Matturro, B.; Molina, L.; Segura, A.; Marqués, S.; Yuste, L.; Sevilla, E.; et al. Combining electrokinetic transport and bioremediation for enhanced removal of crude oil from contaminated marine sediments: Results of a long-term, mesocosm-scale experiment. Water Res. 2019, 157, 381–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Nikolaivits, E.; Dimarogona, M.; Fokialakis, N.; Topakas, E. Marine-derived biocatalysts: Importance, accessing, and appli-cation in aromatic pollutant bioremediation. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Bovio, E.; Gnavi, G.; Prigione, V.; Spina, F.; Denaro, R.; Yakimov, M.; Calogero, R.; Crisafi, F.; Varese, G.C. The culturable mycobiota of a Mediterranean marine site after an oil spill: Isolation, identification and potential application in bioremediation. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 576, 310–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Paulo, P.L.; Azevedo, C.; Begosso, L.; Galbiati, A.F.; Boncz, M.A. Natural systems treating greywater and blackwater on-site: Integrating treatment, reuse and landscaping. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 50, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Castro-Castellon, A.; Chipps, M.; Hankins, N.; Hughes, J. Lessons from the “Living-Filter”: An in-reservoir floating treatment wetland for phytoplankton reduction prior to a water treatment works intake. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 95, 839–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Colares, G.S.; Dell’Osbel, N.; Barbosa, C.V.; Lutterbeck, C.; Oliveira, G.A.; Rodrigues, L.R.; Bergmann, C.P.; Lopez, D.R.; Rodriguez, A.L.; Vymazal, J.; et al. Floating treatment wetlands integrated with microbial fuel cell for the treatment of urban wastewaters and bioenergy generation. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 766, 142474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Joffre, O.M.; Bosma, R.H.; Bregt, A.K.; van Zwieten, P.A.; Bush, S.; Verreth, J. What drives the adoption of integrated shrimp mangrove aquaculture in Vietnam? Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2015, 114, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rönnbäck, P. The ecological basis for economic value of seafood production supported by mangrove ecosystems. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29, 235–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Banaszuk, P.; Kamocki, A.; Wysocka-Czubaszek, A.; Czubaszek, R.; Roj-Rojewski, S. Closing the loop—Recovery of nutrients and energy from wetland biomass. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 143, 105643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Mitsch, W.J. Solving Lake Erie’s harmful algal blooms by restoring the Great Black Swamp in Ohio. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 108, 406–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ramírez-Vargas, C.A.; Arias, C.A.; Zhang, L.; Paredes, D.; Brix, H. Community level physiological profiling of microbial electrochemical-based constructed wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 721, 137761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ramírez-Vargas, C.A.; Prado, A.; Arias, C.A.; Carvalho, P.N.; Esteve-Núñez, A.; Brix, H. Microbial Electrochemical Technologies for Wastewater Treatment: Principles and Evolution from Microbial Fuel Cells to Bioelectrochemical-Based Constructed Wetlands. Water 2018, 10, 1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Cruijsen, A.C. Design Opportunities for Flash Flood Reduction by Improving the Quality of the Living Environment: A Hoboken City Case Study of Environmental Driven Urban Water Management; Delft University: Delft, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  90. Hernandez, R.R.; Armstrong, A.; Burney, J.; Ryan, G.; Moore-O’Leary, K.; Diédhiou, I.; Grodsky, S.M.; Saul-Gershenz, L.; Davis, R.; Macknick, J.; et al. Techno–ecological synergies of solar energy for global sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 560–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Gette-Bouvarot, M.; Volatier, L.; Lassabatere, L.; Lemoine, D.; Simon, L.; Delolme, C.; Mermillod-Blondin, F. Ecological Engineering Approaches to Improve Hydraulic Properties of Infiltration Basins Designed for Groundwater Recharge. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 9936–9944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Beutel, M.W. Inhibition of ammonia release from anoxic profundal sediments in lakes using hypolimnetic oxygenation. Ecol. Eng. 2006, 28, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Miller, M.W. Using ecological processes to advance artificial reef goals. