Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Regeneration: A Review of Methods, Governance, and Future Directions

Abstract

Urban regeneration is increasingly expected to integrate environmental resilience, social equity, and cultural heritage alongside economic objectives. This narrative review examines how nature-based solutions (NbS) can be embedded within regeneration strategies through ecological landscape planning and design. A structured search of peer-reviewed literature and policy reports identified 34 academic studies and 13 reports that were coded and synthesised into three thematic areas: (i) NbS typologies and applications, including urban forests, blue–green infrastructure, and landscape-led regeneration; (ii) governance frameworks addressing equity, participation, anti-displacement safeguards, and cultural sensitivity; and (iii) methodological advances such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based spatial analysis, multi-criteria decision frameworks, microclimate modelling, and participatory co-design tools. The review finds that NbS can enhance climate adaptation, biodiversity, and community wellbeing, yet implementation often remains fragmented because of governance barriers and uneven policy integration. Strengthening participatory processes, embedding culturally informed design principles, and incorporating anti-displacement measures are essential to ensure socially just outcomes. Strategic instruments, particularly Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), combined with GIS and multi-criteria tools, can support more coherent long-term decision-making. Future research should prioritise cross-sectoral policy coordination, long-term monitoring, and inclusive governance to ensure that NbS-driven regeneration contributes to equitable, resilient, and culturally grounded urban futures.

1. Introduction

1.1. Urban Regeneration and Emerging Challenges

As more than half of the world’s population now lives in urban areas, cities face increasing pressures from climate change, rapid development, and the degradation of natural capital, all of which threaten urban sustainability [1]. In response to these challenges, urban regeneration has become a central theme in global research, aiming to address urban decline, restore deteriorating infrastructure, and improve residents’ quality of life [2]. Although terms such as urban renewal, redevelopment and restoration are often used interchangeably, urban regeneration functions as an umbrella concept encompassing multiple approaches to urban transformation [3]. Four principal regeneration modes, namely redevelopment, conservation, revitalisation and rehabilitation, have been identified, alongside decision-making frameworks for selecting appropriate modes based on sustainability performance, physical conditions and contextual constraints [2,4].

At the large scale, interventions are described as urban renewal or urban regeneration [3]. Urban renewal emphasises slum clearance and reconstruction with heritage consideration [3,5], whereas urban regeneration adopts a comprehensive approach integrating physical, social, economic and environmental improvements [3,6]. At the site or building scale, rehabilitation focuses on restoring functionality, safety and energy efficiency through repair and adaptive reuse, supporting heritage conservation [7], while redevelopment refers to site-specific construction projects [3]. Contemporary regeneration increasingly emphasises the revitalisation of underutilised land, aiming to deliver environmental remediation, resilience, affordable housing, public space improvements, and new economic opportunities [8]. As a result, urban regeneration has evolved into a holistic vision of urban living grounded in inclusiveness, resilience, community engagement, and shared prosperity [9]. This social dimension has been further reinforced by recent research, which argues that incorporating social innovation into regeneration strategies can promote cooperation, social cohesion, fulfilment of human needs, empowerment, and sustainability—critical factors for enabling more resilient and inclusive urban transitions [10].

However, although regeneration initiatives have been around since the late 1800s, current global shifts require a rethinking of the approach [9]. Key drivers include the need for fair post-pandemic recovery, responses to climate change, and the impact of digital transformation. While these trends can be seen as risks to cities, they also open new possibilities. Recent changes—like the adoption of electric vehicles, growth in remote work, digitalisation of services, evolving supply chains, and renewed interest in suburban areas—illustrate how quickly urban life is adapting [9].

However, these changes occur against a backdrop of growing complexity, deep uncertainty, and global-scale challenges that define the “urban century” [11]. Addressing these pressures requires transformative approaches capable of achieving planetary sustainability [11]. Concepts such as urban sustainability, resilience, and transformation have long informed regeneration strategies, yet their current application often suffers from fragmented interpretations and conceptual overlap, limiting their effectiveness in guiding systemic urban change [11]. To realise their full potential, urban regeneration must adopt integrated strategies that combine ecological restoration, social equity, and cultural continuity.

1.2. Nature-Based Solutions as a Regenerative Strategy

Within this context, nature-based solutions (NbS), grounded in ecological planning and design, offer a robust pathway for enhancing climate resilience and mitigating the impacts of climate change, while supporting the sustainable development of cities and strengthening social–ecological resilience by addressing both environmental and socio-cultural dimensions of urban transformation [12,13].

NbS as a concept was formally introduced by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and defined as actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, while providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits [14,15].

Europe has played a leading role in mainstreaming NbS through several Horizon-funded urban regeneration projects. The proGIreg project (Productive Green Infrastructure for Post-Industrial Urban Regeneration) implemented NbS in cities such as Dortmund, Turin, and Zagreb, transforming post-industrial areas through co-designed green infrastructure that delivered ecological, social, and economic benefits [16]. The INTERLACE project focused on restoring urban ecosystems and building local capacities across Europe and Latin America, integrating NbS into governance frameworks and fostering international collaboration [17]. More recently, the ReGreeneration initiative is working across nine European cities to regenerate marginalised neighbourhoods using NbS that enhance biodiversity, climate resilience, and community wellbeing [18].

