Planning for People with People: Green Infrastructure and Nature-Based Solutions in Participatory Land-Use Planning, Co-Design, and Co-Governance of Green and Open Spaces

Abstract

Green infrastructure (GI) and nature-based solutions (NBSs) in land-use planning and landscape architecture represent a holistic, interdisciplinary response to environmental and societal challenges. Although integrated into Slovak legislation since 2019, their formal implementation has progressed rather slowly, creating a gap that has been increasingly addressed by civic initiatives (CIs) of diverse types and legal forms. This study examines approaches and methods of CIs in Slovakia implementing GI and NBSs, while focusing on their legal forms, activities, spatial delimitations, and their impact on green space development and governance. Analysis of seventeen case studies shows that many CIs operate at multiple levels—local, national, and international—often delivering professional, conceptually grounded solutions. The most frequent NBS activities involve creating or enhancing parks, green public spaces, and community gardens, as well as restoring natural and semi-natural areas through nature-based management. Knowledge creation and awareness-raising are central strategies, including environmental education centres, citizen science, public campaigns, and informal learning platforms. The transformation of derelict areas into multifunctional public spaces emerges as a notable practice, combining ecological regeneration with cultural and social uses. The findings highlight the growing role of civic actors in advancing inclusive, participatory, and knowledge-based environmental management and call for stronger institutional support to integrate their contributions into formal administrative frameworks.

1. Introduction

The European Union (EU) environmental policy is built upon a long-term vision of sustainability, encompassing principles of circular economy, green finance, digital transformation, and participatory governance [1]. The need for a more sustainable way of existence is urged by global trends, challenges, and crises worldwide. Addressing this challenge is “a shared responsibility of all states, market, and civil society” [2]. Future progress will not only depend on the strength of regulatory frameworks, but also on a meaningful engagement of stakeholders—businesses, scientists, entrepreneurs, and citizens alike. Environmental policy must continue to evolve as a dynamic governance instrument, capable of navigating uncertainty while ensuring that ecological integrity and human well-being remain central to sustainable development [1,3]. There is a growing understanding of the need to enable bottom-up initiatives and develop more participatory strategies to mainstream solution-oriented approaches in spatial planning, including co-design, co-production, and co-management [4]. This reflects a broader trend in sustainability and other societal domains towards the co-production of solutions by researchers and societal stakeholders [5].

1.1. Solution-Oriented Planning Approaches in Sustainable Development

The planning and design of sustainable, resilient, and healthy landscapes, cities, and communities is firmly rooted in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015. GI and NBSs are increasingly recognised as key concepts within EU policy discourse, promoted as solution-oriented planning approaches that integrate the objectives of nature conservation, urban development, and climate change adaptation [6]. The contemporary concepts of NBSs, GI, ecosystem services (ESs), and other environmentally based approaches are closely related and integrated [7,8]. NBSs are inspired and/or supported by nature, they are cost-effective, and capable of simultaneously delivering multiple environmental, social, and economical services and benefits. These approaches introduce diverse natural features and processes into urban, rural, and coastal contexts through locally adapted, resource-efficient, and systemic interventions [9]. They also operationalise environmental and socio-economic goals through inclusive dialogue among policymakers, scientists, practitioners, and the public [10]. GI is regarded as an innovative concept across disciplines and governance spheres. It is defined as an interconnected network of green spaces that conserves ecosystem functions and delivers associated human benefits [11]. GI holds significant potential for steering urban and rural areas towards sustainable and resilient development pathways [12]. Ecosystem services (ES) provide a complementary, integrative framework linking nature and human well-being across natural, social, and economic sciences. The functional roles of GI and NBSs closely align with ES, which—broadly defined—represent the contributions of natural and semi-natural ecosystems to human well-being [11,13]. Although on the rise, NBSs are not yet mainstream in urban development [14]. Thus, planning, designing, implementing, and managing GI and NBSs remains a complex task, requiring multi-level coordination across local, regional, national, and international contexts and spanning different landscape scales and governance structures [15].

1.2. Civic Engagement and Participation in Green Space Development

Civic engagement (CE) broadly refers to collective actions undertaken in pursuit of socially oriented goals, encompassing activities such as volunteering, community involvement, and social or political participation [16,17]. It can also be understood as a set of individual and collective efforts aimed at generating positive societal change while simultaneously developing the knowledge, skills, values, and motivations needed to sustain such efforts [18,19]. Active citizenship or bottom-up initiatives are increasingly recognised as forms of social innovation, where citizens act as voluntary producers or co-producers of social equity and urban sustainability [20,21]. Acts of environmental stewardship may include tree planting, green space maintenance, and community-based projects in parks, gardens, and other public spaces [19]. These initiatives play an important role in nature creation and environmental governance, particularly in urban and peri-urban areas [21], offering alternative models that can complement or challenge traditional top-down policymaking approaches [22]. Unlike public participation, which is typically government-led, active citizenship arises from community self-organisation and the lived experiences of individuals [23,24,25]. Citizens engaged in these processes often seek to support the development of sustainable neighbourhoods, address specific aspects of the local landscape, and promote democratic practices in environmental governance [26].

In the context of green space planning and governance, involving professionals, civic associations, and lay actors enables diverse perspectives to be integrated into planning processes, thereby stimulating interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration in decision-making frameworks [10,23,27]. However, the presence and role of NGOs vary significantly across Europe. In regions with an established tradition of civic activism, there tends to be greater engagement in participatory processes. Conversely, in areas where NGOs are less active, the capacity for public involvement is weaker. In some countries, NGO involvement in green space planning is becoming increasingly institutionalised, while in others it remains limited or absent [27,28].

1.3. Environmental Stewardship and Green Space Planning in Post Socialist Slovakia

In these complicated times of ongoing climate, economic and social crises, many stakeholders from the Slovak academic, business, and civic sectors, as well as the public administration, see only a little progress towards a “Sustainable Slovakia”. According to the main findings of the study by Huba and Kaščáková [29], the state faces numerous challenges at both national and regional levels. These include dysfunctional public administration, the absence of coherent strategies and integrated planning, environmental degradation and pollution, landscape destruction, a shortage of competent leadership, and limited citizen participation in public affairs. There is a notable absence of effective mechanisms for integrating sectoral and disciplinary approaches, as well as for coordinating actions across different planning levels. Dysfunction within the current system limits the capacity of top-down planning to adequately support the implementation of objectives at regional and local levels [1].

Current issues in Slovakia are rooted in post-socialist transitions, marked by rapid privatisation and the retreat of state planning. These shifts, along with emerging opportunities such as civic society development and changing societal values, have influenced all policy areas, including green space development and management. As such, green spaces can be seen as mirrors of broader societal transformation in post-socialist contexts [30]. Although the era of state socialism is commonly associated with political repression, it also laid the foundations for modern environmental advocacy in Slovakia [27]. The democratic shift of November 1989 promised extensive public participation in decision-making [31], and early “green recreation” activities—aimed at preserving cultural landscapes—evolved into broader environmental and civil rights discourses [32]. Conservation efforts soon attracted state surveillance and opposition [33], but this only bolstered public support, especially among urban intellectuals [34].

Principal international frameworks—such as the Aarhus Convention (1998) and the EC Directive (2003)—further enshrined participatory rights in Slovak law [27], enabling citizens to organise in both informal collectives and formal nongovernmental organisations that form mobilisation networks [35]. The 2010 municipal elections marked a turning point when environmentalists successfully campaigned for democratic and sustainable urban development, signalling a declared break from previous practices and the need for a “new political culture” to enable grassroots participation [31]. This activism drew on socialist era volunteer traditions (e.g., tree planting and community “brigades”), illustrating how greenspace stewardship has long served as a vehicle for social norms, place making, and local identity [36]. Unlike earlier activism focused on wilderness preservation [37], contemporary movements prioritise “everyday nature” in urban settings [38]. Stewardship is defined here as voluntary action to conserve, manage, monitor, advocate for, or educate the public about the local environment [19].

Green infrastructure entered the Slovak planning law in 2019 via the Nature and Landscape Protection Act No. 543/2002 [39], which was generally considered a promising opportunity to be used in planning sustainable urban development and resilient urban landscapes. Despite initial optimism, implementation has stalled due to limited political support and vested interests [40]. Many EU-led initiatives (e.g., urban climate adaptation guidelines, Natura 2000) are viewed as external burdens rather than opportunities to enhance urban quality of life [30]. A significant reform came with Act No. 200/2022 on Spatial Planning, effective since April 2024, which requires municipalities to prepare spatial plans incorporating nature protection, climate adaptation, and GI [41]. Although the new policies that have been implemented seem to be moving in the right direction, it will take time to confirm that they are being applied in practice. The slow pace of legal enactment towards the sustainable development future of Slovakia has created a niche now filled by civic associations and bottom-up initiatives [23].

1.4. Analytical Framework and Thematic Scope

A review [42] focusing on stakeholder engagement in the context of NBSs identified a marked increase in related publications since 2017, underscoring the growing relevance of this topic across various national contexts. However, Slovakia was notably absent from this review, which highlights the added value of the study.

