By Maximilian Nawrath, Line Johanne Barkved, Isabel Seifert-Dähnn, and Sondre Meland

Photo by Bernhard on Unsplash

This Plain Language Summary is published in advance of the paper discussed. Please check back soon for a link to the full paper.

Nature-based solutions are ways of protecting, restoring or managing nature to help address problems such as biodiversity loss and climate change. Nature-based solutions can include things like rain gardens, restored wetlands, urban trees, green roofs or river restoration. These strategies are becoming more common in research and policy. But how people talk about nature-based solutions also matters, because public debate shapes what people see as useful, fair and worth supporting.

In this study, we looked at how the Norwegian public media discussed nature-based solutions. We analysed 57 articles published between 2018 and 2025 in five media outlets, which reach different audiences and have different editorial profiles. This diversity allowed us to explore how different parts of the media present the same idea.

We found that media most often described nature-based solutions as practical tools for solving human problems. They frequently presented nature as a kind of infrastructure that can protect cities from flooding, store carbon, cool urban areas or improve people’s health. Another common story was that nature-based solutions are “win-win” and benefit both people and nature. This can make them appealing, but it can also hide conflicts, trade-offs and difficult political choices.

Other stories were less visible. Some articles described nature as something people have relationships with, rather than only as something useful. Some also criticised the use of nature-based solutions in carbon markets or corporate sustainability strategies, arguing that these approaches risk turning nature into a commodity.

Sámi and Indigenous knowledge were largely absent from the media coverage. When the media mentioned Indigenous peoples, this was mostly in relation to rights and exclusion, rather than through Indigenous voices themselves.

Our study shows that media coverage can narrow or broaden how society understands nature-based solutions. More inclusive reporting could give more space to local communities, civil society and Sámi voices, and support a richer public conversation about what these solutions are, who they are for and what kinds of relationships with nature they should promote.