In harmony or against each other? Czech farmers’ and residents’ attitudes towards nature-based solutions on agricultural land

Climate change affects both urban areas and rural landscapes, with issues such as drought, soil erosion, and flash floods becoming increasingly prevalent. Although the scientific community has long advocated for nature-based solutions (NBS), their adoption in agricultural practice remains limited. This study explores the preferences of farmers and residents regarding NBS on agricultural land, examines the level of social acceptance, and identifies barriers to NBS implementation from the farmers’ perspective. A questionnaire survey conducted in the Oleška River Basin, Czech Republic, assessed preferences for 12 measures. The results reveal partial agreement between the two groups: for example, grassing along streams and baulks is appreciated aesthetically by both. However, differences exist in perceived functionality. Farmers, drawing from practical experience, evaluate the aesthetics and functionality of measures such as contour tillage and afforestation differently than residents. Both groups perceived measures like retention pools as less effective for flood regulation. The findings highlight that financial constraints and complex landowner-farmer relationships hinder NBS implementation. This research emphasizes the need for land-use strategies that address both stakeholder preferences and practical challenges, enabling more effective adoption of NBS to mitigate climate impacts. As the evaluation of the measures shows, some practices – such as maize cultivation – are considered by both stakeholder groups to be the least aesthetic and least effective for flood regulation, and their support is therefore not justified. In contrast, afforestation is perceived positively by both groups, being seen as both highly aesthetic and effective in flood protection. These insights underline the importance of incorporating stakeholder preferences into policy design, particularly when developing financial incentives for NBS, and avoiding the promotion of agricultural practices that are neither visually appealing nor beneficial in terms of ecosystem services.