Nature-Based Solutions For Flood Mitigation and coastal-KI0120259ENN

Nature-based Solutions
for Flood Mitigation and

Coastal Resilience
Analysis of EU-funded projects
Independent
Expert
Report
Research and
Innovation
Nature-Based Solutions for Flood Mitigation and Coastal Resilience
Analysis of EU-funded Projects
European Commission
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Directorate C — Healthy Planet
Unit C3 — Climate and Planetary Boundaries
Contact Tiago Freitas

Email [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
Manuscript completed in April 2020

This document has been prepared for the European Commission, however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Commission
is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.
More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).
PDF ISBN 978-92-76-18197-2 doi:10.2777/374113 KI-01-20-259-EN-N

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020
© European Union, 2020
The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented based on Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on
the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under
a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is
allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.
For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly from the
respective rightholders.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Nature-Based Solutions
for Flood Mitigation and
Coastal Resilience
Analysis of EU-funded projects
Zoran Vojinovic
Valorisation of NBS projects

The initiative to analyse the impacts of EU-funded projects in the area of NBS and valorise
their results in terms of EU added value and policy relevance was initiated in December
2019. Six policy reports and a final consolidated report were produced and can be found at:
https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=nbs
The present report aims to provide an overview of results from EU-funded NBS projects and
how they support policy implementation in relation to Flood Mitigation and Coastal Resilience.
2020 Directorate-General for Research and Innovation EN

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................3
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................5
2. OVERVIEW OF MAIN FLOOD-RELATED POLICIES AND THEIR CONNECTION WITH NBS.....10
2.1 Floods Directive (FD)............................................................................................................................10

2.2 EU Action Plan on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (APSFDRR)......... 12
2.3 EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change (SACC).....................................................14
2.4 Key Recommendations........................................................................................................................16
3. CONTRIBUTION FROM EU-FUNDED PROJECTS TO FLOOD-RELATED POLICIES......17
4. THE EVIDENCE BASE....................................................................................................................................25
5. INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE MODELS.................................................................................................30
6. MARKET UPTAKE, FINANCING APPROACHES AND BUSINESS MODELS........................32
7. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND R&I GAPS...............................................................................35
7.1 Policy Recommendations...................................................................................................................35

7.2 Research and Innovation Gaps.......................................................................................................37
8. REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................................40
9. ANNEX 1: LIST OF REVIEWED RESEARCH PROJECTS...............................................................48
10. ANNEX 2: NBS PLATFORMS, PORTALS, DATABASES, NETWORKS AND INITIATIVES..........50
11. ANNEX 3: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.......................................................................................................51

3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It has become a well-accepted fact that traditional “grey” responses to floods and
coastal resilience are no longer achieving desirable results. Nature-based Solutions (NBS)
represent a relatively new response towards disaster risk reduction, water security, and
resilience to climate change, which has a potential to be more efficient, cost-effective
and sustainable than traditional measures.
This report aims to provide an overview of the results from EU-funded NBS projects in
support of policy instruments and to identify the gaps for future R&I investments. The
term ‘policy instruments’ refers here to documents such as directives, frameworks and
strategies at EU or Member States levels. A number of projects from several EU research
programmes such as FP7, HORIZON 2020, INTERREG, COST Actions and LIFE were
reviewed in relation to the three related policy instruments, namely Floods Directive, EU
Action Plan on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 and EU
Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change.
The review confirms that a considerable knowledge and evidence base has been
gained through various EU research programmes and actions and through the
Commission’s own internal scientific services (Joint Research Centre). However,
there is still a large gap between the research efforts concerning small- and large-
scale NBS, as small-scale interventions have received greater attention. In view
of the limitations of individual small-scale interventions, which is mainly related
to their inability to cope with larger rainfall events, future research efforts should
address “networks” (or “trains”) of interconnected small-scale NBS, as well as large-
scale NBS and their hybrid combinations with grey infrastructure for a range of
topics (e.g., performance characteristics, design standards and guidelines, coupling
between modelling technologies and real-time monitoring and operation systems,
cost-effectiveness, financing mechanisms, governance, social acceptance, etc).
Understanding the performance of different types and scales of NBS, associated
investment and operational costs, possibilities for achieving benefits and co-benefits
as well as their unforeseen negative effects and how they change over time would
prove valuable information for successful implementation of new and optimisation of
existing interventions. For small-scale NBS, further research concerning their multi-
functionality and co-benefits would be very beneficial.
The reviewed policy instruments do not sufficiently address contribution from NBS,
and when included, they provide more general statements without specific reference
to concrete set of actions and how or in what way they should (or can) be taken to
support these interventions. Hence, future versions of these documents should provide
more explicit reference to NBS interventions individually and in their hybrid combinations
with grey infrastructure. Furthermore, the need for implementation of NBS provides an
4
opportunity to achieve better synergy and coordination of efforts at the EU and national
Member States levels through integration of such measures into the national policy
instruments of Member States.
Nature-based Solutions to societal challenges are 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.
Nature-based Solutions must benefit biodiversity and support the delivery of a
range of ecosystem services.
For more information visit the European Commission webpages on Nature-based Solutions
https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=nbs
5
1. INTRODUCTION
Out of all types of natural disasters those disasters that are related to hydro-
meteorological phenomena (e.g. floods, storm surges, hurricanes/typhoons, among
others) have shown the fastest rate of increase in their frequency and intensity (e.g.,
Guha-Sapir et. al., 2016). With growing trends of climate change and sea level rise, the
challenges concerning flood management are likely to become even more demanding.
Adaptation to climate change provides an opportunity to improve our current practices
by introducing Nature-based Solutions (NBS) which, if implemented properly, can also
provide multiple co-benefits1 besides flood risk reduction.
The term NBS appeared in 2008 and it is considered to be an “umbrella concept” for a range
of different terms. Ruangpan et. al., (2020) identified eight different terms that relate to NBS
in the context of hydro-meteorological risk reduction. These are: low-impact developments
(LIDs) which appeared in 1977, best management practices (BMPs) appeared in 1980,
water-sensitive urban design (WSUD) appeared in 1994, green infrastructure (GI) appeared
in 1995, sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDs) appeared in 2001, ecosystem-based
adaptation (EbA) appeared in 2009, ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR)
appeared in 2010 and blue–green infrastructure (BGI) appeared in 2013.
These terms are mainly related to small-scale NBS which represent solutions applied at the
urban or local scale, for instance at the level of individual buildings, streets or roofs (e.g.,
filter drains, porous pavements, green roofs, rain gardens, vegetated swales, retention/
detention ponds and basins, rainwater harvesting, bioretention, infiltration trenches, Figure
1a and Figure 2). Large-scale NBS are solutions which are applied in rural and coastal
areas, river basins and/or at the regional scale (e.g., large retention basins, lakes, flood
plains, wetlands, forests, beach nourishment, mangroves, coral reefs, etc., Figure 1b).
The review of literature to date confirms a large gap between the research efforts concerning
small- and large-scale NBS with small-scale NBS receiving far greater attention. This could
be due to several reasons. One reason is that small-scale NBS are very attractive for storm
water management and regeneration of urban areas. They are also less complex and
their benefits and co-benefits can be observed relatively soon after their implementation.
Also, research experiments concerning small-scale technologies are more conveniently
installed in labs. Furthermore, the costs concerning their pilot implementations, operation
and maintenance, at both individual and public levels, are also more affordable.
Further to the above, there is growing evidence that small-scale NBS can provide
multiple benefits to urban areas and ecosystems (e.g., flood mitigation, enhancement
of biodiversity, creation of new jobs and promotion of human well-being). For example,
Eckart et. al., (2017) reviewed the performance and implementation of LIDs (which can
be regarded as small-scale NBS) and provided a summary of the knowledge of LID
1
In the context of NBS, terms benefits and co-benefits refer to their primary and secondary functions. For example, in case of hydro-meteorological
risk reduction, benefits would typically refer to the reduction of floodwater depth, flood extent and flood duration, while the co-benefits would
refer to aspects such as energy saving, amenity, aesthetics and human well-being.
6
as a promising stormwater management technique and climate change mitigation

measure. Compared with traditional urban stormwater management practices, LID
alternatives have the function of returning the runoff using natural processes (Stovin
et. al., 2010; 2015; 2017). Qin et. al., (2013) analysed the performance of an urban
drainage system in an urbanizing area of Shenzhen, China, where some LID practices
(e.g., swales, permeable pavements and green roofs) are designed to reduce urban
flooding. It was reported that such measures are more effective in flood reduction for
shorter storm events. In addition, Dietz (2007), reported that a green roof can reduce
60–70% of stormwater volume when compared to a conventional roof. Alfredo et al.
(2010) found that green roofs can delay and prolong the roof discharge and reduce
its peak rate by 30–78% compared to a standard roof surface. Keesstra et. al. (2018)
and Bengtsson et. al. (2005) also provided evidence of green roof water quantity
performance benefits.
Figure 1. Examples of small (a) and large-scale NBS (b)
(a) Green roof in Malmo, Sweden. The main purpose is to b) The lake Egå Engsø in the bay of Aarhus, Denmark
reduce the stormwater runoff and mitigate flood risk. A - one of the H2020 RECONECT demonstration sites.
green roof can also provide other economical, ecological The purpose of establishing the wetland “Egå Engsø”
and social benefits, i.e., co-benefits (e.g., purify the is to reduce the nitrogen supply to Aarhus Bay, to
air, reduce the ambient and indoor temperature, save improve the natural conditions in Egådalen (the valley
energy and enhance biodiversity in the city). of Egå) and to reduce the flood risk from the river Egå.
(Photo: Alison Duffy) The wetland also enhances the area’s recreational
value. (Photo: Casper Tybjerg, TTF)
Other NBS have also been shown to attenuate runoff volumes. Abbott and Comino-
Mateos (2003) measured the outflow from a car park with a permeable pavement
system and found that on average, only 22.5% of runoff leaves the system during a
storm, and that a 2-hr storm event takes two days to drain out of the system. Fassman
& Blackbourn (2010), in turn, found that the peak flow from a permeable pavement
underdrain is less flashy and tends to show less variation overall than that from asphalt
surface during storms. Chapman & Horner (2010) reported that a street-side bioretention
facility in Washington can achieve 26–52% of runoff retention for certain rainfall events.
7
Figure 2. Examples of small-scale interventions
a) Filter drain, Dunfermline, Scotland. (b) Filter strip and swale, Dundee, Scotland.
(Photo: Alison Duffy) (Photo: Alison Duffy)
c) Permeable pavement, Dundee, Scotland. d) Infiltration Basin, Angmering, England.

(Photo: Alison Duffy) (Photo: Alison Duffy)
e) Pond, Bicester, England. f) Streetside rain garden, Eindhoven, Netherlands.

(Photo: Alison Duffy) (UNaLab project. Photo: L. Postmes)
8
A good example of an initiative that combines several GI flood protection measures

at the urban scale (i.e., small-scale NBS) is the Sponge City Programme (SCP) in
China (Chan et al., 2018). The measures implemented within this initiative aim to
provide multiple opportunities for integration between stormwater management and
flood control, landscape architecture and building design, eco-hydrology and land-
use planning as well as social and environmental well-being.
In the UK, flood risk mitigating remains a key priority for the Government and in
the draft London Environment Strategy, the Mayor encouraged the use of SUDS as
a way to manage stormwater in view of their co-benefits that they can also deliver
(e.g., improved air and water quality, greater biodiversity and reduced noise). The UK
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) developed the
SUDS construction manual as a guidance document for the construction of SUDS
to support those designing, specifying and constructing such measures and helping
them to understand and avoid common pitfalls (CIRIA, 2015).
With regards to large-scale NBS, the Dutch ‘Room for the River’ Programme
represents a paradigm case for implementation of such measures. It consisted of
39 local projects which combine different types of measures such as floodplain
lowering, dike relocation, groyne lowering, summer bed deepening, water storage,
bypasses and floodways, high-water channels, removal of hydraulic obstacles,
and dike strengthening (Klijn et al., 2013). The benefits of that programme were
not observed only with respect to flood risk reduction but also in relation to
enhanced opportunities for recreation, habitat and biodiversity enhancement
(Klijn et al., 2013).
The European Environment Agency reports that 70 to 90% of Europe’s floodplain

areas are degraded due to the human intervention into the river bodies. Restoration
of floodplains through implementation of NBS would not only ensure protection
from flood damages further downstream but it would also prevent erosion, replenish
groundwater aquifers, improve soil health and restore biodiversity, which are all
necessary for healthy and resilient ecosystems.
Another example of large-scale NBS implementation is the Laojie River restoration

