Integrative literature review on co-concepts in connection with 
nature-based solutions
Simo Sarkki a,b,1,* , Mia Pihlajamaki c,d,2, Katriina Soini c,3, Ann Ojala c,4,  
Tatiana Kluvankova e,5, Martin Spacek f,6, Himansu Mishra c, Juha Hiedanpaa c,7
a University of Oulu, Finland
b University of Erfurt, Germany
c Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE), Finland
d Water and Environmental Engineering, Department of Built Environment, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
e SlovakGlobe, IFE Slovak Academy of Sciences Bratislava, Slovak Republic
f CETIP Network and University of J. E. Purkyne, Usti nad Labem 400 96, Czech Republic
A R T I C L E  I N F O
Keywords:
Collaboration
Process, Nature-based solutions, Integrative 
literature review
Qualitative analysis
A B S T R A C T
Collaborative approaches are increasingly analyzed in literature on environmental planning, governance, and 
management. However, three recent systematic literature reviews found that several co-concepts such as co- 
creation, co-design and co-production are often used interchangeably. We aim to add conceptual clarity on 
the co-concepts by using Nature-based solutions (NBS) as a case study. We conduct an integrative qualitative 
literature review on the concepts of co-creation, co-design, co-production and co-governance as used in 
connection to NBS. We screened 93 papers to identify key principles associated with the co-concepts linking 
especially to who are included in collaboration (stakeholders from policy, business, society and science), and 
why these collaborative approaches are needed (e.g. to develop contextual NBS approaches). We identified also 
key differences relating especially on the targeted output of the collaboration, and on how the collaboration is 
envisaged to happen across the co-concepts. Based on the results, we propose definitions for these concepts 
where co-creation refers to overall NBS “cycle”, co-design links to tools, co-production targets knowledge, and 
co-governance wider socio-environmental system. Furthermore, we also discuss emerging theme to consider 
multispecies actors as active collaborators in shaping NBS grounded in coevolutionary view. Our review helps to 
bring conceptual clarity on the use of co-concepts in NBS literature, and also to enhance their collaborative 
development, implementation, evaluation and finally impact. This is especially important in the era when co- 
concepts are widely used, but without clear definitions on their meaning.
1. Introduction
Current sustainability challenges – climate change, biodiversity loss, 
and inequal development – require urgent solutions. One promising 
approach to combat sustainability challenges (e.g. linked to 
environmental change and wellbeing of all humans) are nature-based 
solutions (NBS) (Raymond et al., 2017; Seddon et al., 2020). NBS is an 
umbrella concept covering ecological restoration, ecosystem-related 
approaches, green infrastructure approaches, ecosystem-based man-
agement, and nature conservation (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016). 
* Corresponding author at: University of Oulu, Finland.
E-mail addresses: simo.sarkki@oulu.fi (S. Sarkki), mia.pihlajamaki@aalto.fi (M. Pihlajamaki), katriina.soini@luke.fi (K. Soini), ann.ojala@luke.fi (A. Ojala), 
tana@cetip.sk (T. Kluvankova), admin@cetip.sk (M. Spacek), himansu.mishra@luke.fi (H. Mishra), juha.hiedanpaa@luke.fi (J. Hiedanpaa). 
1 ORCID: 0000-0002-7790-0600
2 ORCID: 0000-0003-1322-0558
3 ORCID 0000-0002-8617-9165
4 ORCID 0000-0002-8557-8842
5 ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4407-5202
6 ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4085-6789
7 ORCID: 0000-0002-4926-5742
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Science and Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104073
Received 11 January 2025; Received in revised form 25 March 2025; Accepted 17 April 2025  
Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
Available online 24 April 2025 
1462-9011/© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). 
According to the European Commission nature-based solutions are 
“Solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are 
cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic 
benefits and help build resilience” (European Commission. Directorate 
General for Research and Innovation, 2021). NBS are commonly un-
derstood as solutions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural 
or modified ecosystems (IUCN, 2020), or to create new ecosystems to 
enhance delivery of ecosystem services that benefit people (Almenar 
et al., 2021; Pereira et al., 2023). Furthermore, NBS may adopt solutions 
from nature to maximize benefits provided by nature (European Com-
mission, 2015; Sowinska-Swierkosz and García, 2022).
NBS can be implemented as expert-based solutions without stake-
holder engagement, but often they include collaboration with local ac-
tors to develop site specific solutions and are based on broad and deep 
stakeholder participation (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016; Cooper et al., 
2023; Wickenberg, 2023), which become pivotal for implementing 
contextual, just, and practical solutions for sustainability challenges 
(Puskas et al., 2021). In the present paper, we focus only on NBS, which 
are based on collaborative approaches to NBS planning and imple-
mentation (e.g. Lupp et al., 2021b; European Commission, 2023).
NBS seek to offer co-benefits for diverse human and natural non- 
human actors, but still they are not silver bullets for solutions to sus-
tainability challenges. Hence, it has been recognized, that while co- 
benefits often occur, there are simultaneously costs and trade-offs 
associated to NBS (e.g. Raymond et al., 2017; Giordano et al., 2020; 
Ommer et al., 2022; Pereira et al., 2023). To understand problematic 
socio-environmental situations, design NBS appropriate to the local 
context and beneficiaries, manage trade-offs, understand the meaning 
and the significance of costs and negative impacts, and to foster 
ownership and trust, it is widely recognized that collaborative ap-
proaches to NBS are needed (e.g. Naumann et al., 2023; Wickenberg, 
2023). This requires transdisciplinary approach that honors the nuances 
within diverse local communities and also in science and policy 
(Nesshover et al., 2017). Collaborative approaches can increase di-
versity of available knowledge including local contextual knowledge, 
and increase legitimacy and wider acceptance of the NBS (e.g. Soini 
et al., 2023). Benefits of collaborative approaches for NBS can be 
considered as similar than those related to stakeholder participation in 
environmental management. Reed’s (2008) comprehensive review 
identifies set of normative (e.g. democracy, empowerment, trust build-
ing, social learning, better decisions), and pragmatic reasons (quality 
and durability of decisions, adapting interventions to local context, 
meeting local needs, more complete information for decisions, helping 
to find new ways to work together, enhancing ownership over decisions, 
and reducing implementation costs) for enhanced stakeholder partici-
pation in environmental management. In short, collaborative ap-
proaches imply planning and implementing NBS with (local) 
stakeholders.
Given the promises of collaborative approaches, it is not a surprise 
that many ‘co-concepts’ addressing collaborative processes of NBS 
development are used frequently. Among the concepts used in connec-
tion to NBS are co-creation (e.g. Soini et al., 2023), co-design (e.g. 
Slinger et al., 2023), co-production (Holscher et al., 2024), collaborative 
or co-governance (Battisti et al., 2024), and coevolution of NBS with the 
human and non-human spheres (Herrmann-Pillath et al., 2022). 
Co-creation, co-design and co-production have been addressed also by 
recent previous reviews on co-concepts (Hakkarainen et al., 2022; 
Nguyen et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2024) finding that co-creation refers to 
planning / implementation cycle including co-design and co-production 
as part of the cycle. Importance of co-governance links especially to 
implementation and maintenance of NBS (e.g. Naumann et al., 2023). 
Coevolution can place the NBS to wider context of change intermingling 
NBS, multispecies behavior, socio-environmental systems, and gover-
nance. Given the plethora of co-concepts used in general and also in 
connection with NBS, it is of crucial importance to make sense of these 
concepts and distinguish them from each other (Hakkarainen et al., 
2022). This can help to avoid implementation failures of collaborative 
approaches, facilitate their applications in connection to NBS, and guide 
NBS implementation in practice. Furthermore, use of consistent opera-
tional definitions for co-concepts would support more meaningful 
stakeholder engagement (Nguyen et al., 2024).
Our paper adds novelty to the previous reviews (Hakkarainen et al., 
2022; Nguyen et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2024) by following ways. 1) none 
of the previous reviews focus on NBS literature; 2) none of the previous 
reviews analyze the definitions of co-concepts found from the literature, 
3) none of the reviews employ qualitative integrative review method, 
and 4) none of the reviews address co-governance or coevolution (see 
Section 3.1 for detailed positioning of our paper vis a vis these three 
prior reviews close to our topic). Rather than duplicating or critiquing 
the previous reviews, we consider that our paper complements the 
existing works, which alone or together provide insightful reading for 
those interested about co-concepts in socio-environmental field, and 
beyond (see reviews on co-concepts in health studies: Grindell et al., 
2022; Messiha et al., 2023).
Our objective is to understand how different forms of collaboration 
are linked to the ultimate aim of the NBS, to produce benefits for both 
human and non-humans. This is explored through analyzing usage of 
various co-concepts (co-creation; co-design; co-production; co- 
governance) in NBS literature by qualitative integrative review. Our 
research questions are: 1) What are the differences and similarities be-
tween the co-concepts used in NBS literature; and 2) what kind of def-
initions and interlinkages can be proposed for co-concepts in relation to 
NBS? Our specific analytical strategy is to use six detailed questions 
guiding the reading of the reviewed papers: 1) how the concepts have 
been defined in NBS literature, 2) whether these concepts are used 
simultaneously, 3) who are taking part in collaboration; 4) why the 
collaboration is needed, 5) what is the targeted output of collaboration, 
and 6) how the collaboration takes place. We use qualitative analysis to 
propose definitions for each co-concept in connection to NBS, and 
outline the relationships of the concepts.
Based on the findings, we propose and discuss an emerging theme of 
coevolution and multispecies collaboration (Section 5.3). Multispecies 
actors have been seen to play crucial roles in NBS planning and func-
tioning (Maller, 2021; Pineda-Pinto et al., 2022) and a coevolutionary 
view has been used to explain how NBS can actually lead to change in 
environment and institutions (see Herrmann-Pillath et al., 2022). Yet 
our analysis revealed that papers using co-concepts only human stake-
holders were considered as collaborators, and that coevolution concept 
was not used in NBS literature beyond minor exceptions. Hence we had 
to exclude coevolution from our analysis of NBS literature.
2. Background for Co-fixation in nature-based solutions
2.1. Roots of co-concepts
The so called “participatory turn” grounding the co-fixation can be 
traced back the 1960’s where it emerged as a radical political project to 
transform inegalitarian relationships between state and the society in 
ways that could boost emancipation and empowerment of citizens 
(Bherer et al., 2016) (Fig. 1). The participatory turn has been also 
institutionalized in policy making, for example in European Union in the 
1990’s (Saurugger, 2010). The participatory turn landed in research for 
example by Participatory Action Research emerging in the 1980’s 
(Whyte, 1991), and in design literature in the 1970’s. Co-prefix denotes 
to collaborative approaches, where diverse actors come together to 
deliberate and solve problems. Collaborative approaches help to build 
trust between diverse groups of actors, for example from society, busi-
ness, policy and science (Cvitanovic et al. al., 2021). Collaborative ap-
proaches are considered to be able to enhance justice and democracy of 
the processes with a view to complexity, which cannot be addressed best 
by decision makers, planners or scientists alone (De Marchi and Ravetz, 
2001).
S. Sarkki et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
2 
2.2. Co-fixation and nature-based solutions
The Co-fixation has also strongly entered to the literature on NBS. 
Wamsler et al. (2020) find a widespread consensus on that NBS planning 
supports and requires transdisciplinary and collaborative approaches 
engaging citizens to find innovative solutions. Collaborative approaches 
can help in tailoring and need to be tailored to place-specific contexts to 
be relevant, effective and successful (van der Jagt et al., 2023). Such 
tailoring can be considered to take place through cyclical processes of 
NBS development. NBS is often viewed as being developed through 
different stages including: 1) identify problem or opportunity; 2) select 
NBS and related actions; 3) design NBS implementation processes; 4) 
implement NBS; 5) engage stakeholders and communicate co-benefits; 
6) transfer and upscale NBS; and 7) monitor and evaluate co-benefits 
across all stages (Raymond et al., 2017). Such a cycle can include 
stakeholder collaboration at each stage. Planners, therefore, need to 
consider just transitions through NBS as an iterative process of rela-
tionship building (Raymond et al., 2023). Collaborative approaches 
have been viewed also as crucial for successful NBS implementation, 
enhancing acceptance and ownership (e.g. Soini et al., 2023), and to 
deal with conflicts and issues raising during NBS planning and imple-
mentation (Lupp et al., 2021a). Furthermore, collaborative approaches 
can help in realization of the social and economic benefits that are not 
typically obtained by NBS based on a non-participatory process (Jakstis 
et al., 2023).
This implies a hype around Co-prefix, which can perhaps be 
explained by scientists using those concepts to impress policy makers, 
other scientists, and, of course, research funders. The wide use of Co- 
prefix in connection to NBS highlights that, despite the anticipated 
ambiguity of the definitions of the co-concepts, collaboration is key 
feature for NBS development. However, collaboration does not always 
go without challenges. In general, challenges associated with stake-
holder participation in environmental planning management include 
inability to cope with existing power relations, that participation may 
reinforce existing privileges, participation fatigue, poorly ran partici-
patory processes, participatory workshops may turn to “talkshops” with 
no observable impact, and insufficient expertise of participants for 
meaningful contribution (Reed, 2008). Furthermore, the depth of 
participation has been addressed by referring to Arnstein (1969) ladder 
of citizen participation, distinguishing three general forms of partici-
pation: nonparticipation, tokenistic participation, and citizen control. A 
review by Puskas et al. (2021) finds that ‘consultation’ and ‘partnership’ 
in Arnstein ladder are the dominant levels of participation in NBS, while 
adoption of deeper levels of participation, such as delegated power and 
citizen control, would be needed. Another review by Kiss et al. (2022)
finds also that tokenistic forms dominate citizen participation across a 
variety of NBS contexts, and deeper forms of engagement could 
strengthen and diversify both expected and unexpected social outcomes, 
including social learning, enhanced sense of belonging, environmental 
stewardship, and inclusiveness and equity. To more forward from 
tokenistic participation, it has been proposed that NBS need to be 
revised to support social change by moving away from hegemonic 
framings that dichotomize nature towards more inclusive, collaborative, 
and interconnected framework (Cooper et al., 2023). In fact, set of best 
practices with examples, and guidelines on co-creating and collabora-
tion for NBS have been published recently targeting Europe (EC 2023; 
Naumann et al., 2023; Dushkova and Kuhlicke, 2024), and with global 
scope (Nature-based solutions initiative, 2025).