The concept of incorporating nature into urban regeneration is not new. Historically, large urban parks such as Victoria Park in London and Central Park in New York were created in the 19th century as a response to severe public health crises, including cholera outbreaks, and were envisioned as “urban lungs” to improve air quality and provide access to fresh air and sunlight for city dwellers [19,20]. In the last century, the breakthrough approach of incorporating nature into urban design was significantly influenced by Ian McHarg’s pioneering work Design with Nature (1969), which advocated for a holistic, ecological approach to land use planning [21]. McHarg’s perspective not only laid the foundation for contemporary ecological design concepts but also influenced early thinking around urban regeneration, particularly through his emphasis on integrating natural systems into the urban fabric [22,23].

Even though NbS are often celebrated for their ecological and social benefits, they can also inadvertently contribute to green gentrification if not carefully planned [24,25]. A prominent example is New York City’s High Line, an elevated railway that was converted into a linear park. The project has been severely criticised for its role in green gentrification, despite being commended for its creative design and ecological restoration [24,25]. Concerns regarding equity and inclusivity in urban greening initiatives were raised by the displacement of long-term, lower-income residents and the conversion of the area into a high-end real estate zone brought about by the influx of investment and rising property values surrounding the High Line [24,25].

These dynamics highlight the importance of designing high-quality and accessible NbS, such as local green spaces, that not only restore ecological functions but also enhance social equity, quality of life, and overall health and well-being, while reducing crime and preventing green gentrification [26,27,28]. In support of this, Lee et al. provided empirical evidence that larger urban parks are associated with reduced crime risk and improved physical health outcomes in communities [29]. Their mediation analysis revealed that park size influences health both directly and indirectly through its impact on neighbourhood safety [29].

However, Geiselhart and Spenger demonstrated that urban redevelopment efforts can result in subtle forms of environmental inequality, with access to environmental benefits such as green space and peaceful surroundings unevenly distributed across neighbourhoods [30]. Their notion of “environmental microsegregation” demonstrates how redevelopment may instil inequalities in the urban fabric, typically favouring wealthier people while subjecting disadvantaged populations to environmental costs [30]. Cucca et al. highlighted a critical gap that persists in understanding the sequencing and causality between greening and gentrification—whether NbS trigger displacement or are deployed in already gentrifying contexts [31]. Moreover, critics warn of serious ethical and environmental justice risks. Mainstream frameworks often co-opt Indigenous knowledge, commodify ecosystems, and transform them into carbon market instruments, enabling greenwashing that prioritises profit over systemic change while excluding Indigenous Peoples from decision-making and the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent [32]. These concerns emphasise the need for governance models that uphold Indigenous sovereignty, embed environmental and social justice principles, and ensure inclusive participation in regeneration strategies [32]. Moreover, many studies focus narrowly on ecological performance or isolated case studies, overlooking the need for integrated frameworks that address equity, cultural heritage, and strategic planning [31].

A review paper revealed that research on NbS in Australia rarely adheres to widely recognised definitions, such as those provided by the IUCN or UNEP [33]. The study found that local councils are increasingly adopting NbS in urban planning to tackle the complex challenges posed by climate change at the interface between humans and the environment [33]. Despite this uptake, there remains no agreement on the definitions or methodologies of NbS, research tends to focus primarily on urban settings, and implementation is largely bottom-up and locally driven, occurring without a coordinated national policy framework [33]. Recent international scholarship reinforces these observations, emphasising the role of participatory and co-governance approaches in NbS [34,35,36], the need to better understand human–nature interactions in urban environments [37], and the importance of addressing implementation challenges and success factors identified in systematic reviews of NbS in urban and waterfront regeneration contexts [38,39]. However, although reviews of urban regeneration exist, including work concerned with transport-oriented regeneration and studies on community participation and governance [40,41], these do not examine NbS. To the best of our knowledge, no review considers how NbS are conceptualised, implemented or governed specifically within urban regeneration.

1.3. Aim and Scope of the Review

In response to this gap, the present review provides the first structured and critical synthesis of how NbS are conceptualised, applied and governed within urban regeneration. It has four main objectives. The first is to identify the principal typologies and applications of NbS across regeneration contexts. The second is to examine governance models with specific attention to equity, participation and policy alignment. The third is to review methodological tools, including GIS, multi-criteria decision analysis and microclimate modelling, that support planning, design and assessment. The fourth is to outline strategic directions for embedding NbS within long-term, socially just and ecologically resilient regeneration frameworks.

A narrative review approach was selected because research on NbS and urban regeneration relies on heterogeneous sources that include peer-reviewed studies, policy reports, design frameworks and governance documents. Narrative and interpretative syntheses are widely used in urban planning, urban design and landscape architecture, where interdisciplinary and context-dependent knowledge requires integrative rather than quantitative approaches. This is reflected in contemporary scholarship on narrative methods in planning and urban landscape research [42,43,44]. The selection of this approach is also consistent with methodological guidance for exploratory and interdisciplinary review types [45].

Through a thematic analysis of peer-reviewed literature and policy reports, the review bridges ecological design with participatory governance and strategic decision-support tools such as Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and GIS. SEA has emerged as a key strategic instrument in urban and regional planning because it evaluates social, cultural, economic and environmental impacts across alternative scenarios that are developed collaboratively with all potentially affected parties [46,47]. Overall, the thematic analysis offers a critical synthesis of the opportunities and challenges associated with NbS implementation, identifying key patterns, divergences and gaps that shape current practice. By consolidating existing evidence, the review highlights both enabling conditions and persistent barriers to the integration of NbS within urban regeneration. In doing so, it contributes to ongoing debates on aligning regeneration policies with the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 11, which seeks to promote sustainable, inclusive and resilient urban development. The review further clarifies how NbS are applied, governed and evaluated in regeneration contexts, identifying dominant typologies, governance challenges and methodological approaches, and providing a coherent foundation for more equitable and strategically aligned NbS-driven regeneration.

2. Materials and Methods

This review used a thematic narrative synthesis to examine the recent literature on NbS in urban regeneration. The aim was to identify thematic patterns, methodological approaches and governance challenges, rather than to conduct a systematic meta-analysis. The review followed three stages: literature search, study selection and thematic synthesis. Given the conceptual, policy-oriented and methodologically diverse nature of the literature, a narrative approach was judged to be more appropriate than a purely systematic or meta-analytic review [42,45,48].

2.1. Literature Search

The primary database consulted was Elsevier Scopus, given its wide coverage of peer-reviewed journals across disciplines including urban studies, planning, environmental science, and social sciences. A supplementary search was conducted in Google Scholar to identify additional relevant studies and grey literature (e.g., policy reports). The search covered publications up to 1 September 2025.

2.2. Search Criteria

The search strategy combined keywords related to NbS and urban regeneration. The following search string was adapted to the syntax of each database:

“Nature-based solutions” OR “NBS” AND “urban regeneration” OR “urban redevelopment” OR “urban renewal”. In Elsevier Scopus, these terms were searched in abstracts, keywords, and titles. Filters were applied to include only peer-reviewed journal articles and reviews, and publications in English. In Google Scholar, due to technical limitations, the search of these terms was applied to any part of the document. This search aimed to retrieve only reports published in English. This difference in the two searches required diversified approaches in processing the initial results (656 in Scopus, 4970 in Google Scholar), to identify relevant studies and reports explicitly addressing the intersection of NbS and urban regeneration, or discussing governance, planning, or methodological frameworks relevant to regeneration contexts.

2.3. Selection Process

The selection process followed PRISMA guidelines [49] (Figure 1), including identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion steps. The initial Scopus search returned 656 records. Due to the high number of results, we focused on documents that were specifically focused on high-quality academic outputs, narrowing the search down to peer-reviewed articles published in journals, including reviews. Results from multiple searches were combined to remove duplicates, and any publication that was considered off-topic; for example, publications approaching NbS in urban areas that were not associated with urban regeneration projects or that treated this topic from another discipline’s perspective (e.g., construction material science). Studies were excluded if they:

(i)

Addressed NbS only in ecological or technical contexts without links to urban regeneration;

(ii)

Focused solely on economic regeneration without an environmental dimension;

(iii)

Lacked empirical, methodological, or structured conceptual contribution (e.g., purely opinion-based commentaries);

(iv)

Were discipline-adjacent (e.g., construction material science) without relevance to planning or governance.

These criteria ensured that included studies explicitly examined the intersection of NbS and urban regeneration.

The Google Scholar initial search (nature-based solutions and urban regeneration, renewal, or redevelopment) gave 4970 results. Due to the high number of results, we focused on documents that were not captured by the more accurate search in Elsevier Scopus—namely, reports instead of peer-reviewed articles or book chapters. A major screening process took place to select only reports (which excluded peer-reviewed articles, preprints and book chapters, as well as books). We excluded any report that was not on-topic, and that from its title did not show to be focused on the key topics relevant to our study (NbS and urban regeneration/renewal/redevelopment). We also considered as ‘not relevant’ to our study any university thesis or publication by organisations without established scientific credibility. As an example, a key source was the European Union as well as other national or international organisations (government and NGOs). Only 21 reports were shortlisted as relevant. These reports were then screened in even higher detail, separating the ones focused on NbS and urban regeneration, renewal, and redevelopment, from the ones that only marginally addressed these topics or focused on only one of them. Exclusion criteria included: (i) reports only addressing NbS in ecological or technical contexts without links to urban regeneration; (ii) purely economic regeneration studies without an environmental dimension; and (iii) opinion pieces lacking empirical or methodological contribution. As a result, another 8 studies were removed. The remaining 13 studies were included.

2.4. Thematic Synthesis

The included publications were analysed using a thematic narrative synthesis combining an initial deductive orientation, informed by the aims of the review, with inductive coding based on iterative reading of the literature. Broad sensitising categories relating to applications of NbS, governance and equity, and methodological approaches guided the analysis without predetermining the final themes.