project in Taoyuan in Taiwan. The focus of this work was on changing the
channelised, culverted watercourses into an accessible GI corridor for the public
(Chou, 2016). This work was inspired by the Cheonggyecheon Stream restoration
project in South Korea which represents yet another example of a successful large-
scale NBS project, which provides effective flood prevention, ecological, recreational
and aesthetic improvements. The Cheonggyecheon Stream restoration project also
brought numerous economic benefits where development capital has been invested
and property prices have doubled (CABE, 2011).
9
In terms of the other types of large-scale NBS, Acreman & Holden (2013) show how
wetlands play an important role in the hydrological cycle, influencing groundwater recharge,
low flows, evaporation and floods. Prior to that, a major review of scientific literature
reporting hydrological functions of wetlands was undertaken by Bullock & Acreman (2003).
They reviewed the evidence for whether wetlands reduced flooding. They found that around
80 % of relevant studies suggested that floodplain wetlands reduced flooding while 41 %
of studies indicated that some of the wetlands enhanced flooding. Field observations have
shown that vegetation cover can affect the velocity of water flowing across wetlands and
hence flood generation (Holden et. al., 2007). Using plot-scale measurements, Holden et
al. (2008) showed that Sphagnum spp. have ability to slow the flow of water across peat
surfaces when compared to sedge-covered surfaces and bare peat surfaces (for an order
of magnitude slower). Keeler et. al., (2019) reports that vegetation with high roughness is
the most effective at slowing overland flow of stormwater runoff. Species root depth and
structure influence infiltration and retention of nutrients, and leaf nutrient content and
phenology affect the amount and timing of nutrient export to stormwater systems.
Typical examples of coastal NBS are mangrove, mudflats, dunes, beach nourishment and
coral reefs and they all require certain conditions to be effective. Balke et al., (2011)
reported that mangrove restoration is not very effective in environments that do not
have the right range of tidal exposure, salinity, and nutrients required for mangrove
establishment. Similarly mudflats are also reported to be more effective in low wave energy
environments, whilst dunes and beaches and coral reefs are typically more effective in
higher energy environments (Pontee et al., 2016). Other typical examples of coastal NBS
are beach nourishment interventions which often rely on coastal processes to redistribute
the sediment. The Netherlands has adopted a relatively new approach known as 'building
with nature' which makes the use of the dynamics of the natural environment and provides
opportunities for natural processes. It represents a collection of coastal NBS interventions
including sand engines, oyster reefs and wave-attenuating forests (De Vriend et. al., 2015).
In view of the numerous benefits and co-benefits of NBS, it can be concluded that
such measures have strong potential to contribute towards meeting objectives of
policy documents addressed in this document, namely Floods Directive, Action Plan
on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 and EU Strategy on
Adaptation to Climate Change. This document aims to provide an overview of the results
from EU-funded NBS projects in support of these policy instruments and to identify the
gaps for future R&I investments. Examples of such support used in the review process
include provision of theoretical knowledge and practical evidence, development of
knowledge base platforms and portals, provision of materials for capacity development,
and development of standards and guidelines for implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of NBS interventions.
The following section provides an overview of the three EU policy instruments.

10
2. OVERVIEW OF MAIN FLOOD-RELATED

POLICIES AND THEIR CONNECTION WITH NBS
This section addresses the three EU policy instruments and their connection with NBS.
Regarding the use of terminology, it can be noted that NBS and its related terms are
not equally used in all three documents. Terms such as ‘green (and blue) infrastructure’,
‘ecosystem-based management/approach’ and NBS are explicitly mentioned in two
documents (i.e., EU Action Plan on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015-2030 and EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change). The Floods Directive
does not provide explicit reference to any of these concepts, since it was published
prior to the date of appearance of these terms.
2.1 FLOODS DIRECTIVE (FD)
The Floods Directive (FD), originally proposed in 2006 and formally published in
the Official Journal of the EU in November 2007 (ES, 2007; Directive 2007/60/EC),
envisions the following:
• Preliminary flood risk assessment: first step of the implementation cycle, identification
of areas where significant flood risks exist or are reasonably foreseeable in the future.
• Flood risk maps: the second step is to make flood hazard maps and flood risk maps
available to the public; support the process to prioritise, justify and target investments
and develop sustainable policies and strategies; support flood risk management
plans, spatial planning and emergency plans.
• Flood risk management plans (FRMPs): third step, these need to be developed and
implemented at river basin/sub-basin level to reduce and manage the flood risk.
The plans need to include the analysis and assessment of flood risk, definition
of the level of protection, and identification and implementation of sustainable
measures by applying the principle of solidarity in relation to transboundary flood
risk governance. In this case, large-scale NBS can play an important role in promoting
the solidarity principle2 as they require strategies that address land management
across transboundary landscapes or jurisdictions, involving a great variety of actors
and stakeholders.
The FD was as an important step towards harmonising and establishing a common

flood management framework for EU member states. As such, it established a set of
formal rules with regards to flood risk management at both EU and at the national
level. Taking the present day’s view, despite some shortcomings, this Directive still
2
‘Solidarity” is defined as one’s act to support members of a particular community to which one believes to belong (Bayertz 1999). The Floods
Directive requires from Member States to pursue an integrated and co-ordinated approach for selection of flood protection measures based
on the principle of solidarity and shared responsibility. Although the principle is in itself straightforward, the precise meaning of solidarity is
unclear in the context of upstream–downstream practices of transboundary flood risk management. It is necessary to more specifically define
the meaning of solidarity for future cross-border adaptation governance (Van Eerd et al., 2015a).
11
provides a good foundation for those countries that may be less advanced in their
flood risk mitigation practices.
However, for those countries that are more advanced in flood risk management, their
existing practices have gone beyond objectives to harmonize flood risk management
across EU. For example, in the Netherlands, the effect of the FD on the national policy has
been minimal (see for example, van Eerd et al. 2015b). Priest et al., (2016) suggest that
the Directive could be strengthened by requiring more intensive cooperation and providing
the competent authorities in international river basin districts with more power. A number
of shortcomings associated with this document are discussed in Tsakiris et al., (2009) and
Eleftheriadou et. al., (2015).
The FP7 RISC-KIT project final report states that coastal authorities need to assess levels
of impact and risk for their coastal zones, implementing Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)
measures to prevent or mitigate coastal disasters. To facilitate risk reduction, the UNISDR
(2015) formulated the Sendai Framework and the EU has issued the FD. The project
findings suggest that both frameworks do not provide sufficient details to address coastal
hazards and impact issues adequately and they also do not provide appropriate tools. The
RISC-KIT project has developed a set of tools to support these demands.
There are several aspects where the future versions of the FD can address NBS and/
or their related concepts and foster their implementation across the European Union.
As a starting point, there should be a clear reference to the available evidence of NBS
in relation to different types of floods. The range of flood reduction measures, even
though the present version of the FD document makes the reference to ‘multi-purpose
measure that can be used for different forms of sustainable human activities (e.g. flood
risk management, ecology, inland navigation or hydropower)’, should be broaden to more
explicitly and specifically discuss applicability and effectiveness of small- and large-scale
NBS for different types of floods, contexts and situations.
Updates to the FD should also acknowledge the need to integrate these solutions into the
national policy instruments of Member States. Implementation of small-scale interventions
has several advantages when compared to traditional grey infrastructure. However, their
effectiveness in mitigating effects from large and extreme events is rather limited which
in turn may necessitate combinations with large-scale interventions. Also, large-scale
NBS could play important role in flood risk mitigation for transboundary river basins (e.g.,
INTERREG DANUBE FLOODPLAIN Project Report on Possible Restoration Approaches).
Taking the above into account, it can be concluded that while the current FD provides
a good foundation for those Member States that are not so advanced in flood risk
reduction practices, there is significant potential for the future implementation cycles
of this document to explicitly address NBS and support creation of new and optimise
12
performance of existing interventions individually and in their hybrid combinations

with grey infrastructure. Most of the flood risk management plans (FRMPs) within
the EU for the first implementation cycle are either complete or in their final stages
of completion and the second cycle flood risk management plans are due in 2021.
The information compiled in the recent fitness check of the WFD and the FD (EC,
2019), which represents a comprehensive policy evaluation, indicates that all 26
Member States included NBS (i.e. natural water retention measures), in some or all
of their FRMPs.
2.2 EU ACTION PLAN ON THE SENDAI FRAMEWORK FOR DISASTER RISK

REDUCTION (APSFDRR)
The Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction was held in Sendai (Japan)
in 2015. At that event, the United Nations Member States agreed and adopted the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015-2030, UNISDR (2015).
That framework represents the main guiding instrument for Disaster Risk Management
(DRM) and it highlights the sense of urgency for “substantial reduction of disaster risk
and losses in lives, livelihoods and health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural
and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries”.
The implementation of the Sendai Framework represents an opportunity for EU to take

forward its DRM agenda which is reflected in the EU Action Plan on the SFDRR (EC,
2016). This document is planned to be updated in 2020 and the new version will guide
EU implementation of the SFDRR for the next 10 years. It identifies four priority areas:
understanding risk, strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risks,
investing in disaster risk reduction and resilience, and enhancing disaster preparedness
for effective response and to ‘Build Back Better’.
NBS have the potential to improve the condition and resilience of ecosystems in urban,
rural and wilderness areas and as such, they can contribute to implementing the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, while also contributing to
achieving other policy objectives - from biodiversity conservation to climate change
adaptation and mitigation (Faivre et al., 2018). The EC has been active in engaging
the research community to better address the related knowledge and technology gaps
through its Research and Innovation strategy and Framework Programmes. Fostering
green growth and promoting implementation of such approaches is a priority of the EU
Action Plan on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, which
sets the basis for a disaster-risk-informed policy making at EU level. The Union Civil
Protection Mechanism which includes requirements to carry out risk assessments,
is an important instrument in this respect, covering also other forms of natural and
manmade risks than floods.
13
The SFDRR represents an essential step towards global political awareness for climate
change adaptation and the use of NBS for disaster risk reduction and resilience. It
has been indicated that for some of the EU countries the local practices still remain
oriented towards the emergency response phase of the disaster cycle (prevention,
preparedness, response, recovery, restoration), without particular reference to the
goals of the framework (see for example, Goniewicz & Burkle, 2019).
H2020 NAIAD investigates how the (re)insurance industry could support the risk
reduction measures including NBS, in line with the Sendai Framework. The project
results illustrate how the (re)insurance industry is gaining a better understanding
of hazards and mitigation, in turn opening the possibility of new arrangements like
natural insurance schemes and evidence-based assessment of avoided damage costs
from green protective measures, in Europe and beyond (see also Marchal et al., 2019).
The results provide valuable references for the APSFDRR and the EU Climate Change
Adaptation Strategy to emphasise the importance of insurance as a non-structural flood
protection measure.
The CASCADE project funded by DG ECHO (Directorate General for Civil Protection and
Humanitarian Aid) addresses climate change risk management at the local authority
level in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR). It supports the implementation of the UN’s SFDRR
in the BSR. The project points to the lack of political support for DRR at the international
level. This is important to highlight since some of the countries in the region are very
active in providing various forms of support for DRR to the countries that are the most
vulnerable and exposed to severe natural threats. The project’s findings to date suggest
the lack of political support to the Sendai implementation, which makes coordination and
organisation of the work more challenging. This project has particular relevance for the
APSFDRR as it aims to increase the knowledge and capacity of civil protection experts
and city planners by developing training courses in DRR.
The APSFDRR document makes explicit reference to NBS and other related terms
such as GI and ecosystem-based approaches. The relevant sections acknowledge
the benefits from such interventions in a more general context of disaster resilience.
However, what is not sufficiently addressed are the concrete actions and how or in
what way they should (or can) be taken to support these interventions.
When mentioned, the reference to these interventions is primarily given in the context
of Key Area 3 - Promoting EU risk informed investments (Sendai Priority 3 "Investing in
disaster risk reduction for resilience") with some reference made to the NBS-evidence
brought by the current H2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation as
well as the previous Framework Programmes and actions. Also, the numerous benefits
and co-benefits of NBS for DRR are not explicitly mentioned.
14
Furthermore, there is no explicit mentioning of the financing mechanisms and

business models that can be used to support NBS implementation. Overall, although
the APSFDRR document encourages NBS interventions (either implicitly or explicitly)
there should be more explicit and stronger support for NBS in all four key areas of
Sendai priorities. For example, in relation to (i) understanding risk - NBS has a role
towards risk mitigation opportunities; (ii) DRR governance - NBS provide opportunities
in bringing multiple stakeholders together - thereby strengthening governance and
management of disaster risk; (iii) investing in DRR - NBS provide an opportunity in
cost-effective investments; and (iv) building back better - NBS offer multiple benefits
that provide greater societal benefits.
2.3 EU STRATEGY ON ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE (SACC)
The EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change (SACC) was adopted in April 2013
(EC, 2013) and aims to increase the resilience across the EU’s territory by enhancing
the preparedness and capacity of all government levels to respond to the impacts
of climate change. As part of the EU Green Deal, this strategy is currently under
review and will be updated in 2021. The Strategy should be fulfilled through the
implementation of eight Actions in three thematic areas:
1. Promoting action by Member States
• Action 1. Encourage all Member States to adopt comprehensive adaptation strategies

(Member State strategies);
• Action 2. Provide LIFE funding to support capacity building and step up adaptation
action in Europe (LIFE);
• Action 3. Introduce adaptation in the Covenant of Mayors framework (Covenant of Mayors);
2. Better informed decision making
• Action 4. Bridge the knowledge gap (Knowledge gap);
• Action 5. Further develop Climate-ADAPT as the ‘one-stop shop’ for adaptation

information in Europe (Climate-ADAPT);
3. Climate-proofing EU action by promoting adaptation in key vulnerable sectors
• Action 6. Facilitate the climate-proofing of the Common Agricultural Policy, the