Urban greening is increasingly seen as a “public good” initiative delivering a range of multiple health and well-being benefits [43,44]. This confirms nearly 1000 NBSs involved in the global database “Urban Nature Atlas” (UNA), developed within the NATURVATION project in 2017 [45]. Green spaces now offer citizens direct roles in climate action—one of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals [46]. While in countries with longer democratic traditions, local governments typically facilitate wide-ranging actor participation in climate adaptation [22], in Slovakia, these activities are predominantly initiated and governed by NGOs. This is due to weak top-down green space planning processes that lack interdisciplinary collaboration and face insufficient regulatory frameworks and inadequate public involvement in decision-making [40].

The study aims to explore the scope and diversity of NBSs implemented by CIs and examine how these grassroots actors engage with, adapt, and contribute to sustainable urban and rural transformations through green and blue infrastructure activities.

The analytical framework draws on the methodology developed by the NATURVATION project. The UNA was designed to gather evidence on NBSs and serve as a foundation to analyse the socioeconomic and innovation dynamics related to NBS implementation globally. It supports both the public and policymakers in understanding how communities worldwide are leveraging nature to confront the impacts and causes of climate change across diverse urban settings, ecosystems, and governance systems [45]. The database features numerous projects initiated by NGOs or civil society, which represent the second-largest group of initiators after local governments. Although Slovakia is represented in the Atlas, only municipally led projects were included.

The analysis is structured around five interrelated thematic dimensions:

• Legal form of civic initiatives CIs (

  Table A2. Legal form of civic initiatives in Slovakia.

  Type of Organisation	Civic Association	Non-Profit Organisation	Foundation
  Legal basis	Act No. 83/1990	Act No. 213/1997	Act No. 34/2002
  Purpose	Common interests, Activities can include public-benefit services or business activities related to their goals	Public-benefit services: like healthcare, education, social assistance, and environmental protection	Grant-making and public-benefit purposes for environmental protection
  Membership	Requires at least three founders; has members	Does not have members. Operates through mandatory governing bodies such as an executive board, director, and auditor. At least five individuals are required to establish these bodies	No members; they are established through a founding deed signed by one or more founders
  Structure	Flexible, the structure is defined by the association’s statutes	Mandatory governing bodies	Defined in founding charter
  Funding Administration	It can be financed through membership fees, donations, grants, or business activities. Profits can be reinvested into the association’s activities	Profits cannot be distributed among founders or employees; they must be used exclusively for public-benefit purposes. Sources include grants, subsidies, donations, and sponsorships	Relies on endowments or property contributions from founders. Assets are used to support charitable projects or causes outlined in the founding charter
  Administration	Less administratively demanding compared to other non-profit entities.	Higher administrative requirements and annual reports are required.	Stricter guidelines

  ), distinguishing between formalised entities—such as registered civic associations and non-profit organisations—and informal collectives without legal status.
• Spatial context of engagement, identifying whether initiatives operate primarily in urban or rural settings.
• Spatial scale of impact (

  Table A3. Civic initiatives spatial and impact delimitations.

  Spatial Delimitation, Impact	Characteristics
  Local	Activities of NGO that are place-based interventions, localised within towns, districts, community projects.
  National	Activities with influence across a whole country, including collaboration with governmental bodies or national networks.
  International	Activities that cross borders, engage with international networks, or influence global discussions. Addressing transboundary environmental issues.

  ), categorised as local, national, or international, reflecting the geographical reach of activities from community-based projects to cross-border engagements.
• Typology of NBSs implemented (

  Table A4. Civic initiatives and nature-based solutions.

  Nature-Based Solution (NBS)	Type of NBS
  blue infrastructure	lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, wetlands, peatlands, swamps, moors, riverbank, lakeside greenery
  food production	nature gardens, allotments, community garden
  green areas for stormwater management	rain gardens, swales, retention areas
  grey infrastructure integrating green	alley or street trees, street vegetation, green parking lots
  parks and other green spaces	urban parks, forests, pocket parks, neighbourhood green space, institutional green, school grounds, playgrounds
  intentionally unmanaged areas	spaces that are deliberately left to natural succession and ecological processes without active maintenance or design interventions; abandoned spaces with growth of wilderness through a low-input, nature-led approach

  ), including blue infrastructure (e.g., riverbank restoration), productive gardens (e.g., allotments, community gardens), storm water management systems (e.g., rain gardens, swales), green–grey integration, parks, and unmanaged areas.
• Activity focus (

  Table A5. Civic initiative focus.

  Focus	Description of Main Activities
  Creation of new green areas	Establishment of new vegetated spaces such as parks, green corridors, gardens, or forests in urban or peri-urban environments. This can include both small-scale (e.g., pocket parks) and large-scale (e.g., urban forests) interventions that increase green cover.
  Maintenance and management of green spaces	Activities focused on the management of green spaces. This includes watering, pruning, planting.
  Ecological restoration of ecosystems	Focuses on returning degraded or damaged ecosystems to a more natural, biodiverse, and resilient state. Restoration may involve soil improvement, reforestation, removal of invasive species, or reintroduction of native flora and fauna (e.g., wetland rehabilitation, riverbank restoration, meadow creation).
  Protection of natural ecosystem	Includes legal, physical, or participatory actions to safeguard existing natural environments from degradation, urban development, or climate impacts. Often tied to conservation policies or local activism.
  Transformation of previously derelict areas	Describes the conversion of abandoned or underutilised spaces—such as brownfields, vacant lots, or former industrial areas—into functional green infrastructure that offers ecological and social benefits.
  Knowledge creation and awareness-raising	Creating eco-centres, environmental and cultural events, organising thematic workshops for schools and public, educational walks in ecologically valuable areas, participatory planning, co-creation.
  Strategy, planning, policy development	Refers to initiatives that can deliver or participate in developing landscape architecture planning, spatial planning, climate adaptation strategy, urban greening strategies.
  Improved governance of green or blue areas	Enhancing decision-making, coordination, and accountability in the management of green (vegetation) and blue (water) spaces through inclusive, transparent governance structures.
  Monitoring and maintenance of habitats	Systematic observation and technical upkeep of natural or semi-natural habitats to ensure long-term biodiversity and ecological health. Wildlife monitoring in restored wetlands, invasive species control.
  Food production, permaculture	Green infrastructure used for growing food through sustainable and regenerative practices, enhancing urban food security. Community gardens, edible landscapes, permaculture gardens.

  ), encompassing creation and maintenance of green spaces, ecological restoration, policy advocacy, knowledge dissemination, and food production.

This multidimensional framework facilitates a comprehensive understanding of how civic actors contribute to sustainable urban and rural transformation through NBS practices across varying spatial and institutional contexts.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Case Identification and Data Collection

Slovakia is administratively divided into eight self-governing regions (SGRs) (Figure 1), which served as the territorial basis for case selection to ensure geographic diversity and regional representation. The initial phase of the study focused on identifying CIs in Slovakia that prioritise environmental protection, ecological restoration, and public participation in environmental decision-making. To conduct this search systematically, we used the online Business Register of the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic to identify registered civic associations operating in these domains.

To build the case study (CS) database, the general selection criteria were applied to ensure relevance to the research objectives. Eligible cases were required to address urban or rural societal challenges, involve interventions that altered or enhanced the function of a specific area, and apply nature-based principles—either directly or conceptually—to respond to environmental, spatial, or social issues. These interventions included both physical transformations (e.g., green infrastructure, habitat restoration) and discursive actions (e.g., educational programs, participatory management approaches). Each case also had to demonstrate engagement with civil society or other relevant stakeholders.

A total of 17 CSs were identified across both urban and rural contexts within Slovakia. These include: 7 CSs from the Bratislava Self-Governing Region (SGR), 2 CSs from Trenčín SGR, 1 CS from Trnava SGR, 2 CSs from Nitra SGR, 1 CS from Žilina SGR, 2 CSs from BanskáBystrica SGR, and 2 CSs from Košice SGR. Each case study entry includes general information such as the legal status of the initiative, its goals and objectives, and relevant contact details (

Table A1. Legal forms of non-governmental organisations in Slovakia.