Each document was coded for recurrent conceptual, methodological, and governance-related features. Two authors independently coded a purposive subset of publications to refine the coding structure. Coding discrepancies were resolved through discussion, and a shared coding framework was subsequently applied across the full dataset.

This iterative deductive–inductive process resulted in the consolidation of three overarching analytical themes, which structure Section 3: (i) typologies and applications of nature-based solutions in urban regeneration; (ii) governance challenges and equity considerations; and (iii) methodological innovations supporting planning and implementation. Research gaps and future directions were identified through cross-theme comparison and interpretative synthesis.

As part of the thematic synthesis, the 69 included documents (56 peer-reviewed articles and 13 reports) were further examined to identify sub-themes within the three overarching analytical themes. The coding process showed that Theme 2, ‘Governance challenges and equity considerations’, comprised three sub-themes: equity and anti-displacement safeguards (including heritage and place governance); participatory co-design and stewardship; and strategic integration and policy alignment. Theme 3, ‘Methodological innovations supporting planning and implementation’, contained four sub-themes: GIS and spatial analysis; multi-criteria decision analysis tools; microclimate modelling; and participation instrumentation. Theme 1, ‘Typologies of nature-based solutions’, remained a single, integrated thematic stream.

To support interpretation of the three thematic areas derived from the synthesis, Figure 2 presents the conceptual framework used to structure the analytical process. The framework illustrates the relationships among NbS outputs (Theme 1), governance arrangements (Theme 2), and methodological approaches (Theme 3), showing how governance shapes methodological choices, and how methods integrate spatial, ecological, and socio-demographic evidence with stakeholder knowledge to generate NbS typologies. An equity lens—both procedural and distributional—was applied across all stages, while monitoring and learning iteratively update assumptions and indicators to inform coordinated interventions and future directions for NbS-driven urban regeneration.

3. Results and Discussion

Table 1. Literature review results by theme and sub-theme.

Themes and Subthemes	Articles	Reports
Theme 1—Typologies of nature-based solutions	14	3
Theme 2—Governance challenges and equity concerns	25	8
2.1—Equity and anti-displacement safeguards, including heritage and place governance	8	1
2.2—Participatory co-design and stewardship	10	5
2.3—Strategic integration and policy alignment	7	2
Theme 3—Methodological innovations supporting planning and implementation	17	2
3.1—Methodological innovation GIS and spatial analysis	3	0
3.2—Multi-criteria analysis tools	3	2
3.3—Micro-climate modelling	6	0
3.4—Participation instrumentation	5	0

presents the number and type of documents (peer-reviewed articles and policy reports) included under each of the three overarching themes and their associated sub-themes.

Figure 3 illustrates how each thematic area of the literature grew between 2017 and 2020 and 2021–2025, indicating an exponential increase in publications focused on NbS and urban regeneration/redevelopment/renewal. This growth indicates that these practices are becoming more and more frequent, becoming a staple for sustainable and inclusive urban processes.

As illustrated in Figure 4, the documents retrieved in the literature focus almost exclusively on European case studies, with most studies exploring urban regeneration in Italy (10), Germany (9), Spain (7), the United Kingdom (5), the Netherlands (4), and Poland (3). Other states represented in the literature are outside the European Union, China (3), Australia (2) and Colombia (2) are the most represented country, with only one study based in Africa (Kenya). Other countries represented with one or two case studies are: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cuba, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, India, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Serbia, South Korea, and Switzerland.

Key findings and open challenges on application, governance, and methodologies for NbS applied to urban regeneration emerging from the literature are presented below.

3.1. Theme 1—Typologies of Nature-Based Solutions

Analysis of the literature shows that NbS in urban regeneration are widely conceptualised as multifunctional strategies that combine ecological restoration with social and economic revitalisation [50,51,52]. Rather than isolated greening interventions, NbS are framed as systemic approaches that enhance climate resilience, biodiversity, public health, and community wellbeing.

Across the reviewed studies, three broad categories of NbS typologies emerge.

First, green infrastructure—such as urban forests, parks, green roofs, and vegetated façades—is consistently shown to mitigate heat islands, improve biodiversity, and support placemaking by creating inclusive and multifunctional spaces [51,53,54,55].

Second, blue–green systems, including river restoration, wetlands, and permeable surfaces, address stormwater management, reduce flood risks, and promote ecological and social connectivity [56,57,58,59].

Third, hybrid and technological NbS, such as smart façades, vertical greening systems, or integrated energy–nature configurations, illustrate how ecological and technological functions can be combined to support climate resilience and resource efficiency [60,61,62].

Applications of these typologies span multiple scales and urban contexts. Comparative work on forest-based NBS across Europe and China demonstrates their role in rehabilitating degraded land and supporting economic transition [50]. Similarly, multi-city reviews emphasise the multifunctionality of NbS—from green roofs and community gardens to river corridor restoration—across diverse regeneration settings [51]. Evidence from European and Asian cities further highlights how NbS can improve thermal comfort, strengthen cultural placemaking, and provide cost-effective alternatives to grey infrastructure [52,53,63]. Indicator frameworks and performance monitoring tools have been developed to evaluate the environmental and social outcomes of NbS, providing structured ways to assess their contribution to regeneration processes, including neglected spaces [59,64,65,66].

