article · npj Urban Sustainability
Nature-based solutions are increasingly recommended for urban flood risk management, yet whether these interventions achieve both social and ecological co-benefits has remained largely unclear. A conceptual framework using a coupled social-ecological perspective was evaluated through a scoping review to examine this potential. The analysis shows that ecological flood risk management measures are distributed unevenly across the globe, and approaches that focus solely on flood mitigation can cause unintended adverse impacts on communities and ecosystems. Although nature-based solutions can deliver dual social and environmental advantages, key implementation gaps remain. These include a deficit in resilience thinking, insufficient attention to environmental changes, and a shortage of collaborative efforts to manage trade-offs. The framework highlights how to structure equitable and sustainable flood risk strategies that enhance human well-being alongside ecosystem health.
As cities face rising flood risks, natural solutions are often deployed as greener alternatives to concrete infrastructure. However, focusing solely on water control can inadvertently damage ecosystems or disadvantage local communities. Adopting a joined-up social and ecological approach helps planners design flood mitigation projects that protect residents, enhance human well-being, and maintain healthy natural environments.
This research provides a conceptual framework rather than a market-ready tool or engineered product, placing it at an early stage of development. It could inform advisory frameworks and decision-support methodologies used by municipal authorities, environmental consultancies, and urban infrastructure planners to evaluate trade-offs in nature-based flood management schemes.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Abstract A growing number of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) has been advocated for urban flood risk management (FRM). However, whether NbS for FRM (NbS-FRM) achieves both social and ecological co-benefits remains largely unknown. We here propose and use a conceptual framework with a coupled social-ecological perspective to explore and identify such “win-win” potential in NbS-FRM. Through a scoping-review we find that ecological FRM measures are unevenly distributed around the world, and those solely targeting flood mitigation may have unintended negative consequences for society and ecosystems. In elaborating this framework with evidence from the reviewed studies, we find that NbS-FRM has the potential to provide both social and ecological co-benefits, with remaining gaps including a lack of resilience thinking, inadequate consideration of environmental changes, and limited collaborative efforts to manage trade-offs. The proposed framework shows how to move forward to leverage NbS for equitable and sustainable FRM with improved human well-being and ecosystem health.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1038/s42949-024-00162-z
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