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2002, 59, S27–S31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Cresson, P.; Ruitton, S.; Harmelin-Vivien, M. Artificial reefs do increase secondary biomass production: Mechanisms evidenced by stable isotopes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2014, 509, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Todd, J. Ecological engineering, living machines and the visionary landscape. In Ecological Engineering for Wastewater Treatment; Etnier, C., Guterstam, B., Eds.; BokSkogen, Stensurd Folk College: Trosh, Sweden, 1991; pp. 335–343. [Google Scholar]
  96. Fowdar, H.S.; Hatt, B.E.; Breen, P.; Cook, P.L.; Deletic, A. Designing living walls for greywater treatment. Water Res. 2017, 110, 218–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Fini, A.; Frangi, P.; Mori, J.; Donzelli, D.; Ferrini, F. Nature based solutions to mitigate soil sealing in urban areas: Results from a 4-year study comparing permeable, porous, and impermeable pavements. Environ. Res. 2017, 156, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Eggensperger, C.G.; Giagnorio, M.; Holland, M.C.; Dobosz, K.M.; Schiffman, J.D.; Tiraferri, A.; Zodrow, K.R. Sustainable Living Filtration Membranes. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2020, 7, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Abbadi, S.H.E.; Criddle, C.S. Engineering the Dark Food Chain. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 2273–2287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Meraz, J.L.; Dubrawski, K.L.; Abbadi, S.H.E.; Choo, K.-H.; Criddle, C.S. Membrane and Fluid Contactors for Safe and Efficient Methane Delivery in Methanotrophic Bioreactors. J. Environ. Eng. 2020, 146, 03120006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Anadon, L.D.; Moon, S.; Matus, K.; Booker, K.; Chan, G.; Timmer, V.; Harley, A.G.; Murthy, S.L.; Dubrawski, K.L.; Stephens, J.; et al. Innovation and Access to Technologies for Sustainable Development: Diagnosing Weaknesses and Identifying Interventions in the Transnational Arena; Harvard Sustainability Science Program Paper/Chapter No. 2014-01; Harvard Kennedy School of Government: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014.
  102. Mitsch, W. What is ecological engineering? Ecol. Eng. 2012, 45, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Allen, T.; Giampietro, M.; Little, A. Distinguishing ecological engineering from environmental engineering. Ecol. Eng. 2003, 20, 389–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. O’Hogain, S.; McCarton, L. A Technology Portfolio of Nature Based Solutions: Innovations in Water Management; Springer-Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; ISBN 9783319732817. [Google Scholar]
  105. Naddeo, V.; Balakrishnan, M.; Choo, K.-H. Frontiers in Water-Energy-Nexus—Nature-Based Solutions, Advanced Technologies and Best Practices for Environmental Sustainability, Proceedings of the 2nd WaterEnergyNEXUS Conference, Salerno, Italy, November 2018; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; ISBN 9783030130671. [Google Scholar]
  106. Kisser, J.; Wirth, M.; De Gusseme, B.; Van Eekert, M.; Zeeman, G.; Schoenborn, A.; Vinnerås, B.; Finger, D.C.; Repinc, S.K.; Bulc, T.G.; et al. A review of nature-based solutions for resource recovery in cities. Blue-Green Syst. 2020, 2, 138–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Brooks, H. Technology, Evolution, and Purpose. Daedalus 1980, 109, 65–81. [Google Scholar]
  108. Mitsch, W.J.; Yan, J.; Cronk, J.K. Ecological engineering—contrasting experiences in China with the West. Ecol. Eng. 1993, 2, 177–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Lawson, C.E.; Harcombe, W.R.; Hatzenpichler, R.; Lindemann, S.R.; Löffler, F.E.; O’Malley, M.A.; Martín, H.G.; Pfleger, B.F.; Raskin, L.; Venturelli, O.S.; et al. Common principles and best practices for engineering microbiomes. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2019, 17, 725–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  110. Wu, L.; Ning, D.; Zhang, B.; Li, Y.; Shan, X.; Zhang, Q.; Brown, M.R.; Li, Z.; Van Nostrand, J.D.; Global Water Microbiome Consortium; et al. Global diversity and biogeography of bacterial communities in wastewater treatment plants. Nat. Microbiol. 2019, 4, 1183–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Shade, A.; Dunn, R.R.; Blowes, S.A.; Keil, P.; Bohannan, B.J.M.; Herrmann, M.; Küsel, K.; Lennon, J.T.; Sanders, N.J.; Storch, D.; et al. Macroecology to Unite All Life, Large and Small. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2018, 33, 731–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Barot, S.; Lata, J.-C.; Lacroix, G. Meeting the relational challenge of ecological engineering within ecological sciences. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 45, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Leisenring, M.; Clary, J.; Hobson, P. International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database Pollutant Category Statistical Summary Report: Solids, Bacteria, Nutrients, and Metals; Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers: Denver, CO, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  114. McGinnis, M.D.; Ostrom, E. Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Ottino, J.M. Engineering complex systems. Nat. Cell Biol. 2004, 427, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Krauze, K.; Wagner, I. From classical water-ecosystem theories to nature-based solutions—Contextualizing nature-based solutions for sustainable city. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 655, 697–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Shijun, M. Ecological Engineering: Application of Ecosystem Principles. Environ. Conserv. 1985, 12, 331–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Odum, H.T. Maximum power and efficiency: A rebutttal. Ecol. Model. 1983, 20, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Todd, J.; Brown, E.J.; Wells, E. Ecological design applied. Ecol. Eng. 2003, 20, 421–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Allison, H.E.; Hobbs, R. Resilience, Adaptive Capacity, and the “Lock-in Trap” of the Western Australian Agricultural Region. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Sussams, L.; Sheate, W.; Eales, R. Green infrastructure as a climate change adaptation policy intervention: Muddying the waters or clearing a path to a more secure future? J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 147, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Moreno-Mateos, D.; Alberdi, A.; Morriën, E.; van der Putten, W.H.; Rodríguez-Uña, A.; Montoya, D. The long-term restora-tion of ecosystem complexity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 4, 676–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Bull, J.W.; Milner-Gulland, E.J.; Addison, P.F.E.; Arlidge, W.N.S.; Baker, J.; Brooks, T.M.; Burgass, M.J.; Hinsley, A.; Maron, M.; Robinson, J.G.; et al. Net positive outcomes for nature. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 4, 4–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 06400 g001 550
Figure 1. The development and diffusion of NbS for water. (A) Innovation can increase or decrease naturalness and drive adoption. (B) Innovation can advance ES synergies and maximize benefits to both nature and society.
Figure 1. The development and diffusion of NbS for water. (A) Innovation can increase or decrease naturalness and drive adoption. (B) Innovation can advance ES synergies and maximize benefits to both nature and society.
Sustainability 13 06400 g001
Table
Table 1. NbS for water, benefits to society, nature and co-benefits. In order of decreasing naturalness from green to grey.
Table 1. NbS for water, benefits to society, nature and co-benefits. In order of decreasing naturalness from green to grey.
Nature-Based Solution for WaterDirect Benefits to Society (Water-Related)Direct Benefits to NatureCo-BenefitsRef.
Natural wetland restoration: restoring a degraded wetland/floodplain/riparian buffer zone to a pre-degraded or functional conditionReduces risk (flood & drought mitigation), improves quantity (storage, aquifer recharge), improves quality (nutrient, pollution assimilation)Restores natural wetland ecosystem, augments environmental flows, moderates eutrophicationBiodiversity, aesthetics, cultural ES (recreation, traditional), food, nutrient/climate regulation (carbon sink)[25,32,43]
Coastal mangrove/saltmarsh/kelp/coral restoration: restoring a degraded coastal ecosystem to a pre-degraded or functional conditionReduces risk (flood & storm surge control), improves quality (carbon and nutrient assimilation)Restores natural coastal ecosystem, moderates marine eutrophicationBiodiversity, food, moderation of sea-level rise, soil protection, climate regulation (carbon sink)[25,44,45]
