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).     

Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers

Statistical control is widely used in correlational studies with the intent of providing more accurate estimates of relationships among variables, more conservative tests of hypotheses, or ruling out alternative explanations for empirical findings. However, the use of control variables can produce uninterpretable parameter estimates, erroneous inferences, irreplicable results, and other barriers to scientific progress. As a result, methodologists have provided a great deal of advice regarding the use of statistical control, to the point that researchers might have difficulties sifting through and prioritizing the available suggestions. We integrate and condense this literature into a set of 10 essential recommendations that are generally applicable and which, if followed, would substantially enhance the quality of published organizational research. We provide explanations, qualifications, and examples following each recommendation. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.