3. Material and methods
In our review, we focus on four co-concepts: co-creation, co-design, 
co-production, and co-governance. Coevolution was included in the 
preliminary literature screening, but not in the full review due to only 5 
SCOPUS hits. There are also various other co-concepts that address 
collaborative processes in and around NBS development. However, 
concepts such as co-monitoring, co-learning, co-evaluation, co-devel-
opment, and co-planning did not yield sufficient number of hits (N < 10) 
Fig. 1. Non-exhaustive origins of “Co-fixation” by the turn of the millennia. In the 1970’s, public planning studies (Arnstein, 1969); critical development studies 
(Huesca, 2008), Co-design in Scandinavian work places (Gregory, 2003), and co-production of public services (Sorrentino et al., 2018), in the 1980’s Participatory 
Action Research (Whyte, 1991), in the 1990’s Rio Declaration and Local Agenda 21 (De Marchi and Ravetz, 2001), and Mode-2 science (Gibbons et al., 1994), Citizen 
Science (Bonney, 1996), and conceptual move from government to governance (Fukuyama, 2016), and in the 2000’s co-creation in business and marketing studies 
(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000), and knowledge co-production in sustainability science (Wyborn et al., 2019) form origins for the Co-prefix.
S. Sarkki et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
3 
to be included in our review (Table 1). We considered minimum 10 
papers as a threshold for including a co-concept for our review. 
Furthermore, co-benefits is widely used concept in NBS literature, but 
we consider that it targets ideal outcomes, instead of collaborative 
process to achieve the outcomes.
3.1. Positioning vis-a-vis previous reviews close to our topic
Co-concepts have been reviewed in the socio-environmental field 
previously by e.g., Hakkarainen et al. (2022); Lee et al. (2024); Nguyen 
et al. (2024). Table 2 outlines key focuses on these reviews and outlines 
also our focus illuminating key differences across these reviews 
(Table 2).
3.2. Analytical strategy
We applied qualitative integrative literature review approach to 
synthesize NBS literature on the co-concepts and to elaborate their 
definitions further. Unlike systematic review approach, which aims to 
systematically and quantitatively synthesize and compare evidence of 
effect, integrative review focuses on qualitative analysis of empirical 
and theoretical literature to understand the research topic and to 
contribute to conceptual development (Snyder, 2019; Hopia et al., 2016; 
Torraco, 2005; Whittemore and Knafl; 2005). While there are no strict 
rules and protocols for conducting an integrative review, Snyder (2019)
and Whittemore and Knafl (2005) propose following steps to enhance 
the rigor of the integrative review method: 1) designing the review, 
which includes defining the aim of the review, the research questions, 
and the search string; 2) conducting the review, which encompasses 
literature search and selection of included articles; 3) analyzing the 
selected papers (i.e. abstracting/extracting information from the papers 
and their potential further analysis); 4) writing and presenting the re-
view. We employed five step approach in our integrative literature re-
view on co-concepts in NBS context (Fig. 2).
We used SCOPUS as a search engine to find scientific peer-reviewed 
literature on the co-concepts published in English (Baas et al., 2020). 
While acknowledging the limitations of using a single search engine, we 
considered it appropriate for our literature searches because of the aim 
of the paper and the applied review method. Integrative reviews often 
focus on emerging topics, like the co-concept definitions, with the 
objective to create preliminary conceptualizations instead of reviewing 
old models, and therefore, they do not aspire to cover all the papers 
published on the topic (Snyder, 2019). Furthermore, theoretically ori-
ented integrative reviews analyze available theories addressing a phe-
nomenon, critically appraise those theories, and propose an 
advancement in the development of those theories. They do not seek to 
offer a complete evidence-based synthesis for focused questions, nor do 
they offer definitive guideline statements (Sukhera 2022).
We used five specific search term combinations at the end of 
November 2023. The searches led to 114 papers. We then removed six 
duplicates. Next we screened these 108 papers and excluded 15 papers 
based on abstract screening either because they did not address the NBS 
and the co-concepts (irrelevance to the research question) or because the 
full paper was unavailable (practical criteria). Inclusion criteria was 
based on clear connection to both NBS and a co-concept (relevance 
criteria). This led to 93 papers for review.
The included papers were analyzed by abstracting information on 
the six questions:1) definitions of co-concepts found from the literature, 
2) overlapping use of any co-concepts, 3) who are the actors included 
into collaboration, 4) why collaboration is needed 5) what is the target 
of collaboration, and 6) how collaboration is done. Rather similar ap-
proaches have been taken by Malekpour et al. (2021), who addressed 
co-governance from the point of view of why to collaborate, in what 
context the collaboration happens, who should participate, and how the 
collaboration takes place. Table 3 provides details on the six questions 
and establishes links between the questions to the three prior reviews 
close to our topic.
While the six key questions were predefined, and form deductive 
basis of our analytical strategy, we conducted qualitative inductive 
content analysis within the six deductive categories. This was done by 
identifying and copying excepts from the screened papers to large excel 
files for each co-concept. The excerpts where then clustered thematically 
within the six questions for each co-concept, allowing to analyze com-
monalities and divergences of the co-concepts regarding the analytical 
questions. Such analysis strategy has been proposed for example by Elo 
and Kyngas (2008) where content analysis starts by deductive devel-
opment of analytical questions and gathering data under the questions, 
continuing with inductive approach by categorization, abstraction and 
building novel concepts. The identification and analysis of the excerpts 
was done manually by one person. In quantitative studies this can be 
considered a weakness. In qualitative view, it is difficult to harmonize 
the coding and categorization of the data, which requires level of 
creativity. To avoid different rationales in identifying the excerpt from 
the papers, only one person performed the coding.
When analyzing the results to move towards proposing definitions 
for the co-concepts and their relationships, we lean on the model for 
three phase transdisciplinary concept development processes proposed 
by Star (2010) and further elaborated by Steger et al. (2018) (Table 4). 
We elaborate these phases and consider that together these phases make 
co-concepts in NBS literature less fuzzy and easier to operationalize also 
in NBS practice.
4. Results
4.1. Loose use of the co-concepts
Our results indicated loose use for all the four concepts. Table 5
shows numerical overview of the definitions found from the screened 
literature and frequency of simultaneous use of several co-concepts in 
the same paper. The relatively low number of clear definitions for the co- 
concepts together with their simultaneous use highlights that it is often 
unclear to what these concepts are used for and why. The results imply 
that co-concepts are frequently used in combination with each other. 
Additional confusion is created by use of several other co-concepts to 
those reviewed here. For example, co-benefits, co-development, co- 
implementation, co-evaluation, and co-monitoring were also 
mentioned in our sample. This analysis verifies previous findings that 
the co-concepts are used in loose way, and hence there is need for 
additional conceptual clarity (Hakkarainen et al., 2022; Nguyen et al., 
2024; Lee et al., 2024).
4.2. Overview of the co-concept definitions
Our review of the 26 co-concept definitions found from the literature 
(Annex 2) shows that not only the co-concepts are rarely defined, there 
seems to be no clear consensus on the content of the definitions, and that 
the definitions were often formulated in fuzzy way. However, some 
common threads appeared from the analysis of the definitions.
Co-creation was defined in 10 papers (Annex 2a). We find that 8 out 
of 10 found definitions consider co-creation was frequently used as an 
Table 1 
Co-concepts excluded from our review due to small number of hits, or due to not 
referring to the collaborative process.
Search: “Nature-based solutions” AND Number of hits in SCOPUS, 23 March 2025
“co-evolution” 5
“co-development” 9
“co-monitoring” 2
“co-learning” 2
“collaborative planning” 9
“co-evaluation” 1
“co-benefits” 284
S. Sarkki et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
4 
umbrella term to refer to various phases or stages in an NBS develop-
ment process including co-diagnostics, co-selection, co-design, co- 
implementation and co-monitoring (e.g. Moniz et al., 2022; Rodl and 
Arlati, 2022). Some papers considered the development through the 
subsequent stages as co-creation pathways, which may lead to innova-
tion in current local governance structures and achieve transformational 
Table 2 
Basic information about the three prior reviews, and the present paper.
Authors Hakkarainen et al. 2022 Lee et al. (2024) Nguyen et al. (2024) The present paper
Journal Sustainable Development Cities Environmental Science & Policy Environmental Science & Policy
Field and 
scope
Transdisciplinarity and natural resource 
management
Multi-stakeholder collaboration in 
managing public space
Community needs, and public 
engagement regarding green 
spaces.
Collaborative approaches in Nature- 
based solutions
Co-concepts 
analyzed
Co-creation, Co-design, Co-production, 
Co-learning, and (adaptive) Co- 
management.
Co-creation, Co-design, and Co- 
production,
Co-creation, Co-design, and Co- 
production
Co-creation, Co-design, Co- 
production, and Co-governance
Method and 
approach
Scoping review Systematic literature review, and 
bibliometric analysis
Systematic literature review Integrative qualitative literature 
review
Data bases 
screened
Web of Science Web of Science (WoS) and SCOPUS SCOPUS, Web of Science, 
EBSCOhost, and Proquest.
SCOPUS
Dimensions to 
analyze co- 
concepts
i) relationships between concepts and 
collaborative knowledge processes, ii) 
transformative aims they were deemed 
to have, and iii) relationships with 
different interfaces (science-society, 
science-policy, and policy-society)
Actor (who is involved? who takes 
the lead?); 
Reason (motivation to become 
engaged in co-production); 
Input (resources used); Output 
(results of co-production); 
Phase (time and periodization); 
Means (such as contracting or 
partnership); 
Context (i.e., wider social and/or 
geographical environment).
Core principles; Purpose; 
Stakeholders; 
Stage in a process; Relationships 
with other co-concepts; Specific 
role of participants; 
Communication; Potential 
outcomes;
1) How the concepts have been 
defined in NBS literature, 2) whether 
these concepts are used 
simultaneously, 3) who are taking part 
in collaboration; 4) why the 
collaboration is needed, 5) what is the 
targeted output of collaboration, and 
6) how the collaboration takes place.
Identified 
remaining 
gaps
.”.a gap between the demand for TD 
[transdisciplinary] outcomes and the 
mechanisms in society to participate in, 
and applying and utilizing collaborative 
knowledge production” approaches.
For future research, it would be 
relevant to delineate co-production, 
co-creation and/or co-design more 
clearly from other related concepts 
such as participation.
How the co-concepts are more 
effective than conventional 
participatory approaches in which 
participants play a passive role. 
Need for principles for best 
tailoring the approaches to 
different target populations and 
contexts.
1) considerations of multispecies 
actors as collaborators in NBS 
planning and implementation, and 2) 
how wider and long-term change 
could be addressed by the concept of 
coevolution.
Key findings Practice reflexivity at individual and 
group levels; 
Consider the power and politics of co- 
concepts; 
Value process-orientation
The paper concludes by suggesting 
in which case it would be more 
appropriate to use which concept. 
Some clarity on the co-concepts can 
be provided by differentiating actor, 
phase, and topic/field.
Co-production/ Co-creation/ Co- 
design approaches have the 
potential to improve and develop 
green spaces that can meet the 
needs of the local community.
Proposing definitions for and 
relationships of the addressed co- 
concepts.
Fig. 2. Five steps in the integrative review on co-concepts in NBS context. We used four different SCOPUS searches combining “Nature-based solutions” AND each co- 
concept. For co-governance we used “co-governance” OR “Collaborative governance”.
S. Sarkki et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
5 
change (e.g. Arlati et al., 2021; Mitic-Radulovic and Lalovic, 2021; 
Bradley et al., 2022). The definitions included aspects of collaboration 
under different concepts, like citizen participation (Mitic-Radulovic and 
Lalovic, 2021), stakeholder engagement (DeLosRíos-White et al., 2020; 
Kumar et al., 2020; Soini et al., 2023), cross-sectoral collaboration (Van 
Rooij et al., 2020), social innovation and participation (Zingraff-Hamed 
et al., 2020).
Co-design was defined in 5 papers (Annex 2b). Co-design was hence 
the least frequently defined co-concept in our sample. Four definitions 
mentioned that co-design brings together practical experiences or en-
gages with practitioners in a process of problem solving (Rubi and Hack, 
2021; Neumann and Hack, 2022; Basnou et al., 2020; Schroter et al., 
2022). Co-design was considered both as a collaborative process (Rubi 
and Hack, 2021; Neumann and Hack, 2022; Baro et al., 2022), and as a 
“creative approach” (Basnou et al., 2020; Schroter et al., 2022), 
regarding NBS development.
Co-production was defined by seven papers (Annex 2c). These defi-
nitions were quite diverse. Some of them took the NBS implementation 
process cycle (Raymond et al., 2017) in their key foci (McEvoy et al., 
2024; Diep et al., 2022), and some considered the public administration 
definition (see Wyborn et al., 2019) of co-production (Hoyle and Cottrill, 
2023). Knowledge was mentioned as the key target of co-production 
frequently (Cousins, 2021; Wickenberg, 2023; Schuerch et al., 2022). 
Key uniting factor for the definitions was that they bring diverse per-
spectives together in a process seeking to integrate diverse knowledges 
and perspectives.
Co-governance was defined in four papers (Annex 2d). These vary in 
terms of highlighting collaborative governance as a general mode of 
decision-making (Malekpour et al., 2021; Bradley et al., 2022), or as 
concrete structures and processes where decisions are made (Waylen 
et al., 2023; Meng et al., 2023). Table 6 provides excerpts from the 
definitions found from the literature and synthetizes key insights from 
the definitions.
4.3. Detailed analysis on the who, what, how and why
The above section illustrated the existing definitions of the co- 
Table 3 
Our six analytical questions, rationale and link to prior reviews close to our 
topic.
Question Rationale Link to prior reviews
1. What kind of 
definitions for co- 
concepts have been 
proposed in NBS 
literature?
To collect, compare and 
synthetize existing 
definitions of co-concepts 
available in the 
literature.
The three prior reviews did 
not review the co-concept 
definitions in their 
literature samples.
2. To what extent the 
co-concepts are used 
in overlapping way?
To screen to what extent 
the co-concepts are used 
together with each other 
and considering their 
overlapping use.
The overlapping and 
interchangeable use of the 
co-concepts was the 
primary motivation for the 
three prior reviews 
(Hakkarainen et al. 2022; 
Lee et al. 2024; Nguyen 
et al. 2024).
3. Who are considered 
as part of the 
collaboration?
Co-prefix denotes to 
collaboration between 
multiple actors, hence it 
is essential to understand 
who are supposed to be 
collaborating under the 
co-concepts.
Lee et al. (2024) address 
“actors”, and Nguyen et al. 
(2024) address 
“stakeholders”, and also 
quantify their relative 
weights across the 
co-concepts.
4. Why the 
collaboration is 
needed?
Underpinning rationale 
for collaboration may or 
may not differ across co- 
concepts. We consider 
that usual rationales for 
collaborative approaches 
include enhanced 
knowledge on real-world 
contexts; normative 
reasons for enhancing 
participation; trust 
building; benefits for NBS 
design; enhanced 
legitimacy, etc.
Nguyen et al. (2024)
address “purpose” of 
collaboration; Lee et al. 
(2024) address “reason” for 
collaboration. Hakkarainen 
et al. (2022) address 
“promises” linked to 
co-concepts.
5. What are the 
targeted outputs of 
collaboration?
Outputs are important to 
understand since they are 
tangible products of 
collaboration. 
Divergence across co- 
concepts on their 
targeted outputs can 
reveal differences and 
similarities.
Lee et al. (2024) address 
“outputs”; Nguyen et al. 
(2024) address “potential 
outcomes”.
6. How the 
collaboration is 
done?
Ways and methods to 
enhance collaboration 
are various (e.g. 
deliberative processes; 
negotiations; 
collaborative platforms; 
etc). Understanding the 
means of collaboration 
can reveal differences 
and similarities across co- 
concepts.
Nguyen et al. (2024)
address “communication” 
and “specific role of 
participants”; Lee et al. 
(2024)) address “means” of 
collaboration.
Table 4 
Six phases in concept development. Note: Phases 2–4 derive from Star (2010)
and Steger et al. (2018), while the phase 0, 1, and 5 are based on authors own 
elaboration.
Phases Our analysis Section
Phase 0: Establishing common 
background for the concepts 
under development.
We provide brief rationale for the 
Co-prefix concepts in general and 
in the context of NBS in Section 2.
2
Phase 1: Verifying the extent of pre- 
exiting (un)clarity regarding 
concepts that are being 
developed.
We screened number of 
definitions for the co-concepts in 
the sample, and the extent of the 
use of many co-concepts in each 
paper (Question 1).
4.1
Phase 2: Concept framing providing 
overview of the concepts under 
development.
We provide overview on the 
contents of the concepts based on 
definitions found in the screened 
literature (Question 2).
4.2
Phase 3: Standardization where 
agreement about concepts 
components is reached and 
exclusion of terms and ideas, 
which may lead to new concepts, 
or are in contradiction with the 
core idea of the concept in 
question
We compare the insights on the 
co-concepts regarding the 
Questions 3–6, and seek to 
identify overlaps, similarities and 
unique characteristics of the 
concepts as used in the literature. 
This leads to standardization of 
the concepts. We recognize that 
the key distinguishing features 
between the co-concepts do not 
always have quantitative 
justification, but they are 
necessary to identify key 
differences between the co- 
concepts to avoid their use as 
undefined synonyms. Yet, we also 
identify common areas for the co- 
concepts, where clear divergence 
is not found.
4.3
Phase 4: Operationalization that 
formalizes the concept and leads 
to operational output
Proposing operational definitions 
for the four co-concepts, and a 
outline on their relations. This 
allows iterative feedback on 
conceptual development starting 
a new cycle to elaborate the 
concepts further in future studies.
5.2
Phase 5: Identification of emerging 
themes
We compared the derived 
definitions to the starting points 
we had in the phase 0, which led 
to identification of some 
emerging themes in the screened 
literature.
5.3
S. Sarkki et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
6 
concepts found from the literature. While keeping these definitions in 
mind, in this section we assess the questions who, why, what and how 
regarding the four co-concepts with an aim to enrich the definitions 
found from the literature. The two first questions: who are the taking 
part in the collaborative processes, and why the collaboration should 
matter, did not create divergences between the co-concepts as the an-
swers to these questions were similar for co-creation, co-design, co- 
production and co-governance. The two latter questions led to identifi-
cations of some key differences between the co-concepts.
4.3.1. Who are collaborating
The literature on each co-concept referred explicitly and frequently 
to the concept of stakeholders coming from diverse societal domains, 
such as policy, civil society, science, and business (e.g. Mitic-Radulovic 
and Lalovic, 2021; Bradley et al., 2022; Lupp et al., 2021a; van der Jagt 
et al., 2023; Meng et al., 2023). Clear distinguishing features regarding 
involved actors across the co-concepts proved to be hard to identify. Key 
findings imply firstly, that the NBS co-concept literature did not consider 
extensively private sector. Also, non-human actors were not considered 
as collaborators, even if they are increasingly recognized in NBS liter-
ature (e.g. Welden et al., 2023). Secondly, co-production papers focused 
mainly on civil society – expert linkages. Thirdly, beyond the usual 
suspects, some less usual groups of people were also identified as part of 
collaboration for NBS, such as children (Ward et al., 2023; Plassnig et al., 
2022; Basnou et al., 2020; Baro et al., 2022; Hoyle and Cottrill, 2023). 
However, children were not addressed in co-governance literature. Also 
intermediary organizations and networks that could bridge adminis-
trative and other boundaries, were considered as key actors in collabo-
rations (e.g. Wijsman et al., 2021; Kavouras et al., 2023; Diep et al., 
2022; Waylen et al., 2023; Midgley et al., 2021). Furthermore, com-
munities at risk and actors facing marginalization challenges were 
mentioned as particular and important kind of collaborators in NBS 
development (Bwambale and Kervyn, 2021; Cousins, 2021; van der Jagt 
et al., 2023). We observe that none of the papers screened mentioned 
multispecies collaborators beyond humans. This was a surprise given the 
crucial roles that multispecies actors play in making NBS function and 
operational. NBS are by definition “supported by nature”, and hence it 
could be expected that the co-concepts would address also multispecies 
actors beyond humans as collaborators. Table 7 provides an overview of 
actors targeted by the co-concepts.
4.3.2. Why collaboration is important
The reasons why collaboration is needed were quite diverse under all 
four concepts, and clear divergences across the four literatures were not 
found. Rather, the reasons linked to inclusion, openness, boosting 
innovation, ability to develop context specific knowledge and solutions, 
and to address pressing sustainability challenges.
Co-creation was in general considered as a way to include citizen 
voices and perspectives into NBS planning and implementation 
(Larrinaga et al., 2021; Mahmoud and Morello, 2021; Moniz et al., 2022; 
Mitic-Radulovic et al., 2021), to enhance democracy (Ascione et al., 
2021), in a way that leads to deeply place-based socio-cultural view on 
real life contexts (Gulsrud et al., 2018; Soini et al., 2023). Ultimate 
outcomes of co-creation of NBS were connected to healthy, livable and 
biodiversity friendly cities (Mohr-Stockinger et al., 2023), to addressing 
inequality, socioeconomic disparities, and fractures in society (Nunes 
et al., 2021), to green transition (Matos et al., 2022), to innovations and 
transformative change (Bradley et al., 2022), to social cohesion, citizen 
security, environmental justice, and human health (Arlati et al., 2021), 
to changing behavior (Ward et al., 2023). Finally, co-creation can also 
make trade-offs between stakeholders visible (Wijsman et al., 2021).
Co-design was considered to contribute to solving defined shared 
and complex problems (Granai et al., 2022; Lupp et al., 2021a), and 
urban green and blue spaces (Jakstis et al., 2023) in open, inclusive and 
transparent way (Baro et al., 2022). Co-design helps to gain context 
specific information (Neumann and Hack, 2022), and to harness ‘pla-
ce-based’ interests and knowledge, which ensures that NBS are tailored 
to socio-ecological context, enhancing their likely success (Collins et al., 
2022). Co-design takes into account lived experience of targeted stake-
holders (Slinger et al., 2023), can identify co-benefits and trade-offs 
(Coletta et al., 2021), helps to understand stakeholder perceptions 
(Lecina-Diaz et al., 2023), and helps to incorporate NBS user demands 
and needs into NBS design (Basnou et al., 2020). Co-design environ-
ments also provide a mutual learning space to develop and test and learn 
from NBS (Kempa et al., 2023; Slinger et al., 2023). Finally, co-design 
can also help to overcome the considerable and multi-faceted institu-
tional barriers for NBS implementation (Hutchins et al., 2021), enable 
community ownership of projects, and hence plays a crucial role in NBS 
effectiveness over time (Diep et al., 2022).
Co-production helps to address real world problems or societal 
challenges and even catalyze transformative change (Cousins, 2021; 
Wickenberg, 2023). Also measures that are co-produced with local 
communities tend to gain more traction during implementation and are 
often sustainable (Mugari and Nethengwe, 2022). Knowledge 
co-production may also create capacities to mainstream NBS by con-
necting and building skills and evidence base among key players, 
including practitioners, academics, and consultants (Adams et al., 
2023). Furthermore, co-produced solutions can respond to the chal-
lenges prioritized by citizens (van der Jagt et al., 2023).
Collaborative governance is needed to make decisions addressing 
complex socio-environmental challenges (Waylen et al., 2023; Meng 
et al., 2023; Bradley et al., 2022; Brink and Wamsler, 2018) to main-
stream NBS (Malekpour et al., 2021; van der Jagt et al., 2023; Voskamp 
et al., 2021; Midgley et al., 2021), to successful, place-based imple-
mentation and uptake of NBSs (Voskamp et al., 2021), to foster inno-
vation (Ferreira et al., 2020), and can have place-based impacts, 
program level impacts and sectorial or system level impacts (Malekpour 
et al., 2021). Collaborative governance is important since it can catalyze 
local and tacit knowledge in the planning of nature-based solutions 
(Frantzeskaki, 2019).
4.3.3. What is the envisaged output of collaboration
While the who and why seemed more or less similar across all the 
four co-concepts, the targeted output of collaboration differed more 
clearly. However, also overlapping focuses were identified. Fig. 3 out-
lines our key results on the four co-concepts and their core dis-
tinguishing features regarding the key target of collaboration, and 
deviances from the core distinguishing features.
4.3.4. How the collaboration happens?
Co-creation has two commonly used and agreed characteristics in 
the screened literature: the concept of co-creation refers to sequence of 
Table 5 
Numerical overview of the definitions of co-concepts in the screened literature.
% and number of papers defining the co-concepts % and number of papers using more than 1 co-concept
Co-creation 31 % (10 / 32) 72 % (23 / 32)
Co-design 17 % (5 /31) 61 % (19 / 31)
Co-production 47 % (7 / 15) 60 % (9 / 15)
Co-governance 27 % (4 / 15) 53 % (8 / 15)
All papers 28 % (26 / 93) 63 % (59 / 93)
S. Sarkki et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
7 
phases from problem definition via planning and design to imple-
mentation (Ward et al., 2023; Rodl and Arlati 2023; Larrinaga et al., 
2021; Mohr-Stockinger et al., 2023; Mitic-Radulovic and Lalovic 2021). 
The phases in co-creation process are called differently across literature 
and there was no standard way to refer to the different phases. Bradley 
et al. (2022) considered initiation, mobilization, and consolidation 
phases. Larrinaga et al. (2021) considered stages of conceptualization, 
design, development, deployment. DesLosRios-White et al. (2020) 
considered CoExplore, CoDesign, CoExperiment, CoImplement and 
CoManagement, phases in NBS co-creation process. In order to use 
phases in co-creation cycle for the identifying divergence between 
co-design, co-production and co-governance we rely on view according 
to which co-creation pathway can inform “decision-makers to embed 
citizen engagement methodologies as an approach to co-design and 
co-implement NBS in shared-governance processes” (Mahmoud and Mo-
rello, 2021 [emphasis ours]). Also Lupp et al. (2021b) make the 
distinction between co-design and co-implementation. We connect 
co-governance to generic co-implementation phase including for 
example implementation, maintaining, transferring, and upscaling NBS. 
We connect co-design and co-production into the co-design phase, which 
we however call “co-planning” to distinguish it from more specific 
meaning of co-design elaborated in the present paper. Co-planning in-
cludes phases of problem identification, agenda setting, NBS develop-
ment, and also monitoring and evaluation (see Raymond et al., 2017 for 
NBS cycle).
Co-creation happens often in Living Lab contexts (Dogan et al., 2023; 
Sarabi et al., 2020; Ascione et al., 2021; Soini et al., 2023; Arlati et al., 
2021; Kumar et al., 2020). Living Labs are recognized as a progressive 
form to foster innovation and to strengthen collaboration, and they are 
used to co-create innovative NBS with stakeholders in a certain societal 
and environmental, real-life context (Soini et al., 2023). Living Labs 
approaches can contribute to collaborative planning and implementa-
tion of NBS through fostering in-depth stakeholder engagement (Lupp 
et al., 2021b). Living Labs were considered as enabling environment for 
NBS co-creation (Mahmoud and Morello, 2021) and as innovation 
network of companies, public agencies, universities, users, and other 
stakeholders in the pursuit of collaborating for the creation, prototyping, 
validating, and testing of new technologies, services, products, and 
systems in real-life contexts (Zingraff-Hamed et al., 2020). Living labs 
and step-wise co-creation process were also considered simultaneously 
in several papers (Zingraff-Hamed et al., 2020; Mahmoud and Morello, 
2021; Moniz et al., 2022; DesLosRios-White et al., 2020). Living Labs are 
important sites for collaboration also regarding the other addressed 
co-concepts.
