Assessing nature-based solutions for transformative change

Abstract

•A framework to assess transformative change with NbS•Ecological and social elements underpin NbS with transformative change potential•NbS can foster transformative change of social-ecological systems•Values, knowledge, community engagement, and nature management underpin NbS The global environmental crisis demands transformative approaches toward sustainability. Nature-based solutions (NbS) resonate strongly in science and practice, but their capacity to deliver transformative change has not been assessed. Here, we provide a conceptual framework to assess NbS under a transformative change lens and operationalize it through a dataset of 93 NbS implemented in mountain regions globally. The majority of NbS we assessed combine ecological and social elements with potential to deliver transformative change. These include various human values about nature and knowledge types, community engagement processes, and management practices such as restoration, ecosystem monitoring, and nature protection. We also found evidence that NbS can contribute to transformative change toward sustainable trajectories. We call for further research on transformative change in practice that supports the monitoring and evaluation of NbS on the ground. Global sustainability targets demand transformative changes. Nature-based solutions (NbS) are gaining traction in science and policy, but their potential for transformative change remains unexplored. We provide a framework to evaluate how NbS contribute to transformative change and apply it to 93 NbS from mountain social-ecological systems (SES). The framework serves to assess what elements may catalyze transformative change, how transformative change occurs, and what its outcomes are. Our results show that NbS are as much “people based” as “nature based.” Most NbS are based on four elements with transformation potential: nature's values, knowledge types, community engagement, and nature management practices. Our results confirm the potential of NbS for transformative change, observed through changes in non-sustainable trajectories of SES. We illustrate the components of our framework through a novel classification of NbS. The framework provides key components for assessing the effectiveness of NbS and allows tracking long-term transformative change processes. Global sustainability targets demand transformative changes. Nature-based solutions (NbS) are gaining traction in science and policy, but their potential for transformative change remains unexplored. We provide a framework to evaluate how NbS contribute to transformative change and apply it to 93 NbS from mountain social-ecological systems (SES). The framework serves to assess what elements may catalyze transformative change, how transformative change occurs, and what its outcomes are. Our results show that NbS are as much “people based” as “nature based.” Most NbS are based on four elements with transformation potential: nature's values, knowledge types, community engagement, and nature management practices. Our results confirm the potential of NbS for transformative change, observed through changes in non-sustainable trajectories of SES. We illustrate the components of our framework through a novel classification of NbS. The framework provides key components for assessing the effectiveness of NbS and allows tracking long-term transformative change processes. Transformative change in the context of sustainability refers to profound and fundamental alterations in social-ecological interactions in a way that sustains the Earth's biophysical systems, while meeting human needs.1Feola G. Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: a review of emerging concepts.Ambio. 2015; 44: 376-390Google Scholar, 2Gillard R. Gouldson A. Paavola J. Van Alstine J. Transformational responses to climate change: beyond a systems perspective of social change in mitigation and adaptation.Wires Clim. Change. 2016; 7: 251-265Google Scholar, 3Patterson J. Schulz K. Vervoort J. Van Der Hel S. Widerberg O. Adler C. Hulbert M. Anderton K. Sethi M. Barau A. Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability.Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017; 24: 1-16Google Scholar According to the Intergovernmental Science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), such transformative change is necessary to achieve the Paris Agreement, the post-2020 biodiversity targets, and several of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).4Díaz S.M. Settele J. Brondízio E. Ngo H. Guèze M. Agard J. Arneth A. Balvanera P. Kate B. Stuart B. et al.The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Summary for Policy Makers. IPBES, 2019Google Scholar, 5Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., et al., eds. (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (IPCC).Google Scholar, 6Chan K.M. Boyd D.R. Gould R.K. Jetzkowitz J. Liu J. Muraca B. Naido R. Olmsted P. Satterfield T. Selomane O. et al.Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability.People and Nature. 2020; 2: 693-717Google Scholar Research on transformative change has grown exponentially, as well as the disciplines engaged with it.7Köhler J. Geels F.W. Kern F. Markard J. Onsongo E. Wieczorek A. Alkemade F. Avelino F. Bergek A. Boons F. et al.An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions.Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019; 31: 1-32Google Scholar,8Schneider F. Kläy A. Zimmermann A.B. Buser T. Ingalls M. Messerli P. How can science support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? Four tasks to tackle the normative dimension of sustainability.Sustainability Science. 2019; 14: 1593-1604Google Scholar However, few studies have empirically evaluated through large datasets the processes that successfully lead to transformative change and associated sustainability outcomes.9Colloff M.J. Wise R.M. Palomo I. Lavorel S. Pascual U. Nature’s contribution to adaptation: insights from examples of the transformation of social-ecological systems.Ecosyst. People. 2020; 16: 137-150Google Scholar, 10Fazey I. Moug P. Allen S. Beckmann K. Blackwood D. Bonaventura M. Burnett K. Danson M. Falconer R. Gagnon A.S. et al.Transformation in a changing climate: a research agenda.Clim. Dev. 2018; 10: 197-217Google Scholar, 11Vermeulen S.J. Dinesh D. Howden S.M. Cramer L. Thornton P.K. Transformation in practice: a review of empirical cases of transformational adaptation in agriculture under climate change.Front. Sust. Food Syst. 2018; 2: 65Google Scholar Three broad perspectives on transformative change have been described,12Loorbach D. Frantzeskaki N. Avelino F. Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change.Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 2017; 42: 599-626Google Scholar namely the socio-technical,13Geels F.W. Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective.Res. Pol. 2010; 39: 495-510Google Scholar the socio-institutional,14Frantzeskaki N. Loorbach D. Meadowcroft J. Governing societal transitions to sustainability.Int. J. Sust. Dev. World. 2012; : 19-36Google Scholar,15Otto I.M. Donges J.F. Cremades R. Bhowmik A. Hewitt R.J. Lucht W. Rockström J. Allerberger F. McCaffrey M. Doe S.S.P. et al.Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 2020; 117: 2354-2365Google Scholar and the socio-ecological.16Gunderson L. Holling C.S. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, 2002Google Scholar Here, we focus on the socio-ecological perspective, which assumes that transformative change requires reframing social-ecological relationships.17Olsson P. Galaz V. Boonstra W.J. Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspective.Ecol. Soc. 2014; 19https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06799-190401Google Scholar Particularly, we present an analysis of nature-based solutions (NbS), which are gaining influence in science, policy, and practice and could play an important role in the implementation of the international sustainability agenda.18Faivre 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: 509-518Google Scholar,19Seddon N. Chausson A. Berry P. Girardin C.A. Smith A. Turner B. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges.Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 2020; 375: 20190120Google Scholar NbS are defined as “actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.”20Cohen-Shacham E. Walters G. Janzen C. Maginnis S. Nature-based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges. IUCN, 2016Google Scholar NbS are considered a cost-effective, multi-functional, and broadly applicable approach to deal with global change challenges compared with those relying on built infrastructure.20Cohen-Shacham E. Walters G. Janzen C. Maginnis S. Nature-based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges. IUCN, 2016Google Scholar,21Jones H.P. Hole D.G. Zavaleta E.S. Harnessing nature to help people adapt to climate change.Nat. Clim. Change. 2012; 2: 504-509Google Scholar Due to their contributions to nature conservation and human livelihoods and well-being,22Keesstra S. Nunes J. Novara A. Finger D. Avelar D. Kalantari Z. Cerdà A. The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services.Sci. Total Environ. 