Reducing Hydro-Meteorological Risk by Nature-Based Solutions: What Do We Know about People’s Perceptions?

Abstract

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.

Public Acceptance of Nature-Based Solutions for Natural Hazard Risk Reduction: Survey Findings From Three Study Sites in Europe

“…Other variables, such as awareness and understanding of the measures, although found to be important for public perception of NbS in recent literature reviews (Han and Kuhlicke 2019;Anderson and Renaud 2021), were excluded from this research. The surveys were self-administered, and we aimed to prevent respondents from feeling "tested" on their knowledge.…”

“…Additionally, in the short-term NbS can be less effective than other measures and can require increased long-term protection (e.g., conservation) when faced with competing societal interests within their "host" communities (i.e., the groups of local citizen stakeholders living and interacting with NbS) (Kabisch et al, 2016;Anderson and Renaud 2021). Negative public perceptions are commonly considered a potential barrier to NbS uptake (Connop et al, 2016;Heldt et al, 2016;Raymond et al, 2017;Han and Kuhlicke 2019) and the centrality of local stakeholder engagement is reflected in policy-oriented NbS guidelines (International Union for Conservation of Nature 2020).…”

“…Individuals' connectedness to place may determine whether shifts away from the status quo or the idealized environment face opposition (Buijs 2009;Jacobs and Buijs 2011;Pueyo-Ros et al, 2019) or if NbS that enhance local values find support (Schmidt et al, 2014;Brink and Wamsler 2019). Recent literature reviews on the subject have also found risk, nature, and place to be key themes of variables that influence perceptions of NbS across diverse geographic and hazard contexts (Han and Kuhlicke 2019;Anderson and Renaud 2021).…”

Flood Risk Governance for More Resilience—Reviewing the Special Issue’s Contribution to Existing Insights

“…This way, such approaches are supported by nature, and are cost-effective and conducive to resilience. Sungju Han and Christian Kuhlicke [28] reviewed factors shaping people's perceptions of NBS as a means to reduce hydro-meteorological risks, including floods. The authors identified the following six core topics within which perceptions of NBS were discussed: (1) valuation of the co-benefits; (2) evaluation of risk reduction efficacy; (3) stakeholder participation; (4) socio-economic and location-specific conditions; (5) environmental attitude, and (6) uncertainty.…”

“…Amongst all resources, the substantive contribution that citizens can offer to address pluvial flooding is most in need of improvement. Han and Kuhlicke [28] contributed to the theme of actor involvement by studying a specific response to flood risks: nature-based solutions. They highlighted several relevant elements that co-determine the perception of different types of actors of these nature-based solutions as described in the previous sub-section.…”