Esraz Ul Zannat 2024 WIREs Climate Change A Review of NBS

Received: 23 May 2023 Revised: 3 April 2024 Accepted: 13 April 2024
DOI: 10.1002/wcc.889
ADVANCED REVIEW
A review of nature-based infrastructures and their

effectiveness for urban flood risk mitigation
Md. Esraz-Ul-Zannat 1,2 | Aysin Dedekorkut-Howes 1,2 |

2,3
Edward Alexander Morgan
1
School of Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, Southport, Queensland, Australia
2
Cities Research Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia
3
Policy Innovation Hub, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia
Correspondence
Md. Esraz-Ul-Zannat, School of Abstract
Engineering and Built Environment, Anthropogenic climate change and rapid urbanization are contributing to
Griffith University Gold Coast Campus,
more frequent and intense urban flooding. There is widespread agreement that
Southport, QLD 4222, Australia.
Email: md.esraz-ul-zannat@griffithuni. traditional gray infrastructure, a single-purpose solution, fails to address the
edu.au problem properly and contributes to adverse direct and indirect environmental
impacts. As such, Nature-based Solutions (NbS) can provide improved out-
Funding information
Griffith University comes to flood risk management along with co-benefits to society and the
economy, as they have numerous benefits incuding often a smaller carbon
footprint or even sometimes sequestering carbon. However, there is ambiguity
Edited by: Chandni Singh, Domain
Editor and Daniel Friess, Editor-in-Chief and misconception about NbS and the uptake of NbS for flood management,
which is still inadequate compared to traditional gray infrastructure. This
research seeks to explore various nature-based infrastructures including their
present status of application for flood risk management to build resilience to
urban flooding through a systematic literature review. The robustness of some
NbS is questionable and varies across different spatial scales from plot to
watershed. NbS can work stand-alone in many cases as well as supplement tra-
ditional gray infrastructure to achieve wider benefits. The review provides a
comparison of nature-based solutions with gray infrastructure, identifies flood
mitigation infrastructures that include nature-based elements, and provides an
overview of their effectiveness across different scales. The research findings
should contribute to a better understanding of appropriate and diverse options
of NbS, gray, and hybrid designs by policymakers and decision-makers to
enable them in effectively designing and implementing urban flood risk miti-
gation measures.
This article is categorized under:

Climate and Development > Urbanization, Development, and Climate
Change
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2024 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
WIREs Clim Change. 2024;e889. wires.wiley.com/climatechange 1 of 28

https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.889
17577799, 0, Downloaded from https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.889 by National Health And Medical Research Council, Wiley Online Library on [07/05/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 of 28 ESRAZ-UL-ZANNAT ET AL.
Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Learning from Cases

and Analogies
KEYWORDS
climate adaptation, flood resilience, hybrid infrastructure, resilient city, stormwater
management
1 | INTRODUCTION
Climate change results in increased temperatures and extreme rainfall, causing more frequent and intense flooding
(Conte et al., 2012; Doorga et al., 2022; Hamel & Tan, 2022; Laeni et al., 2019; Santoro et al., 2019). At the same time,
rapid urban expansion (Muis et al., 2015) and high urbanization rates in many cities reduce natural landscape features
and increase impervious surfaces (Chiu et al., 2021), increasing stormwater runoff and river discharge rates, reducing
the peak runoff and discharge times (Feng et al., 2021), and increasing the flood risk (Axelsson et al., 2021; Bernello
et al., 2022; Driessen et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2020; Majidi et al., 2019). In many cities, insufficient drainage networks
add to the risks of urban flooding (Arnone et al., 2018; Kleidorfer et al., 2014). In urban areas, heavy rainfall can result
in two types of flooding: pluvial flooding occurs when the limited capacity of the drainage systems cannot effectively
remove rainwater and fluvial flooding happens when rivers or other channels overflow due to the heavy deluge of rain-
fall (Chen et al., 2010). Pluvial flooding tends to happen more frequently in a growing number of places worldwide
(Schmitt & Scheid, 2020) and can result in higher economic risk (Moftakhari et al., 2017). Pluvial flooding can be sur-
face water floods or flash floods which can result from the sudden release of water from a levee or dam upstream caus-
ing significant damage, especially in mountainous cities (Ma et al., 2018). Coincident flooding events in which high
tides and extreme tidal surge events can occur simultaneously with extreme precipitation and high river flows put
coastal cities at the forefront of climate risk (IPCC, 2012). The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) (Dodman
et al., 2022; Glavovic et al., 2022) shows that as a result of climate change, cities will face higher frequency and intensity
floods, especially pluvial and riverine floods from increasing extreme rainfall and coastal flooding from increasing sea
level rise and tropical cyclone storm surges. However, building cities to withstand floods has been a significant chal-
lenge (Leandro et al., 2020).
Conventional flood management relies on gray infrastructure, with a focus on stormwater management, intending
to drain away runoff quickly (Alikhani et al., 2020; Feldman et al., 2019; Rosenzweig et al., 2018). However, gray infra-
structure is single-objective oriented, targeting a single problem and has difficulty adapting to future uncertainties
(Mubeen et al., 2021), leaving other issues unaddressed (Gleason & Casiano Flores, 2021; Lallemant et al., 2021;
Vojinovic et al., 2021). Common piped drainage systems involve high construction, maintenance, and repair costs, have
negative impacts on ecosystem functions, give a false sense of security for communities, and may not be effective in
extreme events leading to breaching (e.g., of polders, levees, embankments), especially during cyclones/storm surges
(Abdulkareem et al., 2020; Gleason & Casiano Flores, 2021; Vojinovic et al., 2021). Between 1985 and 2019, worldwide
flood-related economic damage reached US$1 trillion and urban exposure to flooding grew four-fold, with Asia leading
(74.1%), followed by Europe (11.6%) (Munich, 2020). At the same time, 1.2% of global floodplains were occupied by
urban expansion. Twenty percent of this expansion was in Western Europe, Eastern Asia, and the Northeastern US
(Cao et al., 2022). Hence, cities face many planning challenges to avoid the societal, economic, and environmental
impacts of flooding. Substantial population, critical infrastructure and economic activities are concentrated in low-lying
cities and better flood management is urgently needed in the face of climate change (Luedke, 2019).
Nature-based solutions (NbS) are increasingly being implemented (Zingraff-Hamed et al., 2021). The literature sug-
gests that NbS enhance resilience to the impacts of climate change (Short et al., 2019) and support ecosystem functions
(Seddon et al., 2020). Scholars propose NbS as a more sustainable solution to mitigating flood risk with a myriad of co-
benefits to society and the economy, especially in the context of a changing climate and rapid urbanization, including
opportunities to sequester carbon for climate change mitigation and multiple benefits for climate change adaptation
(Chiu et al., 2021; Costa et al., 2021; Green et al., 2021; Seddon et al., 2021). Many argue that integrating NbS, either
separately or in combination with gray infrastructure as hybrid solutions, can assist in water resource management,
disaster risk reduction (DRR), and climate change adaptation. Additionally, they have co-benefits such as diverse eco-
system services, improved human well-being, taking urban dwellers closer to nature, conserving biodiversity, and
ESRAZ-UL-ZANNAT ET AL. 3 of 28
eventually increasing social, ecological, and economic resilience (Anand & Goswami, 2020; Busayo et al., 2022). It has
been argued that large-scale implementation of NbS is critical in the face of climate change (Luedke, 2019). However,
the uptake of NbS is very context-specific and depends on the resilience challenges and the performance of the ecosys-
tem, which can be uncertain and complex. NbS can substitute, safeguard, or complement gray infrastructure (Silva
et al., 2020). It is critical to choose the best combination of infrastructures acknowledging the benefits of nature-based
solutions (Wright, 2021). Kapetas & Fenner's study (2020) argues that gray infrastructure combined with NbS results in
optimum flood mitigation capacity and likewise, NbS options attain optimum capacity when they are complemented by
gray infrastructure.
NbS applications vary depending on flood type. For example, riparian farmlands in floodplains or upstream or river-
adjacent forests act as buffers for the impacts of fluvial flooding downstream. However, urban fluvial flooding is a major
concern impacting, for instance, approximately 20% of European Cities (Santoro et al., 2019). Although floodplains in
and around urban areas can function primarily as wetlands leading to fostering biodiversity enhancement, facilitating
groundwater infiltration, and providing various ecological services (e.g., Birmingham City has 12 significant rivers
accompanied by floodplains which serve as valuable infrastructure for managing the fluvial flooding risk (Adedeji
et al., 2019)) fluvial food risk is still high and development in floodplains continues globally. In coastal cities, the risk of
coastal flooding is exacerbated by sea level rise and consequent storm surges brought about by more frequent and
intense tropical cyclones and storms (Van Coppenolle & Temmerman, 2019) and affect the conveyance capacity of
urban drainage infrastructure by backwater effects at coastal outfalls (Rosenzweig et al., 2018). There is a growing inter-
est in using natural floodplains as essential infrastructure to reduce the impacts of coastal flooding (Bokhove
et al., 2019). Lastly, pluvial flooding encompasses both stormwater flooding and flash floods, with the latter being espe-
cially prevalent in cities situated in mountainous areas (Ma et al., 2018; Rosenzweig et al., 2018). The focus of this
review is mainly on pluvial stormwater infrastructure. However, many of these infrastructures are appropriate for other
types of flooding including coastal and fluvial floods. Currently, there is ambiguity and differing perceptions among
decision-makers, practitioners, and researchers concerning NbS, including what NbS means, types of strategies, and
their effectiveness (Bark et al., 2021; Brillinger et al., 2021; Hanson et al., 2020; Oral et al., 2021; Seddon et al., 2021).
This lack of clarity on the definition and operationalization of NbS is one reason for the low uptake of NbS as a flood
risk mitigation and adaptation measure compared to gray infrastructure. The IPCC AR6 report (IPCC, 2022, p. 24)
acknowledges that “the term ‘Nature-based Solutions’ is widely but not universally used in the scientific literature. The
term is the subject of ongoing debate, with concerns that it may lead to the misunderstanding that NbS on its own can
provide a global solution to climate change.” Broadly, NbS is viewed as an umbrella term for options that exploit the
services and benefits of the blue and green features along with nature-supported and inspired measures and covers
other related concepts including Low Impact Development (LID), Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD), Sustainable
Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA), Blue-Green Infrastructure (BGI), and Sponge
City (SC). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines NbS as “actions to protect, sustainably
manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simulta-
neously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits” (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016). On the other hand,
European Commission defines NBS as solutions that are “inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective,
simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience. Such solutions bring
more, and more diverse, nature and natural features and processes into cities, landscapes, and seascapes, through
locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions" (European Commission, 2023) and this definition
includes a spectrum of benefits including social, economic, environmental, biodiversity, and resilience building. In con-
trast, the IUCN definition focuses more on preserving ecological diversity. Here, the focus is on the broader view, which
encompasses some infrastructures that are more hybrid in nature, such as pervious pavements, rain gardens, etc. This
consideration of NbS provides a systemic approach, which is comprehensive in addressing the social, economic, and
environmental challenges by exploiting ecosystem services. This research uses NbS terminology due to its inclusive
and comprehensive definition and scope, which contains other related concepts.
The Global South has a golden opportunity to build resilience by unlocking the potential of NbS. Urban areas in the
Global South are commonly in developing countries facing significant development challenges (du Toit et al., 2021) and
are more vulnerable to flooding, particularly due to climate change (IPCC, 2014). Rapid urbanization coupled with
inadequate infrastructure and environmental degradation significantly exacerbate flood risks (Rentschler et al., 2023).
Developed countries typically have the capacity to respond to natural disasters independently, whereas developing
countries often rely on external assistance (Lassa, 2012). Different strategies have been introduced for implementing
and improving NbS in the Global South, aiming to foster sustainable and resilient cities (Dhyani et al., 2020) by
harnessing the multiple benefits they offer (Hagedoorn, Bubeck, et al., 2021). For instance, the participatory approach,
involving local communities in the design and implementation of NbS, appears to be a promising strategy for enhanc-
ing the effectiveness and sustainability of these solutions (Wolff et al., 2022). However, there is still a need for more
research and implementation of NbS in the Global South, as highlighted by this review, particularly in areas most vul-
nerable to climate change.
This study uses a systematic literature review approach to better understand the various NbS strategies, focusing on
their context, implementation, and effectiveness. The review will contribute to the scholarly literature on the effective-
ness of NbS and facilitate its mainstreaming as a flood risk reduction and climate adaptation measure by providing a
better understanding to stakeholders including policymakers, plan-makers, and community to be able to choose from
the plethora of options available.
2 | METHODS
The systematic quantitative literature review followed the model developed by Pickering and Byrne (2014) which
requires the identification, screening, and evaluation of the literature to be systematic. The process is reported using the
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) protocols (Figure 1) developed by Moher et al. (2009). This
approach has been used in similar reviews examining adaptation strategies (Bartlett & Dedekorkut-Howes, 2022;
Dedekorkut-Howes et al., 2020). Article search was conducted in three multi-disciplinary (Scopus, Web of Science, and
Google Scholar) and two specialized (GreenFile via EbSCO and ASCE) databases in May 2022. The search string
included variant terms for flood, mitigation/adaptation, strategy, city, climate and NbS (Table S1 includes all search
terms). In total, 1296 articles were sourced from five databases. After removing duplicates, a total of 536 articles
remained for further screening.
We developed a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria consistent with the research questions for screening the arti-
cles (Table S2). We limited the review to peer-reviewed articles and reviews, written in English and published between
1 January 2012 to 31 May 2022. Four hundred and two articles were excluded after reading their title, abstract, and key-
words leaving 134 articles for further evaluation. In-depth evaluation through scanning the full text of the articles
excluded 58 articles resulting in 76 articles relevant to the study objectives for inclusion in the systematic quantitative
literature review. These are marked by an asterisk in the list of references. NVivo qualitative data analysis software was
used to conduct thematic coding to analyze the articles. The review aims to achieve its objectives by extracting specific
information from the reviewed articles by organizing them into distinct themes. To provide an overview of the litera-
ture's scope and content, basic statistical analyses, such as examining the prevalence of different themes within the lit-
erature, were conducted. Initial themes identified key definitions and concepts related to NbS, which are discussed in
Section 3.1. Next, the differences between gray and NbS infrastructure are presented in Section 3.2. Finally, different
types of nature-based and hybrid stormwater infrastructures were identified and their geographic scale and effective-
ness in reducing floods were analyzed and presented in Section 3.3.
3 | R E SUL T S
3.1 | NbS concepts—Context, objective, and application
There has been a consistent increase in NbS research since 2012. Sixty-six of the reviewed articles included 76 case stud-
ies, and 10 articles considered global, continental, and regional context-based urban flooding. Figure 2 shows the global
distribution of the case study cities, with Europe (37) leading, followed by Asia (18), and North America (15), with very
few studies from Oceania, Africa, and South America. More specifically, the UK included the highest number of cities
for NbS-oriented case studies, followed by the United States. NbS research is concentrated more in the Global North
countries, particularly in the temperate regions where flooding has an upward trend and there is a history of strong
flood strategies and implementation (Green et al., 2021; Spraakman et al., 2020). In contrast, there is scant research in
the Global South regarding NbS implementation, especially in water-stressed countries (Chen et al., 2021). However,
mainstreaming NbS in the Global South is essential as it is multi-functional and provides multiple co-benefits relating
to food and income in particular (Seddon et al., 2021). Notably, more than half of the reviewed articles discussed NbS
for flood mitigation and adaption in delta cities. These coastal and riverine cities are at high risk of flood occurrence
FIGURE 1 PRISMA Diagram showing the article selection process.
which is exacerbated by climate change-induced sea level rise and tides (Huong & Pathirana, 2013; Oukes et al., 2022;
Van Coppenolle & Temmerman, 2019).
There is a wide range of flood risk management measures that can be considered part of NbS, and the plethora of
terms can be confusing. These measures are often broadly classified into structural (hard) and nonstructural (soft) strat-
egies (Figure S1). Structural strategies comprise infrastructure, whereas nonstructural strategies include raising aware-
ness or increased participation in flood management. There is growing evidence that nonstructural strategies are a vital
part of flood management and have a higher benefit and cost ratio (Du et al., 2020). Importantly, spatial land use plan-
ning and building regulations have immense implications in flood risk management. These can impose restrictions on
building infrastructure and determine desired topography and the plinth level of infrastructure or encourage proactive
strategies like compartmentalizing dike rings, avoiding construction in flood-prone zones, and implementing flood-
resistant designs (see e.g., W. Huang et al., 2021; Oukes et al., 2022). These studies suggest that avoiding residential
development in floodplains is the most effective strategy for mitigating flood risks.
FIGURE 2 Geographical distribution of case study cities in the reviewed literature.
However, in terms of implementing NbS, much of the focus is on structural possibilities and their relative benefits,
challenges and possibilities. This review therefore focuses on these structural NbS and attempts to clarify the terminol-
ogy around them and highlights their implementation challenges and possibilities. Flood infrastructure can be tradi-
tional gray/hard infrastructure or BGI. A combination of both is termed a hybrid strategy (Axelsson et al., 2021).
Kapetas and Fenner (2020) outlined two options for integrating hybrid infrastructures: (i) NbS can be added to existing
or new gray infrastructure to increase the capacity of the gray infrastructure for flood mitigation or (ii) gray infrastruc-
ture components can be added to increase the capacity of NbS infrastructure.
3.2 | Comparison of NbS and hybrid with gray infrastructure
Traditional gray infrastructure plays an important role in draining out the stormwater and releasing it downstream and
the review suggests that gray infrastructure is still the preferred choice of policymakers and planners in many urban
areas around the world (Dhakal & Chevalier, 2017; Vojinovic et al., 2021). Its benefits include the ability to quickly
drain stormwater out of local areas and being largely standardized and able to be replicated in any place with higher
performance (Chiu et al., 2021; Pamungkas & Purwitaningsih, 2019). However, the reviewed literature highlights the
disadvantages of gray infrastructure and reports more advantages of NbS than gray infrastructure (the darker shading
in Table 1 indicates which infrastructure performs better for each aspect). The review also suggests that although the
hybrid strategies show more advantages in certain aspects, there is an insufficient exploration of other aspects.
NbS is suggested as a cost-effective (Collentine & Futter, 2018; Turkelboom et al., 2021) and cost-efficient (Busayo
et al., 2022) strategy compared to gray infrastructure, but there is still a shortage of empirical evidence, for example, on
the retrofitting of SUDS (Oladunjoye et al., 2019). In addition, NbS can have low maintenance costs in the long run
(Sutton-Grier et al., 2018). In contrast, conventional gray infrastructure is capital-intensive and harms the biophysical
environment (Palmer et al., 2015). Zahmatkesh et al. (2015) claim that the LID approach is cost-effective and robust in
stormwater management, successfully reducing runoff and controlling water quality at the watershed scale. Elsewhere,
NbS measures are considered effective in flood risk mitigation (Kabisch et al., 2016; Ourloglou et al., 2020) including in
urban areas (Zellner et al., 2016). For example, it can act as a shelterbelt (vegetative barrier) to increase overall flood
resilience (Hagedoorn, Bubeck, et al., 2021; Hagedoorn, Koetse, et al., 2021) ensuring the promotion of resilient ecosys-
tems (Huq, 2016) and average and maximum flow velocity is significantly lower in NbS-intervened areas than in the
gray infrastructure (Ourloglou et al., 2020). Hybrid strategies have been proven to mitigate the impact of climate change
TABLE 1 Comparison of gray infrastructure and NbS (gray shading indicates advantageous infrastructure types for different aspects).
Aspect Gray infrastructure Hybrid NbS