2018; 610: 997-1009Google Scholar NbS could be central in transformative long-term pathways to sustainability if they can integrate nature conservation with socio-economic benefits.23Maes J. Jacobs S. Nature-based solutions for Europe's sustainable development.Conserv. Lett. 2017; 10: 121-124Google Scholar Results from the design and application of NbS are varied and there is no consensus on methods for monitoring their performance.24Chausson A. Turner B. Seddon D. Chabaneix N. Girardin C.A. Kapos Key I. Roe D. Smith A. Woroniecki S. et al.Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation.Glob. Change Biol. 2020; 26: 6134-6155Google Scholar, 25Donatti C.I. Harvey C.A. Hole D. Panfil S.N. Schurman H. Indicators to measure the climate change adaptation outcomes of ecosystem-based adaptation.Climatic Change. 2020; 158: 413-433Google Scholar, 26Wamsler C. Niven L. Beery T.H. Bramryd T. Ekelund N. Jönsson K.I. Osmani A. Palo T. Stålhammar S. Operationalizing ecosystem-based adaptation: harnessing ecosystem services to buffer communities against climate change.Ecol. Soc. 2016; 21https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08266-210131Google Scholar Clarity over applications and outcomes is further required27Nesshöver 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: 1215-1227Google Scholar, 28Cohen-Shacham E. Andrade A. Dalton J. Dudley N. Jones M. Kumar C. Maginnis S. Maynard S. Nelson C.R. Renaud F.G. et al.Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling nature-based solutions.Environ. Sci. Pol. 2019; 98: 20-29Google Scholar, 29van der Jagt A.P. Raven R. Dorst H. Runhaar H. Nature-based innovation systems.Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2020; 35: 202-216Google Scholar, 30Milman A. Jagannathan K. Conceptualization and implementation of ecosystems-based adaptation.Clim. Change. 2017; 142: 113-127Google Scholar and recently a global standard for NbS has been released.31IUCN IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions : a user-friendly framework for the verification, design and scaling up of NbS. First. IUCN, 202010.2305/IUCN.CH.2020.08.enGoogle Scholar Still, it is necessary to assess how NbS relate to transformative change in its multiple dimensions and what their potential to foster transformation pathways is. Assessing NbS and their transformative potential is also needed to support initiative-based learning of transformative processes.32Turnheim B. Berkhout F. Geels F. Hof A. McMeekin A. Nykvist B. van Vuuren D. Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges.Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015; 35: 239-253Google Scholar Here, we present an operational framework to assess the potential of NbS to support transformative change and apply it to the global dataset of PANORAMA, a platform showcasing solutions to global environmental change challenges (https://panorama.solutions). We analyze NbS in mountain regions as an exemplar because of their vulnerability to climate change and their capacity to act as early-warning systems, which make them priority regions for adaptation actions. Mountain regions are also important because of their high biodiversity33Rahbek C. Borregaard M.K. Colwell R.K. Dalsgaard B. Holt B.G. Morueta-Holme N. Nogues-Bravo D. Whittaker R.J. Fjeldsá J. Humboldt’s enigma: what causes global patterns of mountain biodiversity?.Science. 2019; 365: 1108-1113Google Scholar and supply of nature's contributions to people to both upland and lowland human communities.34Beniston M. Environmental Change in Mountains and Uplands. Routledge, 2016Google Scholar, 35Palomo I. Climate change impacts on ecosystem services in high mountain areas: a literature review.Mt. Res. Dev. 2017; 37: 179-187Google Scholar, 36Schirpke U. Tappeiner U. Tasser E. A transnational perspective of global and regional ecosystem service flows from and to mountain regions.Sci. Rep. 2019; 9: 1-11Google Scholar, 37Martin-Lopez B. Leister I. Lorenzo Cruz P. Palomo I. Grêt-Regamey A. Harrison P.A. Lavorel S. Locatelli B. Luque S. Walz A. Nature’s contributions to people in mountains: a review.PLoS One. 2019; 14: e0217847Google Scholar, 38Payne D. Spehn E.M. Snethlage M. Fischer M. Opportunities for research on mountain biodiversity under global change.Curr. Opin. Env. Sust. 2017; 29: 40-47Google Scholar Our research questions are: (1) What elements of transformative change are present in NbS? (2) How do NbS contribute to transformative change in social-ecological systems (SES)? (3) How does transformative change occur across a typology of NbS? Our approach is informed by our collective experience on SES science, sustainability transformations, and transformative adaptation to climate change. Our results confirm the potential of NbS for transformative change, as observed by changes in non-sustainable trajectories of SES. The presented framework allows tracking the effectiveness of NbS toward transformative change. We identified 93 NbS in mountain environments from 54 