Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34088074›Full record

ReviewThe Science of the total environment2021

Nature-based solutions efficiency evaluation against natural hazards: Modelling methods, advantages and limitations.

Prashant Kumar, Sisay E Debele, Jeetendra Sahani, Nidhi Rawat, Belen Marti-Cardona, Silvia Maria Alfieri, Bidroha Basu, Arunima Sarkar Basu, Paul Bowyer, Nikos Charizopoulos and 17 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Science of the total environment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors.

Prashant KumarGlobal Centre for Clean Air Research (GCARE), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, United Kingdom; Department of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Electronic address: P.Kumar@surrey.ac.uk.
Sisay E DebeleGlobal Centre for Clean Air Research (GCARE), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
Jeetendra SahaniGlobal Centre for Clean Air Research (GCARE), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
Nidhi RawatGlobal Centre for Clean Air Research (GCARE), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
Belen Marti-CardonaGlobal Centre for Clean Air Research (GCARE), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, United Kingdom.
Silvia Maria AlfieriDepartment of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.
Bidroha BasuDepartment of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Arunima Sarkar BasuSchool of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Paul BowyerClimate Service Center Germany (GERICS), Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Hamburg, Germany.
Nikos CharizopoulosAgricultural University of Athens, Laboratory of Mineralogy-Geology, Iera Odos 75, 118 55 Athens, Greece; Region of Sterea Ellada, Kalivion 2, 351 32 Lamia, Greece.
Glauco GallottiDepartment of Physics and Astronomy (DIFA), Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Juvonen JaakkoFinnish Meteorological Institute, Erik Palménin Aukio 1, 00560 Helsinki, Finland.
Laura S LeoDepartment of Physics and Astronomy (DIFA), Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Michael LoupisInnovative Technologies Center S.A., Alketou Str. 25, 11633 Athens, Greece; National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Psachna 34400, Greece.
Massimo MenentiDepartment of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands; Aerospace Information Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Slobodan B MickovskiThe Built Environment Asset Management Research Centre, Glasgow Caledonian University, G4 0BA Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Seung-Jae MunClimate Service Center Germany (GERICS), Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Hamburg, Germany.
Alejandro Gonzalez-OllauriThe Built Environment Asset Management Research Centre, Glasgow Caledonian University, G4 0BA Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Jan PfeifferInstitute for Interdisciplinary Mountain Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Innsbruck, Austria.
Francesco PillaSchool of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Julius PröllClimate Service Center Germany (GERICS), Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Hamburg, Germany.
Martin RutzingerInstitute of Geography, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Marco Antonio SantoDepartment of Physics and Astronomy (DIFA), Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Srikanta SannigrahiSchool of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Christos SpyrouInnovative Technologies Center S.A., Alketou Str. 25, 11633 Athens, Greece; Institute for Astronomy, Astrophysics, Space Applications and Remote Sensing (IAASARS), National Observatory of Athens, 15236 Athens, Greece.
Heikki TuomenvirtaFinnish Meteorological Institute, Erik Palménin Aukio 1, 00560 Helsinki, Finland.
Thomas ZieherInstitute for Interdisciplinary Mountain Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Innsbruck, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nature-based solutions (NBS) for hydro-meteorological risks (HMRs) reduction and management are becoming increasingly popular, but challenges such as the lack of well-recognised standard methodologies to evaluate their performance and upscale their implementation remain. We systematically evaluate the current state-of-the art on the models and tools that are utilised for the optimum allocation, design and efficiency evaluation of NBS for five HMRs (flooding, droughts, heatwaves, landslides, and storm surges and coastal erosion). We found that methods to assess the complex issue of NBS efficiency and cost-benefits analysis are still in the development stage and they have only been implemented through the methodologies developed for other purposes such as fluid dynamics models in micro and catchment scale contexts. Of the reviewed numerical models and tools MIKE-SHE, SWMM (for floods), ParFlow-TREES, ACRU, SIMGRO (for droughts), WRF, ENVI-met (for heatwaves), FUNWAVE-TVD, BROOK90 (for landslides), TELEMAC and ADCIRC (for storm surges) are more flexible to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of specific NBS such as wetlands, ponds, trees, parks, grass, green roof/walls, tree roots, vegetations, coral reefs, mangroves, sea grasses, oyster reefs, sea salt marshes, sandy beaches and dunes. We conclude that the models and tools that are capable of assessing the multiple benefits, particularly the performance and cost-effectiveness of NBS for HMR reduction and management are not readily available. Thus, our synthesis of modelling methods can facilitate their selection that can maximise opportunities and refute the current political hesitation of NBS deployment compared with grey solutions for HMR management but also for the provision of a wide range of social and economic co-benefits. However, there is still a need for bespoke modelling tools that can holistically assess the various components of NBS from an HMR reduction and management perspective. Such tools can facilitate impact assessment modelling under different NBS scenarios to build a solid evidence base for upscaling and replicating the implementation of NBS.

Indexed as

Climate-impact mitigationCost-effectivenessNature-inspired solutionsNBS upscalingNumerical modelsPerformance evaluation

Identifiers

PMID34088074
PMCPMC8192688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.