Name of the NGO	Dated from	Location Within Slovakia	Legal Form	Objective of the Civic Initiative	Contact, Accessed on 30 August 2025
01. Národný trust- The National Trust of Slovakia	2006	Bratislava	NPO	Creation, development, protection, restoration and presentation of spiritual and cultural values of Slovakia	www.nt.sk/en www.facebook.com/NarodnyTrust
02. Vnútroblok	2012	Bratislava	CA	Public spaces, public engagement and consultations, Social and Spatial mapping	www.facebook_MobilneZahrady
03. KoZa v Háji	2018	Bratislava	CA	Environmental and community engagement, environmental education, public greenery protection	www.kozavhaji.eu www.facebook.com/kozavhaji
04. Hrad—Slavín	2006	Bratislava	CA	Environmental protection and education, spatial and cultural conservation of the old town Bratislava, spatial plan consultations	Občianske Združenie Hrad-Slavín—www.ozhradslavin.sk Facebook_hradslavin
05. BROZ—Regional Association for Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development	1997	Bratislava	CA	Environmental protection and education, environmental strategies and planning	BROZ—ochranárske združenie—BROZ www.facebook.com/broz.ba
06. DAPHNE—Institute of Applied Ecology	1997	Bratislava	CA	Environmental protection and education, environmental strategies and planning	www.daphne.sk www.facebook.com/daphne.institut
07. Naše Zálesíčko	2013	Zálesie	CA	Environmental protection and education, community engagement, cultural activities and events, public space	www.facebook.com/nasezalesicko www.nasezalesicko.sk
08. ŽiTo v SÝPKE	2018	Moravské Lieskové	CA	Environmental protection and education, community engagement, cultural activitites and events	www.facebook.com/ZITOvSYPKE www.zitovsypke.sk
09. eDeN v meste	2022	Nová Dubnica	CA	Environment	www.facebook.com/edenvmeste
10. Zelený plán	2018	Galanta	CA	Protection and restoration of environment, maintenance of green spaces, community engagement, green space planning	Zelenyplan.sk www.facebook.com/zelenyplan
11. VíZia—Rural Green Infrastructure	2020	Tvrdošovce	CA	Protection and restoration of environment, maintenance of green spaces, community engagement	www.facebook_ViZia
12. Strom darom	2017	Nové Zámky	Informal CI /Project	Protection of green public spaces, maintenance of green spaces, community engagement	www.facebook.com/stromdarom
13. Alter Nativa	2002	Brdárka	CA	Environment, biodiversity protection and creation, permaculture, protection of cultural heritage	www.alter-nativa.sk www.facebook.com/Alter.Nativa.Brdarka
14. Poď na dvor	2020	Košice	CA	Environment, public space, civic engagement, culture community development	www.podnadvor.sk www.facebook.com/podnadvor
15. Spolka	2016	Košice	CA	Urban planning, strategies, consultations, public engagement, culture	www.spolka.cc
16. Združenie Slatinka	1993	Zvolen	CA	Environmental protection, ecological restoration, and public engagement in environmental decision-making	www.slatinka.sk
17. Živý priestor	2022	Námestovo	CA	Environment	Facebook_zivypriestor

).

CS.01_Národný trust—The National Trust of Slovakia, Legal form: Non-profit organisation. Location: Bratislava (BA-SGR). Focus: Protection, restoration, and public access to Slovakia’s cultural and natural heritage, particularly historic parks and gardens, as well as valuable trees, avenues, and heritage landscapes.

CS.02_Vnútroblok. Legal form: Civic association. Location: Bratislava (BA-SGR). Focus: Initiative was founded to transform unused or derelict urban spaces—vacant lots, courtyards, or disused schoolyards—into active, community-led mobile gardens.

CS.03_KoZa v Háji. Legal form: Civic association. Location: Bratislava (BA-SGR). Focus: Initiative represents a compelling example of how small, urban community gardens can be catalysts for ecological education, community resilience, and spatial revitalisation. Through participatory gardening, environmental workshops, and intergenerational collaboration, it offers both a knowledge-rich environment and a collective platform for urban resident empowerment.

CS.04_Hrad—Slavín. Legal form: Civic association. Location: Bratislava (BA-SGR). Focus: The initiative is committed to improving urban living conditions through safeguarding greenery, preventing unwarranted development, and advocating for urban environmental quality. The organisation actively monitors tree felling and campaigns against improper removal of mature trees. The association took part in rescuing the historically significant Mičurin botanical site, a national cultural monument in decline, advocating for its preservation and restoration.

CS.05_BROZ—Regional Association for Nature Conservation and Sustainable Development. Legal form: Civic association. Location: Bratislava (BA-SGR). Focus: Professionally staffed NGO dedicated to practical conservation and restoration of Natura 2000 habitats across Slovakia, with particular focus on the Danube floodplain, Little and White Carpathians, Záhorie, and the Bratislava region. Their mission is to halt habitat degradation and biodiversity loss through science-based, site-specific interventions and stakeholder collaboration.

CS.06_DAPHNE—Institute of Applied Ecology. Legal form: Civic association. Location: Bratislava (BA-SGR). Focus: The organisation specialises in applied ecological research, habitat conservation, and education, particularly targeting small non-forest ecosystems such as meadows, marshes, peatlands, saline systems, and sand dunes in Slovakia. With a core team of approximately ten professionals supported by external collaborators, DAPHNE integrates science, policy, and civic engagement in its work.

CS.07_NašeZálesíčko. Legal form: Civic association. Location: Zálesie (BA-SGR). Focus: Exemplifies how a small village association can activate local landscapes through blue–green infrastructure, artful community planning, and lifelong learning. By merging environmental design with culture and civic engagement, they have redefined a suburban area as a model of sustainable, bottom-up stewardship and ecological resiliency.

CS.08_ŽiTo v SÝPKE. Legal form: Civic association. Location: Moravské Lieskové (TN-SGR). Focus: Initiative emerged from community efforts to revitalise a former agricultural estate—including a disused granary—into a vibrant educational, cultural, and ecological hub. The association is committed to creating a space that connects people through sensory experiences, environmental knowledge, and community values.

CS.09_eDeN v meste. Legal form: Civic association. Location: Nová Dubnica (TN-SGR). Focus: The organisation is engaged in creating a community garden, planting trees, restoring wetlands, and constructing educational trails focused on local biodiversity.

CS.10_Zelený plán. Legal form: Civic association. Location: Galanta (TT-SGR). Focus: Sustainable, high-quality public spaces and environmental stewardship through participatory interventions, educational outreach, and applied landscape-architectural design. The organisation promotes environmental literacy by illustrating how public greenery can improve climate resilience, biodiversity, and social cohesion in everyday urban life.

CS.11_VíZia—Rural Green Infrastructure. Legal form: Civic association. Location: Tvrdošovce (NR-SGR). Focus: A mission to promote and implement green infrastructure solutions in rural municipalities. It engages in environmental education, tree planting, and biodiversity-enhancing initiatives, collaborating closely with the local community and municipality.

CS.12_Strom darom. Legal form: Informal project. Location: Nové Zámky (NR-SGR). Focus: Aims to encourage civic engagement through a simple yet meaningful act: residents purchase and plant a tree as a gift to the city, someone else, or for a special occasion. The initiative actively monitors tree felling and campaigns against the improper removal of mature trees.

CS.13_Alter Nativa. Legal form: Civic association. Location: Brdárka (KE-SGR). Focus: Established in a small village with approximately 40 households and over 4000 cherry trees, the organisation fosters sustainable land stewardship, genetic biodiversity conservation, and permaculture education as part of its ethical and communal mission. The association emerged from a desire to cultivate meaningful, ecologically responsible lifestyles rooted in permaculture, traditional crafts, and rural community cohesion.

CS.14_Poďnadvor. Legal form: Civic association. Location: Košice, (KE-SGR). Focus: Focused on community gardening and place-based interventions. Through cleaning, planting, artistic interventions, and communal gatherings, the group fostered a neighbour-driven transformation of public space.

CS.15_Spolka. Legal form: Civic association. Location: Košice (KE-SGR). Focus: Their mission is to foster sustainable, inclusive cities driven by public discourse and engagement in urban transformation. It is a collective of architects, sociologists, and designers committed to reshaping urban space through participatory processes, critical research, education, and civic co-creation.

CS.16_Združenie Slatinka. Legal form: Civic association. Location: Zvolen (BB-SGR). Focus: The association emerged in response to renewed plans for a controversial water reservoir on the Slatina River. The association successfully contributed to securing the river valley’s official recognition as a Natura 2000 protected area. Manages a local natural site as well—Lanice Park in Zvolen—and the surrounding floodplain meadows, supporting stewardship and ecological maintenance. Engages children and youth through school-based ecological programming and hands-on trail maintenance.

CS.17_Živý priestor. Legal form: Civic association. Location: Námestovo (ZA-SGR). Focus: The organisation aims to revitalise public spaces around the Oravská priehrada (Orava Reservoir) and adjacent waterways. Their goal is to foster place-based creativity, reconnect communities with local nature, and promote sustainable regional development through participatory interventions and cultural events.

2.2. Analysis of Civic Initiative’s Activities Within Nature-Based Solutions

Discourse analysis [45] was used to examine how civic associations in Slovakia frame and legitimise their practices related to NBSs and landscape transformation. Drawing on websites, public presentations, and interview transcripts, the study identified narratives, metaphors, and framings that articulate values such as ecological care, resilience, and community stewardship. Using a critical discourse analysis lens [47,48,49], it explored how initiatives position themselves within governance structures, how certain discourses gain legitimacy and how they influence public engagement and policy. This method provided insight into how civic actors shape local landscape imaginaries and embed ecological thinking into place-based interventions [49].

To identify and categorise the NBSs implemented by CIs, the study employed a typological framework grounded in the ecological function and spatial characteristics of the interventions. There is a table within each NBS category that includes the number (n) of CSs per studied area.

Six distinct categories of NBSs (Table A4) were used as analytical indicators: blue infrastructure, productive gardens, green areas for stormwater management, grey infrastructure integrating green, parks and other green spaces, and intentionally unmanaged areas. NBSs may be implemented at a small scale; for example, pocket parks, community gardens, or tree-lined streets. They may also be realised at a larger scale, such as through city-level projects involving the creation of green corridors, riverbank restoration, or the adoption of city-wide biodiversity strategies that incorporate multiple green space elements [45,50].

