Report on demand and supply chains in NbS - Invest4Nature Deliverable 3.4.

Deliverable 3.4: Report on demand and supply chains in NbS WP3 Date of document 03/11/2025 Deliverable Version: D3.4, V.2 Dissemination Level: Public Authors: Lydia Maria Lienhart (JR), Michael Kernitzkyi (JR), Vanessa Weiß (JR), Andreas Türk (JR), Simone Taddeo (CMCC), Agnieszka Dziubala (UMP), Malgorzata Bronikowska (UMP), Wenting Chen (NIVA), Sigrid Mourits-Andersen (KBT), Barbara Coelho (EMAC), Lone Norgaard Telling (AAKS), Mette Holm (AAKS) D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 2 Document History PROJECT ACRONYM INVEST4NATURE Project Title Promoting investments in NBS and accelerating market uptake by gaining a better understanding of the economic performance of NBS, considering climate mitigation and risk reduction Project Coordinator Andreas Türk [email protected] JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft (JR) Project Duration 48 months Deliverable No. 3.4 Diss. Level PU1 Deliverable Lead JR Status x Working Verified by other WPs Final version Due date 31/10/2024 Submission date 30/10/2025 Work Package 3 Work Package Lead AU Contributing beneficiary(ies) JR, CMCC, UMP, NIVA, KBT, EMAC, AAKS DoA Report on demand and supply chains in NBS Date Version Author Comment 20/10/2025 1 JR, CMCC First draft of deliverable ready for review 27/10/2025 1.2 Review by Barbara Buchner (Scientific advisory board) and Doan Nainggolan (AU) 03/11/2025 2 JR, CMCC Final version and submission to EC Copyright Notices ©2022-2026 Invest4Nature Consortium Partners. All rights reserved. Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. Invest4Nature is a Horizon Europe project supported by the European Commission under grant agreement No 101061083. All information in this deliverable may not be copied or duplicated in whole or part by any means without express prior agreement in writing by the Invest4Nature partners. All contents are reserved by default and may not be disclosed to third parties without the written consent of the Invest4Nature partners, except as mandated by the Grant Agreement with the European Commission, for reviewing and dissemination purposes. All trademarks and other rights on third party products 1 PU = Public PP = Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE = Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO = Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 3 mentioned in this document are acknowledged and owned by the respective holders. The Invest4Nature consortium does not guarantee that any information contained herein is error-free, or up-to-date, nor makes warranties, express, implied, or statutory, by publishing this document. For more information on the project, its partners and contributors, please see the Invest4Nature website (www.invest4nature.eu). Suggested citation Lienhart, L., Kernitzkyi, M., Weiß, V., Türk, A., Taddeo, S., Dziubala, A., Bronikowska, M., Chen, W., Mourits-Andersen, S., Coelho, B., Norgaard Telling, L., Holm, M. (2025). Report on demand and supply chains in NbS. Invest4Nature Deliverable D3.4. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17511376 D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................................. 7 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 8 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 9 1.1. Scope and aim of the report.................................................................................................... 9 1.2. Challenges and opportunities in NbS demand and supply ................................................... 10 2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 11 2.1. Systematic literature review ................................................................................................. 12 2.2. Mapping of value chains in the Living Labs ........................................................................... 14 2.3. Input-output modelling ......................................................................................................... 17 3. Systematic literature review ..................................................................................................... 18 3.1. Overview................................................................................................................................ 18 3.2. Sectoral linkages .................................................................................................................... 19 3.3. Wider economic effects ........................................................................................................ 20 3.4. Barriers and enablers for implementation, upscaling and replication ................................. 21 4. Mapping of value chains in the Living Labs ............................................................................... 25 4.1. Value proposition .................................................................................................................. 25 4.2. Sectoral linkages .................................................................................................................... 26 4.3. Customer relationship and channels ..................................................................................... 27 4.4. Potential for future demand ................................................................................................. 28 4.5. Barriers and enablers for implementation, upscaling and replication ................................. 29 5. Input-output modelling ............................................................................................................. 32 6. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 41 6.1. Summary of key findings ....................................................................................................... 41 6.2. Policy recommendations ....................................................................................................... 43 7. References ................................................................................................................................. 46 8. Annex 1: Barriers and enablers identified in the systematic literature review categorized by stage of process ..................................................................................................................................... 52 8.1. Type 1: Barriers and enablers during the initiation phase .................................................... 52 8.2. Type 2: Barriers and enablers during the implementation phase ........................................ 54 8.3. Type 3: Barriers and enablers during the operation phase ................................................... 55 9. Annex 2: Mappings of the Living Labs ....................................................................................... 56 9.1. Kelp Forest restoration in Northern Norway ........................................................................ 56 9.2. Restoration of the Tyrolean Lech River, Austria ................................................................... 58 D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 5 9.3. Climate-Smart Mountain Forest in Tyrol, Austria ................................................................. 60 9.4. Hasselager Wildforest in Denmark ........................................................................................ 63 9.5. Natural playgrounds in kindergartens in Poznań, Poland ..................................................... 66 9.6. Natural playgrounds in schoolyards in Poznań, Poland ........................................................ 70 9.7. Guincho-Cresmina coastal dune restoration in Cascais, Portugal ........................................ 73 9.8. Rewilding of the Ribeira das Vinhas River in Cascais, Portugal ............................................. 76 10. Annex 3: Barriers and enablers identified in the Living Labs categorized by stage of process . 79 10.1. Type 1: Barriers and enablers during the initiation phase ................................................ 79 10.2. Type 2: Barriers and enablers during the implementation phase .................................... 80 10.3. Type 3: Barriers and enablers during the operation phase ............................................... 81 D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 6 TABLE OF TABLES Table 1. Main and associated landscape types for our analysis of the Living Lab cases. .................................................................. 11 Table 2. Frequency of supply and demand linkages per sector. ............................................................................................................ 19 Table 3. Barriers and enablers for the implementation, replication or upscaling of NbS identified in the literature review. Note: Where applicable, barriers were matched in the same line with corresponding enablers to illustrate potential pathways for overcoming implementation challenges. .................................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 4. Barriers and enablers for the implementation, replication or upscaling of NbS in the Living Labs. Note: Where applicable, barriers were matched in the same line with corresponding enablers to illustrate potential pathways for overcoming implementation challenges. ......................................................................................................................................................................... 30 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Procedure to determine the eligibility of studies/paper for data extraction. .......................................................................... 12 Figure 2. PRISMA diagram of the systematic literature review. ............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 3. Case studies and demand-supply interactions by landscape type. ....................................................................................... 18 Figure 4. Supply and demand interactions across the six landscape types identified in the systematic literature review. Note: While studies/cases may be associated with multiple landscapes, this analysis focuses on the primary type to provide a clear overview of the distribution of studies/cases across landscapes. .......................................................................................................... 19 Figure 5. Barriers and enablers for implementation, replication or upscaling of NbS categorized by stage of process. ................ 24 Figure 6. Supply and demand interactions across the four landscape types identified in the mapping of the Living Lab cases. Note: As each Living Lab case was assigned a single main landscape type (see Table 1 in Chapter 2), not all landscape types are represented in the figure. While cases may be associated with multiple landscapes, this analysis focuses on the primary type to provide a clear overview of the distribution of cases across landscapes. ................................................................................ 26 Figure 7. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Climate-Smart Mountain Forest (Klimafitter Bergwald) in Tyrol” in Austria. ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 8. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Restoration of the Tyrolean Lech River” in Austria. .. 34 Figure 9. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Hasselager Wildforest” in Denmark............................. 35 Figure 10. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Kelp Forest restoration” in Northern Norway. .......... 36 Figure 11. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Natural Playgrounds in Schoolyards in Poznań” in Poland. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 12. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Natural Playgrounds in Kindergartens in Poznań” in Poland. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 13. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Guincho-Cresmina coastal dune restoration in Cascais” in Portugal. ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 14. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Rewilding of the Ribeira das Vinhas River in Cascais” in Portugal. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 7 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ACRONYM DESCRIPTION BGI Blue-Green Infrastructure BMC Business Model Canvas CCA Climate Change Adaptation CSR Corporate Social Responsibility CSRD Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive CW Constructed Wetland DRR Disaster Risk Reduction EC European Commission EEMRIO Environmentally Extended Multi-Regional Input-Output Model ESG Environmental, Social and Governance EU European Union GTN Growing Tree Network LL Living Lab MPAs Marine Protected Areas MRIO Multi-Regional Input-Output Model NAS Natural Assurance Schemes NbE Nature-based Enterprise NbS Nature-based Solutions NGO Non-Governmental Organisation PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA-S Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Search reporting extension PPP Public-Private Partnership R&D Research and Development SMEs Small and Medium-sized Enterprises VAT Value Added Tax D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aim and methodology Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are actions that protect, restore, and sustainably manage natural or modified ecosystems to address societal challenges. This report investigates the integration of NbS into economic value chains and identifies barriers and enablers for upscaling and replication. The analysis combines a systematic literature review with an NbS Business Model Canvas mapping as well as a sectoral impact quantification using input–output modelling of eight Invest4Nature Living Lab cases. The literature review and input–output modelling were conducted by JR, while the Business Model Canvas mapping was carried out by JR and CMCC with input from the Invest4Nature Living Labs. Supply and demand dynamics Findings highlight the dominant role of the public sector on sides – supply and demand. It is mostly local governments that plan, contract, and supervise NbS interventions, while funding comes from multiple governance levels, including local, regional, national and EU sources. On the supply side, NGOs, academia, and technical service providers contribute with expertise, research, and monitoring. Local communities participate in co-design and, in some cases, maintenance, representing both contributors to and beneficiaries of NbS implementation. The literature review identified the public sector as the main bottleneck in the supply chain. It dominated most supply and demand linkages, appeared as a key actor in 29 of the 31 analysed case studies, and was closely linked to many of the identified barriers and enablers. These results are further corroborated by the NbS BMC mapping and input-output modelling. This shows that active coordination, cooperation and stakeholder engagement is vital to use the full potential of the NbS projects’ supply chain integration. Furthermore, low awareness and limited public interest remain key barriers. Strong communication, interdisciplinary knowledge exchange, and visible pilot results serve as enablers. Maintenance and integration into long-term practices The long-term success of NbS requires stable funding, institutional commitment, clearly defined maintenance responsibilities with legal certainty for actors. Supportive policy frameworks, municipal budgets, and strategic partnerships can facilitate replication and continuity, while targeted communication tools help maintain visibility and knowledge retention. Evidence from the Norway and Tirol Living Labs indicates that the initial momentum often declines in the absence of sustained resources and robust monitoring frameworks and often it is a simple lack of awareness of maintenance needs by actors that hinders successful long-term implementation. Policy recommendations The public sector plays a crucial role in supporting the implementation and scaling of NbS by creating an enabling environment through appropriate regulations, providing direct concessional funding and technical support, and encouraging beneficiaries to engage with NbS. Policy action should include establishing long-term EU funding for maintenance, streamlining NbS into public procurement, and better leveraging EU sustainability legislation to attract private investment. Greater policy coherence across governance levels is needed to facilitate and accelerate implementation, alongside local supplyside capacity building through technical assistance. Standardised monitoring, ecological outcome reporting, and stronger stakeholder engagement and co-creation will further support the long-term effectiveness and scalability of NbS. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 9 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. SCOPE AND AIM OF THE REPORT Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are actions that protect, restore, and sustainably manage natural and modified ecosystems to address societal challenges. They provide wide ranging economic benefits and insurance value (Invest4Nature report D3.1, Zandersen et al. 2025) as well as multifaceted benefits for society in Europe (Invest4Nature report D3.2, Chen et al. 2025). For instance, NbS can stimulate labour demand across sectors such as food production, green infrastructure, and ecotourism, with particular benefits for low-income groups (Chausson et al. 2024). The growing recognition of the economic potential of NbS has also been reflected in a growing body of research addressing NbS markets. However, existing NbS research is often landscapeor project-specific, lacking the comprehensive evidence synthesis needed to inform fiscal policy and also neglecting the integration of NbS into the wider economic system (Fu 2023; Chausson et al. 2024). As a result, a critical gap remains in our understanding of what effectively drives or constrains the demand and supply of NbS and how to mainstream NBS solutions in specific value chains. Bridging this knowledge gap is important for designing targeted policy instruments and financial mechanisms, and for enabling private sector investment in NbS at scale. This report examines the integration of NbS into economic value chains as well as barriers and enablers that influence their potential for upscaling and market development. While it is informed by global literature, the focus lies on Europe. The need to promote investments in NbS and to accelerate their market uptake is at the core of Invest4Nature’s mission, driven by a broader recognition of the vital role that NbS can play in addressing urgent societal challenges such as climate change adaptation (CCA), disaster risk reduction (DRR), and sustainable economic development. This deliverable investigates how demand and supply for NbS arises and is shaped: which actors demand NbS, why does this demand emerge, and under what conditions does it could become relevant in different geographic and sectoral contexts. The report also investigates how NbS supply chains are structured and function, including who are the key providers, and which barriers or opportunities predominate along the way. The report does not consider supply and demand for NbS in isolation but studies their interplay, including market mechanisms, value chains, and enabling factors that underpin successful implementation and broader adoption, for instance stakeholder and community involvement. A distinguishing feature of this report lies in its multi-method approach: While the systematic literature review summarizes existing evidence on demand and supply interlinkages of NbS in general, it is also complemented by the analysis of demand and supply chains for NbS across the five Invest4Nature Living Labs via a mapping using the Nature-based Solutions Business Model Canvas (NbS BMC) and input-output modelling to derive the indirect relevance of sectors. Thus, sectoral impacts of NbS are quantified, interlinkages are mapped, and bottlenecks or growth opportunities are identified. The aim is to provide actionable, evidence-based insights on how to stimulate and sustain demand, improve supply, and connect the two in ways that support EU sustainability objectives. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 16 although vital, are often underestimated in budgets. Strategies for cost reduction may include economies of scale (e.g., bulk purchasing of materials), the mobilization of volunteers, or the adoption of more sustainable planting techniques that reduce long-term maintenance as in our LLs Hasselager Wildforest in Denmark and/or the Cresmina dune restoration in Portugal (Zandersen et al. 2025; Tedeschini et al. 2024). Similarly, the urban greening NbS in Poland have shown that stormwater costs are reduced while fostering innovative green solutions and the use of low-cost recycled or biodegradable materials. Finally, the BMC highlights the importance of value capture (Mayor, Toxopeus, et al. 2021). While many benefits of NbS are indirect or diffuse—such as better public health, reduced risks, or improved urban resilience—there are opportunities to generate direct revenue. For example, in the urban greening of school and kindergarten playgrounds in Poland, sectors indirectly impacted include the education sector (schools, teachers, students) as well as the implementation of local construction/architecture, also with the help of green technology companies, which can all benefit from the implementation and operation of the NbS solution. Examples are green infrastructure like roofs and walls may generate private revenue streams through fees from developers or businesses. Urban agriculture can yield surplus produce that can be sold, creating local economic benefits while reinforcing environmental and social goals. In this context, value capture is therefore not limited to financial revenue but includes broader social returns on investment, such as reduced healthcare costs, improved quality of life, and increased community resilience. In a nutshell, the NbS Business Model Canvas provides a holistic tool to design, evaluate, and sustain nature-based projects (Stork et al. 2023). For each Living Lab, the mapping highlighted the main environmental and societal challenges being addressed, along with the types of value generated—such as restored ecosystems, reduced risks, economic opportunities for communities, or carbon sequestration. The process was inherently participatory. We worked closely with Living Lab leads, local beneficiaries, and partners, combining two rounds of workshops (on July 9th and September 10th, 2025), interviews, and document reviews. This allowed that the mapping was not just a theoretical exercise but grounded in local realities. Each iteration of the mapping reflected the diversity of context ranging from different climate conditions and sectoral priorities to governance systems and socio-economic dynamics. On the supply side, we identified those responsible for implementing and managing interventions, mobilizing expertise, or providing resources. On the demand side, we examined who benefits directly, who commissions or co-finances projects, and who feels the impact across the value chain. This also included attention to key partners and indirect stakeholders, as well as the forms of relationships – whether co-creation processes or longterm partnerships – that shape the Labs’ functioning. Equally important were the barriers and enablers. By exploring financial structures, cost dynamics, and bottlenecks, we were able to see what holds back scaling and where leverage points might lie. The result is a set of Living Lab canvases that not only describe individual cases but also provide a basis for comparison across contexts. Taking together, these provide insights into systemic patterns, highlight obstacles to scaling NbS, and point to opportunities for strengthening market development. They also feed into broader input–output modelling of NbS value chains, offering detailed, actor-specific data that can guide both analysis and action. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 17 2.3. INPUT-OUTPUT MODELLING To derive the indirect relevance of sectors relating to the implementation and operation of NbS along the value chain in a quantitative way we made use of GLOB-IO, a multi-regional input-output model (MRIO) for the global economy. A general overview on use and compilation of MRIO frameworks can be found in (Tukker and Dietzenbacher 2013). GLOB-IO is based on the 2025 release of the OECD IOT database and includes 76 countries and one aggregate for all other countries divided into 45 sectors per country. Yamano et al. (2023) gives a description on the derivation of the database and the general structure of input-output tables. MRIO models give the ability to trace the global production of goods and services from their origin via intermediate production steps to its final use. This begins with the use of primary inputs like labour, capital or environmental goods and ends at the final consumption of produced goods and services. This also includes the tracing of production steps across national borders, so that the shares of the countries in the global value-added chains can be determined. Based on the interregional and intersectoral interlinkages direct and indirect effects in the provision of goods and services can be quantified. Mathematically MRIO models are a set of linear equations that represent the production system of the global economy, typically in monetary terms, but also in physical quantities. In matrix notation the model is described by the following equation: [𝑋1 𝑋2 ⋮ 𝑋𝑟]=[𝐴11 𝐴21 ⋮ 𝐴𝑟1 𝐴12 𝐴22 ⋮ 𝐴𝑟2 … … ⋱ …𝐴1𝑟 𝐴2𝑟 ⋮ 𝐴𝑟𝑟]∗[𝑋1 𝑋2 ⋮ 𝑋𝑟]+[𝑌1 𝑌2 ⋮ 𝑌𝑟] (1) 𝑋𝑖 represents a column vector of total output of each economic sector from each country 𝑟 (𝑟 ∈𝑅). 𝐴 is a coefficient matrix which describes the input-output rations in the production, where 𝐴𝑖𝑗 give the necessary amount of inputs from country 𝑖 to produce one unit of output in country 𝑗. 𝑌 denotes the column vector of final demand. This equation can be solved to 𝑋=(𝐼−𝐴)−1∗𝑌, where (𝐼−𝐴)−1 stands for the Leontief inverse matrix 𝐿. Given a final demand vector 𝑌, the total output needed from each sector in each country is given by 𝑋=𝐿∗𝑌. The output includes the direct and indirect use of inputs in production. MRIO models are used in different contexts. For instance, the environmentally extended MRIO (EEMRIO) models are used to analyse the impacts of production on environmental indicators (Malik et al. 2019), but also social indicators can be mapped on global value chains (McBain and Alsamawi 2014). To analyse the direct and indirect relevance of economic sectors in the implementation and operation of NbS projects, we applied a semi-quantitative approach in collaboration with the Living Labs. Each sector’s importance was rated on a scale from 1 to 5, representing direct final demand for NbS. These scores were mapped onto the sectoral value chains of the global economy using GLOB-IO, a multiregional input–output model calibrated to the 2023 edition of the OECD ICIO (Yamano et al. 2023) with 2019 as base year. Indirect relevance within supply chains (backward linkages) was derived using Leontief multipliers, and forward linkages were calculated with Ghosh multipliers. The overall relevance of sectors was obtained as the sum of direct and indirect effects. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 18 3. SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW 3.1. OVERVIEW This literature review examined demand and supply chains, sectoral impacts, and value chains in NbS. Overall, it highlighted that the integration of NbS into economic value chains is still a very niche topic, as the rigorous literature search only yielded 22 relevant publications with a total of 31 case studies. From these, 214 single supply and demand interactions were extracted across the six landscape types. As Figure 3 shows, urban NbS both represent the largest number of case studies (13 out of 31) as well as the largest number of supply and demand interactions (94 out of 214). Water management NbS make up about a third of both the case studies and supply and demand interactions. There were three case studies each on agriculture and coastal NbS, and one case study each on forestry and mountain NbS. This is in line with the Invest4Nature Deliverable D3.1 (Zandersen et al. 2025) which found a predominance of urban NbS in the more broader topic of NbS economic assessment studies in general, albeit less prominent. This distribution across NbS landscape types of scientific literature on the economic assessment in general or the value chain integration in particular might be related to the fact that the term “NbS” started to be used widely in scientific literature from 2015 onwards (Nesshöver et al. 2017), reflecting the financial support of NbS projects by the European Commission (EC) that took off during that time and first projects were often also strongly embedded in urban development agendas (Mendes et al. 2020). Figure 3. Case studies and demand-supply interactions by landscape type. Overall, Table 2 highlights that there are more supply linkages (132) than demand linkages (82). This can be due to a number of reasons: First of all, while supply-side actors, for instance public sector services, technical services, or NGOs are explicitly tasked with project implementation, producing visible supply-side records, demand linkages are fragmented among beneficiaries and commissioning entities, or even diffuse societal benefits that are harder to record or track as direct linkages. In their meta-review for instance, Chausson et al. (2024) found that while NbS interventions often create new labour demand in a variety of sectors, such effects are rarely documented in the literature due to mediating factors, complexity, or fragmented end-user groups. A second explanation could be policy asymmetry and a preference for supply-side policies which has been observed for NbS by McQuaid et al. (2021). D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 19 Table 2. Frequency of supply and demand linkages per sector. Sectors Supply Demand Total Public Sector 40 44 84 Professional and Technical Services 25 1 26 NGOs 16 7 23 Residents 8 12 20 Agriculture and Forestry 14 6 20 Utilities and Infrastructure 10 7 17 Academia and Research 12 2 14 Fisheries and Marine 3 1 4 Real Estate 1 2 3 Education 2 0 2 Health 1 0 1 Total 132 82 214 3.2. SECTORAL LINKAGES Regarding the sectoral linkages, Figure 4 and Table 2 highlight the strong role the public sector plays both in supplying and demanding NbS, making up for 84 of the 214 linkages and playing a role in 29 out of 31 NbS case studies. Separating the public sector into the different governance levels, we can see that for the supply side, mostly local entities play a role: wastewater management services, coastal management, environmental departments, city-owned landscape firms and further municipal actors usually contract and supervise interventions. For the demand side, on the other hand, more governance levels are involved, as funding frequently stems from both the EU, regional/national and local entities. Figure 4. Supply and demand interactions across the six landscape types identified in the systematic literature review. Note: While studies/cases may be associated with multiple landscapes, this analysis focuses on the primary type to provide a clear overview of the distribution of studies/cases across landscapes. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 20 For the supply of NbS, professional and technical services (25 supply linkages) constitute the second largest sector after the public sector, which aligns with NbS requiring specialized implementation services from NbEs (see Chapter 1.2). They are followed by NGOs (16 supply linkages) and agriculture and forestry (14 supply linkages). Academia and research (12 linkages) are frequently involved for NbS research and monitoring, while residents (8 linkages) are usually involved in co-design and sometimes in maintenance. As mentioned above, the supply for NbS is currently heavily dependent on the public sector taking an initiating and coordinating role and involving other sectors. For the demand of NbS, the dominant role of the public sector is even stronger, as it makes up for about half of all the linkages. The fact that the public sector plays the strongest role in demand is consistent with the findings of Invest4Nature Deliverable D3.3. (Tedeschini et al. 2024): In their systematic literature review on NbS financing, they found that the public sector plays a role in 82% of NbS financing – either through direct funding, public-private partnerships or blended finance. Residents also play a considerable role in demand (12 demand linkages), especially in urban NbS (need for green spaces and cooling), but also in areas prone to landslides, erosion or flooding. While we saw above that NGOs are important supply actors, they also represent considerable demand (7 demand linkages), underscoring their role as both providers of NbS-related services and beneficiaries or commissioners in projects. 3.3. WIDER ECONOMIC EFFECTS Most of the literature analysed also mentioned sectors affected by NbS in a wider sense, i.e. not only via indirect demand or supply linkages, but also via stakeholder involvement, market interactions (e.g., new services, products) or broader enabling or co-beneficiary effects (e.g., increased awareness, reduced risks). The sectors most recurrent in the literature were tourism, agriculture, education, recreation, and energy/bioeconomy. Out of the 22 relevant publication, 9 publications mention that ecotourism infrastructure and ecosystem restoration attract visitors, expanding tourism and recreational opportunities. For the agricultural sector it was mostly mentioned increased resilience, diversification through new farming practices, and utilization of sustainable materials was frequently mentioned (Panagopoulos and Dimitriou 2020; Olbertz et al. 2025; Masoud et al. 2022; Orta-Ortiz and Geneletti 2023; Mayor et al. 2019). Also, wetland biomass and biofuels were mentioned to increase renewable energy production and bioeconomy value chains (Masoud et al. 2022). Educational programs linked to NbS were noted to increase environmental awareness and skills, while community projects foster social cohesion and participatory governance (Olbertz et al. 2025; Evans et al. 2025; Masoud et al. 2022; Snep et al. 2023). Industry was mentioned to substitute conventional materials with bio-based alternatives, reducing costs and environmental impacts (Maas and Rousseau 2024). Insurance and finance sectors see enhanced climate resilience and risk reduction, aligning ecological restoration with fiscal stability (Mayor, Zorrilla-Miras, et al. 2021). In urban NbS, real estate sectors benefit from greener surroundings, improved water systems, and higher property values (Tedesco et al. 2019). However, these benefits also give rise to another challenge, known as green gentrification, where rising cost of living following urban NbS interventions crowd-out individuals with lower socio-economic status (Anguelovski et al. 2022; Chang 2024). This calls for particular attention in planning urban NbS and ancillary measures to ensure accessibility and inclusiveness to green amenities and ultimately, climate justice (Oscilowicz et al. 2021). D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 21 These sectors are not only affected directly via supply or demand linkages, but also through environmental improvement, new opportunities for value creation and risk reduction mechanisms. The literature review suggest NbS serve as cross-sectoral catalysts, embedding sustainability into local economies via resource efficiency, awareness building, and diversification of economic activities. 3.4. BARRIERS AND ENABLERS FOR IMPLEMENTATION, UPSCALING AND REPLICATION To structure our analysis of the barriers and enablers for the implementation, replication or upscaling of NbS, we adapted the framework developed by Ringhofer et al. (2025). This framework identifies nine categories – cultural, institutional, regional/geographical, political, knowledge-based, financial, legal, operational, and technological – that influence the design, implementation, and use of innovative sustainable mobility services. The barriers and enablers identified in our systematic literature review align with these categories, making this approach a suitable basis for our assessment of the conditions affecting the broader implementation of NbS. However, no technological barriers or enablers were identified in our case. Table 3 presents the barriers and enablers identified through our systematic literature review, organized into the eight relevant categories. Barriers or enablers spanning multiple categories appear in each relevant category. Within each category, barriers were matched with corresponding enablers, where applicable, to highlight potential pathways for overcoming implementation challenges and supporting the upscaling or replication of NbS. The barriers and enablers identified all apply to both implementation, as well as replication and upscaling. Across categories, several central enablers recur. Stakeholder engagement and co-creation appear in cultural, institutional, and legal contexts, highlighting their central role in fostering acceptance and shared ownership. Likewise, capacity building and increasing knowledge around NbS span cultural, knowledge-based and operational domains, indicating widespread skills and information gaps. In a similar way, some barriers appear to have a high impact because they cascade into others: Institutional inertia can delay funding, legal integration, and operations. Insufficient knowledge and tools hinder cultural, institutional, political and technological change. Table 3. Barriers and enablers for the implementation, replication or upscaling of NbS identified in the literature review. Note: Where applicable, barriers were matched in the same line with corresponding enablers to illustrate potential pathways for overcoming implementation challenges. Categories Barriers Enablers Cultural Snep et al. 2023 Distrust of institutions among lower-income groups Co-creation and early stakeholder engagement, including public, private, international and domestic institutions, together with civil society Olbertz et al. 2025; Roitsch et al. 2024; Snep et al. 2023; Hansen et al. 2016; Mayor et al. 2019 Olbertz et al. 2025 Low public interest in NbS Effective communication strategies and efforts to institute a strong narrative Martin et al. 2021 Extensive awareness-raising campaigns coupled with capacity building Orta-Ortiz and Geneletti 2023; Mayor et al. 2019 LópezSerrano et al. 2023 Stigma around some NbS, e.g. treated wastewater reuse Participation in stakeholder networks Roitsch et al. 2024 D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 22 Institutional Olbertz et al. 2025; Frantzeskaki et al. 2017; Mayor et al. 2019; Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Institutional silos and poor interdepartmental communication Early cross-scale and cross-sector collaboration and fostered engagement Panagopoulos and Dimitriou 2020; Martin et al. 2021; Kvamsås 2023; Frantzeskaki et al. 2017 Hansen et al. 2016 Conflicting departmental strategies delay climate adaptation in general and NbS in particular Strong cooperation between government, land users, investors, beneficiaries Mayor et al. 2019; Mayor, Zorrilla-Miras, et al. 2021 Mayor et al. 2019; Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Institutional inertia and resistance to change Practitioners linking with business and finance actors to scale NbS Van Ham and Klimmek 2017 Successful public-private partnerships built on shared understanding of landscapes, services, legal frameworks, and strategic goals Orta-Ortiz and Geneletti 2023; Van Ham and Klimmek 2017; Mayor et al. 2019 Regional, geographical Baganz et al. 2021 Urban space competition limits aquaponics potential Strategic spacing of NbS interventions enhances city-scale performance Orta-Ortiz and Geneletti 2023 Masoud et al. 2022 Constructed wetland performance depends on local conditions Kvamsås 2023 Blue-green infrastructure (BGI) implementation constrained by local climate Maas and Rousseau 2024; Evans et al. 2025 Seagrass restoration methods are location-specific Holistic, regional and systemic approach, e.g., quarry rehabilitation offers a replicable NbS model for stormwater management Van Ham and Klimmek 2017 Political Orta-Ortiz and Geneletti 2023; Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Lack of sustained political will and vulnerability to political change Strong pro-NbS advocacy within and outside government institutions, including highlighting best practices Martin et al. 2021; Mayor, Zorrilla-Miras, et al. 2021 Mayor et al. 2019; Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Opposition and lobbying from interest groups Knowledgebased Mayor et al. 2019 Insufficient knowledge and planning tools Interdisciplinary and crossdepartmental knowledge exchange Orta-Ortiz and Geneletti 2023; Hansen et al. 2016 Capacity-building and skills development Kvamsås 2023; Evans et al. 2025; Roitsch et al. 2024 Olbertz et al. 2025 Limited experience and lack of standardized procedures D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 23 Knowledge co-production to engage private sector in NbS Evans et al. 2025 Evans et al. 2025; Mayor et al. 2019 Uncertainty about the costbenefit of NbS implementation Demonstrated efficacy of NbS interventions Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Improve cost-benefit forecasting Evans et al. 2025 Financial Evans et al. 2025 Misalignment between funder priorities and project needs Long-term financial planning beyond project duration Roitsch et al. 2024; Mayor et al. 2019 Evans et al. 2025; Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Insufficient funding for long-term monitoring and reporting Secure long-term funding for staff retention and skill continuity Evans et al. 2025; Mayor, Zorrilla-Miras, et al. 2021 Snep et al. 2023; Mayor et al. 2019 Financial constraints on national level Cost-sharing through scaling (e.g., scaled seascape restoration) Evans et al. 2025 LópezSerrano et al. 2023 High upfront costs for NbS (e.g., for constructed wetlands) Rugani et al. 2024 Energy-intensive NbS are vulnerable to fluctuating energy costs Legal Olbertz et al. 2025, Evans et al. 2025, Mayor et al. 2021 Gaps in regulatory frameworks for NbS Legal integration of NbS into urban planning frameworks Olbertz et al. 2025; OrtaOrtiz and Geneletti 2023; Mayor et al. 2019 Masoud et al. 2022 No standardized legal guidelines for new constructed wetland (CW) types Olbertz et al. 2025 Bureaucratic delays in building permit processes Evans et al. 2025 Complex permitting process for seagrass restoration Embed co-creation and cogovernance into legal planning processes Olbertz et al. 2025 Operational Olbertz et al. 2025; Evans et al. 2025; Roitsch et al. 2024 Delays due to unclear or mixed land ownership (public/private) LópezSerrano et al. 2023 Limited supply availability for vertical flow constructed wetlands Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Lack of systematic monitoring frameworks Transfer maintenance responsibility through legal ownership to local actors Olbertz et al. 2025; Evans et al. 2025; OrtaOrtiz and Geneletti 2023 Capacity-building and skills development Evans et al. 2025; Roitsch et al. 2024 D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 24 Barriers and enablers affecting the implementation, replication, and upscaling of Nature-based Solutions can arise at various stages throughout the project lifecycle. These factors may either limit the effectiveness of an NbS intervention or prevent its successful realisation altogether. To better understand where and when these challenges and supports occur, we analysed them in relation to the four stages of NbS implementation, based on the conceptual framework proposed by Ringhofer et al. (2025), which we adapted to fit the scope of this research. Specifically, the framework distinguishes between three key phases where barriers and enablers may emerge: • Type 1: Barriers and enablers during the initiation phase, • Type 2: Barriers and enablers during the implementation phase, and • Type 3: Barriers and enablers during the operation phase. These phases are positioned across four completed stages of the NbS process, ranging from the initial recognition of the need to long-term maintenance and institutional integration. This is particularly significant, as insights from the Invest4Nature Living Labs interviews and workshop showed that legal, financial, and procedural barriers to maintenance can impede the long-term success—or even the initiation—of NbS projects. Figure 5 presents this conceptual framework. Addressing barriers and leveraging enablers at each phase is essential to ensure not only the successful delivery of NbS projects but also their long-term sustainability and integration into policy and practice. Figure 5. Barriers and enablers for implementation, replication or upscaling of NbS categorized by stage of process. The majority of both barriers and enablers are relevant at the initiation phase of an NbS project, covering all nine categories. In the implementation phase, several of these reoccur and are further accompanied by complexity and potential delays associated with the permitting process. Operational barriers and enablers revolve mainly around long-term monitoring, as well as financing and responsibility for maintenance. The full classification of barriers and enablers to each phase can be found in Annex 1. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 25 4. MAPPING OF VALUE CHAINS IN THE LIVING LABS In this section we present findings from the mapping of value chains in the Living Labs using the NbS Business Model Canvas (NbS BMC) as described in Chapter 2.2. First, we summarize the Living Labs’ value propositions and wider economic and societal effects. Then sectoral linkages are analysed, followed by highlighting the prevalent customer relationships and communication channels. Lastly, we look at potential for future demand identified and barriers and enablers for implementation, upscaling and replication. The detailed NbS BMC mappings for each Living Lab case can be found in Annex 2. 