Cohesion Policy16, and the Common Fisheries Policy (ESIF/CAP/CFP)
15
• Action 7. Ensure more resilient infrastructure (Infrastructure)
• Action 8. Promote insurance and other financial products for resilient investment and
business decisions17 (Insurance and finance)
The EU is integrating adaptation into several of its own policies and financial
programmes. Currently, most EU Member States have adopted the EU Adaptation
Strategy. A considerable amount of knowledge and information concerning climate
adaptation measures, monitoring and modelling practices as well as region-specific
issues and challenges has been generated through various EU research programmes
(e.g., H2020, FP7, INTERREG, COST Actions, LIFE) and can be accessed through the
European Climate-ADAPT platform.
Many projects financed by the EU have addressed topics such as floods, sea level
rise, droughts or intense heat. Future work should give more attention to specific
vulnerabilities of certain communities and multiple risks that are posing threats to
different regions around Europe. The new EU Adaptation Strategy should scale-up
NBS implementation and stimulate related business opportunities, based on
reliable and standardised data and evidence. Additional research and innovation
actions at EU level that promote systemic NBS and their benefits in cities and
territories are planned with the aim to improve the implementation capacity
and evidence base for NBS and developing corresponding future markets (Faivre
et. al., 2017).
OPPLA – the repository of NBS reports that the water retention reservoir in Podutik
in Ljubljana (Slovenia) has two main objectives: 1) to improve and maintain a
good ecological status of the nearby watercourses and, 2) to mitigate floods in
the nearby settlements of the city of Ljubljana, to help deliver FD and Water
Framework Directive (WFD) objectives. The existing reservoir was redesigned into
a multifunctional flood reservoir that provides a broad range of ecosystem services
through the iwfdntegration of NBS. The city of Ljubljana and the FP7 project TURAS
co-funded the project.
Out of the three policy instruments reviewed, the SACC document provides more
prominent support to NBS and other related terms and concepts, making explicit
reference to some of their benefits and co-benefits and pointing to the knowledge
base platforms and evidence obtained from the current and previous programmes
and actions. Therefore, when comparing the level of support in all three documents,
the support for NBS in the SACC document can be characterised as ‘strong explicit
support’; for the APSFDRR it can be characterised as ‘medium explicit support’; and
for the FD that support is rather ‘low’ and/or implicit.
16
2.4 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
In short, NBS offer invaluable strategic and practical options towards meeting objectives
of the three EU policy instruments and the level of support to their implementation
should be more explicitly stated in future versions of these documents. They can
benefit from direct incorporation of NBS in the following ways:
• Contributing towards the global climate change agenda - NBS are increasingly
recognised as an essential aspect in the development of climate change mitigation
and adaptation strategies. Since the three policy instruments addressed in this
document aim at reducing disaster risk and increasing resilience to climate
change, by setting up a more quantifiable and measurable targets in relation to
NBS will ensure that the collective measures have the capacity to strengthen the
global response.
• The need for holistic planning - All three policy documents advocate the need
for holistic planning and development of measures with multiple benefits. By its
nature, the process of implementing NBS necessitates holistic thinking and working
that pulls together a range of sectors and disciplines. Combined with traditional
grey infrastructure these measures offer city managers, planners, water and
environmental authorities with a variety of hybrid solutions that can be selected in
relation to desired benefits and trade-offs.
• Sustainability and multi-functionality - One of the key characteristics of NBS is

their capacity to provide multiple functions which go beyond mere stormwater
runoff control or flood risk reduction for which they may have been originally
designed. They can also offer a number of benefits to multiple sectors. Hence,
by incorporating NBS into the existing policy documents the goal of achieving
sustainable and multifunctional solutions, which is clearly advocated in all three
documents, can be realised.
• Active stakeholder participation and collaborative governance – Successful

implementation of NBS projects requires active stakeholder participation and
collaborative governance at different levels. In case of large-scale interventions
their implementation will also require trust in the local and regional governments.
As such, they also provide an opportunity to strengthen inter-governmental as well
as transboundary relationships and promote the solidarity principle. This can in turn
foster the possibilities for their implementation and operationalisation at the EU
and National levels. Schleyer et al., (2015) argue that factors such as the degree
of bindingness, policy obligations and impacts on multi-level governance as well as
the types of interventions targeted, type of support, etc. are diverse and of crucial
importance in this context.
17
3. CONTRIBUTION FROM EU-FUNDED

PROJECTS TO FLOOD-RELATED POLICIES
The findings from several EU projects on NBS (H2020, FP7, INTERREG, COST Actions
and LIFE) were reviewed in relation to their potential to contribute towards the
EU policy instruments mentioned in the previous section and to identify the gaps
for future R&I investments (for the list of reviewed projects see Annex 1). Three
key large-scale NBS demonstration projects concerning hydro-meteorological risk
reduction are currently under implementation within the H2020 programme. These
are RECONECT, OPERANDUM and PHUSICOS. In all three projects, the ongoing work
relating to real-time monitoring and control, business models, standardisation, NBS
performance indicators, evaluation frameworks and upscaling will contribute to the
policies described above.
In its demonstration and upscaling activities, RECONECT draws on a network of

Demonstrator and Collaborator schemes covering diverse local conditions, geographic
characteristics, institutional/governance structures and social/cultural settings, to
successfully upscale NBS throughout Europe and internationally, Figure 3.
Figure 3. Creation of an additional space controlled by portable flood gates that sit under the road and within
the flood plain in the Ijssel region in the Netherlands (H2020 RECONECT project demonstration site). This site
is part of the “Room for the River” programme. It aims to provide flood protection, enhance the landscape and
improve environmental conditions in the areas surrounding the Netherlands' rivers. (Photo: Zoran Vojinovic)
18
RECONECT has the potential to contribute to FD, APSFDRR and SACC with respect to
novel risk assessment approaches and methodologies for selection and evaluation of
NBS. For example, Alves et. al., (2019) proposed a method that can be used to analyse
the trade-offs between different benefits and co-benefits of NBS. The same work also
provides evidence that evaluation of flood reduction measures can be significantly
different when the co-benefits are not included in the analysis. The RECONECT case
area in Thailand applies an evaluation framework proposed by Watkin et. al., (2019)
to quantify the benefits and co-benefits of implemented NBS.
OPERANDUM combines ten NBS sites, or Open-Air Laboratories (OALs) covering a

wide range of hazards, with different levels of climate projections, land use, socio-
economic characterization, existing monitoring activities and NBS acceptance (see
Figures 4 & 5). Renaud et al., (2019) provide a systematic literature review on
vulnerability and risk assessment frameworks addressing natural hazards, focusing
on NBS. Their contribution to EU policy implementation, and particularly FD, relate to
the selection and use of indicators for measuring social and ecological vulnerability to
natural hazards, and how these indicators can be used to assess the success of NBS
in reducing vulnerability and risk.
Figure 4. Po Valley (Panaro river, Comacchio valleys, Figure 5. Sterea Ellada region is a location for
Reno, Emilia Romagna coastal area), Italy, is part of the OPERANDUM’s Greek OAL NBS situated in the basin of the
OALs within the H2020 OPERANDUM Project. The delta Spercheios river. It springs from the mountainous parts
of Po river represents the transition between the river of the catchment, mainly from Tymfristos mountain
and the sea with differing hydraulic, morphological and in the West, as well as Vardousia and Oiti mountain
biological characteristics. The NBS addresses multiple ranges in the Southwest and South respectively and
hazards such as floods, droughts, coastal erosion it deals with floods and droughts. This NBS also
and storm surges and it also presents economic and has considerable economic and biodiversity values.
biodiversity values. (Photo: Michael Loupis) (Photo: Michael Loupis)
19
PHUSICOS focuses on demonstrating the effectiveness of NBS and their ability to

reduce the impacts from small, frequent events (extensive risks) in rural mountain
landscapes (see Figure 6). Autuori et al., (2019) describe a comprehensive framework
to verify the performances of NBS from technical and socioeconomic points of view
which plays an important role in the overall evaluation of measures. Further results
concerning application and verification of this framework will prove its usefulness and
contribution towards the three policy documents with particular reference to hazards
and risks in mountainous settings.
Figure 6. The Isar river (Germany) during (left) and after (right) the hydro-morphological restoration. It is one of
the main tributaries of the Danube, sources in the Alps, and crosses the Bavarian capital Munich. Heavy rain
events in the Alps in the years of 1999, 2005 and 2013 led to major floods. Today’s near-natural landscape
raises awareness on the usefulness of NBS both for DRR and recreational purposes. (Photo: Zingraff-Hamed)
The NAIAD project combines eight demonstration sites to address questions of

insurance value of ecosystems to reduce the human and economic cost of risks
associated with water (floods and drought) by developing and testing - with key
insurers and municipalities - the concepts, tools, applications and instruments
(business models) necessary for its mainstreaming. This work has particular
relevance for APSFDRR and SACC to better link insurance and financial services
with Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) of flood protection measures. Altamirano & de
Rijke (2017) assess the life cycle costs of NBS by providing an overview of the
temporal and spatial distribution of costs related to NBS.
H2020 BRIGAID project deals with the development of innovations for climate
adaptation and risk reduction from climate-related disaster impacts in Europe
and beyond. It also demonstrates innovative NBS for different situations and
contexts. One of them is the use of planting techniques in support of flood risk
mitigation and as such it provides value for the FD document. It focuses on two
alternative solutions: 1) The installation of Coir Logs at the bottom of the river and
2) planting three levels of vegetation (willow, reed and poplar) at different depths
along the river banks to prevent erosion and flooding with natural materials. This
20
NBS also creates a green corridor, enhancing flora and fauna habitats in the area.
This measure is demonstrated along the Erzeni River in Albania. The results from
this project provide relevant reference for riverine flood risk assessment and
management methods and approaches. Other guidelines and tools that are being
developed under this project may also contribute to the development (or fine
tuning) of national policy documents for the focus countries.
H2020 RESIN is developing practical and applicable tools to support cities in

designing and implementing climate adaptation strategies for their local contexts.
The project aims to compare and evaluate the methods that can be used to
plan for climate adaptation in order to move towards formal standardisation of
adaptation strategies. RESIN public deliverables can be found here. The project
provides material to support the implementation of all three policies, all three
policies, particularly in future cyclic updates of the FD, with respect to vulnerability
assessment, standardisation for urban climate adaptation, hazards and risk
analysis, and the methods for prioritising adaptation options (e.g. de Jong et. al.,
2018; Mendizabal & Zorita, 2018).
The main outcome from the PLACARD project is the platform (PLAtform for Climate
Adaptation and Risk reDuction) that supports dialogue, knowledge exchange and
collaboration between the Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRR) communities. PLACARD produced several policy briefs, visuals
and webinars which can be found here and used as a reference for all three
policy documents. More specifically, the project’s policy brief on NBS recommends
that Ecosystem-based approaches must be community-based and consider large
spatial scale to minimise trade-offs between communities.
The Smart Mature Resilience project aims to deliver resilience management

guidelines to support city decision-makers in developing and implementing
resilience measures. The project hosted several events, some focusing on sharing
experiences and knowledge on how to best co-create NBS. The tools and lessons
learnt can contribute to the policies in relation to resilience management guidelines.
H2020 RESCCUE aims to contribute towards improvement in urban resilience

through the capability of cities to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover
from significant multi-hazard threats with minimum damage. Although the project
does not specifically focus on NBS, its methodologies and tools for assessment of
hazards and risk (and particularly risk cascading) can be useful for the FD.
The FP7 RESCUE project addressed impacts of climate-induced floods on stability

of existing river flood embankments and looked into the natural reinforcement
which can be successfully exploited to strengthen the embankments. In this respect,
21
vegetation is considered as a remedial measure in the sense that it promotes the

generation of suction via evapotranspiration (i.e., it is a form of NBS). The work
was validated in the case study of the Adige River (Italy) and the results obtained
provide a good reference for the FD document.
FP7 BASE project dealt with sustainable climate change adaptation in Europe.
Some of the case study work addressed pluvial, fluvial and coastal types of floods
and application of different types of measures including NBS (which are in the
project documents referred to as “ecosystem-based” or “green measures”). The
results provide a valuable reference for the FD document in relation to uncertainty
analysis and efficacy of different measures for different types of floods.
FP7 OPERAs project was a five year EU research project dealing with practical
aspects of ecosystem science. It addressed the construction and maintenance
of semi-fixed dunes across 15 km of Barcelona's (Spain) urban coastline,
effectively representing coastal NBS, with the potential to provide protection from
coastal floods and sea-level rise as well as to bring numerous co-benefits to
coastal ecosystems. The results provide valuable reference material on coastal
management for future development of the FD.
LAND4FLOOD COST Action aims to address different aspects in relation to Natural