The study examined the topic using a qualitative content analysis to examine the focus and activities of CIs implementing NBSs. Data collection involved identifying and categorising initiatives based on a predefined framework of focus areas and main activities, as outlined in Appendix E, (Table A5). The analysis utilised ten indicators of NBS engagement: creation of new green areas, maintenance and management of green spaces, ecological restoration of ecosystems, protection of natural ecosystems, transformation of previously derelict areas, knowledge creation and awareness raising, strategy and policy development, improved governance of green or blue areas, monitoring and maintenance of habitats, and food production through permaculture. Each initiative was assessed for its alignment with one or more of these categories by examining its documented activities, goals, and implemented actions. This approach enabled a systematic comparison of the ways in which civic actors contribute to ecological, social, and governance-related dimensions of NBS across diverse urban and rural contexts.

3. Results

3.1. Legal Form, Spatial Delimitation and Impact of Initiatives

An analysis of the legal forms adopted by CIs reveals that most (n = 15 (88%) of the CSs operate as civic associations. The predominance of this legal form may be attributed to its greater flexibility in organisational structure and comparatively lower administrative burden relative to other non-profit legal forms (

Table 1. Analysis of legal forms, spatial delimitation and impact of civic initiatives.

Studied Area	Sub-Area	Civic Initiatives
Legal form	Non-profit organisation (n = 1)	CS.01
	Civic association (n = 15)	CS.02, CS.03, CS.04, CS.05, CS.06, CS.07, CS.08, CS.09, CS.10, CS.11, CS.13, CS.14, CS.15, CS.16, CS.17
	Informal, project (n = 1)	CS.12
Spatial delimitation	Urban (n = 9)	CS.02, CS.03, CS.04, CS.09, CS.10, CS.12, CS.15, CS.16, CS.17
	Rural (n = 4)	CS.07, CS.08, CS.11, CS.13
	Urban + Rural (n = 4)	CS.01, CS.05, CS.06, CS.14
Impact	Local (n = 17)	CS.01, CS.02, CS.03, CS.04, CS.05, CS.06, CS.07, CS.08, CS.09, CS.10, CS.11, CS.12, CS.13, CS.14, CS.15, CS.16, CS.17
	National (n = 6)	CS.01, CS.04, CS.05, CS.06, CS.14, CS.16
	International (n = 4)	CS.01, CS.05, CS.06, CS.16

).

In terms of spatial context (Table 1), our findings indicate that in n = 4 (24%) cases, CIs engage in both urban and rural environments. Civic engagement and innovation are no longer confined only to urban environments, which account for n = 9 (52%) cases of interventions. Notably, n = 4 (24%) of the initiatives engage in rural areas too, highlighting the growing role of active communities beyond city boundaries. In some cases, such an engagement takes place in remote locations with very small populations, for example, case study CS.13, located in a municipality with only 60 residents.

The spatial reach and influence (Table 1) of the analysed civic initiatives (CS.01–CS.17) demonstrate a predominant focus on the local scale, underscoring their deep embeddedness within community contexts. All 17 initiatives primarily operate within their respective municipalities or regions, where they engage directly with residents, local authorities, and place-based environmental challenges. This local anchoring enables them to tailor interventions to specific socio-ecological contexts and to cultivate strong, trust-based relationships with stakeholders.

At the national level, n = 6 (35%) of the initiatives extend their activities beyond their immediate localities, contributing to broader environmental, educational, and policy impacts across Slovakia. For example, CS.01 organises a nationwide cultural and educational event (the Weekend of Open Parks and Gardens) that fosters public engagement in the conservation of historical parks and gardens. In parallel, it supports education and research through the Centre for Garden and Landscape Culture. CS.04 coordinates the national platform (Green to Green, Zelená zeleni), which addresses climate change adaptation and mitigation while involving stakeholders from all Slovak regions. CS.05 operates nationally to protect and restore forests, meadows, and wetlands within Natura 2000 sites, with a particular emphasis on the Bratislava region and southwestern Slovakia. CS.14 contributes to environmental policy development by reviewing legislation and advocating for enhanced civic participation, while also being an active member of the Ekofórum national network, which fosters collaboration among Slovak environmental NGOs. CS.16 is frequently invited by municipalities across the country to share expertise in participatory planning, especially in contexts where local capacity is limited.

At the international level, n = 4 (24%) of the initiatives engage in transnational collaborations, EU-funded projects, and cross-border partnerships. CS.01 and CS.05 jointly participate in the Cities. Gardens. Diversity—Bratislava and Vienna Go Green Together INTERREG project, which strengthens green infrastructure and biodiversity. CS.01 also leads the “Wise Trees” project in partnership with Hungarian organisations, focusing on ancient tree conservation along the Slovak–Hungarian border. CS.05 is involved in multiple EU-funded environmental initiatives, including Resilient Trees, which promotes the conservation of old-growth forests and veteran trees across six European countries, and LIFE Resistance, a transboundary restoration project targeting Danube floodplain habitats through innovative methods such as satellite monitoring and traditional grazing. Furthermore, the WILDisland project, part of the broader DANUBEPARKS network, unites 15 partners from nine countries to revitalise Danube islands and preserve floodplain forests. CS.06 cooperates with Austrian partners on the City Nature project, enhancing urban biodiversity in Bratislava and Vienna, while also contributing to invasive species management strategies across Slovak and Czech territories. CS.14 hosted VUELA 2024, a Spanish–Slovak collaboration that engaged university students in hands-on environmental restoration in the Slatina River valley. CS.16 participated in the Slovak–Norwegian Cultural Matching initiative, which promoted civic engagement and cultural exchange through digital events focused on co-creation in urban planning, participatory democracy, and digital citizenship.

3.2. Activities of Civic Initiatives’ Engaging in Nature-Based Solutions

According to Colding [51], active citizenship contributes to urban GI creation and maintenance, as well as activates the local communities by enhancing social cohesion and environmental awareness [52,53]. Citizen and stakeholder participation in NBS has been reported as crucial for the success of those solutions. Such participation usually involves people and organised groups that can influence the decision-making processes [42]. The study analyses the activities (Figure A1) of 17 case studies engaging in NBSs (Figure A2).

3.2.1. Blue Infrastructure

Within the scope of NBSs, blue infrastructure represents 41% of all identified civic-led interventions (

Table 2. Analysis of studied NBSs—blue infrastructure.

Nature-Based Solutions	Activities	Civic Initiatives
Blue infrastructure (n = 7)	Protection and restoration of natural ecosystems (n = 7)	CS.05, CS.06, CS.07, CS.09, CS.10, CS.14, CS.17
	Transformation of previously derelict areas (n = 1)	CS.07
	Monitoring and maintenance of habitats (n = 3)	CS.05, CS.09, CS.14
	Improved governance of green and blue areas (n = 3)	CS.05, CS.06, CS.07
	Knowledge creation and awareness-raising (n = 5)	CS.05, CS.06, CS.07, CS.09, CS.14
	Strategy, planning, policy development (n = 4)	CS.05, CS.06, CS.07, CS.14

).

Activity: Protection and restoration of natural ecosystems

Across seven case studies (CS.05, CS.06, CS.07, CS.09, CS.10, CS.14, CS.17), initiatives address mainly the protection and restoration of freshwater ecosystems, ranging from large riverine landscapes to small urban wetlands and sustainable management. Notably, CS.05 restored over 1000 ha of wetlands and 1200 ha of improved water dynamics, as well as the reconnection of eight Danube River side arms. Their project Living Rivers spans multiple river basins (Danube, Hron, Ipeľ, Belá), aiming to improve the ecological status of 344 km of watercourses through hydro-morphological interventions, floodplain forest restoration, and the removal of migration barriers for fish. CIs have shown substantial engagement by enhancing water retention and improving biodiversity. CS.06 applies NBSs for climate adaptation through the LIFE WILL project, which promotes water retention and landscape resilience. In Šterusy, pilot measures include small-scale wetland restoration and rainwater retention. CS.09 focuses on wetlands around Dubnica nad Váhom, improving ecological conditions through habitat management, while CS.10 and CS.17 implement community-based revitalisation of water bodies and neglected riverbanks into accessible green–blue public spaces. CS.14 has notably contributed to the long-term protection of the Slatina River, receiving national recognition for its advocacy work.

Activity: Knowledge creation and awareness-raising

Education and knowledge dissemination are integral to civic engagement. CS.05 conducts extensive outreach through field visits, documentary films, and educational programs to communicate the ecological value of floodplain systems (Natura 200). CS.06 creates local knowledge on small-scale water management, while CS.07 integrates environmental learning into public infrastructure, such as nature trails and observation piers in floodplain forest for blending environmental, cultural, and recreational goals.

CS.09 developed educational trails focused on wetlands, and CS.14 used public walks and local eco-branding (Riekoles) to foster environmental stewardship.

Activity: Strategy, planning, policy development

Strategic planning underpins the long-term success of civic NBS efforts. CS.05 contributes to formal forest management plans at the state level, integrating floodplain restoration into official planning frameworks. CS.06 applies participatory methodologies involving residents in decision-making from analysis to implementation. CS.07 developed detailed architectural and ecological plans for riverbank restoration, securing nearly €1 million in funding. CS.14 actively comments on national environmental legislation and empowers citizen participation in policy processes.

