Abstract
Nature-based solutions (NBS) have become an increasingly popular strategy to adapt to flood risks. NBS are often framed as no-regret measures with benefits to natural and social systems. However, questions on how to address social vulnerability and inequality through NBS remain underexplored. This chapter aims to illustrate this through an ex-nunc evaluation of the development of a flood retention area designed as an NBS in an exemplary case in Belgium. Residents were involved in the design of area through co-creation processes. This chapter explores to what extent the flood retention area does not only increase the buffering capacity of the water system, but also reduces social vulnerability to floods. By bringing in perspectives of stakeholders involved in the development of the project, the chapter reflects on the perceived social benefits and pitfalls of NBS from a sustainability perspective, i.e., the extent to which NBS integrate economic, ecological, and social considerations. It is illustrated that although co-creation processes were organized for the design of the NBS, these processes may remain partly symbolic as the primary objectives for the area had been established beforehand by the project initiators. Furthermore, landowners’ interests are overprotected in Flemish spatial planning policies. They have the power to block land-use changes needed to preserve open space for the implementation of NBS. At the same time, the interests and needs of vulnerable communities are not actively considered in the development of NBS, because these projects are often initiated by engineers. These issues may complicate the development of just and inclusive NBS for flood risk management (FRM).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16(3):268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
Anderson CC, Renaud FG, Hanscomb S, Gonzalez-Ollauri A (2022) Green, hybrid, or grey disaster risk reduction measures: what shapes public preferences for nature-based solutions? J Environ Manag 310:114727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114727
Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Babcicky P, Seebauer S (2021) People, not just places: expanding physical and social vulnerability indices by psychological indicators. J Flood Risk Manag 14(4):e12752. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12752
Begg C (2018) Power, responsibility and justice: a review of local stakeholder participation in European flood risk management. Local Environ 23(4):383–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1422119
Begg C, Callsen I, Kuhlicke C, Kelman I (2017) The role of local stakeholder participation in flood defence decisions in the United Kingdom and Germany. J Flood Risk Manag 11(2):180–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12305
Bubeck P, Kreibich H, Penning-Rowsell EC, Botzen W, de Moel H, Klijn F (2017) Explaining differences in flood management approaches in Europe and in the USA – a comparative analysis. J Flood Risk Manag 10(4):436–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12151
Castree N (2015) Capitalism and the Marxist critique of political ecology. In: The Routledge handbook of political ecology. Routledge, London, pp 279–292
Chausson A, Turner B, Seddon D, Chabaneix N, Girardin CAJ, Kapos V, Key I, Roe D, Smith A, Woroniecki S, Seddon N (2020) Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. Glob Chang Biol 26(11):6134–6155. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15310
Christensen JH, Christensen OB (2003) Severe summertime flooding in Europe. Nature 421(6925):805–806. https://doi.org/10.1038/421805a
Ciscar J-C, Iglesias A, Feyen L, Szabó L, Van Regemorter D, Amelung B, Nicholls R, Watkiss P, Christensen OB, Dankers R (2011) Physical and economic consequences of climate change in Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(7):2678–2683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011612108
CIW (2011) Toetsing Aandachtsgebied: Beerse Scheltjenseinde. Accessed on 13-07-2023 on: https://www.integraalwaterbeleid.be/nl/beleidsinstrumenten/signaalgebieden/fiches/goedgekeurd-door-bekkenbestuur/NET-AG21.pdf
Coninx I, Bachus K (2007) Integrating social vulnerability to floods in a climate change context. Retrieved 10 Apr 2009
Coppens T, Morrisse B, Larmuseau I, Van Reeth J (2019) Hoe realiseren we de bouwshift? Een onderzoek naar de inzetbaarheid van het planningsinstrumentarium voor verevening in Vlaanderen. Ruimte & Maatschappij: Vlaams-Nederlands tijdschrift voor ruimtelijke vraagstukken:25–51. https://hdl.handle.net/10067/1656330151162165141
Coppens T, De Decker P, Lacoere, P, Leinfelder H, Vloebergh, G (2021) Gewestplannen, van groots project tot blok aan het been. In Jaarboek Aardrijkskunde 2020 (pp. 51–62). VLA
Cousins JJ (2021) Justice in nature-based solutions: research and pathways. Ecol Econ 180:106874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106874
Cruz-Bello GM, Alfie-Cohen M (2022) Capturing flood community perceptions for social vulnerability reduction and risk management planning. Environ Sci Pol 132:190–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.02.029
Cutter SL, Emrich CT, Morath D, Dunning C (2013) Integrating social vulnerability into federal flood risk management planning. J Flood Risk Manag 6(4):332–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12018
de Olde C (2022) Urbanisation and planning culture in Flanders. University of Antwerp
Driessen PP, Hegger DL, Kundzewicz ZW, Van Rijswick HF, Crabbé A, Larrue C, Matczak P, Pettersson M, Priest S, Suykens C (2018) Governance strategies for improving flood resilience in the face of climate change. Water 10(11):1595. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111595
EC (2007) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks (Floods Directive) (2007/60/EC). Official Journal of the European Communities
Erena SH, Worku H (2019) Urban flood vulnerability assessments: the case of Dire Dawa city, Ethiopia. Nat Hazards 97(2):495–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-019-03654-9
Eriksen SH, Nightingale AJ, Eakin H (2015) Reframing adaptation: the political nature of climate change adaptation. Glob Environ Chang 35:523–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.014
Fielding J, Burningham K (2005) Environmental inequality and flood hazard. Local Environ 10(4):379–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830500160875
Forrest SA, Trell E-M, Woltjer J (2020) Socio-spatial inequalities in flood resilience: rainfall flooding in the city of Arnhem. Cities 105:102843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102843
Foster S, Leichenko R, Nguyen KH, Blake R, Kunreuther H, Madajewicz M, Petkova EP, Zimmerman R, Corbin-Mark C, Yeampierre E (2019) New York City panel on climate change 2019 report chapter 6: community-based assessments of adaptation and equity. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1439(1):126–173
Glucker AN, Driessen PPJ, Kolhoff A, Runhaar HAC (2013) Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why, who and how? Environ Impact Assess Rev 43:104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.06.003
Haase A (2017) The contribution of nature-based solutions to socially inclusive urban development–some reflections from a social-environmental perspective. In: Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas. Springer, Cham, pp 221–236
Hartmann T, Driessen P (2017) The flood risk management plan: towards spatial water governance. J Flood Risk Manag 10(2):145–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12077
Hartmann T, Slavíková L, McCarthy S (2019) Nature-based solutions in flood risk management. In: Nature-based flood risk management on private land. Springer, Cham, pp 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23842-1_1
Helsen S, van Lipzig NPM, Demuzere M, Vanden Broucke S, Caluwaerts S, De Cruz L, De Troch R, Hamdi R, Termonia P, Van Schaeybroeck B, Wouters H (2020) Consistent scale-dependency of future increases in hourly extreme precipitation in two convection-permitting climate models. Clim Dyn 54(3):1267–1280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-05056-w
Hunold C, Young IM (1998) Justice, democracy, and hazardous siting. Polit Stud 46(1):82–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00131
James R, Otto F, Parker H, Boyd E, Cornforth R, Mitchell D, Allen M (2014) Characterizing loss and damage from climate change. Nat Clim Chang 4(11):938–939. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2411
Jordan A, Lenschow A (2010) Environmental policy integration: a state of the art review. Environ Policy Gov 20(3):147–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.539
Kabisch N, Frantzeskaki N, Pauleit S, Naumann S, Davis M, Artmann M, Haase D, Knapp S, Korn H, Stadler J, Zaunberger K, Bonn A (2016) Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol Soc 21(2). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26270403
Karrasch L, Restemeyer B, Klenke T (2021) The ‘Flood Resilience Rose’: a management tool to promote transformation towards flood resilience. J Flood Risk Manag:e12726. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12726
Kaufmann M, Mees H, Liefferink D, Crabbé A (2016) A game of give and take: the introduction of multi-layer (water) safety in The Netherlands and Flanders. Land Use Policy 57:277–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.033
Kaufmann M, Priest SJ, Leroy P (2018) The undebated issue of justice: silent discourses in Dutch flood risk management. Reg Environ Chang 18(2):325–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1086-0
Kaufmann M, Priest S, Hudson P, Löschner L, Raška P, Schindelegger A, Slavíková L, Stričević R, Vleesenbeek T (2021) Win–win for everyone? In: Reflecting on nature-based solutions for flood risk management from an environmental justice perspective. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2021_759
Keskitalo ECH (2013) Climate change and flood risk management: adaptation and extreme events at the local level. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Koks EE, Jongman B, Husby TG, Botzen WJW (2015) Combining hazard, exposure and social vulnerability to provide lessons for flood risk management. Environ Sci Pol 47:42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.013
Liverman D (2015) Reading climate change and climate governance as political ecologies. In: The Routledge handbook of political ecology. Routledge, London, pp 303–319
Mechler R, Schinko T (2016) Identifying the policy space for climate loss and damage. Science 354(6310):290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2514
Mees H (2017) Co-producing flood risk governance between authorities and citizens in Flanders and abroad. How ‘co’ can we go. University of Antwerp, Antwerp
Mees H, Crabbé A, Alexander M, Kaufmann M, Bruzzone S, Lévy L, Lewandowski J (2016) Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: insights from cross-country comparison in Europe. Ecol Soc 21(3):7
Munyai RB, Nethengwe NS, Musyoki A (2019) An assessment of flood vulnerability and adaptation: a case study of Hamutsha-Muungamunwe village, Makhado municipality. Jamba J Disaster Risk Stud 11(2):1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v11i2.692
Nesshöver C, Assmuth T, Irvine KN, Rusch GM, Waylen KA, Delbaere B, Haase D, Jones-Walters L, Keune H, Kovacs E, Krauze K, Külvik M, Rey F, van Dijk J, Vistad OI, Wilkinson ME, Wittmer H (2017) The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: an interdisciplinary perspective. Sci Total Environ 579:1215–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106
Norris FH, Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche KF, Pfefferbaum RL (2008) Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am J Community Psychol 41(1):127–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6
O’Hare P, White I (2018) Beyond ‘just’ flood risk management: the potential for – and limits to – alleviating flood disadvantage. Reg Environ Chang 18(2):385–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1216-3
Paloniemi R, Apostolopoulou E, Cent J, Bormpoudakis D, Scott A, Grodzińska-Jurczak M, Tzanopoulos J, Koivulehto M, Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska A, Pantis JD (2015) Public participation and environmental justice in biodiversity governance in Finland, Greece, Poland and the UK. Environ Policy Gov 25(5):330–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1672
Quandt A (2016) Towards integrating political ecology into resilience-based management. Resources 5(4):31. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources5040031
Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley J (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26268316
Santoro S, Pluchinotta I, Pagano A, Pengal P, Cokan B, Giordano R (2019) Assessing stakeholders’ risk perception to promote Nature Based Solutions as flood protection strategies: the case of the Glinščica river (Slovenia). Sci Total Environ 655:188–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.116
Sayers P, Yuanyuan L, Galloway G, Penning-Rowsell E, Fuxin S, Kang W, Yiwei C, Le Quesne T (2013) Flood risk management: a strategic approach. Asian Development Bank, GIWP, UNESCO and WWF-UK, Paris
Schlosberg D (2004) Reconceiving environmental justice: global movements and political theories. Environ Polit 13(3):517–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000229025
Seddon N, Chausson A, Berry P, Girardin CA, Smith A, Turner B (2020) Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos Trans R Soc B 375(1794):20190120. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120
Seddon N, Smith A, Smith P, Key I, Chausson A, Girardin C, House J, Srivastava S, Turner B (2021) Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob Chang Biol 27(8):1518–1546. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15513
Sekulova F, Anguelovski I, Kiss B, Kotsila P, Baró F, Palgan YV, Connolly J (2021) The governance of nature-based solutions in the city at the intersection of justice and equity [editorial]. Cities 112:103136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103136
Shi L, Chu E, Anguelovski I, Aylett A, Debats J, Goh K, Schenk T, Seto KC, Dodman D, Roberts D (2016) Roadmap towards justice in urban climate adaptation research. Nat Clim Chang 6(2):131–137. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2841
Tate E, Rahman MA, Emrich CT, Sampson CC (2021) Flood exposure and social vulnerability in the United States. Nat Hazards 106(1):435–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04470-2
Taylor M (2014) The political ecology of climate change adaptation: livelihoods, agrarian change and the conflicts of development. Routledge, London
Thaler T, Levin-Keitel M (2016) Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management – a question of roles and power: lessons from England. Environ Sci Pol 55:292–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.007
Thaler T, Priest S (2014) Partnership funding in flood risk management: new localism debate and policy in England. Area 46(4):418–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12135
Thaler T, Fuchs S, Priest S, Doorn N (2018) Social justice in the context of adaptation to climate change – reflecting on different policy approaches to distribute and allocate flood risk management. Reg Environ Chang 18(2):305–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1272-8
Toxopeus H, Kotsila P, Conde M, Katona A, van der Jagt AP, Polzin F (2020) How ‘just’ is hybrid governance of urban nature-based solutions? Cities 105:102839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102839
Walker G (2012) Environmental justice: concepts, evidence and politics. Routledge, London
Walker G, Burningham K (2011) Flood risk, vulnerability and environmental justice: evidence and evaluation of inequality in a UK context. Crit Soc Policy 31(2):216–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018310396149
Watts MJ (2015) Now and then: the origins of political ecology and the rebirth of adaptation as a form of thought. Routledge, London
Acknowledgments
This book chapter was written within the framework of SOLARIS, a project funded by the joint transnational call SOLSTICE “Enabling Societal Transformation in the Face of Climate Change” launched by JPI Climate, as well as by BELSPO in Belgium. The authors would like to thank the respondents for their cooperation and insights into the case. The authors would also like to thank the reviewers for their valuable input to improve the quality of this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Paauw, M., Crabbé, A. (2023). The Social Dimension of Nature-Based Solutions: The Potential of Co-Creation Processes for NBS to Reduce Social Vulnerability to Floods. In: Leal Filho, W., Nagy, G.J., Ayal, D. (eds) Handbook of Nature-Based Solutions to Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98067-2_19-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98067-2_19-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-98067-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-98067-2
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Earth and Environm. ScienceReference Module Physical and Materials ScienceReference Module Earth and Environmental Sciences