Bridging the science-practice gaps in nature-based solutions: A riverfront planning in China

Abstract

Prominent gaps exist between science and practice in the field of nature-based solutions (NBS) worldwide, with relatively well formulated concepts but less clear application procedures. China urgently needs to address this gap because many so called NBS practices advance rapidly nowadays, including river landscapes. Advocating planning as a bridging procedure in China’s top down governance system, this study introduces NBS planning for the Jialing River in Wusheng County to address three challenges: how to transform the riverfront planning from specialized to holistic, how to effectively communicate NBS in planning, and how to incorporate both scientific results and local wisdom into NBS decision-making. A planning scope was negotiated to incorporate holistic solutions. Five NBS paradigms were identified for better communication, and then spatially allocated with specific design guidelines and governance strategies. Our pilot study calls for reflection on the communication of NBS to the public, and alternative models of NBS implementations customized to different government regimes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary available at 10.1007/s13280-020-01445-2.

Introduction

Nature-based solutions (NBS), an umbrella concept highlighting the sustainable use of nature to tackle societal challenges for multiple ecosystem services, have begun to be recognized as a mainstream option for sustainable development worldwide. NBS have been used by policymakers and scientists (MacKinnon and Hickey 2009; MacKinnon et al. 2011; Eggermont et al. 2015; Kabisch et al. 2016) with an expectation that it will shift attention from focusing on barriers to offering solutions that guarantee urban sustainability (Kabisch et al. 2016; Hanson et al. 2020). Including the main ideas of green and blue infrastructure, ecosystem services, and biomimicry concepts, NBS are considered as planning tools and actions that help incorporate nature into decision-making (Commission 2015; Adem Esmail et al. 2017; Albert et al. 2019). The Climate Action Summit 2019 notably called for political and financial support for new efforts to scale up the use of nature-based solutions. The European Commission (2015) research framework program explores how NBS work in different urban contexts concerning different social and environmental backgrounds. With all the high expectations of society and decision-makers, European Commission (2015) reveals that NBS may not work as effectively as expected because there are abundant and reductive research findings but less clear application procedures. Inspiration for NBS planning can be drawn from green infrastructure planning (Lennon 2015; Hollstein 2018; Van Oijstaeijen et al. 2020), green space planning (Kabisch 2015), and ecosystem-services-based spatial planning and landscape planning (Hansen and Pauleit 2014; Albert et al. 2014, 2016, Gret-Regamey et al. 2017). How to emulate existing planning knowledge while adding innovations to better plan NBS deserves further exploration because NBS is a new umbrella term used to guarantee sustainability.

Science-practice gaps are a prominent challenge worldwide in many fields (Nisbet and Mooney 2007; Grimm et al. 2008; Briggs and Knight 2011), and greatly hinder the effective application of NBS. Several studies have shown that scientific knowledge in landscape and sustainability is seldom employed as fully as possible (Briggs and Knight 2011; Opdam et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2014). Multiple factors and diverse strategies relevant to science-practice gaps preclude specific descriptions here (Bertuol-Garcia et al. 2018). Nevertheless, two gaps are particularly acute in the context of NBS applications, considering the distinguished characteristics of NBS: holistic thinking, multiple objectives, and ecosystem stewardship (Angelstam et al. 2013; Eggermont et al. 2015; Nesshover et al. 2017). The first is the gap between reductionist science and holistic NBS practices. The dominant science paradigm still currently follows reductionist thinking in favor of specialization and quantitative research (Checkland 1984; Toomey et al. 2017). The holistic thinking and multiple objectives views of NBS require an active transformation of research and knowledge from multiple disciplines to practice, considering the fragmentation of scientific knowledge and research results (Sidlauskas et al. 2010; Hampton and Parker 2011). Knowing how to transcend disciplinary boundaries and synthesize specialized knowledge is critical in confronting the complexity of practices (Carpenter et al. 2009; Lynch et al. 2015). The second gap is how to communicate NBS to different stakeholders since NBS calls for ecosystem stewardship. The ineffective communication of scientific knowledge to practitioners and stakeholders has been discussed in many fields for various reasons, including complex decision-making, ambiguous concepts, and the distance of science from practice (Bormpoudakis and Tzanopoulos 2019). The effective communication of NBS concepts and techniques will be crucial to better stimulate ecosystem stewardship in NBS practices so that stakeholders can be more aware of the context and goals of NBS practices, and thus more voluntarily involved in stewardship.