Popularity Preferred choice by policymakers Participants in a study of
and planners (Dhakal & stakeholders' risk perception
Chevalier, 2017; Vojinovic analysis were interested in NbS
et al., 2021). over gray infrastructure (Santoro
et al., 2019).
Drainage of Can quickly collect, convey, and Can have a significant impact on Generally takes a lag time to
runoff treat or drain away runoff to reducing stormwater runoff establish with less certain
prevent flooding immediately after (Huang et al., 2020). performance (Iacob et al., 2014).
installation (Huang et al., 2020;
Rosenzweig et al., 2018).
Standardization Standard and replicable anywhere Cannot be standardized and
saving project cost and time while replicated anywhere as it always
ensuring high-performance depends on the local setting (Chen
standards (Chiu et al., 2021; et al., 2021; Chiu et al., 2021;
Pamungkas & Green et al., 2021; Sutton-Grier
Purwitaningsih, 2019). et al., 2018).
Sustainability Offers a short-term solution For sustainability to be ensured, a Considered a sustainable solution
(Pamungkas & hybrid approach must incorporate due to its natural and semi-natural
Purwitaningsih, 2019), particularly fundamental principles of characteristics, cost-effectiveness,
emphasizing construction costs safeguarding and rehabilitating and resilient to disasters (Chiu
without considering long-term the environment, coupled with et al., 2021; Ferreira et al., 2020;
maintenance and repair costs long-term monitoring and Green et al., 2021; Sutton-Grier
(Sutton-Grier et al., 2018). adaptive management (Huang et al., 2018). Closely associated
et al., 2020). with sustainable development
(Guo et al., 2018).
Effectiveness Provides a false sense of security and Simulation by hydrological Effectiveness in reducing flood is
is not effective for adequate flood modeling shows that in still not fully quantified (Chiu
protection during extreme events combination with conventional et al., 2021), is effective under
(Adedeji et al., 2019; Ayalew gray infrastructure, the certain conditions including low
et al., 2015; Vojinovic et al., 2021; stormwater management and moderate events with low
C.-L. Wu & Chiang, 2018). Rather capabilities of nature-based return periods but less effective in
it is complementary to NbS for solutions can effectively address extreme events (Costa et al., 2021;
ensuring full protection (Ferreira the challenges of its efficiencies in Huang et al., 2020; Lin
et al., 2020; Santoro et al., 2019). managing stormwater during et al., 2018).
heavy rainfall events (Huang
et al., 2020; Pamungkas &
Purwitaningsih, 2019).
Hydrological Has negative impacts on the local Supports the hydrologic
Cycle hydrological cycle (Gearey, 2018; predevelopment process by
Gleason & Casiano Flores, 2021; restoring the water cycle with its
Huang et al., 2020; Iacob intrinsic characteristics (Costa
et al., 2014). et al., 2021; Giese et al., 2019;
Gleason & Casiano Flores, 2021;
Green et al., 2021; Huang
et al., 2020).
Water Balance Hampers the water balance between Maintains water balance through
ground and surface water groundwater recharge by base
(Gleason & Casiano Flores, 2021). flow and groundwater flow
through pervious surfaces
(Ahmadisharaf et al., 2021; Spahr
et al., 2021).
(Continues)
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Aspect Gray infrastructure Hybrid NbS

