Setting the Social Impact monitoring framework for NBS: methodology, drawbacks and measurement case study from Milan.

Nature-based solutions (NBS) are currently being employed in many European Commission Horizon 2020 projects in reaction to the increasing number of environmental threats, such as climate change, unsustainable urbanization, degradation and loss of natural capital and ecosystem services, etc [1, 2]. In practice, implementing NBS concept exceeds the boundaries of traditional sustainable urban development (SUD) approaches that aim to ‘protect and preserve nature’ by considering the enhancement and restoration of urban green networks, as well as the social inclusion in urban planning policies. In addition to that, NBS are not simply “just” green; they root all the way down to be considered sleeve urban design tools for green and blue infrastructure in more complex urban regeneration processes. While many scientific contributions discuss the definitions and the theoretical frameworks of nature-based solutions; hands on experiences and evidence are still needed to improve our understanding of the range of economic, social and environmental benefits provided by NBS in cities, in order to promote their inclusion in urban planning policies and decision-making processes. In this research we tackle the usage of nature-based solutions as a driver to catalyze urban regeneration strategies in practice specifically in social inclusion methods. Firstly, we examine the relevance of using NBS in addressing sustainable urban development (SUD) challenges by analyzing gaps and opportunities for binding NBS into urban planning policies [3, 4]. Secondly, we overview the major challenges and co-benefits across different societal cohesion and environmental justice bottlenecks during implementation. Thirdly, we cross reference a Wind-rose multi-model of co-benefits analysis for NBS, see Figure 1. This analysis is based on a social monitoring plan elaborated within the CLEVER Cities project – H2020 project / GA No. 776604– Milan case study. The monitoring framework of the case study is divided on Macro/Micro indicators, that measure four main indicators through different target groups, a multiplicity of measurement tools (surveys, on site observations, interviews with stakeholders, focus groups and online questionnaires). Lastly, this research paper emphasizes the social added values of NBS in long-term urban regeneration projects. Insights from the framework results emphasize the need of citizen participation in the process of co-designing and co-monitoring towards place-based ownership and increase of sense of belonging within the NBS projects in practice. The research results highlight the drawbacks on the long-term process of monitoring related to social cohesion aspects that, hence, makes the results outdated by the end of the project lifetime. Another relevant drawback is the lack of unified measurement methodological framework in many similar H2020 sisters’ project. The finding is emphasized from the forthcoming work of Task Force II established on evaluating the NBS impact in place [5]