Efforts to tackle science-practice gaps are critical for the application of NBS globally, but addressing this is extremely important and urgent in China for several reasons. First, many so-called “ecological” landscapes and NBS practices progressed rapidly in the context of ecological civilization after 2012. The declaration of ecological civilization was an official response to China’s severe environmental problems as a by-product of China’s extreme economic growth and careless landscape change (Wang 2018; Frazier et al. 2019). The first initiative of the ecological civilization that promotes tremendous investments in many ecological projects is the Sponge City Program, which was expected to tackle a series of water-related problems, such as flood, drought, water pollution, aquatic habitat loss, and the increasingly alienated human-river relationship (Liang 2019; Nguyen et al. 2020). Together with the most recent promotion of territorial ecological restoration (Yang et al. 2014; Liu et al. 2020), many so-called NBS practices for river landscapes have emerged and will continue to progress rapidly in China (Liu et al. 2019; Yu 2019). Second, holistic thinking and NBS are often highlighted as the essential principles of these ongoing projects, but clear application guidance is lacking. President Xi’s speech calls for us to “respect, adapt to and protect nature” in all these ecological projects, but how the ambition can be achieved is still debated in our society (Wang et al. 2020). At the same time, local knowledge and traditional ecological wisdom draw increasing attention as regards resolving ecological issues based on holistic and local experiences beyond scientific research in reductionism (Zheng et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2019b). However, local wisdom is yet sufficiently investigated and is not often applied in practice (Li et al. 2011; Yu 2019). China is clearly ready for innovations and ambitious pilot schemes with excellent potential for sustainability, but there is less clear application guidance. Last but not least, there is now a window of opportunity to officially redefine NBS practices in planning procedures in China. China initiated a new program of territorial spatial planning, which aims to reverse the typical specialization and fragmentation characteristics of China’s conventional planning system and to restructure the top-down planning procedure for more systematic and holistic management of natural resources and land systems (Dong 2019). Conventional riverfront planning is normally constrained to certain buffer areas and governed by the Bureau of Water Resources, emphasizing flood control and the utilization of water resources. The Bureau of Construction can negotiate the development and recreation potential of some urban riverfronts (Song and Yang 2002). The Bureau of the Environment monitors water quality. However, the primary pollutants from agriculture, industry, and urban development are respectively governed by the Bureau of Agriculture, Bureau of Industrial Development, and the Bureau of Construction. Together with many other small departments for river governance, the highly fragmented and segmented management system prohibited holistic decision-making (Li and Huo 2006; Wang and Li 2018). The newly established spatial planning aims to transcend governance boundaries and promote holistic planning decision-making, although what should be done is still in exploration and pilot testing. With all these innovations in top-down political strategies promoting nature’s role in sustainable urbanization, there is now a window of opportunity to officially redefine the planning procedure for NBS in China.

Confronting the challenges and opportunities globally and locally, we explored a pilot scheme for a schematic river landscape plan to incorporate NBS into the conventional riverfront planning framework in China. An NBS-based planning procedure was proposed to address three key challenges from science-practice gaps in NBS applications:

1. How can specialized riverfront planning be transformed into holistic NBS planning? Similar to reductionist science, much riverfront planning is also specialized in certain water-related issues without holistic thinking about sustainability. Our study aims to create a new framework for riverfront planning to overcome the shortcomings of specializations and apply NBS for holistic decision-making.

2. How can NBS be effectively communicated to government officers and the public? NBS has been recognized as a green communication tool internationally, but the idea of NBS is still new. The transformation of NBS from scientific society to stakeholders is critical to improving the application of NBS, as well as ecosystem stewardship.

3. How can both scientific research and local ecological wisdom be incorporated into NBS decision-making? Local knowledge has always been believed to be an essential part of NBS practice in realizing NBS adaptive management innovation and adapting to an ecosystem that changes with the season and time (Blau et al. 2018; Frantzeskaki 2019). China’s long history contains abundant local knowledge of sustainable development, and it deserves more attention when realizing NBS locally.

Materials and methods

Study area

This study focuses on planning for the middle part of the Jialing River in Wusheng County, Sichuan Province, China. The Jialing River is a branch of the Yangtze River, the longest and most important river in southern China. It flows through the belly of Wusheng County from the north to the south. The water system is composed of rivers and streams, with a total basin area of 127.40 km². The middle part of the Jialing River in Wusheng County is one of the pilot areas that aim to explore multi-functional restoration for ecosystem integrity and social well-being since Wusheng County is one of the few counties below the poverty line in China with severe ecosystem disturbances. Only a few areas of Wusheng County have been developed: urban landscape 2.1%, rural settlement 18.5%, mining area 1.1% (Fig. 1). The dominant land use is intensive but extremely scattered rural settlements and agricultural landscapes (59%). The rest is nature areas with 4.5% water and 14.8% shrubs and forests. According to the Comprehensive Water Resources Planning Report of Wusheng County, the Jialing river system now is defined as a drinking water reservoir, but its water quality is currently categorized as Grade III (slightly polluted) in the mainstream. It is worse in other tributaries (MEE 2002). The area is also facing a deficiency of water resources due to the relatively large local population and seasonally rainfall changes. Wusheng County had a population of 0.85 million in 2017, and 364 m³/capita local water resources, compared to the average of 2300 m³/capita in China and 9320 m³/capita the world average. The distribution of water resources is also imbalanced. 78% of the water resources in Wusheng County come from rainfall concentrated from May to October, but most of the runoff from rainfall flows away in the form of floods. Seasonal floods and droughts are repeated in this area. Efforts to facilitate the transitions of the river landscape towards a more sustainable water system face severe social, economic, political, and ecological challenges.

Fig. 1.

