TY - JOUR
T1 - Nature-based solutions efficiency evaluation against natural hazards: modelling methods, advantages and limitations
AU - Kumar, Prashant
AU - Debele, Sisay E.
AU - Sahani, Jeetendra
AU - Rawat, Nidhi
AU - Marti-Cardona, Belen
AU - Alfieri, Silvia Maria
AU - Basu, Bidroha
AU - Basu, Arunima Sarkar
AU - Bowyer, Paul
AU - Charizopoulos, Nikos
AU - Gallotti, Glauco
AU - Jaakko, Juvonen
AU - Leo, Laura S.
AU - Loupis, Michael
AU - Menenti, Massimo
AU - Mickovski, Slobodan B.
AU - Mun, Seung-Jae
AU - Gonzalez-Ollauri, Alejandro
AU - Pfeiffer, Jan
AU - Pilla, Francesco
AU - Proll, Julius
AU - Rutzinger, Martin
AU - Santo, Marco Antonio
AU - Sannigrahi, Srikanta
AU - Spyrou, Cristos
AU - Tuomenvirta, Heikki
AU - Zieher, Thomas
PY - 2021/8/25
Y1 - 2021/8/25
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - nature based solutions
KW - natural hazards
KW - modelling
KW - eco-engineering
KW - ground bio-engineering
KW - erosion
KW - sustainability
KW - resilience
KW - climate change
KW - performance evaluation
KW - nature-inspired solutions
KW - NBS upscaling
KW - climate-impact mitigation
KW - numerical models
KW - cost-effectiveness
U2 - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147058
DO - 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147058
M3 - Review article
C2 - 34088074
SN - 0048-9697
VL - 784
SP - 147058
JO - Science of the Total Environment
JF - Science of the Total Environment
M1 - 147058
ER -