Flood Retention on Private Land and to establish a common knowledge base and
channels of communication among scientists, regulators, land owners and other
stakeholders in the field. Its potential contribution to FD, APSFDRR and SACC is
their approach to nature-based flood risk management on private land. The book
produced by Hartmann et. al., (2019) addresses potentials and experiences of NBS
with respect to private and partly public land, and as such, it provides a valuable
reference for design and evaluation of NBS of particular value for the new FD.
H2020 UNaLab aims to develop a ‘living lab’ of NBS sites and provide a robust
evidence base to enhance the climate and water resilience of cities. The project
also underlines a variety of barriers that prevent wider replication and uptake of
these measures. Information that the project aims to produce will be particularly
relevant for the SACC’s thematic area 2 (Better informed decision making).
PEARL addressed several aspects of flood risk reduction ranging from the
early warning systems technologies to ecosystem-based (NBS) approaches that
can be used for multiple-hazards and vulnerability assessment. The work was
carried for a number of European and International case studies (see Figure 7).
The project brings tools and experiences which are directly relevant for all three
policy documents. The project also proposes improved Quantitative Microbial Risk
Assessment methods to address public health issues associated with flood waters
22
in urban areas. The work has also addressed application of NBS measures in
areas with cultural heritage (e.g., Vojinovic et. al., 2016a; Vojinovic et. al., 2016b).
This could be particularly relevant for FD (e.g. Chapter II, Article 4), APSFDRR (e.g.
Key Area 4 - Supporting the development of a holistic disaster risk management
approach in relation to cultural heritage), and SACC as well as for other directives
for Member States that aim to address cultural heritage requirements.
Figure 7. Coastal flood risk reduction with hybrid measures (i.e., combination of hard engineering and
Ecosystem-based approaches) in Taiwan, FP7 PEARL project. (Photo: Zoran Vojinovic)
FAST (Foreshore Assessment using Space Technology) was an EU FP7 Collaborative

project which developed down-stream services for the European Earth Observation
Programme Copernicus to support cost-effective, nature-based shoreline protection
against floods and erosion (see for example, Morris et. al., 2015). Wave reduction
properties of nature-based shoreline protection against floods were assessed
using satellite data and incorporated in a wave and flood model which showed
dramatic reduction in extent and depth of flooded area, i.e., the inundated surface
without vegetation approximates 340 ha, and only 193 ha with vegetation. The
results obtained can serve as a reference to improve FD implementation.
23
The objective of LIFE SimetoRES project is to address climate change adaptation

of urban areas in the Simeto Valley (Italy). The work concerns the inclusion of
Blue Green Infrastructure (BGI) into municipal regulations and the construction of
six BGIs within the urban territory of the municipalities of Paternò and Ragalna. It
can support FD, APSFDRR and SACC through the implementation of BGI measures,
being of particular relevance for national policy instruments in Italy and beyond.
LIFE GRIN project (Promoting urban integration of GReen INfrastructure to

improve climate governance in cities) focuses on urban integration of GI for climate
governance in cities. It establishes an integrated policy framework to manage,
monitor and evaluate Urban Green Areas as a form of BGI, specifically addressing
urban climate impacts such as heat waves and heat island effects, stormwater
runoff and energy consumption. It provides a useful reference for FD, APSFDRR
and SACC in relation to climate change adaptation and mitigation and gives explicit
support for the development of national policy instruments in Greece. Their key
deliverables provide analyses of the current situation regarding climate change
mitigation and adaptation needs (SWOT analysis) in two cities: Amaruson and
Heraklion. GRIN’s public deliverables can be found here.
FP7 ECONADAPT built the knowledge base on the economics of adaptation to

climate change and converted it into practical information for decision makers for
more effective adaptation planning. The project developed a policy-led approach
to frame the research and policy analysis focusing on the practical application of
adaptation economics, serving as a reference for the SACC (e.g., ECONADAPT 2015).
RISES-AM was an EU FP7 project which addressed the economy-wide impacts of

coastal systems to various types of climatic scenarios (including storm surges and
sea level rise). The project developed a set of adaptation pathways for vulnerable
coastal systems at regional and global scales, introducing adaptation strategies and
innovative solutions to help implement the FD and SACC (see the final report here).
FP7 SECOaquaA studied 17 coastal metropolitan/urban areas of international,

national and regional importance, and 26 environmental contrasts/conflicts in 8
countries in Europe and Asia. The outcomes confirmed that climate change is one
of the most important challenges for all the coastal areas that have been studied.
In summary, the potential for contribution from R&I projects towards the three
policy documents is given in Table 1.
24
TABLE 1. Potential contribution of EU-funded R&I projects for flood adaptation policies
EU ACTION PLAN ON THE
EU STRATEGY ON
SENDAI FRAMEWORK
PROJECT NAME FLOODS DIRECTIVE ADAPTATION TO
FOR DISASTER RISK
CLIMATE CHANGE
REDUCTION
AQUAVAL Low Low Low
BASE Medium Low Medium
BRIGAID Medium Medium High
CASCADE Medium High Medium
ECONADAPT Low Low Medium
FAST Medium Low Low
GRIn Low Low High
LAND4FLOOD High Low Medium
NAIAD High Low Medium
OPERAs Medium Low Medium
OPERANDUM High Medium High
PEARL High Medium Medium
PHUSICOS High Medium High
PLACARD Low Medium Medium
RECONECT High Medium High
RESIN Medium Low High
RESCUE Medium Low Medium
RESCCUE Medium Low Low
RISC-KIT High Medium Medium
RISES-AM Medium Low High
SECOaquaA Low Low Low
SimetoRES Medium Low Low
SMR Low Low Low
UNALAB Low Low High

25
4. THE EVIDENCE BASE

The review of NBS-related literature to date shows more reports of evidence for
small-scale NBS (see Ruangpan et al., 2020). Also, within a range of small-scale
NBS, certain measures have received greater attention compared to other measures,
see for example Nagase and Koyama (2020). In terms of the risk-based economic
assessment, which is a fundamental method for climate adaptation assessment, the
majority of such economic analyses remain in the form of traditional CBA, see for
example Gafni (2006).
The LIFE project AQUAVAL researched SUDS measures (infiltration basin, green roof,
swales, etc.) in six sites across the Valencian region in Spain. The measures were
implemented and analysed in relation to pluvial flood mitigation and the discharge
of combined sewage into receiving watercourses. Monitoring results showed that
the measures were effective in both flood mitigation and improvement of the water
quality (Perales-Momparler et. al., (2016).
There are numerous studies that address effectiveness of green roofs for rainfall-
runoff reduction (see Table 2). For example, Burszta-Adamiak and Mrowiec (2013)
performed experimental work at four roof platforms with different sizes and slopes
in an urban area in Poland. The estimated effectiveness of green roofs for peak
flood reduction ranged from 23% to 99% depending on the intensity and magnitude
of rainfall events. However, they further conclude that more research is needed to
determine the role of the green roof slope, vegetation cover and drying process for
runoff delay and peak reduction.
TABLE 2. Examples of effectiveness of small-scale NBS (see also Ruangpan et. al., 2020)
NBS SOURCE EFFECTIVENESS
Runoff volume Peak flow

reduction reduction
Shafique et al., (2018),

Porous Pavements ~30–65% ~10% - 30%
Damodaram et al., 2010
Burszta-Adamiak and
Mrowiec (2013), Ercolani et
Green Roofs al. (2018), Carpenter and up to 70% up to 96%
Kaluvakolanu, (2011), Stovin
et al. (2012)
Ishimatsu et al. (2017),

Rain Gardens up to 100% ~48.5%
Goncalves et al. (2018)
26
TABLE 2. cont.

reduction reduction
Luan et al. (2017), Huang et

Vegetated Swales up to 9.60% ~23.56%
al. (2014)
Khastagir and Jayasuriya

Rainwater Harvesting (2010), Damodaram et al. ~57.8-78.7% ~8%-10%
(2010)
Liew et al. (2012),

Detention Ponds Damodaram et al. (2010), up to 55.7% up to 46%
Luan et al. (2017), Huang et

Bioretention up to 90% up to 41.65%
al. (2014), Khan et al., (2013)
Huang et al. (2014),

Infiltration Trenches up to 55.9% up to 53.5%
Ercolani et al. (2018) also addressed the effectiveness of green roofs and
performed a study in the Metropolitan city of Milan. They showed that such
measures can be considered a valuable strategy to deal with frequent storms of
smaller magnitude at urban watersheds. They further conclude that the planning
of such measures should be done considering the local limitations of the drainage
network conveyance capacity which can influence the effectiveness of green roofs.
Li and Babcock (2014) reviewed the technical literature on green roof hydrology.
They found that green roofs can reduce stormwater runoff volume by 30-86%,
peak flow rate by 22% to 93%, and delay peak flows by 0-30 minutes, thereby
decreasing pollution, flooding and erosion during precipitation events. They
conclude that their efficiency can vary substantially due to design characteristics
making performance predictions difficult.
Regarding coastal resilience, coastal habitats can reduce wave heights between
35% and 71% (Narayan et. al., 2016). Restoration projects in mangroves and salt
marshes for wave reduction can be several times cheaper than alternative such as
breakwaters, for the same level of protection. They are also able to self-repair after
strong storms and have much lower maintenance costs than artificial infrastructures
(Narayan et. al., 2016; see also Table 3).
27
TABLE 3. Examples of effectiveness of NBS interventions for coastal applications

reduction reduction
Ferrario et al. (2014);

Coral Reefs Narayan et al. (2016); Debele ~70-91% ~34 – 3200%
et al. (2019)
Ferrario et al. (2014;

Salt Marshes Narayan et al. (2016); Debele ~72-92% ~5 – 425%
et al. (2019)

Mangroves Narayan et al. (2016); Debele ~31-53% ~32 – 260%
et al. (2019)

Seagrass Narayan et al. (2016); Debele ~36-58% ~258-949%
et al. (2019)
The EU continues to help build the evidence-base of NBS through various platforms
and initiatives (Faivre et al., 2017). There are several NBS-related platforms, portals,
databases, networks and initiatives at global, European, national and sub-national
levels (Annex 2). Figure 8 illustrates the geographical spread of NBS-related projects,
case studies and initiatives on climate adaptation and DRR taken from four EU
platforms OPPLA, NWRM, Climate-ADAPT and Urban Nature Atlas.
OPPLA is an open platform on NBS, consisting of a knowledge market place, and

it currently provides the most in-depth information out of all platforms given in
Annex 2. It contains 282 case studies with NBS that deal with DRR, climate change
adaptation, biodiversity, food, sustainable cities, health and ecosystem services.
NWRM is a website that gathers information of European GI measures applied in the

water sector. So far, there are 139 case studies in the database which spread across
four sectors (urban, forestry, agriculture and hydro-morphology) with numerous
cases that deal with DRR and climate adaptation (see also Table 4).
Climate-ADAPT is a platform supported by the EC and the EEA to help users to access
and share data and information about NBS-related case studies and initiatives. The
database includes adaptation options, case studies, guidance, indicators, information
portals, organisations, publications and reports, research and knowledge projects,
tools and videos. It supports a range of sectors such as agriculture, biodiversity,
28
buildings, coastal, DRR, EbA, energy, finance, forestry, health, marine and fisheries,
transport, urban and water management. Currently, there are about 100 case studies
in the database.
The Urban Nature Atlas has been developed as part of the H2020 NATURVATION
project and it contains 1000 examples of NBS from across 100 European cities.
Projects included address various urban societal challenges and use nature as an
inspiration to address these challenges.
Figure 8. Illustration of the number of projects, case studies or initiatives and their geographical spread
reported at different platforms (Accessed in May 2020).
29
TABLE 4. Examples of cases reported at the NWRM platform.