Activity: Monitoring and maintenance of habitats

Long-term sustainability of NBSs requires continuous monitoring and adaptive management. The Danube floodplain habitat restoration initiative CS.05 establishes pilot demonstration sites in the region as living laboratories to assess the effectiveness of nature-based solutions. In collaboration with universities and research institutes, it conducts monitoring and applied research to inform best practices in ecological restoration and green infrastructure planning. CS.09 implemented a restoration management plan for wetland Abrod, once home to valuable Molinia meadows, and CS.14 mobilises volunteers to identify biodiversity-supportive interventions in the Slatina River valley. Similarly, CS.09 and CS.14 contribute to biodiversity monitoring by managing neglected wetlands and mapping restoration opportunities along river valleys, respectively.

Activity: Improved governance of green or blue areas

Participatory governance is a core principle in the successful implementation of NBSs. CS.05 leads a multi-stakeholder steering committee under the LIFE RESISTANCE project, facilitating collaboration among farmers, foresters, researchers, and water managers. Within the DANUBEPARKS-connected initiative, bio-corridors have been enhanced through the introduction of floodplain dike grazing and coordinated habitat management, undertaken in partnership with local farmers, volunteers, and municipal stakeholders. This approach represents a governance model that integrates ecological objectives with community-based stewardship, thereby strengthening the resilience and long-term sustainability of riparian and floodplain ecosystems. For CS.06, through collaborative policy recommendations with public authorities, the initiative influences the governance and planning of protected and ecologically valuable areas, actively revitalising degraded green spaces by planting native vegetation and removing invasive species. CS.07 aligns its ecological restoration with municipal strategies, enhancing governance of the Natura 2000 site through co-developed projects.

Activity: Transformation of previously derelict areas

Derelict and abandoned riverine spaces are being transformed into multifunctional blue-green areas. CS.07 exemplifies community-led environmental revitalisation in a rural municipality, successfully removing a riverbank dump in the Natura 2000-protected Little Danube area through land regeneration and environmental stewardship. Its key achievement is an award-winning wooden promenade and lookout tower designed to blend with nature and host cultural events. Additional projects include a footbridge, floating pontoon, floodplain reforestation, and nature trails, integrating ecological, cultural, and recreational goals.

3.2.2. Community, Allotment Gardens, Nature Gardens

Allotment and community gardens have a longstanding tradition in Czech and Slovak society, even rooted in the spatial planning policies of the socialist era, when such spaces were promoted as essential components of urban and peri-urban life. However, since the early 2000s, many of these gardens have been lost to real estate development and infrastructure expansion [54]. Recently, public interest in urban gardening has resurged, leading to a rise in CIs creating community and nature gardens as multifunctional spaces that blend food production, education, and social engagement. In total, 17% of the analysed NBS activities are dedicated to this category (

Table 3. Analysis of studied NBSs—community gardens.

Nature-Based Solutions	Activities	Civic Initiatives
Community gardens, nature gardens (n = 6)	Food production (n = 6)	CS.02, CS.03, CS.08, CS.09, CS.13, CS.15
	Transformation of previously derelict areas (n = 4)	CS.02, CS.03, CS.08, CS.15
	Knowledge creation and awareness-raising (n = 5)	CS.02, CS.03, CS.08, CS.13, CS.15
	Strategy, planning, policy development (n = 4)	CS.02, CS.08, CS.13, CS.15

).

Activity: Food production

CS.02 operates a mobile network of temporary gardens that activate underutilised urban land. The project, led by architects and planners, fosters community building and civic engagement by creating semi-public spaces equipped for small-scale cultivation, social interaction, and cultural activities. CS.03 transformed a disused children’s playground into a permaculture-based community garden, emphasising ecological principles like composting, green manuring, and pesticide-free food production. The site includes a composting facility and is designed to enhance neighbourhood relations through shared work and intergenerational collaboration. CS.08 developed a certified nature garden used for environmental education. The initiative runs outdoor learning programs and permaculture workshops for schools and the wider public, promoting hands-on sustainability practices. CS.13 revitalised the depopulated village of Brdárka by restoring traditional cherry orchards and establishing a permaculture nature garden. The initiative focuses on ecological farming, biodiversity conservation, and cultural heritage preservation, supported by the influx of new residents committed to rural sustainability. CS.15 successfully prevented the conversion of a derelict urban courtyard into a parking lot by proposing and implementing a community garden instead. Through a participatory design process involving residents and municipal authorities, the initiative created a multifunctional space featuring raised beds, a pergola with a terrace, and a rain garden—demonstrating the potential of grassroots activism to reshape urban planning outcomes.

Activity: Knowledge creation and awareness-raising

Several CIs significantly contribute to public understanding of sustainability, biodiversity, and urban environmental challenges through innovative educational programs, participatory tools, and awareness campaigns. CS.02 raises awareness about the potential reuse of vacant urban land and buildings—often located just meters away from residents’ homes. By highlighting the untapped value of these underutilised spaces, the initiative promotes environmental literacy and introduces sustainability concepts into everyday urban life. Through spatial interventions and public communication, it encourages new perspectives on urban regeneration and civic engagement. CS.08 established an eco-centre that serves as an educational hub offering hands-on environmental learning opportunities, including workshops, exhibitions, and school programs. Its certified nature garden supports outdoor education, showcasing permaculture methods and promoting a harmonious relationship between people and nature. CS.13 fosters permaculture education and community resilience through workshops in a certified nature garden and the restoration of traditional orchards and architecture. Its educational focus is integrated with cultural programming, traditional craft preservation, and community events that deepen connections between ecological practices and local identity. CS.15 organises planning meetings, workshops, and participatory events involving residents and local authorities. The initiative educates participants about urban ecology, inclusive public space design, and sustainable living. Its community garden includes tactile maps for visually impaired users and informative signage about plant species, supporting environmental accessibility and awareness.

Activity: Transformation of previously derelict areas

Several CIs have targeted the transformation of derelict urban spaces, reactivated neglected land, and redefined its role in the community through NBSs. These interventions serve not only environmental goals but also act as catalysts for social innovation, public dialogue, and spatial justice. CS.02 implemented the project DIERY (“Holes”) to integrate overlooked and underutilised urban plots into Bratislava’s mental and spatial landscape. These fragmented urban voids—relics of disinvestment or stalled development—were temporarily activated through “production fields,” conceptual pop-up spaces that emphasised public value over private speculation. The initiative uses these ephemeral interventions to challenge dominant land-use models, promote public discourse, and test low-cost, scalable models for reclaiming abandoned spaces. CS.08 converted an abandoned agricultural cooperative, including a disused granary, into the E.K.O. Centre, a multifunctional environmental and educational hub. The surrounding two-hectare site was transformed into a certified nature garden that supports biodiversity, hosts educational programs, and serves as a welcoming space for community gatherings and ecotourism. CS.15 successfully prevented the conversion of a derelict urban courtyard into a parking lot by proposing and implementing a community garden instead.

Activity: Strategy, planning, policy development

Some initiatives extend their influence beyond site-based interventions by contributing to policy development and long-term planning frameworks that shape sustainable urban governance. CS.02 plays a pioneering role in rethinking vacant land not as marginal but as sites of urban opportunity. Its strategic concept emphasises tripartism [55], fostering collaboration among non-profits, municipalities, and private actors. Through this model, CS.02 facilitated socially inclusive, economically sustainable reuses of urban voids—mobilising property owners, public authorities, and sponsors to co-create temporary but impactful solutions. Its advocacy efforts helped institutionalise community gardens at the municipal level in Bratislava. As the city took over support for new CGs, the initiative gradually phased out, having successfully fulfilled its mission. CS.15 exemplifies strategic civic participation in governance, with members taking seats in the municipal council to embed their values into local decision-making. The initiative created the CHANGING KOŠICE platform to support bottom-up urban stewardship by offering guidance, resources, and inspiration for residents interested in transforming their neighbourhoods. It fosters the replication of successful interventions and helps integrate community-driven planning into formal urban policy [56].

3.2.3. Green Areas for Stormwater Management

Green infrastructure for stormwater management accounts for approximately 23.5% of NBSs identified across the studied CIs (

Table 4. Analysis of studied NBSs—green areas for stormwater management.

Nature-Based Solutions	Activities	Civic Initiatives
Green areas for stormwater management (n = 4)	Creation of new green areas (n = 4)	CS.05, CS.08, CS.14, CS.15

). These interventions aim to reduce surface runoff, enhance local water retention, and mitigate urban heat island effects while improving ecological quality and liveability in built-up areas.

A notable example is CS.05, which implemented rainwater management systems in partnership with municipal authorities in the Bratislava city district of Karlova Ves. Measures include the collection of rainwater from school and kindergarten buildings in both aboveground and underground retention tanks, used for flushing toilets and irrigating adjacent green spaces. In the kindergarten’s inner courtyard, vegetated climate ponds help to cool the space. A model rainwater-harvesting and reuse solution was introduced in a nearby residential courtyard, which also includes two rain gardens to facilitate infiltration and biodiversity enhancement. The nature garden of CS.08 incorporates a rainwater retention system via an irrigation pond and constructed wetland, supporting educational and ecological functions. Similarly, CS.15 applies rain garden infiltration methods and harvests stormwater for use in its community garden.