Co-design literature covered participatory processes in workshop or 
Living Lab setting as learning environments for engagement of diverse 
actors (Slinger et al., 2023; Granai et al., 2022; Bogatinoska et al., 2022; 
Collins et al., 2022; Diep et al., 2022; Herranz-Pascual et al., 2023; 
Basnou et al., 2020; Baro et al., 2022; Kempa et al., 2023; Neumann and 
Hack, 2022; Lupp et al., 2021a). Specific tools to be used within these 
processes included Geodesign (Gottwald et al., 2021), map-based plan-
ning tools (Schroter et al., 2022), immersive digital participatory tools 
(Mahmoud and Morello, 2021), and causal loop diagrams and perfor-
mance matrix (Coletta et al., 2021). Co-design in real world laboratories 
were mentioned as sites to reveal and solve conflicting interests and 
build trust, and to jointly evaluate and test solutions (Kempa et al., 2023; 
Neumann and Hack, 2022). Co-design taking place in Living Labs should 
be based on openness, knowledge development, learning processes for 
all participants, and meeting on equal ground (Lupp et al., 2021a). 
Co-design was also considered possible through questionnaires 
(Lecina-Diaz et al., 2023; Jakstis et al., 2023). Justice was also a key 
consideration when doing the codesign (Raymond et al., 2023).
Co-production linked to efforts to integrate several knowledge 
systems including traditional, local and scientific knowledge (Cousins, 
2021; Lavorel et al., 2019; Schuesser et al., 2022), collaboration across 
disciplinary and sectoral boundaries, and across different types of Ta
b
le
 6
 
E
xc
er
pt
s 
on
 d
efi
ni
ti
on
s 
of
 c
o-
co
nc
ep
ts
 f
ou
nd
 f
ro
m
 t
he
 s
cr
ee
ne
d 
li
te
ra
tu
re
.
C
o
-c
o
n
ce
p
t
E
xc
er
p
ts
 f
ro
m
 t
h
e 
sc
re
en
ed
 l
it
er
at
u
re
K
ey
 c
o
m
p
o
n
en
ts
 o
f 
th
e 
d
efi
n
it
io
n
s
C
o
-c
re
at
io
n
“…
 im
pl
yi
ng
 c
it
iz
en
 p
ar
ti
ci
pa
ti
on
 i
n 
al
l 
N
B
S 
de
ve
lo
pm
en
t 
st
ag
es
: i
n 
th
ei
r 
pl
an
ni
ng
, 
de
si
gn
, i
m
pl
em
en
ta
ti
on
, a
nd
 m
on
it
or
in
g 
an
d 
ev
al
ua
ti
on
” (
M
it
i c
-R
ad
ul
ov
i c
 a
nd
 L
al
ov
i c
, 2
02
1)
.
In
cl
us
iv
e 
pa
rt
ic
ip
at
io
n 
(a
ls
o 
K
um
ar
 e
t 
al
., 
20
20
).
 (
Zi
ng
ra
ff
-H
am
ed
 
et
 a
l.
, 
20
21
).
“…
 co
ll
ab
or
at
io
n 
w
it
h 
th
e 
st
ak
eh
ol
de
rs
 (
us
er
s 
of
 th
e 
kn
ow
le
dg
e 
or
 s
ol
ut
io
ns
) 
to
 id
en
ti
fy
 p
ro
bl
em
s,
 d
es
ig
n 
th
e 
pr
oj
ec
t,
 e
xp
lo
re
 th
e 
so
lu
ti
on
 o
pt
io
ns
, a
nd
 
de
pl
oy
 t
he
m
” (
So
in
i 
et
 a
l.
, 
20
23
).
C
ol
la
bo
ra
ti
on
 a
cr
os
s 
th
e 
co
-c
re
at
io
n 
cy
cl
e 
(a
ls
o 
V
an
 R
oo
ij
 e
t 
al
. 2
02
0)
“…
 co
-c
re
at
io
n 
pa
th
w
ay
 t
ha
t 
en
co
m
pa
ss
es
 o
th
er
 p
ha
se
s 
of
 c
o-
im
pl
em
en
ta
ti
on
, c
o-
m
on
it
or
in
g 
an
d 
co
-d
ev
el
op
m
en
t 
of
 N
B
S”
 (M
ah
m
ou
d 
an
d 
M
or
el
lo
, 
20
21
)
T
he
 c
o-
cr
ea
ti
on
 c
yc
le
 i
nc
lu
de
s 
ot
he
r 
co
-c
on
ce
pt
s 
w
it
hi
n 
(A
ls
o 
M
on
iz
 
et
 a
l.
 2
02
2)
C
o
-d
es
ig
n
“E
xp
er
ts
 a
nd
 e
nd
-u
se
rs
 a
re
 e
nc
ou
ra
ge
d 
to
 p
ar
ti
ci
pa
te
 i
n 
th
e 
pr
oc
es
s 
in
 o
rd
er
 t
o 
co
m
bi
ne
 p
ro
fe
ss
io
na
l 
ex
pe
rt
is
e 
an
d 
li
ve
d-
ex
pe
ri
en
ce
 i
n 
pr
ob
le
m
 
so
lv
in
g”
 (R
ub
i 
an
d 
H
ac
k,
 2
02
1)
.
C
om
bi
ni
ng
 e
xp
er
ti
se
 a
nd
 e
xp
er
ie
nc
e-
ba
se
d 
kn
ow
le
dg
e 
(A
ls
o 
Sc
hr
 ot
er
 
et
 a
l.
, 
20
22
)
“C
o-
de
si
gn
 i
s 
a 
cr
ea
ti
ve
 a
pp
ro
ac
h 
th
at
 e
na
bl
es
 b
ri
ng
in
g 
to
ge
th
er
 r
ea
l-
li
fe
 e
xp
er
ie
nc
es
, 
vi
ew
s 
an
d 
sk
il
ls
 o
f 
m
an
y 
di
ff
er
en
t 
pe
rs
pe
ct
iv
es
 t
o 
ad
dr
es
s 
a 
sp
ec
ifi
c 
pr
ob
le
m
” (
B
as
no
u 
et
 a
l.
 2
02
0)
.
C
re
at
iv
e 
ap
pr
oa
ch
 t
o 
pr
ob
le
m
 s
ol
vi
ng
 (
al
so
 S
ch
r o
te
r 
et
 a
l.
, 
20
22
)
C
o
- p
ro
d
u
ct
io
n
“…
so
lu
ti
on
-o
ri
en
te
d,
 t
ra
ns
di
sc
ip
li
na
ry
 r
es
ea
rc
h 
w
it
h 
m
ut
ua
l 
le
ar
ni
ng
, 
th
at
 i
nc
or
po
ra
te
s 
va
lu
es
, 
no
rm
s 
an
d 
co
nt
ex
t 
in
to
 k
no
w
le
dg
e 
pr
od
uc
ti
on
” (
La
vo
re
l 
et
 a
l.
, 
20
19
)
K
no
w
le
dg
e 
co
-p
ro
du
ct
io
n 
(a
ls
o 
Sc
hu
er
ch
 e
t 
al
., 
20
22
).
​
“A
n 
in
cl
us
iv
e 
co
-p
ro
du
ct
io
n 
ap
pr
oa
ch
, w
it
h 
th
e 
pr
oj
ec
t 
te
am
 e
ng
ag
in
g 
cl
os
el
y 
w
it
h 
co
m
m
un
it
y 
m
em
be
rs
 a
nd
 l
oc
al
 s
ta
ke
ho
ld
er
s”
 (M
cE
vo
y 
et
 a
l.
, 
20
24
) 
“…
 c
on
si
st
en
t 
an
d 
de
ep
 f
or
m
s 
of
 e
ng
ag
em
en
t 
at
 e
ve
ry
 s
te
p 
of
 p
ro
je
ct
 d
ev
el
op
m
en
t”
 (D
ie
p 
et
 a
l.
 2
02
2)
In
cl
us
iv
it
y 
an
d 
de
ep
 f
or
m
s 
of
 e
ng
ag
em
en
t
“C
o-
pr
od
uc
ti
on
 i
s 
‘a
 r
ec
ip
ro
ca
l 
pr
oc
es
s 
of
 e
xc
ha
ng
e 
be
tw
ee
n 
di
ve
rs
e 
st
ak
eh
ol
de
rs
, 
to
 g
en
er
at
e 
ou
tc
om
es
 t
ha
t 
ar
e 
on
ly
 p
os
si
bl
e 
be
ca
us
e 
of
 t
hi
s 
de
li
be
ra
te
 i
nt
er
se
ct
io
n 
of
 d
if
fe
re
nc
e’
, 
(D
ur
os
e 
et
 a
l.
, 
20
22
)”
 (H
oy
le
 a
nd
 C
ot
tr
il
l,
 2
02
3)
R
ec
ip
ro
ca
l 
pr
oc
es
s 
of
 e
xc
ha
ng
e 
be
tw
ee
n 
di
ve
rs
e 
st
ak
eh
ol
de
rs
 (
al
so
 
W
ic
ke
nb
er
g,
 2
02
3;
 C
ou
si
ns
, 
20
21
)
C
o
- go
ve
rn
an
ce
“…
 in
vo
lv
em
en
t 
of
 g
ov
er
nm
en
ta
l a
nd
 n
on
-g
ov
er
nm
en
ta
l a
ct
or
s 
in
 t
he
 p
ro
ce
ss
es
 a
nd
 s
tr
uc
tu
re
s 
of
 d
ec
is
io
n-
m
ak
in
g 
an
d 
m
an
ag
em
en
t”
 (W
ay
le
n 
et
 a
l.
, 
20
23
).
D
ec
is
io
n-
m
ak
in
g 
st
ru
ct
ur
es
 a
nd
 p
ro
ce
ss
es
 (
al
so
 B
ra
dl
ey
 e
t 
al
. 
20
22
)
“…
th
e 
to
ta
li
ty
 o
f 
ac
ti
on
s 
an
d 
in
te
ra
ct
io
ns
 i
n 
w
hi
ch
 g
ov
er
nm
en
ts
, 
pu
bl
ic
, 
pr
iv
at
e,
 a
nd
 c
iv
il
 s
oc
ie
ty
 a
ct
or
s 
pa
rt
ic
ip
at
e,
” (
M
al
ek
po
ur
 e
t 
al
., 
20
21
).
G
ov
er
nm
en
ta
l,
 p
ub
li
c,
 p
ri
va
te
 a
nd
 c
iv
il
 s
oc
ie
ty
 a
ct
or
s 
(a
ls
o 
B
ra
dl
ey
 
et
 a
l.
, 
20
22
; 
W
ay
le
n 
et
 a
l.
 2
02
3)
“O
rg
an
iz
at
io
na
l 
st
ru
ct
ur
es
, 
in
st
it
ut
io
na
l 
ru
le
s,
 a
nd
 f
un
ds
’ a
ll
oc
at
io
n 
ar
e 
fu
nd
am
en
ta
l 
ch
ar
ac
te
ri
st
ic
s 
of
 a
 g
ov
er
na
nc
e 
se
tt
in
g”
 (M
en
g 
et
 a
l.
 2
02
3)
In
st
it
ut
io
ns
S. Sarkki et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
8 
knowledge (cognitive, normative and practical) (Wickenberg, 2023). 
Embedding co-production with transformative agendas to overcome 
environmental inequities and bringing together different forms of 
knowledge and expertise were considered as important (Cousins, 2021; 
Wickenberg, 2023; Mugari and Nethengwe, 2022; Adams et al., 2023; 
Schuerch et al., 2022; Diep et al., 2022; Hoyle and Cottrill, 2023; van der 
Jagt et al., 2023). Several key issues for ensuring good quality 
co-production were identified: sensitivity to political and sociocultural 
contexts in efforts to empower stakeholders (van der Jagt et al., 2023), 
use of inclusive and participatory approaches (McEvoy et al., 2024), 
creating safe spaces for bringing diverse actors together (Wickenberg, 
2023), bridging science and policy (Adams et al., 2023), engaging 
stakeholders early in a process, and ensuring quality of participation 
higher at the Arnstein (1969) ladder by iterative processes (Schuerch 
et al., 2022), and being sensitive with existing power relations (Diep 
et al., 2022). Practical approaches to be used in co-production processes 
included internet-based tools (Wild et al., 2019), collaborative work-
shops (McEvoy et al., 2024), participatory monitoring and assessment 
(van der Jagt et al., 2023), and good facilitation of the co-production 
process (Wickenberg, 2023).
Co-governance relied on participatory decision-making for 
breaking sectoral siloes by sharing information, capacities, resources 
and decision making (Malekpour et al., 2021; Voskamp et al., 2021; 
Ferreira et al., 2020; Midgley et al., 2021; Waylen et al., 2023; Dorst 
et al., 2022). Successful collaborative NBS governance was considered to 
require a process of maturation that is typically needed in order to build 
up the capacities in a network, including key roles and responsibilities 
for diverse stakeholders (Bradley et al., 2022). Collaborative governance 
can take forms of 1) innovative cross-sectoral and public-private part-
nerships, and new business models (Ferreira et al., 2020; Midgley et al., 
2021; Voskamp et al., 2021), 2) coordination across and between levels 
(e.g. from national, to regional or landscape, to local or individual 
land-manager). (Waylen et al., 2023), 3) crossing organizational and 
jurisdictional boundaries (Dorst et al., 2022), 4) balancing interests of 
citizens and market actors (Meng et al., 2023), and 5) governing cit-
izen–municipality interactions (Brink and Wamsler, 2018). Experimen-
tation was considered as important way to advance collaborative 
governance (Frantzeskaki, 2019) conducting local experiments as an 
arena for reflexive, adaptive, and multi-actor learning environments was 
considered important (Bradley et al., 2022). Openness and transparency 
to establish trust and commitment were highlighted (Frantzeskaki, 
2019; Waylen et al., 2023).