4.1. VALUE PROPOSITION The value proposition of these NbS cases lies in delivering integrated ecological, social, and economic benefits. On the ecological side, they restore and protect marine and coastal habitats, regenerate rivers and blue forests, convert vulnerable monoculture stands into resilient mixed forests, and introduce urban green infrastructure that cools cities, improves air quality, and retains rainwater. Such interventions enhance biodiversity, provide critical habitats for fish, birds, insects, and microbial fauna, and strengthen natural defences against floods, erosion, landslides, droughts, and heatwaves. Socially, the projects nurture a sense of community through participatory design, educational programs, and recreational opportunities ranging from nature trails and outdoor classrooms to birdwatching, ecotourism, and green schoolyards open to neighbourhoods after hours. They promote physical and mental health by bringing residents – especially children in the Poland case – closer to nature and by creating multifunctional spaces that encourage creativity, environmental stewardship, and cultural heritage appreciation. Economically, these initiatives, stimulate local employment and innovation in green construction, generate savings using recycled and biodegradable materials, and attract sustainable tourism revenues. They also often increase surrounding property values, which, depending on the ownership structure (rented housing, owner-occupied housing, other property types) may have implications for housing affordability (as discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.3). Overall, the NbS cases demonstrate a replicable model of climate resilience and community enrichment that supports long-term prosperity while safeguarding natural capital for future generations. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 32 The workshop with the Living Labs held online on September 10th, 2025, provided some further insights into the barriers and enablers for NbS projects across different European contexts. In Aarhus, land acquisition was highlighted as a key barrier, addressed through a land “repuzzling” approach that facilitated voluntary land exchange among larger landowners, led by the municipality. In Poznań, discussions centred on securing long-term funding, mobilising contractors, and fostering stakeholder engagement. Corporate partnerships offer potential future opportunities, though aligning ecological standards with corporate agendas remained challenging. In Norway and Tirol alike, participants highlighted the gap between enthusiasm for initiating new NbS and the lack of commitment to longterm maintenance, reflecting limited awareness among both companies and policymakers of what constitutes healthy ecosystems in the long term. Overall, the workshop underscored the need for improved coordination mechanisms, continuous stakeholder dialogue, and stronger financial and institutional frameworks to ensure the sustainability of NbS initiatives. 5. INPUT-OUTPUT MODELLING In this chapter, we elaborate the results of the input-output modelling described in Chapter 2.3. Figure 7 shows the results for the Living Lab case “Climate-Smart Mountain Forest in Tyrol” in Austria. On the supply side two sectors “Agriculture, hunting, forestry” and “Public administration and defence; compulsory social security” has been rated as very important (5) for implementing the NbS case. Indirect backward linkages have been identified of additional sectors. Additionally, also imports are necessary to realize NbS projects but this effect spreads over different sectors in different countries and is therefore small for single sectors. On the demand side, a higher number of sectors have been rated as important, especially “Real estate activities” and “Arts, entertainment and recreation”. In addition to the direct effect, forward linkages are shown. The highest indirect effect as the sum of backward and forward linkages is visible for “Construction” (1.6), “Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply” (1.5) and “Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles” (1.4). The supply and demand side have been aggregated to obtain the total importance of sectors. The results show that “Public administration and defence; compulsory social security” is the most important sector, as it has a high importance on demand and supply side for the NbS case. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 33 Figure 7. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Climate-Smart Mountain Forest (Klimafitter Bergwald) in Tyrol” in Austria. 5.0 5.0 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.5 3.9 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 Agriculture, hunting, forestry Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Financial and insurance activities Construction Real estate activities Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Professional, scientific and technical activities Administrative and support services Food products, beverages and tobacco Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Klimafitter Bergwald (AT) - Supply Side DIRECT BACKWARD 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.3 1.2 0.8 0.4 3.1 6.5 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 Real estate activities Arts, entertainment and recreation Wood and products of wood and cork Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Education Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Accommodation and food service activities Construction Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Professional, scientific and technical activities Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Klimafitter Bergwald (AT) - Demand Side DIRECT FORWARD 1.6 1.5 1.4 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Construction Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Wood and products of wood and cork Real estate activities Agriculture, hunting, forestry Professional, scientific and technical activities Financial and insurance activities Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Administrative and support services Relevance of Industry Klimafitter Bergwald (AT) - Indirect Total Indirect: BACKWARD+FORWARD 9.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.9 0.2 1.5 1.6 1.4 0.4 6.0 10.4 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Real estate activities Agriculture, hunting, forestry Arts, entertainment and recreation Wood and products of wood and cork Education Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Construction Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Accommodation and food service activities Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Klimafitter Bergwald (AT) - Total DIRECT BACKWARD+FORWARD D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 34 For the “Restoration of the Tyrolean Lech River” case, 5 sectors on supply side and 4 sectors on the demand side have been rated as very important (5). On the supply side, high backward linkages are evident, which gives a total score of 7.5 for construction. On the demand side the forward linkages are less important. Nevertheless “Public administration and defence; compulsory social security” and “Other service activities” are the most important sectors in total for the Living Lab case, which is followed by “Construction” (7.7). Figure 8. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Restoration of the Tyrolean Lech River” in Austria. 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 2.2 1.9 0.3 0.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 4.1 8.6 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 Construction Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities Professional, scientific and technical activities Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Other service activities Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Real estate activities Administrative and support services Financial and insurance activities Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Lech River Renaturation (AT) - Supply Side DIRECT BACKWARD 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.2 1.5 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Arts, entertainment and recreation Other service activities Education Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Professional, scientific and technical activities Construction Human health and social work activities Accommodation and food service activities Financial and insurance activities Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Lech River Renaturation (AT) - Demand Side DIRECT FORWARD 2.7 2.3 2.1 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Construction Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities Professional, scientific and technical activities Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Real estate activities Administrative and support services Financial and insurance activities Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Accommodation and food service activities Relevance of Industry Lech River Renaturation (AT) - Indirect Total Indirect: BACKWARD+FORWARD 10.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.5 0.2 2.7 2.3 2.1 0.2 0.1 1.4 1.1 1.1 7.4 10.1 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Other service activities Construction Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities Professional, scientific and technical activities Arts, entertainment and recreation Education Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Real estate activities Administrative and support services Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Lech River Renaturation (AT) - Total DIRECT BACKWARD+FORWARD D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 35 Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. gives the results for the “Hasselager Wildforest”. Public administration is on both sides rated as very important. On supply side also “Fishing and aquaculture” got a rating of 4. All other sectors are seen as less important with a score of 1. As public administration is the only industry which has a high value of importance on both sides it is by far the most important industry in total. Figure 9. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Hasselager Wildforest” in Denmark. 5.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 2.7 5.1 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Fishing and aquaculture Professional, scientific and technical activities Other service activities Arts, entertainment and recreation Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Construction Real estate activities Food products, beverages and tobacco Financial and insurance activities Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Hasslanger Wildforest (DK) - Supply Side DIRECT BACKWARD 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.9 1.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Professional, scientific and technical activities Education Other service activities Administrative and support services Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Human health and social work activities Construction Real estate activities Machinery and equipment, nec Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Hasslanger Wildforest (DK) - Demand Side DIRECT FORWARD 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Professional, scientific and technical activities Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Construction Real estate activities Administrative and support services Food products, beverages and tobacco Financial and insurance activities IT and other information services Machinery and equipment, nec Human health and social work activities Relevance of Industry Hasslanger Wildforest (DK) - Indirect Total Indirect: BACKWARD+FORWARD 10.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 4.3 6.1 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Fishing and aquaculture Professional, scientific and technical activities Other service activities Education Arts, entertainment and recreation Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Construction Real estate activities Administrative and support services Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Hasslanger Wildforest (DK) - Total DIRECT BACKWARD+FORWARD D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 36 For the “Kelp Forest restoration” case, “Fishing and aquaculture”, “Professional, scientific and technical activities” and “Public administration and defence; compulsory social security” are the predominant sectors according to their rated direct importance and forward and backward linkages. In comparison to the other investigated NbS cases many sectors haven been characterized as very important. Due to the large direct effects, also forward and backward linkages are higher compared to other NbS cases. Figure 10. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Kelp Forest restoration” in Northern Norway. 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.3 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 3.7 6.2 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 Fishing and aquaculture Other service activities Professional, scientific and technical activities Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Food products, beverages and tobacco Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Construction Administrative and support services Financial and insurance activities Real estate activities Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Kelp forest (NO) - Supply Side DIRECT BACKWARD 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.3 1.1 3.1 2.2 1.5 8.8 19.5 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 Fishing and aquaculture Professional, scientific and technical activities Financial and insurance activities Water transport Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Arts, entertainment and recreation Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Food products, beverages and tobacco Construction Real estate activities Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Kelp forest (NO) - Demand Side DIRECT FORWARD 4.4 3.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Food products, beverages and tobacco Construction Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Real estate activities Fishing and aquaculture Professional, scientific and technical activities Financial and insurance activities Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Administrative and support services Mining and quarrying, energy producing products Relevance of Industry Kelp forest (NO) - Indirect Total Indirect: BACKWARD+FORWARD 10.0 9.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 4.4 3.0 15.9 25.8 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 Fishing and aquaculture Professional, scientific and technical activities Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Financial and insurance activities Water transport Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Arts, entertainment and recreation Other service activities Food products, beverages and tobacco Construction Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Kelp forest (NO) - Total DIRECT BACKWARD+FORWARD D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 37 For the NbS cases of “Natural playgrounds in schoolyards in Poznań”, the supply side shows a higher number of high scored sectors compared to the demand side. The findings also show that construction has a high direct but also a high indirect importance. When considering both demand and supply sides, the construction sector remains ranked first, although public administration appears on both sides. Figure 11. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Natural Playgrounds in Schoolyards in Poznań” in Poland. 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.4 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.5 4.5 6.9 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 Construction Professional, scientific and technical activities Administrative and support services Real estate activities Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Land transport and transport via pipelines Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Financial and insurance activities Fabricated metal products Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Natural Playgrounds in Schoolyards (PL) - Supply Side DIRECT BACKWARD 5.0 4.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Education Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Professional, scientific and technical activities Food products, beverages and tobacco Construction Land transport and transport via pipelines Administrative and support services Financial and insurance activities IT and other information services Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Natural Playgrounds in Schoolyards (PL) - Demand Side DIRECT FORWARD 3.5 1.4 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Construction Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Professional, scientific and technical activities Land transport and transport via pipelines Administrative and support services Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Financial and insurance activities Fabricated metal products Other non-metallic mineral products Real estate activities Relevance of Industry Natural Playgrounds in Schoolyards (PL) - Indirect Total Indirect: BACKWARD+FORWARD 5.0 8.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 0.1 1.3 0.8 0.4 0.2 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 5.2 7.1 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Construction Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Professional, scientific and technical activities Administrative and support services Real estate activities Education Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Land transport and transport via pipelines Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Financial and insurance activities Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Natural Playgrounds in Schoolyards (PL) - Total DIRECT BACKWARD+FORWARD D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 38 The results for the “Natural playgrounds in kindergartens in Poznań” are similar to the “Natural playgrounds in schoolyards” although public administration is seen as of higher importance. The intense backward linkage of construction increases the importance of this industry in comparison to others. The supply side is more diverse than the demand side, but this is understandable, since the project is only aimed at a limited group of users. Figure 12. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Natural Playgrounds in Kindergartens in Poznań” in Poland. 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.4 1.4 1.0 1.3 0.1 0.9 2.3 1.6 0.8 0.6 7.0 11.3 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Construction Professional, scientific and technical activities Administrative and support services Agriculture, hunting, forestry Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Wood and products of wood and cork Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Land transport and transport via pipelines Food products, beverages and tobacco Financial and insurance activities Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Natural Playgrounds in Kindergardens (PL) - Supply Side DIRECT BACKWARD 5.0 4.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Education Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Professional, scientific and technical activities Food products, beverages and tobacco Construction Land transport and transport via pipelines Administrative and support services Financial and insurance activities IT and other information services Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Natural Playgrounds in Kindergardens (PL) - Demand Side DIRECT FORWARD 3.4 2.4 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Construction Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Land transport and transport via pipelines Professional, scientific and technical activities Agriculture, hunting, forestry Administrative and support services Wood and products of wood and cork Food products, beverages and tobacco Financial and insurance activities Fabricated metal products Relevance of Industry Natural Playgrounds in Kindergardens (PL) - Indirect Total Indirect: BACKWARD+FORWARD 10.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.1 3.4 1.5 1.0 1.4 0.9 0.2 2.4 1.7 0.9 7.9 11.6 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Construction Professional, scientific and technical activities Administrative and support services Agriculture, hunting, forestry Wood and products of wood and cork Education Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Land transport and transport via pipelines Food products, beverages and tobacco Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Natural Playgrounds in Kindergardens (PL) - Total DIRECT BACKWARD+FORWARD D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 39 For the “Guincho-Cresmina costal dune restoration in Cascais”, a large number of different sectors show high values of direct importance. On supply side “Professional, scientific and technical activities” are ranked on first place because of a higher value of backward linkage although it has a lower value of direct importance than public administration. Public administration has the highest value in total followed by “Arts, entertainment and recreation”. Figure 13. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Guincho-Cresmina coastal dune restoration in Cascais” in Portugal. 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.5 3.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 Professional, scientific and technical activities Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Arts, entertainment and recreation Real estate activities Other service activities Administrative and support services Financial and insurance activities Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Construction Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Guincho-Cresmina coastal dune system (PT) - Supply Side DIRECT BACKWARD 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.8 3.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 Arts, entertainment and recreation Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Real estate activities Other service activities Professional, scientific and technical activities Financial and insurance activities Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Food products, beverages and tobacco Human health and social work activities Construction Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Guincho-Cresmina coastal dune system (PT) - Demand Side DIRECT FORWARD 2.6 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Professional, scientific and technical activities Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Financial and insurance activities Administrative and support services Arts, entertainment and recreation Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Construction Real estate activities Telecommunications Accommodation and food service activities Relevance of Industry Guincho-Cresmina coastal dune system (PT) - Indirect Total Indirect: BACKWARD+FORWARD 10.0 9.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 2.0 0.5 1.1 2.6 0.7 0.5 1.7 2.0 1.3 0.9 0.9 7.1 6.9 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Arts, entertainment and recreation Professional, scientific and technical activities Real estate activities Other service activities Financial and insurance activities Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Administrative and support services Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Construction Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Guincho-Cresmina coastal dune system (PT) - Total DIRECT BACKWARD+FORWARD D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 40 The “Rewilding of the Ribeira das Vinhas River in Cascais” has a pronounced demand side as 7 sectors show a value of direct importance of over 3. Furthermore, on the supply side several sectors are classified as important. The overall high values also lead to high forward and backward linkages for the NbS case. Unlike the other cases “Real estate activities” is the most important industry. “Professional, scientific and technical activities” have a lower value for direct importance but through high forward and backward linkages they are ranked on the second place in total. Figure 14. Direct and indirect relevance of sectors for the Living Lab case “Rewilding of the Ribeira das Vinhas River in Cascais” in Portugal. 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 1.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 2.8 3.8 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 Professional, scientific and technical activities Real estate activities Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Other service activities Arts, entertainment and recreation Financial and insurance activities Administrative and support services Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Construction Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Ribeira das Vinhas stream (PT) - Supply Side DIRECT BACKWARD 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.3 1.1 0.5 0.5 1.4 0.5 0.5 4.7 3.7 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 Real estate activities Professional, scientific and technical activities Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Other service activities Financial and insurance activities Accommodation and food service activities Arts, entertainment and recreation Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Human health and social work activities Food products, beverages and tobacco Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Ribeira das Vinhas stream (PT) - Demand Side DIRECT FORWARD 2.8 2.2 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Professional, scientific and technical activities Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Financial and insurance activities Administrative and support services Construction Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Arts, entertainment and recreation Real estate activities Accommodation and food service activities Human health and social work activities Relevance of Industry Ribeira das Vinhas stream (PT) - Indirect Total Indirect: BACKWARD+FORWARD 10.0 8.0 10.0 8.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 0.8 2.8 0.5 0.4 0.8 2.0 0.6 2.2 1.2 1.0 8.2 7.5 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Real estate activities Professional, scientific and technical activities Public administration and defence; compulsory social security Other service activities Arts, entertainment and recreation Financial and insurance activities Accommodation and food service activities Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles Administrative and support services Construction Sum of Others Sum of Imports Relevance of Industry Ribeira das Vinhas stream (PT) - Total DIRECT BACKWARD+FORWARD D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 41 6. CONCLUSIONS 6.1. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS Supply and Demand Dynamics Findings from the systematic literature review, complemented by the practical insights from the Invest4Nature Living Lab cases, highlight the central role of the public sector in both supply and demand of NbS. On the supply side, local governments—particularly, municipalities and cities—are key actors responsible for planning, contracting, and supervising NbS interventions. The public sector also drives most of the demand for NbS, with funding commonly originating from multiple governance levels, including local, regional, national, and EU sources. It furthermore plays a crucial role by creating an enabling environment through appropriate regulations, providing direct concessional funding and technical support, and encouraging beneficiaries to engage with NbS. On the supply side, professional and technical service providers typically deliver specialized expertise, while NGOs, academia and research institutions usually contribute in relation to NbS research and monitoring. Moreover, while NGOs are key actors on the supply side, they also generate significant demand, reflecting their dual role. Local communities participate in co-design and, in some cases, maintenance, and represent an important demand group—particularly in urban contexts, where the need for green spaces and cooling is immanent, and in areas exposed to natural hazards such as landslides, erosion, or flooding. Other important supply and demand actors include the agriculture, forestry, utilities, and infrastructure sectors, highlighting the need for cross-sectoral collaboration in the implementation of NbS. On the demand side especially, the real estate sector, as well as the recreation, food, and water sectors, and to a lesser extent the finance and insurance sectors, are emerging players in financing NbS. These sectors require additional incentives to mainstream NbS into the economy and to diversify NbS financing. Communication, coordination and co-creation In the Invest4Nature Living Lab cases, the public sector serves as primary coordinator and a multilayered communication approach is employed, integrating direct interaction, public engagement, and formal policy channels as well as digital communication via newsletters or social media. However, room for improvement remains in regard to having a consistent long-term communication and coordination strategy covering also issues of inclusion and equity as well as structured conflictresolution protocols. Both the literature review and the NbS BMC mapping identified the public sector as the main bottleneck in the NbS supply chain, while at the same time showing high potential for being a main enabler. Overcoming this discrepancy requires stronger coordination and cooperation to unlock the full potential of supply chain integration. As the primary initiator and coordinator, the public sector is uniquely positioned to engage other actors through established networks and inclusive participation mechanisms. Effective stakeholder engagement and co-creation processes, in turn, foster acceptance, shared ownership, and long-term commitment. Building on these interactions, leveraging existing networks and maintaining transparent communication can mobilise stakeholders across both the supply and demand sides of NbS. Complementary education and training initiatives—from early environmental education to community-based programs—further strengthen this engagement by turning local communities into active contributors and long-term caretakers. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 48 Kuhlicke, Christian. 2019. ‘Risk and Resilience in the Management and Governance of Natural Hazards’. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science, by Christian Kuhlicke. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.299. Kvamsås, Hanna. 