Overall, the literature positions NbS as strategic, multifunctional interventions capable of enhancing ecological performance, cultural vibrancy, and social equity within urban regeneration initiatives.

3.2. Theme 2—Governance Challenges and Equity Considerations

The 34 documents addressing governance in NbS-driven urban regeneration are organised into three key areas: (2.1) equity and anti-displacement safeguards, including heritage and place governance (10 documents); (2.2) participatory co-design and stewardship (15 documents); and (2.3) strategic integration and policy alignment (9 documents). These sub-themes reflect the thematic categorisation presented in Table 1.

3.2.1. Equity and Anti-Displacement Safeguards

Urban regeneration processes have long been associated with both socio-economic improvement and risks of displacement or gentrification [67]. Recent work emphasises the need for NbS to maximise ecosystem services while also supporting vulnerable groups through equitable access and participation in decision-making [19]. Accessibility—both spatial and political—emerges as a critical factor for socially just NbS implementation, with empirical studies demonstrating how inclusive design processes can broaden access and strengthen community wellbeing [68].

At the same time, persistent governance tensions—between ecological ambitions and social realities—underscore the need for deliberative processes capable of addressing these trade-offs transparently and engaging diverse urban groups [69]. Recent studies from Latin America reveal how limited transparency, institutional inertia, and structural barriers embedded in planning systems can suppress community engagement and weaken socially inclusive outcomes [70]. Successful interventions therefore tend to integrate NbS within broader social and institutional strategies rather than treating them as isolated technical solutions [71]. Additionally, recent scholarship shows that shifting political, social, and economic conditions have widened the range of community actors involved in NbS design and implementation, raising new questions about whose voices are amplified within governance processes [72]. Financial and organisational models—such as mixed public–private governance, sponsorship, and revenue-stream mechanisms—also shape the inclusivity and long-term feasibility of NbS, underscoring the need for governance arrangements that balance stewardship with financial viability [73]. Finally, attention to cultural values and heritage is increasingly recognised as essential to ensure that NbS-driven regeneration enhances not only ecological and socio-economic outcomes, but also the cultural significance embedded within historic and heritage sites [74].

3.2.2. Participatory Co-Design and Stewardship

Participation and co-design are widely recognised as essential for equitable and effective NbS-driven urban regeneration, yet significant governance challenges persist. Numerous studies show that despite strong community interest, NbS interventions often struggle to meaningfully incorporate diverse actors—decision-makers, technical experts, residents, and marginalised groups—into transparent and collaborative design processes.

Evidence from the self-managed community of Christiania in Copenhagen illustrates how even highly engaged communities face barriers when their work lacks formal recognition, limiting access to funding, institutional support, and integration with city planning frameworks [75]. Broader international research confirms that structural constraints—including unequal power relations, varying levels of knowledge, and restricted access to decision-making—frequently undermine inclusive participation and long-term stewardship [76]. These dynamics can result in uneven benefits across neighbourhoods, where participatory NbS projects may unintentionally reinforce existing socio-spatial inequalities [77,78].

Differences in values and priorities further complicate co-design. For example, surveys in the United Kingdom reveal tensions between public support for rewilding and competing cultural or recreational expectations for brownfield regeneration, making it difficult to develop management plans that satisfy multiple groups [79]. Parallel challenges appear in community-garden projects in Barcelona, where ecological and social benefits are substantial, yet weak tenure arrangements, unclear responsibilities, and lack of legal recognition hinder long-term stewardship and municipal coordination [80].

Urban living labs—tested in Christiania, Milan, and London—offer promising avenues for structured co-creation by integrating community knowledge with technical expertise [75,81]. However, their scalability is constrained by persistent issues such as power asymmetries, fragmented networks, and insufficient capacity for sustained engagement. Overcoming distrust built by past top-down initiatives is critical; long-term trust-building efforts in projects such as London’s South Thamesmead demonstrate how iterative engagement and transparent governance can rebuild relationships and strengthen community participation [82].

Similar participation barriers emerge in other contexts, including Turin—where competing agendas among residents, businesses, planners, and NGOs complicate co-design and long-term site management [83]—and Porto, where knowledge hierarchies limit equitable participation despite inclusive intentions [84]. Successful cases emphasise the importance of locally tailored governance innovations. In Berlin’s Marzahn-Hellersdorf district, co-creation workshops and spatial mapping enabled collaborators to develop context-specific guidelines that link ecological benefits with social wellbeing [85].

Across this literature, the need for adaptive, transparent, and trust-building governance frameworks is consistently highlighted. Evidence from proGIreg cities shows that participation must move beyond consultation toward genuine empowerment, supported by flexible, bottom-up processes capable of addressing power imbalances and sustaining shared stewardship [86]. Complementing this, the URBiNAT project stresses that effective co-creation requires clear communication rules, shared expectations, transparent decision-making structures, and mediation processes grounded in local knowledge and cultural values [87].