Location and landuse of Wusheng County. Jialing River is a branch of the Yangtze River, flowing through the belly of Wusheng County from north to east. Only a few lands of Wusheng County have been developed, with extremely scattered rural settlements and agricultural landscapes

Transforming specialized planning into NBS-based planning

This study proposes an NBS-based planning procedure for conventional riverfront planning in small steps towards transforming specialized planning to holistic planning in China (Zhu et al. 2005; Rong et al. 2009; Li et al. 2013) (Fig. 2). Embedded in China’s top-down land planning system for decades, the conventional riverfront planning process cannot be changed drastically. The planning framework incorporates NBS ideas into the conventional steps by adjusting the planning scope and adapting zoning and guidelines into NBS-based zoning and guidelines. To clarify, planning here involves a schematic plan to be integrated into territorial spatial planning for cost-effective natural resource governance, but is not detailed landscape planning for implementation. In the Chinese planning system, implementable landscape planning is usually conducted at the site level in the form of individual projects. Before that, a schematic plan is usually required to provide general guidance and prioritize projects for implementation.

Fig. 2.

The planning procedure in our research using NBS as the expanded dimensions to the conventional riverfront planning

Adjustments to the planning scope are demonstrated in detail here, and explicit procedures to adopt NBS in the planning strategies are introduced in the later sections. Adjusting the planning scope for the Jialing River (Fig. 3) was considered as the first step to achieve holistic thinking of NBS. Traditionally, riverfront planning utilized the buffer method to define the planning scope (Fig. 3). The river buffer comprises land habitats strongly affected by the aquatic environment, with unique spatial structures and ecological functions (Jin et al. 2018; Xu et al. 2020). Typical buffer sizes are 20, 40, and 50 meters, according to ecological sensitivity (Rong et al. 2009), or 20, 30, 80, and 120 considering multiple ecosystem services (Zhu et al. 2005; Li et al. 2013). In this study, the key challenges of the Jialing River result from land use (particularly non-point source pollutions from agriculture) in its surrounding areas beyond the river buffers. Our research group negotiated with local government officers to expand the planning scope and their governance units from limited buffers to surrounding villages for more systematic management of the river. After consulting with the Water Authority and Land Resources Bureau, the Environmental Protection Bureau, and the Agriculture Bureau of Wusheng County, reasonable government units for the future planning of the Jialing River are defined using the villages within the 100-year floodplain. The village is the most basic regional management and villager autonomy unit in China (Zhang and Li 2014). Planning for land use at the village level provides an integrated unit for land use administration and management, particularly considering the amount of non-point source pollution to the river from the surrounding areas. Managing the surrounding villages along the Jialing River is feasible and sustainable.

Fig. 3.

The planning scope defined in our planning procedure. 100-year floodplain + village boundaries = planning scope along the Jialing River in our study

Using NBS paradigms for better communications

Our study utilized NBS paradigms to help local government officers and stakeholders envision nature and nature’s contribution to people as achievable goals through NBS practices (Pascual et al. 2017), in order to incorporate NBS into the zoning of conventional riverfront planning. Kuhn (1962) defined a paradigm as a scheme or model for understanding and explaining reality. By distinguishing different paradigms for NBS, our study aims to demonstrate its various potentials while avoiding random applications of varied “natural” solutions that are often chosen arbitrarily based on practical problems. Many practices, even ecological restoration projects in China, may not be as healthy as they seem due to the overuse of monoculture plantations (Xu 2011). It is critical to distinguish different meanings of “nature” as well as different solutions to “nature” since NBS actions are commonly determined by the natural function of ecosystems (Arkema et al. 2017), and would take advantage of natural flows of matter and energy that follow the seasonal and temporal changes of the ecosystems (Meli et al. 2014).

Five conceptual paradigms were categorized to educate local government officers and stakeholders regarding the differences embedded in NBS: the natural paradigm, native paradigm, novel paradigm, green paradigm, and cultural paradigm (Table 1). In consideration of the many possible different conditions, each paradigm has its own theoretical or ideological foundations in three dimensions: (1) different views of nature and people’s relationships to nature (2) the different roles of nature and people in solutions, and (3) the different contributions of nature to people (a citation to be added later on). The natural paradigm (NaturalP) believes that nature can survive by itself and make the correct decisions in solving its problems. The optimal and pristine wilderness is the ultimate goal (Elliot 1982; Eisenberg 1998). The native paradigm (NativeP) believes nature to be more-or-less predictable and orderly changes to ecosystem compositions. It can thus be recovered back to pre-disturbance conditions (Michael 2001; Ridder 2007). Practices can facilitate the recovery of historical ecosystems by rehabilitating or stimulating natural successions. The novel paradigm (NovelP) refers to most ecosystems with sufficiently altered structures and functions that cannot be restored to historical conditions (Suding et al. 2004; Seastedt et al. 2008). Experiments with quantified objectives and benefits are necessary practices in heavily disturbed areas. The cultural paradigm (CulturalP) aims at human-nature interactions by encouraging participation in NBS practices, educating about nature, and cultivating deep care for nature, while preserving ecosystem integrity ( Higgs 2005; Gobster et al. 2007). The green paradigm (GreenP) refers more to the varied greening strategies in areas developed for human well-being, including basic material needs, healthy and harmonious social relations, freedom of safety, and quality of life (Millennium-Ecosystem-Assessment 2005) while offering certain regulating functions for climate, pests, diseases, or water quality (Hirons et al. 2016).