Afforestation for erosion control: promoting vegetation in riparian or sloped zones to prevent erosionReduces risk (flood control), improves quality (sediment control)Creates or restores a new forest ecosystem, buffers environmental flowsBiodiversity, aesthetics, food (tree crops), timber, soil protection, climate regulation (carbon sink)[46,47,48]
Afforestation to stimulate precipitation: planting trees to induce evapotranspiration, cloud formation, and precipitationImproves quantity (increasing precipitation and aquifer recharge)Creates a new forest ecosystem, augments environmental flowsBiodiversity, food (tree crops), timber, climate regulation (carbon sink)[49,50]
Woody debris in waterways: leaving or supplying woody debris in rivers and lakes as habitat and carbon source Improves quality (physiochemical/biological filtration), reduces risk (buffers flooding)Creates aquatic ecosystem, provides habitat and nutrient subsidies for microbiota with resultant trophic cascadesFood (fish)[51,52]
Surface infiltration and retention: small constructed wetlands (e.g., bioretention, swales) to capture runoff and hydrologically connect water systemsReduces risk (flood control), improves quantity (storage, aquifer recharge, hydraulic connectivity), improves quality (nutrient, pollution assimilation)Connects small wetland ecosystems, provides habitat and nutrients to microbiota, buffers environmental flowsAesthetics (greenspace), nutrient regulation, soil protection[53,54,55]
Denitrification walls: buffer regions/strips with favorable conditions for denitrifying microbiotaImproves quality (nutrient assimilation)Creates a small wetland/soil ecosystem, provides habitat and nutrients for denitrifying microbiota, moderates eutrophicationNutrient regulation, protecting aquatic life (preventing hypoxic zones and harmful algal blooms)[56,57,58,59]
Large-scale storage retention: large constructed wetlands (e.g., regional wetland, parkland) to capture and store precipitation and runoffReduces risk (flood control), improves quantity (storage, aquifer recharge, hydraulic connectivity), improves quality (nutrient, pollution assimilation)Restores or creates a wetland ecosystem, provides land and aquatic habitat, buffers environmental flowsBiodiversity, aesthetics, cultural ES (recreation, traditional), food, nutrient regulation, blue/green connectivity[53,60]
Nature-based coastal defenses: shoreline macrobiota (e.g., oyster reefs, shoreline plants) or sand to prevent damage/erosionReduces risk (flood & storm surge control), improves quality (carbon, nutrient, pollution assimilation)Provides and protects habitat for coastal marine ecosystemsFood (fish), biodiversity, protecting navigable waterways[61,62,63,64,65]
Bioaugmentation/biomanipulation: introducing or augmenting biota in water bodies to improve water quality (e.g., to control cyanobacterial blooms)Improves quality (biological algae control, algal toxin prevention, nutrient assimilation)Augments aquatic ecosystem, reduces ecotoxicityNutrient regulation, protecting aquatic life (preventing hypoxic zones and harmful algal blooms)[30,66,67,68]
Aquifer bioremediation: addition of microbiota and/or carbon for remediation of contaminated aquifersImproves quality (biological redox and/or assimilation of pollutants)Augments subsurface ecosystem, reduces ecotoxicitySoil and agriculture protection (e.g., removal of uranium, arsenic)[69,70]
Vegetation for shading water: Planting trees adjacent to water bodies to prevent evaporationImproves quantity (if transpiration rate is lower than evaporation rate), improves quality (reduces temperature)Augments habitat for biota and supports water for vegetation Biodiversity, aesthetics, soil protection, climate regulation[71,72,73]
Green roofs: construction of building roofs that retain storm/rainwater and support biotaReduces risk (flood control), improves quantity (seasonal storage), improves quality (carbon, nutrient, pollution assimilation)Creates small urban ecosystem, habitat and nutrients for microbiota and plants, habitat for birdsFood, biodiversity, aesthetics, urban cooling, nutrient regulation, blue/green space connectivity[32,74]
Wastewater ponds/lakes: constructed wetlands that collect and retain industrial, agricultural, or municipal wastewaterImproves quantity (seasonal storage, aquifer recharge, water reuse), improves quality (carbon, nutrient, pollution assimilation)Creates aquatic ecosystem, habitat and nutrients for microbiota and plants, buffers environmental flowsBiodiversity, aesthetics, food (fish), nutrient regulation, climate regulation (carbon sink)[53,75,76]