Installation Capital-intensive (Santoro Can reduce the cost of upgrading the Cheaper, most importantly in the
Cost et al., 2019) and costly (Aerts existing drainage system (Huang urban context (Ashley et al., 2018;
et al., 2014; Busayo et al., 2022; et al., 2020). Chiu et al., 2021; Han &
Chiu et al., 2021; Hagedoorn, Kuhlicke, 2021; Huang et al., 2020;
Bubeck, et al., 2021; Hagedoorn, Ourloglou et al., 2020).
Koetse, et al., 2021; Lallemant
et al., 2021; Schuetze &
Chelleri, 2013).
Maintenance Requires continual high Can reduce the cost of upgrading the Low maintenance cost with
and maintenance and periodic existing drainage system (Huang lengthened lifetime is a good
Renovation renovation (Ayalew et al., 2015; et al., 2020). investment for the future (Sutton-
Chiu et al., 2021; Hagedoorn, Grier et al., 2018).
Bubeck, et al., 2021; Hagedoorn,
Koetse, et al., 2021).
Social and Focuses exclusively on flood risk Integrating NbS with conventional Provides a myriad of co-benefits
Ecological mitigation and does not address gray infrastructure for flood risk besides flood mitigation including
Aspects social and ecological concerns management can alleviate the ecological and social welfare
(Abdulkareem et al., 2020; adverse impacts of gray (Ferreira et al., 2020; Janssen
Hagedoorn, Bubeck, et al., 2021; infrastructure on the ecological et al., 2020; Ourloglou et al., 2020;
Hagedoorn, Koetse, et al., 2021; and social systems (Huang Spahr et al., 2021).
Perosa et al., 2021). et al., 2020).
Environmental Not effective in achieving Can address the problems including Almost no negative impact on the
Impacts environmental sustainability increasing runoff volumes and environment, rather helps to
(Vojinovic et al., 2021), rather flood risk downstream resulting mitigate the problems created by
harms the environment (Ayalew from the expansion of gray other sources including climate
et al., 2015; Chiu et al., 2021; infrastructure and subsequent change (Huang et al., 2020; Iacob
Gearey, 2018; Huang et al., 2020; impervious areas (Huang et al., 2014) through carbon
Raška et al., 2022). et al., 2020). sequestration (Seddon et al., 2021;
Turkelboom et al., 2021).
Flexibility Inflexible and not adaptable to any Flexible to adapt to the changing
future changes (Busayo environment (Chiu et al., 2021;
et al., 2022; Chiu et al., 2021; Ferreira et al., 2020; Turkelboom
Schuetze & Chelleri, 2013), et al., 2021).
interdependent within the
network of a centralized system
(Schuetze & Chelleri, 2013).
Climate Less effective and not adaptable in Considers the impact of climate
Change and response to climate change and change (Busayo et al., 2022;
Urbanization rapid urbanization (Adedeji Seddon et al., 2021; Truu
et al., 2019; Chiu et al., 2021; Iacob et al., 2021) and urbanization
et al., 2014; Mubeen et al., 2021; (Chiu et al., 2021; Costa
Pamungkas & et al., 2021; Green et al., 2021).
Purwitaningsih, 2019; Schuetze &
Chelleri, 2013).
Multiple Single-purpose infrastructure only Hybrid strategy for flood risk Multi-functional and provides many
Benefits and deals with flood and water scarcity management has a higher benefit– benefits (Bernello et al., 2022;
Co-benefits with no co-benefits (Gleason & cost ratio (Du et al., 2020). Brillinger et al., 2020; Chiu
Casiano Flores, 2021; Lallemant et al., 2021; Gleason & Casiano
et al., 2021; Santoro et al., 2019; Flores, 2021) including increasing
Vojinovic et al., 2021). property value due to urban
greening (Wild et al., 2017).
Risk Transfer Increases peak flow, transfers the An in situ water management
increased runoff volume and approach (Bernello et al., 2022)
creates downstream risk (Chiu reduces the runoff by capturing,
et al., 2021; Gleason & Casiano evaporation, and infiltration and
Flores, 2021; Iacob et al., 2014). reduces the downstream risk.
including floods (Chuang et al., 2020) and can contribute to generating other benefits including biodiversity and socio-
economic benefits (Vojinovic et al., 2021). Gray structural strategies are gradually being replaced to some extent with
the increased use of NbS and hybrid infrastructures potentially pointing to a transformation in flood defense strategies
(Chiu et al., 2021).
3.3 | Flood risk management with nature-based and hybrid infrastructures
This review identified 16 specific stormwater infrastructures within the context of the broad NbS concept that include
nature-based components. NbS include blue and/or green components and the term Blue-Green Infrastructure is also
commonly used. These blue and green infrastructures are sometimes used in combination with gray infrastructure for-
ming hybrid structural strategies. Figure 3 classifies the 16 identified flood mitigation infrastructures into gray, blue,
green, blue-green, and various types of hybrid strategies. Note that swales appear in two different classifications,
depending on the type of swale, but are considered as a single type later in the paper as bioswale. Hybrid strategies
include a hybrid of green and gray such as permeable pavements, a hybrid of blue and gray including rainwater
harvesting, infiltration trench and sand filters (surface) and a hybrid of blue–green–gray such as detention ponds. Based
on this classification, 11 of the 16 NbS infrastructures are blue or green infrastructures, and five are hybrid infrastruc-
tures combining elements of blue-green and gray.
3.3.1 | Geographical scales of NbS
NbS can be applied at different scales that range from the microscale covering individual plot/lot/block areas and meso-
scale comprising of neighborhood and micro-catchment to the macroscale covering a comparatively larger area includ-
ing sub-catchment and catchment (Green et al., 2021; US EPA, 2014). In Figure 4a, various urban NbS infrastructures
are presented in infographic format, showcasing their diversity across different scales. Based on its geometric properties,
NbS infrastructure can be point, linear, or area. Point infrastructure is infrastructures for detention, infiltration, evapo-
ration, and settling for controlling and treating stormwater runoff at a specific location. Linear infrastructure is linear
channels supporting infiltration along with other co-benefits, and area infrastructure is land-based management prac-
tices affecting land cover (US EPA, 2014). Figure 4b classifies the identified NbS infrastructure based on scales of appli-
cation and geometric properties. Around 50% of the identified NbS infrastructures operate at the neighborhood level
(meso scale) which accounts for point and linear features. In other words, bioswales, green streets, infiltration trenches,
rain gardens, detention and retention ponds, and sand filters can contribute to mitigating flood at the neighborhood
scale, but generally require more planning and coordination to implement. Blue and green roofs, green walls, and per-
meable pavements function at the micro scale (individual houses) and are characterized by point and area. These kinds
FIGURE 3 Classification of the identified NbS infrastructure for flood risk mitigation. (Adapted from Axelsson et al., 2021).
F I G U R E 4 (a) Urban NbS Infrastructures across diverse scales in infographic form. (b) Scale of application and geometric properties of
the identified flood mitigation measures.
of infrastructure might be simply implemented and managed by individual initiatives. Riparian buffers, urban agricul-
ture, urban forests, and constructed wetlands function at the macro scale, which is greater in size and scope. The review
did not identify any linear NbS infrastructures at the micro and macro scales and area NbS infrastructures at the meso
scale.
Designing NbS for flood risk management requires a collective decision-making process involving multiple factors
and stakeholders to encompass their views on the vulnerability of the system to floods and the associated major impacts
(Brillinger et al., 2020; Santoro et al., 2019), especially in the design phase (Han & Kuhlicke, 2021). Additionally, the
design must account for site-specific and contextual factors ensuring the formulation of an optimal design and imple-
mentation strategy (Ferreira et al., 2020; Han & Kuhlicke, 2021). Nevertheless, the design of NbS infrastructure is con-
tingent upon both the scale at which it will be implemented, and the specific type of measure being considered, which
calls for specific requirements for successful implementation. For example, macro-scale NbS such as riparian buffers,
constructed wetlands, coastal ecosystem restoration, etc. necessitate comprehensive planning and extensive land man-
agement along with other considerations.
3.3.2 | Overview and effectiveness of different types of NbS
This review identified 16 nature-based infrastructures and reports assessments of their effectiveness in reducing urban
flooding. In the reviewed articles, the most commonly mentioned NbS infrastructure for urban flood mitigation is green
roofs (41%), followed by rain gardens, bioswales, cisterns, and permeable pavements (between 25% and 35%), whereas
FIGURE 5 Literature coverage of various NbS infrastructures (56.60% [43], n = 76).
green streets and blue roofs have the lowest representation and the rest were below 15% (Figure 5). The literature
review identified 30 articles which discussed the effectiveness of NbS infrastructure to reduce floods along with other
co-benefits. Each type of infrastructure and its effectiveness is discussed in the next sections.
Green roofs
A green roof is an ecoroof of a living, vegetated habitat made up of thin soil and resilient plants. It supports itself by uti-
lizing the sun, wind, and rain and as a result, offers a protective covering to the building (Hutchinson et al., 2003).
Green roofs were the most prevalent type of infrastructure in the reviewed articles (40.80%). They provide biodiversity
and potentially cooling co-benefits and are gaining traction for their contribution to reducing stormwater runoff
(Hamel & Tan, 2022; Ronchi & Arcidiacono, 2018). However, only 5 articles out of 76 discussed the effectiveness of
green roofs for flood mitigation. Bernello et al.'s (2022) analysis of people's perceptions of NbS for flood mitigation in
Italy's Veneto Region showed that green roofs are not perceived to be so effective due to collecting limited water or
implementation challenges on existing buildings. However, Majidi et al. (2019) found green roofs to be the most effec-
tive NbS based on their feasibility to implement in urbanized areas of Sukhumvit in Bangkok, Thailand and reduction
of total runoff volume by up to 39% and peak discharges by up to 40% for a two-year return period rainfall. The suitabil-
ity analysis showed 27% of the total case study area to be suitable.
Rain gardens (bioretention)

Around 33% of articles discussed rain gardens (also referred to as bioretention cells) and their effectiveness in mitigating
stormwater runoff. Rain gardens are a land-based water quality and water quantity control practice using the chemical,
biological, and physical properties of plants, microbes, and soils for the removal of pollutants from stormwater runoff
(The Prince George's County, 2007), again providing biodiversity benefits. Rain gardens are found to be comparatively
less effective than green roofs in mitigating stormwater for a two-year event in a study in Bangkok, Thailand (Majidi
et al., 2019). However, a bioretention system showed a reduction of 59% in urban stormwater inundation areas and 29%
in flood risk in an urban watershed in Vietnam (Hamel & Tan, 2022). Alikhani et al.'s (2020) modeling in Cincinnati,
OH, USA showed that bioretention reduces stormwater runoff by around 50%. Bioretention is recommended for miti-
gating low magnitude flood risk, preferably a 1-year flood event (Hamel & Tan, 2022). Combining bioretention with
other NbS infrastructures, especially infiltration trenches (Fan et al., 2017) or green roofs (McDonough et al., 2017;
Trinh & Chui, 2013), was highlighted as having significant potential for runoff reduction (Bernello et al., 2022).
Swales
Bioswales were the third most mentioned measure in the reviewed literature after green roofs and bioretention. Swales,
also known as bioswales and vegetated swales, are one of the oldest green technologies and are characterized as linear,
depressed channels. They are widely acknowledged as the primary method for facilitating urban drainage and
conveying stormwater. Swales serve multiple functions in roadway runoff management including stormwater convey-
ance, volume reduction, water quality protection, and most importantly flash flood control. Bioswale (grass well/
vegetated swale) and wet swale are the most common types (Burian & Edwards, 2002; Ekka et al., 2021). According to
Huang et al. (2020), combining bioswales with other NbS systems decreased peak flow rate by 5%–15% and stormwater
runoff by 31%–42%. This review did not identify any assessment of the effectiveness of bioswales as standalone infra-
structure in reducing stormwater peak flow, but they again provide biodiversity benefits.
Rainwater harvesting
Rainwater harvesting includes rooftop rainwater control and harvesting devices including downspouts and water tanks
also known as rain barrels, water butts, and cisterns. A rain barrel or cistern is a small receptacle that collects water
from rooftop runoff for later reuse. These rainwater harvesting systems provide a good retrofitting option in urban areas
to control rainwater but provide no additional biodiversity benefits. They also don't provide water quality treatment but
can lessen runoff and peak flows through infiltration, retention, and detention during storm events. Downspouts sepa-
rate runoff from the sewage system and direct to a cistern or rain barrel for storage or a rain garden or permeable areas
for slow dispersion (Ahiablame et al., 2013; Foster et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2020).
Rainwater harvesting works best at the individual property level with one study suggesting household rain barrels
could provide a solution for flood mitigation assuming 1 m3 barrel can collect water from 100 m2 of surface area for
2 hours of rain (Pamungkas & Purwitaningsih, 2019). Research shows that rain barrels used with porous pavements
and rain gardens reduced flood flows between 40% and 47% at the urban catchment (Chen et al., 2021). Zahmatkesh
et al. (2015) also found that combining rainwater harvesting with porous pavements and bioretention could reduce
annual runoff volume by 41% and peak flow by up to 13%, and 28% and 14% of the total stormwater runoff for 2- and
50-year return periods, respectively, while also supplying 50% of the total non-potable water demand (Zahmatkesh
et al., 2015). Another study using urban green infrastructure scenarios in a highly urbanized tropical catchment in the
Great Metropolitan Area of Costa Rica showed that rain barrels reduced more than 80% of flood volume for a 10-year
event (Chen et al., 2021).
Permeable pavements
Permeable or porous pavements replace traditional impermeable concrete or asphalt with porous, permeable
pavement to allow runoff to permeate into the earth during a rainy event and reduce runoff (Brears, 2018). They
have the greatest potential to reduce flooding in public areas. In a study by Chen et al. (2021), permeable pave-
ments outperformed rain barrels and rain gardens and contributed to up to 55% reduction of storm runoff for a
10-year storm event. Hu et al. (2017) observed that porous pavements were highly effective in reducing flood
inundation area by 50%–75% for a 2-year return period but ineffective for a 10-year return period in the Hexi
watershed, Nanjing, China. Effectiveness depends on many factors including the magnitude and extent of the
NbS measure along with other local factors and are most suitable for storm occurrences with a five-year return
time (Kourtis et al., 2021).
Detention ponds
Detention ponds appeared in 13.15% of the reviewed literature. Detention ponds, also known as detention/infiltration
basins or dry ponds, are “vegetated depressions designed to hold runoff from impermeable surfaces and allow the set-
tling of sediments and associated pollutants. Stored water may be slowly drained to a nearby watercourse, using an out-
let control structure to control the flow rate.” (The European Commission, 2022, p. 2). Detention basins do not
generally allow infiltration, limiting their water quality co-benefits. A detention pond is not a permanent waterbody
and can be controlled by a low-flow orifice at the bottom equipped with a metal or concrete structure called a riser. In
one study in Tehran, Iran they were found to be as efficient for mitigating floods as porous pavement and channel
enlargement (Ahmadisharaf et al., 2021). According to Hoss et al. (2016), the ponds are more successful at reducing
runoff volume, peak, time to peak, and hydrograph slope in lesser storms. In addition, studies show detention ponds
slow down the peak flow of storm runoff to the stream network by an average of 0.3% but can work reversely in a few
cases (Emerson et al., 2005). Riparian farmlands can be used as a detention strategy, which can protect entire down-
stream areas in a 20-year flood event and effectively reduce downstream flooding areas in a 200-year flood event (Lee &
Huang, 2018). Low-lying areas have a significant role as a natural detention basin to store stormwater during extreme
events (Jayawardena & van Roon, 2017).
Constructed wetlands
Constructed wetlands were found in 11.85% of the literature. They are manmade ecosystems featuring shallow
waterbodies and vegetation that are designed and built to resemble natural wetland systems for several functions
including treating storm runoff and domestic and industrial wastewater. They are more economical and energy-efficient
than traditional centralized treatment systems (Hamel & Tan, 2022; Scholz et al., 2005; Wu et al., 2015), while also pro-
viding multiple biodiversity benefits. Most literature discussed the effectiveness of wetlands in removing pollutants
from stormwater runoff. In comparison, reference to flood mitigation effectiveness is almost wholly absent in the litera-
ture reviewed. Their effectiveness for flood mitigation is commonly evaluated when wetlands are complemented with
other NbS infrastructures (e.g., rain gardens, bioretention). Du et al. (2020) found a higher benefit–cost ratio for wet-
lands compared to all other NbS due to their multiple benefits.
Retention ponds
Retention ponds appeared in 11.84% of the literature reviewed. They are also known as wet ponds, and are wet
detention ponds that collect stormwater runoff and remove pollutants mainly through sedimentation processes.
They are similar to detention ponds but with an orifice at the top (Harrell & Ranjithan, 2003). They frequently
apply structural nonpoint source pollution controls, providing water quality co-benefits, especially in regions with
significant agricultural and/or urban development. Ponds have been suggested as the best stormwater manage-
ment BMP alternatives for reducing flood peaks (Ayalew et al., 2015); however, their effectiveness for reducing
stormwater runoff and peak flow was not evaluated in the reviewed literature. Note that one study suggested that
a single large retention pond was more cost-effective than a collection of small ponds for flood peak flow reduc-
tion (Ahmadisharaf et al., 2021).
Urban agriculture
The benefits of urban agriculture, such as rice production ensuring food security and biodiversity conservation, were
mentioned (7.90%) in the literature reviewed. Urban agriculture, also known as urban farming, is considered a part of
the urban green infrastructure and delivers a range of ecosystem services including stormwater runoff reduction and
regulating ecosystem services. In most developed cities, urban agriculture is practiced in rooftop gardens but in peri-
urban areas small farms intermingle with urban land uses. It is widely argued that urban agriculture is likely to become
a permanent feature of most cities, both in developing and developed countries (Orsini et al., 2013; Parker &
Simpson, 2018; Sanyé-Mengual et al., 2020). However, the review did not uncover any evidence regarding the effective-
ness of urban agriculture in reducing urban floods.
Infiltration trenches
Infiltration trenches were mentioned in 6.60% of the articles reviewed, with the same frequency as riparian buffers,
sand filters, and urban forests. Infiltration trenches are filled with gravel for receiving stormwater from a downspout,
tank overflow, or pipes draining water from concrete or other hard surfaces like roads or paving to assist in treating
stormwater quality and groundwater recharge (The Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Freshwater Ecology, 2005).
They perform the same purpose as infiltration basins but have a linear design. Fan et al. (2017) found infiltration tre-
nches as the most suitable best management practice along with bioretention based on selection, siting, and implemen-
tation criteria in the Ludlow watershed in northern Kentucky. Zhu and Chen et al. (2017) found infiltration trenches
effective for stormwater runoff and peak flow reduction when combined with bioretention, porous pavement, rain bar-
rels, vegetated swales, rain gardens, and green roofs for smaller storm events (2 years) but less effective for larger storms
events (10-year storm) in residential areas in Guangzhou, China.
Riparian buffer
The riparian buffer can play a significant role in infiltration, conveyance, and detention where a considerable quantity
of nutrients, pollutants, and solid debris is kept out of the water system by biological filters of vegetation (Dhyani
et al., 2022; Oral et al., 2021). According to Oral et al. (2021), riparian buffer along with the bioretention cell is the most
effective NbS infrastructure for urban water management for circular cities, especially for restoration and maintenance
of the water cycle, highlighting multiple co-benefits including supporting biodiversity. The literature that has been
reviewed, however, lacks any quantitative assessments of the efficacy of riparian buffers in mitigating stormwater
runoff.
Sand filters
Sand filters are “a type of surface water treatment that uses both physical and biological processes to remove organic
and inorganic material” (Department of Environmental Quality, 2022, p. 1). They are built at or below ground level and
is commonly applied in larger drainage areas with both impervious and pervious surfaces often in combination with
other NbS, primarily to improve water quality. The reviewed literature does not provide any quantitative measurements
of how effectively sand filters can reduce stormwater runoff.
Urban forest
Urban forests and vegetation aim to increase tree canopy at the city scale and provide multiple benefits including inter-
cepting and filtering stormwater runoff, preventing flooding, improving water quality, and supporting climate change
adaptation (Brears, 2018; Dhyani et al., 2022). Research suggests that urban forests could be capable of reducing flood
volume and peak flows up to 39% (Hamel & Tan, 2022), though the effectiveness depends on the species intercepting
various amounts of rainwater (Zabret & Šraj, 2015). Also, fluvial flood risk could be reduced by afforestation of the
upper watershed and riparian buffers (Iacob et al., 2014).
Green walls
Green walls are defined as “climbing plants grown either directly against, or on support structures integrated to exter-
nal building walls” (Cuce, 2017, p. 1). Green walls have significant co-benefits including urban adaptation to warm cli-
mates. Green walls can help mitigate the urban heat island effect and regulating the microclimate inside buildings in
response to climate change (Oral et al., 2021). They can support more water-sensitive buildings and sustainable urban
drainage systems (Raška et al., 2022) by improving the availability of water, further purifying wastewater, and lessening
stormwater runoff (Huang et al., 2020). However, green walls like green streets and blue roofs are referenced the least
in relation to flood mitigation in the reviewed literature, and no research was focused on assessing the effectiveness of
green walls in reducing stormwater runoff and peak flow, despite their potential in this regard.
Green streets
Green streets are roads designed with LID principles to manage road stormwater runoff by storing and reusing rainfall
for irrigation and vegetation near the road (Lin et al., 2018). Like other NbS, green streets are designed to manage urban
flood risk though their effectiveness varies from site to site due to structural and configurational characteristics (Green
et al., 2021). They may also provide water supply co-benefits by allowing rainwater reuse. However, the literature
reviewed does not provide an assessment of their effectiveness in reducing stormwater runoff and peak flow, despite
the potential they hold.
Blue roofs
Blue roofs are “systems that are designed to provide stormwater detention. Rainfall onto the roof is managed using ori-
fices, weirs, or other outlet devices that control the discharge rate of rooftop runoff” (Department of Environmental
Protection, 2004, p. 1). Blue roofs primarily function for mitigating urban flood risk besides storing water and moderat-
ing ambient heat (Ashley et al., 2018). However, the potential of blue roofs, especially the assessment of their effective-
ness in reducing stormwater runoff and peak flow is absent in the reviewed literature.
3.3.3 | Evidence from empirical case studies
Out of the 30 articles that discussed the effectiveness of NbS infrastructures, seven articles, in particular, discussed the
effectiveness of flood risk mitigation through empirical studies, with four case studies at the micro-scale and the others
at the watershed scale. Table 2 summarizes the effectiveness of flood risk mitigation in these empirical studies, as well
as their limitations and observed co-benefits. The efficacy of NbS in mitigating urban floods and reducing peak flow
and runoff volume has been observed for both individual NbS infrastructures as well as a combination of such infra-
structures. Huang et al. (2020) found runoff reduction by 48%–96% using a set of NbS measures including a green roof,
permeable pavement, bioretention and three other types of NbS infrastructures in the city of London, Ontario, Canada.
Similarly, Joksimovic and Alam (2014) found that a combination of different NbS measures in a mixed-land use of resi-
dential and commercial lots in Toronto, Canada reduced runoff by 32.8%–52.8% and peak flow by 13.8%–65.5%. Fur-
thermore, Pamungkas and Purwitaningsih (2019) showed the effectiveness of increased infiltration and rainwater
TABLE 2 Case studies—Measures, effectiveness with co-benefits, and limitations.
Sl.
# Measures Case study Climate projections Effectiveness Limitations Co-benefits Scale References
1 Green Roads Taichung, An increase in flood • More effective under • Less effective • Groundwater Road length Lin et al.
ESRAZ-UL-ZANNAT ET AL.
(LID)—16 infiltration Taiwan by the end of the slow rain over a long in heavy recharge 4.7 km and (2018)
ponds, an infiltration 21st century (W.-C. period rainfall over a • Water quality width 33.6 m
swale (6.17 km), 3 Huang et al., 2012) • Potential annual rainfall short period enhancement
rainfall storage systems, runoff reduction of up • Support
and 7 eco-ponds to 50% irrigation for
vegetation
below
the road
• Promote
ecologically
sustainable
area
2 BMP measures under Ludlow sub- World Climate • Optimal BMP • Less effective • Reduce Catchment Fan et al.
future climatic watershed, Change Projections arrangements can in future due sediments and 1.24 sq. km (2017)
conditions— OH, USA SRES B1 scenario reduce rainfall runoff to climate nutrients from
Bioretention, cistern, for 2030 and 2050 flow by up to 60% under change runoff
constructed wetland, dry (IPCC, 2007); climatic conditions impacts, • Water quality
pond, grassed swale, Higher especially in enhancement
infiltration basin and temperature, drier • Groundwater
trench, porous higher frequencies situations. recharge
pavement, rain barrel, and magnitudes of • Help to adopt
vegetative filter strip and floods climate
wet pond change
adaptation
measures
3 Rain garden in urban park Bronx, NY, Projections indicate • Retained average 78% of • Rain garden • Water quality Adjacent street Feldman
space USA that historical all inflows (26 storms) can fully store improvement runoff – et al.
annual runoff and 100% of 58% storms inflows from a reducing sewershed (2019)
volumes are under 10 mm rainfall 25-mm storm pollutants 600 sq. m
expected to rise due around nine designed area
to the impacts of times its area (4854 sq. m
climate change observed area)
(Zahmatkesh
et al., 2015)
(Continues)
15 of 28
16 of 28
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Sl.
4 Natural flood Cumbria, UK Considered the more • Peak flow reduction of • Effectiveness • Carbon Catchment—2.5 Hankin
management—Storing extreme flooding up to 10% under an decreases in sequestration sq. km et al.
water in the floodplains due to climate annual rainfall of the future with • Supports long- (18 small-scale (2021)
change for a approximately 1230 mm the increase in term micro-
baseline 100-year • Expandable across the rainfall due to government catchments)
return period event floodplain as adaptation climate change planning for
(increased rainfall) pathways resilience
• Provide a
degree of
climate
change
resilience
5 Restoration of the alluvial Dijle Valley, Considered high-end • NbS can provide flood • In case of • Denitrification Catchment—8 Turkelboom
floodplain Upstream of climate change security in the lower extreme • Increased sq. km. et al.
Leuven City, scenario (Extreme parts of the city events, social benefits (2021)
Belgium flood event, additional • Promotion of
100 years flood measures are biodiversity
event) needed to • Carbon
prevent flood sequestration
risk in the in soil and
lower parts of vegetation
the city • Recreation
benefits
6 Land use—land cover for Chindwin Climate change • For smaller events • Moderately • Forest Watershed— Lallemant
2040 River basin, (rainfall pattern) (5-year return period), effective (only protects 113,800 sq. et al.
(projected upstream forest upstream of projections or reduce peak discharge reduce peak human km. (2021)
preservation) Monywa impacts are not by 5%, flood volume by flow by 4%) for settlement
City, considered to avoid 18%, and inundation a 500-year and
Myanmar complexity, though extent by 5% compared event agricultural
the study admits with projected land supports
climate change deforestation (38% of the livelihood
impacts the total area)
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Sl.
7 Green roofs, porous Sukhumvit Considered extreme • Green roof is the most • Comparatively • Enhance 23 sq. km. Majidi et al.
pavements, bio area, climatic conditions effective, reducing total less effective thermal (2019)
retentions and rain Bangkok, due to climate runoff volume and peak for a 20-year comfort
gardens Thailand change discharges by up to 39% event

