Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Win–Win for Everyone? Reflecting on Nature-Based Solutions for Flood Risk Management from an Environmental Justice Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nature-Based Solutions for Flood Mitigation

Part of the book series: The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry ((HEC,volume 107))

Abstract

Nature-based solutions (NbS) are often framed positively in terms of win–win options or no-regret measures. However, are NbS equally beneficial for everyone? Are burdens and benefits of NbS really equally distributed and projects embraced by everyone? Is the process leading to the implementation of NbS always fair and inclusive? This chapter provides a broad overview of different environmental justice issues, critically reflecting on NbS through recognition justice, procedural justice, and distributive justice. Whereas the current critical literature focuses particularly on urban NbS, this chapter focuses on the wider translocal consequences of NbS projects. The theoretical reflections are illustrated with case studies of NbS from various countries: the recognition of marginalised women in Vietnam in mangrove restoration projects, the challenges when introducing procedural justice in implementing NbS in Serbia, the legal injustices locals are faced in the Czech Republic when they want to implement NbS, the trade-off between public collective and individual economic interest when implementing a sand nourishment project in the Netherlands, and the development of a beneficiary-pays based upstream–downstream compensation scheme in Austria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. EU (2015) Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities. Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  2. IPCC (2018) Summary for policymakers. In: global warming of 1.5°C. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. https://doi.org/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spm.html

  3. IPBES (2018) Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Asia and the Pacific of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services

    Google Scholar 

  4. Randrup TB, Buijs A, Konijnendijk CC, Wild T (2020) Moving beyond the nature-based solutions discourse: introducing nature-based thinking. Urban Ecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00964-w

  5. Kotsila P, Anguelovski I, Baró F et al (2020) Nature-based solutions as discursive tools and contested practices in urban nature’s neoliberalisation processes. Environ Plan E Nat Space:251484862090143. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620901437

  6. Kaufmann M, Priest SJ, Leroy P (2018) The undebated issue of justice: silent discourses in Dutch flood risk management. Reg Environ Chang 18:325–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1086-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Penning-Rowsell EC, Pardoe J (2012) Who benefits and who loses from flood risk reduction? Environ Plan C Gov Policy 30:448–466. https://doi.org/10.1068/c10208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnson C, Penning-Rowsell EC, Parker D (2007) Natural and imposed injustices: the challenges in implementing ‘fair’ flood risk management in England. Geogr J 173:374–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2007.00256.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kabisch N, Frantzeskaki N, Pauleit S et al (2016) Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas and their rural surroundings. Ecol Soc 21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239

  10. Sekulova F, Anguelovski I (2017) The governance and politics of nature-based solutions. Work Pap Naturvation. https://doi.org/RBM EXP. No. 980177

  11. Haase D, Kabisch S, Haase A et al (2017) Greening cities – to be socially inclusive? About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat Int. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.04.005

  12. Irvine KN, Warber SL, Devine-Wright P, Gaston KJ (2013) Understanding urban green space as a health resource: a qualitative comparison of visit motivation and derived effects among park users in Sheffield, UK. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10010417

  13. Dooling S (2009) Ecological gentrification: a research agenda exploring justice in the city. Int J Urban Reg Res 33(3):621–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Checker M (2011) Wiped out by the “Greenwave”: environmental gentrification and the paradoxical politics of urban sustainability. City Soc. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-744X.2011.01063.x

  15. Walker G (2012) Environmental justice: concepts, evidence and politics. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Young IM (2000) Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  17. Simcock N (2016) Procedural justice and the implementation of community wind energy projects: a case study from South Yorkshire, UK. Land Use Policy 59:467–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gunn AS, Mccallig C, Ethics S, Autumn N (1997) Environmental values and environmental law in New Zealand. Ethics Environ 2:103–120

    Google Scholar 

  19. Byrne J, Wolch J (2009) Nature, race, and parks: past research and future directions for geographic research. Prog Hum Geogr. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132509103156

  20. Young IM (1990) Justice and the politics of difference. Princton University Press, Princton

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schlosberg D (2001) Three dimensions of environmental and ecological justice. In: European Consortium for Political Research Annual Joint Sessions, Grenoble, France, 6–11 April 2001. Workshop: the nation-state and the ecological crisis: sovereignty, Economy and Ecology

    Google Scholar 

  22. Miller D (2003) A response. In: Bell DA, De-Shalit A (eds) Forms of justice: critical perspectives on David Miller’s political philosophy. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  23. Reid H (2016) Ecosystem- and community-based adaptation: learning from community-based natural resource management. Clim Dev. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2015.1034233

  24. Reid H (2009) Community-based adaptation to climate change. Particip Learn Action 60:11–33

    Google Scholar 

  25. DKKV (2019) Strong roots, strong women. Women and ecosystem-based adaptation to flood risk in Central Vietnam. Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  26. Neumayer E, Plümper T (2007) The gendered nature of natural disasters: the impact of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981-2002. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2007.00563.x