Fig. 4 summarizes the common element across the concepts being 
collaborative processes within inclusive space, and identifies also key 
distinguishing features for each of the four concepts.
4.4. Challenges for collaboration
While in general our literature sample highlighted positive aspects 
and promises of the collaborative approaches, also challenges were 
highlighted (Table 8). Our analysis questions did not include challenges 
topic, but these were coded as additional notes.
Table 7 
Overview of actors engaged in NBS planning and implementation across the co-concepts.
Governmental actors Scientists and experts Civil society Private sector
Co-creation Governmental decision makers (Bradley 
et al. 2022; Ferranti, et al. 2023) Municipal 
or city officials (Nunes et al. 2021; 
Mohr-Stockinger et al. 2023; Moniz et a. 
2022; Mitic-Radulovic and Lalovic 2021)
Research-practitioner networks (
Wijsman et al. 2021); 
Experts (Kavouras et al. 2023)
Local residents (Mohr-Stockinger 
et al. 2023) 
Citizens (Nunes et al. 2021; Sarabi 
et al. 2020; Moniz et al. 2022) 
Children and teachers (Plassnig 
et al. 2022; Ward et al. 2023); 
Social networks (Van Rooij et al. 
2020).
Private sector actors (
Bradley et al. 2022; 
Mitic-Radulovic and 
Lalovic 2021)
Co-design Policy and management authorities 
(Kempa et al. 2023; Neumann and Hack, 
2022; 
Lecina-Diaz et al. 2023; Bwambale and 
Kervyn, 2021; Gottwald et al. 2021; Lilli 
et al. 2020; Schroter, et al. 2022). Policy 
champions (Dick et al. 2019)
Intermediary organizations (Diep et al. 
2022) 
Scientists and experts (Bwambale and 
Kervyn, 2021; Herranz-Pascual et al. 
2023)
(E)NGOs 
(Diep et al. 2022; Kempa et al. 2023; 
Neumann and Hack, 2022; Lupp 
et al. 2021a). Communities at risk (
Bwambale and Kervyn, 2021) 
Children (Baro et al. 2022; Basnou 
et al. 2022).
Tourism actors (Kempa 
et al. 2023); 
Landowners and farmers 
(Lilli et al. 2020)
Co-production City planners (Cousins, 2021) 
Governmental actors (van der Jagt et al., 
2023)
Scientists (Lavorel et al. (2019); 
Schuerch, et al. 2022; Castro and Rifai, 
(2021); McEvoy et a. 2024 Wickenberg, 
(2023); (Hoyle and Cottrill, 2023; 
Schuerch, et al. 2022) 
Citizen scientists (Wild et al. 2019) 
Experts (van der Jagt et al. 2023); 
Consultants (Adams et al. 2023)
Local communities (Cousins, 2021; 
McEvoy et al. 2024; Mugari and 
Nethengwe, 2022; Schuerch, et al. 
2022; Lavorel et al. 2019). 
Actors facing social justice 
challenges (Cousins, 2021; van der 
Jagt et al., 2023). 
Children (Hoyle and Cottrill, 2023) 
Citizens (Wamsler et al. 2020; van 
der Jagt et al., 2023; Pauleit et al. 
2021; Diep et al. 2022). 
Practitioners (Castro and Rifai, 
2021; Wickenberg, 2023; Adams 
et al. 2023)
​
Co-governance Municipal officers (Voskamp et al. 2021) 
Governmental organizations and actors (
Meng et al. 2023; Bradley et al. 2022) 
State agencies (Waylen et al. 2023) 
Municipal staff and urban planners (
Frantzeskaki, 2019; Malekpour et al. 2021; 
Voskamp et al. 2021)
Stakeholders operating across 
different organizational and 
jurisdictional boundaries (Dorst et al. 
2022) 
Knowledge brokers (Frantzeskaki, 2019)
Social innovators (Frantzeskaki, 
2019) 
Civil society and associations (
Midgley et al. 2021) 
Citizens and municipalities (Brink 
and Wamsler, 2018) 
NGOs, and civil society (Malekpour 
et al. 2021; Frantzeskaki, 2019); 
Community, (Bradley et al. 2022) 
Local support networks (Midgley 
et al. 2021)
Private sector actors (
Bradley et al. 2022; 
Waylen et al. 2023)
S. Sarkki et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
9 
5. Discussion
5.1. Commonalities and differences in co-concepts
Our results showed that in many aspects, the co-concepts were used 
in quite similar manner, but with some divergence. To bring light in the 
conceptual mess with the four co-concepts used frequently in NBS 
literature, we identified key distinguishing features for each concept. 
The questions on who are included and why were pretty much similar 
regarding all the four concepts. Divergences emerged regarding ques-
tions of how the collaboration happens, and what are the envisaged 
outputs of the collaboration. How question was clear for the co-creation 
literature considering the cyclical process often in Living lab context to 
co-create NBS. Co-design was less consensual, but here we lift the focus 
on developing and using tools (e.g. scenarios, maps, digital tools), and 
focus on intermediary tangible outputs that could be considered as 
boundary objects relevant for different actors. This distinguishes co- 
design from co-production, which focuses on co-producing knowledge 
by integrating diverse perspectives. A distinguishing feature for co- 
governance was its focus on governance of NBS as part of wider socio- 
environmental system by cross-sectoral partnerships and coordination. 
Co-governance literature also highlighted openness, transparency and 
experimenting to support NBS and collaboration (Table 9).
5.2. Proposing definitions for the co-concepts
Our integrative review was motivated by recent findings of system-
atic reviews that the co-concepts are used frequently but in elusive way 
(Hakkarainen et al., 2022; Nguyen et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2024). 
Therefore, we consider it important to seek to offer definitions for these 
concepts in the NBS context. Our results show that the question of who 
are taking part in collaboration across co-concepts encompassed actors 
from general domains of policy, society, science and also business in 
literature on all co-concepts. While our qualitative analysis did not 
reveal relative weights of different types of actors not major differences 
in overall reasons for collaborative approaches, other recent reviews 
close to the topic provide quantitative analysis on this aspect as well as 
on reason for collaboration (Nguyen et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2024). All 
addressed co-concepts require inclusive opportunities for participating 
actors to engage in the collaboration beyond non-participation or 
tokenistic participation.
Our major finding is that the envisaged output, and the question of 
how the collaboration is done across the co-concepts offer a promising 
way to distinguish between the co-concepts. We find that co-creation 
targets NBS in general, co-design is about tools and their use to sup-
port NBS, co-production targets knowledge, and co-governance targets 
the socio-environmental system in which the NBS are embedded. Also 
Hakkarainen et al. (2022) and Nguyen et al. (2024) consider co-design 
and co-production as part of co-creation cycle. Our conceptualization 
regarding co-production focusing on knowledge diverges from Lee et al. 
(2024) due to that they focus mainly on public administration definition 
of co-production of goods and services, instead of knowledge 
co-production.
Fig. 3. The four co-concepts and their core distinguishing features regarding the key target of collaboration, and deviances from the core distinguishing features. The 
color code in the two left columns links the color to each co-concept, and the right column identifies overlaps between the definitions by using the color code to imply 
linkage to the other co-concepts. White color code illustrates clusters that are general for all co-concept definitions.
Fig. 4. Common aspects of how to do collaboration under the four co-concepts, 
and key distinguishing features in each concept.
S. Sarkki et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
10 
When thinking the overall NBS cycle, co-creation refers to whole 
cycle, co-design and co-production are part of the planning phases (e.g. 
phases of problem identification, agenda setting, NBS planning, and 
evaluation and monitoring), and co-governance is part of the imple-
mentation phases (e.g. phases of implementing, maintaining, trans-
ferring, and upscaling the NBS). Table 10 outlines proposed definitions 
Table 8 
Challenges identified across the co-concepts.
Co-concepts Identified challenges for collaboration
Co-creation  Living Lab based co-creation model may be reproducing traditional power relations, for example by re-proposing already established governance patterns that are 
not inclusive (Dogan et al. 2023).
 Use of participatory co-creation methods may be exploitative (i.e. enabling only one-way knowledge flows from participants to researchers), and can be used to 
legitimize solutions that provide little contribution to the actual needs and priorities of the included communities (Nunes et al. 2021).
 Challenges inherent to co-creation processes (i.e. related to balanced and fair deliberation), and to how actual contents of key concepts, like resilience, are 
assumed rather than negotiated in such processes (Wijsman et al. 2021).
Co-design  Lack of sensitivity towards cultural characteristics of the participating actors and issues related to justice, diversity, and gender (Basnou et al. 2020).
 Generic applicability of co-design methods in diverse contexts are limited by the need to properly understand and accommodate local circumstances and par-
ticipants’ insights within collaborative workshop setting (Slinger et al. 2023).
 Co-design processes can also raise legislative, socio-economic, technical and personal conflicts, especially if these processes are not opening proposed nature-based 
solutions to be negotiated among the participants (Lilli et al. 2020).
Co-production  Plausible biases reflecting unbalanced power relations, and hence attention is needed to avoid tokenistic and non-participatory forms of engagement by 
considering carefully how to enable empowering forms of co-production (van der Jagt et al. 2023).
 Different types of participation need to be timed carefully across the phases in the NBS co-creation cycle, (Schuerch et al. 2022).
Co- 
governance
 Challenges related to a complex stakeholder landscape, silos in project management, and from the divided responsibilities and budgets over various government 
agencies and departments (Dorst et al. 2022).
 Power and resource allocation, existing institutional arrangements, and lack of incentives for stakeholder participation can hinder the collaboration in NBS 
governance process (Meng et al. 2023).
 Resources availability, level of expertise, lack of know-how or competence; and the rigid institutional settings can hinder capacity of decision makers (e.g. 
municipal officers) to do collaborative governance in practice (Voskamp et al. 2021).
 The collaborations should be designed up-front and proactively to avoid mismatches between intended impacts and actual outcomes resulting from the 
collaborative governance processes (Malekpour et al. 2021).
Table 9 
Comparing the different co-concepts with focus on distinguishing features.
Co-creation Co-design Co-production Co-governance
By whom Stakeholders from policy, business, society and science
Why To address sustainability challenges, to learn, to build trust, to enhance equality and inclusivity, to gain diverse perspectives
How By cyclical participatory processes 
in living lab context
By using and developing tools By integrating different 
knowledge and perspectives
By cross-sectoral partnerships and coordination, 
openness and transparency, experimenting
Of what Nature-based solutions Decision support tools; tangible 
outputs (i.e. co-benefits)
Knowledge Socio-environmental systems
Link to NBS 
cycle
Refers to all the phases in the 
cycle
Within the cycle (planning 
phases)
Within the cycle (Planning 
phases)
Partly inside (implementation phases) and partly 
outside the cycle
Table 10 
Proposed definitions for the four co-concepts (Source: authors).
Co-concept Proposed definition in connection to NBS Links to previous definitions and results.
Co-creation Co-creation of NBS takes place through the overall stepwise process cycle of 
planning and implementing NBS, often embedded in Living Lab context, 
engaging diverse stakeholders, and aiming to address sustainability 
challenges.
Co-creation referring to all steps in NBS implementation cycle 
(Zingraff-Hamed et al., 2021); Soini et al. (2023); Moniz et al. (2022); 
Mahmoud and Morello, (2021); Kumar et al. (2020); DesLosRios-White et al. 
2020; (Mitic-Radulovic and Lalovic, 2021). 
Co-creation in Living Labs 
(Dogan et al., 2023; Sarabi et al., 2020; Ascione et al., 2021; Soini et al., 2023; 
Arlati et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2020).
Co-design Co-design and use of tools to support NBS planning is a creative process, 
which brings together diverse real-life experiences, views, practices, and 
skills, and aims to create tangible outputs that help to address a problem and 
enhance co-benefits of NBS.
Use and development of tools (Gottwald et al., 2021; Schroter et al., 2022; 
Mahmoud and Morello, 2021; Coletta et al., 2021). 
Real-life experiences for problem solving 
(Rubi and Hack, 2021; Basnou et al. 2020; Schroter et al., 2022) 
Creative process 
(Basnou et al. 2020; Schroter et al., 2022)
Co-production Co-production of knowledge supporting NBS planning refers to 
multidirectional deliberative process of knowledge exchange between actors 
with diverse situated practices, worldviews, and aims to solve existing 
societal challenges.
Focus on knowledge 
(Lavorel et al., 2019) (Wild et al., 2019; Wickenberg, 2023; Mugari and 
Nethengwe, 2022; Adams et al., 2023; Schuerch et al., 2022). 
Multidirectional interactions 
Cousins, 2021;Hoyle and Cottrill, 2023) 
Diverse perspectives 
(Cousins, 2021) (Lavorel et al., 2019) (Wickenberg, 2023) 
Deliberation 
(Wickenberg, 2023);(Hoyle and Cottrill, 2023)
Co-governance Collaborative governance of socio-environmental systems in which the 
NBS are embedded takes place through inclusive decision-making 
structures and processes, and cross-sectoral partnerships across public, 
private and civic spheres, and it seeks to address problems or create 
opportunities by supporting NBS.
Socio-environmental systems 
(Waylen et al., 2023; Frantzeskaki, 2019; Dorst et al., 2022; Bradley et al., 
2022) 
Participatory processes, 
(Bradley et al., 2022) (Waylen et al., 2023). 
Partnerships across public, private and civic spheres 
(Bradley et al., 2022) (Malekpour et al., 2021).
S. Sarkki et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
11 
for the co-concepts and links them to literature supporting each key 
feature of the definitions.
