Nature-based solutions (NBS) have recently received attention due to their potential ability to sustainably reduce hydro-meteorological risks, providing co-benefits for both ecosystems and affected people. Therefore, pioneering research has dedicated efforts to optimize the design of NBS, to evaluate their wider co-benefits and to understand promoting and/or hampering governance conditions for the uptake of NBS. In this article, we aim to complement this research by conducting a comprehensive literature review of factors shaping people’s perceptions of NBS as a means to reduce hydro-meteorological risks. Based on 102 studies, we identified six topics shaping the current discussion in this field of research: (1) valuation of the co-benefits (including those related to ecosystems and society); (2) evaluation of risk reduction efficacy; (3) stakeholder participation; (4) socio-economic and location-specific conditions; (5) environmental attitude, and (6) uncertainty. Our analysis reveals that concerned empirical insights are diverse and even contradictory, they vary in the depth of the insights generated and are often not comparable for a lack of a sound theoretical-methodological grounding. We, therefore, propose a conceptual model outlining avenues for future research by indicating potential inter-linkages between constructs underlying perceptions of NBS to hydro-meteorological risks.

No abstract

Nature-based solutions (NBS) are seen as a promising adaptation measure that sustainably deals with diverse societal challenges, while simultaneously delivering multiple benefits. Nature-based solutions have been highlighted as a resilient and sustainable means of mitigating floods and other hazards globally. This study examined diverging conceptualizations of NBS, as well as the attitudinal (for example, emotions and beliefs) and contextual (for example, legal and political aspects) barriers and drivers of NBS for flood risks in South Korea. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 11 experts and focused on the topic of flood risk measures and NBS case studies. The analysis found 11 barriers and five drivers in the attitudinal domain, and 13 barriers and two drivers in the contextual domain. Most experts see direct monetary benefits as an important attitudinal factor for the public. Meanwhile, the cost-effectiveness of NBS and their capacity to cope with flood risks were deemed influential factors that could lead decision makers to opt for NBS. Among the contextual factors, insufficient systems to integrate NBS in practice and the ideologicalization of NBS policy were found to be peculiar barriers, which hinder consistent realization of initiatives and a long-term national plan for NBS. Understanding the barriers and drivers related to the mainstreaming of NBS is critical if we are to make the most of such solutions for society and nature. It is also essential that we have a shared definition, expectation, and vision of NBS.