1 Introduction: Environmental challenges in the Anthropocene - Reconciling human activities and natural systems

The contemporary Anthropocene era is characterized by discord between human activities and natural systems, exacerbating environmental challenges linked to sustainable development (Sookram 2013, p. 1). Escalating human activities pose threats of abrupt and potentially irreversible environmental transformations, jeopardizing ecological services crucial for economic activities, human health, and significant cultural and spiritual value. The global ecological footprint, now estimated at 1.75, highlights humanity’s unsustainable demands on Earth’s ecosystems, indicating a looming tipping point (Steffen et al. 2015, p. 736). To reverse this trajectory, urgent action is required to (re)establish harmonious relationships with nature (Buergelt and Paton 2018, p. 201). Society must acknowledge its role as steward of the planet, irrespective of individual preferences or motivations (Sanderson et al. 2022, p. 902). Many societies struggle to harmonize with the natural world (Bradshaw et al. 2021), leading to ecosystem degradation, loss of ecosystem services, and hindering the transition to sustainable pathways. A failure to grasp fundamental ecosystem characteristics (Lorimer 2012, p. 601) and adequately consider the socioeconomic dimensions (Sanborn and Jung 2021, p. 6) of ecosystem degradation further impedes efforts. Harmonizing human–environment interactions is crucial in achieving sustainable development goals, especially amid challenges like climate instability, biodiversity loss, heightened poverty, and inequality, which undermine development achievements (IPBES 2019; WWF 2020). Rural communities in developing countries face heightened vulnerability to ecological shifts due to their direct reliance on ecosystems and their services (Suich et al. 2015).

1.1 Defining environmental stewardship and its potential for local empowerment

There are significant opportunities to deepen our understanding of socio-ecological system structures, interactions, and dynamics (Messerli et al. 2019; Scholz and Binder 2011). Environmental stewardship, defined by Bennett et al. (2018, p. 606) as proactive earth-keeping and responsibility for environmental protection and preservation, is crucial for achieving sustainability (Steffen et al. 2011; Preiser et al. 2017). Though dynamic as a concept (Turnbull et al. 2020), environmental stewardship, as an action-oriented framework, promotes socio-ecological sustainability (Chapin et al. 2010) and signifies a shift in resource management philosophy from reactive responses to proactive governance that guides change toward sustainability and anticipates future challenges (Chapin et al. 2009).

Environmental stewardship is emerging as a pivotal approach, promoting enhanced human–environment interactions and catalyzing improved environmental management and social welfare (Díaz et al. 2015). Given the urgent need to foster a proactive and positive human-nature relationship (Bennett et al. 2018), stewardship serves as a valuable mechanism for achieving this objective among local actors, reconnecting individuals with nature and fostering resilience within socio-ecological systems (Preiser et al. 2017, p. 84). Enhancing stewardship within communities requires understanding how to create incentives that effectively engage diverse community members with sometimes conflicting perceptions and priorities (Coley et al. 2021, p. 3), encompassing moral considerations (Gill 2014, p. 267), values (Szucs et al. 2009), practices (Pant et al. 2004), services (Penker et al. 2013, p. 55), and outcomes (Plummer et al. 2008, p. 56).

1.2 Understanding stewardship dynamics and motivations

Recent research highlights the potential virtuous feedback-loop of stewardship (Richards et al. 2022). Understanding stewardship dynamics involves examining the individuals or groups initiating and propelling local stewardship initiatives (Sayles and Baggio 2017). Stewardship hinges on intrinsic factors, such as worldview, values, and beliefs (Worrell and Appleby 2000), and extrinsic factors including goals, perceived benefits, and outcomes (Bennett et al. 2018), as well as the capacity to take action (Bennett et al. 2018, p. 606). In developing countries, where environmental projects often target rural communities characterized by low incomes, multidimensional poverty, and high rates of ecosystem degradation, understanding the motivating factors and capacity for environmental stewardship is of paramount importance. Understanding the unique intrinsic and extrinsic factors of these communities is crucial for designing contextually relevant solutions that address specific socioeconomic concerns and foster buy-in and positive impact (Richards and Gutierrez-Arellano 2022, p. 609).

