Building Climate Resilience in Coastal City Living Labs Using Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: A Systematic Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
3. Results
- Years of Publication
- Countries of Publication
- Journals of Publication
- Type of Study/Research Method
- Systematic Literature Reviews included in this article
- Frameworks included in this article
3.1. Living LABS
3.2. Nature-Based Solutions
3.3. Ecosystem-Based Adaptation
3.4. Coastal Cities
3.5. Disaster Risk Reduction
3.6. Socio-Economic
3.7. Stakeholder Engagement
4. Discussion
4.1. Role of Living Labs in Climate Adaptation through NBS
4.2. Role of NBS in Building Coastal Resilience
4.3. Socio-Economic Welfare in the Context of NBS Implementation
4.4. Stakeholder Engagement in the Context of NBS Implementation
4.5. Synergies between NBS, Disaster Risk Reduction and Living Labs
4.6. Research Gaps and Future Prospects
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
CBD | Biological Convention on Biodiversity |
CCLL | Coastal City Living Lab |
CLIMSAVE | Climate Change Integrated Assessment Methodology for Cross-Sectoral Adaptation and Vulnerability in Europe |
CORDIS | Community Research and Development Information Service |
DPSIR | Drivers |
Pressures | State |
Impact | Response |
DRR | Disaster Risk Reduction |
EBA | Ecosystem-Based Adaptation |
EBM | Ecosystem-based Management |
ECO-DRR | Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction |
EEA | European Environment Agency |
EU | European Union |
FCM | Fuzzy Cognitive Map |
FRASH | Framework for Adaptable Socio-Hydrology |
GBI | Green Blue Infrastructure |
GI | Green Infrastructure |
GREEN SURGE | Green Infrastructure and Urban Biodiversity for Sustainable Development and the Green Economy |
HMR | Hydro-Meteorological Risks |
IPCC | Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change |
IUCN | International Union for Nature Conservation |
KPI | Key Performance Indicator |
LL | Living Lab |
NAIAD | Nature Insurance Value: Assessment and Demonstration |
NBS | Nature-Based Solutions |
OAL | Open Air Laboratories |
OPERANDUM | Open Air Laboratories for Nature Based Solutions to Manage Hydro-Meteorological Risks |
PRISMA | Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses |
RCP | Representative Concentration Pathways |
RECONECT | Regenerating Ecosystems with Nature Based Solutions for Hydro-Meteorological Risk Reduction |
SCORE | Smart Control of the Climate Resilience in European Coastal Cities |
SLR | Systematic Literature Review |
SUDS | Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems |
SDGs | Sustainable Development Goals |
ULL | Urban Living Labs |
UNALAB | Urban Nature Labs |
UNISDR | United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction |
USD | United States Dollar |
WTP | Willingness to Pay |
References
- Nesshöver, C.; Assmuth, T.; Irvine, K.N.; Rusch, G.M.; Waylen, K.A.; Delbaere, B.; Haase, D.; Jones-Walters, L.; Keune, H.; Kovacs, E.; et al. The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 579, 1215–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wamsler, C. From Risk Governance to City-Citizen Collaboration: Capitalizing on individual adaptation to climate change. Environ. Policy Gov. 2016, 26, 184–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNISDR. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. In Proceedings of the 3rd United Nations World Conference on DRR, Sendai, Japan, 14–18 March 2015; pp. 14–18. [Google Scholar]
- White, D.L.; Roebeling, M.I.; Valente, P.; Vaittinen, S. Mapping the Life Cycle Co-Creation Process of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Climate Change Adaptation. Resources 2020, 9, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wamsler, C.; Wickenberg, B.; Hanson, H.; Olsson, J.A.; Stalhammar, S.; Bjorn, H.; Falck, H.; Gerell, D.; Oskarsson, T.; Simonsson, E.; et al. Environmental and climate policy integration: Targeted strategies for overcoming barriers to nature-based solutions and climate change adaptation. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang-Lachmann, J.-T. Systematic review of smart cities and climate change adaptation. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2019, 10, 745–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, P.; Debele, S.E.; Sahani, J.; Rawat, N.; Marti-Cardona, B.; Alfieri, S.M.; Basu, B.; Basu, A.S.; Bowyer, P.; Charizopoulos, N.; et al. An overview of monitoring methods for assessing the performance of nature-based solutions against natural hazards. Earth Sci. Rev. 2021, 217, 103603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchal, R.; Piton, G.; Lopez-Gunn, E.; Zorrilla-Miras, P.; van der Keur, P.; Dartee, K.W.J.; Pengal, P.; Matthews, J.H.; Tacnet, J.-M.; Graveline, N.; et al. The (Re)Insurance Industry’s Roles in the Integration of Nature-Based Solutions for Prevention in Disaster Risk Reduction-Insights from a European Survey. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giordano, R.; Pluchinotta, I.; Pagano, A.; Scrieciu, A.; Nanu, F. Enhancing nature-based solutions acceptance through stakeholders’ engagement in co-benefits identification and trade-offs analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 713, 136552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turconi, L.; Faccini, F.; Marchese, A.; Paliaga, G.; Casazza, M.; Vojinovic, Z.; Luino, F. Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions for Hydro-Meteorological Risk Reduction in Small Mediterranean Catchments: The Case of Portofino Natural Regional Park, Italy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruangpan, L.; Vojinovic, Z.; Di Sabatino, S.; Leo, L.S.; Capobianco, V.; Oen, A.M.P.; McClain, M.E.; Lopez-gunn, E. Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological risk reduction: A state-of-the-art review of the research area. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2020, 20, 243–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paskaleva, K.; Cooper, I. Are living labs effective? Exploring the evidence. Technovation 2021, 106, 102311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EEA. The European Environment Agency. 2019. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu (accessed on 13 April 2022).
- Cohen-Shacham, E.; Andrade, A.; Dalton, J.; Dudley, N.; Jones, M.; Kumar, C.; Maginnis, S.; Maynard, S.; Nelson, C.R.; Renaud, F.G.; et al. Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling Nature-Based Solutions. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 98, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sélim, L.; Jean-Frederic, M. International Governance of Biodiversity: Involving All the Users of Genetic Resources (Gouvernance Internationale de la Biodiversité: Impliquer Tous les Utilisateurs de Ressources Génétiques); Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI): Paris, France, 2004; p. 5. [Google Scholar]
- Brink, E.; Aalders, T.; Adam, D.; Feller, R.; Henselek, Y.; Hoffmann, A.; Ibe, K.; Matthey-Doret, A.; Meyer, M.; Negrut, N.L.; et al. Cascades of green: A review of ecosystem-based adaptation in urban areas. Glob. Environ. Change Hum. Policy Dimens. 2016, 36, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, S.; Kuhlicke, C. Reducing Hydro-Meteorological Risk by Nature-Based Solutions: What Do We Know about People’s Perceptions? Water 2019, 11, 2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. Nature-Based Solutions for Disaster Risk Management; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; Available online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/253401551126252092/pdf/134847-NBS-for-DRM-booklet.pdf (accessed on 23 July 2022).
- Kumar, P.; Debele, S.E.; Sahani, J.; Aragão, L.; Barisani, F.; Basu, B.; Bucchignani, E.; Charizopoulos, N.; Di Sabatino, S.; Domeneghetti, A.; et al. Towards an operationalisation of nature-based solutions for natural hazards. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 731, 138855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ferreira, V.; Barreira, A.P.; Loures, L.; Antunes, D.; Panagopoulos, T. Stakeholders’ Engagement on Nature-Based Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, C.C.; Renaud, F.G. A review of public acceptance of nature-based solutions: The ‘why’, ‘when’, and ‘how’ of success for disaster risk reduction measures. Ambio 2021, 50, 1552–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raymond, C.M.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Kabisch, N.; Berry, P.; Breil, M.; Nita, M.R.; Geneletti, D.; Calfapietra, C. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 77, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lafortezza, R.; Sanesi, G. Nature-based solutions: Settling the issue of sustainable urbanization. Environ. Res. 2019, 172, 394–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocle, N.; Rey-Valette, H.; Bertrand, F.; Becu, N.; Long, N.; Bazart, C.; Vye, D.; Meur-Ferec, C.; Beck, E.; Amalric, M.; et al. Paving the way to coastal adaptation pathways: An interdisciplinary approach based on territorial archetypes. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 110, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zanuttigh, B. Coastal flood protection: What perspective in a changing climate? The THESEUS approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 845–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alves, A.; Vojinovic, Z.; Kapelan, Z.; Sanchez, A.; Gersonius, B. Exploring trade-offs among the multiple benefits of green-blue-grey infrastructure for urban flood mitigation. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 703, 134980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van der Nat, A.; Vellinga, P.; Leemans, R.; van Slobbe, E. Ranking coastal flood protection designs from engineered to nature-based. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 87, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rojas, R.; Feyen, L.; Watkiss, P. Climate change and river floods in the European Union: Socio-economic consequences and the costs and benefits of adaptation. Glob. Environ. Chang. Hum. Policy Dimens. 