Nature-based solutions can help reduce the impact of natural hazards: A global analysis of NBS case studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The knowledge derived from successful case studies can act as a driver for the implementation and upscaling of nature-based solutions (NBS). This work reviewed 547 case studies to gain an overview of NBS practices and their role in reducing the adverse impact of natural hazards and climate change. The majority (60 %) of case studies are situated in Europe compared with the rest of the world where they are poorly represented. Of 547 case studies, 33 % were green solutions followed by hybrid (31 %), mixed (27 %), and blue (10 %) approaches. Approximately half (48 %) of these NBS interventions were implemented in urban (24 %), and river and lake (24 %) ecosystems. Regarding the scale of intervention, 92 % of the case studies were operationalised at local (50 %) and watershed (46 %) scales while very few (4 %) were implemented at the landscape scale. The results also showed that 63 % of NBS have been used to deal with natural hazards, climate change, and loss of biodiversity, while the remaining 37 % address socio-economic challenges (e.g., economic development, social justice, inequality, and cohesion). Around 88 % of NBS implementations were supported by policies at the national level and the rest 12 % at local and regional levels. Most of the analysed cases contributed to Sustainable Development Goals 15, 13, and 6, and biodiversity strategic goals B and D. Case studies also highlighted the co-benefits of NBS: 64 % of them were environmental co-benefits (e.g., improving biodiversity, air and water qualities, and carbon storage) while 36 % were social (27 %) and economic (9 %) co-benefits. This synthesis of case studies helps to bridge the knowledge gap between scientists, policymakers, and practitioners, which can allow adopting and upscaling of NBS for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation and enhance their preference in decision-making processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".