Search for: All records

ABSTRACT Despite increased understanding and adoption of nature‐based solutions (NBSs) within urban and coastal areas, large‐scale NBS for fluvial flood mitigation remain challenging to study and implement. A stronger evidence base is needed to identify critical research gaps and to best inform the design and deployment of NBS on the watershed scale. We synthesize evidence of the performance and co‐benefits of NBS for fluvial flood mitigation based on a systematic review of 131 peer‐reviewed papers worldwide, developing an Ecosystem Focus Type (EFT) to compare flood mitigation across large‐scale NBS. While we find that NBS can mitigate fluvial floods across all EFTs, our study also highlights that inconsistencies in measurement methods, a dearth of empirical case studies, and large variability in reported values limit generalization and comparison across NBS. Co‐benefits for fluvial flood NBS are numerous, but few are quantified, and study methods vary with regard to specific NBS. Social benefits of NBS, including benefits to communities most in need of support, are infrequently part of these studies. There is a clear need to develop common design and performance standards for large‐scale NBS and for guidance on which measures are key to consider and monitor for flood mitigation and co‐benefits. The success of large‐scale NBS for fluvial flood mitigation will depend on research and practice guided by transdisciplinary systems thinking approaches that can deliver evidence‐based, community‐driven outcomes. 

Abstract The study compared the life cycle environmental impacts of three coastal flood management strategies: grey infrastructure (levee), green–grey infrastructure (levee and oyster reef), and a do-nothing scenario, considering the flood damage of a single flooding event in the absence of protection infrastructure. A case study was adopted from a New Orleans, Louisiana residential area to facilitate the comparison. Hazus software, design guidelines, reports, existing projects, and literature were utilized as foreground data for modelling materials. A process-based life cycle assessment was used to assess environmental impacts. The life cycle environmental impacts included global warming, ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication, smog formation, resource depletion, ecotoxicity, and various human health effects. The ecoinvent database was used for the selected life cycle unit processes. The mean results show green–grey infrastructure as the most promising strategy across most impact categories, reducing 47% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to the do-nothing strategy. Compared to grey infrastructure, green–grey infrastructure mitigates 13%–15% of the environmental impacts while providing equivalent flood protection. A flooding event with a 100-year recurrence interval in the study area is estimated at 34 million kg of CO₂equivalent per kilometre of shoreline, while grey and green–grey infrastructure mitigating such flooding is estimated to be 21 and 18 million kg, respectively. This study reinforced that coastal flooding environmental impacts are primarily caused by rebuilding damaged houses, especially concrete and structural timber replacement, accounting for 90% of GHG emissions, with only 10% associated with flood debris waste treatment. The asphalt cover of the levee was identified as the primary contributor to environmental impacts in grey infrastructure, accounting for over 75% of GHG emissions during construction. We found that there is an important interplay between grey and green infrastructure and optimizing their designs can offer solutions to sustainable coastal flood protection.