2013, 23, 1737–1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chroneer, D.; Stahlbrost, A.; Habibipour, A. Urban Living Labs: Towards an Integrated Understanding of their Key Components. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2019, 9, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frantzeskaki, N. Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 93, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zoelch, T.; Wamsler, C.; Pauleit, S. Integrating the ecosystem-based approach into municipal climateadaptation strategies: The case of Germany. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 966–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mok, S.; Maciulyte, E.; Bult, P.H.; Hawxwell, T. Valuing the Invaluable(?)-A Framework to Facilitate Stakeholder Engagement in the Planning of Nature-Based Solutions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EEA (European Environmental Agency). “Green Infrastructure and Flood Management: Promoting Cost-Efficient Flood Risk Reduction via Green Infrastructure Solutions”. European Environmental Agency. 2017. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/green-infrastructure-and-flood-management/at_download/file (accessed on 14 June 2022).
- Haq, S.M.A. Urban Green Spaces and an Integrative Approach to Sustainable Environment. J. Environ. Prot. 2011, 2, 601–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scholz-Barth, K. Green Roofs: Stormwater Management from the Top Down. Environ. Des. Constr. 2001, 4, 63–69. [Google Scholar]
- Snep, R.P.H.; Voeten, J.G.W.F.; Mol, G.; Van Hattum, T. Nature Based Solutions for Urban Resilience: A Distinction Between No-Tech, Low-Tech and High-Tech Solutions. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 599060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanson, I.H.; Wickenberg, B.; Olsson, J.A. Working on the boundaries-How do science use and interpret the nature-based solution concept? Land Use Policy 2020, 90, 104302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabisch, N.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Pauleit, S.; Naumann, S.; Davis, M.; Artmann, M.; Haase, D.; Knapp, S.; Korn, H.; Stadler, J.; et al. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: Perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarabi, S.; Han, Q.; Romme, A.G.L.; de Vries, B.; Valkenburg, R.; den Ouden, E. Uptake and implementation of Nature-Based Solutions: An analysis of barriers using Interpretive Structural Modeling. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 270, 110749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dumitru, A.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Collier, M. Identifying principles for the design of robust impact evaluation frameworks for nature-based solutions in cities. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 112, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doswald, N.; Munroe, R.; Roe, D.; Giuliani, A.; Castelli, I.; Stephens, J.; Moeller, I.; Spencer, T.; Vira, B.; Reid, H. Effectiveness of EBA for adaptation: Review ofthe evidence-base. Clim. Dev. 2014, 6, 185–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geneletti, D.; Zardo, L. Ecosystem-based adaptation in cities: An analysis of European urbanclimate adaptation plans. Land Use Policy 2016, 50, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wamsler, C.; Pauleit, S. Making headway in climate policy mainstreaming and ecosystem-basedadaptation: Two pioneering countries, different pathways, one goal. Clim. Chang. 2016, 137, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McVittie, A.; Cole, L.; Wreford, A.; Sgobbi, A.; Yordi, B. Ecosystem-based solutions for disaster risk reduction: Lessons from European applications of ecosystem-based adaptation measures. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 32, 42–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moller, I. Applying Uncertain Science to Nature-Based Coastal Protection: Lessons From Shallow Wetland-Dominated Shores. Front. Environ. Sci. 2019, 7, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zoelch, T.; Henze, L.; Keilholz, P.; Pauleit, S. Regulating urban surface runoff through nature-based solutions—An assessment at the micro-scale. Environ. Res. 2017, 157, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schoonees, T.; Mancheno, A.G.; Scheres, B.; Houma, T.J.; Silva, R.; Schlurmann, T.; Schuettrumpf, H. Hard Structures for Coastal Protection, Towards Greener Designs. Estuaries Coasts 2019, 42, 1709–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheres, B.; Schuettrumpf, H. Enhancing the Ecological Value of Sea Dikes. Water 2019, 11, 1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez-Montblanc, T.; Duo, E.; Ciavola, P. Dune reconstruction and revegetation as a potential measure to decrease coastal erosion and flooding under extreme storm conditions. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2020, 188, 105075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Coppenolle, R.; Schwarz, C.; Temmerman, S. Contribution of Mangroves and Salt Marshes to Nature-Based Mitigation of Coastal Flood Risks in Major Deltas of the World. Estuaries Coasts 2018, 41, 1699–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joyce, J.; Chang, N.-B.; Harji, R.; Ruppert, T.; Imen, S. Developing a multi-scale modeling system for resilience assessment of green-grey drainage infrastructures under climate change and sea-level rise impact. Environ. Model. Softw. 2017, 90, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruckelshaus, M.H.; Guannel, G.; Arkema, K.; Verutes, G.; Griffin, R.; Guerry, A.; Silver, J.; Faries, J.; Brenner, J.; Rosenthal, A. Evaluating the Benefits of Green Infrastructure for Coastal Areas: Location, Location, Location. Coast. Manag. 2016, 44, 504–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutton-Grier, A.E.; Gittman, R.K.; Arkema, K.K.; Bennett, R.O.; Benoit, J.; Blitch, S.; Burks-Copes, K.A.; Colden, A.; Dausman, A.; DeAngelis, B.M.; et al. Investing in Natural and Nature-Based Infrastructure: Building Better Along Our Coasts. Sustainability 2018, 10, 523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carpenter, D.D.; Kaluvakolanu, P. Effect of Roof Surface Type on Storm-Water Runoff from Full-Scale Roofs in a Temperate Climate. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2011, 137, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ercolani, G.; Chiaradia, E.A.; Gandolfi, C.; Castelli, F.; Masseroni, D. Evaluating performances of green roofs for stormwater runoff mitigation in a high flood risk urban catchment. J. Hydrol. 2018, 566, 830–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, Z.L.; Zhang, G.Q.; Wu, Z.H.; He, Y.; Chen, H. Combined sewer overflow control with LID based on SWMM: An example in Shanghai, China. Water Sci. Technol. 2015, 71, 1136–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mei, C.; Liu, J.; Wang, H.; Yang, Z.; Ding, X.; Shao, W. Integrated assessments of green infrastructure for flood mitigation to support robust decision-making for sponge city construction in an urbanized watershed. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 639, 1394–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, Y.; Chui, T.F.M. Integrated hydro-environmental impact assessment and alternative selection of low impact development practices in small urban catchments. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 223, 324–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ishimatsu, K.; Ito, K.; Mitani, Y.; Tanaka, Y.; Sugahara, T.; Naka, Y. Use of rain gardens for stormwater management in urban design and planning. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 13, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damodaram, C.; Giacomoni, M.H.; Khedun, C.P.; Holmes, H.; Ryan, A.; Saour, W.; Zechman, E.M. Simulation of combined best management practices and low impact development for sustainable stormwater management. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2010, 46, 907–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, X.; Guo, H.; Zeng, S. Enhancing future resilience in urban drainage system: Green versus grey infrastructure. Water Res. 2017, 124, 280–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luan, Q.; Fu, X.; Song, C.; Wang, H.; Liu, J.; Wang, Y. Runoff Effect Evaluation of LID through SWMM in Typical Mountainous, Low-Lying Urban Areas: A Case Study in China. Water 2017, 9, 439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webber, J.L.; Fu, G.; Butler, D. Rapid surface water intervention performance comparison for urban planning. Water Sci. Technol. 2018, 77, 2084–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debele, S.E.; Kumar, P.; Sahani, J.; Marti-Cardona, B.; Mickovski, S.B.; Leo, L.S.; Porcu, F.; Bertini, F.; Montesi, D.; Vojinovic, Z.; et al. Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological hazards: Revised concepts, classification schemes and databases. Environ. Res. 2019, 179, 108799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, C.C.; Renaud, F.G.; Hanscomb, S.; Munro, K.E.; Gonzalez-Ollauri, A.; Thomson, C.S.; Pouta, E.; Soini, K.; Loupis, M.; Panga, D.; et al. Public Acceptance of Nature-Based Solutions for Natural Hazard Risk Reduction: Survey Findings From Three Study Sites in Europe. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 678938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kobayashi, N.; Gralher, C.; Do, K. Effects of Woody Plants on Dune Erosion and Overwash. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 2013, 139, 466–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Silva, R.; Martinez, M.L.; Oderiz, I.; Mendoza, E.; Feagin, R.A. Response of vegetated dune-beach systems to storm conditions. Coast. Eng. 2016, 109, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Triyanti, A.; Chu, E. A survey of governance approaches to ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction: Current gaps and future directions. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 32, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huq, N.; Bruns, A.; Ribbe, L.; Huq, S. Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services Based Climate Change Adaptation (EBA)in Bangladesh: Status, Challenges and Opportunities. Sustainability 2017, 9, 926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denjean, B.; Altamirano, M.A.; Graveline, N.; Giordano, R.; van der Keur, P.; Moncoulon, D.; Weinberg, J.; Costa, M.M.; Kozinc, Z.; Mulligan, M.; et al. Natural Assurance Scheme: A level playing field framework for Green-Grey infrastructure development. Environ. Res. 2017, 159, 24–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, L.; Bergen, J.M. Green infrastructure for sustainable urban water management: Practices of five forerunner cities. Cities 2018, 74, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chou, R.-J. Achieving Successful River Restoration in Dense Urban Areas: Lessons from Taiwan. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Semadeni-Davies, A.; Hernebring, C.; Svensson, G.; Gustafsson, L.-G. The impacts of climate change and urbanisation on drainage in Helsingborg, Sweden: Suburban stormwater. J. Hydrol. 2008, 350, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schifman, L.A.; Herrmann, D.L.; Shuster, W.D.; Ossola, A.; Garmestani, A.; Hopton, M.E. Situating Green Infrastructure in Context: A Framework for Adaptive Socio-Hydrology in Cities. Water Resour. Res. 2017, 53, 10139–10154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jager, J.; Rounsevell, M.D.A.; Harrison, P.A.; Omann, I.; Dunford, R.; Kammerlander, M.; Pataki, G. Assessing policy robustness of climate change adaptation measures across sectors and scenarios. Clim. Chang. 2015, 128, 395–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santoro, S.; Pluchinotta, I.; Pagano, A.; Pengal, P.; Cokan, B.; Giordano, R. Assessing stakeholders’ risk perception to promote Nature Based Solutions as flood protection strategies: The case of the Glinscica river (Slovenia). Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 655, 188–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sheng, W.P.; Zhen, L.; Xiao, Y.; Hu, Y.F. Ecological and socio-economic effects of ecological restoration in Chins’s Three Rivers Source Region. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 650, 2307–2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woroniecki, S.; Warnsler, C.; Boyd, E. The promises and pitfalls of ecosystem-based adaptation to climatechange as a vehicle for social empowerment. Ecol. Soc. 2019, 24, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eriksen, S.H.; O’Brien, K. Vulnerability, poverty and the need for sustainable adaptation measures. Clim. Policy 2007, 7, 337–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manuel-Navarrete, D. Power, realism, and the ideal of human emancipation in a climate of change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2010, 1, 781–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelling, M.; Manuel-Navarrete, D. From Resilience to Transformation: The Adaptive Cycle in Two Mexican Urban Centers. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, H.P.; Hole, D.G.; Zavaleta, E.S. Harnessing nature to help people adapt to climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 504–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reid, H. Ecosystem- and community-based adaptation: Learning from community-basednatural resource management. Clim. Dev. 2016, 8, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munang, R.; Thiaw, I.; Alverson, K.; Mumba, M.; Liu, J.; Rivington, M. Climate change and Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: A new pragmatic approach to buffering climate change impacts. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maes, J.; Jacobs, S. Nature-Based Solutions for Europe’s Sustainable Development. Conserv. Lett. 2017, 10, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, S.L.R.; Jones, S.K.; Johnson, J.A.; Brauman, K.A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Fremier, A.; Girvetz, E.; Gordon, L.J.; Kappel, C.V.; Mandle, L.; et al. Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the Sustainable Development Goals. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Derkzen, M.L.; van Teeffelen, A.J.A.; Verburg, P.H. Green infrastructure for urban climate adaptation: How do residents’ views on climate impacts and green infrastructure shape adaptation preferences? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 106–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, J.; de Baro, M.E.Z. Green Infrastructure in the Urban Environment: A Systematic Quantitative Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, J.; Simpson, G.D. Public Green Infrastructure Contributes to City Livability: A Systematic Quantitative Review. Land 2018, 7, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkataramanan, V.; Packman, I.A.; Peters, D.R.; Lopez, D.; McCuskey, D.J.; McDonald, I.R.; Miller, W.M.; Young, S.L. A systematic review of the human health and social well-being outcomes of green infrastructure for stormwater and flood management. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 246, 868–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, F.; Gou, Z.; Lau, S.S.-Y.; Lau, S.-K.; Chung, K.-H.; Zhang, J. From biophilic design to biophilic urbanism: Stakeholders’ perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 1444–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsantopoulos, G.; Varras, G.; Chiotelli, E.; Fotia, K.; Batou, M. Public perceptions and attitudes toward green infrastructure on buildings: The case of the metropolitan area of Athens, Greece. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 34, 181–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baird, J.; Dzyundzyak, A.; Plummer, R.; Bullock, R.; Dupont, D.; Jollineau, M.; Kubik, W.; Pickering, G.; Vasseur, L. Ecosystem Perceptions in Flood Prone Areas: A Typology and Its Relationship to Preferences for Governance. Water 2016, 8, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinez-Juarez, P.; Chiabai, A.; Suárez, C.; Quiroga, S. Insights on Urban and Periurban Adaptation Strategies Based on Stakeholders’ Perceptions on Hard and Soft Responses to Climate Change. Sustainability 2019, 11, 647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wamsler, C. Stakeholder involvement in strategic adaptation planning: Transdisciplinarity and co-production at stake? Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 75, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romagosa, F.; Pons, J. Exploring local stakeholders’ perceptions of vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in the Ebro delta. J. Coast. Conserv. 2017, 21, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liski, A.H.; Ambros, P.; Metzger, M.J.; Nicholas, K.A.; Wilson, A.M.W.; Krause, T. Governance and stakeholder perspectives of managed re-alignment: Adapting to sea-level rise in the Inner Forth estuary, Scotland. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019, 19, 2231–2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grygoruk, M.; Rannow, S. Mind the gap! Lessons from science-based stakeholder dialogue in climate-adapted management of wetlands. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 186, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pagano, A.; Pluchinotta, I.; Pengal, P.; Cokan, B.; Giordano, R. Engaging stakeholders in the assessment of NBS effectiveness in flood risk reduction: A participatory System Dynamics Model for benefits and co-benefits evaluation. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 690, 543–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gimenez, R.; Labaka, L.; Hernantes, J. A maturity model for the involvement of stakeholders in the city resilience building process. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 121, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tompkins, E.L.; Few, R.; Brown, K. Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: Incorporating stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate change. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 1580–1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, R.J.T.; Nicholls, R.J.; Ragoonaden, S.; Capobianco, M.; Aston, J.; Buckley, E.N. Technological options for adaptation to climate change in coastal zones. J. Coast. Res. 2001, 17, 531–543. [Google Scholar]
- Hawkes, P.; Surendran, S.; Richardson, D. Use of UKCIP02 climate-change scenarios in flood and coastal defence. J. Chart. Inst. Water Environ. Manag. 2003, 17, 214–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myatt, L.B.; Scrimshaw, M.D.; Lester, J.N. Public perceptions and attitudes towards a current managed re-alignment scheme: Brancaster West Marsh, North Norfolk, U.K. J. Coast. Res. 2003, 19, 278–286. [Google Scholar]
- Ledoux, L.; Cornell, S.; O’Riordan, T.; Harvey, R.; Banyard, L. Towards sustainable flood and coastal management: Identifying drivers of, and obstacles to, managed re-alignment. Land Use Policy 2005, 22, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davos, C.A. Sustaining co-operation for coastal sustainability. J. Environ. Manag. 1998, 52, 379–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davos, C.A.; Lajano, R.P. Analytical perspectives of cooperative coastal management. J. Environ. Manag. 2001, 62, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jentoft, S. Co-managing the coastal zone: Is the task too complex? Ocean Coast. Manag. 2000, 43, 527–535. [Google Scholar]
- Treby, E.J.; Clark, M.J. Refining a practical approach to participatory decision making: An example from coastal zone management. Coast. Manag. 2004, 32, 353–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Endreny, T.A.; Nowak, D.J. Mechanistic simulation of tree effects in an urban water balance model. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2008, 44, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berndtsson, J.C. Green roof performance towards management of runoff water quantity and quality: A review. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schroll, E.; Lambrinos, J.; Righetti, T.; Sandrock, D. The role of vegetation in regulating stormwater runoff from green roofs in a winter rainfall climate. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 595–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gregoire, B.G.; Clausen, J.C. Effect of a modular extensive green roof on stormwater runoff and water quality. Ecol. Eng. 2011, 37, 963–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagase, A.; Dunnett, N. Amount of water runoff from different vegetation types on extensive green roofs: Effects of plant species, diversity and plant structure. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104, 356–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanuytrecht, E.; Van Mechelen, C.; Van Meerbeek, K.; Willems, P.; Hermy, M.; Raes, D. Runoff and vegetation stress of green roofs under different climate change scenarios. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 122, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Criterion | Eligibility | Exclusion |
---|---|---|
Timeline | 2008–2021 | Pre-2008 |
Language | English | Non-English |
Type of Publication | Empirical Studies, Conceptual and Grey Literature. | News, non-empirical studies. |
Environmental Issue | Climate change adaptation related | Non-climate change adaptation related. |
Geographical Context | Coastal and urban areas (‘living labs’) | Non-coastal and rural areas |
Spatial Scale | European | Non-European |
Type of Assessment | Socio-economic | Non-socio-economic |
Paper Title | Articles Reviewed | Key Findings |
---|---|---|
Systematic Review of Smart Cities and Climate Adaptation [6] | 282 articles | The concept of synergetic coproduction has identified benefits that coexist in smart city and climate adaptation. While smart people and smart government are the most important aspects of smart cities, synergy has been developed in other areas. Smart city applications in adaptation to climate change have boosted cities’ competitiveness by maximizing possibilities while minimizing dangers. |
Effectiveness of EBA for adaptation: a review of the evidence base [18] | 132 articles | The study found that climate variability and extremes have taught us a lot about EBA. Most measures of their effectiveness described in the publications revealed encouraging findings. Most papers cited the social, environmental, and economic benefits of EBA initiatives, and if drawbacks were mentioned, they were only briefly. |
Towards an operationalization of NBS for natural hazards [19] | 250 articles + 53 reports | The technique of NBS operationalization was investigated and reported in detail for five different HMHs (floods, droughts, landslides, coastal erosion and storm surge, sediment loading), with seven EU-OALs as examples. For each hazard category, historical and predicted trends in HMHs were examined, and the value of their information in the NBS planning and operationalization process was discussed. |
NBS for hydro-meteorological risk reduction: a state-of-the-art review of the research area [11] | 146 articles | This work consisted of a critical evaluation of the literature on NBSs for reducing hydro-meteorological risk and identifying current knowledge gaps as well as future research opportunities. Scientific papers in this area have increased significantly, with a more substantial increase beginning in 2007. |
An overview of monitoring methods for assessing the performance of NBS against natural hazards [7] | 262 articles | This work has contributed to the wider use of NBS by compiling a knowledge base on their monitoring methodologies, efficiency, functionality, and ecosystem services. This was accomplished by analyzing the existing scientific literature on NBS performance in the face of five HMRs: floods, droughts, heatwaves, landslides, storm surges, and coastal erosion. |
Stakeholder engagement on NBS: a systematic literature review [20] | 142 articles | The present state of the art in public and stakeholder participation in nature-based solutions was investigated in this systematic literature review (NBS). Stakeholder participation in nature-based solutions was acknowledged as beneficial, although research in various linked sectors is still insufficient. |
A review of public acceptance of NBS: the why, when and how of success for disaster risk reduction [21] | 99 articles | Through a comparison with grey measurements, the unique qualities of NBS in regard to public acceptance were investigated in this paper. Risk perception, trust, competing societal interests, and ecological services were all highlighted in the PA-NBS model. It was argued that increased acceptability should be based on giving and promoting benefits, as well as good communication and teamwork. |
Framework | Article Title | Use |
---|---|---|
NBS Co-Benefit Assessment Framework [22] | A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas | Within ten difficulty areas, a framework was developed for evaluating the benefits and costs of NBS. In other challenge areas, advantages in one challenge area may have costs, co-benefits, or neutral impacts. This aided in the development of a multi-sectoral strategy to environmental management. |
NBS Applicative Framework (based on DPSIR) [23] | Nature-based solutions: settling the issue of sustainable urbanization | A framework for investigating the effects of NBS on urban dynamics. NBS was a category of downstream measures that city leaders and legislators were using to enhance sustainable urbanization. |
Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways [24] | Paving the way to coastal adaptation pathways: an interdisciplinary approach based on territorial archetypes | Six territorial archetypes characteristic of French coastal territories made up this exploratory modeling framework. For each typology, the framework highlighted separate and shared resources. A generic framework was used to build the adaptation pathways, which included three elements: the archetype’s configuration and specificities, the possible evolution of change variables for each archetype based on available experiment findings and assumptions about sea-level rise. |
The THESEUS Approach: the Source-Pathway-Receptor-Consequence model for coastal risk assessment [25] | Coastal flood protection: what perspective in a changing time? The THESEUS approach | This model was providing a comprehensive technique for planning long-term coastal flooding and erosion defense plans that consider technological, social, economic, and environmental factors. |
Optimization framework for GBI selection [26] | Exploring trade-offs amongst the multiple benefits of green-blue-grey infrastructure for urban flood mitigation | This framework was developed for identifying and analyzing blue-grey-green initiatives that take into account co-benefits and trade-offs. |
EBM Ranking for Flood-Prone Coastal Areas [27] | Ranking coastal flood protection designs from engineered to nature-based | This framework was used to classify and rank coastal flood prevention designs as nature-based, with options ranging from fully designed to wholly natural. Flood-prone locations along the North Sea coast were studied using the EBM approach. |
Framework for adaptable socio-hydrology (FrASH) [28] | Situating Green Infrastructure in Context: A Framework for Adaptive Socio-Hydrology in Cities | This framework was helping with NBS planning and implementation. It also helped governments, organizations, and stakeholders build a connected network. |
Subject Matter | Number of Publications | Knowledge Gaps | Future Research Prospects |
---|---|---|---|
Linkages between NBS and LLs | 8 | Synergies and trade-offs between NBS and LLs | -Defining how LLs can support NBS implementation -Defining how NBS can support the LL co-creation process better than traditional infrastructure |
Relationship between NBS and EBA | 7 | Synergies and trade-offs between NBS and EBA | -SDGs achieved by NBS and EBAs |
Role of NBS for DRR | 21 | Framework for selection of appropriate NBSs for different disasters | -Defining the role of NBS for DRR -Exploring socio-economic vulnerability in the context of NBS for DRR -Involving stakeholders in the management of natural hazards |
Relationship between LL and DRR | 3 | Synergies and trade-offs between LL and DRR | -Defining how LLs can complement DRR schemes |
Hybrid NBS | 6 | Role of NBS compared to traditional engineering-based infrastructure | -Cost effectiveness of NBS versus traditional infrastructure -Longevity and resilience of NBS versus traditional infrastructure -Effectiveness of Hybrid infrastructure versus engineering-based infrastructure |
Linkages between NBS/EBA and stakeholder engagement | 14 | Role of stakeholder participation in successful Implementation of NBS | -Incorporating stakeholders in the implementation of NBS |
Linkages between NBS/EBA and socio-economic conditions | 7 | Direct and indirect effects of NBS schemes on socio-economic conditions | -Measuring socio-economic co-benefits of NBS -Measuring socio-economic vulnerability as part of NBS schemes |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tiwari, A.; Rodrigues, L.C.; Lucy, F.E.; Gharbia, S. Building Climate Resilience in Coastal City Living Labs Using Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10863. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710863
Tiwari A, Rodrigues LC, Lucy FE, Gharbia S. Building Climate Resilience in Coastal City Living Labs Using Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: A Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(17):10863. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710863
Chicago/Turabian StyleTiwari, Ananya, Luís Campos Rodrigues, Frances E. Lucy, and Salem Gharbia. 2022. "Building Climate Resilience in Coastal City Living Labs Using Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: A Systematic Review" Sustainability 14, no. 17: 10863. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710863