Marine bioremediation: introducing or augmenting microbiota to remediate marine pollution (e.g., oil spills, microplastics)Improves quality (biological assimilation of pollutants)Augments marine ecosystem, reduces ecotoxicityProtection of marine life[75,77,78,79]
Sub-surface ecological sanitation: addition of micro or macrobiota to latrine or septic systemsImproves quality (nutrient, pollution assimilation), improves quantity (water reuse potential in low-income regions)Creates aquatic ecosystem, habitat and nutrients for biota (e.g., microbes, worms, plants) Public health and ecosystem protection in low-income regions [32,80]
Floating treatment wetlands: floating mat (natural or artificial) of macrophytes or other plants for remediation of runoff/wastewaterImproving quality (nutrient assimilation)Augments aquatic ecosystem by providing consumers of excess nutrients, habitat for macrobiotaFood (fish), biodiversity, nutrient regulation[81,82]
Water-related agroecology: water security within an agroecology setting (e.g., flooded rice paddies, amendments for water retention, wetlaculture)Reduces risk (flood and erosion control), improves quantity (water retention in soil), improves quality (carbon and nutrient assimilation)Creates aquatic ecosystem, provides habitat for various biota, buffers environmental flowsSoil protection, biodiversity, aesthetics, climate regulation (carbon sink)[25,83,84,85,86]
METlands: producing electricity and nutrient recovery from dissolved organics in wetlandsImproves quality (carbon and nutrient assimilation), improves quantity (water reuse potential)Creates or augments wetland ecosystem, provides habitat for microbiota, plantsNutrient regulation, climate regulation (prevention of methane release in wetlands)[87,88]
Living infrastructure: infrastructure integrated into nature; e.g., subsurface detention with revegetation, ecological engineering in infiltration basinsImproves quantity (storage), improves quality (carbon and nutrient assimilation)Creates or augments wetland, aquatic, or forest ecosystem, provides habitat to biotaNutrient regulation, aesthetics [89,90,91]
Integrated mariculture for water: water treatment using fish, shellfish, or seaweedsImproving quality (carbon and nutrient assimilation)Creates or augments freshwater or marine ecosystem, provides nutrients for plants, trophic cascades for macrobiotaFood[87,88]
Hypolimnetic oxygenation: Pumping oxygen into hypolimnetic region to mitigate eutrophicationImproves quality (promotes nutrient sequestration)Augments freshwater ecosystem, provides oxygen for aerobic biotaFood (fish), nutrient regulation, biodiversity, protecting aquatic life (preventing hypoxic zones and harmful algal blooms)[92]
Artificial reefs: addition of non-natural materials to promote reef growth or fish habitatReduces risk (storm surge control), improves quality (carbon and nutrient assimilation)Creates small aquatic ecosystem, provides habitat to biota, enables trophic cascadesFood (fish), biodiversity, protecting navigable waterways[93,94]
Building-wetland integration: urban vegetation for water treatment and reuseImproves quantity (water reuse), improves quality (carbon and nutrient assimilation)Creates urban aqueous ecosystem, provides habitat and nutrients to microbiota and vegetationAesthetics, nutrient regulation, energy conservation[95,96]
Porous pavement: non-impervious surfaces to facilitate urban infiltrationReduces risk (urban runoff control), improves quality (urban nutrient assimilation); improves quantity (groundwater recharge)Augments water and nutrient supply to subsurface microbiota and plant rootsNutrient regulation, soil protection[97]
Water-related bioengineering: biosystems engineering to augment grey infrastructure (e.g., fungi biofilms in constructed wetlands)Improves quality (carbon and nutrient assimilation)Creates self-regenerating micro-ecosystem, habitat and carbon source for microbiotaNutrient regulation, energy/materials conservation[98]
Wastewater dark food chain: multitrophic wastewater treatment to produce food (e.g., biogas as an aquafeed in wetlands)Improves quality (wastewater treatment and nutrient recovery), improves quantity (water reuse)Creates small-scale ecosystem, provides habitat and nutrients for biota, trophic cascadesFood (fish, prawn), nutrient regulation[99,100]
Table
Table 2. NbS for water, biota scale, technological, and regions. In order of decreasing naturalness from green to grey.
Table 2. NbS for water, biota scale, technological, and regions. In order of decreasing naturalness from green to grey.
Nature-Based Solution for WaterBiota ScaleTechnological
Aspects		Applicable
Regions		Ref.