2023. ‘Co‐benefits and Conflicts in Alternative Stormwater Planning: Blue versus Green Infrastructure?’ Environmental Policy and Governance 33 (3): 232–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2017. López-Serrano, María J., Fida Hussain Lakho, Stijn W. H. Van Hulle, and Ana Batlles-delaFuente. 2023. ‘Life Cycle Cost Assessment and Economic Analysis of a Decentralized Wastewater Treatment to Achieve Water Sustainability within the Framework of Circular Economy’. Oeconomia Copernicana 14 (1): 103–33. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2023.003. Lozano, Julian E., Doan Nainggolan, Marianne Zandersen, et al. 2024. Value Categories and Approaches to Assess NBS Economic and Financial Performance. Invest4Nature Deliverable 2.1. April 19. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.10998277. Lozano, Julian Eduardo, Doan Nainggolan, Viktoria Kofler, et al. 2025. ‘Nature-Based Solutions: Typologies, Ecological Processes and Benefit Valuation Approaches across Landscapes’. Nature-Based Solutions 8 (December): 100268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2025.100268. Maas, Pascale, and Sandra Rousseau. 2024. ‘A Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of Shellfish Beds on the Dutch Coast as a Nature-Based Measure against Climate Change’. Marine Policy 163 (May): 106097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106097. Malik, Arunima, Darian McBain, Thomas O. Wiedmann, Manfred Lenzen, and Joy Murray. 2019. ‘Advancements in Input‐Output Models and Indicators for Consumption‐Based Accounting’. Journal of Industrial Ecology 23 (2): 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12771. Martin, J. G. C., A. Scolobig, J. Linnerooth-Bayer, W. Liu, and J. Balsiger. 2021. ‘Catalyzing Innovation: Governance Enablers of Nature-Based Solutions’. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13 (4): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041971. Masoud, Ahmed M. N., Amani Alfarra, and Sabrina Sorlini. 2022. ‘Constructed Wetlands as a Solution for Sustainable Sanitation: A Comprehensive Review on Integrating Climate Change Resilience and Circular Economy’. Water 14 (20): 3232. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14203232. Mayor, Beatriz, Camilo Benítez, Marice Angulo, et al. 2019. Deliverable D7.4: International Good Practices in Financing and Funding Nature Restoration. NAIAD Deliverable D7.4. Work Package 7. NAIAD. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=0801 66e5c7d01501&appId=PPGMS. Mayor, Beatriz, Helen Toxopeus, Siobhan McQuaid, et al. 2021. ‘State of the Art and Latest Advances in Exploring Business Models for Nature-Based Solutions’. Sustainability 13 (13): 7413. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137413. Mayor, Beatriz, Pedro Zorrilla-Miras, Philippe Coent, et al. 2021. ‘Natural Assurance Schemes Canvas: A Framework to Develop Business Models for Nature-Based Solutions Aimed at Disaster Risk Reduction’. Sustainability 13 (3): 1291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031291. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 49 McBain, Darian, and Ali Alsamawi. 2014. ‘Quantitative Accounting for Social Economic Indicators’. Natural Resources Forum 38 (3): 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12044. McQuaid, S., ML Rhodes, T. Andersson, et al. 2021. ‘From Nature-Based Solutions to the NatureBased Economy - Delivering the Green Deal for Europe’. Draft White Paper for consultation. Nature-based Economy Working Group of EC Task Force III on Nature Based Solutions. McQuaid, Siobhan, Esmee D. Kooijman, Mary-Lee Rhodes, and Sheila M. Cannon. 2021. ‘Innovating with Nature: Factors Influencing the Success of Nature-Based Enterprises’. Sustainability 13 (22): 12488. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212488. Mendes, Rúben, Teresa Fidélis, Peter Roebeling, and Filipe Teles. 2020. ‘The Institutionalization of Nature-Based Solutions—A Discourse Analysis of Emergent Literature’. Resources 9 (1): 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9010006. Mihalakakou, Giouli, Manolis Souliotis, Maria Papadaki, et al. 2023. ‘Green Roofs as a Nature-Based Solution for Improving Urban Sustainability: Progress and Perspectives’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 180 (July): 113306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113306. Nesshöver, C., T. Assmuth, K. Irvine, et al. 2017. ‘The Science, Policy and Practice of Nature-Based Solutions: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.’ The Science of the Total Environment 579: 1215– 27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106. Nielsen‐Pincus, Max, and Cassandra Moseley. 2013. ‘The Economic and Employment Impacts of Forest and Watershed Restoration’. Restoration Ecology 21 (2): 207–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2012.00885.x. Olbertz, Margot, Bettina Wilk, Israa Mahmoud, Emanuela Saporito, and Ina Säumel. 2025. ‘Co-Design NBS with Post-Industrial Communities’. In Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Renewal in PostIndustrial Cities, 1st edn, by Silvia Barbero and Axel Timpe. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003474869-8. Oliveira, M., R. Santagata, S. Kaiser, et al. 2022. ‘Socioeconomic and Environmental Benefits of Expanding Urban Green Areas: A Joint Application of i-Tree and LCA Approaches’. Land 11 (12). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122106. Orta-Ortiz, M. Susana, and Davide Geneletti. 2023. ‘Prioritizing Urban Nature-Based Solutions to Support Scaling-out Strategies: A Case Study in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria’. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 102 (September): 107158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107158. Oscilowicz, Emilia, Emilia Lewartowska, Ariella Levitch, et al. 2021. Policy and Planning Tools for Urban Green Justice. https://www.bcnuej.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Toolkit-UrbanGreen-Justice.pdf. Osterwalder, Alexander, and Yves Pigneur. 2010. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. John Wiley & Sons. Paez, Arsenio. 2017. ‘Gray Literature: An Important Resource in Systematic Reviews’. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine 10 (3): 233–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12266. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 50 Panagopoulos, Yiannis, and Elias Dimitriou. 2020. ‘A Large-Scale Nature-Based Solution in Agriculture for Sustainable Water Management: The Lake Karla Case’. Sustainability 12 (17): 6761. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176761. Panduro, Toke Emil, Doan Nainggolan, and Marianne Zandersen. 2024. ‘Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Urban Nature-Based Solutions: A Stepwise Ranking Approach’. Nature-Based Solutions 6 (December): 100186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2024.100186. Papari, Cătălina-Alexandra, Helen Toxopeus, Friedemann Polzin, Harriet Bulkeley, and Eloisa Vittoria Menguzzo. 2024. ‘Can the EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities Help Upscale Investments into Urban Nature-Based Solutions?’ Environmental Science & Policy 151 (January): 103598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103598. Rethlefsen, Melissa L., Shona Kirtley, Siw Waffenschmidt, et al. 2021. ‘PRISMA-S: An Extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews’. Systematic Reviews 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z. Ringhofer, Simone, Annina Thaller, Eva Fleiß, Sophia Ritter, and Alfred Posch. 2025. ‘Overcoming Challenges Facing Innovative, Sustainable Mobility Services in Rural Areas’. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 32 (July): 101491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2025.101491. Roitsch, Dennis, Nicola Da Schio, Silvija Krajter Ostoić, et al. 2024. ‘Co-Production of Urban Forests as Nature-Based Solutions: Motivations and Lessons-Learnt from Public Officials’. Environmental Science & Policy 157 (July): 103764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103764. Rugani, Benedetto, Bernd Pölling, Martina Della Casa, et al. 2024. ‘Coupled Life Cycle Assessment and Business Modelling to Estimate the Sustainability of Using Regenerated Soils in Urban Forestry as Nature-Based Solutions’. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 95 (May): 128327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128327. Snep, Robbert P.H., Judith Klostermann, Mathias Lehner, and Ineke Weppelman. 2023. ‘Social Housing as Focus Area for Nature-Based Solutions to Strengthen Urban Resilience and Justice: Lessons from Practice in the Netherlands’. Environmental Science & Policy 145 (July): 164–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.02.022. Snyder, Hannah. 2019. ‘Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An Overview and Guidelines’. Journal of Business Research 104 (November): 333–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039. Steel, Piers, Hadi Fariborzi, and Rosa Hendijani. 2023. An Application of Modern Literature Review Methodology: Finding Needles in Ever-Growing Haystacks. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529667417. Stork, Simon, Rolf Morgenstern, Bernd Pölling, and Jan-Henning Feil. 2023. ‘Holistic Business Model Conceptualisation—Capturing Sustainability Contributions Illustrated by Nature-Based Solutions’. Sustainability 15 (19): 14091. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914091. Tedeschini, Francesca, David Blaettner, Andreas Tuerk, et al. 2024. Invest4Nature Deliverable 3.3 - Markets, Financing and Incentives for NbS. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.00323. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 51 Tedesco, Silvia, Elena Montacchini, Roberto Giordano, and Federica Larcher. 2019. ‘Green Walls as Nature-Based Solutions for Urban and Building Resilience: A Case Study’. SUSTAINABLE MEDITERRANEAN CONSTRUCTION, no. 9: 132–36. Tran, J.H., V.J. Little, T.D. Tran, and R. McClelland. 2024. ‘Strategic Opportunities for Nature-Based Solutions: Lessons for Policy and Practice from Cross-City Comparisons’. Nature-Based Solutions 5 (June): 100132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2024.100132. Tukker, Arnold, and Erik Dietzenbacher. 2013. ‘Global Multiregional Input–Output Frameworks: An Introduction And Outlook’. Economic Systems Research 25 (1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2012.761179. Valkeniers, Kathlien, Annita Beysen, and Lydia Maria Lienhart. 2025. Report on Stakeholders’ Motivations, Needs and Hurdles. Invest4Nature Deliverable 4.1. July 10. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.15856036. Van Ham, Chantal, and Helen Klimmek. 2017. ‘Partnerships for Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Areas – Showcasing Successful Examples’. In Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas, edited by Nadja Kabisch, Horst Korn, Jutta Stadler, and Aletta Bonn. Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5_16. Vos, Peter E.J., Bino Maiheu, Jean Vankerkom, and Stijn Janssen. 2013. ‘Improving Local Air Quality in Cities: To Tree or Not to Tree?’ Environmental Pollution 183 (December): 113–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.10.021. Yamano, Norihiko, Ali Alsamawi, Colin Webb, Agnès Cimper, Carmen Zürcher, and Ricardo Chiapin Pechansky. 2023. Development of the OECD Inter Country Input-Output Database 2023. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers. https://doi.org/10.1787/5a5d0665-en. Zandersen, Marianne, Doan Nainggolan, Andrea Staccione, et al. 2025. Economic & Financial Performance of Nature-Based Solutions, Including the Insurance Value of NbS. Invest4Nature Deliverable 3.1. June 18. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.15692242. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 52 8. ANNEX 1: BARRIERS AND ENABLERS IDENTIFIED IN THE SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW CATEGORIZED BY STAGE OF PROCESS 8.1. TYPE 1: BARRIERS AND ENABLERS DURING THE INITIATION PHASE Categories Barriers Enablers Cultural Snep et al. 2023 Distrust of institutions among lower-income groups Co-creation and early stakeholder engagement, including public, private, international and domestic institutions, together with civil society Olbertz et al. 2025; Roitsch et al. 2024; Snep et al. 2023; Hansen et al. 2016; Mayor et al. 2019 Olbertz et al. 2025 Low public interest in NbS Effective communication strategies and efforts to institute a strong narrative Martin et al. 2021 Extensive awareness-raising campaigns coupled with capacity building Orta-Ortiz and Geneletti 2023; Mayor et al. 2019 LópezSerrano et al. 2023 Stigma around some NbS, e.g. treated wastewater reuse Participation in stakeholder networks Roitsch et al. 2024 Institutional Olbertz et al. 2025; Frantzeskaki et al. 2017; Mayor et al. 2019; Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Institutional silos and poor interdepartmental communication Early cross-scale and cross-sector collaboration and fostered engagement Panagopoulos and Dimitriou 2020; Martin et al. 2021; Kvamsås 2023; Frantzeskaki et al. 2017 Hansen et al. 2016 Conflicting departmental strategies delay climate adaptation in general and NbS in particular Strong cooperation between government, land users, investors, beneficiaries Mayor et al. 2019; Mayor, Zorrilla-Miras, et al. 2021 Mayor et al. 2019; Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Institutional inertia and resistance to change Practitioners linking with business and finance actors to scale NbS Van Ham and Klimmek 2017 Successful public-private partnerships built on shared understanding of landscapes, services, legal frameworks, and strategic goals Orta-Ortiz and Geneletti 2023; Van Ham and Klimmek 2017; Mayor et al. 2019 Regional, geographical Baganz et al. 2021 Urban space competition limits aquaponics potential Strategic spacing of NbS interventions enhances city-scale performance Orta-Ortiz and Geneletti 2023 Masoud et al. 2022 Constructed wetland performance depends on local conditions Kvamsås 2023 Blue-green infrastructure (BGI) implementation constrained by local climate D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 53 Maas and Rousseau 2024; Evans et al. 2025 Seagrass restoration methods are location-specific Holistic, regional and systemic approach, e.g., quarry rehabilitation offers a replicable NbS model for stormwater management Van Ham and Klimmek 2017 Political Orta-Ortiz and Geneletti 2023; Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Lack of sustained political will and vulnerability to political change Strong pro-NbS advocacy within and outside government institutions, including highlighting best practices Martin et al. 2021; Mayor, Zorrilla-Miras, et al. 2021 Mayor et al. 2019; Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Opposition and lobbying from interest groups Knowledgebased Mayor et al. 2019 Insufficient knowledge and planning tools Interdisciplinary and crossdepartmental knowledge exchange Orta-Ortiz and Geneletti 2023; Hansen et al. 2016 Capacity-building and skills development Kvamsås 2023; Evans et al. 2025; Roitsch et al. 2024 Olbertz et al. 2025 Limited experience and lack of standardized procedures Knowledge co-production to engage private sector in NbS Evans et al. 2025 Evans et al. 2025; Mayor et al. 2019 Uncertainty about the cost-benefit of NbS implementation Demonstrated efficacy of NbS interventions Mayor, Zorrilla-Miras, et al. 2021 Improve cost-benefit