Table 1.

Summary of different paradigms

Paradigms	Image of nature	Solutions in general	Nature’s contribution to people Pascual et al. (2017) and Raymond et al. (2017)
NaturalP		To let nature do the job; To minimize people’s intervention;	The intrinsic value of Mother Earth
The wildness to be protected
NativeP		To restore historical status; To stimulate natural succession;	Integrated environmental performance: Habitat creation and maintenance, regulation of climate
The disturbed native habitats to be restored
NovelP		To explore designed experiments; To explore adaptive management;	Costs, tradeoffs and synergies to biodiversity, health or economy: Habitat creation, regulation of climate, and good quality of life if necessary
The heavily disturbed areas ready for experiments
GreenP		To mitigate negative environmental impacts; To be as green as possible;	Potential for citizen’s involvement Certain regulating service (microclimate and stormwater), and good quality of life
The manicured landscape to support human well-being while mitigating environmental impacts
CulturalP		To encourage participation; To educate people about nature; To cultivate a deep care for nature;	Co-benefits for human health and well-being: Interactions between nature and people, Living-well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth
Places to cultivate human-nature interactions

Incorporating both expert and local knowledge in NBS paradigm zoning and guidelines

To further execute the NBS paradigms, our planning procedure integrated expert knowledge and local knowledge to spatially allocate different paradigms while supporting different guidelines for solution implementations. Experts and local residents play different roles in the various steps.

Rationales for spatial allocation of different paradigms

This study proposes a scientific analysis process using GIS for the rational allocation of different paradigms, since it has always been believed that science can determine the spatial needs that a particular NBS needs to meet through analysis of the comprehensive natural processes (Thorslund et al. 2017). Three dimensions were analyzed spatially: Nature Importance, Nature Quality, and User Density (Fig. 4). Nature Importance addresses whether nature in an area plays a vital role in the regional ecosystem or environment. Nature Quality measures the existing condition of nature in an area, either in fair conditions without much disturbance or highly deteriorated conditions after serve disturbances. User Density measures whether a place will be frequently utilized by people, either for everyday life or recreational purposes. Both ecosystem and human demand are addressed in our study, since how to balance human demand. Riverine ecosystem protection is a vital issue in river planning for sustainable development (Ren et al. 2019). The central ambition of NBS is to achieve multiple environmental, social, and economic benefits (Hanson et al. 2020).

Fig. 4.

Three dimensions for the spatial allocation of different NBS paradigms. D means dimension, and 1-3 indicates the sequence we use three dimensions. The decisions towards different paradigms can be adjusted according to different local contexts and capacity for ecological restoration. In our case, we let nature do the job as much as possible because the county is classified as an impoverished area

The rationales determining which paradigm to be applied are as follows. In an area with a low frequency of population use where almost no one to go (LOW User Density): (1) if nature in this area is also not important to the regional ecosystem (LOW Nature Importance), we can let nature do the work, to reduce investment and not interfere with nature excessively (NaturalP); (2) if nature within is important to its regional ecosystem (HIGH Nature Importance), but the degree of damage is low (High Nature Quality), we can continue to allow nature to do its job for the most part (NaturalP); (3) if nature within is important to the regional ecosystem (HIGH Nature Importance), but the degree of natural deterioration is extensive (LOW Natural Quality), our study would suggest a human intervention to gradually restore the function of the ecosystem (NativeP). In a residential environment with potential large population density (HIGH User Density), (1) if nature within is not important, the development for human well-being can be adopted while considering mitigation strategies for environmental effects (GreenP); (2) if nature within is important to regional ecosystems (HIGH Nature Importance), and the degree of damage is low (High Nature Quality), the cultural paradigm can be selected to encourage local participation in the ecological restoration process (CulturalP); (3) if nature within is seriously deteriorated (LOW Nature Quality), our study suggests using design experiments or adaptive management to explore innovative solutions (NovelP).

To understand Nature Importance and User Density on a regional scale, we used the available results from county-level planning as a reference. The evaluation of Nature Importance was operationalized based upon the ecological security analyses at the county level, which addressed the security of water safety, geological disaster, and biodiversity (Fig. 5a). Ecological security patterns define key areas as strategic portions and safeguard the boundaries of natural processes in consideration of both vertical and horizontal processes of landscape change (Yu 1996). This has been widely used in China to prioritize areas of high ecological quality and connectivity potential (Huang et al. 2007; Li et al. 2019; Fan et al. 2020). We defined areas in the baseline category of ecological security that are critically important to safeguarding regional ecosystem services as areas of HIGH Nature Importance; the rest were considered LOW Nature Importance (Wu et al. 2020). To operationalize User Density, we utilized two existing maps from the existing databank at the county level: urbanization development pattern (Li et al. 2015) and recreation development pattern (Tardieu and Tuffery 2019; Willibald et al. 2019) (Fig. 5b). We classified areas with either the highest urban development potential or highest recreation development potential as the areas with HIGH User Density. The rest were considered relatively LOW User Density.

