Nature-based solutions can help reduce the impact of natural hazards: A global analysis of NBS case studies.

The knowledge derived from successful case studies can act as a driver for the implementation and upscaling of nature-based solutions (NBS). This work reviewed 547 case studies to gain an overview of NBS practices and their role in reducing the adverse impact of natural hazards and climate change. The majority (60 %) of case studies are situated in Europe compared with the rest of the world where they are poorly represented. Of 547 case studies, 33 % were green solutions followed by hybrid (31 %), mixed (27 %), and blue (10 %) approaches. Approximately half (48 %) of these NBS interventions were implemented in urban (24 %), and river and lake (24 %) ecosystems. Regarding the scale of intervention, 92 % of the case studies were operationalised at local (50 %) and watershed (46 %) scales while very few (4 %) were implemented at the landscape scale. The results also showed that 63 % of NBS have been used to deal with natural hazards, climate change, and loss of biodiversity, while the remaining 37 % address socio-economic challenges (e.g., economic development, social justice, inequality, and cohesion). Around 88 % of NBS implementations were supported by policies at the national level and the rest 12 % at local and regional levels. Most of the analysed cases contributed to Sustainable Development Goals 15, 13, and 6, and biodiversity strategic goals B and D. Case studies also highlighted the co-benefits of NBS: 64 % of them were environmental co-benefits (e.g., improving biodiversity, air and water qualities, and carbon storage) while 36 % were social (27 %) and economic (9 %) co-benefits. This synthesis of case studies helps to bridge the knowledge gap between scientists, policymakers, and practitioners, which can allow adopting and upscaling of NBS for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation and enhance their preference in decision-making processes.

A nature-based solution selection framework: Criteria and processes for addressing hydro-meteorological hazards at open-air laboratories across Europe.

Nature-based solutions (NbS) can be beneficial to help human communities build resilience to climate change by managing and mitigating related hydro-meteorological hazards (HMHs). Substantial research has been carried out in the past on the detection and assessment of HMHs and their derived risks. Yet, knowledge on the performance and functioning of NbS to address these hazards is severely lacking. The latter is exacerbated by the lack of practical and viable approaches that would help identify and select NbS for specific problems. The EU-funded OPERANDUM project established seven Open-Air Laboratories (OALs) across Europe to co-develop, test, and generate an evidence base from innovative NbS deployed to address HMHs such as flooding, droughts, landslides, erosion, and eutrophication. Herein, we detail the original approaches that each OAL followed in the process of identifying and selecting NbS for specific hazards with the aim of proposing a novel, generic framework for selecting NbS. We found that the process of selecting NBS was overall complex and context-specific in all the OALs, and it comprised 26 steps distributed across three stages: (i) Problem recognition, (ii) NbS identification, and (iii) NbS selection. We also identified over 20 selection criteria which, in most cases, were shared across OALs and were chiefly related to sustainability aspects. All the identified NbS were related to the regulation of the water cycle, and they were mostly chosen according to three main factors: (i) hazard type, (ii) hazard scale, and (iii) OAL size. We noticed that OALs exposed to landslides and erosion selected NbS capable to manage water budgets within the soil compartment at the local or landscape scale, while OALs exposed to floods, droughts, and eutrophication selected approaches to managing water transport and storage at the catchment scale. We successfully portrayed a synthesis of the stages and steps followed in the OALs' NbS selection process in a framework. The framework, which reflects the experiences of the stakeholders involved, is inclusive and integrated, and it can serve as a basis to inform NbS selection processes whilst facilitating the organisation of diverse stakeholders working towards finding solutions to natural hazards. We animate the future development of the proposed framework by integrating financial viability steps. We also encourage studies looking into the implementation of the proposed framework through quantitative approaches integrating multi-criteria analyses.

Green, hybrid, or grey disaster risk reduction measures: What shapes public preferences for nature-based solutions?

Nature-based solutions (NbS) contrast with grey infrastructure measures to reduce risk from natural hazards. Using natural and sustainable measures (green) or combining green with grey elements (hybrid) can provide important co-benefits beyond risk reduction. Thanks to their co-benefits and flexibility across a range of possible climate change futures, NbS are sometimes referred to as 'win-win' or 'no-regret' measures. The success of NbS and associated projects often relies on the public for co-creation, co-implementation, and long-term sustainable use, monitoring, and management. However, the relative importance of NbS benefits is defined by the perceptions and underlying values of stakeholders with potentially divergent interests. It is unclear what measures at-risk individuals may prefer on the green-hybrid-grey spectrum and what shapes their preferences, including perceived benefits and potential regret. Identifying public (mis)perceptions, expectations, objectives, and what underlies these can inform communication and project framing, engagement, and ultimately increase public acceptance and continued uptake of NbS. We use citizen surveys at three distinct European sites where NbS are being planned and in-depth focus groups as a follow-up in the site at risk of landslides (Catterline, Scotland). Preferences and their drivers for measures on the green-hybrid-grey spectrum are assessed, focusing on public perceptions of NbS effectiveness, risk, and nature. We find that although wildlife habitat and aesthetics as co-benefits are important, reducing risk is of primary concern. Uncertainty in the strength and effectiveness of NbS, as one of 13 qualitative factors we identify, drives public preferences towards hybrid measures - seen as balancing green and grey trade-offs. Misperceptions and a demand for NbS information should be addressed with experiential learning, combined with transparent two-way communication of expectations. We urge caution and further research regarding emphasizing co-benefits and the 'natural' framing of NbS when risk reduction is the primary public objective.

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

Nature-based solutions (NBS) for hydro-meteorological risks (HMRs) reduction and management are becoming increasingly popular, but challenges such as the lack of well-recognised standard methodologies 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 the models 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 and management perspective. Such tools can facilitate impact assessment modelling under different NBS scenarios to build a solid evidence base for upscaling and replicating the implementation of NBS.