However, some of the definitions found from the literature are in 
slight contradiction with our proposals. Wijsman et al. (2021) defined 
co-creation as knowledge production exceeding the boundaries between 
diverse actors, a definition that we propose for co-production. Bogati-
noska et al. (2022) defined co-creation with the focus on tools, which in 
the present paper we propose to be distinguishing feature in co-design 
concept. In co-design definitions overlap was found between 
co-creation cycle and co-design process (Rubi and Hack, 2021; Baro 
et al., 2022). While the co-design process can definitely include also 
stepwise path, in the present paper we propose to retain the step-wise 
NBS development process for the concept of co-creation. In 
co-production definitions, Diep et al. (2022) relied on public adminis-
tration definition of co-production of services. McEvoy et al. (2024)
considered the stepwise NBS project development as integral to the 
definition of co-production, which we consider to be in heart of the 
co-creation concept. Furthermore, Cousins (2021) considered 
co-production as shaping environmental governance. While this com-
plies also with our definition, we stress the difference between knowl-
edge co-production, which may or may not shape decision-making, and 
collaborative governance targeting directly decision-making.
5.3. Emergent themes: multispecies approach and coevolution
The multispecies actors are increasingly recognized in NBS literature 
(e.g. Maller, 2021; Pineda-Pinto et al., 2022; Welden, 2023), but our 
sample did not identify them as collaborators through the co-concepts. 
Rapid recent increase in NBS literature on multispecies aspect is 
shown by a SCOPUS search with a search string: “Nature-based solution" 
AND "multispecies" OR "more-than-human" OR "non-human” OR 
“interspecies” yielding 36 hits emerging especially during past 4 years. 
The coevolution concept was part of our initial research design, but 
search string connecting NBS and coevolution yielded only five SCOPUS 
hits.
Agency of multispecies actors is clear when considering NBS. This is 
because even though NBS are put in place by people, NBS are by default 
changing also bio-physical environments. Hence, it is somewhat sur-
prising that the literature on co-concepts and NBS does not cover 
multispecies agency, and non-human actors as part of collaborations, 
which make NBS what they are today and in the future. NBS imply 
changes supported by nature in physical reality, and hence material 
agency of non-human actors is clear (Latour, 2005). One example of 
such multispecies agency is to consider beavers as coworkers implying 
that humans ‘work with nature’ to co-create NBS (Welden, 2023). Sec-
ond example links to multispecies placemaking as an active process of 
empowerment taking place through arts and community-based ap-
proaches (Sachs Olsen, 2022). Multispecies co-design has been 
addressed for example in futures approaches. Firstly, future multispecies 
world have been imagined in multispecies symposium 2100, which 
functioned as collaborative tool to reflect on co-design with other living 
entities (Romani, 2022). Another example is “biofuturing,” a creative 
research approach concerned with the co-design of multispecies specu-
lations of worlds to come (Jacobs et al., 2024). Regarding co-production 
of knowledge, for example citizen science methods engaging with 
multispecies realities could be regarded as co-production approaches, 
which not only contribute to scientific knowledge but also enhance 
nature connectedness of participants (Pocock et al., 2023). However, as 
co-production of knowledge relies heavily on human language, alter-
native ways to collaborate are needed that could untap knowledge of 
multispecies actors without relying on human language. Regarding 
co-governance, Meijer (2019) has suggested that actions of multispecies 
actors can be considered as political voice to be considered in 
decision-making. Herrmann-Pillath (2024) suggests that ’nature-based 
governance’ that enacts deep and comprehensive reciprocity between 
people and nature, and grounds governance mechanisms in embodied 
more-than-human practices with normative force. Nature-based gover-
nance concerns decision arena where multispecies’ actions are system-
atically recognised addressing vulnerability among and between the 
human and other species (Kluvankova et al., 2025). Hence, in multi-
species co-governance, key issue is the embodied politics and commu-
nication through action allowing participation of multispecies actors in 
decision making.
One conceptual means to consider multispecies aspects in collabo-
ration for NBS is the concept of coevolution. Coevolution is a concept 
that can explain how change happens. Coevolution has been considered 
by Norgaard (1984) not just interdependent change, but incudes vari-
ation, selection of variants due to differential fitness, and trial and error 
adaptation. Here we consider that co-evolution linked to NBS takes place 
between biophysical processes, ecosystem characteristics, multispecies 
(including humans) actors and their behavior, and governance of 
socio-environmental systems. Coevolution could also target coevolution 
of various policy sectors to build bridges across siloes by collaboration 
that brings actors together for example in living lab settings from the 
domains of policy, business, society and science (Huntjens and Kemp 
2022). The role of NBS developers in such processes is then to tweak 
complex coevolutionary processes to desirable direction. This can be 
done for example by experimenting with diverse governance approaches 
(i.e. co-governance), and also by innovative design of physical envi-
ronments and green infrastructures (i.e. co-creation of NBS as material 
practice). While the emergent coevolutionary processes cannot be fully 
anticipated, NBS offer a way to initiate sustainability transformations by 
upscaling and mainstreaming (see van der Jagt et al., 2023). Therefore, 
we consider that the target of sustainability offers a desirable direction 
for the coevolution. Coevolutionary view can enable also to reframe 
co-dependence of people and environment in a way that considers 
regenerative relationships between people and environments and acts as 
leverage for transformative change (Welden et al., 2021). We propose 
that coevolutionary processes are key to understand how the 
socio-environmental change happens around and by NBS.
Leading from above, we propose, firstly, to consider also multispe-
cies actors as key collaborators in NBS co-creation cycle, and stress the 
importance in finding ways to understand multispecies perspectives 
when collaborating to develop NBS. This can be done through coevo-
lutionary view, which can offer a point of departure to understand the 
complex socio-environmental relations and processes now and in the 
future (see graphical abstract).
5.4. Limitations
While we gained interesting results based on our integrative litera-
ture review on the four co-concepts used in connection to NBS, our 
approach has also limitations. Firstly, we used only one search engine to 
identify the set of papers to be addressed. Yet, when doing the initial 
searches, we found relatively manageable, but still extensive amount of 
papers using the four co-concepts and NBS in title and / or abstract. As 
we did not aim for systematic and quantitative review, we considered 
that for integrative qualitative and exploratory review, the number of 
screened papers was appropriate.
We did not do quantitative analysis on the results, which can be 
considered also as a limitation. For example, relative weights of diverse 
stakeholders addressed in the papers on different co-concepts could have 
been interesting. Such information is already provided in previous re-
views close to our topic (Lee et al., 2024; Nguyen et al., 2024). 
Furthermore, our qualitative approach and use of inductive content 
analysis was able to identify similarities, differences between the four 
concepts, and also allowed us to propose new sharp definitions for those 
concepts to make sense of the mess of the co-concepts used widely in 
NBS literature. However, we did not review all the co-concepts used in 
the NBS literature (e.g. co-development, co-planning, co-monitoring, 
co-evaluation, co-benefits).
S. Sarkki et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
12 
6. Conclusion
This integrative exploratory and qualitative literature screened 93 
papers on co-creation, co-design, co-production and co-governance 
concepts used in connection to NBS. Our analysis found that key dif-
ferences between the co-concepts relate especially to the targeted output 
of the collaboration, and on how the collaboration is envisaged to 
happen across the four co-concepts. Furthermore, based on the results, 
we also propose definitions for these co-concepts (Table 10), and illus-
trate their linkages in graphical way (Graphical abstract). This can help 
to bring conceptual clarity on the use of co-concepts in NBS literature, 
and also beyond. Sharper definitions can also lead to better quality of 
design, implementation of NBS, and finally the impact of NBS. This is 
especially important in the era when co-concepts are increasingly used 
without clear definitions on their meaning. While collaboration related 
to co-concepts is certainly promising and under hype in science and also 
policy, the co-concepts do not offer easy way out nor magic bullet for the 
pressing sustainability challenges of our times. Yet, detailed under-
standing of the co-concepts, and careful planning on how to oper-
ationalize them in NBS planning and implementation offers a viable 
alternative for technocratic or top-down approaches to NBS. Co- 
concepts emphasize need to plan and implement NBS together in a 
way that recognizes particularities of the peoples, multispecies actors, 
places and problems to which NBS are supposed to deliver solutions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Kluvankova Tatiana: Writing – review & editing, Funding acqui-
sition, Conceptualization. Ojala Ann: Writing – review & editing. Mis-
hra Himansu: Writing – review & editing. Spacek Martin: Writing – 
review & editing. Sarkki Simo: Writing – original draft, Methodology, 
Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Soini 
Katriina: Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Funding 
acquisition. Pihlajamaki Mia: Writing – review & editing, Project 
administration, Methodology. Hiedanpaa Juha: Writing – review & 
editing, Validation, Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re-
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: 
Juha Hiedanpaa reports financial support was provided by Horizon 
Europe. Tatiana Kluvankova reports financial support was provided by 
Slovak National Research Agency. If there are other authors, they 
declare that they have no known competing financial interests or per-
sonal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work re-
ported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The work for this paper was done within Coevolvers (Coevolutionary 
approach to unlock the transformative potential of nature-based solu-
tions for more inclusive and resilient communities) Horizon Europe 
project, Grant agreement ID: 101084220. We also acknowledge project 
VEGA, Slovak National Research Agency NO 2/001825. For graphic 
design, we acknowledge creative contributions by Daniel Fonagy.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the 
online version at doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104073.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Adams, C., Frantzeskaki, N., Moglia, M., 2023. Space for mainstreaming? Learning from 
the implementation of urban forest strategies in metropolitan Melbourne. Aust. Plan. 
59 (2), 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2023.2268222.
Almenar, J.B., Elliot, T., Rugani, B., Philippe, B., Gutierrez, T.N., Sonnemann, G., 
Geneletti, D., 2021. Nexus between nature-based solutions, ecosystem services and 
urban challenges. Land Use Policy 100, 104898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
landusepol.2020.104898.
Arlati, A., Rodl, A., Kanjaria-Christian, S., Knieling, J., 2021. Stakeholder participation in 
the planning and design of nature-based solutions. insights from CLEVER cities 
project in Hamburg. Sustainability 13, 2572. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052572.
Arnstein, S., 1969. A ladder of community participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 35, 216–224.
Ascione, G.S., Cuomo, F., Mariotti, N., Corazza, L., 2021. Urban living labs, circular 
economy and nature-based solutions: ideation and testing of a new soil in the city of 
turin using a multi-stakeholder perspective. Circ. Econ. Sustain 1, 545–562. https:// 
doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00011-6.
Baas, J., Schotten, Michiel, Plume, Andrew, Co^te, Gregoire, Karimi, Reza, 2020. Scopus 
as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in 
quantitative science studies. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2020 1 (1), 377–386. https://doi.org/ 
10.1162/qss_a_00019.
Baro, F., Camacho, D.A., Perez del Pulgar, C., Ruiz-Mallen, I., García-Serrano, P., 2022. 
Nature-based climate solutions in european schools: a pioneering co-designed 
strategy towards urban resilience. In: Ruiz-Mallen, I., March, H., Satorras, M. (Eds.), 
Urban Resilience to the Climate Emergency. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07301-4_6. 
Basnou, C., Pino, J., Davies, C., Winkel, G., De Vreese, R., 2020. Co-design processes to 
address nature-based solutions and ecosystem services demands: the long and 
winding road towards inclusive urban planning. Front. Sustain. Cities 2, 572556. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2020.572556.
Battisti, L., Cuomo, F., Manganelli, A., 2024. Collaborative governance arrangements: 
what makes nature-based solutions endure? Territ. Polit. Gov. 1–21. https://doi.org/ 
10.1080/21622671.2024.2355317.
Bherer, L., Dufour, P., Montambeault, F., 2016. The participatory democracy turn: an 
introduction. J. Civ. Soc. 12 (3), 225–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 
17448689.2016.1216383.
Whyte, W.F. (Ed.), 1991. Participatory Action Research. Sage, CA. 
Bogatinoska, B., Lansu, A., Huge, J., Dekker, S.C., 2022. Participatory design of nature- 
based solutions: usability of tools for water professionals. Sustainability 14 (9), 
5562. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095562.
Bonney, R., 1996. Citizen science: a lab tradition. Living Bird. 1996 15, 7–15.
Bradley, S., Mahmoud, I.H., Arlati, A., 2022. Integrated collaborative governance 
approaches towards urban transformation: experiences from the CLEVER cities 
project. Sustainability 14, 15566. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315566.
Brink, E., Wamsler, C., 2018. Collaborative governance for climate change adaptation: 
mapping citizen–municipality interactions. Env. Pol. Gov. 28, 82–97. https://doi. 
org/10.1002/eet.1795.
Bwambale, B., Kervyn, M., 2021. Testing interscience in understanding and tackling 
disaster risk. Front. Earth Sci. 9, 783264. https://doi.org/10.3389/ 
feart.2021.783264.
Castro, C.V., Rifai, H.S., 2021. Development and assessment of a web-based national 
spatial data infrastructure for nature-based solutions and their social, hydrological, 
ecological, and environmental co-benefits. Sustainability 13 (19), 11018. https:// 
doi.org/10.3390/su131911018.
Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C. and Maginnis, S. (eds.) (2016).Nature-based 
Solutions to address global societal challenges. Gland,Switzerland: IUCN. xiii ‡
97pp.
Coletta, V.R., Pagano, Alessandro, Pluchinotta, Irene, Fratino, Umberto, Scrieciu, Albert, 
Nanu, Florentina, Giordano, Raffaele, 2021. Causal loop diagrams for supporting 
nature based solutions participatory design and performance assessment. J. Environ. 
Manag. 280, 111668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111668.
Collins, C., Shaw, Rosalind F., Wills, Jane, 2022. Using place-based public engagement to 
improve social and environmental sustainability: lessons from partnership working 
in Cornwall, UK. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 4, 100181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
crsust.2022.100181.