3.2.3. Strategic Integration and Policy Alignment

Strategic integration of NbS into urban regeneration is frequently constrained by social, institutional, economic, spatial, and technical barriers. A review of urban and peri-urban agriculture initiatives highlights the recurring obstacles of insufficient governmental support, limited community engagement, high implementation costs, and infrastructural constraints [88]. Policy instruments—including financial incentives, regulatory frameworks, and planning guidelines—play a crucial role in enabling NbS adoption, whether through formal legislation (e.g., the Community Empowerment Act in Glasgow) or strategic vision documents such as Malmö’s South Hyllie Master Plan [88].

Effective governance requires coordination across multiple scales—from international and national policy frameworks to regional networks and local authorities—reflecting the diversity of actors involved in NbS implementation. Evidence from the Urban Agenda for the European Union demonstrates that successful NbS governance relies on the combined effects of knowledge sharing, participatory planning, and regulatory support [89]. Case studies reveal that adaptive, incremental governance approaches—such as “learning by doing”—may be more feasible than transformative reforms, particularly where formal regulation alone cannot address local knowledge gaps or procedural challenges [89].

Integrating NbS into existing legal and institutional contexts is essential for moving beyond symbolic commitments. For example, research from Belgrade shows that embedding NbS within statutory planning processes is necessary to ensure meaningful implementation rather than aspirational policy statements [90]. Comparative work across European cities further underscores the need to align interventions across spatial and temporal scales, situating project-level actions within broader district- and city-scale planning frameworks [91].

Several tools have been developed to support this strategic integration. The DPSIR model, for instance, provides a structured method for assessing cumulative impacts and ecosystem service performance in complex urban settings [92]. Its application in contexts such as the Milano Santa Giulia district demonstrates how social, economic, and ecological values can be integrated into coordinated territorial networks involving public authorities, non-profits, and private actors [93].

Despite increasing interest, NbS remain significantly underfunded worldwide, with less than 1% of global urban infrastructure investment directed toward nature-based approaches [94]. In Europe, post-pandemic construction-led development has intensified pressures on nature-based agendas, illustrating the disconnect between economic development priorities and ecological strategies [94]. Initiatives such as the Urban Agenda for the EU and its thematic partnerships highlight ongoing efforts to align funding, regulation, and knowledge-sharing for urban greening [95].

Broader strategic thinking is also needed within design and planning processes. Scholars argue for planning approaches that identify and integrate diverse stakeholder values, assess resilience ex-ante and ex-post, and embed NbS into continuous, multi-phase planning cycles [96]. Among existing policy instruments, SEA is identified as a key statutory tool capable of supporting these objectives, particularly when integrated across planning stages and applied at the local and urban scale [96]. However, the reviewed studies do not report the use of other statutory impact assessment procedures for NbS in urban regeneration. While tools such as Sustainability Appraisal [69], economic impact assessment [77], risk assessment [87,97], ecosystem services assessment, climate vulnerability assessment [90,97], and life-cycle assessment [63,88] are discussed or applied in some cases, they largely remain project-level decision-support instruments rather than mechanisms with formal influence on land-use or urban planning.

3.3. Theme 3—Methodological Innovations Supporting Planning and Implementation

Nineteen documents focused on methodological aspects related to the design, assessment, and implementation of NbS. These contributions are grouped into the four sub-themes presented in Table 1: (3.1) Geographic Information Systems and spatial analysis (3 documents); (3.2) multi-criteria decision analysis (5 documents); (3.3) microclimate modelling (6 documents); and (3.4) participatory monitoring and co-design tools (5 documents).

3.3.1. GIS and Spatial Analysis

Two main applications of GIS emerge in the literature. First, GIS is used to identify priority areas for NbS-based regeneration, integrating ecological and social indicators. For instance, Pineda-Pinto et al. (2021) developed a social–ecological injustices index to reveal deprivation hotspots in Melbourne by analysing environmental burdens, land-use patterns, and community mobilisation [98]. Similar hotspot analyses in Shimla highlight how spatial statistics (e.g., Moran’s I, Getis-Ord Gi*) reveal fragmented regeneration efforts and the absence of coordinated area-based strategies [99].

Second, GIS supports suitability assessments that match NbS types to local urban conditions. Chen et al. (2025) demonstrate this by integrating land-cover data with stakeholder input to map optimal locations for green roofs, vertical greening, and linear corridors in Hong Kong, combining social, environmental, and economic criteria [100].

3.3.2. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)

MCDA is widely applied as a decision-support tool to evaluate trade-offs among environmental, social, technical, and economic criteria in NbS planning [101]. Site-specific frameworks help planners compare feasible alternatives under realistic constraints.

Examples include an evaluation method for NbS in Bogotá that integrates MCDA with monitoring tools to assess ecosystem service outcomes across scenarios [102], and a GIS-linked MCDA model supporting street-tree selection in Melbourne, balancing stormwater management, sunlight availability, and visual quality [103]. At broader scales, EU Horizon guidelines propose standardised indicators—such as brownfield reclamation, open-space ratios, energy-efficient buildings, and heritage preservation—to monitor NbS performance from building to metropolitan levels [104]).