CS.14 participated in the Green Lungs of the City—Revitalisation of ÚSPECH Park project in Trenčín, where ecological principles—particularly sustainable stormwater management—were integrated into urban planning to increase the city’s climate adaptability.

3.2.4. Grey Infrastructure Integrating Green

CS.10 and CS.12 represent 11.7% of the studied cases that integrate green elements directly into grey infrastructure (

Table 5. Analysis of studied NBSs—grey infrastructure integrating green.

Nature-Based Solutions	Activities	Civic Initiatives
Grey infrastructure integrating green (n = 2)	Creation of new green areas (n = 2)	CS.10, CS.12

). This relatively low occurrence may be attributed to the higher technical and design demands associated with such interventions, as well as the need for strong cooperation with municipalities and urban planners. CS.12 developed and implemented a planting plan for a residential car parking area, incorporating trees, hedges, and perennial beds. Additionally, the initiative planted an alley of trees along an adjacent road, aiming to mitigate the urban heat island effect and enhance the aesthetic and ecological quality of transport infrastructure. Similarly, CS.10 participated in the planning and execution of tree planting and perennial bed installations along streets in Galanta, working in close partnership with the municipal government to humanise and green mobility corridors.

3.2.5. Parks and Other Green Spaces

Green infrastructure represents 70% of all identified NBSs, making it the most common area of intervention by CIs (

Table 6. Analysis of studied NBSs—parks and other green spaces.

Nature-Based Solutions	Activities	Civic Initiatives
Parks and other green spaces (n = 12)	Creation of new green areas (n = 9)	CS.05, CS.06, CS.07, CS.10, CS.11, CS.12, CS.14, CS.16, CS.17
	Maintenance and management of green spaces (n = 10)	CS.01, CS.04, CS.05, CS.07, CS.10, CS.11, CS.12, CS.14, CS.15, CS.17
	Protection and restoration of natural ecosystems (n = 8)	CS.05, CS.06, CS.07, CS.09, CS.10, CS.13, CS.14, CS.17
	Transformation of previously derelict areas (n = 8)	CS.01, CS.02, CS.03, CS.04, CS.07, CS.08, CS.15, CS.16
	Knowledge creation and awareness-raising (n = 12)	CS.01, CS.04, CS.05, CS.06, CS.07, CS.10, CS.11, CS.12, CS.14, CS.15, CS.16, CS.17
	Strategy, planning, policy development (n = 12)	CS.01, CS.04, CS.05, CS.06, CS.07, CS.10, CS.11, CS.12, CS.14, CS.15, CS.16, CS.17
	Improved governance of green and blue areas (n = 12)	CS.01, CS.04, CS.05, CS.06, CS.07, CS.10, CS.11, CS.12, CS.14, CS.15, CS.16, CS.17
	Monitoring and maintenance of habitats (n = 6)	CS.01, CS.05, CS.06, CS.07, CS.09, CS.14

). Activities range from the protection and restoration of existing green spaces to the creation of new parks and the transformation of derelict or underutilised sites. These efforts contribute significantly to urban and rural climate resilience, biodiversity enhancement, and community well-being.

Activity: Creation of new green areas

Several initiatives are involved in creating new green spaces in both urban and rural settings. CS.07, CS.10, CS.11, and CS.12 emphasise community involvement in greening activities, such as tree planting, creating perennial beds, and building small-scale infrastructure. CS.05 collaborates with the Bratislava city district of Karlova Ves on the Life DELIVER project, planting 100 trees, 400 shrubs, and establishing meadows to enhance urban climate resilience.

In Šterusy, CS.06 pilots innovative land and water management strategies that combine rainwater retention and landscape restoration. CS.07 implemented fruit tree planting along the planned bicycle trail and planting native trees in riparian forests. CS.10 develops nature-based urban interventions, such as establishing meadows (653 m²), extensive perennial beds (443 m²), and small infrastructure elements (benches, fences) to enrich public green areas. CS.11, operating in the rural village of Tvrdošovce, created a community park within a kindergarten, with plans to expand to other public spaces. CS.12 and CS.16 emphasise participatory design, engaging residents directly in planning and implementing green spaces through workshops and collaborative planning.

Activity: Maintenance and management of green spaces

Most initiatives have a significant impact on the management and maintenance of green spaces in settlements. CS.01 focuses on the maintenance of greenery in historic parks and gardens through volunteer brigades. In rescuing and restoring parks, it helps administrators find long-term solutions with volunteers, as well as educating them on appropriate maintenance practices for managing green spaces. CS.04 initiates and helps to rescue the Mičurin botanical site in Bratislava city. CS.05 collaborates with municipal governments to enhance sustainable management practices within urban environments; for example, the regulation of lawn mowing intensity. CS.07, CS.10, CS.11, and CS.12 are actively involved in maintaining green spaces. This includes activities such as watering, pruning, and trimming trees. They also influence the frequency and intensity of lawn mowing to promote biodiversity.CS.14 organises clean-up brigades along the natural sites in Lanice Park, Zvolen. CS.17 is involved in the management and development of the green area around the local stream, which in a short time has become a place of recreation and relaxation for residents.

Activity: Protection and restoration of natural ecosystems and built-up green spaces

Several initiatives actively protect existing green infrastructure and prevent its degradation. CS.01 focuses on conserving Slovakia’s cultural and natural heritage, with particular emphasis on the long-term care of historical parks and gardens. CS.04, CS.10, and CS.12 are engaged in safeguarding urban green spaces from unsustainable development, including tree protection and replanting efforts. CS.05, CS.06, and CS.14 are dedicated to the ecological restoration of habitats, such as meadows, forests, and urban green areas. These initiatives promote biodiversity and provide accessible spaces for recreation and health, often in partnership with municipal administrations.

Activity: Transformation of previously derelict areas

CIs are transforming formerly neglected or underused spaces into vibrant green infrastructure while creating public cultural, environmental, and social hubs (CS.07, CS.08). CS.04 is restoring the derelict site of the Mičurín National Cultural Monument in Bratislava into a space for public environmental education, echoing its historical function during the socialist era. CS.15 successfully prevented the conversion of a derelict urban courtyard into a parking lot by proposing and implementing a community garden instead. CS.16 has led a comprehensive urban revitalisation project in Košice, converting neglected residential areas into inclusive, climate-resilient public spaces. The project space (Pľac) functions as a community garden and social gathering space. The initiative also engaged residents in envisioning future uses for a former military barracks in Nitra, promoting participatory and sustainable reuse strategies.

Activity: Knowledge creation and awareness-raising

Environmental education and civic engagement are central to many initiatives to share responsibility for the condition and quality of green spaces. These efforts include the establishment of environmental centres (CS.05, CS.06, CS.07, CS.08). CS.01 promotes the protection of historical and aesthetic values of green spaces through public involvement in conservation. CS.04 advances citizen participation in green space management and climate policy. CS.05 and the Karlova Ves municipality created the CoCliBEC community centre to raise awareness about climate resilience and biodiversity in residential areas. CS.06 leads public campaigns (Meadows for People, Wetlands for Life) and a citizen science initiative (LiveAbleBratislava), encouraging residents to explore and monitor urban nature. CS.10, CS.11, and CS.12 include the public in the co-creation and maintenance of green spaces, such as the correct agro-technical timing for planting and the maintenance of trees, perennial beds, and lawns. This includes mulching techniques for both flower beds and trees to reduce maintenance intensity. CS.14 focuses on informal education, like engaging children and youth through school-based ecological programming and hands-on trail maintenance. An activity called ECO COUNSELING “GREEN POINT” provides support for active people who want to protect the environment and participate in decision-making on projects and documents with an impact on their environment (including discussions, educational activities for citizens). CS.16 actively involves citizens and stakeholders in planning and design processes, aiming to increase public awareness of land-use planning and support citizen participation in the city’s new master plan. The “Never Never School and Citylove” lecture series promotes deeper reflection on urban planning, care, and local identity. CS.17 promotes locals with hands-on experience in the transformation of riverbanks into usable and attractive public spaces. An often-used technique is the organisation of citizen science programmes (CS.05, CS.06), public lectures, and the creation of informal learning platforms (CS.01, CS.04, CS.15).

Activity: Improved governance of green areas

Governance models vary across initiatives, from informal stewardship to structured collaboration with municipalities. CS.01 collaborates on the restoration of neglected parks through co-planning with local governments. CS.04 systematically monitors urban greenery, participates in public consultations, and comments on strategic planning documents. CS.05 co-implements Life DELIVER with KarlovaVes, planting 100 trees, 400 shrubs, and establishing meadows to increase urban resilience. CS.06 engages in policy development and habitat restoration, aligning with municipal planning objectives. Due to low volunteer engagement, CS.10 depends on the city of Galanta (technical services) for maintenance but retains decision-making authority over management methods and intensity. CS.11, CS.12, and CS.14 engage volunteers in maintaining and enhancing planted areas and nature trails, often negotiating adaptive mowing regimes to support biodiversity.