Cooper, C., Cunningham, N., Bracken, L.J., 2023. Exploring different framings of nature- 
based solutions with respect to governance, and citizen participation, beneficiaries, 
and quality of life outcomes. Environ. Sci. Policy 150, 103592. https://doi.org/ 
10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103592.
Cousins, J.J., 2021. Justice in nature-based solutions: research and pathways. Ecol. Econ. 
180, 106874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106874.
De Marchi, B., and J.R. Ravetz. 2001. Participatory Approaches to Environmental Policy. 
Cambridge Research for the Environment, 2001. Available at: hhttps://www.clive 
spash.org/eve/prb10-edu.pdfi.
DeLosRíos-White, M.I., Roebeling, P., Valente, S., Vaittinen, I., 2020. Mapping the life 
cycle co-creation process of nature-based solutions for urban climate change 
adaptation. Resources 9, 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9040039.
van der Jagt, A., Tozer, Laura, Toxopeus, Helen, Runhaar, Hens, 2023. Policy mixes for 
mainstreaming urban nature-based solutions: an analysis of six European countries 
and the European Union. Environ. Sci. Policy 139, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 
j.envsci.2022.10.011.
Dick, J., Miller, J.D., Carruthers-Jones, J., et al., 2019. 2019. How are nature based 
solutions contributing to priority societal challenges surrounding human well-being 
in the United Kingdom: a systematic map protocol. Environ. Evid. 8, 37. https://doi. 
org/10.1186/s13750-019-0180-4.
S. Sarkki et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
13 
Diep, L., Mulligan, J., Oloo, M.A., Guthmann, L., Raido, M., Ndezi, T., 2022. Co-building 
trust in urban nature: Learning from participatory design and construction of nature- 
based solutions in informal settlements in East Africa. Front. Sustain. Cities 4, 
927723. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2022.927723. Diep 14 codesign). Diep 18 
coproduction. 
Dogan, E., Cuomo, F., Battisti, L., 2023. Reviving urban greening in post-industrial 
landscapes: the case of Turin. Sustainability 15 (17), 12760. https://doi.org/ 
10.3390/su151712760.
Dorst, H., van der Jagt, Alexander, Toxopeus, Helen, Tozer, Laura, Raven, Rob, 
Runhaar, Hens, 2022. What’s behind the barriers? Uncovering structural conditions 
working against urban nature-based solutions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 220, 104335. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104335.
Dushkova, D., Kuhlicke, Christian, 2024. Making co-creation operational: a reconect 
seven-steps-pathway and practical guide for co-creating nature-based solutions. 
MethodsX 12, 102495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2023.102495.
Elo, S., Kyngas, H., 2008. The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62, 
107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
European Commission, 2015 Towards an EU rEsearch and Innovation Policy Agenda for 
Nature-based Solutions & Re-naturing Cities. Available from: hhttps://op.europa.eu 
/en/publication-detail/-/publication/fb117980-d5aa-46df-8edc-af367cddc202i.
European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation, 2021. 
Evaluating the Impact of Nature-based Solutions: A Handbook for Practitioners. 
Publications Office, LU.
European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. 2023. 
Andersson, I., Ferreira, I., Arlati, A., Bradley, S. et al., Guidelines for co-creation and 
co-governance of nature-based solutions – Insights form EU-funded projects, 
Ferreira, I.(editor), Lupp, G.(editor) and Mahmoud, I.(editor), Publications Office of 
the European Union, 2023, hhttps://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/157060i.
Ferranti, E., Cook, S., Greenham, S.V., Grayson, N., Futcher, J., Salter, K., 2023. 
Incorporating heat vulnerability into local authority decision making: an open access 
approach. Sustainability 15, 13501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813501.
Ferreira, V., Barreira, A.P., Loures, L., Antunes, D., Panagopoulos, T., 2020. 
Stakeholders’ engagement on nature-based solutions: a systematic literature review. 
Sustainability 12 (2), 640. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020640.
Frantzeskaki, N., 2019. Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities. 
Environ. Sci. Policy 93, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.033.
Fukuyama, F., 2016. Governance: what do we know, and how do we know it? Annu. Rev. 
Political Sci. 19, 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-042214-044240.
Giordano, R., Pluchinotta, I., Pagano, A., Scrieciu, A., Nanu, F., 2020. Enhancing nature- 
based solutions acceptance through stakeholders’ engagement in co-benefits 
identification and trade-offs analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 713, 136552. https://doi. 
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136552.
Gottwald, S., Brenner, J., Janssen, R., et al., 2021. 2021. Using Geodesign as a boundary 
management process for planning nature-based solutions in river landscapes. Ambio 
50, 1477–1496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01435-4.
Granai, G., Borrelli, C., Moruzzo, R., Rovai, M., Riccioli, F., Mariti, C., Bibbiani, C., Di 
Iacovo, F., 2022. Between participatory approaches and politics, promoting social 
innovation in smart cities: building a hum–animal smart city in Lucca. Sustainability 
14 (13), 7956. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137956.
Gregory, Judith, 2003. Scandinavian approaches to participatory design. Int. J. Eng. 
Educ. 19, 62–74.
Grindell, C., Coates, E., Croot, L., et al., 2022. The use of co-production, co-design and co- 
creation to mobilise knowledge in the management of health conditions: a 
systematic review. BMC Health Serv. Res 22, 877. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913- 
022-08079-y.
Gulsrud, N.M., Hertzog, K., Shears, I., 2018. Innovative urban forestry governance in 
Melbourne?: Investigating “green placemaking” as a nature-based solution. Environ. 
Res. 161, 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.005.
Herranz-Pascual, K., Garcia-Perez, I., Zorita, S., García-Madruga, C., Cantergiani, C., 
Skodra, J., Iraurgi, I., 2023. A proposal of a tool to assess psychosocial benefits of 
nature-based interventions for sustainable built environment. Sustainability 15 (10), 
8046. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108046.
Herrmann-Pillath, C., 2024. Rituals as nature-based governance of reciprocity between 
people and nature [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. Open Res Eur. 2024 (4), 66. 
https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.17206.2).
Herrmann-Pillath, C., Hiedanpaa, J., Soini, K., 2022. The co-evolutionary approach to 
nature-based solutions: a conceptual framework. Nat. -Based Solut. 2, 100011. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100011.
Holscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., Kindlon, D., Collier, M.J., Dick, G., Dziubała, A., 
Lodder, M., Osipiuk, A., Quartier, M., Schepers, S., De Sijpe, K.V., Der Have, C.V., 
2024. Embedding co-production of nature-based solutions in urban governance: 
emerging co-production capacities in three European cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 152, 
103652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103652.
Hopia, H., Latvala, E., Liimatainen, L., 2016. Reviewing the methodology of an 
integrative review. Scand. J. Caring Sci. ; 2016 30, 662–669. https://doi.org/ 
10.1111/scs.12327.
Hoyle, H., Cottrill, W., 2023. Beyond the ‘usual suspects’? Engaging children in diverse 
communities in co-producing an arboretum-meadow: Professional partner 
perspectives. Urban For. Urban Green. 81, 127847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
ufug.2023.127847.
Huesca, Robert, 2008. Tracing the history of participatory communication approaches to 
development: a critical appraisal. Commun. Dev. Soc. Change 180–198. https://doi. 
org/10.4135/9788132108474.n9.
Hutchins, M.G., et al., 2021. Why scale is vital to plan optimal nature-based solutions for 
resilient cities. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 044008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ 
abd9f4.
IUCN (2020). Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. A user-friendly framework for 
the verification, design and scaling up of NbS. First edition. Gland, Switzerland: 
IUCN.
Jacobs, A., Anthoni, E., Busseniers, E., Claes, S., Huybrechts, L., van Leemput, M., 
Vrancken, K., Carriera, L., Colson, N., Dorn, C., Hostetler, A., Janssens, A., 
Kabendela, G., Kose, A., Luo, D., Majogoro, M., Sanchez, L.R.J., Stepanovic, J., 
Swillen, A., Hannes, K., 2024. Co-designing multispecies speculations through 
biofuturing. Qual. Inq. 0 (0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004241231919.
Jakstis, K., Dubovik, M., Laikari, A., Mustajarvi, K., Wendling, L., Fischer, L.K., 2023. 
Informing the design of urban green and blue spaces through an understanding of 
Europeans’ usage and preferences. People Nat. 5, 162–182. https://doi.org/ 
10.1002/pan3.10419.
Kavouras, I., Sardis, E., Protopapadakis, E., Rallis, I., Doulamis, A., Doulamis, N., 2023. 
A low-cost gamified urban planning methodology enhanced with co-creation and 
participatory approaches. Sustainability 15, 2297. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 
su15032297.
Kempa, D., Karrasch, L., Schlurmann, T., Prominski, M., Lojek, O., Schulte- 
Güstenberg, E., Visscher, J., Zielinski, O., Goseberg, N., 2023. Design and insights 
gained in a real-world laboratory for the implementation of new coastal protection 
strategies. Sustainability 15 (5), 4623. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054623.
Kiss, B., Sekulova, F., Horschelmann, K., Salk, C.F., Takahashi, W., Wamsler, C., 2022. 
Citizen participation in the governance of nature-based solutions. Environ. Policy 
Gov. 32 (3), 247–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1987.
Kluvankova, T., Sarkki, S., Spacek, M., Louda, J., Brnkalakova,S., Fornara, F., Mosca, O., 
Rasevova, K., Hardy, C., Hiedanpaa, J. (2025) Nature Based Governance: critical 
constrains on institutional reconfiguration. (Guide) COEVOLVERS D4.2.
Kumar, P., Debele, S.E., Sahani, J., Arag~ao, L., Barisani, F., Basu, B., Bucchignani, E., 
Charizopoulos, N., Di Sabatino, S., Domeneghetti, A., Edo, A.S., Finer, L., Gallotti, G., 
Juch, S., Leo, L.S., Loupis, M., Mickovski, S.B., Panga, D., Pavlova, I., Pilla, F., 
Prats, A.L., Renaud, F.G., Rutzinger, M., Basu, A.S., Shah, M.A.R., Soini, K., 
Stefanopoulou, M., Toth, E., Ukonmaanaho, L., Vranic, S., Zieher, T., 2020. Towards 
an operationalisation of nature-based solutions for natural hazards. Sci. Total 
Environ. 731, 138855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138855.
Larrinaga, F., Perez, A., Aldalur, I., Hernandez, J.L., Izkara, J.L., Saez De Viteri, P., 2021. 
A holistic and interoperable approach towards the implementation of services for the 
digital transformation of smart cities: the case of Vitoria-Gasteiz (Spain). Sensors 21, 
8061. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21238061.
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social – An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. 
Oxford University Press.
Lavorel, S., Colloff, M.J., Locatelli, B., Gorddard, R., Prober, S.M., Gabillet, M., 
Devaux, C., Laforgue, D., Peyrache-Gadeau, V., 2019. Mustering the power of 
ecosystems for adaptation to climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy 92, 87–97. https:// 
doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.11.010.
Lecina-Diaz, J., Campos, J.C., Pais, S., Carvalho-Santos, C., Azevedo, J.C., Fernandes, P., 
Gonçalves, J.F., Aquilue, N., Roces-Díaz, J.V., Agrelo de la Torre, M., Brotons, L., 
Chas-Amil, M.-L., Lomba, A., Duane, A., Moreira, F., Touza, J.M., Hermoso, V., 
Sil, A^., Vicente, J.R., Honrado, J., Regos, A., 2023. Stakeholder perceptions of 
wildfire management strategies as nature-based solutions in two Iberian biosphere 
reserves. Ecol. Soc. 28 (1), 39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13907-280139.
Lee, D., Feiertag, Patricia, Unger, Lena, 2024. Co-production, co-creation or co-design of 
public space? A systematic review. Cities 154, 105372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
cities.2024.105372.
Lilli, M.A., Nerantzaki, S.D., Riziotis, C., Kotronakis, M., Efstathiou, D., Kontakos, D., 
Lymberakis, P., Avramakis, M., Tsakirakis, A., Protopapadakis, K., Nikolaidis, N.P., 
2020. Vision-based decision-making methodology for riparian forest restoration and 
flood protection using nature-based solutions. Sustainability 12 (8), 3305. https:// 
doi.org/10.3390/su12083305.
Lupp, G., Huang, J.J., Zingraff-Hamed, A., Oen, A., Del Sepia, N., Martinelli, A., 
Lucchesi, M., Wulff Knutsen, T., Olsen, M., Fjøsne, T.F., Balaguer, E.-M., Arauzo, I., 
Solheim, A., Kalsnes, B., Pauleit, S., 2021a. Stakeholder perceptions of nature-based 
solutions and their collaborative co-design and implementation processes in rural 
mountain areas—a case study from PHUSICOS. Front. Environ. Sci. 9, 678446. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.678446.
Lupp, G., Zingraff-Hamed, A., Huang, J.J., Oen, A., Pauleit, S., 2021b. Living labs—a 
concept for co-designing nature-based solutions. Sustainability 13 (1), 188. https:// 
doi.org/10.3390/su13010188.
Mahmoud, I., Morello, E., 2021. Co-creation pathway for urban nature-based solutions: 
testing a shared-governance approach in three cities and nine action labs. In: 
Bisello, A., Vettorato, D., Ludlow, D., Baranzelli, C. (Eds.), Smart and Sustainable 
Planning for Cities and Regions, Green Energy and Technology. Springer 
International Publishing, Cham, pp. 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030- 
57764-3_17.
Malekpour, S., Tawfik, S., Chesterfield, C., 2021. Designing collaborative governance for 
nature-based solutions. Urban For. Urban Green. 62, 127177. https://doi.org/ 
10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127177.
Maller, C., 2021. Re-orienting nature-based solutions with more-than-human thinking. 
Cities 113, 103155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103155.
