Written by Birthe Uhlhorn, BOKU

The Myth

We do not need another framework — green and blue infrastructure and Nature-Based Solutions are basically the same.

The Reality

At first glance, green and blue infrastructure (GBI) and NBS may seem interchangeable because both rely on natural elements. However, the scientific discourse clearly demonstrates that this is not the case. GBI refers mainly to the physical network of green and water-related spaces, e.g., parks, wetlands, rivers, tree corridors or retention areas, that provide ecological and spatial functions¹. NBS, by contrast, are defined by the IUCN and the European Commission as a strategic, problem-oriented approach that uses natural processes to address societal challenges such as climate adaptation, health, disaster risk reduction or biodiversity loss^2,3. According to Kabisch et al.⁴ NBS also function, in urban contexts, as an inclusive umbrella concept that integrates established ecosystem-based approaches, including GBI, urban ecosystem services and ecological engineering, to address climate-related and other societal challenges not only through technical measures, but through nature-based interventions.

The scientific discourse on NBS demonstrates that NBS may use GBI, but they involve additional requirements. Langemeyer and Baró⁵ describe NBS as “intervention nodes” within green–blue infrastructure networks, ensuring that their planning is more effectively integrated across spatial scales and that ecological relationships and ecosystem service flows are not lost through an overly small-scale focus. Similarly, Sowińska-Świerkosz and García⁶ describe NBS through four core characteristics a) they are inspired and powered by nature; b) they address societal challenges; c) they provide multiple benefits, including gains for biodiversity; and d) they are effective and economically efficient. Together, these insights underscore that NBS constitute a distinct, more comprehensive framework than GBI, requiring purpose-driven design, cross-scale integration and clearly defined societal and ecological outcomes.

Why this misconception matters

If planners, policymakers or practitioners assume that GBI and NBS are interchangeable, projects may fail to meet essential NBS criteria such as addressing specific societal challenges, generating multiple co-benefits, enhancing biodiversity or ensuring long-term effectiveness and resilience. As a result, funding may be misdirected, evaluation frameworks may be inadequate, and important opportunities for cross-scale integration and stakeholder collaboration may be overlooked. Ultimately, misunderstanding the distinction can undermine the transformative potential of NBS and limit their contribution to sustainable, resilient and equitable urban and landscape development.

References

1. Pinto, L.V., Inácio, M., Pereira, P., 2023. Green and blue infrastructure (GBI) and urban nature-based solutions (NbS) contribution to human and ecological well-being and health. Oxf. Open Infrastruct. Health 1, ouad004. https://doi.org/10.1093/ooih/ouad004
2. Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., Maginnis, S., 2016. Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en
3. European Environment Agency., 2021. Nature-based solutions in Europe policy, knowledge and practice for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Publications Office, LU.
4. Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Hansen, R., 2022. Principles for urban nature-based solutions. Ambio 51, 1388–1401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01685-w
5. Langemeyer, J., Baró, F., 2021. Nature-based solutions as nodes of green-blue infrastructure networks: A cross-scale, co-creation approach. Nat.-Based Solut. 1, 100006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2021.100006
6. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B., García, J., 2022. What are Nature-based solutions (NBS)? Setting core ideas for concept clarification. Nat.-Based Solut. 2, 100009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100009