Published May 5, 2021 | Version v1
Journal article Open

Nature-based solutions efficiency evaluation against natural hazards: Modelling methods, advantages and limitations

  • 1. Global Centre for Clean Air Research (GCARE), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, United Kingdom
  • 2. Department of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
  • 3. Department of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
  • 4. School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
  • 5. Climate Service Center Germany (GERICS), Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Hamburg, Germany
  • 6. Region of Sterea Ellada, Kalivion 2, 351 32 Lamia, Greece
  • 7. Department of Physics and Astronomy (DIFA), Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
  • 8. Finnish Meteorological Institute, Erik Palménin Aukio 1, 00560 Helsinki, Finland
  • 9. National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Psachna 34400, Greece
  • 10. The Built Environment Asset Management Research Centre, Glasgow Caledonian University, G4 0BA Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
  • 11. Institute for Interdisciplinary Mountain Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Innsbruck, Austria
  • 12. Institute of Geography, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
  • 13. Innovative Technologies Center S.A., Alketou Str. 25, 11633 Athens, Greece

Description

Nature-based solutions (NBS) for hydro-meteorological risks (HMRs) reduction and management are becoming increasingly popular, but challenges such as the lack ofwell-recognised standardmethodologies to evaluate their performance and upscale their implementation remain.We systematically evaluate the current state-of-the art on the models and tools that are utilised for the optimum allocation, design and efficiency evaluation of NBS for five HMRs (flooding, droughts, heatwaves, landslides, and storm surges and coastal erosion). We found that methods to assess the complex issue of NBS efficiency and cost-benefits analysis are still in the development stage and they have only been implemented through the methodologies developed for other purposes such as fluid dynamics models in micro and catchment scale contexts. Of the reviewed numerical models and tools MIKE-SHE, SWMM(for floods), ParFlow-TREES, ACRU, SIMGRO (for droughts), WRF, ENVI-met (for heatwaves), FUNWAVE-TVD, BROOK90 (for landslides), TELEMAC and ADCIRC (for storm surges) are more flexible to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of specific NBS such as wetlands, ponds, trees, parks, grass, green roof/walls, tree roots, vegetations, coral reefs, mangroves, sea grasses, oyster reefs, sea salt marshes, sandy beaches and dunes.We conclude that themodels and tools that are capable of assessing the multiple benefits, particularly the performance and cost-effectiveness of NBS for HMR reduction and management are not readily available. Thus, our synthesis of modelling methods can facilitate their selection that can maximise opportunities and refute the current political hesitation of NBS deployment compared with grey solutions for HMR management but also for the provision of a wide range of social and economic co-benefits. However, there is still a need for bespoke modelling tools that can holistically assess the various components of NBS from an HMR reduction andmanagement perspective. Such tools can facilitate impact assessmentmodelling under different NBS scenarios to build a solid evidence base for upscaling and replicating the implementation of NBS.

Files

1-s2.0-S0048969721021288-main.pdf

Files (2.7 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:3a23e5e06459b64ab1820ff10cb5ebfd
2.7 MB Preview Download

Additional details

Funding

OPERANDUM – OPEn-air laboRAtories for Nature baseD solUtions to Manage hydro-meteo risks 776848
European Commission