PLATFORM, CASE
NBS FEATURES REPORTED
LOCATION
Green roofs, http://nwrm.eu/ • 472 residents engaged

Permeable case-study/climate- • 90% of residents reported an increased
surfaces, Swales, proofing-social- understanding of climate change
Rain gardens, and housing-landscapes • 81% of residents said they agree or
Infiltration basins strongly agree that the quality of the
London, UK green spaces has improved significantly
• 58% of residents reported their use of
the green spaces had increased
• 48% of residents reported an increased
sense of belonging
• 67% of residents reported increased
pride in the area they live in
• 22 Green Team trainees involved (a
training and employment programme
for those who are young, unemployed
and lacking experience and
qualifications)
• 11 job outcomes for Green Team
trainees
Permeable surfaces, http://nwrm.eu/case- • Increase in water storage 230 m3/ha

Swales, Filter Strips, study/sustainable- • 60 % reduction pollution Phosphorus (P)
Detention Basins stormwater- • 40 % reduction pollution Nitrogen (N)
and Retention Ponds management-and- • 80% reduction Total Suspended Solid (TSS)
green-infrastructure- • 65 % reduction pollution Copper (Cu)
fornebu-norway • 45 % reduction pollution Zinc (Zn)
Oslo, Norway
Permeable surfaces, http://nwrm.eu/ • Retained water 2,200,000 m3/year

Swales, Filter case-study/leidsche- • Increase water storage 1,000 m3/ha
Strips, Soakaways rijn-sustainable- • 80 % reduction pollution Phosphorus (P)
Detention Basins, urban-development- • 50% reduction Total Suspended Solid
Retention Ponds, and netherlands (TSS)
Infiltration basins • Potential for recreational activities in the
Utrecht, Netherlands water courses that will be created
30
5. INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE MODELS

Governance plays an important aspect for achieving desired results from NBS
interventions and some of the H2020 NBS projects are specifically dealing with
innovative ways to promote sustainable governance of small- and large-scale NBS.
The Nature4Cities H2020 project defines governance in the context of NBS as

“collective action arrangements designed to achieve the implementation of NBS”. It
identifies five main clusters of governance models which can be sourced from their
study of 56 NBS cases across Europe. These five clusters are:
1. Traditional Public Administration: hierarchical governance structures and centralised

government control of NBS.
2. New Public Management: ‘public-private partnerships’ and the corresponding

‘hollowing-out’ of government services.
3. Private-private partnerships: this would include sole governance of the NBS by

private sector or community organisations, joint community-private sector co-
governance, Sustainable Local Enterprise Networks (SLEN), etc.
4. Societal resilience: this is characterised by a high level of community leadership and

low-level role played by governments.
5. Network Governance: recognises the necessity to engage many different actors in

service delivery and the complexity involved in managing such networks effectively.
Clusters 3, 4 and 5 represent examples of new types of governance models. Cluster 5

has a similar concept to Polycentric governance proposed by the PHUSICOS project,
which identifies three areas for governance innovation:
1. Polycentric governance which aims to involve multiple institutions and/or sectors

(i.e., not only flood and coastal resilience but also natural conservation, planning,
water quality, socio-economic organisations and others). This also could refer to
engaging different stakeholders in open innovation processes that could identify
problems or deliver solutions (e.g., citizens, academia, public authorities, businesses
including SMEs, creative sectors and social entrepreneurs) (Martin et. al., 2019).
2. Participation in the design, production and delivery phases by involving stakeholder

participatory processes that co-determined the eventual shape of the NBS
implemented. This helps to integrate user knowledge and provides insights into
the tools they intend to use, to re-define operational processes and to create new
31
working relationships beyond established departments and silos.
3. Financial incentives: local authorities designed and implemented novel incentives

for households in consultation with villagers to monitor illegal logging in a
nature reserve.
The work to date highlights the importance of analysing existing governance systems
and actors prior to implementation of NBS projects. This is particularly important for
large-scale interventions which may require careful consideration of legal frameworks
of international cooperation on transboundary water governance.
32
6. MARKET UPTAKE, FINANCING

APPROACHES AND BUSINESS MODELS
Collecting evidence about cost-effectiveness of NBS interventions has been the focus of
many researchers and practitioners. However, systematic presentation of their construction,
deployment, and operation and maintenance costs is still needed. In many cases, only
aggregated costs of construction works can be found (e.g. information concerning their
operation, maintenance and deployment costs is almost non-existent). This is partly due to
the fact that NBS interventions differ in terms of hazard scales and types (e.g. pluvial, fluvial
or coastal floods), climatic conditions and local contexts. Thus, their implementation costs
will also vary, as will the nature of the borrower, business models and financing mechanisms.
Also, there is a vast range of possible design and construction alternatives which adds further
to the uncertainty (e.g., Keating et al., 2015). NBS schemes may also require the purchase of
land and/or relocation of existing properties for which costs are not always reported
In terms of the costs associated with implementation of green roofs, there is a significant
price variation depending on their type, size, local conditions and country. Although they are
known to provide good value for money when compared with other infrastructures, in some
cases their high initial investment costs appear to be a barrier to implementation. Some
examples of costs concerning implementation of small-scale NBS are given in Table 5.
TABLE 5. Examples of costs of small-scale NBS interventions (see also Ruangpan et. al., 2020)
NBS COST SOURCE
Shafique et al., (2018), Damodaram

Porous Pavement ~$252/m2
et al., 2010
Green Roofs ~$564/m2 Carpenter and Kaluvakolanu, (2011)
Ishimatsu et al. (2017), Goncalves et

Rain Gardens ~$501/m2
al. (2018)
Vegetated Swales ~$371/m² Luan et al. (2017), Huang et al. (2014)
Khastagir and Jayasuriya (2010),

Rainwater Harvesting ~$865/m3
Damodaram et al. (2010)
Liew et al. (2012), Damodaram et al.

Detention Ponds ~$60/m2
(2010), Goncalves et al. (2018)
Luan et al. (2017), Huang et al. (2014),

Bioretention ~$534/m2
Khan et al., (2013)
Infiltration Trench ~$74/m2 Huang et al. (2014), Goncalves et al. (2018)

33
As part of the FP7 PEARL and H2020 RECONECT projects, Alves et. al. (2019) address
economic comparison of green-blue, grey and hybrid strategies for flood mitigation,
and examine how this changes in view of the co-benefits. The NBS considered are
small-scale NBS such as permeable paving, detention basins and rainwater harvesting.
The authors also acknowledge difficulties in monetising the value of co-benefits (e.g.,
aesthetic value and biodiversity enhancement) and advocate for further advances
in this direction. Some other studies provide quantitative data enabling to calculate
annual values of those co-benefits which can be directly monetised (e.g. Woods-Ballard
et. al., 2007, Center for Neighbourhood Technology, 2010, Horton et al., 2016, Alves
et al., 2019). Present value of co-benefits is often calculated for lifetime with discount
rate, given per unit of measure.
Information on the costs concerning implementation of large-scale NBS is very scarce,

and when it is reported, it also shows significant price variation. Nisbet et al (2012)
quote Saraev (2012) as follows: “While the potential of greenspace and woodland
in particular to reduce stormwater run-off and reduce flood risk by slowing water
flows is often acknowledged, economic estimates are scarce and tentative. The study,
at Pickering, that provides economic estimates of the benefits of woodlands for
flood management and erosion reduction reports a present value for these over 100
years of about £180 000 for 85 ha of woodland created”. Table 6 gives examples of
aggregated costs concerning implementation of large-scale NBS.
TABLE 6. Examples of aggregated costs of large-scale NBS interventions (see also

Ruangpan et. al., 2020)
NBS COST SOURCE
De-culverting (river
~€16.92 million Chou (2016)
restoration)
Floodplain lowering ~€136.7 million Klijn et al. (2013)

Dike relocation/floodplain
~€342.60 million Klijn et al. (2013)
lowering
Floodwater storage ~€386.20 million Klijn et al. (2013)
The H2020 Connecting Nature project argues that business models and return-
on-investments for NBS interventions are limiting interest from traditional financial
institutions. The H2020 NATURVATION Urban Nature Atlas shows that almost 75%
of NBS are funded from public sources (public budget / direct funding or subsidies).
The same project, although not specifically focused on floods and coastal resilience,
produced a Business Model Catalogue for Urban NBS with eight different business
models (Sekulova and Anguelovski, 2017). These were identified based on a number of
34
case studies of urban NBS, both in- and outside of Europe. This is also a dialogue tool
for understanding what values can drive the realization of an urban NBS, and which
stakeholders may be willing to pay for those values.
The H2020 RECONECT project, dealing with floods, is taking into consideration a
variety of investment funds to support promotion and uptake of innovative investment
strategies and business models for large-scale NBS, with similar cases covered by the
H2020 OPERANDUM, PHUSICOS and NAIAD projects.
The results from H2020 NAIAD project, which focus on floods, demonstrate that viable
business models (e.g., the natural insurance scheme developed under the NAIAD
project) could play a significant role to increase the financing for the development
of NBS. It has also been argued that NBS projects at different scales could support
a diversification of risks and help the development of a larger portfolio of return on
investments (e.g., Marchal et. al., 2019).
35
7. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND

R&I GAPS
7.1 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
As a more general comment, it is necessary to better connect the three policy

instruments in relation to how they foresee NBS interventions and also, where
appropriate, connect with the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The policy documents
must be carefully coordinated in this respect or otherwise there is a chance that the
process of implementing NBS may become less effective or even hampered. More
specifically, the process of implementing NBS provides an opportunity to maximise
synergies between the FD and the WFD by identifying multifunctional cost-effective
measures which can result in win-win measures being implemented. This will enhance
further coordination during the development of flood risk management plans as well
as river basin management plans (FRMPs and RBMPs) at national levels.
Furthermore, the need for implementation of NBS provides an opportunity to achieve better
synergy and coordination of efforts at the EU and national Member States levels through
integration of such measures into the national and local policy instruments of Member
States. In some cases, such local policies already exist and the appropriate actions are
being implemented. For example, after some research efforts, the City of Hamburg began to
implement its policy on green roofs already in 2015 where no less than 70% of all suitable
rooftops are to be topped with vegetation. In Belgium, for the Brussels Region, the Regional
Planning Regulations (RRU: Title I, Chapter 4, page 19, Article 13) require the transformation
of inaccessible flat roofs with an area of more than 100 m² into green roofs. This is applicable
for any totally or partially inaccessible roof, for main buildings and annexes. To this end,
identifying areas of synergy between policies at different levels, where common goals can
be met at the same time, can strengthen the capacity to achieve the EU-wide response. This
would ensure that the uptake of NBS is carried out in a systematic and coordinated manner.
The EUs Green Deal sets an agenda for transforming EU’s economy and society into a
more sustainable path. In doing so, the Green Deal has a strong focus in protecting the
health and well-being of citizens from natural or man-made disasters including floods.
Furthermore, in view of the current pandemic situation and discussions at the EU level
to ensure post COVID-19 economic recovery, the related funds need to be consistent
with the EU's Green Deal which in turn provides an opportunity to integrate NBS in
these discussions. Given that one of the cornerstones of the EU's Green Deal is to
enhance the EU's natural capital and that natural capital can significantly contribute to
reducing the impact of floods, NBS can play a significant role in stimulating economic
growth that will put EU in the path of "building back better".
36
Some of the key recommendations concerning the Floods Directive are summarised below:
• There is a need to better address data and model uncertainties which in turn can
have significant impacts on estimation of peak discharges and corresponding flooded
areas (see for example Eleftheriadou et. al., 2015). This is particularly important
when NBS interventions are considered.
• The work concerning analysis and planning of NBS should be done for a range of scenarios
combining different land use characteristics, urbanisation, climate trends and other future
projections. Furthermore, vulnerability and risk analysis should be considered as dynamic
processes which continuously evolve through time (see also Tsakiris et al., 2009).
• All possible types of floods should be equally addressed. The analysis of hazards
should also combine multiple sources and events as well as their cascading effects.
Delineation of flood hazard maps should combine different variables (e.g., flood
depths, velocities, durations and concentrations of pollutants) depending on the
processes that dominate different flood types.
• The search for measures should encourage consideration of different kinds of

measures (grey, small- and large-scale NBS) and their hybrid combinations.
Key recommendations on the EU Climate Change Adaptation Strategy are that:
• Inclusion of co-benefits from different measures (which is particularly relevant for

NBS) will ensure that climate adaptation is undertaken in a timely, cost-effective and
sustainable manner. This also refers to indirect effects of floods (i.e., human well-
being, culture value, etc.) and these should be taken into account in assessing costs
and benefits of adaptation and risk management;
• Stakeholder and citizen participation in adaptation decision making should be

promoted at all levels of governance;
• Economy-wide assessments should be used to analyse the efficiency of adaptation

decisions at a national and wider European level;
• Agriculture sector authorities at the EU level and Member States are one of the key
stakeholders for the planning of large-scale multipurpose NBS interventions. The
policy should also include the agriculture sector and promote NBS as cost-effective
multipurpose adaptation options.
Key recommendations concerning the EU action plan for the SENDAI Framework for
DRR are summarised below:
37
• Key Area 2 (‘An all-of-society approach in disaster risk management’) would

benefit from some concrete examples of how to strengthen the links between
disaster risk management, climate change adaptation, forestry and biodiversity
strategies. This could be given through numerous examples of NBS for different
scales of intervention. For example, there is growing awareness that NBS can provide
simultaneous benefits such as protection from floods, mitigation of climate change,
biodiversity enhancement and other ecosystem services. The three H2020 large-
scale NBS hydro-meteorological projects (OPERANDUM, PHUSICOS and RECONECT)
will soon have evidence available to support this.
• Regarding Key Area 3 (‘Promoting EU risk informed investments’), this area could be
strengthened by providing some concrete examples of mechanisms for flood-related
disaster risk financing, risk transfer and insurance, which have been realised in the
H2020 NAIAD project.
• Discussion concerning Key Area 4 (‘Supporting the development of a holistic disaster

risk management approach’) should make a more explicit reference to the benefits
of NBS for DRR. Large-scale NBS are particularly relevant for flood-related disasters
in view of their capacity to deal with extreme events. Also, a ‘building back better’
approach, which is defined within the same priority area, refers not only to rebuilding of
disaster-resilient infrastructure, but also to building of disaster-resilient ecosystems and
societies. Hence, the existing document should make a more direct connection between
the benefits/co-benefits of NBS interventions and pre- and post-DRR responses.
7.2 RESEARCH AND INNOVATION GAPS
There is a large body of knowledge and evidence produced through various EU research
programmes and actions and through the Commission’s own internal scientific services
(Joint Research Centre). A joint publication between the three EU-funded large-
scale NBS projects RECONECT, OPERANDUM and PHUSICOS identified a number of
remaining research and innovation gaps which could provide a good basis for future
research programmes (e.g., Horizon Europe) to address NBS interventions for hydro-
meteorological risk reduction (Ruangpan et al. 2020).
Some of the key research and innovation gaps are summarised below:
• Barriers - Despite the numerous reports on the effectiveness of NBS (e.g.,