1.3 Case study: The Protecting Lake Hawassa Partnership

Ecosystem services form the ecological foundation of environmental stewardship (Chapin 2017), thriving where people feel connected to nature (Lokocz et al. 2011). Community awareness and perceptions of ecosystem services significantly influence attitudes and behaviors toward environmental stewardship (Willock et al. 1999). This paper argues that aligning incentives with solutions motivates stewardship (Chapin III et al. 2011), and conversely, that ecosystem services crucially drive community engagement in environmental protection (Langemeyer et al. 2018). It contextualizes environmental stewardship as grassroots efforts by local communities and resource users to sustain their immediate environment. Conducted under the framework of the GIZ Natural Resources Stewardship program (GIZ-NatuReS) since 2017, this study illustrates the iterative relationship between community engagement in nature-based solutions (NBS) implementation and enhanced stewardship within the Lake Hawassa catchment through the examination of the case of the Protecting Lake Hawassa Partnership (PLHP) in Ethiopia.

1.4 Hypothesis and assumptions

The study argues (see Fig. 1) that ecohydrological NBS effectively deliver ecosystem services, thereby enhancing stakeholder engagement in natural resource stewardship. The hypothesis asserts that NBS for landscape restoration, particularly ecohydrological practices in the Lake Hawassa Catchment, strengthen or restore ecosystem services (Outcome 1), and foster environmental stewardship (Outcome 2). We name the conceptual framework highlighting these interlinkages the “landscape-ecosystem services-stewardship nexus” (see Fig. 1). The paper posits that initiatives generating multiple ecosystem services are more likely to increase stewardship of natural resources. Assumptions include the trust-building capacity of NBS among partners and communities through collaborative environmental efforts, and the comparative effectiveness of NBS over mechanistic solutions in promoting stewardship.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual framework for landscape-ecosystem services-stewardship nexus

Full size image

2 Methodology

2.1 The case study area

The Lake Hawassa catchment covers an area of 143,651 hectares situated in the central North-East region of the Ethiopian Rift Valley Basin (see Fig. 2). It encompasses five sub-catchments: Dorebafena-Shamena, Wedesa-Kerama, TikurWuha, Lalima-Wendo Kosha, and Shashemene-Toga. The geographical coordinates of the sub-basin range from 6°45’ to 7°15’N latitude and from 38°15’ to 38°45’E longitude.

Fig. 2
figure 2

(Source: Degife et al. 2021)

Location of the study area

Full size image

2.2 Protecting Lake Hawassa Partnership (PLHP)

The PLHP is a comprehensive, multi-stakeholder collaboration established in 2017 and facilitated by the GIZ-NatuReS program. Its primary objective is to enhance water security for residents, businesses, and the environment in Hawassa, encompassing both the lake and its sub-catchment area. This partnership brings together private, public, and civil society organizations to enhance water security for the communities and businesses situated around Lake Hawassa by collectively addressing shared risks associated with natural resources (see Eiblmeier 2023, p.2).

2.3 NRAF methodology and implementation

To effectively involve the community in conceiving, assessing, planning, executing, and managing activities aimed at protecting Lake Hawassa, the project adopted the Natural Resources Risk and Action Framework (NRAF) (Cáceres and Fernández 2021). The PLHP case study adhered to the NRAF methodology in both the creation and execution of its stewardship partnership.

The NRAF methodology comprises five phases: prepare, assess, commit, act, and scale & exit (see Fig. 3). Practical tools facilitate each stage of partnership creation and execution (see Table 1). The framework includes 27 tools designed to guide a stewardship initiative from preparation to conclusion. Utilizing the NRAF process, stakeholders engaged in stewardship activities across the framework’s five phases, informing the data collection methodology employed for this study.

Fig. 3
figure 3

(Source: adapted from Cáceres and Fernández 2021, p.20)

Natural Resources Risk and Action Framework

Full size image
Table 1 The NRAF tools
Full size table

2.4 Ecohydrological nature-based solutions

Ecohydrological NBS for landscape restoration emerged as a significant initiative within the PLHP, following a participatory and multi-sectoral methodology. Approximately 50 active partners from civil society, private entities, and public actors engaged in this process, facilitated by the NRAF framework and its associated tools. The project’s design and implementation involved collaborative efforts with Hawassa University, the Ministry of Water and Energy, and GIZ-NatuReS.

Two primary areas of interventions for ecohydrological NBS are briefly outlined below:

2.4.1 Hillslope and gully resource conservation

As noted by Belete (2023, p. 71), the fundamental resource-conserving attributes of hillslopes are linked to a ‘source’ and ‘sink’ system (see Fig. 4), which regulates the flow of water and energy across landscapes. This system transfers water and sediments from bare source areas to vegetated patches known as sinks. This process maximizes resource utilization, leading to pulses of enhanced vegetation growth and increasing the capacity of these patches to capture surface resource fluxes, thereby promoting water and soil conservation at the landscape level (Schlesinger et al. 1990, p. 1044). Implemented in the study area, this system provided multiple ecosystem services.

Fig. 4
figure 4

(Source: Modified from Belete (2022, p. 71)

Runoff-Runon system on hillslopes with multiple ecosystem services

Full size image

2.4.2 Agro-ecosystem water management

Agro-ecosystems provide and rely on essential ecosystem services (Zhang et al. 2007, p. 254). Among these services, the availability of water, in terms of both quantity and quality, is crucial for agriculture. In most natural ecosystems and rain-fed agroecosystems, vegetation and food production rely on green water from soil moisture (Falkenmark and Rockström 2004). This study implemented an ecohydrology-based overland flow regulating system (see Fig. 5) (Belete 2022, p. 98) in farmlands to provide multiple ecosystem services including increased water availability and nutrient retention.

Fig. 5
figure 5

(Source: Modified from Belete (2022, p. 98)

Ecohydrology-based overland flow regulating system on farmlands with multiple ecosystem services

Full size image

2.4.3 Landscape Functionality Analysis (LFA): Monitoring the bio-physical impact of the NBS

Monitoring landscape’s capacity to capture and regulate critical resources is essential for assessing its progress toward self-sufficiency and functional efficacy. However, many restoration programs lack adequate monitoring systems (Machmer and Steeger 2002). Responding to the global need for cost-effective research and monitoring tools (Read et al. 2016), this study applied landscape functionality theory and the associated Landscape Functionality Analysis (LFA) methodology developed by Tongway and Hindley (2004). Three functionality parameters—stability, infiltration, and nutrient cycling—serve as surrogates for ecohydrological function and ecosystem function (Maestre and Cortina 2004, p. 495). The LFA methodology facilitates calculation of landscape functionality using a prescribed spreadsheet. These parameters were derived from 11 field indicators (see Table 2 and Fig. 6).

Table 2 Summary of the 11 indicators of soil biogeochemical properties and processes with their purposes and scoring ranges
Full size table
Fig. 6
figure 6

(Source: Modified from Tongway and Hindley 2004, p. 111; Belete (2022, p. 82))

Derivation of the main functional parameters from field indicators

Full size image

2.5 Qualitative Approach: Community engagement and perception of the diverse ecosystem services derived from NBS

In addition to assessing the biophysical impact of the interventions, this study aimed to capture the communities’ perceptions of the multiple ecosystem services generated. This approach was based on the understanding that local communities are more inclined to monitor services that hold significance to them (Cuni-Sanchez et al. 2019; Hartel et al. 2014; Leonard et al. 2013). A total of 60 households, who were direct beneficiaries of the intervention, participated in focus group discussions (FGDs), open dialogues (ODs), and field observations. Data were framed into likely categories of ecosystem services and corresponding stewardship signals, with the attainment of saturation serving as a criterion for discontinuing data collection and analysis in alignment with qualitative research principles. Participants articulated their perceptions during the FGDs and ODs, expressing perceived importance, preferences, needs, and/or demands. These articulations were transcribed, coded, and categorized into sets of ecosystem services grouped into four categories as suggested by MEA (2005).

Data collection methods included open-ended interviews, field observations, desktop reviews of formal reports by partners, and discussions with sector offices (such as the Rift Valley Lakes Basin Administration Office, Hawassa University, PVH, SIWI, GIZ, and AFLaH—Association of Friends of Lake Hawassa). The central themes of the FGDs and interviews focused on (1) identifying differences in the ecosystem services delivered by conventional techniques vs. NBS, and (2) assessing the level of environmental stewardship before and after the delivery of beneficial ecosystem services by the interventions. Partnership documents provided supplementary documentation.

3 Results

3.1 Landscape Functionality Analysis (LFA): Measure of biophysical status of the landscape

The combination of Table 3, Fig. 7, and Fig. 8 illustrates the results of LFA. Site-1 represents an abandoned hillslope suffering from extreme degradation, while Site-2 depicts an extensively gullied landscape beyond its self-rehabilitation capacity. The findings demonstrate an enhancement in ecosystem functionality toward self-sustainability at both sites.

Table 3 Raw data of the Landscape Functionality Analysis (LFA)
Full size table
Fig. 7
figure 7

Graphical presentation of the LFA results (before and after the interventions)

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

(Source: Belete (2022, p. 76) and Belete (2023. p. 5))

Sceneries of before and after the interventions and their LFA results

Full size image

The indices, ranging from 0 to 100%, reflect the functionality of the ecosystem, with 100% representing fully functional systems. At Site-1, there was an improvement in stability from 44.4% before intervention to 58.3% after intervention, infiltration potential from 10.4 to 25.1%, and nutrient cycling from 10.5 to 25.6%. Similarly, Site-2 exhibited enhancement in stability from 30.6 to 47.2%, infiltration potential from 24.7 to 32.6%, and nutrient cycling from 10.5 to 22.5%. Overall, the results affirm that landscape restoration efforts using ecohydrological NBS contribute to improved physical, biological, and ecological impacts, thereby facilitating the subsequent delivery of relevant ecosystem services.

3.2 Identification of ecosystem services delivered by ecohydrological NBS as perceived by the community

After transcription and analysis of FGDs and interview recordings, eleven major ecosystem services were identified (see Fig. 9). These services, valued by the farmers, were considered benefits of the NBS. Participants compared the new approach with conventional terracing (bunding) practices. The identified ecosystem services can be viewed as advantages gained from the new ecohydrological techniques implemented in this NBS. The ecosystem services resulting from the intervention were classified into groups, with the results indicating that NBS interventions addressed the four categories of ecosystem services (MEA 2005) as follows (see Fig. 9):

Fig. 9
figure 9

(Source: self)

The diverse ecosystem services acknowledged by the community (stewards) in positively influencing the socioeconomic system

Full size image

Supporting services: Underlying ecosystem functions essential for the production of other services.

  • Efficient silt trapping

  • Slim flow regulating structure to preserve productive lands

  • Reclamation of formerly abandoned farmlands

  • Minimal earthwork

  • Creation of favorable condition due to better accumulation of vital resources

Provisioning services: The products obtained from ecosystems.

  • High impact on productivity

  • Generating co-benefits from plantation

Regulating services: Contributions to natural production and resilience of habitats and ecosystem processes.

  • Improved hydraulic performance during extreme flood events

  • Enhanced moisture conservation

Cultural services: Non-material benefits people obtain from the ecosystem.

  • Better integration with the existing farming system

  • Resilient to cattle trampling

3.3 Community engagement and environmental stewardship signal analysis

Stewardship involves caring for what we value (Palmer 2006, p. 65), encompassing all “efforts to create, nurture and enable responsibility in landowners and resource users to manage and protect land and its natural and cultural heritage” (Brown and Nora 2000). Farmers’ buy-in is considered one of the indicators of environmental stewardship. The qualitative data analysis revealed that due to the innovative approach to land management taken in this intervention, the community perceived their concerns were valued by other partners, thereby enhancing their stewardship to the environment.

Figure 10 illustrates five identified dimensions of volunteer commitment:

  • Facilitating the transport to tree seedling afforestation, along with volunteering for plantation.

  • Applying organic manure to the seedlings.

  • Installing live fencing to protect against cattle trampling.

  • Erecting indigenous safeguarding system to protect structures against possible dismantling, particularly valuable for the green-(semi) gray structures.

  • Hoeing the surroundings to dislodge weeds.

Fig. 10
figure 10

(Source: self)

Observed volunteer commitment by the community to safeguard the ecosystem services by the NBS practices

Full size image

4 Discussion

In this Anthropocene Era, reconciling the relationship between society and nature is of paramount importance. Environmental stewardship is rooted in the principles of sustainable development and conservation (Jin 2023, p1). Understanding barriers that hider community from acting as stewards of the environment is part of the broader sustainable development picture. This paper demonstrates the proven potential of successful NBS as a pathway to achieve harmony by shaping human-nature interactions and establishing pathways of change. This study focuses on low-income, less educated communities in a developing country that exhibited responsibility over development interventions delivering locally perceived and valued ecosystem services. In this context, ecosystem services act as incentives to engage individuals and communities. The results suggest that delivering multiple ecosystem services through development interventions encourages positive environmental actions, representing a realistic investment in fostering local environmental stewardship in developing countries and beyond. Within socio-ecological systems, active environmental stewardship is a critical pathway toward achieving sustainable development, underpinning the theory of change.

The study highlights the robust nexus between NBS, ecosystem services, and stewardship. Development practitioners worldwide should consider these linkages in the design and implementation of development projects. Interdisciplinary, evidence-based monitoring, evaluation, and learning efforts should center on these concepts. Recognizing landscapes as socio-ecological systems and acknowledging the delivery of essential ecosystem services as primary outcomes of interventions are crucial. Ecosystem services not only serve as incentives but also as stepping stones toward achieving ultimate environmental stewardship. This understanding can form the basis for future environmental management interventions in the face of challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss.

As a limitation, this study acknowledges that comprehensive analysis of environmental stewardship may require broader assessment beyond the scope covered. Given the novel interdisciplinary nature of this action-research, which tested stewardship as a pivotal concept illustrating the iterative relationship between community engagement and sustainable livelihood-oriented NBS, future research should focus on the scalability of such approaches. Comparative studies on the costs of implementing NBS versus the economic benefits realized by the local population post-implementation could provide valuable insights. Additionally, while this paper aimed to connect nature and humanity through environmental stewardship and ecosystem services, it acknowledges the broader meanings and scope of these concepts beyond the specifics covered in this research.

Further conceptualization of stewardship can facilitate deeper interdisciplinary methodologies leveraging multi-sectoral actors to address sustainability trade-offs, particularly in balancing economic, ecological, and equity imperatives in development pathways.

5 Conclusion

This paper acknowledges that stewardship does not arise in isolation; development interventions should yield tangible benefits in the form of ecosystem services to foster environmental stewardship, particularly in developing countries where subsistence life predominates. These benefits lead to community stewardship toward the environment, as evidenced by the voluntary commitments of community members to safeguard and contribute to NBS interventions. We observed feedback loops that foster synergies among various place-based stakeholders, including actors, enablers, facilitators, and civil society at large.

The stewardship approach supported by the NRAF has been applied in over 40 different partnerships worldwide in the past decade. Examples include projects in Saint-Lucia, Pakistan, Uganda, South Africa, Kenya, Zambia, and Tanzania, addressing water resources risks, plastic pollution, and other natural resources risks (Natural Resources Stewardship Programme (n.d.)). Additionally, the GIZ-NatuReS programme has implemented multi-sectoral risk-based stewardship partnerships in urban contexts (e.g., Kampala and Lusaka), economic zones, industrial parks, circular economy initiatives (specifically for plastics), and water catchments.

In conclusion, this paper effectively bridges disciplines and connects development practice with research. Often, development initiatives led by international agencies are short-term, with little impact analysis conducted after the intervention’s closure. However, by designing financially sustainable stewardship partnerships that are less dependent on external organizations, there is a genuine opportunity to address the tragedy of the commons and achieve long-term positive outcomes.