and 40%, respectively,
for a 2-year event due to
a large surface area
(27% of the total area).
Rain garden and bio-
retention cells were the
next most effective.
Pervious pavements
found least effective
17 of 28
harvesting in reducing flooding by 22.3% and 27.7%, respectively. Combining these two measures by developing a sce-
nario with The Soil & Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) for three catchment areas in Indonesia reduced flooding by
45.5%. Gilroy and McCuen (2009) demonstrated the effectiveness of NbS infrastructures for reducing runoff and down-
stream flood risk for a 15-year return period rainfall, while runoff could be reduced by 46% at the household level for a
2-year return period rainfall. Likewise, Zahmatkesh et al. (2015) observed the effectiveness of nature-based infrastruc-
tures in reducing runoff and peak flow by 30% and 11%, respectively, under a precipitation scenario of 4.9 mm/h in the
Bronx River watershed, New York City.
4 | DISCUSSION
NbS are deemed effective as both climate change adaptation and DRR strategies to mitigate climate-induced extreme
flood events and increase overall social, ecological, and economic resilience (Busayo et al., 2022). Beyond its flood-
reduction functions, NbS encompass numerous co-benefits, including enhancing aesthetics, creating recreational
opportunities, and bolstering social well-being (Janssen et al., 2020; Ourloglou et al., 2020; Spahr et al., 2021;
Turkelboom et al., 2021), as well as air quality and biodiversity enhancement (Chiu et al., 2021; Ferreira et al., 2020;
Oladunjoye et al., 2019; Ronchi & Arcidiacono, 2018; Seddon et al., 2021). These multiple benefits can increase the resil-
ience of the community, as well as available ecosystem services (Ferreira et al., 2020; Iacob et al., 2014; Ronchi &
Arcidiacono, 2018; Seddon et al., 2021). Economically, NbS are often considered cost-effective alternatives when com-
pared to conventional gray solutions for urban stormwater management (Ashley et al., 2018; Ferreira et al., 2020, p.;
Han & Kuhlicke, 2021; Ourloglou et al., 2020; Turkelboom et al., 2021; Zahmatkesh et al., 2015). Importantly, NbS sus-
tain vital natural processes, such as hydrological, soil, and nutrient cycles, essential for maintaining livable environ-
ments by sustainably managing and restoring ecosystems (Huang et al., 2020), and these are often not captured in
conventional economic analyses.
These findings suggest that NbS as natural flood management develop the adaptive capacity to offset some climate
change impacts (Huang et al., 2020; Iacob et al., 2014), as well as potentially expanding land and carbon sinks, and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions from human activities (Seddon et al., 2021; Turkelboom et al., 2021). In this context,
NbS can be viewed as a “no-regrets” ecosystem-based adaptation approach to tackle environmental issues to ensure the
sustainability of the cities (Busayo et al., 2022; Turkelboom et al., 2021) integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services
to confront climate change extremes (Busayo et al., 2022; Green et al., 2021; Hankin et al., 2021; Spahr et al., 2021).
However, the risk of maladaptation through NbS may be significant if it is not carefully planned and implemented.
For example, people of a particular community may be better off at the cost of others by NbS implementation, which
will raise the issue of spatial inequity (Seddon et al., 2021). By implementing NbS, flooding may be relieved at the
densely populated upstream areas but cannot be avoided entirely downstream (Lee & Huang, 2018). For example, a
shelterbelt project in China to protect the urban residents from dust restricts the irrigation water demand of the Uighur
communities downstream (Seddon et al., 2021). It can be challenging to assess the benefits and burdens to share among
the beneficiaries and those impacted, which emphasizes the need for resilient and just flood risk governance (Driessen
et al., 2018).
Developing countries typically face several challenges including lack of financing sources for effective implementa-
tion of NbS. There is often a lack of public funding to finance NbS implementation or retrofit at the city scale due to
several barriers including political will and lack of financial incentives (Brillinger et al., 2020; Oral et al., 2021; Raška
et al., 2022; Santoro et al., 2019; Sutton-Grier et al., 2018). In contrast, funding for NbS research in the Global North has
led to improvements in biodiversity and ecological services, resulting in creation of more jobs and increased income for
various communities involved, researchers in particular (Nassary et al., 2022). Citizen contributions, particularly in the
form of volunteered time, can help bridge this gap of limited public resources (Hagedoorn, Koetse, van Beukering,
et al., 2021). Moreover, private sector involvement in NbS offers substantial benefits, with some businesses already
gaining directly through funding NbS projects for specific advantages and purchasing ecosystem service credits like car-
bon offsets (Brears, 2022). Further development of carbon and biodiversity finance may encourage NbS, given their
multiple benefits.
This systematic literature review investigated the application and effectiveness of nature-based and hybrid infra-
structures in flood risk management in comparison to conventional gray infrastructure. The findings of this review have
important implications for mainstreaming NbS into flood risk management, alongside traditional gray infrastructure.
This review highlights five major findings: (i) There is limited empirical evidence on the effectiveness of NbS
infrastructures. (ii) Evidence on the effectiveness of NbS infrastructures is heavily skewed toward the Global North.
(iii) Effectiveness of NbS and hybrid infrastructures vary by scale and there is a need for research at different scales.
(iv) Evidence indicates that hybrid infrastructures and using multiple nature-based infrastructures in combination out-
perform single NbS for effective flood mitigation. (v) Integrating NbS into urban policy can harness their benefits to
overcome the urban challenges.
4.1 | Scant research evidence on NbS effectiveness
This review shows that there is limited focus in the literature on empirical assessments of the effectiveness of NbS in
reducing stormwater runoff and peak flow, which poses a significant obstacle to the widespread adoption and integra-
tion of NbS practices. One of the main challenges to NbS deployment is understanding its value in mitigating flooding,
as evidenced by the limited number of articles that empirically assessed effectiveness and concerns about their capacity
being inadequate for extreme events. Moreover, this review revealed that around 50% of the identified NbS infrastruc-
tures, including retention ponds, urban agriculture, riparian buffers, sand filters, green walls, green streets, and blue
roofs have not been assessed for their effectiveness in reducing urban floods. The existing evidence seems insufficient,
which has important implications in theory, policy, and practice. These findings are consistent with Busayo et al.'s
(2022) claim that there is limited scientific evidence available regarding the efficacy of different NbS to be embraced
and integrated into different levels including local, national, and global contexts.
While limited evidence exists regarding the efficacy of NbS in scenarios characterized by prolonged periods of low
rainfall and low-return periods (30 years) (Costa et al., 2021; Ellis & Viavattene, 2014), their effectiveness remains
uncertain, especially for high-return periods such as a 100-year storm event (Ahilan et al., 2014). The effectiveness of
NbS varies greatly depending on the design configuration (Liu et al., 2014) and the intensity, duration and frequency
of flooding (Qin et al., 2013), which can impact the flood mitigation potential of NbS, the storage capacity of rain gar-
dens for example (Feldman et al., 2019). Importantly, there have been some comparative studies that show that differ-
ent types of NbS have differing flood mitigation performance even for similar infrastructure types. For example,
permeable pavements with grass exhibit a greater propensity for achieving higher runoff mitigation when contrasted
with permeable pavements with shrubs (Iacob et al., 2014). More comparative studies would help practitioners make
more strategic choices around nature-based infrastructure. However, there is a lack of universally accepted metrics to
evaluate the performance and effectiveness of NbS (Sutton-Grier et al., 2018).
Finally, Kwadijk et al. (2010) argue that the efficacy of NbS is contingent on the presence of adaptation tipping
points, where tipping points of adaptation are the impact levels (inundation and storm frequency) beyond which cur-
rent practices fail to effectively manage stormwater (Rosenzweig et al., 2018). Green roofs and permeable lands sur-
passed their optimal capacity to absorb runoff, resulting in flooding in Birmingham, UK, during a 200-year storm event
(Huang et al., 2020).
4.2 | The spatial disparity of NbS research and implementation
This review showed that since 2018, there has been a rise in NbS research, but there is still a spatial disparity globally
by continent and nation, where the Global North is ahead of the Global South. In particular, the review highlights that
there is comparatively less research in South America and Africa compared to other continents. Research on NbS is fur-
ther complicated by the fact that they exhibit a context-specific nature, implying that findings from one location cannot
be readily applied to others. The IPCC AR6 report recommends more research on the placed-based efficacy of the NbS
infrastructure for mitigating climatic impacts for future climate change scenarios leading to a better understanding of
their cost-effectiveness for providing DRR (Dodman et al., 2022). This highlights the importance of addressing the spa-
tial disparities in NbS research to promote more universal applicability.
The review also revealed that, despite increasing knowledge about NbS, these strategies lack recognition and invest-
ment as a flood risk management approach in urban planning and development in some countries. Evidence from the
literature shows that in numerous instances, NbS faces a shortage of public funding for its implementation or retro-
fitting at the city level due to various obstacles such as political reluctance and insufficient financial incentives
(Brillinger et al., 2020; Oral et al., 2021; Raška et al., 2022; Santoro et al., 2019; Sutton-Grier et al., 2018). Driessen et al.
(2018) suggest that allocating sufficient funds based on an approach-oriented strategy in multiple flood risk
management approaches will enhance flood resilience. However, in some studies, NbS is recognized as mainstream in
some places, which recognizes its ample opportunities for widespread applications besides risk reduction (Dodman
et al., 2022). For example, LID has emerged as a widely adopted, albeit not universally implemented, approach to
stormwater management in both the United States and Canada (Fletcher et al., 2015).
4.3 | Need for NbS research at different scales
This review highlights good evidence that small-scale NbS is reducing floods effectively for small storm events (Chen
et al., 2021; Giese et al., 2019), but there is less certainty at larger scales (for one exception, see Tafel et al. (2022)). How-
ever, there is no clear quantitative evidence of flood reduction for large storms due to the complexity of their response
and divergent outcomes depending on its type (Bokhove et al., 2019; Costa et al., 2021; Iacob et al., 2014). Furthermore,
the effectiveness of most nature-based infrastructures at different scales is often assessed empirically in the lab, which
can differ from performance in the field. In this regard, implementing NbS throughout the entire watershed to achieve
effective urban flood mitigation poses a significant challenge. Some researchers recommend NbS to be decentralized
catchment-wide for effective management of moderate storm events (Green et al., 2021; Rosenzweig et al., 2018). How-
ever, this constraint necessitates more research on optimization by distributing micro and meso scale infrastructures
strategically through the entire watershed scale for mitigating floods effectively.
4.4 | A combination of infrastructures outperforms single NbS for effective flood

mitigation
The review indicates that in most cases a combined set of NbS contributes to reducing floods more effectively than a
single nature-based infrastructure. For example, Chen et al. (2017) show that deploying NbS infrastructures including
sand filters, infiltration trenches and basins, detention ponds, vegetated filter strips and swale, constructed wetlands,
green roofs, rain barrels, porous pavement, and bioretention in the entire watershed could be optimized for urban plu-
vial flood mitigation for up to 5-year storm events.
In addition, the literature shows that hybrid solutions are more effective than traditional gray infrastructure in
reducing floods effectively. Hence, more research into the most effective ways of combining gray infrastructure with
NbS could be very valuable for flood risk management. Evidence from the literature shows that combining infrastruc-
tures leverages the advantages of both gray and NbS approaches, including cost-effectiveness, a high benefit–cost ratio,
multifunctionality, social welfare, and environmental value (Busayo et al., 2022, p.; Chiu et al., 2021; Du et al., 2020;
Janssen et al., 2020). Importantly, IPCC AR6 notes that there is agreement on hybrid strategies resulting in more effec-
tive and less costly flood mitigation infrastructure (Glavovic et al., 2022; Schipper et al., 2022).
While the combination of various infrastructures to achieve effective flood mitigation is of utmost importance it
faces many challenges, including the need for site-specific appropriate combinations for managing large storms (Huang
et al., 2020). Accurate data, comprehensive understanding, a quantitative performance evaluation (Brillinger
et al., 2021; Ferreira et al., 2020), laboratory experiments, field observation, and numerical modeling (Green et al., 2021;
Hankin et al., 2021) can assist to solve the challenges of combining infrastructures. Evidence-based research can find
the most suitable set of infrastructures contributing to mitigating flood risk effectively, which could lead to integrating
NbS into mainstream practices.
4.5 | Integrating NbS into urban policy
The findings highlight the urgent need for implementing NbS in the Global South and serve as a valuable initial step
for researchers from the Global South to lead the exploration of diverse responses to environmental change among
communities. The research on NbS is predominantly focused on the Global North, with a noticeable dearth of studies
addressing the context of the Global South (de Souza & Torres, 2021). The pressing need for solutions is particularly
acute in cities of the Global South, which are experiencing rapid urbanization, dwindling green spaces, and environ-
mental degradation (Torres et al., 2023). The Global South saw a faster decline in green spaces and their quality com-
pared to the North, resulting in environmental injustice, with some communities suffering more from urbanization
(Wu et al., 2023). There is a growing opportunity to incorporate NbS into the urban policy priorities in the Global South
addressing local contexts and needs as the Global South presents significant avenues for NbS to flourish. Limited devel-
opment of existing urban infrastructure in some regions creates space and opportunity for adopting alternative
approaches (McClymont et al., 2020). While NbS are primarily conceived and put into practice in the Global North,
adoption and research are steadily increasing in the Global South (Kuller et al., 2022). However, seizing the opportunity
to adopt NbS within this rapid development and addressing the challenges require strategic planning to ensure that
NbS deliver their intended benefits and integrate seamlessly into the urban landscape.
5 | C ON C L U S I ON
This research explored the overall context of NbS focusing on their effectiveness in mitigating urban floods and their
progress in different regions of the world and identified its progress and limitations. The review identified the broad
range of NbS that can be applied at different scales and their effectiveness for flood management. The scope of NbS is
wide because it calls for a comprehensive approach as the environment is dynamic and should be treated as a complex
system of diverse issues and components. NbS requires a holistic approach, which comprises all related issues from the
perspective of environmental problems, challenges, and benefits. Despite significant and growing knowledge and evi-
dence, NbS are still under-recognized in planning and development and there is significant spatial disparity across the
world in the use of NbS. In this regard, lack of funding, particularly in the developing countries, is a major barrier to
effective NbS planning and implementation. Furthermore, empirical assessments of the effectiveness of NbS for reduc-
ing stormwater runoff and peak flow have received limited attention in the literature and this gap is a key hurdle to
mainstreaming NbS. Specifically, the robustness of NbS is still questionable at all spatial urban scales and against
extreme events in particular.
The review concludes that a combination of NbS is more effective in reducing floods than relying on a single type
of NbS and presents the different options available. This finding supports the idea that NbS can be a cost-effective
option, especially when incorporating its co-benefits including environmental benefits. However, more research is
needed to prove their effectiveness, both individually and in combination. In particular, mainstreaming of NbS could
be improved by a better understanding of (i) the effectiveness of placed-based integration of gray and NbS in mitigat-
ing urban floods for stormwater runoff and peak flow and (ii) the cost-effectiveness of strategically combining multiple
infrastructures, including all their direct and indirect benefits. The review shows that NbS has significant potential for
flood risk management. Improved understanding of nature-based solutions, exploration of their benefits, quantifica-
tion of their effectiveness and finally promotion and mainstreaming could significantly help urban flood risk
mitigation.
A U T H O R C ON T R I B U T I O NS
Md. Esraz-Ul-Zannat: Conceptualization (equal); data curation (lead); formal analysis (lead); investigation (lead);
methodology (lead); project administration (lead); validation (lead); visualization (lead); writing – original draft
(lead); writing – review and editing (lead). Aysin Dedekorkut-Howes: Conceptualization (equal); funding acquisition
(equal); methodology (supporting); project administration (supporting); supervision (equal); writing – review and
editing (supporting). Edward Alexander Morgan: Conceptualization (supporting); methodology (supporting); project
administration (supporting); supervision (equal); writing – review and editing (supporting).
A C K N O WL E D G M E N T S
The authors acknowledge the PhD scholarship from Griffith University that supported this research. Open access pub-
lishing facilitated by Griffith University, as part of the Wiley - Griffith University agreement via the Council of Austra-
lian University Librarians.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
R EL ATE D WIR Es AR TI CL ES
Nature-based solutions for urban pluvial flood risk management
Green infrastructure: The future of urban flood risk management?
Framing “nature-based” solutions to climate change
Attending to the social-political dimensions of urban flooding in decision-support research: A synthesis of
contemporary empirical cases
ORCID
Md. Esraz-Ul-Zannat https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6443-2553
Aysin Dedekorkut-Howes https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3844-4796
Edward Alexander Morgan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9239-4320
R EF E RE N C E S
Articles included in the Systematic Quantitative Literature Review are noted with an asterisk.
*Abdulkareem, M., Kenawy, I., & ElKadi, H. (2020). Neo Ekistics for flood mitigation in cities. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sus-
tainable Development, 17(2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-01-2018-0008
*Adedeji, T., Proverbs, D., Xiao, H., Cobbing, P., & Oladokun, V. (2019). Making Birmingham a flood resilient city: Challenges and opportu-
nities. Water, 11(8), 1699. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11081699
*Aerts, J. C. J. H., Botzen, W. J. W., Emanuel, K., Lin, N., de Moel, H., & Michel-Kerjan, E. O. (2014). Evaluating flood resilience strategies
for coastal megacities. Science, 344(6183), 473–475. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248222
Ahiablame, L. M., Engel, B. A., & Chaubey, I. (2013). Effectiveness of low impact development practices in two urbanized watersheds: Retro-
fitting with rain barrel/cistern and porous pavement. Journal of Environmental Management, 119, 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2013.01.019
Ahilan, S., Wright, N. G., Sleigh, A., Too, S., Glenis, V., Kilsby, C., & Kutija, V. (2014). Flood risk management in small urban river using a
sustainable urban drainage system: Wortley Beck. Leeds.
*Ahmadisharaf, E., Alamdari, N., Tajrishy, M., & Ghanbari, S. (2021). Effectiveness of retention ponds for sustainable urban flood mitigation
across range of storm depths in Northern Tehran, Iran. Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment, 7(2), 05021003. https://
doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY.0000946
*Alikhani, J., Nietch, C., Jacobs, S., Shuster, B., & Massoudieh, A. (2020). Modeling and design scenario analysis of long-term monitored bio-
retention system for rainfall-runoff reduction to combined sewer in Cincinnati, OH. Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environ-
ment, 6(2), 04019016. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY.0000903
Anand, A., & Goswami, S. (2020). Living with water: Integrating blue, green and grey infrastructure to manage urban floodsjWRI India.
https://wri-india.org/blog/living-water-integrating-blue-green-and-grey-infrastructure-manage-urban-floods
Arnone, E., Pumo, D., Francipane, A., La Loggia, G., & Noto, L. V. (2018). The role of urban growth, climate change, and their interplay in
altering runoff extremes. Hydrological Processes, 32(12), 1755–1770.
*Ashley, R. M., Gersonius, B., Digman, C., Horton, B., Bacchin, T., Smith, B., Shaffer, P., & Baylis, A. (2018). Demonstrating and monetizing
the multiple benefits from using SuDS. Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment, 4(2), 05017008. https://doi.org/10.1061/
JSWBAY.0000848
*Axelsson, C., Soriani, S., Culligan, P., & Marcotullio, P. (2021). Urban policy adaptation toward managing increasing pluvial flooding events
under climate change. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(8), 1408–1427. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.
1823346
*Ayalew, T. B., Krajewski, W. F., & Mantilla, R. (2015). Insights into expected changes in regulated flood frequencies due to the spatial con-
figuration of flood retention ponds. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 20(10), 04015010. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.
0001173
*Bark, R. H., Martin-Ortega, J., & Waylen, K. A. (2021). Stakeholders' views on natural flood management: Implications for the nature-based
solutions paradigm shift? Environmental Science & Policy, 115, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.018
Bartlett, J. A., & Dedekorkut-Howes, A. (2022). Adaptation strategies for climate change impacts on water quality: A systematic review of the
literature. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 14, 651–675. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2022.279
*Bernello, G., Mondino, E., & Bortolini, L. (2022). People's perception of nature-based solutions for flood mitigation: The case of Veneto
region (Italy). Sustainability, 14(8), 4621. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084621
*Bokhove, O., Kelmanson, M. A., Kent, T., Piton, G., & Tacnet, J. (2019). Communicating (nature-based) flood-mitigation schemes using
flood-excess volume. River Research and Applications, 35(9), 1402–1414. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3507
Brears, R. C. (2018). Blue and green cities: The role of blue-green infrastructure in managing urban water resources. https://www.fishpond.
com.au/Books/Blue-and-Green-Cities-Brears-Robert-C/9781137592576?utm_source=googleps&utm_medium=ps&utm_campaign=
AU&gclid=Cj0KCQjwjIKYBhC6ARIsAGEds-IuGgKK2hHCncl0aVDJ6QaJAiIykcdaONMbJXgx7YWwYJoEbOF4BgcaAkHGEALw_wcB
Brears, R. C. (2022). Financing nature-based solutions. In Financing nature-based solutions: Exploring public, private, and blended finance
models and case studies (pp. 29–50). Springer.
*Brillinger, M., Dehnhardt, A., Schwarze, R., & Albert, C. (2020). Exploring the uptake of nature-based measures in flood risk management:
Evidence from German federal states. Environmental Science & Policy, 110, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.008
*Brillinger, M., Henze, J., Albert, C., & Schwarze, R. (2021). Integrating nature-based solutions in flood risk management plans: A matter of
individual beliefs? Science of the Total Environment, 795, 148896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148896
Burian, S. J., & Edwards, F. G. (2002). Historical perspectives of urban drainage. Global Solutions for Urban Drainage, 1–16. https://doi.
org/10.1061/40644(2002)284
*Busayo, E. T., Kalumba, A. M., Afuye, G. A., Olusola, A. O., Ololade, O. O., & Orimoloye, I. R. (2022). Rediscovering South Africa: Flood
disaster risk management through ecosystem-based adaptation. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 14, 100175. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.indic.2022.100175
Cao, W., Zhou, Y., Güneralp, B., Li, X., Zhao, K., & Zhang, H. (2022). Increasing global urban exposure to flooding: An analysis of long-term
annual dynamics. Science of the Total Environment, 817, 153012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153012
Chen, A. S., Djordjevic, S., Leandro, J., & Savic, D. A. (2010). An analysis of the combined consequences of pluvial and fluvial flooding. Water
Science and Technology, 62(7), 1491–1498.
Chen, P.-Y., Tung, C.-P., & Li, Y.-H. (2017). Low impact development planning and adaptation decision-making under climate change for a
community against pluvial flooding. Water, 9(10), 756. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9100756
*Chen, V., Bonilla Brenes, J. R., Chapa, F., & Hack, J. (2021). Development and modelling of realistic retrofitted nature-based solution sce-
narios to reduce flood occurrence at the catchment scale. Ambio, 50(8), 1462–1476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01493-8
*Chiu, Y.-Y., Raina, N., & Chen, H.-E. (2021). Evolution of flood defense strategies: Toward nature-based solutions. Environments, 9(1), 2.
https://doi.org/10.3390/environments9010002
*Chuang, M.-T., Chen, T.-L., & Lin, Z.-H. (2020). A review of resilient practice based upon flood vulnerability in New Taipei City, Taiwan.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 46, 101494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101494
Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., & Maginnis, S. (2016). Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. IUCN:
Gland, Switzerland, 97, 2016–2036.
Collentine, D., & Futter, M. N. (2018). Realising the potential of natural water retention measures in catchment flood management: Trade-
offs and matching interests. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11(1), 76–84.
*Conte, G., Bolognesi, A., Bragalli, C., Branchini, S., Carli, A., Lenzi, C., Masi, F., Massarutto, A., Pollastri, M., & Principi, I. (2012). Innova-
tive urban water management as a climate change adaptation strategy: Results from the implementation of the project “Water Against
Climate Change (WATACLIC)”. Water, 4(4), 1025–1038. https://doi.org/10.3390/w4041025
*Costa, S., Peters, R., Martins, R., Postmes, L., Keizer, J. J., & Roebeling, P. (2021). Effectiveness of nature-based solutions on pluvial flood
Hazard mitigation: The case study of the City of Eindhoven (The Netherlands). Resources, 10(3), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/
resources10030024
Cuce, E. (2017). Thermal regulation impact of green walls: An experimental and numerical investigation. Applied Energy, 194, 247–254.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.09.079
de Souza, D. T., & Torres, P. H. C. (2021). Greening and just cities: Elements for fostering a south–North dialogue based on a systematic liter-
ature review. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 3, 669944.
Dedekorkut-Howes, A., Torabi, E., & Howes, M. (2020). When the tide gets high: A review of adaptive responses to sea level rise and coastal
flooding. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63(12), 2102–2143. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1708709
Department of Environmental Protection. (2004). New Jersey stormwater best management practices manual (p. 363).
Department of Environmental Quality. (2022). Slow sand filter guidance. https://www2.deq.idaho.gov/admin/LEIA/api/document/
download/16620
Dhakal, K. P., & Chevalier, L. R. (2017). Managing urban stormwater for urban sustainability: Barriers and policy solutions for green infra-
structure application. Journal of Environmental Management, 203, 171–181.
Dhyani, S., Basu, M., Santhanam, H., & Dasgupta, R. (2022). Blue-green infrastructure across Asian countries.
Dhyani, S., Gupta, A. K., & Karki, M. (2020). Nature-based solutions for resilient ecosystems and societies. Springer.
Dodman, D., Hayward, B., Pelling, M., Broto, V. C., Chow, W., Chu, E., Dawson, R., Khirfan, L., McPhearson, T., Prakash, A., Zheng, Y., &
Ziervogel, G. (2022). Cities, settlements and key infrastructure. In H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. M. B. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K.
Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, & B. Rama (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Impacts, adap-
tation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
Cambridge University Press.
*Doorga, J. R. S., Magerl, L., Bunwaree, P., Zhao, J., Watkins, S., Staub, C. G., Rughooputh, S. D. D. V., Cunden, T. S. M., Lollchund, R., &
Boojhawon, R. (2022). GIS-based multi-criteria modelling of flood risk susceptibility in Port Louis, Mauritius: Towards resilient flood
management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 67, 102683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102683
*Driessen, P. P. J., Hegger, D. L. T., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Van Rijswick, H. F. M. W., Crabbé, A., Larrue, C., Matczak, P., Pettersson, M.,
Priest, S., Suykens, C., Raadgever, G. T., & Wiering, M. (2018). Governance strategies for improving flood resilience in the face of climate
change. Water, 10(11), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111595
*Du, S., Scussolini, P., Ward, P. J., Zhang, M., Wen, J., Wang, L., Koks, E., Diaz-Loaiza, A., Gao, J., Ke, Q., & Aerts, J. C. J. H. (2020). Hard or
soft flood adaptation? Advantages of a hybrid strategy for Shanghai. Global Environmental Change, 61, 102037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2020.102037
du Toit, M. J., Hahs, A. K., & MacGregor-Fors, I. (2021). The effect of landscape history on the urban environment: Past landscapes, present
patterns. In C. M. Shackleton, S. S. Cilliers, E. Davoren, & M. J. du Toit (Eds.), Urban ecology in the global south (pp. 51–78). Springer.
Ekka, S. A., Rujner, H., Leonhardt, G., Blecken, G.-T., Viklander, M., & Hunt, W. F. (2021). Next generation swale design for stormwater
runoff treatment: A comprehensive approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 279, 111756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
2020.111756
Ellis, J. B., & Viavattene, C. (2014). Sustainable urban drainage system modeling for managing urban surface water flood risk. CLEAN–Soil,
Air, Water, 42(2), 153–159.
Emerson, C. H., Welty, C., & Traver, R. G. (2005). Watershed-scale evaluation of a system of storm water detention basins. Journal of Hydro-
logic Engineering, 10(3), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2005)10:3(237)
European Commission. (2023). Nature-based solutions. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/environment/nature-
based-solutions_en
*Fan, R., Tong, Y., & Lee, J. G. (2017). Determining the optimal BMP arrangement under current and future climate regimes: Case study.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 143(9), 05017009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000816
*Feldman, A., Foti, R., & Montalto, F. (2019). Green infrastructure implementation in urban parks for stormwater management. Journal of
Sustainable Water in the Built Environment, 5(3), 05019003. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY.0000880
Feng, B., Zhang, Y., & Bourke, R. (2021). Urbanization impacts on flood risks based on urban growth data and coupled flood models. Natural
Hazards, 106(1), 613–627.
Ferreira, C., Mourato, S., Kasanin-Grubin, M., Ferreira, A. J. D., Destouni, G., & Kalantari, Z. (2020). Effectiveness of nature-based solutions
in mitigating flood hazard in a mediterranean peri-urban catchment. Water, 12(10), 2893. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102893
Fletcher, T. D., Shuster, W., Hunt, W. F., Ashley, R., Butler, D., Arthur, S., Trowsdale, S., Barraud, S., Semadeni-Davies, A., & Bertrand-
Krajewski, J.-L. (2015). SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more–the evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage.
Urban Water Journal, 12(7), 525–542.
Foster, J., Lowe, A., & Winkelman, S. (2011). The value of green infrastructure for urban climate adaptation. Center for Clean Air Policy,
750(1), 1–52.
*Gearey, M. (2018). Re-naturing cities: Reducing flood risk through nature-based solutions. Geography, 103(2), 105–109. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00167487.2018.12094046
*Giese, E., Rockler, A., Shirmohammadi, A., & Pavao-Zuckerman, M. A. (2019). Assessing watershed-scale stormwater green infrastructure
response to climate change in Clarksburg, Maryland. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 145(10), 05019015. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001099
Gilroy, K. L., & McCuen, R. H. (2009). Spatio-temporal effects of low impact development practices. Journal of Hydrology, 367(3–4), 228–236.
Glavovic, B., Dawson, R., Chow, W., Garschagen, M., Haasnoot, M., Singh, C., & Thomas, A. (2022). Cities and settlements by the sea. In
H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. M. B. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möl-
ler, A. Okem, & B. Rama (Eds.), Cross-chapter paper 2: Cities and settlements by the sea. In: Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and
vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge
University Press.
*Gleason, J. A., & Casiano Flores, C. (2021). Challenges of water sensitive cities in Mexico: The case of the metropolitan area of Guadalajara.
Water, 13(5), 601. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13050601
*Green, D., O'Donnell, E., Johnson, M., Slater, L., Thorne, C., Zheng, S., Stirling, R., Chan, F. K. S., Li, L., & Boothroyd, R. J. (2021). Green
infrastructure: The future of urban flood risk management? WIREs Water, 8(6), e1560. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1560
*Guo, R., Ding, Y., Shang, L., Wang, D., Cao, X., Wang, S., Bonatz, N., & Wang, L. (2018). Sustainability-oriented urban renewal and low-
impact development applications in China: Case study of Yangpu District, Shanghai. Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environ-
ment, 4(1), 05017006. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY.0000840
*Hagedoorn, L. C., Bubeck, P., Hudson, P., Brander, L. M., Pham, M., & Lasage, R. (2021). Preferences of vulnerable social groups for
ecosystem-based adaptation to flood risk in Central Vietnam. World Development, 148, 105650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.
105650
Hagedoorn, L. C., Koetse, M. J., & van Beukering, P. J. (2021). Estimating benefits of nature-based solutions: Diverging values from choice
experiments with time or money payments. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9, 686077.
Hagedoorn, L. C., Koetse, M. J., van Beukering, P. J., & Brander, L. M. (2021). Reducing the finance gap for nature-based solutions with time
contributions. Ecosystem Services, 52, 101371.
*Hamel, P., & Tan, L. (2022). Blue-green infrastructure for flood and water quality management in Southeast Asia: Evidence and knowledge
gaps. Environmental Management, 69(4), 699–718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01467-w
*Han, S., & Kuhlicke, C. (2021). Barriers and drivers for mainstreaming nature-based solutions for flood risks: The case of South Korea. Inter-
national Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 12(5), 661–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-021-00372-4
*Hankin, B., Page, T., McShane, G., Chappell, N., Spray, C., Black, A., & Comins, L. (2021). How can we plan resilient systems of nature-
based mitigation measures in larger catchments for flood risk reduction now and in the future? Water Security, 13, 100091. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasec.2021.100091
Hanson, H. I., Wickenberg, B., & Olsson, J. A. (2020). Working on the boundaries—How do science use and interpret the nature-based solu-
tion concept? Land Use Policy, 90, 104302.
Harrell, L. J., & Ranjithan, S. R. (2003). Detention pond design and land use planning for watershed management. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, 129(2), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2003)129:2(98)
Hoss, F., Fischbach, J., & Molina-Perez, E. (2016). Effectiveness of best management practices for stormwater treatment as a function of run-
off volume. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 142(11), 05016009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.
0000684
Hu, M., Sayama, T., Zhang, X., Tanaka, K., Takara, K., & Yang, H. (2017). Evaluation of low impact development approach for mitigating
flood inundation at a watershed scale in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 193, 430–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.
2017.02.020
*Huang, W., Hashimoto, S., Yoshida, T., Saito, O., & Taki, K. (2021). A nature-based approach to mitigate flood risk and improve ecosystem
services in Shiga, Japan. Ecosystem Services, 50, 101309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101309
*Huang, Y., Tian, Z., Ke, Q., Liu, J., Irannezhad, M., Fan, D., Hou, M., & Sun, L. (2020). Nature-based solutions for urban pluvial flood risk
management. WIREs Water, 7(3), e1421. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1421
Huong, H. T. L., & Pathirana, A. (2013). Urbanization and climate change impacts on future urban flooding in Can Tho city, Vietnam.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(1), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-379-2013
*Huq, N. (2016). Institutional adaptive capacities to promote Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) to flooding in England. International Jour-
nal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 8(2), 212–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-02-2015-0013
Hutchinson, D., Abrams, P., Retzlaff, R., & Liptan, T. (2003). Stormwater monitoring two ecoroofs in Portland, Oregon, USA. The first
annual greening, greening rooftops for sustainable communities, Chicago.
*Iacob, O., Rowan, J. S., Brown, I., & Ellis, C. (2014). Evaluating wider benefits of natural flood management strategies: An ecosystem-based
adaptation perspective. Hydrology Research, 45(6), 774–787. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2014.184
IPCC. (2007). World climate change projections-SRES B1 scenario final data.
IPCC. (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. In R. K. Pachauri, M. R. Allen, V. R. Barros, J. Broome, W. Cramer, R. Christ, J. A.
Church, L. Clarke, Q. Dahe, & P. Dasgupta (Eds.), Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergov-
ernmental panel on climate change. IPCC.
IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press.
*Janssen, S., Vreugdenhil, H., Hermans, L., & Slinger, J. (2020). On the nature based flood defence dilemma and its resolution: A game the-
ory based analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 705, 135359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135359
*Jayawardena, I., & van Roon, M. (2017). Water sensitive planning and design as an ecologically inspired approach to delivering flood resil-
ient urban environment in Sri Lanka. Water Practice and Technology, 12(4), 964–977. https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2017.100
Joksimovic, D., & Alam, Z. (2014). Cost efficiency of low impact development (LID) stormwater management practices. Procedia Engineering,
89, 734–741.
Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Artmann, M., Haase, D., Knapp, S., Korn, H., & Stadler, J. (2016). Nature-
based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: Perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and
opportunities for action. Ecology and Society, 21(2), 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239
Kapetas, L., & Fenner, R. (2020). Integrating blue-green and grey infrastructure through an adaptation pathways approach to surface water
flooding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 378(2168), 20190204.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0204
Kleidorfer, M., Mikovits, C., Jasper-Tönnies, A., Huttenlau, M., Einfalt, T., & Rauch, W. (2014). Impact of a changing environment on drain-
age system performance. Procedia Engineering, 70, 943–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.02.105
*Kourtis, I. M., Bellos, V., Kopsiaftis, G., Psiloglou, B., & Tsihrintzis, V. A. (2021). Methodology for holistic assessment of grey-green flood
mitigation measures for climate change adaptation in urban basins. Journal of Hydrology, 603, 126885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.
2021.126885
Kuller, M., Farrelly, M., Marthanty, D. R., Deletic, A., & Bach, P. M. (2022). Planning support systems for strategic implementation of
nature-based solutions in the global south: Current role and future potential in Indonesia. Cities, 126, 103693 https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0264275122001329
Kwadijk, J. C., Haasnoot, M., Mulder, J. P., Hoogvliet, M. M., Jeuken, A. B., van der Krogt, R. A., van Oostrom, N. G., Schelfhout, H. A., van
Velzen, E. H., & van Waveren, H. (2010). Using adaptation tipping points to prepare for climate change and sea level rise: A case study
in The Netherlands. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(5), 729–740.
*Laeni, N., van den Brink, M., & Arts, J. (2019). Is Bangkok becoming more resilient to flooding? A framing analysis of Bangkok's flood resil-
ience policy combining insights from both insiders and outsiders. Cities, 90, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.02.002
*Lallemant, D., Hamel, P., Balbi, M., Lim, T. N., Schmitt, R., & Win, S. (2021). Nature-based solutions for flood risk reduction: A probabilistic
modeling framework. One Earth, 4(9), 1310–1321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.08.010
Lassa, J. A. (2012). Post disaster governance, complexity and network theory: Evidence from Aceh, Indonesia after the Indian Ocean Tsu-
nami 2004. PLoS Currents, 7, ecec1b6. http://doi.org/10.1371/4f7972ecec1b6
*Leandro, J., Chen, K.-F., Wood, R. R., & Ludwig, R. (2020). A scalable flood-resilience-index for measuring climate change adaptation:
Munich city. Water Research, 173, 115502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.115502
*Lee, K. T., & Huang, P.-C. (2018). Assessment of flood mitigation through riparian detention in response to a changing climate – A case
study. Journal of Earth System Science, 127(6), 83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-018-0983-7
*Lin, J.-Y., Chen, C.-F., & Ho, C.-C. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of Green Roads for runoff control. Journal of Sustainable Water in
the Built Environment, 4(2), 04018001. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY.0000847
Liu, J., Sample, D. J., Bell, C., & Guan, Y. (2014). Review and research needs of bioretention used for the treatment of urban stormwater.
Water, 6(4), 1069–1099.
Luedke, H. (2019). Nature as resilient infrastructure: An overview of nature-based solutions. Environmental and Energy Study Institute.
(Issue September).
*Ma, M., Yu, H., Wang, H., Kong, F., Zhang, K., Yang, H., Liu, C., & Liu, Q. (2018). Characteristics of urban waterlogging and flash flood
hazards and their integrated preventive measures: Case study in Fuzhou, China. Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment,
4(1), 05017007. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY.0000835
*Majidi, V., Alves, W., Sanchez, B., & Kluck, J. (2019). Planning nature-based solutions for urban flood reduction and thermal comfort
enhancement. Sustainability, 11(22), 6361. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226361
McClymont, K., Cunha, D. G. F., Maidment, C., Ashagre, B., Vasconcelos, A. F., de Macedo, M. B., Dos Santos, M. F. N., Júnior, M. N. G.,
Mendiondo, E. M., & Barbassa, A. P. (2020). Towards urban resilience through sustainable drainage systems: A multi-objective optimisa-
tion problem. Journal of Environmental Management, 275, 111173.
*McDonough, K., Moore, T., & Hutchinson, S. (2017). Understanding the relationship between stormwater control measures and ecosystem
services in an Urban Watershed. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 143(5), 04017008. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000751
Moftakhari, H. R., AghaKouchak, A., Sanders, B. F., & Matthew, R. A. (2017). Cumulative hazard: The case of nuisance flooding. Earth's
Future, 5(2), 214–223. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000494
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA
statement. BMJ, 339, b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
*Mubeen, A., Ruangpan, L., Vojinovic, Z., Sanchez Torrez, A., & Plavšic, J. (2021). Planning and suitability assessment of large-scale nature-
based solutions for flood-risk reduction. Water Resources Management, 35(10), 3063–3081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02848-w
*Muis, S., Güneralp, B., Jongman, B., Aerts, J. C. J. H., & Ward, P. J. (2015). Flood risk and adaptation strategies under climate change and
urban expansion: A probabilistic analysis using global data. Science of the Total Environment, 538, 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2015.08.068
Munich, R. E. (2020). Risks from floods, storm surges and flash floods. Retrieved from Munich RE: https://www.munichre.com/en/risks/
natural
Nassary, E. K., Msomba, B. H., Masele, W. E., Ndaki, P. M., & Kahangwa, C. A. (2022). Exploring urban green packages as part of nature-
based solutions for climate change adaptation measures in rapidly growing cities of the Global South. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment, 310, 114786.
*Oladunjoye, O. A., Proverbs, D. G., Collins, B., & Xiao, H. (2019). A cost-benefit analysis model for the retrofit of sustainable urban drainage
systems towards improved flood risk mitigation. International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, 38(3), 423–439. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJBPA-12-2018-0105
*Oral, H. V., Radinja, M., Rizzo, A., Kearney, K., Andersen, T. R., Krzeminski, P., Buttiglieri, G., Ayral-Cinar, D., Comas, J., Gajewska, M.,
Hartl, M., Finger, D. C., Kazak, J. K., Mattila, H., Vieira, P., Piro, P., Palermo, S. A., Turco, M., Pirouz, B., … Carvalho, P. N. (2021). Man-
agement of urban waters with nature-based solutions in circular cities—Exemplified through seven urban circularity challenges. Water,
13(23), 3334. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13233334
Orsini, F., Kahane, R., Nono-Womdim, R., & Gianquinto, G. (2013). Urban agriculture in the developing world: A review. Agronomy for Sus-
tainable Development, 33(4), 695–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0143-z
*Oukes, C., Leendertse, W., & Arts, J. (2022). Enhancing the use of flood resilient spatial planning in Dutch water management. A study of
barriers and opportunities in practice. Planning Theory & Practice, 23(2), 212–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2022.2034921
Ourloglou, O., Stefanidis, K., & Dimitriou, E. (2020). Assessing nature-based and cassical engineering solutions for flood-risk reduction in
urban streams. Journal of Ecological Engineering, 21(2), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/116349
Palmer, M. A., Liu, J., Matthews, J. H., Mumba, M., & D'Odorico, P. (2015). Manage water in a green way. Science, 349(6248), 584–585.
*Pamungkas, A., & Purwitaningsih, S. (2019). Green and grey infrastructures approaches in flood reduction. International Journal of Disaster
Resilience in the Built Environment, 10(5), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-03-2019-0010
Parker, J., & Simpson, G. D. (2018). Public Green infrastructure contributes to city livability: A systematic quantitative review. Land, 7(4),
Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7040161
*Perosa, F., Gelhaus, M., Zwirglmaier, V., Arias-Rodriguez, L. F., Zingraff-Hamed, A., Cyffka, B., & Disse, M. (2021). Integrated valuation of
nature-based solutions using TESSA: Three floodplain restoration studies in the Danube catchment. Sustainability, 13(3), 1482. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su13031482
Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2014). The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-
career researchers. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(3), 534–548.
Qin, H., Li, Z., & Fu, G. (2013). The effects of low impact development on urban flooding under different rainfall characteristics. Journal of
Environmental Management, 129, 577–585.
*Raška, P., Bezak, N., Ferreira, C. S. S., Kalantari, Z., Banasik, K., Bertola, M., Bourke, M., Cerdà, A., Davids, P., Madruga de Brito, M.,
Evans, R., Finger, D. C., Halbac-Cotoara-Zamfir, R., Housh, M., Hysa, A., Jakubínský, J., Solomun, M. K., Kaufmann, M., Keesstra, S., …
Hartmann, T. (2022). Identifying barriers for nature-based solutions in flood risk management: An interdisciplinary overview using
expert community approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 310, 114725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114725
Rentschler, J., Avner, P., Marconcini, M., Su, R., Strano, E., Vousdoukas, M., & Hallegatte, S. (2023). Global evidence of rapid urban growth
in flood zones since 1985. Nature, 622(7981), 87–92.
*Ronchi, S., & Arcidiacono, A. (2018). Adopting an ecosystem services-based approach for flood resilient strategies: The case of Rocinha
Favela (Brazil). Sustainability, 11(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010004
*Rosenzweig, B. R., McPhillips, L., Chang, H., Cheng, C., Welty, C., Matsler, M., Iwaniec, D., & Davidson, C. I. (2018). Pluvial flood risk and
opportunities for resilience. WIREs Water, 5(6), e1302. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1302
*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). Science of the Total Environment, 655,
188–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.116
Sanyé-Mengual, E., Specht, K., Vavra, J., Artmann, M., Orsini, F., & Gianquinto, G. (2020). Ecosystem services of urban agriculture: Percep-
tions of project leaders, stakeholders and the general public. Sustainability, 12(24), Article 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410446
Schipper, E. L. F., Revi, A., Preston, B. L., Carr, E. R., Eriksen, S. H., Fernandez-Carril, L. R., Glavovic, B., Hilmi, N. J. M., Ley, D.,
Mukerji, R., de Araujo, M. S. M., Perez, R., Rose, S. K., & Singh, P. K. (2022). Climate resilient development pathways. In H.-O. Pörtner,
D. C. Roberts, M. M. B. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, &
B. Rama (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the sixth assessment report
of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press.
*Schmitt, T. G., & Scheid, C. (2020). Evaluation and communication of pluvial flood risks in urban areas. WIREs Water, 7(1), e1401. https://
doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1401
Scholz, M., Morgan, R., & Picher, A. (2005). Stormwater resources development and management in Glasgow: Two case studies. Interna-
tional Journal of Environmental Studies, 62(3), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207230500034453
*Schuetze, T., & Chelleri, L. (2013). Integrating decentralized rainwater management in urban planning and design: flood resilient and sus-
tainable water management using the example of coastal cities in The Netherlands and Taiwan. Water, 5(2), 593–616. https://doi.org/10.
3390/w5020593
Seddon, N., Chausson, A., Berry, P., Girardin, C. A., Smith, A., & Turner, B. (2020). Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solu-
tions to climate change and other global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1794), 20190120.
*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. Global Change Biology, 27(8), 1518–1546. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15513
*Short, C., Clarke, L., Carnelli, F., Uttley, C., & Smith, B. (2019). Capturing the multiple benefits associated with nature-based solutions: Les-
sons from a natural flood management project in the Cotswolds, UK. Land Degradation & Development, 30(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/
10.1002/ldr.3205
Silva, M., Watson, G., Amin, A. L., Watkins, G., Rycerz, A., & Firth, J. (2020). Increasing infrastructure resilience with nature-based solutions
(NbS).
*Spahr, K. M., Smith, J. M., McCray, J. E., & Hogue, T. S. (2021). Reading the green landscape: Public attitudes toward green stormwater
infrastructure and the perceived nonmonetary value of its co-benefits in three US cities. Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Envi-
ronment, 7(4), 04021017. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY.0000963
Spraakman, S., Rodgers, T. F., Monri-Fung, H., Nowicki, A., Diamond, M. L., Passeport, E., Thuna, M., & Drake, J. (2020). A need for stan-
dardized reporting: A scoping review of bioretention research 2000–2019. Water, 12(11), 3122.
*Sutton-Grier, A., Gittman, R., Arkema, K., Bennett, R., Benoit, J., Blitch, S., Burks-Copes, K., Colden, A., Dausman, A., DeAngelis, B.,
Hughes, A., Scyphers, S., & Grabowski, J. (2018). Investing in natural and nature-based infrastructure: Building better along our coasts.
Sustainability, 10(2), 523. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020523
*Tafel, L., Ott, E., Brillinger, M., Schulze, C., & Schröter, B. (2022). Attitudes of administrative decision-makers towards nature-based solu-
tions for flood risk management in Germany. Sustainability Science, 17(1), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01072-0
The Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Freshwater Ecology. (2005). Little Stringybark Creek Project. https://urbanstreams.net/lsc/
The European Commission. (2022, August 20). Detention basinsjnatural water retention measures. Natural water retention measures. http://
nwrm.eu/measure/detention-basins
The Prince George's County. (2007). Bioretention manual [user manual]. The Prince George's County. https://www.aacounty.org/
departments/public-works/highways/forms-and-publications/RG_Bioretention_PG%20CO.pdf
Torres, P. H. C., de Souza, D. T. P., Momm, S., Travassos, L., Picarelli, S. B., Jacobi, P. R., & da Silva Moreno, R. (2023). Just cities and
nature-based solutions in the Global South: A diagnostic approach to move beyond panaceas in Brazil. Environmental Science & Policy,
143, 24–34.
Trinh, D. H., & Chui, T. F. M. (2013). Assessing the hydrologic restoration of an urbanized area via an integrated distributed hydrological
model. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(12), 4789–4801. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4789-2013
*Truu, M., Annus, I., Roosimägi, J., Kändler, N., Vassiljev, A., & Kaur, K. (2021). Integrated decision support system for pluvial flood-resilient
spatial planning in urban areas. Water, 13(23), 3340. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13233340
*Turkelboom, F., Demeyer, R., Vranken, L., De Becker, P., Raymaekers, F., & De Smet, L. (2021). How does a nature-based solution for flood
control compare to a technical solution? Case study evidence from Belgium. Ambio, 50(8), 1431–1445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-
021-01548-4
US EPA. (2014, October 23). Best management practices (BMPs) siting tool [Overviews and Factsheets]. https://www.epa.gov/water-
research/best-management-practices-bmps-siting-tool
Van Coppenolle, R., & Temmerman, S. (2019). A global exploration of tidal wetland creation for nature-based flood risk mitigation in coastal
cities. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 226, 106262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2019.106262
*Vojinovic, Z., Alves, A., Gomez, J. P., Weesakul, S., Keerakamolchai, W., Meesuk, V., & Sanchez, A. (2021). Effectiveness of small- and
large-scale nature-based solutions for flood mitigation: The case of Ayutthaya, Thailand. Science of The Total Environment, 789, 147725.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147725
*Wild, T. C., Henneberry, J., & Gill, L. (2017). Comprehending the multiple ‘values’ of green infrastructure – Valuing nature-based solutions
for urban water management from multiple perspectives. Environmental Research, 158, 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.
05.043
Wolff, E., Rauf, H. A., Diep, L., Natakun, B., Kelly, K., & Hamel, P. (2022). Implementing participatory nature-based solutions in the Global
South. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 4, 956534.
Wright, A. (2021). Nature-based solutions are not always enough. This is how we can build with nature more effectively—Global Center on
Adaptation. https://gca.org/nature-based-solutions-are-not-always-enough-this-is-how-we-can-build-with-nature-more-effectively/
Wu, C.-L., & Chiang, Y.-C. (2018). A Geodesign framework procedure for developing flood resilient city. Habitat International, 75, 78–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2018.04.009
Wu, H., Zhang, J., Ngo, H. H., Guo, W., Hu, Z., Liang, S., Fan, J., & Liu, H. (2015). A review on the sustainability of constructed wetlands for
wastewater treatment: Design and operation. Bioresource Technology, 175, 594–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.10.068
Wu, S., Chen, B., Webster, C., Xu, B., & Gong, P. (2023). Improved human greenspace exposure equality during 21st century urbanization.
Nature Communications, 14(1), 6460.
Zabret, K., & Šraj, M. (2015). Can urban trees reduce the impact of climate change on storm runoff? Urbani Izziv, 26(supplement), S165–
S178. https://doi.org/10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2015-26-supplement-011
*Zahmatkesh, Z., Burian, S. J., Karamouz, M., Tavakol-Davani, H., & Goharian, E. (2015). Low-impact development practices to mitigate cli-
mate change effects on urban stormwater runoff: Case study of New York City. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 141(1),
04014043. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000770
Zellner, M., Massey, D., Minor, E., & Gonzalez-Meler, M. (2016). Exploring the effects of green infrastructure placement on neighborhood-
level flooding via spatially explicit simulations. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 59, 116–128.
Zhu, Z., & Chen, X. (2017). Evaluating the effects of low impact development practices on urban flooding under different rainfall intensities.
Water, 9(7), 548. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9070548
*Zingraff-Hamed, A., Hüesker, F., Albert, C., Brillinger, M., Huang, J., Lupp, G., Scheuer, S., Schlätel, M., & Schröter, B. (2021). Governance
models for nature-based solutions: Seventeen cases from Germany. Ambio, 50(8), 1610–1627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01412-x
S UP PO RT ING IN FOR MAT ION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Esraz-Ul-Zannat, M., Dedekorkut-Howes, A., & Morgan, E. A. (2024). A review of
nature-based infrastructures and their effectiveness for urban flood risk mitigation. WIREs Climate Change, e889.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.889

Esraz Ul Zannat 2024 WIREs Climate Change A Review of NBS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esraz Ul Zannat 2024 WIREs Climate Change A Review of NBS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 23 May 2023 Revised: 3 April 2024 Accepted: 13 April 2024

A review of nature-based infrastructures and their

Md. Esraz-Ul-Zannat 1,2 | Aysin Dedekorkut-Howes 1,2 |

This article is categorized under:

WIREs Clim Change. 2024;e889. wires.wiley.com/climatechange 1 of 28

Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Learning from Cases

3.1 | NbS concepts—Context, objective, and application

FIGURE 1 PRISMA Diagram showing the article selection process.

FIGURE 2 Geographical distribution of case study cities in the reviewed literature.

3.2 | Comparison of NbS and hybrid with gray infrastructure

Aspect Gray infrastructure Hybrid NbS

Aspect Gray infrastructure Hybrid NbS

3.3 | Flood risk management with nature-based and hybrid infrastructures

3.3.1 | Geographical scales of NbS

3.3.2 | Overview and effectiveness of different types of NbS

FIGURE 5 Literature coverage of various NbS infrastructures (56.60% [43], n = 76).

Rain gardens (bioretention)

3.3.3 | Evidence from empirical case studies

gardens Thailand change discharges by up to 39% event

4.1 | Scant research evidence on NbS effectiveness

4.2 | The spatial disparity of NbS research and implementation

4.3 | Need for NbS research at different scales

4.4 | A combination of infrastructures outperforms single NbS for effective flood

4.5 | Integrating NbS into urban policy

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

S UP PO RT ING IN FOR MAT ION

You might also like