Kong et al., 2017; Zölch et al., 2017; Versini et al., 2018), in practice, these
measures are still being applied at a slow rate while grey infrastructure remains
as a preferred choice (e.g., Dhakal and Chevalier, 2017; Qiao et al., 2018). This
situation can be attributed to several barriers which range from political (e.g.
38
NBS require longer periods of time to generate benefits while politicians tend to
prioritise investments to those interventions that generate outcomes in shorter or
immediate future); governance (e.g. many water and environmental management
authorities operate in silos and often follow different visions, goals and regulatory
frameworks while successful implementation of NBS requires full cross-sectoral
cooperation); social (e.g. NBS represent a relatively new approach and there can
be a negative perception due to uncertain outcomes and preference towards
traditional hard engineering “grey infrastructure” and technological. From the
technological point of view, limited implementation of NBS for flood risk reduction
is mainly due to the lack of sufficient technical references, design standards and
guidelines (Qiao et al., 2018). Furthermore, there is still a general perception
that the construction and especially maintenance of NBS are more costly than
traditional grey infrastructure measures (see for example, Dhakal and Chevalier,
2017). Therefore, a more substantial knowledge and evidence base is needed in
order to promote their wider acceptance and upscaling/uptake (see also Kabisch
et al., 2017).
• General knowledge and evidence base of small-scale NBS – With respect

to small-scale NBS, apart from the need to continuously gain further evidence on
their individual performance characteristics in different settings (i.e., different climate
conditions, quantity and quality, cultural and governance contexts, single and multiple
hazards, etc.) and associated costs, more efforts are needed to address the full
potential of their co-benefits and how these can be quantified and/or monetised.
Furthermore, the question concerning performance of “networks” (or “trains”) of
interconnected small-scale NBS, as well as their hybrid combinations with large-
scale NBS and grey infrastructure still remains unclear and should be addressed in
the future work (see for example the work of Damodaram et al., 2010; Dong et al.,
2017; Huang et al., 2014; Luan et al., 2017).
• General knowledge and evidence base of large-scale NBS – There is a large

gap between the amount of research concerning small scale NBS in urban areas
and large scale NBS at the catchment (or river basin), rural, coastal and regional
level. Hence, further research concerning their performance individually and in hybrid
combinations with small-scale NBS and grey infrastructure would be very beneficial.
This is also a focus research component of the RECONECT project, which in turn
may provide some new knowledge and directions for further work. Understanding of
the associated natural processes and how they change over time would also prove
invaluable information. Also, a platform (or a database) with lessons learnt and
their implementation costs (e.g., construction, monitoring, operation and maintenance
and decommissioning costs) should be developed and kept up to date. There is an
opportunity to expand OPPLA (and other NBS-related platforms) to incorporate the
evidence base for large-scale NBS.
39
• Planning tools – Currently, the tools, such as real-time data acquisition and
modelling, optimisation algorithms and decision-support systems, which are
necessary for planning and implementation of NBS, are rather scattered and
incomplete. Also, to support efforts for wider uptake of NBS it is necessary to advance
the methodologies and tools for systematic evaluation of benefits and co-benefits
(especially those related to social and ecological system, e.g. aesthetics values,
community liveability, and human health), frameworks and methods for optimal
selection of “hybrid measures” (i.e. combinations of grey infrastructure and small-
and large-scale NBS). This aspect is being addressed in the three large-scale NBS
projects (i.e. RECONECT, OPERANDUM and PHUSICOS) and the results that will be
obtained could provide a basis for future research activities.
• Operational tools – Further efforts should also be placed on the developments of

tools that combine real-time monitoring and control systems, advanced flood risk
assessment methodologies and models, smart early warning systems, numerical
weather prediction models and flood risk models to advance real-time operational
potential of NBS (i.e., development of SMART NBS).
• Standards, guidance and design tools – Development of practical design

standards, guidance documents and supporting tools would also be very beneficial.
This would maximise the chances for their multi-functionality and minimise the
chances for their undesirable performance effects.
• Stakeholder participation - There are also several challenges associated with

stakeholder participation. The future work should maximise the use of decision-
support platforms and online tools to enable more effective co-creation processes.
40
8. REFERENCES
Abbott, C. and Comino-Mateos, L., 2003, In-situ hydraulic performance of a permeable pavement
sustainable urban drainage system. Water and Environment Journal, 17, 187–190.
Acreman, M. and Holden, J., 2013, How wetlands affect floods . Wetlands, 33, 773-786.
Alfredo K., Montalto F., Goldstein A., 2010, Observed and modeled performances of prototype
green roof test plots subjected to simulated low- and high-intensity precipitations in a laboratory
experiment, J. Hydrol. Eng., 15 (6) (2010), pp. 444-457.
Altamirano M.A. and de Rijke H., 2017, Costs of infrastructures: elements of method for their
estimation, EU H2020 NAIAD Project, Project Deliverable 4.2, Final Version, Accessed in March
2020, h https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/730497/results.
Alves A, Gersonius B, Kapelan Z, Vojinovic Z and Sanchez A., 2019, Assessing the Co-Benefits of green-
blue-grey infrastructure for sustainable urban flood risk management. Journal of Environmental
Management 239 (December 2018): 244–254 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.036.
Autuori S, Caroppi G, De Paola F, Giugni M, Pugliese F, Stanganelli M and Urciuoli G, 2019, EU

H2020 PHUSICOS Project Deliverable 4.1, Comprehensive Framework for NBS Assessment, Final
Version, Accessed in March 2020, https://phusicos.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/D4.1_Task4.1_
UNINA_14052019_Final_withAppendicies.pdf.
Balke, T., Bouma, T.J., Horstman, E.M., Webb, E.L., Erftemeijer, P.L.A. and Herman, P.M.J., 2011,
Windows of opportunity: thresholds to mangrove seedling establishment on tidal ﬂats. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 440,1–9.
Bayertz, K., 1999, Four uses of “solidarity.” Pages 3-28 in K. Bayertz, editor. Solidarity. Kluwer,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9245-1_1
Bengtsson L., Grahn L. and Olsson, J., 2005, Hydrological function of a thin extensive green roof
in southern Sweden, In : Nordic Hydrology. 36, 3, p. 259-268.
Bullock A. and Acreman M., 2003, The Role of Wetlands in the Hydrological Cycle, Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences 7(3), June 2003, DOI: 10.5194/hess-7-358-2003.
Burszta-Adamiak, E., and M. Mrowiec., 2013, Modelling of Green roofs’ hydrologic performance
using EPA’s SWMM. Water Science and Technology 68: 36–42. doi:10.2166/wst.2013.219.
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), 2011, Cheonggyecheon Restoration
Project. Available online: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118101111/http://www.
cabe.org.uk/case-studies/cheonggyecheon-restoration-project (accessed in March 2020).
Carpenter, D. D., and P. Kaluvakolanu., 2011, Effect of Roof Surface Type on Storm-Water Runoff
41
from Full-Scale Roofs in a Temperate Climate. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 137:
161–169. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000185.
Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2010, The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to
Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits Available at: http://www.cnt.org/sites/
default/files/publications/CNT_Value-of-Green-Infrastructure.pdf [Accessed on 8 April 2020].
Chapman C. and Horner R.R., 2010, Performance assessment of a street-drainage bioretention

system Water Environ. Res., 82 (2), pp. 109-119.
Chan F.K.S., Griffiths J.A., Higgitt D., Xu S.Y., Zhu F.F., Tang Y.T., Xu Y.Y. and Thorne C.R., 2018, “Sponge
City” in China: A breakthrough of planning and flood risk management in the urban context Land
Use Policy, 76 (2018), pp. 772-778, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.005.
Chou R.J., 2016, Achieving Successful River Restoration in Dense Urban Areas: Lessons from
Taiwan, Sustainability 2016, 8(11), 1159; https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111159.
CIRIA, 2015, Guidance on the construction of SuDS (C768), https://www.ciria.org/

ItemDetail?iProductcode=C768&Category=BOOK.
Damodaram, C., Giacomoni, M. H., Prakash Khedun, C., Holmes, H., Ryan, A., Saour, W., and Zechman,
E. M., 2010, Simulation of combined best management practices and low impact development
for sustainable stormwater management, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 46, 907–918, https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00462.x, 2010.
de Jong M., de Buck A., Balder M., Bogen M., 2018, Standardization in urban climate adaptation, EU
H2020 RESIN, Deliverable 5.1/2.2, Accessed in March 2020, https://resin-cities.eu/fileadmin/user_
upload/Papers/RESIN-D5.1_Standardization_in_urban_climate_adaptation_NEN_30102018.pdf.
de Vriend, H. J.; Van Koningsveld, M.; Aarninkhof, S. G. J.; De Vries, M. B. & Baptist, M. J., 2015.
“Sustainable hydraulic engineering through Building with Nature” Journal of Hydro-environment
Research, 9, pp 159-171
Debele, S. E., P. Kumar, J. Sahani, B. Marti-Cardona, S. B. Mickovski, L. S. Leo, F. Porcù, F. Bertini, D.

Montesi, Z. Vojinovic and S. Di Sabatino, 2019, Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological
hazards: Revised concepts, classification schemes and databases. Environmental Research 179.
Elsevier Inc.: 108799. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2019.108799.
Dhakal KP and Chevalier LR., 2017, Managing urban stormwater for urban sustainability: Barriers
and policy solutions for green infrastructure application. Journal of Environmental Management
203: 171–181 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.065.
Dietz, M.E., 2007, Low impact development practices: A review of current research and
recommendations for future directions. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 186(1-4): 351-363.
DOI:10.1007/s11270-007-9484-z.
42
Dong, X., Guo, H., and Zeng, S., 2017, Enhancing future resilience in urban drainage system:
Green versus grey infrastructure, Water Res., 124, 280–289, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2017.07.038, 2017.
EC, 2013, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 'An EU Strategy on
adaptation to climate change' (COM(2013) 216 final).
EC, 2016, Commission staff working document – Action Plan on the Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, A disaster risk-informed approach for all EU policies. Brussels,
16.6.2016 SWD(2016) 205 final/2, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-site/files/
sendai_swd_2016_205_0.pdf (last access: May 2020).
EC, 2019, Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive, Groundwater Directive, Environmental
Quality Standards Directive and Floods Directive. SWD(2019)439 final. European Commission, Brussels.
ECONADPT, 2015, The Costs and Benefits of Adaptation: Results from the ECONADAPT
Project. Editor Watkiss, P. Published by the ECONADAPT consortium. Accessed in May 2020:
https://econadapt.eu/sites/default/files/docs/Econadapt-policy-report-on-costs-and-benefits-
of-adaptaiton-july-draft-2015.pdf
Eckart K., McPhee Z. and Bolisetti, T., 2017, Performance and implementation of low impact
development—A review. Sci. Total Environ. 607–608, 413–432.
Eleftheriadou E, Giannopoulou I and Yannopoulos S, 2015, The European Floods directive: Current
implementation and technical issues in transboundary catchments, Evros/Maritsa example
European Water 52 13–22 2015
Ercolani, G., E. Antonio, C. Gandolfi, F. Castelli, and D. Masseroni., 2018, Evaluating performances
of green roofs for stormwater runoff mitigation in a high flood risk urban catchment. Journal of
Hydrology 566. Elsevier: 830–845. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.09.050.
ES, 2007, Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007
on the assessment and management of flood risks, European Parliament, Council, 2007.
Faivre, N., Fritz, M., Freitas, T., de Boissezon, B. and Vandewoestijne, S., 2017, Nature-Based
Solutions in the EU: Innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental
challenges, Environ. Res., 159(September), 509–518, doi:10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.032, 2017.
Faivre, N., Sgobbi, A., Happaerts, S., Raynal, J. and Schmidt, L., 2018, Translating the Sendai
Framework into action: The EU approach to ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction, Int. J. Disaster
Risk Reduct., 32(June 2017), 4–10, doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.12.015, 2018.
Fassman E.A. and Blackbourn S., 2010, Urban Runoff Mitigation by a Permeable Pavement System
over Impermeable Soils, J. Hydrol. Eng., 15, 475–485.
43
Ferrario, F., M. W. Beck, C. D. Storlazzi, F. Micheli, C. C. Shepard, and L. Airoldi., 2014, The effectiveness
of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction and adaptation. Nature Communications.
doi:10.1038/ncomms4794.
Gafni A, 2006, Economic evaluation of health-care programmes: is CEA better than CBA? Environ.
Res. Econ. 34(3):407–418.
Goncalves, M. L. R., J. Zischg, S. Rau, M. Sitzmann, and W. Rauch., 2018, Modeling the Effects
of Introducing Low Impact Development in a Tropical City: A Case Study from Joinville, Brazil.
Sustainability 10: 728. doi:10.3390/su10030728.
Goniewicz K. and Burkle F.M., 2019, Challenges in Implementing Sendai Framework for Disaster
Risk Reduction in Poland, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(14), 2574; https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph16142574.
Guha-Sapir D, Hoyois P. , Wallemacq P., Below. R., 2016, Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2016:
The Numbers and Trends. Brussels: CRED; 2016.
Hartmann, T., Slavíková, L. and McCarthy S., 2019, Nature-based Flood Risk Management on
Private Land - Disciplinary Perspectives on a Multidisciplinary Challenge. Springer, ISBN 978-3-
030-23842-1
Holden J, Gascoign M and Bosanko NR., 2007, Erosion and natural revegetation associated with
surface land drains in upland peatlands. EARTH SURF PROC LAND. 32(10), pp. 1547-1557.
Holden J, Kirkby MJ, Lane SN, Milledge DG, Brookes CJ, Holden V and McDonald AT, 2008, Overland
flow velocity and roughness properties in peatlands. WATER RESOUR RES. 44(6).
Horton B, Digman CJ, Ashley RM, Gill E., 2016, BeST (Benefits of SuDS Tool) W045c BeST - Technical
Guidance Release version 2. http://observatoriaigua.uib.es/repositori/suds_herramientas_6.pdf.
[Accessed on 8 April 2020].
Huang, J. J., Y. Li, S. Niu, and S. H. Zhou., 2014, Assessing the performances of low impact
development alternatives by long-term simulation for a semi-arid area in Tianjin, Northern China.
Water Science and Technology 70: 1740–1745. doi:10.2166/wst.2014.228.
Ishimatsu, K., K. Ito, Y. Mitani, Y. Tanaka, T. Sugahara, and Y. Naka., 2017, Use of rain gardens for
stormwater management in urban design and planning. Landscape and Ecological Engineering 13.
Springer Japan: 205–212. doi:10.1007/s11355-016-0309-3.
Kabisch N, Korn H, Stadler J and Bonn A, 2017, Nature ‐ based Solutions to Climate Change
Adaptation in Urban Areas. Springer.
Keating K, Keeble H, Pettit A and Stark D, 2015, Cost estimation for SUDS - summary of evidence,
Report –SC080039/R9, Environment Agency, Horizon House, Deanery Road, Bristol, BS1 5AH,
44
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/411509/Cost_estimation_for_SUDS.pdf, Accessed in March 2020.
Keeler B. L., Hamel P., McPhearson T., Hamann M. H., Donahue M. L., Prado K. A. M., Arkema, K. K.,
Bratman G. N., Brauman K. A., Finlay J. C., Guerry A. D., Hobbie S. E., Johnson J. A., MacDonald G.
K., McDonald R. I., Neverisky N. & Wood S. A., 2019, Social-ecological and technological factors
moderate the value of urban nature. Nature Sustainability, 2(1), 29–38.
Keesstra S., Nunes J., Novara A., Finger D., Avelar D., Kalantari Z. and Cerdà A., 2018, The superior
effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Science
of the Total Environment 610, 997–1009. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.077.
Khan, U. T., C. Valeo, A. Chu, and J. He., 2013, A data driven approach to bioretention cell
performance: Prediction and design. Water (Switzerland) 5: 13–28. doi:10.3390/w5010013.
Khastagir, A., and L. N. N. Jayasuriya., 2010, Impacts of using rainwater tanks on stormwater
harvesting and runoff quality. Water Science and Technology 62: 324–329. doi:10.2166/
wst.2010.283.
Klijn, F., D. de Bruin, M. C. de Hoog, S. Jansen, and D. F. Sijmons, 2013, Design quality of room-
for-the-river measures in the Netherlands: role and assessment of the quality team (Q-team).
International Journal of River Basin Management 11: 287–299. doi:10.1080/15715124.2013.8
11418.
Kong F, Ban Y, Yin H, James P and Dronova I., 2017, Modeling stormwater management at the
city district level in response to changes in land use and low impact development. Environmental
Modelling and Software 95: 132–142 DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.021
Li, Y.L. and Babcock, R.W., Jr., 2014, Green roof hydrologic performance and modeling: A review,
Water Sci. Technol. 69, 727–738.
Liew, Y. S., Selamat, Z., Ghani, A. A., and Zakaria, N. A., 2012, Performance of a dry detention pond:
Case study of Kota Damansara, Selangor, Malaysia, Urban Water J., 9, 129–136, https://doi.org/1
0.1080/1573062X.2011.644567.
Luan, Q., X. Fu, C. Song, H. Wang, J. Liu, and Y. Wang., 2017, Runoff Effect Evaluation of LID through
SWMM in Typical Mountainous, Low-Lying Urban Areas: A Case Study in China. Water 9: 439.
doi:10.3390/w9060439.
Marchal R., Piton G., Lopez Gunn E., Zorrilla P., 2019, The (Re)Insurance Industry’s Roles in the
Integration of Nature-based Solutions for Prevention in Disaster Risk Reduction—Insights from a
European Survey, Sustainability 11(22), November 2019, DOI: 10.3390/su11226212.
Martin J., Bayer J., Liu W. and Scolobig A., 2019, NBS in-depth case study analysis of the
characteristics of successful governance models, EU H2020 PHUSICOS Project, Project Deliverable
45
5.1, Accessed in March 2020, https://phusicos.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/D5_1_NBS-in-

depth-case-study-analysis_Final-2.pdf.
Mendizabal M and Zorita S, 2018, EU H2020 RESIN Project Deliverable 3.5, RESIN Adaptation
Options Library, Accessed in March 2020, https://resin-cities.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Resources/
Adaptation_library/RESIN-D3.6_Completed_library_of_adaptation_options.pdf.
Morris E. P., Dr. Gomez-Enri J. and van der Wal D., 2015, Copernicus Downstream Service Supports
Nature-Based Flood Defense: Use of Sentinel Earth Observation Satellites for Coastal Needs, Sea
Technology Magazine, Accessed in May 2020: https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/28126320/
ST_Copernicus.pdf
Nagase A. and Koyama S., 2020, Attractiveness and preference of extensive green roofs
depend on vegetation types and past experience with plants in Japan, Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening, Available online 21 March 2020, 126658, Journal Pre-proof, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ufug.2020.126658.
Narayan S, Beck MW, Reguero BG, Losada IJ, van Wesenbeeck B, Pontee N, Sanchirico JN, Ingram JC,
Lange G-M, Burks-Copes KA, 2016, The effectiveness, costs and coastal protection benefits of natural
and nature-based defences. PLoS One 11(5):e0154735. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735
Nisbet T.R., Silgram M., Shah N., Morrow K. and Broadmeadow S., 2012, Assessing the potential of
woodland services for meeting Water Framework Directive Objectives. In: Proceedings of the SAC/
SEPA Biennial Conference held at the University of Edinburgh on 3-4 April 2012, pp 20-25. SAC
Auchincruive, Ayr.
Perales-Momparler S, Andrés-Doménech I, Hernández-Crespo C, Vallés-Morán F, Martín M, 2016,

The role of monitoring sustainable drainage systems for promoting transition towards regenerative
urban built environments: a case study in the Valencian region, Spain. J Clean Prod, Volume 163,
Supplement, Pages S113-S124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.153.
Pontee, N.I., Narayan, S., Beck, M., Hosking A.H., 2016. Building with nature: Lessons from around
the world. Maritime Engineering Journal, 169, 1, 29-36.
Priest, S.J.; Suykens, C.; Van Rijswick, H.F.M.W.; Schellenberger, T.; Goytia, S.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Van
Doorn-Hoekveld, W.J.; Beyers, J.-C.; Homewood, S., 2016, The European union approach to flood risk
management and improving societal resilience: Lessons from the implementation of the Floods
Directive in six European countries. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 50.
Qiao XJ, Kristoffersson A and Randrup TB, 2018, Challenges to implementing urban sustainable
stormwater management from a governance perspective: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner
Production 196: 943–952 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.049.
Qin, H.P.; Li, Z.X.; Fu, G., 2013, The effects of low impact development on urban flooding under
different rainfall characteristics. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 129, 577–585.Shafique, M., R. Kim, and
46
K. Kyung-Ho. 2018. Rainfall Runoff Mitigation by Retrofitted Permeable Pavement in an Urban

Area. Sustainability 10: 1231. doi:10.3390/su10041231.
Renaud F, Wild A, Anderson C and Shah M A, 2019, Review on vulnerability and risk assessment
specific to NBS, Project Deliverable 6.1, H2020 OPERANDUM Project, Final Version, Accessed in
March 2020, https://www.operandum-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/D6.1_NBS_vulnerability_risk_
assessment.pdf.
Ruangpan, L., Z. Vojinovic, S. Di Sabatino, L. S. Leo, V. Capobianco, A. M. P. Oen, M. E. McClain, and

E. Lopez-Gunn. 2020. Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological risk reduction: a state-of-
the-art review of the research area. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 20: 243–270.
doi:10.5194/nhess-20-243-2020.
Saraev V., 2012, Economic benefits of greenspace: a critical assessment of evidence of net
economic benefits. Forestry Commission Research Report. Forestry Commission. Edinburgh.
Schleyer, C., I. M. Bouwma, E. Primmer, G. Bela, P. Berry, A. Smith, J. Hauck, K.J. Winkler, C. Deerenberg,
J. Young, E. Carmen, P. Bezák, J. Ŝpulerová, Z. Barankova, H.-L. Kangas, E. Preda, A. Vadineanu, and
C. Görg, 2015, EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 2.1, Paper on the Policy Analysis. Stahre, P.,
2006. Sustainability in Urban Storm Drainage – Planning and Examples. VAforsk, Malmö, Sweden.
Sekulova F. and Anguelovski I., 2017, The Governance and Politics of Nature-Based Solutions
H2020 NATURVATION Project, Deliverable Deliverable 1.3: Part VII, Accesed in March 2020, https://
naturvation.eu/sites/default/files/news/files/naturvation_the_governance_and_politics_of_nature-
based_solutions.pdf
Shafique, M., R. Kim, and K. Kyung-Ho., 2018, Rainfall Runoff Mitigation by Retrofitted Permeable
Pavement in an Urban Area. Sustainability 10: 1231. doi:10.3390/su10041231.
Stovin V., 2010, The potential of green roofs to manage urban stormwater. Water and Environment
Journal 24(3), 192-199.
Stovin, V., G. Vesuviano, and H. Kasmin., 2012, The hydrological performance of a green roof test
bed under UK climatic conditions. Journal of Hydrology. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.10.022.
Stovin, V. et al, 2015, The influence of substrate and vegetation configuration on green roof
hydrological performance. Ecological Engineering, 85, 159-172.
Stovin, V. et al, 2017, Defining green roof detention performance. Urban Water Journal, 14(6), 574-588.
Tsakiris G., Nalbantis I., Pistrika A., 2009, Critical Technical Issues on the EU Floods directive.
European Water, 25/26: 39-51
UNISDR, 2015, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. In: UN world conference
on disaster risk reduction, 2015 March 14–18, Sendai, Japan. Geneva: United Nations Office for
47
Disaster Risk Reduction. Available at http://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.

pdf. Accessed in March 2020.
van Slobbe, E., H. J. de Vriend, S. Aarninkhof, K. Lulofs, M. de Vries, and P. Dircke, 2013, Building
with Nature: In search of resilient storm surge protection strategies. Natural Hazards. doi:10.1007/
s11069-013-0612-3.
Van Eerd, M. C. J., M. A. Wiering, and C. Dieperink, 2015a, Solidarity in transboundary flood
risk management: a view from the Dutch North Rhine-Westphalian catchment area. Climate
Policy:1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1075376
Van Eerd, M. C. J., C. Dieperink, and M. A. Wiering, 2015b, ‘A dive into floods’: exploring the Dutch
implementation of the floods directive. Water Policy 17(2):187-207.
Versini PA, Kotelnikova N, Poulhes A, Tchiguirinskaia I, Schertzer D and Leurent F., 2018, A
distributed modelling approach to assess the use of Blue and Green Infrastructures to fulfil
stormwater management requirements. Landscape and Urban Planning 173 (February): 60–63
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.02.001
Vojinovic Z, Golub D, Hammond M, Hirunsalee S, Weesakul S, Meesuk V, Medina NP, Abbott M,

Sanchez A, Kumara S, 2016a, Holistic approach to flood risk assessment in urban areas with
cultural heritage: a practical application in Ayutthaya, Thailand, Natural Hazards, Springer, DOI:
10.1007/s11069-015-2098-7.Woods-Ballard B, Kellagher R, Martin P, Jefferies C, Bray R and
Shaffer P., 2007, The SUDS manual. London, UK, UK. DOI: London C697.
Vojinovic Z, Keerakamolchai W, Weesakul S, Pudar RS, Medina NP and Alves A, 2016b,

Combining ecosystem services with cost-benefit analysis for selection of green and grey
infrastructure for flood protection in a cultural setting, Environments 2017, 4(1), 3; doi:10.3390/
environments4010003, MDPI.
Watkin L.J., Ruangpan L., Vojinovic Z., Weesakul S. and Sanchez Torres A., 2019, A Framework for
Assessing Benefits of Implemented Nature-Based Solutions, Sustainability 11(23):6788, MDPI,
DOI: 10.3390/su11236788.
Woods-Ballard B, Kellagher R, Martin P, Jefferies C, Bray R, Shaffer P., 2007, The SUDS manual.
London, UK, UK. DOI: London C697.
Zölch T, Henze L, Keilholz P and Pauleit S., 2017, Regulating urban surface runoff through nature-
based solutions – An assessment at the micro-scale. Environmental Research 157 (May): 135–144
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.023.
48
9. ANNEX 1. LIST OF REVIEWED PROJECTS

AQUAVAL (Sustainable Urban Water Management Plans, promoting SUDS and considering
Climate Change, in the Province of Valencia), LIFE, January 2010 – September 2013, EU
contribution: € 499 458, project link.
BASE (Bottom-up Climate Adaptation Strategies Towards a Sustainable Europe), FP7, October
2012 – September 2016, EU contribution: € 7 555 674,25, project link.
BRIGAID (BRIdges the GAp for Innovations in Disaster resilience), H2020, May 2016 – April
2020, EU contribution: € 7 739 805,79, project link.
CASCADE (Community Safety Action for Supporting Climate Adaptation and Development),
DG ECHO (European Union Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid), January 2019 – December
2020, Budget: € 850 871, project link.
ECONADAPT (Economics of climate change adaptation in Europe), FP7, October 2013 –
September 2016, EU contribution: € 2 928 617,50, project link.
FAST (Foreshore Assessment using Space Technology), FP7, January 2014 – December 2017,
EU contribution: € 2 224 160, project link.
GRIn (Promoting urban integration of GReen INfrastructure to improve climate governance in
cities), LIFE, June 2018 – December 2021, EU contribution: € 1 015 505, project link.
LAND4FLOOD (Natural Flood Retention on Private Land), COST Action, September 2017 –
September 2021, project link.
NAIAD (NAture Insurance value: Assessment and Demonstration), H2020, December 2016 –
August 2020, EU contribution: € 4 994 370, project link.
OPERAs (Operational Potential of Ecosystem Research Applications), FP7, December 2012 –
November 2017, EU contribution: € 8 997 909,50, project link.
OPERANDUM (OPEn-air laboRAtories for Nature baseD solUtions to Manage environmental
risks), H2020, July 2018 – June 2022, EU contribution: € 12 257 343,25, project link.
PEARL (Preparing for Extreme And Rare events in coastaL regions), FP7, January 2014 – April
2018, EU contribution: € 4 998 851,04, project link.
PHUSICOS ('According to nature' - solutions to reduce risk in mountain landscapes), H2020,
May 2018 – April 2022, EU contribution: € 9 472 200, project link.
PLACARD (PLAtform for Climate Adaptation and Risk reduction), H2020, June 2015 – May
2020, EU contribution: € 2 852 760, project link.
RECONECT (Regenarating ECOsystems with Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological
risk rEduCTion), H2020, September 2018 – September 2023, EU contribution: € 13 520
689,64, project link.
RESCUE (River flood Embankments Subject to Climate change: Understanding Effects of
future floods and novel ‘low-carbon’ adaptation measures),
FP7, May 2014 – September 2016, EU contribution: € 231 283,20, project link.
RESCCUE (Resilience to Cope with Climate Change in Urban Areas), H2020, May 2016 – April
2020, EU contribution: € 6.896.991,76, project link.
49
RESIN (Climate Resilient Cities and Infrastructures), H2020, May 2015 – October 2018, EU
contribution: € 7 466 004,50, project link.
RISC-KIT (Resilience-Increasing Strategies for Coasts – toolkit), FP7, November 2013 – April
2017, EU contribution: € 5 999 692, project link.
RISES-AM (Responses to coastal climate change: Innovative Strategies for high End Scenarios
-Adaptation and Mitigation), FP7, November 2013 – October 2016, EU contribution: € 4 407
648, project link.
SECOaquaA (Solutions for Environmental Contrasts in Coastal Areas), FP7, December 2009 –
November 2013, EU contribution: € 6 159 118,44, project link
SimetoRES (Urban Adaptation And Community Learning For A Resilient Simeto Valley), LIFE,
June 2018 – December 2021, EU contribution: € 568 037, project link.
SMR (Smart Mature Resilience), H2020, June 2015 – June 2018, EU contribution: € 4 641
233,25, project link.
UNALAB, H2020, June 2017 – May 2022, EU contribution € 12 768 931,75, project link.
50
10. ANNEX 2: NBS PLATFORMS, PORTALS,

DATABASES, NETWORKS AND INITIATIVES
NAME WEB-LINKS TERMINOLOGY USED
Nature-Based Solution,
OPPLA https://oppla.eu/casestudy/17577 Natural capital, Ecosystem
services
Natural Water Retention Natural water retention

http://nwrm.eu/
Measures measures
Urban Nature Atlas https://naturvation.eu/atlas Nature-Based Solution
https://www.eea.europa.eu/
EbA, Nature-Based
ClimateADAPT themes/climate/european-climate-
Solution, GI
adaptation-platform-climate-adapt
Natural Hazards – Nature

https://naturebasedsolutions.org/ Nature-Based Solution
Based Solutions
BiodivERsA https://www.biodiversa.org/8 Ecosystem services
Ecosystem services, Green

BISE https://biodiversity.europa.eu/
infrastructures
ThinkNature https://www.think-nature.eu/ Nature-Based Solution
Disaster Risk Management

https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ Eco-DRR
Knowledge Centre
Nature-based Solutions
Initiative (Nature Based https://www.
Nature-Based Solution
Solutions Evidence naturebasedsolutionsevidence.info/
Platform)
Ecosystem-based
weADAPT https://www.weadapt.org/
Adaptation
Nature of Cities https://www.thenatureofcities.com/ Green Infrastructures
https://www.climatescan.nl/
ClimateScan Blue-Green Infrastructures
projects/2262/detail
Partnership for
Environment and Disaster https://pedrr.org/ Ecosystem-based Adaptation
Risk Reduction (PEDRR)
PANORAMA https://panorama.solutions/en Ecosystem-based Adaptation

51
11. ANNEX 3: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

APSFDRR EU Action Plan on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
BGI Blue-Green Infrastructure
BMPs Best Management Practices
BSR Baltic Sea Region
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis
CCA Climate Change Adaptation
CIRIA Construction Industry Research and Information Association
COST Cooperation in Science and Technology Programme
DRM Disaster Risk Management
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
DG ECHO Directorate General for Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid
EBA Ecosystem-based Adaptation
EC European Commission
Eco-DRR Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction
EEA European Environment Agency
EU European Union
FD Floods Directive
FP6 6th Framework Programme
FP7 7th Framework Programme
FRMP Flood Risk Management Plans
GI Green Infrastructure
H2020 Horizon 2020 EU Framework Programme for Research & Innovation
INTERREG EU Regional Development Fund
LID Low Impact Development
MS Member States of the EU
NBS Nature-Based Solutions
OAL Open-Air Laboratory
R&I Research and Innovation
SACC EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change
SCP Sponge City Programme
SFDRR Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
SUDS Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
WFD Water Framework Directive
WSUD Water Sensitive Urban Design
52
Image credits:
Cover: © Visual Generation, #338248360, 2020. Source: stock.adobe.com
Page 6: Figure 1a, © Alison Duffy. Page 6: Figure 1b, © Casper Tybjerg, TTF. Page 7: Figure 2a-e, © Alison Duffy. Page 7: Figure
2f, © L. Postmes. Page 17: Figure 3, © Zoran Vojinovic. Page 18: Figure 4-5, © Michael Loupis. Page 19: Figure 6, © Zingraff-
Hamed. Page 22: Figure 7, © Zoran Vojinovic.
Getting in touch with the EU
IN PERSON
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres.
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at:
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
ON THE PHONE OR BY EMAIL

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union.
You can contact this service:
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en
Finding information about the EU

ONLINE
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa
website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en
EU PUBLICATIONS
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from:
https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting
Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en)
EU LAW AND RELATED DOCUMENTS

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
OPEN DATA FROM THE EU

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. Data
can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and
non-commercial purposes.
This document summarises outcomes relating to flood mitigation and
coastal resilience from the report ‘Nature-based Solutions: State of the
Art in EU-funded Projects’ (Wild et al. (Eds.) 2020) prepared through the
EC’s Valorisation of NBS Projects Initiative. EU research and innovation
projects were scanned for results pertaining to key areas such as Floods
Directive, EU Action Plan on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015-2030 and EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change.
Evidence from the reviewed projects (and the EC’s NBS policy topic area)
is framed within knowledge from the literature within the realm of flood-
related policy, to give as full a picture as possible about the state-of-the-
art with relevant NBS. Contextualised information is provided on policy
developments, research results and key lessons. The resulting evidence
base includes figures and monetary values showing the relative cost-
effectiveness of NBS, and exploring how they support flood-related policy
implementation. Policy recommendations and knowledge gaps are also
highlighted to support the strengthening of strategies and practical action
for the uptake of NBS, to deliver targeted and efficient interventions to
help solve societal challenges in Europe and beyond.
Studies and reports

Nature-Based Solutions For Flood Mitigation and coastal-KI0120259ENN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nature-Based Solutions For Flood Mitigation and coastal-KI0120259ENN

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

Nature-Based Solutions For Flood Mitigation and coastal-KI0120259ENN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nature-based Solutions

for Flood Mitigation and

Contact Tiago Freitas

Manuscript completed in April 2020

PDF ISBN 978-92-76-18197-2 doi:10.2777/374113 KI-01-20-259-EN-N

Valorisation of NBS projects

2020 Directorate-General for Research and Innovation EN

2. OVERVIEW OF MAIN FLOOD-RELATED POLICIES AND THEIR CONNECTION WITH NBS.....10

2.1 Floods Directive (FD)............................................................................................................................10

3. CONTRIBUTION FROM EU-FUNDED PROJECTS TO FLOOD-RELATED POLICIES......17

4. THE EVIDENCE BASE....................................................................................................................................25

5. INNOVATIVE GOVERNANCE MODELS.................................................................................................30

6. MARKET UPTAKE, FINANCING APPROACHES AND BUSINESS MODELS........................32

7. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND R&I GAPS...............................................................................35

7.1 Policy Recommendations...................................................................................................................35

9. ANNEX 1: LIST OF REVIEWED RESEARCH PROJECTS...............................................................48

10. ANNEX 2: NBS PLATFORMS, PORTALS, DATABASES, NETWORKS AND INITIATIVES..........50

11. ANNEX 3: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.......................................................................................................51

as a promising stormwater management technique and climate change mitigation

Figure 1. Examples of small (a) and large-scale NBS (b)

Figure 2. Examples of small-scale interventions

c) Permeable pavement, Dundee, Scotland. d) Infiltration Basin, Angmering, England.

e) Pond, Bicester, England. f) Streetside rain garden, Eindhoven, Netherlands.

A good example of an initiative that combines several GI flood protection measures

The European Environment Agency reports that 70 to 90% of Europe’s floodplain

Another example of large-scale NBS implementation is the Laojie River restoration

The following section provides an overview of the three EU policy instruments.

2. OVERVIEW OF MAIN FLOOD-RELATED

2.1 FLOODS DIRECTIVE (FD)

The FD was as an important step towards harmonising and establishing a common

performance of existing interventions individually and in their hybrid combinations

2.2 EU ACTION PLAN ON THE SENDAI FRAMEWORK FOR DISASTER RISK

The implementation of the Sendai Framework represents an opportunity for EU to take

Furthermore, there is no explicit mentioning of the financing mechanisms and

2.3 EU STRATEGY ON ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE (SACC)

1. Promoting action by Member States

• Action 1. Encourage all Member States to adopt comprehensive adaptation strategies

• Action 3. Introduce adaptation in the Covenant of Mayors framework (Covenant of Mayors);

2. Better informed decision making

• Action 4. Bridge the knowledge gap (Knowledge gap);

• Action 5. Further develop Climate-ADAPT as the ‘one-stop shop’ for adaptation

3. Climate-proofing EU action by promoting adaptation in key vulnerable sectors

• Action 6. Facilitate the climate-proofing of the Common Agricultural Policy, the

• Action 7. Ensure more resilient infrastructure (Infrastructure)

2.4 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

• Sustainability and multi-functionality - One of the key characteristics of NBS is

• Active stakeholder participation and collaborative governance – Successful

3. CONTRIBUTION FROM EU-FUNDED

In its demonstration and upscaling activities, RECONECT draws on a network of

OPERANDUM combines ten NBS sites, or Open-Air Laboratories (OALs) covering a

PHUSICOS focuses on demonstrating the effectiveness of NBS and their ability to

The NAIAD project combines eight demonstration sites to address questions of

H2020 RESIN is developing practical and applicable tools to support cities in

The Smart Mature Resilience project aims to deliver resilience management

H2020 RESCCUE aims to contribute towards improvement in urban resilience

The FP7 RESCUE project addressed impacts of climate-induced floods on stability

vegetation is considered as a remedial measure in the sense that it promotes the

LAND4FLOOD COST Action aims to address different aspects in relation to Natural

FAST (Foreshore Assessment using Space Technology) was an EU FP7 Collaborative