Fig. 5.

Procedures to generate Nature Importance and User Density. a Transforming ecological security pattern on the county level into Nature Importance. b Transforming urbanization and recreational development potentials on the county level into User Density

Natural quality refers to the degree of natural deterioration due to human disturbance, which is suggested to be closely related to NBS types (Eggermont et al. 2015). We developed a series of indicators to measure human disturbance to the natural environment. Both land-use-introduced disturbance and distance-to-land-use disturbance were assessed. Based on the opinions of experts, we measure the disturbance from brownfield sites to industry, cities, roads, agriculture, and other land uses ordinally. Documented disturbances and observed disturbances were included in the most disturbed areas with LOW Natural Quality (Fig. 6). Documented disturbances, including landslides, collapsed, and unstable slopes, were mentioned in different government documents and local websites. Disturbances were revealed through our on-site investigations and interviews with local government officers and residents.

Fig. 6.

Analysis and result of nature quality. Transforming land-use-introduced disturbance, distance-to-land-use disturbance and documented disturbances on the county level into nature quality

NBS paradigm guidelines

The design guidelines for each paradigm was formulated based on the identification of challenges in different areas, and the exploration of existing local practices and good practice examples relevant to riverfront landscapes and watershed management worldwide.

The identification of challenges in our study area was first conducted by examining the varied challenges listed in the regional watershed planning for the Jialing River and the county level planning documents. After a document search, several questions were asked, including “What are the top challenges for the riverfront along the Jialing River in Wusheng?” and “Do you see challenges in the development along the Jialing River in Wusheng County?” during our panel group meetings with local government officers and varied experts in different disciplines. We consistently documented the challenges mentioned by residents during our field investigations. Their feedback was recorded and entered into our database with spatial references.

Local knowledge has always been recognized as an essential part of NBS practices to realize NBS adaptive management innovation and adapt to an ecosystem that changes with the season and time (Blau et al. 2018; Frantzeskaki 2019). In our study area, some local practices are identified in our study area as effective for resource utilization according to traditional wisdom, especially the pong paddy field as efficient utilization of water resources and rainwater/drought management systems. Other scholars have summarized the specific components of these local practices and the potential of traditional wisdom for future sustainable development (Wang et al. 2019a). We intentionally incorporate those local practices into our project to enhance the system resilience of the local environment.

Finally, good practice examples relevant to riverfront landscapes and watershed management worldwide were synthesized for our study. Relevant review articles were specifically explored; for instance, Klemm et al. (2017), Zerkaoui et al. (2018) and Bera and Banik (2019). Each design strategy from these excellent examples was recorded in a design strategy pool, and their suitability for local situations was then evaluated based upon the site challenges identified. Design strategies, referring to the general principles that can tackle the onsite challenges, were summarized and presented in this paper without small-scale design measures, containing too many details to be reported in one paper.

The final NBS plan spatially allocates varied solutions with specific NBS guidelines. We provide design measures in detail to further demonstrate the application of our guidelines and illustrative images to enhance our communication with stakeholders. Nature’s benefits for people are highlighted in these sample design measures since several scholars argue that fulfilling the needs of different stakeholders can increase the enforcement of NBS strategies (Raymond et al. 2017; Keesstra et al. 2018). Detailed design samples are illustrated in the results section.

Results

NBS paradigm zoning

Figure 7 (left side) shows the results of the NBS paradigm zoning along the Jialing River in Wusheng County. The designated future development for urbanization is 2.5% of the total land area. The dominant paradigm zones are the natural paradigm zone that occupies 45% of the total planning areas, and the green paradigm zone with 43% of land area. As we explained in our methods section, some of these places are categorized as wild spaces ready for nature to do the work, not because they are still in pristine condition but mainly because local government has limited financial support for ecological restoration. Our plan suggests cost-effective decision-making to allocate efforts and financial support to the areas most in need of immediate action. The green paradigm zone mainly covers the areas adjacent to intensive agricultural and urban land uses, which require NBS strategies to reduce their negative impacts on the surrounding environment.

Fig. 7.

Result of NBS zoning. Left side shows the locations and proportions of the NBS paradigm zoning along the Jialing River. Right side demonstrates three types of the governance in natural resources at the village level, including sample villages in either NaturalP or GreenP zones, relatively simple villages with some CulturalP zones, and complex villages with more than two paradigm zones

The areas that will be highlighted as prioritized for government support include the novel paradigm zone, the cultural paradigm zone, and the native paradigm zone, which occupy 2%, 8%, and 0.5%, respectively, of the total land areas in our study. The novel paradigm zone contains places important to local ecosystems but adjacent to intensive agriculture and brownfields, requiring immediate design experiments or adaptive management to solve the current problems. The cultural paradigm zone involves places with relatively good ecosystem conditions and multi-functional human uses, which require strategic management to enhance public participation and cultivate human-nature interactions. The native paradigm zone is limited in our study site, partially because the intensive agricultural development distorted most native habitats, and few places can be easily returned to the historical condition.

