Written by Anželika Dautartė, VMU

The Myth

Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) require substantial financial investment, expert ecological knowledge, or advanced technologies, making them unrealistic for implementation in schools.

The Reality

This misconception arises from the assumption that NBS require large financial investments, specialised technical knowledge, or complex ecological infrastructure. In reality, a significant body of scientific and policy literature shows that NBS are scalable, adaptable, low-cost, and particularly well suited to educational settings, where they provide substantial learning, health, and community benefits.

The European Commission¹ defines NBS as actions that “use nature to address societal challenges,” emphasising their scalability – from small school gardens and pollinator habitats to larger urban green systems. Importantly, NBS do not require high-tech solutions; many depend on locally available materials, community involvement, and simple ecological principles.

According to IUCN², effective NBS can include small-scale, low-cost interventions such as native plant gardens, rain gardens, outdoor learning spaces, hedgerows, micro-wetlands, and biodiversity monitoring projects. These forms of NBS are explicitly described as “accessible to community institutions, including schools,” highlighting their feasibility even where financial resources are limited.

Educational benefits further strengthen the case. Chawla³ demonstrated that children’s direct contact with nature substantially improves attention, emotional regulation, creativity, and environmental stewardship. Even minimal interventions – such as outdoor lessons, planting beds, or schoolyard greening – produce measurable psychosocial and cognitive benefits. These outcomes justify small investments while supporting inclusive, experiential learning environments.

NBS also align with global sustainability frameworks. UNESCO⁴ emphasises that education systems must integrate hands-on ecological learning to develop sustainability competencies. NBS provide an ideal platform for this integration, linking theory with practice and creating opportunities for students to observe ecosystem functions, biodiversity, climate adaptation, and environmental responsibility.

Evidence further shows that NBS are most effective when embedded in local contexts. A study by Jannah et al.⁵ revealed a “disconnect between global climate commitments and local community realities,” showing that localised, context-sensitive interventions are essential. Schools – embedded within communities – are therefore in a strong position to implement meaningful NBS that respond to real environmental needs while strengthening community resilience.

Ecological research also highlights the value of small-scale interventions. Proença and Pereira⁶ emphasised that biodiversity supports key ecosystem services – including climate regulation, pollination, soil health, and cultural well-being – many of which can be enhanced through simple school-based actions. Even small green areas contribute to ecological connectivity and local resilience.

Citizen science plays an additional role. Pocock et al.⁷ found that biodiversity monitoring by schools and volunteers produces high-quality ecological data that contribute to conservation science. These activities require minimal funding but provide substantial educational and ecological benefits, reinforcing that NBS in schools can be both low-cost and high-impact.

Taken together, the literature demonstrates that NBS are not inherently costly or infeasible for schools. Instead, they represent practical, adaptable, and cost-effective strategies that support learning, biodiversity, and climate resilience⁸. When guided by local needs and community participation, NBS become powerful tools for transforming school environments and fostering ecological literacy.

References

1. European Commission. (2023). Nature-based solutions. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/projects-activities/nature-based-solutions_en
2. IUCN. (2020). Nature-based solutions: Guidelines for implementation. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.09.en
3. Chawla, L. (2015). Benefits of nature contact for children. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(4), 433–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412215595441
4. UNESCO. (2022). Education for sustainable development. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381345
5. Jannah, R., Kolopaking, L. M., Adiwibowo, S., & Maarif, S. (2025). Global climate commitments and local disconnect: Imagining climate change through Indonesia’s community climate program. Global Transitions, 7, 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2025.06.008
6. Proença, V., & Pereira, H. (2015). Ecosystem changes, biodiversity loss and Human Well-Being. In Elsevier eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-409548-9.09557-9
7. Pocock, M. J. O., Simmonds, J. S., & Dorward, P. (2022). Citizen science and biodiversity monitoring: Opportunities and challenges. Biological Conservation, 266, 109431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109431
8. Seddon, N., Smith, A., Smith, P., Key, I, Chausson, A., & Turner, B. (2020). Getting the message right on nature-based solutions for climate change. Global Change Biology, 27(8), 1518–1546. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15513