Natural wetland restorationMacro, co-occurring microbiotaNoneGlobal[25,32,43]
Coastal mangrove/saltmarsh/kelp/coral restorationMacro, co-occurring microbiotaNoneCoastal[25,44,45]
Afforestation for erosion controlMacro, co-occurring microbiotaLarge scale landscape alteration can be required: e.g., berms, terraces, ditchesGlobal[46,47,48]
Afforestation to stimulate precipitationMacro, co-occurring microbiotaLarge-scale landscape alteration can be required: e.g., irrigation, reservoirs, etc.Global—arid regions[49,50]
Woody debris in waterwaysMicro to macroRoads/paths for supplying biomassGlobal[51,52]
Surface infiltration and retentionMacro, co-occurring microbiotaSmall-scale landscape/hydrology alteration: e.g., diversions, reservoirs, etc.Global—urban regions[53,54,55]
Denitrification wallsMicro, co-occurring macrobiotaMicrobiome control, small-scale landscape/hydrology alteration Global—agriculture regions[56,57,58,59]
Large-scale storage retentionMacro, co-occurring microbiotaLarge-scale landscape/hydrology alteration: e.g., diversions, reservoirs, etc.Global[53,60]
Nature-based coastal defensesMacro, co-occurring microbiotaLarge scale landscape alteration can be required: e.g., dredging, sandbanks, etc.Coastal[61,62,63,64,65]
Bioaugmentation/biomanipulationMicro to macroBiome control: e.g., alteration of macro and micro communitiesGlobal[30,66,67,68]
Aquifer bioremediationMicroMicrobiome control with introduced or enriched speciesGlobal[69,70]
Vegetation for shading waterMacroAlteration of flows, horticultural maintenanceGlobal—arid regions[71,72,73]
Green roofsMacro, co-occurring microbiotaStructural and hydrological engineering, design, horticultural maintenanceGlobal—urban regions[32,74]
Wastewater ponds/lakesMicro to macroEngineered infrastructure: reservoirs, diversions, dredging, aerationGlobal[53,75,76]
Marine bioremediationMicroPumps, tanks; introduced or selected/enriched speciesOceans[75,77,78,79]
Sub-surface ecological sanitationMicro to macroSanitary engineering and logistics required for collection and treatmentGlobal—low-income regions[32,80]
Floating treatment wetlandsMicro to macroStructural engineering, transportation, maintenanceGlobal[81,82]
Water-related agroecologyMicro to macroAgriculture management and infrastructure: ditches, piping, machinery, etc.Global[25,83,84,85,86]
METlandsMicro, co-occurring macrobiotaBioelectrochemical engineering: wires; altered flows; controlled biomesGlobal[87,88]
Living infrastructureMacro, co-occurring microbiotaEngineered infrastructure: tanks, pipes, electrical, etc.Global—urban regions[89,90,91]
Integrated mariculture for water qualityMacro, co-occurring microbiotaEngineered infrastructure: pens, pumps; introduced speciesOceans[87,88]
Hypolimnetic oxygenationMicro to macroEngineered infrastructure: tanks, pumps, electrical power; altered flowsGlobal[92]
Artificial reefsMacro, co-occurring microbiotaEngineered materials: e.g., plastic, concrete, dredging, monitoringCoastal[93,94]
Building-wetland integrationMicro to macroDistribution system, tanks, pumps, monitoring, maintenanceGlobal—urban regions[95,96]
Porous pavementMicro, co-occurring macrobiotaEngineered surfaces and materials, excavation, maintenanceGlobal—urban regions[97]
Water-related bioengineering MicroIntroduced or selected/enriched species; monitoring and maintenanceGlobal[98]
Wastewater dark food chainMicro to macroWastewater collection; fermentation tanks, pipes, monitoring, maintenanceGlobal[99,100]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dekker, I.; Sharifyazd, S.; Batung, E.; Dubrawski, K.L. Maximizing Benefits to Nature and Society in Techno-Ecological Innovation for Water. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6400. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116400

AMA Style

Dekker I, Sharifyazd S, Batung E, Dubrawski KL. Maximizing Benefits to Nature and Society in Techno-Ecological Innovation for Water. Sustainability. 2021; 13(11):6400. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116400

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dekker, Isaac, Shabnam Sharifyazd, Evans Batung, and Kristian L. Dubrawski. 2021. "Maximizing Benefits to Nature and Society in Techno-Ecological Innovation for Water" Sustainability 13, no. 11: 6400. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116400

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop