Understanding stakeholder perspectives on the implementation and management of riparian buffer zones in the Santa Lucia River Basin, Uruguay

Understanding stakeholder perspectives on the implementation and management of riparian buffer zones in the Santa Lucia River Basin, Uruguay | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Understanding stakeholder perspectives on the implementation and management of riparian buffer zones in the Santa Lucia River Basin, Uruguay Alfred Paarlberg, Guillermo Sena, Ho Huu Loc, Jannik Schultner This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5911725/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 26 Jul, 2025 Read the published version in Environmental Management → Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Riparian buffer zones are essential nature-based solutions for protecting freshwater ecosystems globally, yet their implementation faces challenges in balancing ecological, agricultural, and social needs. In the Santa Lucía River Basin (SLRB) in Uruguay, these buffers are critical for improving water quality but face issues like low compliance and limited awareness of the policy in place. We explored stakeholder perspectives on riparian buffer implementation through 24 semi-structured interviews with government institutions, researchers, producer unions, producers, NGOs, and locals. The aim was to identify perceptions of current and desired ecosystem services, buffer characteristics, and barriers and opportunities to successful implementation. The results show that stakeholders acknowledge key ecosystem services such as pollution retention and erosion reduction, but they desire additional services like enhanced agricultural productivity and recreational opportunities. Stakeholders identified native vegetation and the spatial dimensions of buffer zones as important physical characteristics of buffer zones. Preferred management practices included no-tillage and extensive agricultural management practices, while policy should aim to adapt buffer zones to the specific conditions of the area they are located in instead of a “one-size-fits-all” policy design. Barriers such as producer cooperation, communication gaps, and economic costs hinder progress. To address these barriers, potential solutions include improving stakeholder collaboration, emphasizing the multifunctional benefits of riparian buffers, strengthening compliance monitoring, exploring opportunities to provide technical support to farmers, and adopting integrated environmental management approaches. By addressing these interconnected challenges, riparian buffers can become resilient, multifunctional solutions that enhance ecosystem services, benefiting both biodiversity and human well-being in the SLRB. Riparian buffer zones Ecosystem services Stakeholder perspectives Policy design Santa Lucia River Basin Nature-based solutions Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 1. Introduction Nature-based solutions have gained widespread recognition as adaptive strategies for addressing diverse environmental challenges by leveraging complex ecosystem processes and functions. These approaches, when designed and implemented effectively, offer sustainable, resilient outcomes that benefit both the environment and society (Dunlop et al., 2024 ; Keesstra et al., 2018 ). Riparian buffer zones, for example, are highly effective nature-based solutions for mitigating water-related environmental issues. These buffers intercept nutrients, sediments, and pollutants from agricultural runoff before they enter waterways. They also stabilize streambanks, reduce soil erosion, regulate water temperatures, and provide critical habitats for wildlife (Kuglerová et al., 2014 ; Patowary et al., 2025 ). By generating such ecosystem services, riparian buffers help mitigate the adverse impacts of agriculture on water quality and enhance the overall health and resilience of watersheds (Cole et al., 2020 ). The success of riparian buffer zones, however, depends on the careful integration of multiple factors. First, buffer zone design must be tailored to the specific biophysical conditions of the area. Local factors such as soil type, slope, vegetation, and hydrology influence the efficiency of buffers in retaining nutrients and controlling water flow (Yang and Weersink, 2004 ; Yorlano et al., 2022 ). As such, a “one-size-fits-all” approach is insufficient; each buffer must be context-specific to maximize its ecological functionality. Vegetation selection, buffer width, and spatial configuration must align with the desired ecosystem services, whether focused on nutrient retention, erosion control, biodiversity conservation, or a combination of these factors (Cole et al., 2020 ; Riis et al., 2020 ). Second, sustained management is critical for ensuring the long-term functionality of riparian buffers. Periodic maintenance practices, such as vegetation control, grazing management, and the removal of invasive species, help ensure that buffers continue to function effectively and do not become sources of additional problems, such as nutrient saturation or vegetation shifts (Maher Hasselquist et al., 2021 ). By tailoring management strategies to specific environmental goals and sustaining these efforts, riparian buffers can effectively achieve desired outcomes and contribute to long-term landscape resilience. Third, effective policy-making for riparian buffer zones depends on stakeholder engagement. Social and cultural factors, shaped by a community’s values and history, play a significant role in influencing risk perception, local knowledge, and both individual and collective attitudes toward managing and adapting to hazards (Harclerode et al., 2016 ; Malekpour et al., 2021 ). Involving stakeholders, such as landowners, in the design and implementation of nature-based solutions promotes public acceptance and provides valuable local knowledge that enhances the practicality and success of these interventions (Ferreira et al., 2020 ; Nelson et al., 2020 ). When key factors such as locality-based design and stakeholder integration are overlooked, the effectiveness of riparian buffer zones can be compromised. This can lead to insufficient nutrient retention, poor erosion control, and harmful impacts on water flow dynamics, as well as issues such as nutrient saturation, invasive species integration, and diminished ecosystem services due to poor management (Cole et al., 2020 ). Stakeholder disengagement can further undermine policy compliance, reducing the potential for sustainable outcomes (Wagner, 2008 ). These challenges pose risks to the long-term effectiveness of riparian buffer zones in achieving sustainable and desired outcomes. Although studies have highlighted the ecological benefits of riparian buffers (e.g., Jager et al., 2023 ; Kuglerová et al., 2014 ), successful implementation also depends on understanding stakeholders' perceptions of the ecosystem services these zones provide and how such services can be enhanced through improved design and management. Previous research has identified challenges related to low compliance and inadequate implementation of riparian buffer zone policies in the Santa Lucia River Basin (SLRB), Uruguay (Ministerio de Ambiente, 2023 ). However, these studies have not explicitly examined the underlying motivations of stakeholders that contribute to this lack of adherence, nor have they explored opportunities to improve compliance and policy effectiveness. In this study, we aim to investigate stakeholder perspectives on the current and desired ecosystem services and characteristics of riparian buffer zones. We also seek to identify barriers to, and opportunities for successful implementation, with the goal of informing more effective policies and management strategies. By integrating diverse stakeholder perspectives, our findings offer actionable insights for designing resilient riparian buffer zones that enhance ecosystem services, improve compliance, and support sustainable watershed management in the SLRB. 2. Methods 2.1. Study area The Santa Lucia River Basin (SLRB) is located in southern Uruguay (Fig. 1 ). The basin provides vital freshwater resources, supporting more than half of Uruguay’s population by supplying drinking water to the capital city, Montevideo, and surrounding urban areas (Achkar et al., 2023; Aubriot et al., 2017 ). The SLRB experiences a temperate climate characterized by moderate rainfall distributed throughout the year, with an annual average of 1,000–1,200 mm (Säumel et al., 2023 ). Seasonal variations in temperature range from mild winters to warm summers, shaping the basin's hydrological dynamics. The region hosts diverse ecosystems, including riparian forests, and ecologically significant wetlands, and grasslands, which play a critical role in supporting biodiversity and providing ecosystem services such as water filtration, habitat provision, and erosion control. Agriculture plays a significant role in the region’s economy. The basin’s fertile lands are primarily used for livestock farming and crop cultivation, contributing significantly to national agricultural production (Aubriot et al., 2017 ). Communities within the basin rely heavily on its water resources for drinking water, irrigation, and livestock management, underpinning their livelihoods and regional economic stability (Bonilla et al., 2015 ). The SLRB faces several environmental challenges, with phosphorus pollution from agricultural runoff being a key concern, as it contributes to the eutrophication of water bodies (Aubriot et al., 2017 ). This is exacerbated by climate change, as an increase in temperature and rainfall is expected, with more frequent extreme events projected that boost non-point sources of pollution (Goyenola et al., 2021 ). In March 2013, for instance, a toxic algal bloom occurred, resulting in water purification issues that affected the access to clean drinking water in the river basin. Additionally, quality problems have been compounded by water quantity problems. After several months of drought in 2023, for example, the SLRBs main reservoir recorded severe water shortages. This forced the use of other water sources with poorer quality, and led to reduced drinkability of tap water for several months (Goyenola, 2023 ). The Uruguayan government implemented the "Plan de Acción Río Santa Lucía; Ministerial Resolution No. 229/015 " to improve water quality in the SLRB through measures such as riparian buffer zones, stricter regulations, and community engagement. Riparian buffers in the SLRB were designed to reduce nutrient runoff from agricultural activities, intercepting pollutants and stabilizing streambanks to enhance the ecological health and hydro-morphological conditions of the basin (MVOTMA, 2013). The action plan defined these buffer zones as areas without tillage or agrochemical use, preventing cattle from accessing buffer areas and watercourses, thereby minimizing livestock impacts on vegetation and water quality as diffuse sources of pollution. The widths of these buffers vary based on stream order, with main river courses requiring 40-meter buffers, first-order tributaries 20 meters, and reservoirs 100 meters (MGAP et al., 2015; MVOTMA, 2013). These buffers aim to restore riparian forests to enhance pollution retention, stabilize stream banks and increase erosion control, underscoring the goal to improve surface water quality in the river basin. To support the implementation of the governmental action plan, a river basin commission was established to incorporate a participatory approach and involve local stakeholders (MGAP et al., 2015). Stakeholder engagement in the policy process is driven by two key factors: enhancing the effectiveness of sustainable resource management by integrating local knowledge and interests (Pigmans et al., 2019 ) and fostering long-term success through voluntary cooperation, which increases understanding and acceptance of management plans (Buckley et al., 2012 ). Despite these efforts, research indicates that anthropogenic land uses within the buffer zones highlight potential compliance problems including agricultural expansion and intensification in designated buffer areas (Mary-Lauyé et al., 2023 ; Ministerio de Ambiente, 2023 ). While research has assessed the physical feasibility of riparian buffer zones in the SLRB to contribute to solving the water quality issues targeted by the riparian buffer zones (e.g. Calvo et al., 2024 ; Mary-Lauyé et al., 2023 ), little attention has been paid to the social perspectives of stakeholders to enhance the acceptance and effectiveness of these measures. Exploring stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services, buffer zone characteristics, and the barriers and opportunities to implementation can provide actionable insights for improving buffer zone policies and management strategies in the SLRB. 2.2. Data collection We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in the design and management of riparian buffer zones in the SLRB (Table 1 ) (Supplementary materials). Participants were identified through a snowball sampling technique, which ensured diverse perspectives and minimized bias by starting from multiple initial contacts ('snowball slopes'). While the 24 semi-structured interviews provides valuable insights into the desired ecosystem services and buffer zone characteristics, the sample size could restrict a comprehensive understanding of stakeholder perspectives across the entire basin. Expanding the sample size in future research would help capture a broader range of views and enhance the representativeness of the findings. The target group comprised representatives from government institutions, research stakeholders, producer unions, producers, NGOs, and local community members; based on their participation in the formulation of the governmental action plan. Interviews were conducted between March 2023 and May 2023, and were carried out in both Spanish and English to accommodate participants' language preferences. The interviews typically lasted for approximately one hour, with deviations made to the interview guide based on the input and responses of the interviewees. Interviews were conducted both face-to-face and online, depending on the availability and preferences of the participants. Interviews were transcribed using Whisper (an automated transcription software; Radford et al., 2023 ) and were manually translated, with Spanish transcripts proofread by native speakers. Participants provided informed consent before engaging in the interviews, granting permission for (audio) recording and acknowledging the option to terminate the interview at any point. Following the analysis, a follow-up meeting was conducted with the interviewees to disseminate and validate the findings. Participants were given the opportunity to review their responses and provide feedback on the transcripts, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the data. Table 1 Overview of interviewed stakeholders and stakeholder groups. Stakeholder group Stakeholder name Acronym Amount of interviews Interview numbers Government National Water Directorate DINAGUA 1 6 National Directorate of Environmental Quality and Assessment DINACEA 2 10, 12 Former-National Directorate of Territorial Planning DINOT 1 21 Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture, and Fisheries MGAP 2 17, 19 Research National Institute for Agricultural Research INIA 1 15 Scientists (including agronomists, ecologists) 7 3, 7, 8, 9, 18, 22, 23 Producer unions Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives CAF 1 24 National Commission for Rural Development CNFR 1 5 NGO Uruguayan Centre for Appropriate Technologies CEUTA 1 2 Vida Silvestre 1 20 Producers 5 4, 11, 13, 14, 16 Locals 1 1 Government institutions were represented by the National Water Directorate (DINAGUA), the National Directorate of Environmental Quality and Assessment (DINACEA), the former National Directorate of Territorial Planning (DINOT), and the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture, and Fisheries (MGAP). These institutions played a vital role in riparian buffer policy due to their regulatory authority and responsibility for protecting public water resources (MVOTMA, 2013). They were involved in every step of the formulation of the governmental action plan . Research stakeholders and producer unions were involved through consultation in the formulation of the governmental action plan (MVOTMA, 2013). Research stakeholders included local and national scientists, and were consulted for their expert knowledge and policy advice, contributing valuable insights into the design and management of buffer zones. Producer unions represented agricultural interests and ensured that the perspectives and needs of farmers were included in discussions and the formulation of the governmental action plan. Producers, NGOs, and locals were stakeholders that were being informed about the governmental action plan and facilitated the implementation of buffer zones. Producers themselves were involved as those responsible for implementing and maintaining the buffer zones, playing a crucial role in their practical application. NGOs, encompassing the Uruguayan Centre for Appropriate Technologies (CEUTA) and Vida Silvestre, helped raising public awareness as part of the governmental action plan. Finally, local community members were included as informed participants through local news outlets. 2.3. Interview strategy Our methodology involved three key steps: (1) determining the current and desired ecosystem services provided by buffer zones, (2) assessing the current and desired buffer zone characteristics, and (3) identifying barriers and opportunities for improving policy implementation. First, we identified perceptions of the current and desired ecosystem services provided by riparian buffers. Respondents were asked about the benefits that the buffer zones provide through open questions such as “ What benefits do you think buffer zones currently provide? ” and “ What benefits would you like buffer zones to provide? ” To determine the importance of these perceived benefits, we employed a comparative scoring method. Interviewees were asked to rate the current and desired provided ecosystem services on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 is unimportant and 4 is most important. Based on the ecosystem services framework proposed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 ), we categorized the benefits into four types of ecosystem services after the interviews: cultural services (nonmaterial benefits), provisioning services (product-based benefits), regulating services (benefits from ecosystem process regulation), and supporting services (services that support other ecosystem services). The resulting data were analysed to evaluate the relative importance and frequency of mention of each ecosystem service. Second, we identified the current and desired characteristics of the riparian buffer zones. This characterization was based on open questions such as “What features characterize buffer zones currently ?” and “What characteristics do you think need to change or be added to (the design of) riparian buffers to support the mentioned benefits?” After the interviews, we broadly categorized these characteristics into three groups: physical attributes (observable features), management aspects (human activities and interventions), and policy elements (legal, institutional, and governance frameworks). The relative importance of the resulting characteristics was determined based on their frequency of mention. Third, to understand the barriers and opportunities for improving the design and management of riparian buffer zones as perceived by stakeholders, open-ended questions such as "What do you think the benefits of [the described] changes would be?" and "What obstacles do you think will be encountered in implementing these changes?" were asked. After the interviews we categorized the perceived barriers and opportunities based on their perceived importance among stakeholders, expressed as their frequency of mention in the interviews. 2.4. Data analysis The data analysis followed an inductive thematic content analysis approach (Kyngäs et al., 2020 ). This approach involved coding interview segments to categorize the data and highlight key topics relevant to the research questions. The coding process consisted of four steps. First, an initial round of coding was performed using structural and descriptive coding methods (MacQueen et al., 2008 ). Structural coding labels and indexes the data into broad groups, such as discussions of buffer zone functions. The descriptive coding involved summarizing passages with brief phrases to identify specific topics, such as water quality improvement. Second, the coded segments were grouped into themes based on recurring categories and descriptions, which helped organize the data into structured concepts (Auerbach and Silverstein, 2003 ). For example, the identified functions were categorized into specific ecosystem services. Third, a second coding cycle applied theoretical coding to integrate and connect the central categories identified with the highest frequency of mention from the interviews (Saldana, 2013 ). Finally, a taxonomic approach was used to order the theoretical codes, creating a final overview of key points identified by stakeholders without implying a hierarchy of importance (Saldana, 2013 ). This led to the final coding categories shown in the results section. Codes were ordered based on their frequency of mention and, where relevant, provided scores. These categories informed the creation of visual representations, including Sankey diagrams made with Sankeymatic (Figs. 2 and 3 ) and a conceptual diagram made with Inkscape (Fig. 4 ). 3. Results 3.1. Current and desired ecosystem services of riparian buffer zones Stakeholders identified a total of 15 current ecosystem services provided by riparian buffer zones (Fig. 2 ). These included nine regulating services, two supporting services, two provisioning services, and two cultural services. Additionally, stakeholders expressed a desire for 19 ecosystem services to be provided by riparian buffers, which included eight regulating services, three provisioning services, three cultural services, and five supporting services (Fig. 2 ). Five ecosystem services were highlighted as being of particular importance within the SLRB. These included three current services—pollution retention, erosion reduction, and biodiversity conservation—and two desired services—extensive agricultural production and recreational opportunities. Among these, pollution retention was regarded as the most critical current ecosystem service (mean score = 3.72, frequency of mention = 18 respondents). Stakeholders highlighted the role of riparian buffer zones in enhancing water quality, with several emphasizing that these buffers " fulfill the function of protecting water quality through nutrient retention " (Interview 6) and " reduce the contribution of agrochemical substances to water quality issues " (Interview 3). This aligned closely with the primary objective of buffer zones to mitigate the impacts of agricultural runoff on water bodies. Erosion reduction was perceived as the second most important currently present ecosystem service (mean score = 3.17, frequency of mention = 14 respondents). It was noted that “ soil erosion represents a significant challenge within the basin, primarily due to the transport of phosphorus through eroded soil particles ” (Interview 8). Stakeholders perceived that vegetation structure played a vital role in stabilizing soil through its root systems, mitigating erosion (Interview 8, 13). Biodiversity conservation was the third most significant currently present ecosystem service (mean score = 3.13, frequency of mention = 16 respondents). Stakeholders recognized the role of riparian buffers in enhancing ecosystem resilience through biodiversity (Interviews 3, 7, 13, 15), noting that “ the local biodiversity in these areas helps ecosystems recover from environmental stress and contributes to the production of high-quality drinking water ” (Interview 3). Regarding desired ecosystem services, provisioning and cultural services emerged as priorities. Extensive agricultural production, characterized as farming practices with low environmental impact, was identified as the most important desired service (mean score = 3.25, frequency of mention = 14 respondents). Stakeholders expressed concerns about the economic viability of buffer zones for smallholder farmers (Interview 2, 5, 6). Integrating extensive agricultural productivity into buffer zone management could alleviate some economic pressures while enhancing the ecological function of these zones. For instance, several participants noted the risk of nutrient saturation in poorly maintained buffer zones, leading to phosphorus accumulation that could eventually enter waterways (Interviews 17, 22). Extensive agricultural productivity was seen as a potential solution for removing excess nutrients and maintaining buffer functionality (Interview 23). Additionally, stakeholders expressed concern over the threat of exotic vegetation. Extensive agricultural productivity was seen as a tool for managing invasive species, with one respondent stating that buffer zones could " function as corridors for invasive species...[while] with grazing, you have them more under control " (Interview 9). The final important desired ecosystem service identified was the recreational use of riparian buffer zones (mean score = 3.50, frequency of mention = 6 respondents). Stakeholders noted that riparian zones could serve as vital spaces for activities such as hiking, birdwatching, and fishing, contributing to both physical health and mental well-being (Interviews 4, 6). Stakeholders also identified several lesser-known ecosystem services provided by riparian buffer zones that extend beyond their commonly recognized functions. These included enhanced pollination services, where buffer zones “support a variety of pollinators that benefit surrounding agricultural and natural systems” (Interview 2). Another notable service was climate change mitigation, with buffer zones acting as carbon sinks and contributing to broader climate regulation efforts (Interview 7). Buffer zones were also recognized for their value as educational and research sites, “providing opportunities for hands-on learning about ecosystems and environmental stewardship” (Interview 4). These ‘hidden’ services underscore the diverse and multifaceted benefits of riparian buffers beyond their primary functions. 3.2. Current and desired characteristics of riparian buffer zones The stakeholders identified 19 current riparian buffer zone characteristic services: 10 physical characteristics, seven management characteristics, and two policy characteristics (Fig. 3 ). In addition, 33 desired characteristics of riparian buffer zone were identified, including nine physical characteristics, 17 management characteristics, and seven policy characteristics (Fig. 3 ). The most important currently present riparian buffer zone characteristics were the presence of grassy and woody native vegetation (frequency of mention = 18 respondents), the buffer zone dimensions (frequency of mention = 8 respondents) and the prohibition of tilling (frequency of mention = 12 respondents). A mix of native grassy and woody vegetation was perceived to be the most suitable for the buffer zones because it provides a multitude of additional ecosystem services. Stakeholders mentioned that “ … if you conserve the native forest … the cattle have shade, and you can have firewood” (Interview 13). Additionally, they noted that “… when climate problems arise, native vegetation can be more resilient than productive exotic species” (Interview 13). Furthermore, the current dimensions and no-tillage management practices in the buffer zone were frequently mentioned, as “… the goal is to restore the area to its natural state, which may include measures such as no soil tillage, no application of agrochemical fertilizers, and maintaining natural vegetation” (Interview 15). Stakeholders identified several important desired characteristics: a locality-based design, the presence of native vegetation over invasive vegetation, extensive agricultural management, and low-stocking grazing. First, a locality-based character for buffers, meaning designs that vary according to local socioenvironmental characteristics rather than a one-size-fits-all solution, emerged as the most significant aspect (frequency of mention = 10 respondents). A common perception was that " the functions that buffer zones should fulfil differ depending on what type of areas we are considering and the uses that are given to them" (Interview 18). Additionally, stakeholders emphasized that locality-based buffers enhance ecosystem service provision, as they could create " a virtuous circle of producing more biomass, generating better animal welfare, and achieving better productivity and yields. However, it has to be implemented on a case-by-case basis, according to the shape of the property, the location, and the socioeconomic level " (Interview 2). This highlights the importance of considering more than just physical characteristics. Second, extensive agricultural management (frequency of mention = 8 respondents) and low-stocking grazing (frequency of mention = 8 respondents) were seen as other crucial desired characteristics. One interviewee noted that " with grazing, you can better control invasive vegetation that encroaches the fields " (Interview 9). It was also mentioned that allowing cattle to graze in buffer zones could provide them with shade and shelter in the forest (Interview 17). This approach could foster a positive perception among farmers, as it frames buffer zones as beneficial to the production system (Interview 2). Additionally, stakeholders believed that extensive practices, such as rotational grazing, have a less significant impact on water quality than current agricultural contributions (Interview 11). Last, the control of invasive vegetation was another desirable characteristic (frequency of mention = 6 respondents). Invasive vegetation was described as problematic because it can lead to increased encroachment, creating areas that cattle can no longer access (Interview 4). Therefore, controlling invasive species was seen as " crucial for sustaining and conserving the biodiversity and productivity of the system " (Interview 3). 3.3. Barriers and opportunities for the implementation of desired services and characteristics Stakeholders identified 21 barriers and 17 opportunities for implementing additional desired ecosystem services and characteristics (Fig. 4 ). Three primary categories of barriers to improving riparian buffer zones in the SLRB emerged: poor producer cooperation, communication issues, and economic costs. The most frequently cited barrier was poor producer cooperation (frequency of mention = 20 respondents). Many producers were perceived as not to adhere to the management responsibilities outlined in the governmental action plan; some ignored buffer boundaries, allowed cattle to access buffer zones, or used these areas for cultivation (Interview 3). This noncompliance stemmed from two key factors: negative perceptions of riparian zones and a strong individualistic culture among producers. Producers often viewed buffers as " mugre " (muck, grease, or filth) due to their belief that these zones could cause various problems (Interview 7). This perception was linked to management issues stemming from invasive exotic vegetation that negatively affected productive land (Interviews 6, 14, 17), increased wildfire risk (Interview 4, 8, 9), and attracted invasive animal species (Interview 5). One stakeholder remarked, “ These issues were exacerbated by a tendency among producers to prioritize individual decision-making, leading them to manage the land as they saw fit ” (Interview 10). This approach to land management further influenced their reluctance to fully engage with the action plan. The second most frequently mentioned barrier related to communication issues between producers and policymakers (frequency of mention = 17 respondents). Producers outside of the river basin commissions indicated that " they have never received any official communication, neither from the (river basin) commission nor from the ministry of agriculture " (Interview 4). The absence of clear communication channels had left many farmers unaware of the purpose, benefits, and management practices associated with buffer zones. Various stakeholder groups noted that this lack of communication contributes to producers’ unawareness of the issues caused by agricultural practices (Interviews 8, 12, 15). Additionally, there was a perceived deficiency in guidance and technical support for the farmers who were informed (Interviews 8, 12). This gap led producers to undervalue the role of riparian buffer zones, primarily because they had not been adequately educated about their significance (Interview 24). The third main barrier identified was the economic costs associated with implementing buffer zones (frequency of mention = 14 respondents). Interviewee 2 emphasized that " an investment needs to be made in time, energy, resources, and training ," pointing out that the costs extend beyond the financial aspects of establishing and managing riparian buffer zones. The potential use of economic incentives to support implementation in the SLRB was seen as complex due to the lack of subsidies or compensation policies for producers, despite being viewed as a viable option to enhance compliance (Interviews 6, 10). As Interviewee 10 stated, " Every time one poses limitations, damage compensation appears in the discussion. If you are limiting me, compensate me because you are restricting my free use and my economic possibilities... If I get no compensation, the policy has no support ." Four main categories for opportunities to improve riparian buffer zones in the SLRB were identified: buffer zone multifunctionality, increased stakeholder participation, integrated environmental management and enhanced compliance control. The most frequently mentioned opportunity was the multifunctionality of riparian buffer zones, which consisted of provided ecosystem services that were both widely perceived and identified by only a select few stakeholders (frequency of mention = 17 respondents). Beyond improving water quality, buffer zones were described as “ areas with enriched biodiversity and pollen production that enhance certain functions of agricultural and livestock systems ” (Interview 2). Additionally, well-maintained buffer zones could “ help combat exotic vegetation, as maintaining diversity helps prevent colonization by invasive species ” (Interview 15). Furthermore, stakeholders noted that buffer zones could increase the resilience of both the ecosystem and the production system, as they provide permanent pastures, cooler temperatures, riparian cover for soil and water, and maintain higher groundwater levels (Interview 8). Second, increased participation of stakeholders in the policy process could enhance the effectiveness of riparian buffer zones in the SLRB (frequency of mention = 12 respondents). Stakeholders highlighted that “[there is the need to] reach out to producers so that they start implementing measures in the buffer zones, and they need support” (Interview 5). Stakeholder empowerment could consist of increased collaboration between stakeholders in the decision-making process and producer involvement in policy implementation. Government institutions could support this effort, as “they could interact with producers through development roundtables” (Interview 12). Additionally, it was mentioned that the government could support producers in the maintenance of riparian buffer zones by providing technical support, as “ the goal should not be to pay producers for their work but to educate them on the importance of the buffer zones ” (Interview 4). This technical support could encompass advisory services, on-the-ground training, and educational workshops. Similarly, it was mentioned that “producers listen to the state, but … the state also [needs to] listen to the small producers, who [experience] limitations in the field” (Interview 14). To accomplish this, “you [need to] have a long-term policy involving the ministries, and many producers need to hear [what the results are] and that it works” to feel motivated and comply (Interview 9). Enhanced compliance control was mentioned as the third most relevant opportunity (frequency of mention = 8 respondents). It was believed that monitoring is very important, as nonenforcement of compliance control could incentivize noncompliance with buffer zone policies (Interview 10; 12). An interviewee mentioned, “It is possible to overcome obstacles by paying more attention to specific situations, applying resources effectively, and implementing better control measures” (Interview 4). In addition, we explored the perceived ease of "monitoring noncompliance in the field of buffer zones with satellite monitoring” (Interview 3). One proposed mechanism that could be used to enhance compliance control was the use of producer participation in the monitoring process by using “complaints from producers, who can report these violations, and authorities can take necessary action” (Interview 17). In this way, better monitoring mechanisms could be created. Integrated environmental management was perceived as a fourth important opportunity (frequency of mention = 7 respondents). By integrating the buffer zones in the production system, producers “start looking at different reasons for having different ecosystems in different places” (Interview 22). Furthermore, a focus on ecological integrity was needed while trying to integrate buffer zones into the production system, as “the forests belong there as much as other vegetation” (Interview 22). Specific examples of this approach included intermittent grazing and controlled biomass extraction to prevent nutrient saturation in buffer zones, which can reduce the effectiveness of riparian buffers (Interview 4; 9; 15; 23). In addition, it was perceived that through controlled grazing, "you collect the growth of forage to encourage [vegetative] regrowth. Resulting from this is that the vegetation returns with more vigour” (Interview 13). To operationalize integrated environmental management, riparian buffers could be embedded in current land-use policies, such as the ‘Territorial Planning Act’ or the ‘Land Use and Management Plan’ enforced by the Ministry of Agriculture (Interview 21). 4. Discussion This study investigated stakeholder perspectives on the implementation and management of riparian buffer zones in the SLRB. We uncovered the diverse perceptions and desires of these stakeholders and synthesized their views on the ecosystem services provided by riparian buffers. Additionally, we identified the key physical, management, and policy characteristics deemed necessary for effective buffer zone functioning. Furthermore, we revealed both the barriers to and opportunities for improving the implementation and management of these buffer zones. 4.1. The need for multifunctional and context-specific riparian buffers The current governmental action plan in the SLRB focuses on environmental benefits. Our analysis confirms that all stakeholder groups recognize the importance of these benefits by highlighting the current presence, and desire, for important regulating ecosystem services. However, they also express a strong desire for riparian buffers to deliver additional socioeconomic benefits, including provisioning and cultural ecosystem services. Furthermore, stakeholders underscore the importance of recognizing and integrating lesser-known ecosystem services, indicating the need for multifunctional buffer zones that support socio-economic benefits without compromising the delivery of critical regulating services. Socioeconomic benefits can be achieved alongside environmental objectives without compromising the latter (e.g., Borin et al., 2010 ; Stutter et al., 2019 ). Promoting multifunctional buffers enables stakeholders to gain both ecological and socioeconomic value, which enhances the effectiveness and acceptance of conservation measures (Trozzo et al., 2014 ). However, the multifunctional nature of riparian buffers presents a complex challenge for management, as it requires a nuanced understanding of the interactions, trade-offs and synergies between the various ecosystem services they provide (O’Hare et al., 2016; Valkma et al., 2019). Therefore, the integration of socio-economic benefits in the governmental action plan necessitates careful consideration of how these ecosystem services intersect and influence one another to make sure the desired services can be delivered while preserving the core environmental functions of the riparian buffer zones. This way, the governmental action plan can be better attuned to local needs and facilitate greater alignment between stakeholders and policy objectives within the SLRB. Our results furthermore show that stakeholders acknowledge the importance of the existing policy characteristics and management practices for buffer zones, but identify limitations in their ability to transition to a multifunctional management framework due to the current buffer management regulations (e.g. no tillage; exclusion of cattle; no removal of exotic vegetation; etc.), hindering the delivery of provisioning and cultural services. This leads stakeholders to often perceive current policies as "one-size-fits-all" solutions, emphasizing the need for more site-specific design and management to allow for the delivery of provisioning or cultural services. Contextual factors missing from the governmental action plan, such as stream geomorphology, riparian slope, and forest composition, could be included to enhance services like microclimate regulation, biodiversity, and erosion protection (Kuglerová et al., 2023 ). In the SLRB, this could include tailoring designs to local characteristics and land use, addressing invasive vegetation, and considering the potential for extensive grazing. Such “one-size-fits-all” policy frameworks have proven to be limiting, particularly when seeking to optimize the multifunctionality of buffer zones (Graziano et al., 2022 ). These zones must be tailored to local conditions, such as land use, soil types, hydrology, and biodiversity, to fully achieve their potential for environmental and socio-economic benefits. However, there is a gap on how site-specific strategies can be operationalized on larger scales, particularly in complex river basin contexts like the SLRB (Rodríguez-González et al., 2022 ). Future research could focus on the operationalization of these site-specific strategies in the SLRB, to support multifunctional riparian buffer zones that respond to local ecological conditions, land use practices, and community needs. 4.2. Enhancing the co-development of riparian buffer zones in the SLRB Our findings reveal barriers reveal shortcomings in the implementation of the governmental action plan, particularly in stakeholder cooperation, communication, and economic costs. These barriers highlight that despite the participatory nature of the plan, essential elements for effective stakeholder engagement can be improved. The successful co-production of nature-based solutions depends on inclusive stakeholder engagement, aligning diverse perspectives with clear communication, iterative goal-setting, and context-specific indicators to ensure relevance, feasibility, and legitimacy in addressing societal challenges (Van der Jagt et al., 2023 ). Shared goals and objectives can be co-defined through participatory processes, reflecting stakeholder priorities and addressing societal challenges (Pan et al., 2022 ). Clear communication is essential to bridge perspectives, build trust, and enable iterative goal-setting with flexibility to adapt to emerging challenges (Hölscher et al., 2024 ). Additionally, co-selected indicators must align with local contexts, societal challenges, and resource feasibility, ensuring their salience and practicality for monitoring progress (Van der Jagt et al., 2023 ). Our results indicate that stakeholders experience several of these elements in the process of implementing riparian buffer zones in the SLRB to support participatory engagement, including 1) inclusive stakeholder involvement; and 2) shared goals and objectives between stakeholders. However, we also show that key determinants of successful co-production, such as effective communication and iterative goal-setting and context-specific indicators, are identified as insufficiently addressed in practice. Underdeveloped communication channels between producers and policymakers foster misunderstanding between key stakeholders, while the lack of contextual considerations and indicators discourages producers to implement the buffer zones. Therefore, the current participatory approach in the governmental action plan is commonly perceived to be inadequate, as it fails to address critical elements identified in the literature, potentially limiting stakeholder engagement and successful implementation. The identified opportunities offer pathways to strengthen the implementation of riparian buffer zones in the SLRB by addressing gaps in stakeholder participation, communication, and context-specific indicators. Strengthening participatory engagement through capacity building, technical support, and integrating environmental management in riparian buffer zone maintenance can foster trust, promote collaboration, and ensure adaptive, locally relevant nature-based solutions (Kiss et al., 2022 ; Nunes et al., 2021 ). Providing ongoing technical assistance, participatory monitoring schemes, and education to producers in the SLRB is particularly important for addressing communication and cooperation barriers, as research highlights that such support is crucial during both the implementation (Menny et al., 2018 ) and maintenance phases (Fisher et al. 2018) of nature-based solutions. Embedding these strategies into the governmental action plan is therefore essential to overcoming implementation barriers and addressing the key determinants of successful co-production in the SLRB. While we identify promising opportunities to strengthen riparian buffer zone implementation in the SLRB, important limitations remain in achieving sustained participation and communication, and contextual considerations. Addressing these challenges requires structured frameworks, sufficient resources, and transparent feedback loops to integrate stakeholder concerns, respond to evolving social and ecological dynamics, and ensure continuous learning and adaptation. Although technical support and participatory monitoring systems show potential for improving accountability and adaptive management, their accessibility, scalability, and long-term feasibility warrant further evaluation in the SLRB. Future research should explore strategies to overcome these imbalances, deepen producer participation, and assess the effectiveness of participatory compliance mechanisms. In the broader context, these findings emphasize the need to integrate adaptive governance, participatory approaches, and context-specific solutions into environmental policies to address the complex tensions between ecological sustainability and socio-economic priorities, offering insights for other regions facing similar challenges. 5. Conclusion This study provides a comprehensive examination of the perspectives of stakeholders involved in the implementation and management of riparian buffer zones in the Santa Lucia River Basin, Uruguay. Our findings highlight the critical role of riparian buffers as multifunctional nature-based solutions that offer both recognized and hidden ecological and socioeconomic benefits. However, achieving their full potential requires addressing several key challenges. Local perceptions and desires towards the functioning of buffer zones show that there are gaps in implementation and management of riparian buffer policy. Strengthening stakeholder collaboration and contextual considerations, particularly through technical support to foster greater producer involvement and supporting inclusive dialog, is essential for bridging these gaps. Moreover, integrating a more multifunctional design approach to riparian buffer zones, one that encompasses both ecological functions and socioeconomic goals, is crucial for enhancing ecosystem services generation. A shift toward localized, participatory, and integrated management strategies have the strong potential for creating buffer zones that are adaptable, resilient, and effective at addressing both environmental and human well-being. Declarations The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Author Contribution CRediT author statementAlfred Paarlberg: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review and Editing, Visualization, Project administration. Guillermo Sena: Conceptu-alization, Validation, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review and Editing, Visualiza-tion, Supervision. Ho Huu Loc: Writing – Review and Editing. Jannik Schultner: Conceptualization, Writing – Review and Editing, Supervision. Acknowledgements This research was supported by the National Agency for Research and Innovation of Uruguay (ANII), under Grant No POS_EXT_2019_1_160984. Data Availability Data that support the findings (e.g. the interview transcripts) can be found as supplementary materials. Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process Statement: During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used ChatGPT to improve readability and language. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article. References Achkar, M., Seoane, G., Gómez, M., Rothenberg, S., & Umpierrez, E. (2014). Predictive model for chloroform during disinfection of water for consumption, city of Montevideo. Environ. Monit. Assess. , 186 , 3884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-3884-5 Aubriot, L. E., Delbene, L., Haakonsson, S., Somma, A., Hirsch, F., & Bonilla, S. (2017). Evolución de la eutrofización en el Río Santa Lucía: Influencia de la intensificación productiva y perspectivas. Innotec , 14 , Article 14. https://doi.org/10.26461/14.04 Auerbach, C., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis (Vol. 21). NYU Press. Bonilla, S., Haakonsson, S., Somma, A., Gravier, A., & Anamar, B. (2015). Cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins in freshwaters of Uruguay. Innotec , 10 . https://doi.org/10.26461/10.01 Borin, M., Passoni, M., Thiene, M., & Tempesta, T. (2010). Multiple functions of buffer strips in farming areas. Europ. J. Agron. , 32 (1), 103-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2009.05.003 Buckley, C., Hynes, S., & Mechan, S. (2012). Supply of an ecosystem service—Farmers’ willingness to adopt riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Environ. Sci. Policy , 24 , 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.022 Calvo, C., Rodríguez-Gallego, L., de León, G., Cabrera-Lamanna, L., Castagna, A., Costa, S., González, L., & Meerhoff, M. (2024). Potential of different buffer zones as nature-based solutions to mitigate agricultural runoff nutrients in the subtropics. Ecol. Eng. , 207 , 107354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107354 Cole, L. J., Stockan, J., & Helliwell, R. (2020). Managing riparian buffer strips to optimise ecosystem services: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. , 296 , 106891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106891 Dunlop, T., Khojasteh, D., Cohen-Shacham, E., Glamore, W., Haghani, M., van den Bosch, M., ... & Felder, S. (2024). The evolution and future of research on Nature-based Solutions to address societal challenges. Communications Earth & Environment, 5(1), 132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01308-8. Ferreira, V., Barreira, A. P., Loures, L., Antunes, D., & Panagopoulos, T. (2020). Stakeholders’ engagement on nature-based solutions: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12(2), 640. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020640 Fisher, D., Blackstock, K., & Irvine, K. (2021). “It’s on the ‘nice to have’ pile”: Potential principles to improve the implementation of socially inclusive Green Infrastructure. Ambio, 50(8), 1574-1586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01372-2 Graziano, M. P., Deguire, A. K., & Surasinghe, T. D. (2022). Riparian buffers as a critical landscape feature: Insights for riverscape conservation and policy renovations. Diversity, 14(3), 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14030172 Goyenola, G., Kruk, C., Mazzeo, N., Nario, A., Perdomo, C., Piccini, C., & Meerhoff, M. (2021). Producción, nutrientes, eutrofización y cianobacterias en Uruguay: Armando el rompecabezas. Innotec , 22, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.26461/22.02 Goyenola, G. (2023). Uruguay’s water crisis: Prepare for future events. Nature, 618, 675. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01933-x Harclerode, M. A., Lal, P., Vedwan, N., Wolde, B., & Miller, M. E. (2016). Evaluation of the role of risk perception in stakeholder engagement to prevent lead exposure in an urban setting. J. Environ. Manag. , 184, 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.045 Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., Kindlon, D., Collier, M. J., Dick, G., Dziubała, A., ... & van der Have, C. (2024). Embedding co-production of nature-based solutions in urban governance: Emerging co-production capacities in three European cities. Environ. Sci. Policy , 152, 103652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103652 Jager, H. I., Nair, S. S., Efroymson, R. A., DeRolph, C. R., Parish, E. S., & Wang, G. (2023). Ecosystem services from partially harvested riparian buffers can offset biomass production costs. Sci. Total Environ. , 889 , 164199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164199 Keesstra, S., Nunes, J., Novara, A., Finger, D., Avelar, D., Kalantari, Z., & Cerdà, A. (2018). The superior effect of nature-based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. , 610–611, 997–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.077 Kiss, B., Sekulova, F., Hörschelmann, K., Salk, C. F., Takahashi, W., & Wamsler, C. (2022). Citizen participation in the governance of nature-based solutions. Environ. Policy Gov. , 32(3), 247–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1987 Kuglerová, L., Ågren, A., Jansson, R., & Laudon, H. (2014). Towards optimizing riparian buffer zones: Ecological and biogeochemical implications for forest management. For. Ecol. Manag. , 334, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.08.033 Kuglerová, L., Muotka, T., Chellaiah, D., Jyväsjärvi, J., & Richardson, J. S. (2023). Protecting our streams by defining measurable targets for riparian management in a forestry context. J. Appl. Ecol. , 61(2), 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14549 Kyngäs, H., Mikkonen, K., & Kääriäinen, M. (Eds.). (2020). The application of content analysis in nursing science research. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30199-6_2 Maher Hasselquist, E. M., Kuglerová, L., Sjögren, J., Hjältén, J., Ring, E., Sponseller, R. A., Andersson, E., Lundström, J., Mancheva, I., Nordin, A., & Laudon, H. (2021). Moving towards multi-layered, mixed-species forests in riparian buffers will enhance their long-term function in boreal landscapes. For. Ecol. Manag. , 493, 119254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119254 Malekpour, S., Tawfik, S., & Chesterfield, C. (2021). Designing collaborative governance for nature-based solutions. Urban For. Urban Greening , 62, 127177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127177 Mary-Lauyé, A. L., González-Bergonzoni, I., Gobel, N., Somma, A., Silva, I., & Lucas, C. M. (2023). Baseline assessment of the hydrological network and land use in riparian buffers of Pampean streams of Uruguay. Environ. Monit. Assess. , 195, 80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10684-7 MacQueen, K. M., McLellan-Lemal, E., Bartholow, K., & Milstein, B. (2008). Team-based codebook development: Structure, process, and agreement. Handbook for Team-Based Qualitative Research , 119, 119–135. Menny, M., Palgan, Y. V., & McCormick, K. (2018). Urban living labs and the role of users in co-creation. GAIA-Ecol. Perspect. for Sci. and Soc., 27(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.14 Ministerio de Ambiente. (2023). Medida 8 – Santa Lucia: Estado de padrones rurales [Riparian Buffer Farms Compliance Map]. https://www.ambiente.gub.uy/visualizador/index.php?vis=sig (accessed April 3, 2023) Ministerio de Vivienda, Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente [MVOTMA]. (2015). Resolución Ministerial No. 229/015 [Ministerial Resolution No. 229/015]. https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ambiente/institucional/normativa/resolucion-n-229015-resolucion-22915-fecha-24-febrero-2015 (accessed 1 April 2024). Ministerio de Vivienda, Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente [MVOTMA]. (2013). Plan de acción para la protección del agua en la cuenca del Santa Lucía. https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ambiente/comunicacion/publicaciones/plan-accion-para-proteccion-del-agua-cuenca-del-santa-lucia (accessed April 1, 2023). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Wetlands and water synthesis. World Resources Institute. Nelson, D. R., Bledsoe, B. P., Ferreira, S., & Nibbelink, N. P. (2020). Challenges to realizing the potential of nature-based solutions. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. , 45, 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.09.001 Nunes, N., Björner, E., & Hilding-Hamann, K. E. (2021). Guidelines for citizen engagement and the co-creation of nature-based solutions: Living knowledge in the URBiNAT project. Sustainability , 13(23), 13378. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313378 O'Hare, M. T., Mountford, J. O., Maroto, J., & Gunn, I. D. M. (2016). Plant traits relevant to fluvial geomorphology and hydrological interactions. River Res. Appl. , 32(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.2940 Pan, H., Kwak, Y., & Deal, B. (2022). Participatory development of planning support systems to improve empowerment and localization. J. Urban Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2022.2031431 Patowary, S., Debnath, M., & Sarma, A. K. (2025). Best management practices in stream: Debris and runoff reduction, riparian buffers and plantings, and stabilizing stream banks. In Hydrosystem Restoration Handbook (pp. 73–82). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-29802-8.00005-4 Pigmans, K., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, V., & Doorn, N. (2019). The role of value deliberation to improve stakeholder participation in issues of water governance. Water Resour. Manag. , 33, 4067–4085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02316-6 Radford, J. W., Kim, T., Xu, G., Brockman, C., McLeavey, I., & Sutskever, I. (2023). Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision. Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. , 28492–28518. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v202/radford23a/radford23a.pdf Riis, T., Kelly-Quinn, M., Aguiar, F. C., Manolaki, P., Bruno, D., Bejarano, M. D., Clerici, N., Fernandes, M. R., Franco, J. C., & Pettit, N. (2020). Global overview of ecosystem services provided by riparian vegetation. BioScience , 70(6), 501–514. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa041 Rodríguez‐González, P. M., Abraham, E., Aguiar, F., Andreoli, A., Baležentienė, L., Berisha, N., ... & Dufour, S. (2022). Bringing the margin to the focus: 10 challenges for riparian vegetation science and management. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water , 9(5), e1604. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1604 Saldana, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Säumel, L. R., Ramírez, J., Santolin, J., & Pintado, K. (2023). Evaluating ecosystem restoration strategies in riparian zones: Case studies from Latin America. Ecol. Appl. , 33(5), e2789. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2789 Stutter, M., Kronvang, B., Ó hUallacháin, D., & Rozemeijer, J. (2019). Current insights into the effectiveness of riparian management, attainment of multiple benefits, and potential technical enhancements. J. Environ. Qual. , 48(2), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2019.01.0020 Trozzo, K. E., Munsell, J. F., & Chamberlain, J. L. (2014). Landowner interest in multifunctional agroforestry riparian buffers. Agrofor. Syst. , 88(4), 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-014-9678-5 Valkama, E., Usva, K., Saarinen, M., & Uusi‐Kämppä, J. (2019). A meta‐analysis on nitrogen retention by buffer zones. J. Environ. Qual. , 48(2), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2018.03.0120 Van Der Jagt, A. P., Buijs, A., Dobbs, C., van Lierop, M., Pauleit, S., Randrup, T. B., & Wild, T. (2023). An action framework for the participatory assessment of nature-based solutions in cities. Ambio , 52(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01772-6 Wagner, M. M. (2008). Acceptance by knowing? The social context of urban riparian buffers as a stormwater best management practice. Soc. Nat. Resour. , 21(10), 908–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802183339 Yang, W., & Weersink, A. (2004). Cost-effective targeting of riparian buffers. Can. J. Agric. Econ./Rev. Can. Agroecon. , 52(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2004.tb00092.x Yorlano, M. F., Demetrio, P. M., & Rimoldi, F. (2022). Riparian strips as attenuation zones for the toxicity of pesticides in agricultural surface runoff: Relative influence of herbaceous vegetation and terrain slope on toxicity attenuation of 2,4-D. Sci. Total Environ. , 807, 150655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150655 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementaryMaterialsInterviews.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 26 Jul, 2025 Read the published version in Environmental Management → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 29 Apr, 2025 Reviews received at journal 05 Apr, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 Feb, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 29 Jan, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 28 Jan, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 27 Jan, 2025 First submitted to journal 27 Jan, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5911725","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":407642373,"identity":"7f0276d8-9233-4e2d-aaac-a1e637445ca1","order_by":0,"name":"Alfred Paarlberg","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wageningen University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alfred","middleName":"","lastName":"Paarlberg","suffix":""},{"id":407642375,"identity":"a600e511-5918-4c55-88b5-9456e08177ed","order_by":1,"name":"Guillermo Sena","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wageningen University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Guillermo","middleName":"","lastName":"Sena","suffix":""},{"id":407642378,"identity":"d78e9e9c-17e9-4c50-bd1c-580645eed239","order_by":2,"name":"Ho Huu Loc","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wageningen University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ho","middleName":"Huu","lastName":"Loc","suffix":""},{"id":407642380,"identity":"45f5b39a-5478-4d0e-a035-0cfc9e628e91","order_by":3,"name":"Jannik Schultner","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Wageningen University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jannik","middleName":"","lastName":"Schultner","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-01-27 11:08:28","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5911725/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5911725/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02230-1","type":"published","date":"2025-07-26T15:58:10+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":74979874,"identity":"d7ef4beb-14ef-4c91-88f0-8d68063cc4ef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-29 04:30:21","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1400357,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRiparian Buffers in the Santa Lucia River Basin, Uruguay. The map delineates the extent of riparian buffers established as part of the Santa Lucia Action Plan. Farms are color-coded by compliance level: red (likely not complying), yellow (likely complying), and green (complying). The map in the lower-right corner provides a geographical context for the Santa Lucia River Basin within Uruguay and the broader region. In the lower-left corner, an example overview of the watercourse and surrounding land use is provided. Source: Adapted from Ministerio de Ambiente (2023).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5911725/v1/d113fc6e08f20e1865a1c87d.png"},{"id":74979186,"identity":"bd2bbc43-1852-4e40-a500-b672f6b56922","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-29 04:22:21","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":441107,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eOverview of the current and desired ecosystem services provided by riparian buffer zones, perceived by different stakeholder groups in the Santa Lucia river basin. On the left, the different perceived currently provided ecosystem services are shown, for different ecosystem services categories that they are part of. On the right, the different desired provided services, that are additional to the currently provided services, are shown for their respective category. The width of the flows and nodes indicates the amount of stakeholders per stakeholder group that mentioned a specific ecosystem service or ecosystem services category. It is important to note that locals did not identify desired additional ecosystem services.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5911725/v1/908c2860302ae37f5c1ef5bf.png"},{"id":74979187,"identity":"16df1e8b-7c64-4753-8f96-6b7798c74a51","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-29 04:22:21","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1209046,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eOverview of the current and desired characteristics of riparian buffer zones as perceived by different stakeholder groups in the Santa Lucia River Basin. On the left, the different perceived current characteristics are shown, for different categories that they are part of. On the right, the different desired characteristics, additional to the perceived current characteristics, are shown for their respective category. The width of the flows and nodes indicates the amount of stakeholders per stakeholder group that indicated a specific characteristic or characteristic category. Note that locals did not provide input on perceived characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5911725/v1/da6425b42bb72dac4cccd41d.png"},{"id":74979876,"identity":"bd0cdda0-3f82-459c-b077-ea54f899ee2f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-29 04:30:21","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":328619,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eOverview of the barriers and opportunities for improving the implementation of riparian buffer zones in the SLRB. The size of the pie charts indicates the frequency with which each barrier and opportunity was mentioned. Text boxes detail the various components of each barrier and opportunity, with the frequency of mention for each component outlined beneath it, categorized by stakeholder group.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5911725/v1/972a59e20537381d5ff94ce9.png"},{"id":87756884,"identity":"e7752bf5-7ddf-4c86-9472-46001b06f11a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-28 16:10:10","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3927004,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5911725/v1/4a8f4e2d-8577-480a-a7d5-68300d96e80d.pdf"},{"id":74979190,"identity":"7ee2167e-41a5-4b48-bcc7-04a5dff00e63","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-29 04:22:21","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":287531,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMaterialsInterviews.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5911725/v1/738b1aa9c832e0481ddc5bec.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Understanding stakeholder perspectives on the implementation and management of riparian buffer zones in the Santa Lucia River Basin, Uruguay","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eNature-based solutions have gained widespread recognition as adaptive strategies for addressing diverse environmental challenges by leveraging complex ecosystem processes and functions. These approaches, when designed and implemented effectively, offer sustainable, resilient outcomes that benefit both the environment and society (Dunlop et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Keesstra et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Riparian buffer zones, for example, are highly effective nature-based solutions for mitigating water-related environmental issues. These buffers intercept nutrients, sediments, and pollutants from agricultural runoff before they enter waterways. They also stabilize streambanks, reduce soil erosion, regulate water temperatures, and provide critical habitats for wildlife (Kuglerov\u0026aacute; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Patowary et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). By generating such ecosystem services, riparian buffers help mitigate the adverse impacts of agriculture on water quality and enhance the overall health and resilience of watersheds (Cole et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe success of riparian buffer zones, however, depends on the careful integration of multiple factors. First, buffer zone design must be tailored to the specific biophysical conditions of the area. Local factors such as soil type, slope, vegetation, and hydrology influence the efficiency of buffers in retaining nutrients and controlling water flow (Yang and Weersink, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Yorlano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). As such, a \u0026ldquo;one-size-fits-all\u0026rdquo; approach is insufficient; each buffer must be context-specific to maximize its ecological functionality. Vegetation selection, buffer width, and spatial configuration must align with the desired ecosystem services, whether focused on nutrient retention, erosion control, biodiversity conservation, or a combination of these factors (Cole et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Riis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, sustained management is critical for ensuring the long-term functionality of riparian buffers. Periodic maintenance practices, such as vegetation control, grazing management, and the removal of invasive species, help ensure that buffers continue to function effectively and do not become sources of additional problems, such as nutrient saturation or vegetation shifts (Maher Hasselquist et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). By tailoring management strategies to specific environmental goals and sustaining these efforts, riparian buffers can effectively achieve desired outcomes and contribute to long-term landscape resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, effective policy-making for riparian buffer zones depends on stakeholder engagement. Social and cultural factors, shaped by a community\u0026rsquo;s values and history, play a significant role in influencing risk perception, local knowledge, and both individual and collective attitudes toward managing and adapting to hazards (Harclerode et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Malekpour et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Involving stakeholders, such as landowners, in the design and implementation of nature-based solutions promotes public acceptance and provides valuable local knowledge that enhances the practicality and success of these interventions (Ferreira et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Nelson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen key factors such as locality-based design and stakeholder integration are overlooked, the effectiveness of riparian buffer zones can be compromised. This can lead to insufficient nutrient retention, poor erosion control, and harmful impacts on water flow dynamics, as well as issues such as nutrient saturation, invasive species integration, and diminished ecosystem services due to poor management (Cole et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Stakeholder disengagement can further undermine policy compliance, reducing the potential for sustainable outcomes (Wagner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). These challenges pose risks to the long-term effectiveness of riparian buffer zones in achieving sustainable and desired outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough studies have highlighted the ecological benefits of riparian buffers (e.g., Jager et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Kuglerov\u0026aacute; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), successful implementation also depends on understanding stakeholders' perceptions of the ecosystem services these zones provide and how such services can be enhanced through improved design and management. Previous research has identified challenges related to low compliance and inadequate implementation of riparian buffer zone policies in the Santa Lucia River Basin (SLRB), Uruguay (Ministerio de Ambiente, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). However, these studies have not explicitly examined the underlying motivations of stakeholders that contribute to this lack of adherence, nor have they explored opportunities to improve compliance and policy effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, we aim to investigate stakeholder perspectives on the current and desired ecosystem services and characteristics of riparian buffer zones. We also seek to identify barriers to, and opportunities for successful implementation, with the goal of informing more effective policies and management strategies. By integrating diverse stakeholder perspectives, our findings offer actionable insights for designing resilient riparian buffer zones that enhance ecosystem services, improve compliance, and support sustainable watershed management in the SLRB.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Study area\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Santa Lucia River Basin (SLRB) is located in southern Uruguay (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The basin provides vital freshwater resources, supporting more than half of Uruguay\u0026rsquo;s population by supplying drinking water to the capital city, Montevideo, and surrounding urban areas (Achkar et al., 2023; Aubriot et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe SLRB experiences a temperate climate characterized by moderate rainfall distributed throughout the year, with an annual average of 1,000\u0026ndash;1,200 mm (S\u0026auml;umel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Seasonal variations in temperature range from mild winters to warm summers, shaping the basin's hydrological dynamics. The region hosts diverse ecosystems, including riparian forests, and ecologically significant wetlands, and grasslands, which play a critical role in supporting biodiversity and providing ecosystem services such as water filtration, habitat provision, and erosion control. Agriculture plays a significant role in the region\u0026rsquo;s economy. The basin\u0026rsquo;s fertile lands are primarily used for livestock farming and crop cultivation, contributing significantly to national agricultural production (Aubriot et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Communities within the basin rely heavily on its water resources for drinking water, irrigation, and livestock management, underpinning their livelihoods and regional economic stability (Bonilla et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe SLRB faces several environmental challenges, with phosphorus pollution from agricultural runoff being a key concern, as it contributes to the eutrophication of water bodies (Aubriot et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This is exacerbated by climate change, as an increase in temperature and rainfall is expected, with more frequent extreme events projected that boost non-point sources of pollution (Goyenola et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In March 2013, for instance, a toxic algal bloom occurred, resulting in water purification issues that affected the access to clean drinking water in the river basin. Additionally, quality problems have been compounded by water quantity problems. After several months of drought in 2023, for example, the SLRBs main reservoir recorded severe water shortages. This forced the use of other water sources with poorer quality, and led to reduced drinkability of tap water for several months (Goyenola, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Uruguayan government implemented the \"Plan de Acci\u0026oacute;n R\u0026iacute;o Santa Luc\u0026iacute;a; \u003cem\u003eMinisterial Resolution No. 229/015\u003c/em\u003e\" to improve water quality in the SLRB through measures such as riparian buffer zones, stricter regulations, and community engagement. Riparian buffers in the SLRB were designed to reduce nutrient runoff from agricultural activities, intercepting pollutants and stabilizing streambanks to enhance the ecological health and hydro-morphological conditions of the basin (MVOTMA, 2013). The action plan defined these buffer zones as areas without tillage or agrochemical use, preventing cattle from accessing buffer areas and watercourses, thereby minimizing livestock impacts on vegetation and water quality as diffuse sources of pollution. The widths of these buffers vary based on stream order, with main river courses requiring 40-meter buffers, first-order tributaries 20 meters, and reservoirs 100 meters (MGAP et al., 2015; MVOTMA, 2013). These buffers aim to restore riparian forests to enhance pollution retention, stabilize stream banks and increase erosion control, underscoring the goal to improve surface water quality in the river basin.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo support the implementation of the governmental action plan, a river basin commission was established to incorporate a participatory approach and involve local stakeholders (MGAP et al., 2015). Stakeholder engagement in the policy process is driven by two key factors: enhancing the effectiveness of sustainable resource management by integrating local knowledge and interests (Pigmans et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and fostering long-term success through voluntary cooperation, which increases understanding and acceptance of management plans (Buckley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Despite these efforts, research indicates that anthropogenic land uses within the buffer zones highlight potential compliance problems including agricultural expansion and intensification in designated buffer areas (Mary-Lauy\u0026eacute; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ministerio de Ambiente, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). While research has assessed the physical feasibility of riparian buffer zones in the SLRB to contribute to solving the water quality issues targeted by the riparian buffer zones (e.g. Calvo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mary-Lauy\u0026eacute; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), little attention has been paid to the social perspectives of stakeholders to enhance the acceptance and effectiveness of these measures. Exploring stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services, buffer zone characteristics, and the barriers and opportunities to implementation can provide actionable insights for improving buffer zone policies and management strategies in the SLRB.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Data collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in the design and management of riparian buffer zones in the SLRB (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) (Supplementary materials). Participants were identified through a snowball sampling technique, which ensured diverse perspectives and minimized bias by starting from multiple initial contacts ('snowball slopes'). While the 24 semi-structured interviews provides valuable insights into the desired ecosystem services and buffer zone characteristics, the sample size could restrict a comprehensive understanding of stakeholder perspectives across the entire basin. Expanding the sample size in future research would help capture a broader range of views and enhance the representativeness of the findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe target group comprised representatives from government institutions, research stakeholders, producer unions, producers, NGOs, and local community members; based on their participation in the formulation of the governmental action plan. Interviews were conducted between March 2023 and May 2023, and were carried out in both Spanish and English to accommodate participants' language preferences. The interviews typically lasted for approximately one hour, with deviations made to the interview guide based on the input and responses of the interviewees. Interviews were conducted both face-to-face and online, depending on the availability and preferences of the participants. Interviews were transcribed using Whisper (an automated transcription software; Radford et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and were manually translated, with Spanish transcripts proofread by native speakers. Participants provided informed consent before engaging in the interviews, granting permission for (audio) recording and acknowledging the option to terminate the interview at any point. Following the analysis, a follow-up meeting was conducted with the interviewees to disseminate and validate the findings. Participants were given the opportunity to review their responses and provide feedback on the transcripts, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverview of interviewed stakeholders and stakeholder groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholder group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholder name\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcronym\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmount of interviews\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview numbers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational Water Directorate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDINAGUA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational Directorate of Environmental Quality and Assessment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDINACEA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10, 12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFormer-National Directorate of Territorial Planning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDINOT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMinistry of Livestock, Agriculture, and Fisheries\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMGAP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17, 19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational Institute for Agricultural Research\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eINIA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScientists (including agronomists, ecologists)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3, 7, 8, 9, 18, 22, 23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProducer unions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFederation of Agricultural Cooperatives\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCAF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational Commission for Rural Development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCNFR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNGO\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUruguayan Centre for Appropriate Technologies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCEUTA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVida Silvestre\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProducers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4, 11, 13, 14, 16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernment institutions were represented by the National Water Directorate (DINAGUA), the National Directorate of Environmental Quality and Assessment (DINACEA), the former National Directorate of Territorial Planning (DINOT), and the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture, and Fisheries (MGAP). These institutions played a vital role in riparian buffer policy due to their regulatory authority and responsibility for protecting public water resources (MVOTMA, 2013). They were involved in every step of the formulation of the governmental action plan .\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch stakeholders and producer unions were involved through consultation in the formulation of the governmental action plan (MVOTMA, 2013). Research stakeholders included local and national scientists, and were consulted for their expert knowledge and policy advice, contributing valuable insights into the design and management of buffer zones. Producer unions represented agricultural interests and ensured that the perspectives and needs of farmers were included in discussions and the formulation of the governmental action plan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eProducers, NGOs, and locals were stakeholders that were being informed about the governmental action plan and facilitated the implementation of buffer zones. Producers themselves were involved as those responsible for implementing and maintaining the buffer zones, playing a crucial role in their practical application. NGOs, encompassing the Uruguayan Centre for Appropriate Technologies (CEUTA) and Vida Silvestre, helped raising public awareness as part of the governmental action plan. Finally, local community members were included as informed participants through local news outlets.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Interview strategy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur methodology involved three key steps: (1) determining the current and desired ecosystem services provided by buffer zones, (2) assessing the current and desired buffer zone characteristics, and (3) identifying barriers and opportunities for improving policy implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, we identified perceptions of the current and desired ecosystem services provided by riparian buffers. Respondents were asked about the benefits that the buffer zones provide through open questions such as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eWhat benefits do you think buffer zones currently provide?\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eWhat benefits would you like buffer zones to provide?\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; To determine the importance of these perceived benefits, we employed a comparative scoring method. Interviewees were asked to rate the current and desired provided ecosystem services on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 is unimportant and 4 is most important. Based on the ecosystem services framework proposed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), we categorized the benefits into four types of ecosystem services after the interviews: cultural services (nonmaterial benefits), provisioning services (product-based benefits), regulating services (benefits from ecosystem process regulation), and supporting services (services that support other ecosystem services). The resulting data were analysed to evaluate the relative importance and frequency of mention of each ecosystem service.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, we identified the current and desired characteristics of the riparian buffer zones. This characterization was based on open questions such as \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;What features characterize buffer zones currently\u003c/em\u003e?\u0026rdquo; and \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;What characteristics do you think need to change or be added to (the design of) riparian buffers to support the mentioned benefits?\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e After the interviews, we broadly categorized these characteristics into three groups: physical attributes (observable features), management aspects (human activities and interventions), and policy elements (legal, institutional, and governance frameworks). The relative importance of the resulting characteristics was determined based on their frequency of mention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, to understand the barriers and opportunities for improving the design and management of riparian buffer zones as perceived by stakeholders, open-ended questions such as \u003cem\u003e\"What do you think the benefits of [the described] changes would be?\"\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003e\"What obstacles do you think will be encountered in implementing these changes?\"\u003c/em\u003e were asked. After the interviews we categorized the perceived barriers and opportunities based on their perceived importance among stakeholders, expressed as their frequency of mention in the interviews.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Data analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data analysis followed an inductive thematic content analysis approach (Kyng\u0026auml;s et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This approach involved coding interview segments to categorize the data and highlight key topics relevant to the research questions. The coding process consisted of four steps. First, an initial round of coding was performed using structural and descriptive coding methods (MacQueen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Structural coding labels and indexes the data into broad groups, such as discussions of buffer zone functions. The descriptive coding involved summarizing passages with brief phrases to identify specific topics, such as water quality improvement. Second, the coded segments were grouped into themes based on recurring categories and descriptions, which helped organize the data into structured concepts (Auerbach and Silverstein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). For example, the identified functions were categorized into specific ecosystem services. Third, a second coding cycle applied theoretical coding to integrate and connect the central categories identified with the highest frequency of mention from the interviews (Saldana, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, a taxonomic approach was used to order the theoretical codes, creating a final overview of key points identified by stakeholders without implying a hierarchy of importance (Saldana, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This led to the final coding categories shown in the results section. Codes were ordered based on their frequency of mention and, where relevant, provided scores. These categories informed the creation of visual representations, including Sankey diagrams made with Sankeymatic (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) and a conceptual diagram made with Inkscape (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Current and desired ecosystem services of riparian buffer zones\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholders identified a total of 15 current ecosystem services provided by riparian buffer zones (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). These included nine regulating services, two supporting services, two provisioning services, and two cultural services. Additionally, stakeholders expressed a desire for 19 ecosystem services to be provided by riparian buffers, which included eight regulating services, three provisioning services, three cultural services, and five supporting services (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFive ecosystem services were highlighted as being of particular importance within the SLRB. These included three current services\u0026mdash;pollution retention, erosion reduction, and biodiversity conservation\u0026mdash;and two desired services\u0026mdash;extensive agricultural production and recreational opportunities. Among these, pollution retention was regarded as the most critical current ecosystem service (mean score\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.72, frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18 respondents). Stakeholders highlighted the role of riparian buffer zones in enhancing water quality, with several emphasizing that these buffers \"\u003cem\u003efulfill the function of protecting water quality through nutrient retention\u003c/em\u003e\" (Interview 6) and \"\u003cem\u003ereduce the contribution of agrochemical substances to water quality issues\u003c/em\u003e\" (Interview 3). This aligned closely with the primary objective of buffer zones to mitigate the impacts of agricultural runoff on water bodies. Erosion reduction was perceived as the second most important currently present ecosystem service (mean score\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.17, frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14 respondents). It was noted that \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003esoil erosion represents a significant challenge within the basin, primarily due to the transport of phosphorus through eroded soil particles\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Interview 8). Stakeholders perceived that vegetation structure played a vital role in stabilizing soil through its root systems, mitigating erosion (Interview 8, 13). Biodiversity conservation was the third most significant currently present ecosystem service (mean score\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.13, frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16 respondents). Stakeholders recognized the role of riparian buffers in enhancing ecosystem resilience through biodiversity (Interviews 3, 7, 13, 15), noting that \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ethe local biodiversity in these areas helps ecosystems recover from environmental stress and contributes to the production of high-quality drinking water\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Interview 3).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding desired ecosystem services, provisioning and cultural services emerged as priorities. Extensive agricultural production, characterized as farming practices with low environmental impact, was identified as the most important desired service (mean score\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.25, frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14 respondents). Stakeholders expressed concerns about the economic viability of buffer zones for smallholder farmers (Interview 2, 5, 6). Integrating extensive agricultural productivity into buffer zone management could alleviate some economic pressures while enhancing the ecological function of these zones. For instance, several participants noted the risk of nutrient saturation in poorly maintained buffer zones, leading to phosphorus accumulation that could eventually enter waterways (Interviews 17, 22). Extensive agricultural productivity was seen as a potential solution for removing excess nutrients and maintaining buffer functionality (Interview 23). Additionally, stakeholders expressed concern over the threat of exotic vegetation. Extensive agricultural productivity was seen as a tool for managing invasive species, with one respondent stating that buffer zones could \"\u003cem\u003efunction as corridors for invasive species...[while] with grazing, you have them more under control\u003c/em\u003e\" (Interview 9). The final important desired ecosystem service identified was the recreational use of riparian buffer zones (mean score\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.50, frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6 respondents). Stakeholders noted that riparian zones could serve as vital spaces for activities such as hiking, birdwatching, and fishing, contributing to both physical health and mental well-being (Interviews 4, 6).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholders also identified several lesser-known ecosystem services provided by riparian buffer zones that extend beyond their commonly recognized functions. These included enhanced pollination services, where buffer zones \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;support a variety of pollinators that benefit surrounding agricultural and natural systems\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Interview 2). Another notable service was climate change mitigation, with buffer zones acting as carbon sinks and contributing to broader climate regulation efforts (Interview 7). Buffer zones were also recognized for their value as educational and research sites, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;providing opportunities for hands-on learning about ecosystems and environmental stewardship\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Interview 4). These \u0026lsquo;hidden\u0026rsquo; services underscore the diverse and multifaceted benefits of riparian buffers beyond their primary functions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Current and desired characteristics of riparian buffer zones\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe stakeholders identified 19 current riparian buffer zone characteristic services: 10 physical characteristics, seven management characteristics, and two policy characteristics (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, 33 desired characteristics of riparian buffer zone were identified, including nine physical characteristics, 17 management characteristics, and seven policy characteristics (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most important currently present riparian buffer zone characteristics were the presence of grassy and woody native vegetation (frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18 respondents), the buffer zone dimensions (frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8 respondents) and the prohibition of tilling (frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12 respondents). A mix of native grassy and woody vegetation was perceived to be the most suitable for the buffer zones because it provides a multitude of additional ecosystem services. Stakeholders mentioned that \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003e\u0026hellip; if you conserve the native forest \u0026hellip; the cattle have shade, and you can have firewood\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Interview 13). Additionally, they noted that \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip; when climate problems arise, native vegetation can be more resilient than productive exotic species\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Interview 13). Furthermore, the current dimensions and no-tillage management practices in the buffer zone were frequently mentioned, as \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip; the goal is to restore the area to its natural state, which may include measures such as no soil tillage, no application of agrochemical fertilizers, and maintaining natural vegetation\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Interview 15).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholders identified several important desired characteristics: a locality-based design, the presence of native vegetation over invasive vegetation, extensive agricultural management, and low-stocking grazing. First, a locality-based character for buffers, meaning designs that vary according to local socioenvironmental characteristics rather than a one-size-fits-all solution, emerged as the most significant aspect (frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10 respondents). A common perception was that \"\u003cem\u003ethe functions that buffer zones should fulfil differ depending on what type of areas we are considering and the uses that are given to them\"\u003c/em\u003e (Interview 18). Additionally, stakeholders emphasized that locality-based buffers enhance ecosystem service provision, as they could create \"\u003cem\u003ea virtuous circle of producing more biomass, generating better animal welfare, and achieving better productivity and yields. However, it has to be implemented on a case-by-case basis, according to the shape of the property, the location, and the socioeconomic level\u003c/em\u003e\" (Interview 2). This highlights the importance of considering more than just physical characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, extensive agricultural management (frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8 respondents) and low-stocking grazing (frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8 respondents) were seen as other crucial desired characteristics. One interviewee noted that \"\u003cem\u003ewith grazing, you can better control invasive vegetation that encroaches the fields\u003c/em\u003e\" (Interview 9). It was also mentioned that allowing cattle to graze in buffer zones could provide them with shade and shelter in the forest (Interview 17). This approach could foster a positive perception among farmers, as it frames buffer zones as beneficial to the production system (Interview 2). Additionally, stakeholders believed that extensive practices, such as rotational grazing, have a less significant impact on water quality than current agricultural contributions (Interview 11). Last, the control of invasive vegetation was another desirable characteristic (frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6 respondents). Invasive vegetation was described as problematic because it can lead to increased encroachment, creating areas that cattle can no longer access (Interview 4). Therefore, controlling invasive species was seen as \"\u003cem\u003ecrucial for sustaining and conserving the biodiversity and productivity of the system\u003c/em\u003e\" (Interview 3).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Barriers and opportunities for the implementation of desired services and characteristics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStakeholders identified 21 barriers and 17 opportunities for implementing additional desired ecosystem services and characteristics (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Three primary categories of barriers to improving riparian buffer zones in the SLRB emerged: poor producer cooperation, communication issues, and economic costs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most frequently cited barrier was poor producer cooperation (frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;20 respondents). Many producers were perceived as not to adhere to the management responsibilities outlined in the governmental action plan; some ignored buffer boundaries, allowed cattle to access buffer zones, or used these areas for cultivation (Interview 3). This noncompliance stemmed from two key factors: negative perceptions of riparian zones and a strong individualistic culture among producers. Producers often viewed buffers as \"\u003cem\u003emugre\u003c/em\u003e\" (muck, grease, or filth) due to their belief that these zones could cause various problems (Interview 7). This perception was linked to management issues stemming from invasive exotic vegetation that negatively affected productive land (Interviews 6, 14, 17), increased wildfire risk (Interview 4, 8, 9), and attracted invasive animal species (Interview 5). One stakeholder remarked, \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eThese issues were exacerbated by a tendency among producers to prioritize individual decision-making, leading them to manage the land as they saw fit\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Interview 10). This approach to land management further influenced their reluctance to fully engage with the action plan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second most frequently mentioned barrier related to communication issues between producers and policymakers (frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17 respondents). Producers outside of the river basin commissions indicated that \"\u003cem\u003ethey have never received any official communication, neither from the (river basin) commission nor from the ministry of agriculture\u003c/em\u003e\" (Interview 4). The absence of clear communication channels had left many farmers unaware of the purpose, benefits, and management practices associated with buffer zones. Various stakeholder groups noted that this lack of communication contributes to producers\u0026rsquo; unawareness of the issues caused by agricultural practices (Interviews 8, 12, 15). Additionally, there was a perceived deficiency in guidance and technical support for the farmers who were informed (Interviews 8, 12). This gap led producers to undervalue the role of riparian buffer zones, primarily because they had not been adequately educated about their significance (Interview 24).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe third main barrier identified was the economic costs associated with implementing buffer zones (frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14 respondents). Interviewee 2 emphasized that \"\u003cem\u003ean investment needs to be made in time, energy, resources, and training\u003c/em\u003e,\" pointing out that the costs extend beyond the financial aspects of establishing and managing riparian buffer zones. The potential use of economic incentives to support implementation in the SLRB was seen as complex due to the lack of subsidies or compensation policies for producers, despite being viewed as a viable option to enhance compliance (Interviews 6, 10). As Interviewee 10 stated, \"\u003cem\u003eEvery time one poses limitations, damage compensation appears in the discussion. If you are limiting me, compensate me because you are restricting my free use and my economic possibilities... If I get no compensation, the policy has no support\u003c/em\u003e.\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFour main categories for opportunities to improve riparian buffer zones in the SLRB were identified: buffer zone multifunctionality, increased stakeholder participation, integrated environmental management and enhanced compliance control.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe most frequently mentioned opportunity was the multifunctionality of riparian buffer zones, which consisted of provided ecosystem services that were both widely perceived and identified by only a select few stakeholders (frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17 respondents). Beyond improving water quality, buffer zones were described as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eareas with enriched biodiversity and pollen production that enhance certain functions of agricultural and livestock systems\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Interview 2). Additionally, well-maintained buffer zones could \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ehelp combat exotic vegetation, as maintaining diversity helps prevent colonization by invasive species\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Interview 15). Furthermore, stakeholders noted that buffer zones could increase the resilience of both the ecosystem and the production system, as they provide permanent pastures, cooler temperatures, riparian cover for soil and water, and maintain higher groundwater levels (Interview 8).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, increased participation of stakeholders in the policy process could enhance the effectiveness of riparian buffer zones in the SLRB (frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12 respondents). Stakeholders highlighted that \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;[there is the need to] reach out to producers so that they start implementing measures in the buffer zones, and they need support\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Interview 5). Stakeholder empowerment could consist of increased collaboration between stakeholders in the decision-making process and producer involvement in policy implementation. Government institutions could support this effort, as \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;they could interact with producers through development roundtables\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Interview 12). Additionally, it was mentioned that the government could support producers in the maintenance of riparian buffer zones by providing technical support, as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ethe goal should not be to pay producers for their work but to educate them on the importance of the buffer zones\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Interview 4). This technical support could encompass advisory services, on-the-ground training, and educational workshops. Similarly, it was mentioned that \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;producers listen to the state, but \u0026hellip; the state also [needs to] listen to the small producers, who [experience] limitations in the field\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Interview 14). To accomplish this, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;you [need to] have a long-term policy involving the ministries, and many producers need to hear [what the results are] and that it works\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e to feel motivated and comply (Interview 9).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnhanced compliance control was mentioned as the third most relevant opportunity (frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8 respondents). It was believed that monitoring is very important, as nonenforcement of compliance control could incentivize noncompliance with buffer zone policies (Interview 10; 12). An interviewee mentioned, \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;It is possible to overcome obstacles by paying more attention to specific situations, applying resources effectively, and implementing better control measures\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Interview 4). In addition, we explored the perceived ease of \u003cem\u003e\"monitoring noncompliance in the field of buffer zones with satellite monitoring\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Interview 3). One proposed mechanism that could be used to enhance compliance control was the use of producer participation in the monitoring process by using \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;complaints from producers, who can report these violations, and authorities can take necessary action\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Interview 17). In this way, better monitoring mechanisms could be created.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntegrated environmental management was perceived as a fourth important opportunity (frequency of mention\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7 respondents). By integrating the buffer zones in the production system, producers \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;start looking at different reasons for having different ecosystems in different places\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Interview 22). Furthermore, a focus on ecological integrity was needed while trying to integrate buffer zones into the production system, as \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;the forests belong there as much as other vegetation\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Interview 22). Specific examples of this approach included intermittent grazing and controlled biomass extraction to prevent nutrient saturation in buffer zones, which can reduce the effectiveness of riparian buffers (Interview 4; 9; 15; 23). In addition, it was perceived that through controlled grazing, \u003cem\u003e\"you collect the growth of forage to encourage [vegetative] regrowth. Resulting from this is that the vegetation returns with more vigour\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Interview 13). To operationalize integrated environmental management, riparian buffers could be embedded in current land-use policies, such as the \u0026lsquo;Territorial Planning Act\u0026rsquo; or the \u0026lsquo;Land Use and Management Plan\u0026rsquo; enforced by the Ministry of Agriculture (Interview 21).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated stakeholder perspectives on the implementation and management of riparian buffer zones in the SLRB. We uncovered the diverse perceptions and desires of these stakeholders and synthesized their views on the ecosystem services provided by riparian buffers. Additionally, we identified the key physical, management, and policy characteristics deemed necessary for effective buffer zone functioning. Furthermore, we revealed both the barriers to and opportunities for improving the implementation and management of these buffer zones.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. The need for multifunctional and context-specific riparian buffers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current governmental action plan in the SLRB focuses on environmental benefits. Our analysis confirms that all stakeholder groups recognize the importance of these benefits by highlighting the current presence, and desire, for important regulating ecosystem services. However, they also express a strong desire for riparian buffers to deliver additional socioeconomic benefits, including provisioning and cultural ecosystem services. Furthermore, stakeholders underscore the importance of recognizing and integrating lesser-known ecosystem services, indicating the need for multifunctional buffer zones that support socio-economic benefits without compromising the delivery of critical regulating services.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocioeconomic benefits can be achieved alongside environmental objectives without compromising the latter (e.g., Borin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Stutter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Promoting multifunctional buffers enables stakeholders to gain both ecological and socioeconomic value, which enhances the effectiveness and acceptance of conservation measures (Trozzo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). However, the multifunctional nature of riparian buffers presents a complex challenge for management, as it requires a nuanced understanding of the interactions, trade-offs and synergies between the various ecosystem services they provide (O\u0026rsquo;Hare et al., 2016; Valkma et al., 2019). Therefore, the integration of socio-economic benefits in the governmental action plan necessitates careful consideration of how these ecosystem services intersect and influence one another to make sure the desired services can be delivered while preserving the core environmental functions of the riparian buffer zones. This way, the governmental action plan can be better attuned to local needs and facilitate greater alignment between stakeholders and policy objectives within the SLRB.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur results furthermore show that stakeholders acknowledge the importance of the existing policy characteristics and management practices for buffer zones, but identify limitations in their ability to transition to a multifunctional management framework due to the current buffer management regulations (e.g. no tillage; exclusion of cattle; no removal of exotic vegetation; etc.), hindering the delivery of provisioning and cultural services. This leads stakeholders to often perceive current policies as \"one-size-fits-all\" solutions, emphasizing the need for more site-specific design and management to allow for the delivery of provisioning or cultural services. Contextual factors missing from the governmental action plan, such as stream geomorphology, riparian slope, and forest composition, could be included to enhance services like microclimate regulation, biodiversity, and erosion protection (Kuglerov\u0026aacute; et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In the SLRB, this could include tailoring designs to local characteristics and land use, addressing invasive vegetation, and considering the potential for extensive grazing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSuch \u0026ldquo;one-size-fits-all\u0026rdquo; policy frameworks have proven to be limiting, particularly when seeking to optimize the multifunctionality of buffer zones (Graziano et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). These zones must be tailored to local conditions, such as land use, soil types, hydrology, and biodiversity, to fully achieve their potential for environmental and socio-economic benefits. However, there is a gap on how site-specific strategies can be operationalized on larger scales, particularly in complex river basin contexts like the SLRB (Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Future research could focus on the operationalization of these site-specific strategies in the SLRB, to support multifunctional riparian buffer zones that respond to local ecological conditions, land use practices, and community needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Enhancing the co-development of riparian buffer zones in the SLRB\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings reveal barriers reveal shortcomings in the implementation of the governmental action plan, particularly in stakeholder cooperation, communication, and economic costs. These barriers highlight that despite the participatory nature of the plan, essential elements for effective stakeholder engagement can be improved.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe successful co-production of nature-based solutions depends on inclusive stakeholder engagement, aligning diverse perspectives with clear communication, iterative goal-setting, and context-specific indicators to ensure relevance, feasibility, and legitimacy in addressing societal challenges (Van der Jagt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Shared goals and objectives can be co-defined through participatory processes, reflecting stakeholder priorities and addressing societal challenges (Pan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Clear communication is essential to bridge perspectives, build trust, and enable iterative goal-setting with flexibility to adapt to emerging challenges (H\u0026ouml;lscher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, co-selected indicators must align with local contexts, societal challenges, and resource feasibility, ensuring their salience and practicality for monitoring progress (Van der Jagt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur results indicate that stakeholders experience several of these elements in the process of implementing riparian buffer zones in the SLRB to support participatory engagement, including 1) inclusive stakeholder involvement; and 2) shared goals and objectives between stakeholders. However, we also show that key determinants of successful co-production, such as effective communication and iterative goal-setting and context-specific indicators, are identified as insufficiently addressed in practice. Underdeveloped communication channels between producers and policymakers foster misunderstanding between key stakeholders, while the lack of contextual considerations and indicators discourages producers to implement the buffer zones. Therefore, the current participatory approach in the governmental action plan is commonly perceived to be inadequate, as it fails to address critical elements identified in the literature, potentially limiting stakeholder engagement and successful implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe identified opportunities offer pathways to strengthen the implementation of riparian buffer zones in the SLRB by addressing gaps in stakeholder participation, communication, and context-specific indicators. Strengthening participatory engagement through capacity building, technical support, and integrating environmental management in riparian buffer zone maintenance can foster trust, promote collaboration, and ensure adaptive, locally relevant nature-based solutions (Kiss et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Nunes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Providing ongoing technical assistance, participatory monitoring schemes, and education to producers in the SLRB is particularly important for addressing communication and cooperation barriers, as research highlights that such support is crucial during both the implementation (Menny et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and maintenance phases (Fisher et al. 2018) of nature-based solutions. Embedding these strategies into the governmental action plan is therefore essential to overcoming implementation barriers and addressing the key determinants of successful co-production in the SLRB.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile we identify promising opportunities to strengthen riparian buffer zone implementation in the SLRB, important limitations remain in achieving sustained participation and communication, and contextual considerations. Addressing these challenges requires structured frameworks, sufficient resources, and transparent feedback loops to integrate stakeholder concerns, respond to evolving social and ecological dynamics, and ensure continuous learning and adaptation. Although technical support and participatory monitoring systems show potential for improving accountability and adaptive management, their accessibility, scalability, and long-term feasibility warrant further evaluation in the SLRB. Future research should explore strategies to overcome these imbalances, deepen producer participation, and assess the effectiveness of participatory compliance mechanisms. In the broader context, these findings emphasize the need to integrate adaptive governance, participatory approaches, and context-specific solutions into environmental policies to address the complex tensions between ecological sustainability and socio-economic priorities, offering insights for other regions facing similar challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides a comprehensive examination of the perspectives of stakeholders involved in the implementation and management of riparian buffer zones in the Santa Lucia River Basin, Uruguay. Our findings highlight the critical role of riparian buffers as multifunctional nature-based solutions that offer both recognized and hidden ecological and socioeconomic benefits. However, achieving their full potential requires addressing several key challenges. Local perceptions and desires towards the functioning of buffer zones show that there are gaps in implementation and management of riparian buffer policy. Strengthening stakeholder collaboration and contextual considerations, particularly through technical support to foster greater producer involvement and supporting inclusive dialog, is essential for bridging these gaps. Moreover, integrating a more multifunctional design approach to riparian buffer zones, one that encompasses both ecological functions and socioeconomic goals, is crucial for enhancing ecosystem services generation. A shift toward localized, participatory, and integrated management strategies have the strong potential for creating buffer zones that are adaptable, resilient, and effective at addressing both environmental and human well-being.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCRediT author statementAlfred Paarlberg: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing \u0026ndash; Original Draft, Writing \u0026ndash; Review and Editing, Visualization, Project administration. Guillermo Sena: Conceptu-alization, Validation, Investigation, Writing \u0026ndash; Original Draft, Writing \u0026ndash; Review and Editing, Visualiza-tion, Supervision. Ho Huu Loc: Writing \u0026ndash; Review and Editing. Jannik Schultner: Conceptualization, Writing \u0026ndash; Review and Editing, Supervision.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by the National Agency for Research and Innovation of Uruguay (ANII), under Grant No POS_EXT_2019_1_160984.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData that support the findings (e.g. the interview transcripts) can be found as supplementary materials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eDeclaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStatement: During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used ChatGPT to improve readability and language. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAchkar, M., Seoane, G., G\u0026oacute;mez, M., Rothenberg, S., \u0026amp; Umpierrez, E. (2014). Predictive model for chloroform during disinfection of water for consumption, city of Montevideo. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Monit. Assess.\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e186\u003c/em\u003e, 3884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-3884-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAubriot, L. E., Delbene, L., Haakonsson, S., Somma, A., Hirsch, F., \u0026amp; Bonilla, S. (2017). Evoluci\u0026oacute;n de la eutrofizaci\u0026oacute;n en el R\u0026iacute;o Santa Luc\u0026iacute;a: Influencia de la intensificaci\u0026oacute;n productiva y perspectivas. \u003cem\u003eInnotec\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.26461/14.04\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuerbach, C., \u0026amp; Silverstein, L. B. (2003). \u003cem\u003eQualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 21). NYU Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBonilla, S., Haakonsson, S., Somma, A., Gravier, A., \u0026amp; Anamar, B. (2015). Cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins in freshwaters of Uruguay. \u003cem\u003eInnotec\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.26461/10.01\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorin, M., Passoni, M., Thiene, M., \u0026amp; Tempesta, T. (2010). Multiple functions of buffer strips in farming areas. \u003cem\u003eEurop. J. Agron.\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(1), 103-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2009.05.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuckley, C., Hynes, S., \u0026amp; Mechan, S. (2012). Supply of an ecosystem service\u0026mdash;Farmers\u0026rsquo; willingness to adopt riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e, 101\u0026ndash;109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.022\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCalvo, C., Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-Gallego, L., de Le\u0026oacute;n, G., Cabrera-Lamanna, L., Castagna, A., Costa, S., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, L., \u0026amp; Meerhoff, M. (2024). Potential of different buffer zones as nature-based solutions to mitigate agricultural runoff nutrients in the subtropics. \u003cem\u003eEcol. Eng.\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e207\u003c/em\u003e, 107354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107354\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCole, L. J., Stockan, J., \u0026amp; Helliwell, R. (2020). Managing riparian buffer strips to optimise ecosystem services: A review. \u003cem\u003eAgric. Ecosyst. Environ.\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e296\u003c/em\u003e, 106891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106891\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDunlop, T., Khojasteh, D., Cohen-Shacham, E., Glamore, W., Haghani, M., van den Bosch, M., ... \u0026amp; Felder, S. (2024). The evolution and future of research on Nature-based Solutions to address societal challenges. Communications Earth \u0026amp; Environment, 5(1), 132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01308-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerreira, V., Barreira, A. P., Loures, L., Antunes, D., \u0026amp; Panagopoulos, T. (2020). Stakeholders\u0026rsquo; engagement on nature-based solutions: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12(2), 640. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020640\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFisher, D., Blackstock, K., \u0026amp; Irvine, K. (2021). \u0026ldquo;It\u0026rsquo;s on the \u0026lsquo;nice to have\u0026rsquo; pile\u0026rdquo;: Potential principles to improve the implementation of socially inclusive Green Infrastructure. Ambio, 50(8), 1574-1586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01372-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGraziano, M. P., Deguire, A. K., \u0026amp; Surasinghe, T. D. (2022). Riparian buffers as a critical landscape feature: Insights for riverscape conservation and policy renovations. Diversity, 14(3), 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14030172\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoyenola, G., Kruk, C., Mazzeo, N., Nario, A., Perdomo, C., Piccini, C., \u0026amp; Meerhoff, M. (2021). Producci\u0026oacute;n, nutrientes, eutrofizaci\u0026oacute;n y cianobacterias en Uruguay: Armando el rompecabezas. \u003cem\u003eInnotec\u003c/em\u003e, 22, 1\u0026ndash;33. https://doi.org/10.26461/22.02\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoyenola, G. (2023). Uruguay\u0026rsquo;s water crisis: Prepare for future events. Nature, 618, 675. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01933-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarclerode, M. A., Lal, P., Vedwan, N., Wolde, B., \u0026amp; Miller, M. E. (2016). Evaluation of the role of risk perception in stakeholder engagement to prevent lead exposure in an urban setting. \u003cem\u003eJ. Environ. Manag.\u003c/em\u003e, 184, 132\u0026ndash;142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.045\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eH\u0026ouml;lscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., Kindlon, D., Collier, M. J., Dick, G., Dziubała, A., ... \u0026amp; van der Have, C. (2024). Embedding co-production of nature-based solutions in urban governance: Emerging co-production capacities in three European cities. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Sci. Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 152, 103652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103652\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJager, H. I., Nair, S. S., Efroymson, R. A., DeRolph, C. R., Parish, E. S., \u0026amp; Wang, G. (2023). Ecosystem services from partially harvested riparian buffers can offset biomass production costs. \u003cem\u003eSci. Total Environ.\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e889\u003c/em\u003e, 164199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164199\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKeesstra, S., Nunes, J., Novara, A., Finger, D., Avelar, D., Kalantari, Z., \u0026amp; Cerd\u0026agrave;, A. (2018). The superior effect of nature-based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. \u003cem\u003eSci. Total Environ.\u003c/em\u003e, 610\u0026ndash;611, 997\u0026ndash;1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.077\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKiss, B., Sekulova, F., H\u0026ouml;rschelmann, K., Salk, C. F., Takahashi, W., \u0026amp; Wamsler, C. (2022). Citizen participation in the governance of nature-based solutions. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Policy Gov.\u003c/em\u003e, 32(3), 247\u0026ndash;272. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1987\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuglerov\u0026aacute;, L., \u0026Aring;gren, A., Jansson, R., \u0026amp; Laudon, H. (2014). Towards optimizing riparian buffer zones: Ecological and biogeochemical implications for forest management. \u003cem\u003eFor. Ecol. Manag.\u003c/em\u003e, 334, 74\u0026ndash;84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.08.033\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuglerov\u0026aacute;, L., Muotka, T., Chellaiah, D., Jyv\u0026auml;sj\u0026auml;rvi, J., \u0026amp; Richardson, J. S. (2023). Protecting our streams by defining measurable targets for riparian management in a forestry context. \u003cem\u003eJ. Appl. Ecol.\u003c/em\u003e, 61(2), 206\u0026ndash;214. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14549\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKyng\u0026auml;s, H., Mikkonen, K., \u0026amp; K\u0026auml;\u0026auml;ri\u0026auml;inen, M. (Eds.). (2020). The application of content analysis in nursing science research. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30199-6_2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaher Hasselquist, E. M., Kuglerov\u0026aacute;, L., Sj\u0026ouml;gren, J., Hj\u0026auml;lt\u0026eacute;n, J., Ring, E., Sponseller, R. A., Andersson, E., Lundstr\u0026ouml;m, J., Mancheva, I., Nordin, A., \u0026amp; Laudon, H. (2021). Moving towards multi-layered, mixed-species forests in riparian buffers will enhance their long-term function in boreal landscapes. \u003cem\u003eFor. Ecol. Manag.\u003c/em\u003e, 493, 119254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119254\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMalekpour, S., Tawfik, S., \u0026amp; Chesterfield, C. (2021). Designing collaborative governance for nature-based solutions. \u003cem\u003eUrban For. Urban Greening\u003c/em\u003e, 62, 127177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127177\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMary-Lauy\u0026eacute;, A. L., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Bergonzoni, I., Gobel, N., Somma, A., Silva, I., \u0026amp; Lucas, C. M. (2023). Baseline assessment of the hydrological network and land use in riparian buffers of Pampean streams of Uruguay. \u003cem\u003eEnviron. Monit. Assess.\u003c/em\u003e, 195, 80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10684-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMacQueen, K. M., McLellan-Lemal, E., Bartholow, K., \u0026amp; Milstein, B. (2008). Team-based codebook development: Structure, process, and agreement. \u003cem\u003eHandbook for Team-Based Qualitative Research\u003c/em\u003e, 119, 119\u0026ndash;135.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMenny, M., Palgan, Y. V., \u0026amp; McCormick, K. (2018). Urban living labs and the role of users in co-creation. GAIA-Ecol. Perspect. for Sci. and Soc., 27(1), 68\u0026ndash;77. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.14\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinisterio de Ambiente. (2023). Medida 8 \u0026ndash; Santa Lucia: Estado de padrones rurales [Riparian Buffer Farms Compliance Map]. https://www.ambiente.gub.uy/visualizador/index.php?vis=sig (accessed April 3, 2023)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinisterio de Vivienda, Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente [MVOTMA]. (2015). Resoluci\u0026oacute;n Ministerial No. 229/015 [Ministerial Resolution No. 229/015]. https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ambiente/institucional/normativa/resolucion-n-229015-resolucion-22915-fecha-24-febrero-2015 (accessed 1 April 2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMinisterio de Vivienda, Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente [MVOTMA]. (2013). Plan de acci\u0026oacute;n para la protecci\u0026oacute;n del agua en la cuenca del Santa Luc\u0026iacute;a. https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ambiente/comunicacion/publicaciones/plan-accion-para-proteccion-del-agua-cuenca-del-santa-lucia (accessed April 1, 2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMillennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Wetlands and water synthesis. World Resources Institute.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNelson, D. R., Bledsoe, B. P., Ferreira, S., \u0026amp; Nibbelink, N. P. (2020). Challenges to realizing the potential of nature-based solutions. \u003cem\u003eCurr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.\u003c/em\u003e, 45, 49\u0026ndash;55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.09.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNunes, N., Bj\u0026ouml;rner, E., \u0026amp; Hilding-Hamann, K. E. (2021). Guidelines for citizen engagement and the co-creation of nature-based solutions: Living knowledge in the URBiNAT project. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, 13(23), 13378. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313378\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026apos;Hare, M. T., Mountford, J. O., Maroto, J., \u0026amp; Gunn, I. D. M. (2016). Plant traits relevant to fluvial geomorphology and hydrological interactions. \u003cem\u003eRiver Res. Appl.\u003c/em\u003e, 32(2), 179\u0026ndash;189. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.2940\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePan, H., Kwak, Y., \u0026amp; Deal, B. (2022). Participatory development of planning support systems to improve empowerment and localization. \u003cem\u003eJ. Urban Technol.\u003c/em\u003e https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2022.2031431\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePatowary, S., Debnath, M., \u0026amp; Sarma, A. K. (2025). Best management practices in stream: Debris and runoff reduction, riparian buffers and plantings, and stabilizing stream banks. In \u003cem\u003eHydrosystem Restoration Handbook\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 73\u0026ndash;82). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-29802-8.00005-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePigmans, K., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, V., \u0026amp; Doorn, N. (2019). The role of value deliberation to improve stakeholder participation in issues of water governance. \u003cem\u003eWater Resour. Manag.\u003c/em\u003e, 33, 4067\u0026ndash;4085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02316-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRadford, J. W., Kim, T., Xu, G., Brockman, C., McLeavey, I., \u0026amp; Sutskever, I. (2023). Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision. \u003cem\u003eProc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn.\u003c/em\u003e, 28492\u0026ndash;28518. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v202/radford23a/radford23a.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRiis, T., Kelly-Quinn, M., Aguiar, F. C., Manolaki, P., Bruno, D., Bejarano, M. D., Clerici, N., Fernandes, M. R., Franco, J. C., \u0026amp; Pettit, N. (2020). Global overview of ecosystem services provided by riparian vegetation. \u003cem\u003eBioScience\u003c/em\u003e, 70(6), 501\u0026ndash;514. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa041\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodr\u0026iacute;guez‐Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, P. M., Abraham, E., Aguiar, F., Andreoli, A., Baležentienė, L., Berisha, N., ... \u0026amp; Dufour, S. (2022). Bringing the margin to the focus: 10 challenges for riparian vegetation science and management. \u003cem\u003eWiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water\u003c/em\u003e, 9(5), e1604. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1604\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaldana, J. (2013). \u003cem\u003eThe Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers\u003c/em\u003e (4th ed.). Sage Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026auml;umel, L. R., Ram\u0026iacute;rez, J., Santolin, J., \u0026amp; Pintado, K. (2023). Evaluating ecosystem restoration strategies in riparian zones: Case studies from Latin America. \u003cem\u003eEcol. Appl.\u003c/em\u003e, 33(5), e2789. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2789\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStutter, M., Kronvang, B., \u0026Oacute; hUallach\u0026aacute;in, D., \u0026amp; Rozemeijer, J. (2019). Current insights into the effectiveness of riparian management, attainment of multiple benefits, and potential technical enhancements. \u003cem\u003eJ. Environ. Qual.\u003c/em\u003e, 48(2), 236\u0026ndash;247. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2019.01.0020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrozzo, K. E., Munsell, J. F., \u0026amp; Chamberlain, J. L. (2014). Landowner interest in multifunctional agroforestry riparian buffers. \u003cem\u003eAgrofor. Syst.\u003c/em\u003e, 88(4), 619\u0026ndash;629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-014-9678-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eValkama, E., Usva, K., Saarinen, M., \u0026amp; Uusi‐K\u0026auml;mpp\u0026auml;, J. (2019). A meta‐analysis on nitrogen retention by buffer zones. \u003cem\u003eJ. Environ. Qual.\u003c/em\u003e, 48(2), 270\u0026ndash;279. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2018.03.0120\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Der Jagt, A. P., Buijs, A., Dobbs, C., van Lierop, M., Pauleit, S., Randrup, T. B., \u0026amp; Wild, T. (2023). An action framework for the participatory assessment of nature-based solutions in cities. \u003cem\u003eAmbio\u003c/em\u003e, 52(1), 54\u0026ndash;67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01772-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWagner, M. M. (2008). Acceptance by knowing? The social context of urban riparian buffers as a stormwater best management practice. \u003cem\u003eSoc. Nat. Resour.\u003c/em\u003e, 21(10), 908\u0026ndash;920. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802183339\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYang, W., \u0026amp; Weersink, A. (2004). Cost-effective targeting of riparian buffers. \u003cem\u003eCan. J. Agric. Econ./Rev. Can. Agroecon.\u003c/em\u003e, 52(1), 17\u0026ndash;34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2004.tb00092.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYorlano, M. F., Demetrio, P. M., \u0026amp; Rimoldi, F. (2022). Riparian strips as attenuation zones for the toxicity of pesticides in agricultural surface runoff: Relative influence of herbaceous vegetation and terrain slope on toxicity attenuation of 2,4-D. \u003cem\u003eSci. Total Environ.\u003c/em\u003e, 807, 150655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150655\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Riparian buffer zones, Ecosystem services, Stakeholder perspectives, Policy design, Santa Lucia River Basin, Nature-based solutions","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5911725/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5911725/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eRiparian buffer zones are essential nature-based solutions for protecting freshwater ecosystems globally, yet their implementation faces challenges in balancing ecological, agricultural, and social needs. In the Santa Luc\u0026iacute;a River Basin (SLRB) in Uruguay, these buffers are critical for improving water quality but face issues like low compliance and limited awareness of the policy in place. We explored stakeholder perspectives on riparian buffer implementation through 24 semi-structured interviews with government institutions, researchers, producer unions, producers, NGOs, and locals. The aim was to identify perceptions of current and desired ecosystem services, buffer characteristics, and barriers and opportunities to successful implementation. The results show that stakeholders acknowledge key ecosystem services such as pollution retention and erosion reduction, but they desire additional services like enhanced agricultural productivity and recreational opportunities. Stakeholders identified native vegetation and the spatial dimensions of buffer zones as important physical characteristics of buffer zones. Preferred management practices included no-tillage and extensive agricultural management practices, while policy should aim to adapt buffer zones to the specific conditions of the area they are located in instead of a \u0026ldquo;one-size-fits-all\u0026rdquo; policy design. Barriers such as producer cooperation, communication gaps, and economic costs hinder progress. To address these barriers, potential solutions include improving stakeholder collaboration, emphasizing the multifunctional benefits of riparian buffers, strengthening compliance monitoring, exploring opportunities to provide technical support to farmers, and adopting integrated environmental management approaches. By addressing these interconnected challenges, riparian buffers can become resilient, multifunctional solutions that enhance ecosystem services, benefiting both biodiversity and human well-being in the SLRB.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Understanding stakeholder perspectives on the implementation and management of riparian buffer zones in the Santa Lucia River Basin, Uruguay","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-01-29 04:22:16","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5911725/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-04-29T15:03:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-04-05T14:46:48+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"266390508923440673968303110483086771824","date":"2025-02-20T07:15:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-01-29T10:23:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-01-29T04:47:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-01-27T11:54:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Environmental Management","date":"2025-01-27T10:59:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"265d42a4-9643-47c3-9b94-78b7e2838695","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 29th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-28T16:06:50+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-5911725","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02230-1","journal":{"identity":"environmental-management","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Environmental Management"},"publishedOn":"2025-07-26 15:58:10","publishedOnDateReadable":"July 26th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-01-29 04:22:16","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s00267-025-02230-1","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02230-1","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5911725","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5911725","identity":"rs-5911725","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}