The paradigm zoning greatly eases the governance of natural resources at the village level. Figure 7 (right side) demonstrates that the required governance of some villages is straightforward, with a single paradigm occupying 80% of their governance area. It can be seen that 60% of the villages are simple villages in either the natural paradigm zone, need for minimal intervention, or the green paradigm zone, which will continue to be mainly agriculture. Another 15% of villages also require relatively simple governance but with some cultural paradigm zones. The remaining 25% of the villages are considered complex villages with more than two paradigm zones. It is suggested that local financial resources and governance strategies are first allocated to complex villages with more relatively complicated social-ecosystem conditions.

NBS guidelines

This study first provided synthesized guidelines to clarify NBS actions in each of the different paradigm zones. These guidelines were proposed based on the identification of challenges in different areas, the exploration of existing local practices, and good practice examples relevant to riverfront landscapes and watershed management worldwide. Table 2 shows the general NBS actions that we designated for each of the paradigm zones.

Table 2.

Guidelines of NBS actions for different paradigms

Paradigm	Challenges	NBS actions
NaturalP to let nature do the job	W01. Some areas in good ecosystem status W02. Some areas with severe disturbance	W11 Nature reserve W12 Identify ecological red lines W13 Buffer zone reserved W14 Passive restoration W15 Constant monitoring to decide necessary interventions
NativelP to facilitate rehabilitation of historical ecosystems	N01. Alien invasive species N02. Sparse vegetation N03. Weakened resilience N04. Soil erosion N05. Some human disturbance H06. Flood	N11 Use native species N12 Remove alien species N13 Stimulate natural succession N14 Reestablish local habitats N15 Increase the connectivity of habitats N16 Improve vegetation-soil feedback mechanism N17 Minimize human disturbances N18 Stormwater management practices
NovelP to encourage design experiments or adaptive management	E1. Frequent flood E2. Water pollution due to none-point source E3. Soil erosion E4. Mining brownfields or quarry E5. High demand of agriculture or urban development	E11 Best management practices E12 Bio-detector E13 Water quality detector E14 Waterfront green infrastructure E15 Multi-functional agriculture E16 Increase natural floodplain space E17 Reinforce the streambank E18 Rehabilitate local species E19 Combine habitats with urban open spaces
GreenP to reduce environmental impacts	G1. High demands for green space G2. Extensive agriculture G3. Soil erosion	G11 Green roofs/buildings G12 Manicured or ornamental planting G13 Fruit-bearing forests G14 Agriculture buffer to reduce impacts G15 Soil erosion control techniques G16 Providing necessary amenities G17 Transform some gray into green infrastructure
CulturalP to cultivate nature-human interactions	Ecological challenges similar to those in NativeP and NovelP	Similar strategies with NativeP and NovelP
	C1. User density of recreation	C11 Encourage full participation C12 Provide recreational places with minimal disturbance to nature C13 Contact with water C14 Cultivate nature education C15 Increase physical cue of cares including flowers maintenance, species etc. C16 Use ecological arts

Design samples with specific techniques and illustrations were developed for typical areas of each paradigm zone better to clarify our NBS guidelines (Fig. 8). This paper presents two design samples in the novel paradigm zone with complicated challenges, including non-point source pollution from agriculture, soil erosion, mining pollution, and high user density of water contacts.

Fig. 8.

Guidelines for the NovelP zone and sample sites. Sample one represents an NBS experiment for water purification using terraced wetlands (Images of Houtan Park are provided by Turenscape). Sample two represents a multi-functional landscape for water utilization and purification

Design sample one (Fig. 8 ①) is located by the river and polluted by abandoned industrial and mining sites. Experiments are suggested to combine the traditional pond systems with water purification as implemented in Houtai Park, Shanghai (Yu 2019). Preserving the original wetlands while constructing new artificial wetlands in alignment with the terrain can form a living water purification and soil erosion control system while creating local habitats and recreation spaces. Design sample two (Fig. 8 ②) is an agricultural area that causes severe non-point source pollution in the Jialing River. A multi-functional agriculture design experiment is proposed to reduce and reuse agricultural nutrients and pollution. Conforming to the local terrain and wind directions, a multi-functional landscape composed of farms, biogas ponds, economic forests, ponds, wetlands, and recreation parks is expected to reduce the non-point source pollution from agriculture in the Jialing River while supporting local agricultural development and recreation demands.

Discussion

Taking nature into the equation of sustainable development, the applications of NBS rely on efforts for advancing and updating the science-practice interfaces in places with numerous social and ecological challenges. Using schematic riverfront planning as an example, this study demonstrates an attempt to mediate science-practice gaps in China during the current transitional period of the planning procedure. This place-based example highlights the potential to incorporate NBS into riverfront planning in China while emphasizing the different roles of planning in facilitating NBS in different social-political contexts worldwide.