Activity: Monitoring and maintenance of habitats

Ongoing care and monitoring are vital for sustaining green infrastructure. Some associations, CS.05, CS.06, CS.09, CS.14, are involved in the ecological monitoring of protected habitats, often as part of cross-border or EU-funded projects. They focus on data collection, policy development, and community-based habitat stewardship in both urban and rural settings. Monitoring and maintenance of habitats are pivotal for long-term ecological outcomes. CS.05 participates in the Resilient Trees project to protect veteran trees and promote old-growth forest policies. The same CS developed a model for “close-to-nature” forest and wetland management, including inventorying native genetic resources, applying site-specific practices, and establishing living labs for adaptive restoration. Collaborative research with universities strengthens evidence-based NBS implementation. CS.06 contributes to the EU Habitats Directive by developing standardised habitat monitoring guidelines. CS.10 presents a model of shared maintenance responsibilities with the Galanta municipality. This division of roles ensures continuity of ecological intent while leveraging municipal resources.

Several initiatives, CS.04, CS.10, CS.12, address the problem of land-use pressure by participation in tree-felling procedures, monitoring, and commenting on the compliance of proposed developments within spatial planning documentation. CS.14 maintains green areas in both rural and urban contexts, including Lanice Park in Zvolen, balancing ecological integrity with community access.

Activity: Strategy, planning, policy development

Strategic planning and policy development form a crucial component of civic-led NBSs, enabling systemic change that extends beyond individual projects. Across multiple case studies, CIs in Slovakia have demonstrated a growing capacity to co-develop, influence, and implement long-term planning frameworks, climate adaptation strategies, and participatory policy processes that integrate environmental, social, and urban development objectives. CS.04 developed an innovative online platform “Green to Green” (Zelená zeleni) focused on public policies for green space management in built-up areas. The initiative organised four national conferences on the role of green spaces in climate change adaptation, alongside eight regional seminars for citizens and eight regional training sessions for public administration staff. These capacity-building efforts aimed to foster civic engagement and improve the competence of local governments in green infrastructure policy, with an emphasis on public participation and ecological resilience. CS.05, in partnership with the Bratislava city district of Karlova Ves, co-developed the Life DELIVER project aimed at enhancing the climate resilience of residential areas. One of the key outcomes was the “Climate Action Plan for Bratislava-Karlova Ves 2020–2030”, which outlines a strategic vision for climate adaptation and mitigation at the district level. This includes specific goals for sustainable energy use, CO₂ emissions reduction, and the integration of green infrastructure. The strategy is supported by a Catalogue of Adaptation and Mitigation Measures and a diagnostic tool—Klimasken, designed to assess climate resilience at multiple spatial scales (urban district, building, household, https://www.klimasken.sk/en/, accessed on 30 August 2025). In addition, the establishment of the Community Climate and Biodiversity Educational Centre (CoCliBEC) helped institutionalise long-term climate education and engagement. CS.06 has contributed to several cross-border and thematic strategies. Through the Interreg cooperation program, the initiative is developing a strategy for invasive species management. This includes mapping invasive species and implementing eradication measures, particularly in protected areas, with active community participation. The organisation is also involved in the REACH Project (Research-based Education for Advancing Children in Hardship), which supports inclusive, inquiry-based learning methods for marginalised groups, thereby addressing social equity as part of broader environmental literacy and resilience-building efforts. Through projects like CITY NATURE, in collaboration with Bratislava City Forests and Austrian partners, CS.06 provides management guidelines for biodiverse urban meadows. These methods include mowing regimes and maintenance strategies to foster species-rich grasslands in cities.

CS.10 initiated its activities by drafting a strategic concept document outlining ten proposals for enhancing public and green spaces in the town of Galanta. The concept incorporates sustainable stormwater management and ecological design principles. Alongside CS.11 and CS.12, the association also prepares expert plans and funding applications to help municipalities secure external resources for project implementation. These initiatives combine technical expertise with community-based action, involving residents in planting and maintenance activities and educating both public officials and citizens on sustainable urban greening practices. CS.15 contributes to institutional change by offering a replicable model (e.g., CHANGING KOŠICE informative platform) of transferable strategies for civic empowerment and nature-based urban transformation. CS.16 positions itself as a thought leader in participatory architecture and sustainable urbanism, promoting inclusive, climate-resilient planning in Košice and beyond. The initiative contributed to the “Plan for Košice City”, advocating for transparent land-use planning and broader civic engagement in the city’s master planning process. In Veľký Šariš, the organisation facilitated the development of Slovakia’s first participatory Local Territorial System of Ecological Stability (MÚSES, 2022). This strategic document integrates ecological protection, spatial development, tourism, and cultural heritage into a cohesive planning framework that reflects the lived experiences and aspirations of residents. The participatory and cross-disciplinary approach exemplifies contemporary trends in landscape governance, emphasising multi-functionality, inclusiveness, and socio-ecological resilience.

3.2.6. Intentionally Unmanaged Areas

Intentionally unmanaged areas account for 23.5% of the NBSs implemented by CIs, notably by CS.05, CS.06, CS.09, and CS.14 (

Table 7. Analysis of studied NBSs—intentionally unmanaged areas.

Nature-Based Solutions	Activities	Civic Initiatives
Intentionally unmanaged areas (n = 4)	Monitoring and maintenance of habitats (n = 4)	CS.05, CS.06, CS.09, CS.14

). These organisations promote the conservation of natural habitats by allowing certain green areas—often within urban or peri-urban settings—to develop without intensive maintenance. This approach is supported by policy advocacy and cooperation with public authorities. It includes the removal of invasive species, the revitalisation of degraded spaces using native vegetation, and the designation of specific zones to remain unmanaged. By minimising human intervention, these areas maintain ecological processes, support habitat heterogeneity, and enhance conditions for native flora and fauna.

3.3. Summary of Civic Initiatives’ Engagement in Nature-Based Solutions

The analysed Slovak case studies (CS.01–CS.17) provided evidence of active CI implementation of NBSs (Figure 2) within their activities (Figure 3). The results of the analysis indicate that the most frequently implemented NBSs are related to activities within green (n = 12, 70%) and blue (n = 7, 41%) infrastructure. Community gardens represent n = 6, 35%; green areas for stormwater management amount to n = 4, 23.5%; and intentionally unmanaged areas belong to n = 4, 23.5% of solutions. The grey infrastructure integrating green represents n = 2, 11.7%, and is the least common CI solution implemented.

The comparison of NBSs and associated activities across CSs reveals significant variation in scope and focus. CS.07 emerges as the most diversified initiative, engaging in almost all activity categories except food production within community gardens. Other initiatives, such as CS.09 and CS.14, stand out for implementing four distinct NBS types, demonstrating a balance between ecological and social functions.

NBSs are applied in a wide spectrum of contexts. In built-up environments, interventions include school grounds: n = 5, 29% (CS.02, CS.05, CS.11, CS.12, CS.16); residential areas: n = 9, 53% (CS.02, CS.03, CS.04, CS.05, CS.09, CS.10, CS.14, CS.15, CS.16); parks: n = 5, 29% (CS.06, CS.10, CS.12, CS.14, CS.17); streetscapes: n = 2, 12% (CS.10, CS.12); riverbanks: n = 7, 41% (CS.05, CS.06, CS.07, CS.10, CS.11, CS.14, CS.17); and historic parks: n = 1, 6% (CS.01). Adaptive reuse of derelict spaces includes former agricultural cooperatives: n = 1, 6% (CS.08); and vacant lots: n = 5, 29% (CS.02, CS.03, CS.04, CS.07, CS.15). At the other end of the spectrum, a significant number of CIs focus on ecologically valuable sites—including meadows, wetlands, and riparian and urban forests: n = 5, 29% (CS.05, CS.06, CS.07, CS.09, CS.14)—where biodiversity restoration and habitat protection dominate the activity portfolio.

The human resource base is a key determinant of NBS implementation quality. A majority of initiatives benefit from in-house professional expertise in natural sciences: n = 7, 41% (CS.01, CS.04, CS.05, CS.06, CS.09, CS.13, CS.14); urban planning and architecture: n = 4, 24% (CS.02, CS.07, CS.15, CS.16); or green space design and management: n = 4, 24% (CS.08, CS.10, CS.11, CS.12). Where internal capacity is lacking—n = 2, 12% (CS.03, CS.17)—CIs compensate by engaging external professionals to provide specialist input. This reliance on professional knowledge—whether internal or external—appears to be a critical success factor in ensuring that solutions are well-adapted, technically sound, and maintainable over time.

From the activity perspective, knowledge creation and awareness-raising are universal (17/17 CS), highlighting the strong social dimension of NBS work. A notable aspect of these initiatives is their contribution to planning and policy frameworks (14/17 CS, 82%). They act as knowledge brokers, offering expertise to municipalities and enhancing participatory governance and delivering landscape and climate action plans, local adaptation strategies, territorial plans of ecological stability, or participatory urban spatial plans. Transformation of previously derelict areas (8/17CS, 47%) and creation of new green areas (9/17 CS, 53%) emerge as key strategies for linking ecological benefits with community revitalisation. More specialised actions, such as monitoring and habitat maintenance (6/17CS, 35%), tend to be concentrated among initiatives with higher environmental expertise. Food production/permaculture (6/17CS, 35%) reveal the enduring cultural legacy of allotment gardening in the post-socialist context, while simultaneously reflecting new paradigms of multifunctional public space that combine food production, education, and social innovation.