  27. CSRD (2015) Gender needs and roles in building climate resilience in the city of hue, Vietnam Asian cities climate. London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gaillard JC, Sanz K, Balgos BC et al (2017) Beyond men and women: a critical perspective on gender and disaster. Disasters. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12209

  29. Cutter SL (2017) The forgotten casualties redux: women, children, and disaster risk. Glob Environ Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.010

  30. Renaud FG, Sudmeier-Rieux K, Estrella M (2013) The role of ecosystems in disaster risk reduction. United Nations University Press, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  31. Stone R (2016) Dam-building threatens Mekong fisheries. Science 354(6316):1084–1085

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Hudson P, Pham M, Bubeck P (2019) An evaluation and monetary assessment of the impact of flooding on subjective well-being across genders in Vietnam. Clim Dev. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1579698

  33. Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

  34. Reed MS, Vella S, Challies E, de Vente J, Frewer L, Hohenwallner-Ries D, van Delden H (2018) A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restor Ecol 26:7–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541

  35. Short C, Clarke L, Carnelli F et al (2019) Capturing the multiple benefits associated with nature-based solutions: lessons from a natural flood management project in the Cotswolds, UK. L Degrad Dev 30:241–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ribot JC (2006) Choose democracy: environmentalists’ socio-political responsibility. Glob Environ Chang

    Google Scholar 

  37. Johnson C, Tunstall S, Priest S et al (2008) Social justice in the context of flood and coastal Erosion risk management: a review of policy and practice. Defra, London

    Google Scholar 

  38. Green C (2007) Mapping the field: the landscapes of governance. Report for the SWITCH Project

    Google Scholar 

  39. Serbian Government (2020) Preliminary flood risk assessment for the Republic of Serbia. http://www.rdvode.gov.rs/doc/dokumenta/6.2.1 Znacajna poplavna podrucja za teritoriju Republike Srbije.pdf

  40. Serbian WFD (2020) Interested in the future of Serbian Water Resource Management? http://wfd-serbia.eu/2020/03/03/interested-in-the-future-of-serbian-water-resource-management

  41. Babić Mladenovic M et al (2016) Study of flood protection improvement in the Kolubara river catchment area. Preliminary report. https://studijakolubara.srbijavode.rs/izvestaji_o_rezultatima_studije/Друга-фаза/preliminarni_izvestaj/

  42. Todorovic I (2020) Environmentalist groups unite to protest small hydropower, pollution in Serbia. Balk. Green Energy News

    Google Scholar 

  43. NGO Defence River Stara Planina (2020) River Stara Planina Mountain. https://novastaraplanina.com/en/

  44. Serbian Parlament (2019) Održano javno slušanje na temu “Stanje voda u Srbiji”. http://www.parlament.gov.rs/Održano_javno_slušanje_na_temu_Stanje voda_u_Srbiji.37315.941.html

  45. Šercl P, Stehlík J (2003) The August 2002 flood in the Czech Republic. Geophys Res Abstr 5:404

    Google Scholar 

  46. Blöschl G, Kiss A, Viglione A et al (2020) Current European flood-rich period exceptional compared with past 500 years. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2478-3

  47. Floodlist (2020) Czech Republic – Deadly Flash Floods in East. http://floodlist.com/europe/czech-republic-flash-floods-olomouc-june-2020

  48. Lane SN (2017) Natural flood management. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1211

  49. AOPK ČR (2020) Tvorba a obnova tůní, mokřadů a rašelinišť [Establishment and restoration of pools, wetlands and peatbogs]. http://www.dotace.nature.cz

  50. Slavíková L, Raška P (2019) This is my land! Privately funded natural water retention measures in the Czech Republic. In: Hartmann T, Slavíková L, McCarthy S (eds) Nature-based flood risk management on private land. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wilkinson ME (2019) Commentary: Mr. Pitek’s land from a perspective of managing hydrological extremes: challenges in upscaling and transferring knowledge. In: Hartmann T, Slavíková L, McCarthy S (eds) Nature-based flood risk management on private land. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  52. AOPK ČR (2014) Standardy péče o přírodu a krajinu − Vytváření a obnova tůní [Standards for Nature and Landscape Management − Creation and restoration of pools]. https://standardy.nature.cz/res/archive/155/020271.pdf?seek=1394520652

  53. Aubrechtová T, Semančíková E, Raška P (2020) Formulation matters! The failure of integrating landscape fragmentation policy. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12103962

  54. Carnelli F (2018) Slowing down the flood, naturally. The integration of local knowledges into flood risk governance: insights from south West England and North Italy. University of Milan-Bicocca

    Google Scholar 

  55. Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, state, utopia. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  56. Davy B (1997) Essential injustice : when legal institutions cannot resolve environmental and land use disputes. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  57. Mill JS (2010) Utilitarianism, liberty and representative government. Wildside Press, Milton Keynes

    Google Scholar 

  58. Rawls J (1973) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  59. Sen A (2010) The idea of justice. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  60. Rijkswaterstaat (2016) Projectplan Waterwet: Projectplan voor “Zandsuppletie Roggenplaat.” The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  61. Rijkswaterstaat (2019) Schadevergoeding in de vorm van nadeelcompensatie en planschade. https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/over-ons/contact/schade-en-compensatie/nadeelcompensatie.aspx

  62. Wesseling M (2019) Zand moet bedreigde Roggenplaat redden. Trouw

    Google Scholar 

  63. Vleesenbeek T (2020) Building with nature on the Roggenplaat. A policy arrangement for the sand nourishment project on the Roggenplaat. Radboud University

    Google Scholar 

  64. Rijkswaterstaat (2016) Risico beoordeling van de Roggenplaat suppletie. Rijkswaterstaat, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  65. Modde M (2018) Mosselkwekers vechten suppletie Roggenplaat aan bij Raad van State. PZC

    Google Scholar 

  66. Rauter M, Schindelegger A, Fuchs S, Thaler T (2019) Deconstructing the legal framework for flood protection in Austria: individual and state responsibilities from a planning perspective. Water Int. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2019.1627641

  67. Nordbeck R, Steurer R, Löschner L (2019) The future orientation of Austria’s flood policies: from flood control to anticipatory flood risk management. J Environ Plan Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2018.1515731

  68. WBFG (1985) Wasserbautenförderungsgesetz [Federal Hydraulic Engineering Development Act]

    Google Scholar 

  69. WRG (1959) Wasserrechtsgesetz [Federal Water Act]

    Google Scholar 

  70. Nordbeck R, Löschner L, Scherhaufer P et al (2018) Hochwasserschutzverbände als Instrument der interkommunalen Kooperation im Hochwasserrisikomanagement. Österreichische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft

    Google Scholar 

  71. Seher W, Löschner L (2018) Balancing upstream–downstream interests in flood risk management: experiences from a catchment-based approach in Austria. J Flood Risk Manag 11:56–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Thaler T (2014) Developing partnership approaches for flood risk management: implementation of inter-local co-operations in Austria. Water Int. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2014.992720

  73. Löschner L, Nordbeck R, Schindelegger A, Seher W (2019) Compensating flood retention on private land in Austria: towards polycentric governance in flood risk management. Landsc Archit Front 7:32–45. https://doi.org/10.15302/j-laf-1-020004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Schindelegger A (2019) Absiedlung als Planungsinstrument: Planerische Aspekte zu Siedlungsrückzug als Naturgefahrenprävention. TU Wien

    Google Scholar 

  75. Eriksen S, Aldunce P, Bahinipati CS et al (2011) When not every response to climate change is a good one: identifying principles for sustainable adaptation. Clim Dev 3:7–20. https://doi.org/10.3763/cdev.2010.0060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Paavola J, Adger WN (2006) Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecol Econ 56:594–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Adger WN (2006) Fairness in adaptation to climate change. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  78. Anguelovski I, Shi L, Chu E et al (2016) Equity impacts of urban land use planning for climate adaptation: critical perspectives from the global north and south. J Plan Educ Res 36:333–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16645166

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Maria Kaufmann & Tim Vleesenbeek

  2. Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, London, UK

    Sally Priest

  3. Institute of Environmental Sciences and Geography, University of Potsdam, Potsdam-Golm, Germany

    Paul Hudson

  4. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences – BOKU, Institute of Spatial Planning, Environmental Planning and Land Rearrangement – IRUB, Vienna, Austria

    Lukas Löschner

  5. Department of Geography, Faculty of Science, J. E. Purkyně University, Ústí nad Labem, Czechia

    Pavel Raška

  6. TU Wien, Institute of Spatial Planning, Land Policy and Land Management, Vienna, Austria

    Arthur Schindelegger

  7. Lenka Slavíková, Institute for Economic and Environmental Policy, Faculty of Social and Economic Studies, J. E. Purkyně University, Ústí nad Labem, Czechia

    Lenka Slavíková

  8. Ružica Stričević, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

    Ružica Stričević

Authors
  1. Maria Kaufmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sally Priest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Hudson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lukas Löschner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pavel Raška
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Arthur Schindelegger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lenka Slavíková
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ružica Stričević
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tim Vleesenbeek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Kaufmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Geography and Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Carla S. S. Ferreira

  2. Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering (SEED), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

    Zahra Kalantari

  3. School of Spatial Planning, Fachgebiet BBV, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany

    Thomas Hartmann

  4. Environmental Management Center, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Paulo Pereira

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kaufmann, M. et al. (2021). Win–Win for Everyone? Reflecting on Nature-Based Solutions for Flood Risk Management from an Environmental Justice Perspective. In: Ferreira, C.S.S., Kalantari, Z., Hartmann, T., Pereira, P. (eds) Nature-Based Solutions for Flood Mitigation. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol 107. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2021_759

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation