Incorporating stakeholders’ preferences into a multi-criteria framework for planning large-scale Nature-Based Solutions

Hydro-meteorological risks are a growing issue for societies, economies and environments around the world. An effective, sustainable response to such risks and their future uncertainty requires a paradigm shift in our research and practical efforts. In this respect, Nature-Based Solutions (NBSs) offer the potential to achieve a more effective and flexible response to hydro-meteorological risks while also enhancing human well-being and biodiversity. The present paper describes a new methodology that incorporates stakeholders’ preferences into a multi-criteria analysis framework, as part of a tool for selecting risk mitigation measures. The methodology has been applied to Tamnava river basin in Serbia and Nangang river basin in Taiwan within the EC-funded RECONECT project. The results highlight the importance of involving stakeholders in the early stages of projects in order to achieve successful implementation of NBSs. The methodology can assist decision-makers in formulating desirable benefits and co-benefits and can enable a systematic and transparent NBSs planning process.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s13280-020-01419-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

How does a nature-based solution for flood control compare to a technical solution? Case study evidence from Belgium

The strategy of reconnecting rivers with their floodplains currently gains popularity because it not only harnesses natural capacities of floodplains but also increases social co-benefits and biodiversity. In this paper, we present an example of a successfully implemented nature-based solution (NBS) in the Dijle valley in the centre of Belgium. The research objective is to retrospectively assess cost and benefit differences between a technical solution (storm basins) and an alternative NBS, here the restoration of the alluvial floodplain. The method is a comparative social cost–benefit analysis. The case study analysis reveals similar flood security, lower costs, more ecosystem services benefits and higher biodiversity values associated with the NBS option in comparison to the technical alternative. However, the business case for working with NBS depends substantially on the spatial and socio-ecological context. Chances for successful NBS implementation increase in conditions of sufficient space to retain flood water, when flood water is of sufficient quality, and when economic activity and housing in the floodplain is limited.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article contains supplementary material available at (10.1007/s13280-021-01548-4).     

Using Risk-Based Analysis and Geographic Information Systems to Assess Flooding Problems in an Urban Watershed in Rhode Island

This article provides an overview of the use of risk-based analysis (RBA) in flood damage assessment, and it illustrates the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in identifying flood-prone areas, which can aid in flood-mitigation planning assistance. We use RBA to calculate expected annual flood damages in an urban watershed in the state of Rhode Island, USA. The method accounts for the uncertainty in the three primary relationships used in computing flood damage: (1) the probability that a given flood will produce a given amount of floodwater, (2) the probability that a given amount of floodwater will reach a certain stage or height, and (3) the probability that a certain stage of floodwater will produce a given amount of damage. A greater than 50% increase in expected annual flood damage is estimated for the future if previous development patterns continue and flood-mitigation measures are not taken. GIS is then used to create a map that shows where and how often floods might occur in the future, which can help (1) identify priority areas for flood-mitigation planning assistance and (2) disseminate information to public officials and other decision-makers.     

Assessing Potential Removal of Low-Head Dams in Urban Settings: An Example from the Ottawa River,NW Ohio

This is a study of the scientific component of an effort to restore an urban river by removing a low-head dam. The Secor Dam is owned by a local government entity near Toledo, Ohio. The proposed removal of the last structure impeding flow on the Ottawa River has broad appeal, but the owner is concerned about liability issues, particularly potential changes to the flood regime, the presence of contaminated sediments behind the dam, and possible downstream transport of reservoir sediments. Assessing sediment contamination involved sediment sampling and analysis of trace metals and organic contaminants. Forecasting sediment transport involved field methods to determine the volume and textural properties of reservoir and upstream sediment and calculations to determine the fate of reservoir sediments. Forecasting changes in the flood regime involved HEC-RAS hydrological models to determine before and after dam removal flood scenarios using LiDAR data imported into an ArcGIS database. The resulting assessment found potential sediment contamination to be minor, and modeling showed that the removal of the dam would have minimal impacts on sediment transport and flood hazards. Based on the assessment, the removal of the dam has been approved by its owners.