Small steps forward in riverfront planning

Locally, the planning procedure introduced in this paper was built upon conventional riverfront planning in China, but broadens its scope and enhances its application by greatly increasing the holistic thinking, multi-functionality, and systematic decision-making that NBS promotes (Angelstam et al. 2013, Eggermont et al. 2015, Nesshover et al. 2017). Table 3 compares conventional riverfront planning with our NBS-based approach. Conventional riverfront planning is instrumental in dealing with various problems, notably water pollution, flood control, and human use, with particular solutions envisaged for the future. By introducing NBS and the NBS paradigms, our approach supports the multi-functional concerns proposed by different interest groups. It encourages the consideration of local natural conditions as a whole first, before discussing certain functions. At the same time, our approach expands conventional decision-making from being expert-driven to a process encouraging local knowledge and participation. Our proposal aims to use planning as an educational procedure to disseminate the meaning of both NBS and associated scientific knowledge to the government and public.

Table 3.

A comparison of the conventional riverfront planning with our NBS-base planning

Items	Conventional	Our approach
Goals	Water pollution Flood control Human uses	Multi-functional concerns vary in different places proposed by different interest groups
Vision	Specific functions	Holistic nature conditions first and then functions
Decision-making	Expert-driven government decisions	Use planning as an education procedure to disseminate scientific knowledge to the government and public Use planning as an inclusive process to encourage traditional wisdom and local knowledge

Our approaches also call for a further reflection and comparison among various procedures for landscape planning. In the operationalization of our planning, our team aware that there are at least three distinctive categories of decision-making procedures for landscape planning: feature-based, process-based, and service-based. McHarg’s suitability analysis is a typical feature-based decision-making, which utilizes different natural features like soil, topography, vegetation to decide suitable land uses (McHarg, 1992). The analysis of ecological security pattern is typical process-based planning, which focuses on certain ecological processes important to a region and identifies those critical areas for maintaining the sources and connectivity corridors for those natural processes (Yu 1996). Moreover, there is a recent trend in landscape planning to be based upon a thorough analysis of ecosystem services (Burkhard et al. 2013; Gret-Regamey et al. 2013; Haase et al. 2014; Hansen et al. 2015; Kabisch 2015). Our approach follows the commonly used analyses of ecological security pattern in China but much aware of the advantages and disadvantages. By introducing ecological security patterns and disturbances to nature, our approach adds the dimension of potential for landscape change to our planning process. Disturbance assessment can identify areas with high human intervention and explore the potential of ecological restoration so that more ecological sources can be added to our planning. The connectivity analysis of varied processes reveals potential areas as corridors. The strength of our approach addresses the future potential of ecological sources and ecological connectivity in the context of rapid urbanization and landscape changes. A consideration of supply and demand and tradeoffs between different stakeholders, however, is lacking in our process. Some ecosystem-services-based planning has explored ecosystem service tradeoffs (Gret-Regamey et al. 2013), demand, and flow (Burkhard et al. 2012; Haase et al. 2014). Our approach only considered the flow of different ecological processes, but not flows to users. At the same time, we notice that certain features are utilized multiple times in our analyses, particularly topography and soils. Whether and to what extent modern technical development for landscape analyses over complicates the intention of suitability analysis as proposed by McHarg deserves further exploration in the future.

Using paradigms to enhance communications about NBS

Although NBS has been recognized as a green communication tool internationally (Nesshover et al. 2017), the idea of NBS is still new to Chinese society. For NBS approaches to become reality in our planning, the idea of paradigms was used as a communication tool with government officers and residents. We first attempted to communicate using ecosystem services. However, our clients were puzzled because their expectations were more oriented towards management solutions for physical landscapes in different categories of landscape regions or features. NBS paradigms fit well with their expectations of different actions and visions for the future of physical landscapes. Nature’s contribution to people is used to explain what can be achieved by different NBS paradigms (Table 1) because it is easily understandable. Despite the fact that there are a series of scientific understanding and interpretation to Nature’s Contributions to People (Pascual et al. 2017; Raymond et al. 2017), nature’s contribution to people is literally understandable and communicable to lay people in conveying and imaging the connection between nature and the good quality of life. Five paradigms distinguish different human-nature relationships with visual and verbal descriptions that allow people with different backgrounds to understand the meaning of NBS and to envision the roles of nature and people in NBS, as well as the ultimate benefits that can be gained through NBS practices. The NBS paradigms greatly ease communication and decision-making in our planning procedure.

Another strength of our NBS paradigms is that they communicate differences in implementing President Xi’s emphasis on “respect, adapt to and protect nature.” In China’s context, a mean to implement top-down strategies are essential in local decision-making. Currently, the randomness of applying varied “nature” solutions is common in many projects across China, and some may not be as healthy as they appear due to the overuse of monoculture plantations (Xu 2011). Ecology is an iconic concept rather than a solid goal to be achieved. There are a great number of ill-designed landscapes across the country that display “planning/designing without ecology” (Wu et al. 2014). By communicating different paradigms, our approach enhances clarity in solutions and results so as to achieve either wildness, a native ecosystem, a novel ecosystem, or just green areas. It is paramount that different people understand the “image of nature” to be achieved during NBS practices, thus avoiding unintentional damage to the environment.