forecasting Evans et al. 2025 Financial Evans et al. 2025 Misalignment between funder priorities and project needs Long-term financial planning beyond project duration Roitsch et al. 2024; Mayor et al. 2019 Evans et al. 2025; Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Insufficient funding for long-term monitoring and reporting Secure long-term funding for staff retention and skill continuity Evans et al. 2025; Mayor, Zorrilla-Miras, et al. 2021 Snep et al. 2023; Mayor et al. 2019 Financial constraints on national level LópezSerrano et al. 2023 High upfront costs for constructed wetlands Legal Olbertz et al. 2025, Evans et al. 2025, Mayor et al. 2021 Gaps in regulatory frameworks for NbS Legal integration of NbS into urban planning frameworks Olbertz et al. 2025; OrtaOrtiz and Geneletti 2023; Mayor et al. 2019 D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 54 Masoud et al. 2022 No standardized legal guidelines for new constructed wetland (CW) types Embed co-creation and cogovernance into legal planning processes Olbertz et al. 2025 Operational Olbertz et al. 2025; Evans et al. 2025; Roitsch et al. 2024 Delays due to unclear or mixed land ownership (public/private) LópezSerrano et al. 2023 Limited supply availability for vertical flow constructed wetlands Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Lack of systematic monitoring frameworks Capacity-building and skills development Evans et al. 2025; Roitsch et al. 2024 8.2. TYPE 2: BARRIERS AND ENABLERS DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE Categories Barriers Enablers Institutional Olbertz et al. 2025; Frantzeskaki et al. 2017; Mayor et al. 2019; Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Institutional silos and poor interdepartmental communication Early cross-scale and cross-sector collaboration and fostered engagement Panagopoulos and Dimitriou 2020; Martin et al. 2021; Kvamsås 2023; Frantzeskaki et al. 2017 Regional, geographical Strategic spacing of NbS interventions enhances city-scale performance Orta-Ortiz and Geneletti 2023 Political Orta-Ortiz and Geneletti 2023; Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Lack of sustained political will and vulnerability to political change Strong pro-NbS advocacy within and outside government institutions, including highlighting best practices Martin et al. 2021; Mayor, Zorrilla-Miras, et al. 2021 Mayor et al. 2019; Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Opposition and lobbying from interest groups Knowledgebased Olbertz et al. 2025 Limited experience and lack of standardized procedures Capacity-building and skills development Kvamsås 2023; Evans et al. 2025; D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 55 Roitsch et al. 2024 Knowledge co-production to engage private sector in NbS Evans et al. 2025 Financial Evans et al. 2025; Mayor, ZorrillaMiras, et al. 2021 Insufficient funding for long-term monitoring and reporting Secure long-term funding for staff retention and skill continuity Evans et al. 2025; Mayor, Zorrilla-Miras, et al. 2021 Long-term financial planning beyond project duration Roitsch et al. 2024; Mayor et al. 2019 Rugani et al. 2024 Energy-intensive NbS are vulnerable to fluctuating energy costs Cost-sharing through scaled seascape restoration and collaboration Evans et al. 2025 Legal Olbertz et al. 2025 Bureaucratic delays in building permit processes Evans et al. 2025 Complex permitting process for seagrass restoration Embed co-creation and cogovernance into legal planning processes Olbertz et al. 2025 Operational Olbertz et al. 2025; Evans et al. 2025; Roitsch et al. 2024 Delays due to unclear or mixed land ownership (public/private) Capacity-building and skills development Evans et al. 2025; Roitsch et al. 2024 8.3. TYPE 3: BARRIERS AND ENABLERS DURING THE OPERATION PHASE Categories Barriers Enablers Regional, geographical Masoud et al. 2022 Constructed wetland performance depends on local conditions Financial Evans et al. 2025; Mayor, Zorrilla-Miras, et al. 2021 Insufficient funding for longterm monitoring and reporting Secure long-term funding for staff retention and skill continuity Evans et al. 2025; Mayor, Zorrilla-Miras, et al. 2021 Long-term financial planning beyond project duration Roitsch et al. 2024; Mayor et al. 2019 Operational Mayor, Zorrilla-Miras, et al. 2021 Lack of systematic monitoring frameworks Transfer maintenance responsibility through legal ownership to local actors Olbertz et al. 2025; Evans et al. 2025; Orta-Ortiz and Geneletti 2023 D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 56 9. ANNEX 2: MAPPINGS OF THE LIVING LABS 9.1. KELP FOREST RESTORATION IN NORTHERN NORWAY Name of NbS project Kelp Forest restoration in Northern Norway Problem, service and value Problem to be addressed Degraded kelp forests due to overgrazing by sea urchins, climate change, and human activities. Value: benefits • Improved health and distribution of coastal ecosystems through restored blue forests • Increase in biodiversity and fish populations • Enhanced recreational value • Ability to use blue forests as carbon sinks • Climate change mitigation through carbon storage/sequestration • Protection of marine life against the negative impacts from climate change (e.g. by counteracting acidification through photosynthesis and providing shelter and shadow for high temperature sensitive species) Supply side Who implements • Research institute (Norwegian Institute for Water Research -NIVA) • SMEs • Volunteer diver groups & Local fishermen • Municipalities Demand side Client/ who owns the problem • Ecological compensation requirements incentivize public and private coastal developers to restore blue forests after damaging marine habitats • Companies with emission reduction obligations fund blue forest restoration to earn carbon credits in trading markets • Demand for nature credits from blue forest restoration is rapidly emerging Funding • Public sector (regional and national research grants, EU funding) • Urchin harvesting industry and related R&D • SMEs • Energy companies & Shipping companies • Coastal developers (offshore wind, electricity grid) • Blue carbon brokers (regular monitoring) • Private companies interested in carbon credits or ecological compensation Indirect impacts Sectors indirectly impacted by implementation/operation • Tourism operators (eco-tourism, diving/snorkelling companies) Further key partners Further key partners • Education and diving clubs D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 57 Costs Lifecycle costs Initial costs: Operational costs: • Tarevokterne: Annual cost of 21.500 NOK, and 47.8 NOK/m2. • ROV operated by SME: about 76 NOK/m2. • Alternative diver operated method by SME: about 4.000 NOK/m2. • Estimated 50 NOK/m2 of local fishermen with traps • Overall costs estimated range from 27 to 634 NOK/m2, as they depend on the specific method used Supply-demand interactions Customer relationship • Co-creation • Long-term Channels • Direct contact • Networking meetings with other projects • Physical material (leaflets, stickers etc) • Information materials (Webinar series, MIT4Adapt story line,) • Stakeholder workshops Barriers/Enablers Barriers for stimulating demand & supply • Urchin harvesting for kelp restoration is difficult to scale, requiring sustained effort. • Achieving long-term effects is challenging due to the lack of natural predators in the ecosystem. • Liming can cause side effects on surrounding species and the environment. • Installing traps is expensive and limited in scale. • Restoration by SMEs may cause conflicts if harvesting technology suits only soft bottoms, while solid substrates also require urchin population reduction for effective kelp restoration. Enablers for stimulating demand & supply • Standardize carbon credit estimation and monitoring for comparable, transparent, credible outcomes across areas and scales to attract more buyers. • Subsidize regenerative blue forest tourism to lower initial costs, reducing subsidies as businesses mature. • Urchin predator fishery regulation, including Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for wolffish and crabs. • Provide full value chain and economic support for urchin harvesting and industry development, ensuring a stable upstream value chain benefiting kelp restoration. • Support sustainable kelp harvesting post-recovery (controversial). • Legally recognize kelp restoration as valid ecological compensation. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 64 Demand side Client/ who owns the problem Local coastal communities and municipalities who depend on healthy kelp forests for livelihoods and coastal protection Funding Mix of public (municipalities, national government), private (local companies), and NGOs (environmental organizations) The Hasselager Wildforest project is implemented on municipal land through a partnership between Aarhus Municipality and the Growing Trees Network (GTN). The private company Holmris B8 funds the project using a payper-tree model: it pays €2.45 per tree to GTN, which transfers €1.94 per tree to cover planting, fencing, and three years of maintenance. This funding model has been successfully running for 3–4 years, engaging private companies as sponsors for urban afforestation. Indirect impact Sectors indirectly impacted by implementation/operation Demand: • Education and research institutions (field labs, data collection) Supply: • Fisheries and aquaculture sector (Private seafood companies improved fish stocks) • Tourism sector (diving, eco-tourism; Coastal tourism operators) Further key partners Further key partners • Water utility sector - when relevant for coastal water quality • Environmental NGOs • Public sector • Nature contractor (NbE) Costs Lifecycle costs Initial costs: 15 DKK per tree including maintenance costs for 3 three years. There are 2.000 trees planted per hectare. The donation equates to 24.000 DKK per hectare. The cost for the municipality to establish a new forest per hectare is 250.000 DKK including the acquisition of land. Thus, 24.000 DKK (roughly 8,6%) are donated/paid by private companies through Growing Trees Network • Planting/transplantation of kelp • Administrative and coordination costs • Time spent in Planning, Communication and Maintenance Departments. • Citizen involvement (workshops, events) perational costs: • Maintenance, monitoring, adaptive management for upcoming years • Long-term monitoring and protection measures (supervision) D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 65 Supply-demand interactions Customer relationship • Active involvement of local communities through comanagement, local employment opportunities, citizen science and educational programs to strengthen trust and ownership Channels • Collaboration agreements with municipalities and NGOs • Public awareness campaigns and stakeholder workshops • Corporate partnerships for co-financing (e.g., seafood industry, eco-tourism operators) Barriers/Enablers Barriers for stimulating demand & supply • Lack of municipality-owned land to plant trees • Dependence on political support and budget allocation Enablers for stimulating demand & supply • Strong scientific evidence of ecological and economic benefits (Tree-based landscapes provide protection against extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts and flooding) • Improved health and quality of life • Willingness of local communities to participate and comanage • Protection of vulnerable groundwater in suburban areas • Water retention • National/EU funding programs for marine restoration and climate adaptation D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 66 9.5. NATURAL PLAYGROUNDS IN KINDERGARTENS IN POZNAŃ, POLAND Name of NbS project Natural playgrounds in kindergartens in Poznań, Poland Problem, service and value Problem to be addressed • Lack of natural green play and learning spaces for children in urban kindergartens. • Insufficient micro-scale biodiversity habitats in dense urban areas. The project is promoted as an initiative to profit and expand open and freely accessible green areas in the city. Ecodemonstrators ought to be used by teachers to conduct ecological education classes and encourage children to spend time outdoors. Value: benefits Ecological: • Creation of new urban green ecosystems. • Local microclimate regulation (cooling, shading). • Improved water infiltration and retention. • Habitat provision for insects, birds and microbial fauna. Social: • Higher quality early childhood environmental education. • More outdoor recreation → physical & mental health benefits. • Exposure to nature especially for children with low access to urban green spaces. • Stimulation of creativity and social skills. Economic: • Cost savings through use of recycled & biodegradable materials. • Innovation potential for local green contractors. • Long-term cost savings from reduced heat stress, runoff and better community well-being Supply side Who implements • City of Poznań (Departments of Education, Urban Regeneration - BKPRM). • Connecting Nature project (Horizon 2020). • Participatory Budget (Poznań Green Budget). • Local landscape designers & contractors specialized in natural playgrounds. Land: • Kindergarten playgrounds (650–5184 m² each). Expertise: • Landscape design for Nature-based Solutions (NbS). • Child-safe natural playground equipment design & certification. • Ecological education & teacher training. • Community co-design & participatory budgeting. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 67 Sector impacted: • Public funding sector • Construction and landscaping sector • Environmental services sector • Education/training services • Municipal education sector • Environmental education • Maintenance and gardening services Demand side Client/ who owns the problem • Municipal public sector (City of Poznań, Office of Project Coordination and Urban Regeneration) • Education sector (Department of Education - responsible for schools and preschools). • Community sector: Citizens/ neighbours/ preschool community (children, teachers, directors, parents) Funding • Municipal education budget. • EU Horizon 2020 ‘Connecting Nature’. • Poznań Civic Budget (‘Green Budget’). Indirect impacts Sectors indirectly impacted by implementation/operation • Local biodiversity management. • Urban climate resilience. • Local contractors and suppliers for natural materials. • Health & well-being sectors. Further key partners Further key partners • Local residents (via Participatory Budget voting). • Teachers & ecological educators. • Regional Environmental Fund. • Contractors and landscape designers. • Non-profits promoting urban biodiversity & children’s nature contact. • Local communities & parents’ councils. Costs Lifecycle costs Initial costs • Initial investment: design, construction, workshops (€7,500–€44,000 per playground; €8,500–€30,500 per eco-demonstrator). • In 2018, the city invested a total of PLN 340.000 (€74.000) in 3 kindergartens: PLN 140.000 (€15.000) in natural playgrounds of 2 kindergartens (i.e., €7.500 for each kindergarten), and PLN 200.000 (€44.000) at 1 preschool. In addition, each kindergarten receives PLN 50.000 (€11.000) from the Department of Education as lump sum for renovation. • In 2019, the Connecting Nature project (Horizon 2020 Framework Programme) financed natural playgrounds in 12 preschools with PLN 89.129 (€20.000). In addition, the Department of Education allocates PLN 50,000 (€11.000) to each of the 10 kindergartens, whilst the Poznan Civic D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 68 Budget (Participatory Budget) allocates the 2 remaining kindergartens with PLN 100,000 (€22.000). The cost of design, consultations and workshops is PLN 8.500 (€2.000) on average. • In 2020, the Connecting Nature project funded natural playgrounds in 5 preschools with PLN 42.600 (€10.000) for design, consulting and workshops. In addition, the Department of Education allocates PLN 50,000 (€11.000) to each of 3 kindergartens, and the Poznań Civic Budget assigns the 2 remaining kindergartens with PLN 100,000 (€22.000). The cost of design, consultations and workshops is PLN 8.500 (€2.000) on average. • In 2021, the city allotted PLN 90.000 (€20.000) in 1 preschool for investments in natural playgrounds. Additionally, the Office of Project Coordination and Urban Regeneration (BKPRM in Polish) allocated PLN 5.400 (€1.200) for conceptual design, PLN 5.052 (€1.200) for executive and construction design, and PLN 1.500 (€350) for consulting workshops; totalling PLN 11.952, namely about €3.000. Eco-demonstrators: • In 2018, the Connecting Nature project allocated PLN 94.000 (€20.500) to 10 preschools each. • In 2019, 20 preschools received PLN 140.000 (€30.500) each. The funds came from the Connecting Nature project (PLN 75.000 or €16.500), from a subsidy of the Regional Fund (PLN 32.500 or €7.000), and from the city budget (PLN 32.500 or €7.000). • In 2020, each of 11 preschools received PLN 80.000, i.e., about €17.500 (60% Regional Fund subsidy, 40% city budget). • In 2021, the city allocated PLN 38.340 (€8.500) to 5 preschools each. Implementation costs • Ongoing: maintenance by kindergarten staff. • Safety certification costs for non-standard natural equipment. • Co-design & training costs for staff. Supply-demand interactions Customer relationship • Public sector (Education, Urban Planning, Environment) • Construction and landscaping sector • Civic sector and NGOs • Climate resilience and water management sector • Education/training services • Health and wellbeing sector D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 69 Channels • Direct municipal investment. • EU funding streams. Public funding sector: • Via cross-financing from EU and municipal programmes. • Construction and landscaping sector: Involving contractors specialized in natural materials and green infrastructure. Initially scarce, their availability increased over time. • Environmental services sector: Likely involved in the design and ecological planning of eco-demonstrators and natural features. • Education/training services: Delivered workshops and educational scenarios for staff. Barriers/Enablers Barriers for stimulating demand & supply • Limited access to investment funding. • High share of costly ground unsealing. • Safety & certification costs for non-standard natural equipment. • Initially limited market supply of qualified contractors. • Need for skilled staff to maintain natural playgrounds. Enablers for stimulating demand & supply • Awareness campaigns highlighting the mental health, climate, and educational benefits of Nature-based Solutions. • Dedicated municipal funding lines (like the “Green Budget”) to guarantee continued financial support. • Policy tools such as sustainability criteria in public procurement or local regulations favouring green surfaces in school infrastructure. • Capacity-building for educators and municipal staff — including hands-on workshops and peer learning exchanges. • Showcase projects and pilot sites for public visibility and demonstration of impact. • Stimulating demand means combining financial incentives, policy backing, and education/awareness — while demonstrating tangible benefits for children, staff, and the wider urban ecosystem. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 70 9.6. NATURAL PLAYGROUNDS IN SCHOOLYARDS IN POZNAŃ, POLAND Name of NbS project Natural playgrounds in schoolyards in Poznań, Poland Problem, service and value Problem to be addressed Large impermeable schoolyards (asphalt sports fields, paved courtyards) increase runoff, urban heat island effect, and lack biodiversity; poor adaptation to climate change and minimal green space for recreation and education. Value: benefits Ecological: increased biodiversity, urban cooling, improved rainwater retention, habitat provision to insects Social: improved health & well-being, educational opportunities, more attractive, multifunctional schoolyards open to local communities after hours. Economic: reduced stormwater costs, innovative green solutions, use of low-cost recycled/biodegradable materials. Supply side Who implements Municipality of Poznan (local government), landscape architects, urban planners, contractors for nature-based construction and unsealing work. Land: 4.05 hectares of newly built or upgraded public green infrastructure in urban areas to adapt to climate change. This can be disaggregated as follows: • Elementary School No. 11: 71 954 people (1.32 hectares) • Elementary School No. 20 = 79 027 people (1.13 hectares) • Elementary School No. 77 = 63 835 people (0.94 hectares) • School and Kindergarten Complex No. 16 (Elementary School No. 82) = 65 130 people (0.65 hectares) Expertise: urban planning, landscape architecture, water management, biodiversity planning. Sector impacted • Public funding sector • European Union funding institutions • Design & construction sector • Environmental consulting & engineering services Sectors indirectly impacted by implementation/operation Education sector (schools, teachers, students), health and well-being, community development, local construction and green tech companies. Demand side Client/ who owns the problem • Public Sector (Municipality of Poznań, Project Coordination and Urban Regeneration Office) • Education sector (Department of Education - responsible for schools and preschools) • Environmental Policy Sector (EU funding framework) In general Municipality of Poznan (owner/operator of schools), local communities D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 71 Funding • EU grants (Integrated Territorial Investments, ZIT) • municipal budgets Funding sources mainly comprise external EU funds and budget allocation from the municipality of Poznan. Indirect impacts Sectors indirectly impacted by implementation/operation Demand: Demand may also come from urban planning and real estate development, particularly in areas seeking to integrate public green spaces or offset environmental impacts. Lastly, community organisations may initiate bottomup projects in collaboration with local authorities Supply: The design and construction sector, including landscape architects and contractors, became crucial for translating conceptual plans into on-the-ground changes Further key partners Further key partners • Municipal departments, particularly those working on environment, education, infrastructure, and climate. • Schools and educators themselves are critical to ensure that NbS are used and maintained meaningfully. • Landscape designers, environmental engineers, and academics can bring innovation and evidence-based approaches. • NGOs, community groups, and parents' associations can act as stewards and advocates, helping with care and long-term community engagement. • EU fund operators or regional development agencies are also essential for sustained replication. Costs Lifecycle costs Initial • Design stage: The city budget has planned for each year 2024/2025/2026 in total PLN 300 000 (per year) for the design stage (69 500 EUR). • Primary School no 20: financed from the city budget, cost: PLN 106 395,00 gross (24 620 EUR) • Primary School no 11, 77, 82: financed from the city budget, cost: PLN 102 459 gross (23 710 EUR). Average PLN 34 153 per school (7900 EUR) Operational • The cost of developing complex documentation (construction, implementation) for individual schools is respectively (within Integrated Territorial Investment - ZIT): • Elementary School No. 11: PLN 1 028 121 gross (237 527 EUR) • Elementary School No. 20: PLN 2 146 923 gross (496 003 EUR) D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 72 • Elementary School No. 77: PLN 1 089 725 gross (251 759 EUR) • School and Kindergarten Complex No. 16 (Elementary School No. 82): PLN 2 960 535 gross (683 973 EUR) Supply-demand interactions Customer relationship Direct interaction between city authority (supply) and schools/community (demand). Schools get upgraded facilities; residents gain open green space. Channels EU funding programs (ZIT), municipal project teams, community meetings, school engagement, local contractors. Barriers/Enablers Barriers for stimulating demand & supply High upfront investment for unsealing, limited local contractor expertise for NbS, lack of awareness/knowledge in schools/communities Enablers for stimulating demand & supply Stronger Communication & Awareness Campaigns: Raise public understanding of health, climate, and social benefits of NbS. Dedicated Funding Mechanisms: Stable long-term financing for maintenance, not just one-off investment, could boost confidence in replication. Showcasing Results: Sharing visual impact, biodiversity improvement, and community feedback from pilot schools to inspire others. Cross-Sectoral Collaboration: Incentivising partnerships between city departments (education, environment, health), and universities or NGOs. Policy Integration: Embedding NbS requirements in local spatial development plans or school infrastructure standards The education sector will continue to be central, especially as awareness of green environments’ role in learning and wellbeing increases. The public health sector may emerge as a strong ally, recognising the preventive benefits of access to greenery. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 73 9.7. GUINCHO-CRESMINA COASTAL DUNE RESTORATION IN CASCAIS, PORTUGAL Name of NbS project Guincho-Cresmina coastal dune restoration in Cascais, Portugal Problem, service and value Problem to be addressed • Severe coastal erosion and dune degradation due to anthropogenic pressure and climate change (sea level rise, flooding, shoreline retreat). • Loss of biodiversity and habitat quality in the dune system. • Eradication of invasive species including their root systems, the placement of biophysical structures (e.g., willow fences, sand traps) • Increasing risk of coastal flooding threatening property, infrastructure, and natural assets. Value: benefits • Reduced coastal erosion and flooding • Mitigate shoreline retreat • Limit habitat loss • Increased biodiversity • Increased access to high-quality environmental areas and to recreational opportunities such as bird watching • Increased potential for eco-tourism • High replicability of the project to other coastal cities with dune systems Supply side Who implements • Municipality of Cascais (Cascais Ambiente - Empresa Municipal de Ambiente de Cascais). • Institute for Nature Conservation and Forests (ICNF). • Private landowners (co-managed under landscape plan agreements). • Volunteer partners (e.g., via Oxigénio, Natura Observa) and NGOs. Land: covers 50 hectares. It comprises the dunes of GuinchoCresmina which is a small section of the dune complex Guincho-Oitavos which is situated within the Natural Park of Sintra-Cascais. Expertise: • Coastal engineering and dune restoration. • Landscape ecology, biodiversity conservation. • Community engagement and volunteer coordination. • Monitoring and environmental education. Sectors impacted: • Local Government & Urban Planning • Environmental Conservation • Public Infrastructure & Land Management D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 80 CSR incentives to encourage company participation in NbS High upfront costs for unsealing surfaces Subsidize regenerative blue forest tourism to lower initial costs Legal Demand creation through policy incentives and clear co-benefits Regulation of urchin predator fisheries and establishment of Marine Protected Areas Standardize carbon credit estimation and monitoring for transparency and market confidence Binding EU regulations (e.g., Nature Restoration Law) Adapt legal and funding frameworks to support NbS Operational Politicians and companies unaware of maintenance requirements for NbS Politicians becoming more aware of the importance of maintaining quality nature Lack of skilled staff for maintaining Training and peer learning for educators and municipal staff Shortage of qualified contractors for implementing NbS Support for contractors to shift toward more natural playground designs 10.2. TYPE 2: BARRIERS AND ENABLERS DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE Categories Barriers Enablers Cultural Skepticism about Natura 2000 certification and restoration efforts Clear communication of NbS vs. no-NbS scenarios to stakeholders Local community willingness to participate and co-manage Respect for landowner involvement in partnerships Institutional Need for sustained collaboration across landowners and stakeholders Cross-sector partnerships (education, health, environment, NGOs, universities) Growing role of education and public health sectors in promoting green environments Building stakeholder groups around schools with local events and initiatives Regional, geographical Extreme weather events delaying restoration projects Fragmented landownership hindering coordinated land-use transformation Political Dependence on political will and support Strong political commitment at municipal and national levels for NbS Public-private partnerships to support NbS Knowledgebased Interdisciplinary approaches blending technical, societal, and ecological goals D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 81 Financial Dedicated, long-term funding mechanisms CSR incentives to encourage company participation in NbS Legal Regulation of urchin predator fisheries and establishment of Marine Protected Areas Adapt legal and funding frameworks to support NbS Operational Shortage of qualified contractors for implementing NbS Support for contractors to shift toward more natural playground designs Urchin harvesting for kelp restoration is difficult to scale, requiring sustained effort. Training and peer learning for educators and municipal staff Technological Urchin harvesting for kelp restoration is difficult to scale, requiring sustained effort. 10.3. TYPE 3: BARRIERS AND ENABLERS DURING THE OPERATION PHASE Categories Barriers Enablers Cultural Sharing success stories and visible impacts from pilot projects Institutional Interregional cooperation for learning and best practice transfer Regional, geographical Lack of natural predators limiting long-term restoration success of kelp forest restoration High wildlife density causing browsing pressure and regeneration failures Knowledgebased Lack of evidence-based, scalable knowledge and long-term monitoring of NbS impacts Transparent sharing of implementation success data to build credibility Financial Forestry revenues insufficient for financial sustainability Dedicated, long-term funding mechanisms Legal Standardize carbon credit estimation and monitoring for transparency and market confidence Operational Politicians and companies unaware of maintenance requirements for NbS Politicians becoming more aware of the importance of maintaining quality nature Lack of skilled staff for maintaining Limited funding for maintenance Urchin harvesting for kelp restoration is difficult to scale, requiring sustained effort. Technological Urchin harvesting for kelp restoration is difficult to scale, requiring sustained effort. D3.4 – Report on demand and supply chains in NBS 82