countries (Figure 1A). The Andes contains most reported NbS (18%) followed by the Himalayas (11%). A total of 78% of NbS was located in upper- and lower-middle income countries (Figure 1B). Most NbS addressed challenges related to land degradation (75%), followed by poverty (68%), poor governance (65%), and climate change (48%), highlighting a wide range of potential applications of NbS (Figure 1C). Most common specific challenges were land and forest degradation (53%), biodiversity loss (47%), ecosystem loss (39%), lack of public and decision-makers’ awareness (39%), lack of alternative income opportunities (35%), poor governance and participation (35%), lack of access to long-term funding (31%), and drought (31%) (Figure 1D). Most NbS contained elements of the three spheres of transformation (Box 1; Table 1). The most frequent elements belonged to the personal sphere, as all NbS were framed within particular nature's values and used certain knowledge types. The next most frequent elements were community engagement instruments (political sphere) and management practices (practical sphere). Within nature's values, equally frequent were intrinsic and instrumental ones, often in combination, while relational values were less frequent. The most frequent knowledge type reported was technical, then scientific, then lay and experiential, and finally indigenous and local knowledge. Among community engagement instruments, the large majority of NbS reported participation and capacity building. Finally, among management practices, half of NbS reported restoration, followed by biodiversity/ecosystems monitoring and reduced pressure on ecosystems. Other recurrent elements of NbS include: strategic planning, economic incentives, behavioral practices, technology, rights-based instruments, and legal incentives.Box 1Assessing transformative change through NbSThe multi-dimensionality of NbS requires an all-encompassing framework to allow for their adequate assessment. Our approach builds upon three frameworks in the transformative change literature, transformative adaptation and interdisciplinary science. First, the ‘three spheres of transformation’ framework describes the dimensions of personal (with elements including knowledge, values, and worldviews), political (rules, economic and legal instruments, governance), and practical (behaviors, management, and technical responses) in which a transformation process is based.39O’Brien K. Sygna L. Responding to climate change: the three spheres of transformation.in: Proceedings of Transformation in a Changing Climate. University of Oslo, 2013: 19-21Google Scholar These dimensions accord with the leverage points concept, which considers transformations based in the personal sphere as having greater systemic impacts than those based in other dimensions.40Meadows D.H. Thinking in systems: a primer.in: Wright D. Earthscan, 2009Google Scholar Second, the six indicators of transformative adaptation (restructuring, path-shifting, multi-scale, innovative, system-wide, and persistent) help to assess whether profound and fundamental alterations have occurred in SES using a before-and-after analysis.41Fedele G. Donatti C.I. Harvey C.A. Hannah L. Hole D.G. Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems.Environ. Sci. Pol. 2019; 101: 116-125Google Scholar Third, the IPBES framework’s elements of biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people, and good quality of life can help evaluate outcomes of NbS for nature and people.42Díaz S. Pascual U. Stenseke M. Martín-López B. Watson R.T. Molnár Z. Hill R. Chan K.M.A. Baste I.A. Brauman K.A. et al.Assessing nature's contributions to people.Science. 2018; 359: 270-272Google Scholar,43Díaz S. Demissew S. Carabias J. Joly C. Lonsdale M. Ash N. Larigauderie A. Adhikari J.R. Arico S. Báldi A. et al.The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people.Curr. Opin. Env. Sust. 2015; 14: 1-16Google Scholar Combining these three frameworks, our approach allows to assess transformative change as a process, including NbS elements, how transformative change has occurred within a SES, and its main outcomes.Table 1The ten elements of nature-based solutions related to transformative change across three spheres of transformation39O’Brien K. Sygna L. Responding to climate change: the three spheres of transformation.in: Proceedings of Transformation in a Changing Climate. University of Oslo, 2013: 19-21Google ScholarSpheres of transformationElementsVariablesSupporting referencesPersonal: personal and collective beliefs, values, worldviews, and knowledge types (100%)Nature’s values: the principles, preferences, and importance of nature for humans (100%)Intrinsic (75%), Instrumental (75%), Relational (10%)44Chan K.M.A. Balvanera P. Benessaiah K. Chapman M. Díaz S. Gómez-Baggethun E. Gould R. Hannash N. Jax K. Klain S. et al.Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 2016; 113: 1462-1465Google ScholarKnowledge types: a body of propositions that are adhered to by people, whether formally or informally, and are routinely used to claim truth. They are organized structures and dynamic processes (100%)Technical (96%), Scientific (55%), Lay and experiential (40%), Indigenous and local knowledge (34%)45Raymond C.M. Fazey I. Reed M.S. Stringer L.C. Robinson G.M. Evely A.C. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management.J. Environ. Manag. 2010; 91: 1766-1777Google ScholarPolitical: economic, legal, political, social, and cultural elements (100%)Community engagement instruments: the mechanisms that allow the engagement of stakeholders and society in general, commonly known as participation (99%)Participation (90%), Capacity building (77%), Awareness raising (41%), Advisory committee (28%), Access to information (24%), Dissemination (22%), Vision creation (19%), Facilitation (13%), Leadership program (12%)46Armitage D. Governance and the commons in a multi-level world.Int. J. Commons. 2008; 2: 7-32Google Scholar, 47Hooghe L. Marks G. Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance.Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 2003; : 233-243Google Scholar, 48Pahl-Wostl C. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes.Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009; 19: 354-365Google Scholar, 49Fischer, M., Rounsevell, M., Torre-Marin Rando, A., Mader, A., Church, A., Elbakidze, M., Elias, V., Hahn, T., Harrison, P.A., Hauck, J., et al., eds. (2018). The regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia (IPBES).Google ScholarEconomic and financial instruments: a wide range of traditional and modern approaches that include fiscal instruments and incentive schemes among others (41%)Payments for Ecosystem Services (10%), Low income loans (9%), Other economic incentives (12%)49Fischer, M., Rounsevell, M., Torre-Marin Rando, A., Mader, A., Church, A., Elbakidze, M., Elias, V., Hahn, T., Harrison, P.A., Hauck, J., et al., eds. (2018). The regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia (IPBES).Google ScholarRights-based instruments and customary norms: the approaches to conservation that respect and promote recognized human rights standards (25%)Community conserved areas (16%), Customary norms (9%)50Bawa K.S. Rai N.D. Sodhi N.S. Rights, governance, and conservation of biological diversity.Conserv. Biol. 2011; 25: 639-641Google Scholar,51Greiber T. Janki M. Orellana M. Savaresi A. Shelton D. IUCN’s Rights-Based Approach: A Systematization of the Union’s Policy Instruments, Standards and Guidelines. IUCN, 2016Google ScholarLegal and regulatory instruments: the diverse politically binding regulations used in conservation (23%)Protected areas (17%)52Rodgers C. The Law of Nature Conservation. OUP, 2013Google ScholarPractical: technical, technological, strategic, practical, and behavioral elements (97%)Management practice: the landscape management practices used in forestry, agriculture, and related sectors (87%)Restoration (50%), Biodiversity/ecosystems monitoring (43%), Reduced pressure (35%), Biodiversity/ecosystems management (27%), Tree/crop nurseries (19%), Organic farming or smart agriculture (11%)53Heller N.E. Zavaleta E.S. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations.Biol. Conserv. 2009; 142: 14-32Google Scholar, 54Schmeller D.S. Böhm M. Arvanitidis C. Barber-Meyer S. Brummitt N. Chandler M. Chatzinikolaou E. Costello M.J. Ding H. García-Moreno J. et al.Building capacity in biodiversity monitoring at the global scale.Biodivers. Conserv. 2017; 26: 2765-2790Google Scholar, 55Wortley L. Hero J.M. Howes M. Evaluating ecological restoration success: a review of the literature.Restor. Ecol. 2013; 21: 537-543Google ScholarStrategic planning: the approaches adopted in conservation (such as ecosystem-based adaptation or integrated landscape planning) and their strategic implementation (67%)Environmental management framework (49%), Management plan (40%), Diagnostic assessment (23%)56Albert C. Schröter B. Haase D. Brillinger M. Henze J. Herrmann S. Gottwald S. Guerrero P. Nicolas C. Matzdorf B. Addressing societal challenges through nature-based solutions: how can landscape planning and governance research contribute?.Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019; 182: 12-21Google ScholarBehavior: the practical changes in the habits and lifestyle of individuals that are positive for the environment or for the livelihoods of those concerned (35%)Income diversification (30%), Direct sales of agricultural products (8%), Pro-environmental behavior (8%)57Fournier A.J. Direct-selling farming and urban externalities: what impact on product quality and market size?.Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2018; 70: 97-111Google Scholar, 58Gatersleben B. Murtagh N. Abrahamse W. Values, identity and pro-environmental behaviour.Contemp. Soc. Sci. 2014; 9: 374-392Google Scholar, 59Reardon T. Berdegué J. Barrett C.B. Stamoulis K. Household income diversification into rural nonfarm activities.in: Haggblade S. Hazell P.B.R. Reardon T. Transforming the Rural Nonfarm Economy: Opportunities and Threats in the Developing World. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007: 115-140Google ScholarTechnology: the body of techniques, methods, and processes used to produce a certain good or (ecosystem) service (28%)Modern technology (15%), Ancient technology (15%), Gray infrastructure (12%), Green infrastructure (10%)60Santamouris M. Cooling the cities—a review of reflective and green roof mitigation technologies to fight heat island and improve comfort in urban environments.Solar Energy. 2014; 103: 682-703Google Scholar,61Singh P.K. Dey P. Jain S.K. Mujumdar P. Hydrology and water resources management in Ancient India.Hydrol. Earth Sys. Sci. Discuss. 2020; : 1-20Google ScholarThe numbers in brackets show the percentage of the reviewed NbS that addressed the spheres, the elements, and specific variables of the elements. We only present variables with percentages >5%. Open table in a new tab The multi-dimensionality of NbS requires an all-encompassing framework to allow for their adequate assessment. Our approach builds upon three frameworks in the transformative change literature, transformative adaptation and interdisciplinary science. First, the ‘three spheres of transformation’ framework describes the dimensions of personal (with elements including knowledge, values, and worldviews), political (rules, economic and legal instruments, governance), and practical (behaviors, management, and technical responses) in which a transformation process is based.39O’Brien K. Sygna L. Responding to climate change: the three spheres of transformation.in: Proceedings of Transformation in a Changing Climate. University of Oslo, 2013: 19-21Google Scholar These dimensions accord with the leverage points concept, which considers transformations based in the personal sphere as having greater systemic impacts than those based in other dimensions.40Meadows D.H. Thinking in systems: a primer.in: Wright D. Earthscan, 2009Google Scholar Second, the six indicators of transformative adaptation (restructuring, path-shifting, multi-scale, innovative, system-wide, and persistent) help to assess whether profound and fundamental alterations have occurred in SES using a before-and-after analysis.41Fedele G. Donatti C.I. Harvey C.A. Hannah L. Hole D.G. Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems.Environ. Sci. Pol. 2019; 101: 116-125Google Scholar Third, the IPBES framework’s elements of biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people, and good quality of life can help evaluate outcomes of NbS for nature and people.42Díaz S. Pascual U. Stenseke M. Martín-López B. Watson R.T. Molnár Z. Hill R. Chan K.M.A. Baste I.A. Brauman K.A. et al.Assessing nature's contributions to people.Science. 2018; 359: 270-272Google Scholar,43Díaz S. Demissew S. Carabias J. Joly C. Lonsdale M. Ash N. Larigauderie A. Adhikari J.R. Arico S. Báldi A. et al.The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people.Curr. Opin. Env. Sust. 2015; 14: 1-16Google Scholar Combining these three frameworks, our approach allows to assess transformative change as a process, including NbS elements, how transformative change has occurred within a SES, and its main outcomes. The numbers in brackets show the percentage of the reviewed NbS that addressed the spheres, the elements, and specific variables of the elements. We only present variables with percentages >5%. Our analysis shows that 76% of NbS reported positive outcomes for biodiversity conservation and 86% mentioned an increase in nature's contributions to people. Regulating contributions were most frequently mentioned (68%), followed by material (45%) and non-material (25%) contributions. In terms of good quality of life, 87% of NbS reported some kind of positive outcomes. Those mentioned most frequently were increased system's knowledge (52%), followed by basic materials for a good life (37%), increased resilience (35%), and employment (32%). In this section, we illustrate how NbS combine several elements of transformative change. Figure 2 shows the relations between, on the one hand, the framing of NbS in terms of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational nature's values (elements of the personal sphere) and, on the other hand,