Using planning as a bridging procedure for science-practice gaps in NBS applications

This study argues that practitioners may play different roles in places with varied social contexts and government regimes to tackle the science-practice gaps in sustainable development. Many scholars have advocated the role of planners and practitioners as facilitators for collaborative decision-making across wider disciplines and stakeholders (Collier et al. 2013; Primdahl and Kristensen 2016; Adem Esmail et al. 2017). Considering the political and cultural differences between China and Western countries, especially European countries and the United States, our research shows that NBS planning in China can only be a bridge between ecological science, stakeholders, and NBS practice. China has state-owned land-use rights that encourage a top-down management process in taking immediate actions, with marginal input from the public and stakeholders. Private land ownership in the West fosters extensive communication and negotiations among stakeholders (Wang et al. 2014). The contextual differences of China can only enable NBS practices as a bridging and participatory procedure rather than collaborative decision-making among all stakeholders.

Figure 9 demonstrates the procedure to enable NBS planning as a bridging step to mediate between scientists and stakeholders. In each of our steps, we involve the input and research findings of different disciplines, such as hydrologists, ecologists, economists, and socialists, while encouraging opinions from the government and residents. At the same time, we adopt local practices with traditional wisdom in our design guidelines. During the process, we attempt to encourage more collaboration between different stakeholders. However, common feedback from the government is “we need to communicate more solid ideas to the public to avoid unnecessary arguments,” and the typical response of residents is “Future planning is the government’s job. My opinions seldom count, so I never think about this.” We ended up this dilemma using our planning procedure as a platform for open discussions, opinions, and solution negotiations across different disciplines and among different stakeholders. The planning procedure works as an interface to merge science and NBS practices in deciding the most scientifically sound solutions while maximizing people’s well-being.

Fig. 9.

Our NBS planning as a bridging step to mediate among scientists, governments, and stakeholders

Conclusion

The action gap of NBS is relevant worldwide. However, it may be more urgent in China, considering the ongoing numerous “ecological” projects promoted by the central government to achieve ecological civilization. Promoting science-based ecological practices is critical for China’s development, as it has impacted and will continue impacting the global environment significantly. Using the Jialing River in Wusheng County as an example, this study presents a process to utilize planning as a bridging procedure to mediate between scientists, governments, and residents, thus enhancing communication between different groups of people and expanding the planning goals toward multi-functionality. This study calls for reflections on two aspects of NBS planning that are not only appropriate for the Jialing River in Wusheng County but also have the potential to be feasible for applications in other river systems and places.

The first aspect involves how to communicate NBS ideas effectively during planning. There may be different answers to this question in different social contexts. In our case, ecosystem services puzzled our clients, who are more interested in activities involving physical landscapes. NBS itself is too generic to be understandable by our clients and the public. Different detailed solutions are first perceived as overwhelmingly technical and need to be executed by experts during project implementations, but not useful in schematic planning. NBS paradigms forge common ground between different stakeholders in envisioning the roles of nature and people in NBS and the ultimate benefits that can be gained through NBS practices. By introducing future visions of the wilderness, the native ecosystem, the design experiments, and the greenness and those places in need of social care, our project eventually interconnects NBS planning with various solutions that become understandable and acceptable by multiple stakeholders. The criteria for distinguishing “future nature” and the layman’s language of NBS paradigms have good potential for use beyond our study and application in other places.

The second aspect is how to conduct NBS planning in places with different social–ecological challenges and different government regimes. The prevailing challenge of the Jialing River in Wusheng County is non-point source pollution so that we suggest governing all villages associated with the 100-year floodplain of the river. The planning may differ if other rivers have distinctively different problems, such as severe flooding and erosion without pollutions. At the same time, we have demonstrated our efforts and struggles in closing the science-practice gaps within a strong top-down decision-making system that may be very efficient in implementing NBS innovations if we do it correctly. The government hears our voices. The information transfer is still linear in our procedure, and we did not meet the calls for a co-production of knowledge and two-way interactions between scientists and stakeholders (Reed et al. 2014; Bertuol-Garcia et al. 2018). The whole procedure may be very different from discussions of river planning in western society. By taking small steps forward in our planning system, our pilot planning calls for alternative models of NBS implementations customized to different social-environmental contexts and various government regimes.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Biographies

Zhifang Wang

is an associate professor at the College of Architecture and landscape of Peking University. Her research interests include ecological restoration, ecological planning, science-practice interfaces for sustainable planning and design, landscape services, and social well beings.

Liyun Huang

is Master candidate at the College of Architecture and landscape of Peking University. Her research interests include ecological planning, urban and rural planning, ecosystem service evaluation.

Min Xu

is a post-doctor at the College of Architecture and landscape of Peking University. Her research interests include land-use planning, natural resources service assessment, and urbanization forces in landscape transition.

Sirui Wang

is Master candidate at the College of Architecture and landscape of Peking University. Her research interests include ecological planning, urban and rural planning, ecosystem service evaluation.