Matos, F., Mendonça, R., Roebeling, P., Spinnato, P., Aiello, G., Mendes, R., Bastos, M.I., 
Lopez-Maciel, M., Sirchia, A., 2022. Systemic decision support tool for online 
application to Aid NBS Co-creation (Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. In: 
Calabro, F., Della Spina, L., Pi~neira Manti~nan, M.J. (Eds.), New Metropolitan 
Perspectives - Post COVID Dynamics: Green and Digital Transition, between 
Metropolitan and Return to Villages Perspectives. Springer, pp. 1916–1925. https:// 
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06825-6_184.
McEvoy, D., Tara, A., Vahanvati, M., Ho, S., Gordon, K., Trundle, A., Rachman, C., 
Qomariyah, Y., 2024. Localized nature-based solutions for enhanced climate 
S. Sarkki et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
14 
resilience and community wellbeing in urban informal settlements. Clim. Dev. 16, 
600–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2023.2277248.
Meijer, E., 2019. When Animals Speak: toward an Interspecies Democracy. New York 
University Press.
Meng, M., Dąbrowski, M., Stead, D., 2023. Governing resilience planning: organizational 
structures, institutional rules, and fiscal incentives in Guangzhou. Land 12 (2), 417. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020417.
Messiha, K., Chinapaw, Mai J.M., Ket, Hans C.F.F., An, Qingfan, Anand-Kumar, Vinayak, 
Longworth, Giuliana R., Chastin, Sebastien, Altenburg, Teatske M., 2023. Systematic 
review of contemporary theories used for co-creation, co-design and co-production 
in Public Health. September 2023 J. Public Health 45 (3), 723–737. https://doi.org/ 
10.1093/pubmed/fdad046.
Midgley, S.J.E., Esler, K.J., Holden, P.B., et al., 2021. 2021. Typologies of collaborative 
governance for scaling nature-based solutions in two strategic South African river 
systems. Ambio 50, 1587–1609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01531-z.
Mitic-Radulovic, A., Lalovic, K., 2021. Multi-level perspective on sustainability transition 
towards nature-based solutions and co-creation in urban planning of Belgrade, 
Serbia. Sustainability 13, 7576. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147576.
Mohr-Stockinger, S., Sanft, S.J., Büttner, F., Butenschon, S., Rennert, R., Saumel, I., 2023. 
Awakening the sleeping giant of urban green in times of crisis—coverage, co- 
creation and practical guidelines for optimizing biodiversity-friendly and health- 
promoting residential greenery. Front. Public Health 11, 1175605. https://doi.org/ 
10.3389/fpubh.2023.1175605.
Moniz, G.C., Andersson, I., Hilding-Hamann, K.E., Mateus, A., Nunes, N., 2022. Inclusive 
urban regeneration with citizens and stakeholders: from living labs to the URBiNAT 
CoP. In: Mahmoud, I.H., Morello, E., Lemes De Oliveira, F., Geneletti, D. (Eds.), 
Nature-Based Solutions for Sustainable Urban Planning, Contemporary Urban Design 
Thinking. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 105–146. https://doi.org/ 
10.1007/978-3-030-89525-9_5.
Mugari, E., Nethengwe, N.S., 2022. Mainstreaming ecosystem-based disaster risk 
reduction: towards a sustainable and just transition in local development planning in 
Rural South Africa. Sustainability 14 (19), 12368. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 
su141912368.
Nature-based solutions initiative. 2025. Case study platform. At: hhttps://casestudies.nat 
urebasedsolutionsinitiative.org/case-search?_sfm_cs_eqaulityˆpositivei.
Naumann, S., Burgos Cuevas, N., Davies, C., Bradley, S., Mahmoud. I.H., Arlati, A. 
(2023). Harnessing the power of collaboration for nature-based solutions: New ideas 
and insights for local decision-makers. Publications Office of the European Union, 
2020, hhttps://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/954370i.
Neumann, V.A., Hack, J., 2022. Revealing and assessing the costs and benefits of nature- 
based solutions within a real-world laboratory in Costa Rica. Environ. Impact Assess. 
Rev. 93, 106737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106737.
Nguyen, N.T., Collins, A., Collins, C.M., 2024. Trends and patterns in the application of 
co-production, co-creation, and co-design methods in studies of green spaces: a 
systematic review. Environ. Sci. Policy 152, 103642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
envsci.2023.103642.
Norgaard, R.B., 1984. Co-evolutionary development potential. Land Econ. 60 (2), 
160–173.
Nunes, N., Bjorner, E., Hilding-Hamann, K.E., 2021. Guidelines for citizen engagement 
and the co-creation of nature-based solutions: living knowledge in the URBiNAT 
project. Sustainability 13, 13378. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313378.
Ommer, J., Bucchignani, E., Leo, L.S., Kalas, M., Vranic, S., Debele, S., Kumar, P., 
Cloke, H.L., Di Sabatino, S., 2022. Quantifying co-benefits and disbenefits of nature- 
based solutions targeting disaster risk reduction. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 75, 
102966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102966.
Pauleit, S., Hansen, R., Pribadi, D.O., 2021. Editorial: transformative urban greening: 
advancing green space governance. Front. Sustain. Cities 3, 735918. https://doi.org/ 
10.3389/frsc.2021.735918.
Pereira, P., Yin, Caichun, Hua, Ting, 2023. Nature-based solutions, ecosystem services, 
disservices, and impacts on well-being in urban environments. Curr. Opin. Environ. 
Sci. Health 33, 100465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2023.100465.
Pineda-Pinto, M., Frantzeskaki, N., Nygaard, C.A., 2022 Jan. The potential of nature- 
based solutions to deliver ecologically just cities: lessons for research and urban 
planning from a systematic literature review. Ambio 51 (1), 167–182. https://doi. 
org/10.1007/s13280-021-01553-7.
Plassnig, S.N., Pettit, M., Reichborn-Kjennerud, K., Saumel, I., 2022. Successful scaling of 
Edible City Solutions to promote food citizenship and sustainability in food system 
transitions. Front. Sustain. Cities 4, 1032836. https://doi.org/10.3389/ 
frsc.2022.1032836.
Pocock, M.J.O., Hamlin, I., Christelow, J., Passmore, H.-A., Richardson, M., 2023. The 
benefits of citizen science and nature-noticing activities for well-being, nature 
connectedness and pro-nature conservation behaviours. People Nat. 5, 591–606. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10432.
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., 2000. Co-opting customer competence. Harv. Bus. Rev. 
78 (1), 79–90.
Puskas, N., Abunnasr, Yaser, Naalbandian, Salpy, 2021. Assessing deeper levels of 
participation in nature-based solutions in urban landscapes – a literature review of 
real-world cases. Landsc. Urban Plan. 210, 104065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
landurbplan.2021.104065.
Raymond, C.M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M.R., 
Geneletti, D., Calfapietra, C., 2017. A framework for assessing and implementing the 
co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 77, 15–24. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008.
Raymond, C.M., Stedman, R., Frantzeskaki, N., 2023. The role of nature-based solutions 
and senses of place in enabling just city transitions. Environ. Sci. Policy 144, 10–19. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.02.021.
Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature 
review. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
biocon.2008.07.014.
Rodl, A., Arlati, A., 2022. A general procedure to identify indicators for evaluation and 
monitoring of nature-based solution projects. Ambio 51, 2278–2293. https://doi. 
org/10.1007/s13280-022-01740-0.
Romani, A., Casnati, F., Ianniello, A., 2022. Codesign with more-than-humans: toward a 
meta co-design tool for human-non-human collaborations. Eur. J. Futures Res. 10, 
17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-022-00205-7.
Rubi, P., M., Hack, J., 2021. Co-design of experimental nature-based solutions for 
decentralized dry-weather runoff treatment retrofitted in a densely urbanized area in 
Central America (2021). Ambio 50, 1498–1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280- 
020-01457-y.
Sachs Olsen, C., 2022. Co-creation beyond humans: the arts of multispecies placemaking. 
Urban Plan. 7 (3). https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v7i3.5288.
Sarabi, S., Han, Q., Romme, A.G.L., De Vries, B., Valkenburg, R., Den Ouden, E., 2020. 
Uptake and implementation of nature-based solutions: an analysis of barriers using 
interpretive structural modeling. J. Environ. Manag. 270, 110749. https://doi.org/ 
10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110749.
Saurugger, S., 2010. The social construction of the participatory turn: the emergence of a 
norm in the European Union. Eur. J. Political Res. 49, 471–495. https://doi.org/ 
10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01905.x.
Schroter, B., Hack, J., Hüesker, F., Kuhlicke, C., Albert, C., 2022. Beyond 
demonstrators—tackling fundamental problems in amplifying nature-based 
solutions for the post-COVID-19 world. npj Urban Sustain. 2, 4. https://doi.org/ 
10.1038/s42949-022-00047-z.
Schuerch, M., Mossman, H.L., Moore, H.E., Christie, E., Kiesel, J., 2022. Invited 
perspectives: managed realignment as a solution to mitigate coastal flood risks – 
optimizing success through knowledge co-production. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 
22, 2879–2890. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-2879-2022.
Seddon, N., Chausson, A., Berry, P., Girardin, C.A.J., Smith, A., Turner, B., 2020. 
Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and 
other global challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190120. https:// 
doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120.
Slinger, J.H., Cunningham, S.C., Kothuis, B.L.M., 2023. A co-design method for including 
stakeholder perspectives in nature-based flood risk management. Nat. Hazards 119, 
1171–1191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06139-y.
Snyder, H., 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and 
guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 
jbusres.2019.07.039.
Soini, K., Anderson, C.C., Polderman, A., Teresa, C., Sisay, D., Kumar, P., Mannocchi, M., 
Mickovski, S., Panga, D., Pilla, F., Preuschmann, S., Sahani, J., Tuomenvirta, H., 
2023. Context matters: co-creating nature-based solutions in rural living labs. Land 
Use Policy 133, 106839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106839.
Sorrentino, M., Sicilia, Mariafrancesca, Howlett, Michael, 2018. Understanding co- 
production as a new public governance tool. Policy Soc. 37 (3), 277–293. https:// 
doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1521676.
Sowinska-Swierkosz, 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.
Star, S.L., 2010. This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Sci., 
Technol. Hum. Values 35 (5), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 
0162243910377624.
Steger, C., Hirsch, S., Evers, C., Branoff, B., Petrova, M., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Van Riper, C. 
J., 2018. Ecosystem services as boundary objects for transdisciplinary collaboration. 
Ecol. Econ. 143, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.016.
Torraco, R.J., 2005. Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. 
Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 4, 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283.
Van Rooij, S., Timmermans, W., Roosenschoon, O., Keesstra, S., Sterk, M., Pedroli, B., 
2020. Landscape-based visions as powerful boundary objects in spatial planning: 
lessons from three dutch projects. Land 10, 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 
land10010016.
Voskamp, I.M., de Luca, C., Polo-Ballinas, M.B., Hulsman, H., Brolsma, R., 2021. Nature- 
based solutions tools for planning urban climate adaptation: state of the art. 
Sustainability 13 (11), 6381. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116381.
Wamsler, C., Alkan-Olsson, J., Bjorn, H., et al., 2020. Beyond participation: when citizen 
engagement leads to undesirable outcomes for nature-based solutions and climate 
change adaptation. Clim. Change 158, 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584- 
019-02557-9.
Ward, S., Paling, N., Rogers, A., 2023. Mobilising sustainable, water-resilient 
communities in the UK: evidence and engagement across scales. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 
Eng. Sustain 176, 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1680/jensu.21.00095.
Waylen, K.A., Blackstock, K.L., Marshall, K., Juarez-Bourke, A., 2023. Navigating or 
adding to complexity? Exploring the role of catchment partnerships in collaborative 
governance. Sustain. Sci. 18, 2533–2548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023- 
01387-0.
Welden, E.A., 2023. Conceptualising multispecies collaboration: Work, animal labour, 
and Nature-based Solutions. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 48, 541–555. https://doi.org/ 
10.1111/tran.12593.
Whittemore, R., Knafl, K., 2005. The integrative review: updated methodology. J. Adv. 
Nurs. 52, 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x.
Wickenberg, B., 2023. Collaborating for nature-based solutions: bringing research and 
practice together. Local Environ. 29 (1), 118–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 
13549839.2023.2254797.
Wijsman, Katinka, Auyeung, D., Brashear, Pippa, Branco, Brett, Graziano, Kathryn, 
Groffman, Peter, Cheng, Helen, Corbett, Dylan, Wijsman, Katinka, Auyeung, Novem, 
S. Sarkki et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
15 
Brashear, Pippa, Branco, Brett, Graziano, Kathryn, Groffman, Peter, Cheng, Helen, 
Corbett, Dylan, 2021. Operationalizing resilience: co-creating a framework to 
monitor hard, natural, and nature-based shoreline features in New York State. Ecol. 
Soc. 26, 10. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12182-260310.
Wild, T.C., Dempsey, N., Broadhead, A.T., 2019. Volunteered information on nature- 
based solutions — dredging for data on deculverting. Urban For. Urban Green. 40, 
254–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.08.019.
Wyborn, C., Datta, A., Montana, J., Ryan, M., Leith, P., Chaffin, B., Van Kerkhoff, L., 
2019. Co-producing sustainability: reordering the governance of science, policy, and 
practice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44 (1), 319–346. https://doi.org/10.1146/ 
annurev-environ-101718-033103.
Zingraff-Hamed, A., Hüesker, F., Albert, C., Brillinger, M., Huang, J., Lupp, G., 
Scheuer, S., Schlatel, M., Schroter, B., 2021. Governance models for nature-based 
solutions: seventeen cases from Germany. Ambio 50, 1610–1627. https://doi.org/ 
10.1007/s13280-020-01412-x.
Zingraff-Hamed, A., Hüesker, F., Lupp, G., Begg, C., Huang, J., Oen, A., Vojinovic, Z., 
Kuhlicke, C., Pauleit, S., 2020. Stakeholder mapping to co-create nature-based 
solutions: who is on board? Sustainability 12, 8625. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 
su12208625.
S. Sarkki et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Environmental Science and Policy 169 (2025) 104073 
16