4. Discussion

Overall, the Slovak cases demonstrate that civic initiatives serve as critical agents in bridging ecological restoration, community participation, and governance innovation. Across these domains, they co-design new green areas, steward maintenance through volunteer brigades and adaptive regimes, convert derelict land into multifunctional hubs, institutionalise governance via partnerships with municipalities, and mainstream monitoring through living labs and citizen science. This repertoire not only aligns with but also extends contemporary European knowledge by demonstrating how Slovak civic actors can translate NBS principles into site-specific, durable arrangements that might have added value to planning, maintenance, governance, and monitoring of green and blue spaces, Figure 4.

In this way, our research complements other [1,47,57] studies by showing how civic actors in transitional governance systems simultaneously address ecological, social, and institutional deficits, thereby advancing sustainability transitions under conditions of weak state capacity and fragmented planning systems.

All 17 initiatives operate primarily within their respective municipalities or regions, engaging directly with residents, local authorities, and place-specific environmental challenges. This strong local anchoring enables interventions to be tailored to distinct socio-ecological contexts while fostering trust-based relationships with stakeholders.

The observed reliance on professional expertise—either internal or contracted—underscores the technical competence underpinning successful implementation, aligning with Galan et al. [58], who emphasise that adaptive planning depends on local networks and the co-creation processes enriched by specialised knowledge. For example, CS.07 initiated the revitalisation of the Little Danube riverbank in the village. Due to the architectural expertise of the initiative’s leader, the group was able to plan, apply for, and obtain external funding to implement the wooden promenade project. In line with Kabisch et al. [59], our findings suggest that the infusion of professional knowledge into civic-led initiatives not only improves technical outcomes but also institutionalises participatory governance, strengthens local decision-making capacity, and fosters long-term stewardship of green and blue infrastructures.

4.1. Comparative Perspective with Mosaic Governance

Furthermore, the observed multi-level engagement of some initiatives—combining local action with contributions to regional, national, and even international projects—echoes the “mosaic governance” model described by Buijs et al. [23,42], in which diverse governance actors operate at different scales, creating complementary capacities and adaptive governance networks that enhance the resilience of urban and rural landscapes. However, in contrast to the mosaic governance perspective, where municipalities often act as key partners in scaling and sustaining such initiatives, the Slovak cases demonstrate a more uneven institutional landscape. Civic initiatives here often shoulder a heavier share of initiation and maintenance responsibilities (CS.11, CS.12, CS.17), compensating for institutional gaps while also experimenting with innovative governance practices. This reflects a post-socialist planning legacy marked by weaker formal integration of civic actors into spatial decision-making, necessitating more grassroots-driven mobilisation to reclaim and repurpose land. Another divergence concerns scaling pathways. In Buijs et al.’s mosaic governance model, upscaling is often achieved through formal institutionalisation of grassroots practices—local governments adopting, funding, or replicating community-led interventions. In the Slovak context, while there are examples of this (e.g., CS.02 influencing Bratislava’s municipal policy on community gardens, or CS.16 facilitating the development of Slovakia’s first participatory Local Territorial System of Ecological Stability (MÚSES, 2022)), upscaling more often occurs through horizontal diffusion between civic networks rather than vertical incorporation into municipal programs. This suggests that in contexts with limited policy continuity or resource allocation for NBSs, peer-to-peer exchange and replication may be a more viable scaling mechanism.

The study identified several cases that could be “scaled-out” (the horizontal diffusion) to other communities, like repurposing of derelict sites into eco- and socio-cultural hubs (CS. 07, CS.08, CS.13) or community gardens (CS.02, CS.03, CS.15). Furthermore, keeping intentionally unmanaged areas (CS.05, CS.06, CS.09, CS.14) in urban environments is essential for enhancing the biodiversity and resilience of built-up environments. For upscaling to be sustainable, supportive policy frameworks and long-term municipal partnerships, as advocated by Buijs et al., would be essential. Yet, the Slovak cases also illustrate that in less enabling environments, civic-led adaptive networks can still drive significant ecological and social transformation, albeit through more decentralised and grassroots-centric pathways.

These governance frictions underscore the need for conflict-resolution mechanisms that bring together governmental, civic, and business actors—reflecting the collective problem-solving ethos outlined by Galan et al. [58], where adaptive planning depends on multiple civic capacities recognising and addressing shared challenges. In line with Kabisch et al. [59], our findings suggest that for NBSs to function as proactive investments, they must be embedded in sustained policy–society–science dialogues, ensuring that bottom-up innovations are not only piloted but institutionalised.

4.2. Alignment with Participatory Integrated Processes

While van der Jagt et al. [4] emphasise participatory assessment frameworks, the Slovak cases illustrate that participation extends beyond evaluation into long-term stewardship—such as biodiversity monitoring (CS.05, CS.09) and adaptive wetland management (CS.14). Similarly, although EU-funded projects often highlight multifunctionality [48], Slovak initiatives stand out for their bottom-up approach, filling governance and resource gaps through community mobilisation and activism, particularly in post-socialist settings where municipal capacities remain limited.

Compared with Ferreira et al. [42], who find stakeholder engagement often limited to consultation, our cases demonstrate structurally embedded co-governance: community gardens institutionalised in urban planning (CS.02, CS.15) and civic actors acting as knowledge brokers in policy-making (CS.05, CS.06, CS.14, CS.16). Moreover, while Mahmoud et al. [60] stress the interplay between governance and participation, Slovak initiatives highlight an integrated model where governance innovation and ecological restoration advance simultaneously.

While the national-level study of Vaňo et al. [40] documented structured, municipality-led co-planning processes, our findings reveal more bottom-up mobilisation, with CIs frequently initiating projects in the absence of formal planning frameworks. This shift from formal integration to grassroots leadership highlights the adaptability of participatory principles in less institutionally supportive settings, demonstrating that civic actors can still deliver coherent, place-sensitive UGI despite limited municipal coordination. Framed through Watson et al. [61]’s distinction between collaboration and co-production, several initiatives (e.g., CS.10, CS.15) illustrate co-production, where authority and responsibility are redistributed between civic and municipal actors. This suggests that Slovak CIs not only complement institutional planning but actively reshape governance systems and ecological practices, offering transferable models for NBS implementation in both post-socialist and broader European contexts.

4.3. Challenges and Future Developments

In the current climate of Slovak institutional distrust and regional development stagnation, there is a pressing need to transition from hierarchical governance to inclusive, multi-actor models. Such approaches require cooperation among citizens, NGOs, municipalities, businesses, and local communities—acknowledging their mutual interdependence and pooling resources to co-develop innovative responses to complex policy challenges [62].

However, the uneven cooperation with municipalities echoes earlier observations of tension between civic innovation and formal governance structures, suggesting that transformation requires not only local capacity but also institutional receptivity. Addressing these tensions requires recognising that complex community problems demand not only governmental engagement but also multiple civic capacities capable of identifying shared challenges and fostering collective solutions [63]. Building stronger links between local government and grassroots initiatives is essential to achieve synergies and lasting outcomes. The study thus underscores that scaling NBS through civic action depends on enabling frameworks that value citizen expertise, secure long-term stewardship arrangements, and reconcile the flexibility of bottom-up action with the stability of public administration.

Such collaboration ensures that activities are informed by domain-specific expertise, thereby enhancing the effectiveness, scalability, and credibility of nature-based solutions. This finding aligns with previous research [59,64] highlighting that the integration of professional expertise in civic-led environmental projects not only improves technical outcomes but also strengthens participatory governance and long-term stewardship [65,66].

Future research could examine the long-term ecological, social, and governance performance of civic-led NBSs. Identify effective capacity-building pathways for initiatives lacking in-house expertise or assess the role of policy frameworks and municipal cooperation in enabling or constraining particular NBS types and undertake comparative analyses with other post-socialist urban contexts to test the transferability of observed patterns.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that civic initiatives in Slovakia function as hybrid governance actors, simultaneously filling service gaps, experimenting with ecological practices, and bringing innovation in policy-relevant domains. Their activities span multiple scales—from neighbourhood-level interventions and the adaptive reuse of derelict land to contributions in national policy and international knowledge exchange—showcasing their versatility and multi-dimensional value in advancing NBSs. By moving beyond consultation towards co-production, co-management, and even co-governance, these initiatives embed ecological, social, cultural, and political benefits into both urban and rural landscapes. The Slovak experience also illustrates the distinctive role of civic actors in post-socialist contexts, where isolated institutions and ownership changes have generated a niche for grassroots innovation, experimental governance, and the reclamation of abandoned land. Importantly, these initiatives reveal how bottom-up actors can drive sustainability transitions, not only by delivering tangible environmental improvements but also by co-developing monitoring frameworks, policy tools, and participatory planning processes. Yet, their long-term transformative potential depends on supportive policy frameworks, stable funding, and institutionalised partnerships that enable them to complement rather than compensate for municipal capacities. Future research should therefore explore pathways for scaling up these grassroots practices, examine their potential integration into formal governance architectures, and assess their transferability to other post-socialist and resource-constrained settings. Overall, Slovak civic initiatives provide vital lessons on how civil society can act as a catalyst for an inclusive, adaptive, and resilient green–blue infrastructure governance.