Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

REVIEW article

Front. Sustain.

Sec. Nature-Based Solutions

This article is part of the Research TopicBuilding the Business Case for Nature-Based Solutions: a Corporate, Academic, and Practitioner PerspectiveView all 3 articles

How is Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis supporting existing Software for Nature-Based Solutions decisions?

Provisionally accepted
  • Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Nature-based solutions (NbS) involve working with and enhancing nature to address social challenges, aiming to protect, manage and restore natural ecosystems. While recognition of their benefits and cost-effectiveness is improving, there remain challenges to their adoption. Since they are often multi-stakeholder problems and aim to achieve multiple objectives, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a good methodology to assist with their planning and implementation. In addition, software tools that support the MCDA process while evaluating NbS help manage varying stakeholder preferences and facilitate collaboration between them. They also make complex information about NbS problems easier to visualise, express and interpret. Current analyses of NbS either do not focus on MCDA or when they do, they do not examine how software can support the implementation of MCDA in evaluating NbS. Methods This study thus conducted a systematic literature review via Web of Science and Google Scholar to analyse a sample of software that assess NbS using methods that support any part of the MCDA process. We analysed the technical aspects of the software, their scope of analysis and their capability to support complex decision-making for NbS selection, implementation and management. Results & Discussion We found that the software assess a variety of scopes and often include a spatial GIS component too. They cater to different users, including public officials, private-sector businesses and consultants. They mainly assist with the planning and design of NbS, rather than their management. The software assess many different co-benefits of NbS – the most common ones being hydrology, carbon uptake, air quality and socio-economic factors. By suggesting NbS alternatives and describing their performance, they also support decisions by making NbS benefits more understandable and streamlined to decision-makers. Most of the software only allow the assessment of one alternative at a time, rather than supporting comparison of multiple NbS. Software developers should justify and align their weighting and aggregation methods in documentation and broaden the scope of their software's analysis in future to include biodiversity, non-urban NbS and enhancement of stakeholder engagement and cooperation during the whole MCDA process, from problem formulation to provision of a decision recommendation.

Keywords: Blue-green infrastructure, climate adaptation, Decisionsupport systems, Multiple-criteria decision analysis, Nature-based solutions, Software

Received: 15 Apr 2025; Accepted: 08 Dec 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Mozumdar and Cinelli. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Marco Cinelli

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.