3.3.3. Microclimate Modelling

Microclimate modelling supports climate-sensitive NBS design by simulating impacts on thermal comfort, air flow, and energy performance. In Lodz, modelling showed how greenery alters microclimatic conditions in dense historic street canyons [105]. In Hamburg, Greenpass modelling assessed NbS-based redevelopment scenarios to quantify benefits across energy, water, and air systems [106].

Modelling also helps evaluate broader planning implications, such as densification, mobility, and housing demand, by comparing NbS-based redevelopment scenarios [107]. Temporal remote-sensing assessments in Latina demonstrate how vegetation and water dynamics track the long-term effects of NbS interventions [108].

Recent applications integrate microclimate modelling with participatory design. For example, scenario mapping workshops embedded microsimulations into inclusive decision-making for NbS retrofits in the UK [109], and co-evaluation in Genoa incorporated psychological and perceptual aspects of thermal comfort into option selection [110].

3.3.4. Participatory Monitoring and Co-Design Tools

Modelling and monitoring instruments increasingly support participatory processes, allowing communities to shape and evaluate NbS. In Milan, a social-monitoring framework captured stakeholder perceptions of cohesion, safety, belonging, and interactions with nature to inform co-created interventions [111]. A complementary tool for assessing psychosocial co-benefits in Spain linked user perceptions to spatial variation in green/blue elements through a Delphi-validated questionnaire [112].

Participatory “research-through-design” approaches advance co-creation across cultures and climates, as shown in projects in Matera and Riyadh where community groups, experts, and municipal actors collaborated across iterative design phases [113].

Biodiversity-sensitive urban design at Fishermans Bend in Melbourne further demonstrates how workshops, species selection discussions, and spatial modelling support ecosystem-centred regeneration [114]. Broader comparative analyses of 32 post-industrial NbS projects across Europe reveal how stakeholder networks influence co-benefits, collaboration, and governance outcomes [115].

4. Future Directions

This review of the literature highlights current practices and methodologies capable of supporting holistic urban regeneration based on NbS. There are, however, some glaring opportunities to maximise efforts to achieve benefits and sustainable outcomes for the environment as well as for the communities promoting, interested in, and impacted by these urban interventions.

4.1. Best Practices and Lessons for Future Interventions

Across the studies reviewed, early, inclusive, and transparent participation consistently emerges as a foundation for socially just and effective NbS implementation. Successful examples demonstrate the value of involving government, civil society, residents, First Nations groups, and other stakeholders from the outset, while persistent barriers—such as power imbalances, limited transparency, and consultation fatigue—continue to undermine equitable co-creation [81].

Participatory tools including GIS, multi-criteria analysis, and co-design workshops can help reconcile competing values and priorities across environmental, cultural, social, and economic dimensions [102,103]. However, many NbS projects still lack a strategic vision, focusing narrowly on individual sites without considering district- or city-scale systems [72].

Future efforts must therefore emphasise systemic planning, stronger governance frameworks, and long-term stewardship structures that move beyond ad hoc or isolated project-based approaches.

4.2. Strategic Consideration of Cumulative Benefits and Impacts

Maximising the impact of NbS requires decision-making frameworks that integrate cumulative, cross-sectoral, and long-term considerations. While Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is commonly used, its project-specific focus limits its ability to address broader social and institutional contexts [116].

By contrast, SEA provides a more suitable approach, offering mechanisms for evaluating policies, plans, and programmes in terms of environmental, social, cultural, and economic impacts while embedding participation throughout [117,118,119].

Complementary tools—such as cumulative effects assessment, life-cycle assessment, and cost–benefit analysis—can further strengthen strategic planning when integrated within SEA, although each has limitations if used in isolation [120,121,122].

Future research should explore how these frameworks can be combined to support anticipatory, multi-scalar planning that assesses alternatives, maps cumulative impacts, and aligns NbS interventions across temporal and spatial scales.

4.3. Socio-Economic and Financial Aspects

There is a growing body of literature and international practice—especially in Europe—that highlights novel approaches to governance around NbS, based on bringing together public, private, and community interests for the development of case-specific solutions [73]. Emerging successful strategies include: private donation and sponsorship models (e.g., in Turin, Italy), collaborations with research (also Turin), remuneration of beneficiaries through public partners, recurring revenue streams such as renting (e.g., in Dortmund, Germany), and sales as one-off payments for goods (e.g., in Ningbo, China) [73].

Expanding the number of voices included in decision-making can, at the same time, steer urban regeneration based on NbS towards culturally sensitive decisions that not only account for the economic prosperity of the communities impacted and for the ecological values embedded in the urban environment, but also for the cultural values embedded in historic and heritage sites that can be directly interested by urban regeneration processes through NbS [74]. However, these best practices have proven successful in specific contexts; their adoption and diversified socio-economic contexts will likely require adjustment, testing, and ultimately collaborative co-design of new solutions based on community participation and decision-makers accountability.

