Strong on Diagnosis, Weak on Delivery: A Structured Assessment of Urban Nature-based Solutions Frameworks

Laura Costadone , Anushri Tiwari , Jennifer Rae Pierce , Charlyn Green , Joeri Morpurgo, Franco L. Souza , Mateo Villegas , Erich Wolff, Tatiana Maria Cecy Gadda, Maitreyi Koduganti

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are increasingly promoted as essential instruments for urban climate adaptation, biodiversity recovery, and sustainable development. Yet their implementation remains slow and insufficiently monitored. Frameworks, including standards, guidelines, tools, and indicator sets, are meant to bridge the gap between NbS ambition and practice, but it is unclear how comprehensively they support cities across the full range of operational tasks. We conducted a structured qualitative content analysis, with dual-reviewer coding, of 30 NbS frameworks relevant to urban contexts. Each framework was assessed across six operational dimensions: baseline assessment and ecological performance; planning and design; implementation; financing and funding mechanisms; monitoring and evaluation; and impacts and co-benefits. We also evaluated the presence of practical “how-to” guidance and classified each framework into one of four functional archetypes: Integrator, Designer, Financier, or Monitor. Results revealed a structural imbalance: approximately two-thirds of frameworks provided guidance on baseline assessment and planning, while only 36.7% addressed implementation, the lowest of any dimension. Gaps in operational guidance, financing, and monitoring co-occurred systematically, consistent with shared structural causes rooted in disciplinary biases. Only five frameworks achieved consistently high coverage across all functional dimensions. The archetype typology offers practitioners a navigation tool for assembling complementary resources matched to their functional dimensions and governance context. Policy implications include requiring comprehensive planning that addresses both diagnostic and delivery dimensions as a condition of NbS funding. These also include embedding comprehensive monitoring and verification requirements and investing in cross-disciplinary institutional capacity to support scaled implementation.