4.4. A Call to Strategic Action

Despite growing interest in NbS, our review found no evidence that SEA is currently being applied specifically to NbS-driven urban regeneration. Existing SEA research focuses mostly on climate adaptation, flood risk, or land-use management [123,124,125].

Given its strategic orientation, SEA is well positioned to embed NbS within long-term urban planning cycles by integrating environmental and social objectives into municipal master plans, zoning ordinances, and public investment and budget allocation processes [126,127]. SEA can also support alternative scenario development, incorporate social equity considerations, and strengthen community participation, while facilitating innovative financing and stewardship mechanisms such as public–private partnerships and green bonds. This strategic function is illustrated in the SEA of England’s European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Operational Programme, which emphasises the role of SEA in guiding programme design, investment priorities, and long-term decision-making [128]. We therefore recommend adapting SEA as a core decision-support tool for NbS-led regeneration, recognising its capacity to link local project implementation with city-scale visions of environmental, social, and economic sustainability. Without such strategic frameworks, NbS efforts risk remaining fragmented, reactive, and vulnerable to greenwashing and inequitable outcomes.

4.5. Limitations and Future Research

This review has two main limitations. First, the literature analysed was restricted to English-language sources. During the screening process, we identified several relevant papers published in Italian, which were excluded based on our inclusion criteria, these studies could have provided additional insights into nature-based approaches to urban regeneration. Future research should adopt a multilingual approach, supported by AI-based translation tools that can facilitate efficient and cost-effective access to non-English scientific literature [129,130].

Second, our search strategy relied primarily on Scopus for peer-reviewed articles, supplemented by Google Scholar for policy reports. While Scopus offers comprehensive coverage of high-quality academic outputs, this reliance may have limited the inclusion of relevant studies indexed in other databases. Expanding future searches to include additional databases and regional repositories could strengthen the breadth and inclusivity of evidence. Finally, while systematic or meta-analytic reviews may be appropriate for evaluating the performance of specific NbS interventions, the aim of this review was to synthesise conceptual, governance and methodological patterns across diverse contexts, for which a narrative approach is more suitable. Nevertheless, future research could adopt more quantitative review methods to assess the use of indicators for measuring the effectiveness of NbS interventions, the prevalence of different NbS typologies, the role of social solutions, and the specific impacts of NbS on urban regeneration outcomes. In addition, the economic and social dimensions of NbS-driven regeneration require more detailed investigation. Comparative analysis is needed to determine which interventions offer the greatest ecosystem service benefits and generate indirect societal gains, such as reduced hospital admissions resulting from improved air quality, lower prescription rates associated with better mental health, and increased community wellbeing. Such evidence would help position urban regeneration not as a financial cost but as a long-term societal investment. This need for economic and policy clarity is particularly important in countries outside Europe, where coordinated funding streams for NbS are not yet well established. As highlighted by [33], Australia lacks a consistent national definition of NbS, implementation remains highly localised, and there is no integrated policy framework to support wider adoption. In contrast, the European experience shows how strategic investment and coherent policy support can accelerate the uptake and mainstreaming of NbS in urban regeneration. Further work is therefore required to understand how governance arrangements and funding mechanisms can maximise these benefits while preventing unintended consequences such as green gentrification, ensuring that NbS contribute to equitable and inclusive urban development.

5. Conclusions: Toward Regenerative Urban Futures

This review synthesised evidence on how NbS are applied in urban regeneration, focusing on three thematic areas: applications, governance, and methodological innovations. First, NbS applications demonstrate significant potential to transform underutilised land into multifunctional landscapes that improve climate resilience, biodiversity, and social wellbeing through green infrastructure, blue–green systems, and hybrid solutions. Second, governance remains the critical bottleneck: despite advanced analytical tools, persistent gaps—such as displacement risks, fragmented decision-making, and limited participation—undermine equity objectives. Third, methodological advances, including GIS-based spatial analysis, multi-criteria decision frameworks, and microclimate modelling, offer powerful instruments for planning and evaluation, yet they cannot deliver systemic change without being embedded in inclusive governance structures.

To overcome these challenges, we argue that Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) should be adapted as a core policy tool for NbS-driven regeneration. SEA’s strategic scale, participatory ethos, and integrative capacity make it uniquely suited to align ecological ambitions with social justice imperatives. Coupled with participatory governance and integrated technical tools, SEA can ensure that regeneration moves beyond site-specific interventions toward systemic, anticipatory planning that addresses cumulative impacts and long-term sustainability. Embedding SEA alongside inclusive co-design processes and advanced modelling will enable cities to reconcile ecological restoration with cultural continuity and equity.

Future research should broaden geographic coverage to capture diverse governance cultures and implementation models, particularly in regions outside Europe where national frameworks and funding mechanisms for NbS are less established. Greater attention is also needed to long-term monitoring, evaluation of cumulative impacts, and comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness and co-benefits. Advancing these research directions will support the development of NbS as a strategic, equitable, and culturally grounded pathway for regenerative urban futures.