China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
A way forward for Building with Nature in river areas
Published in Wim Uijttewaal, Mário J. Franca, Daniel Valero, Victor Chavarrias, Clàudia Ylla Arbós, Ralph Schielen, Alessandra Crosato, River Flow 2020, 2020
M. Barciela-Rial, F. den Heijer, J. Rijke
Much research has been done in the last decades over nature-based solutions to promote green and blue urban areas, which has shown potential to decrease the vulnerability and enhance the resilience of cities against climatic change (e.g. Kabisch et al, 2016). In this urban context, nature-based solutions are often referred as Green Infrastructure (GI) and numerous studies exist probing the potential of GI to reduced flood risk in urban areas (e.g. Liu et al., 2014; Šakić Trogrlić et al., 2018). For the case of urban stormwater, the concept of GI is closely related to other new concepts, such as sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) and low impact development (LID) that are based on replicating natural processes and design with a nature approach. The differences between GI, SUDS, LID and other related concepts are thoroughly explained in the review by Fletcher et al. (2015).
Coastal engineering and management
Published in David R. Green, Jeffrey L. Payne, Marine and Coastal Resource Management, 2017
There are a wide range of solutions which can be regarded as nature-based solutions and various opinions as to what counts as ‘natural’. Views differ between countries and between different professions. For instance, ecologists might consider nature-based solutions to only include solutions with living elements (e.g. saltmarshes, marshes, mangroves, reefs). Engineers, on the other hand, might use the term nature-based solutions to describe solutions that use or mimic natural processes (e.g. beach nourishment projects that rely on coastal processes to redistribute the sediment). Whilst some approaches incorporate relatively well tried structural elements, such as rock sills or nearshore breakwaters, other approaches are more innovative e.g. floating wave breaks that support saltmarsh vegetation. Some of the more innovative approaches will require monitoring over a number of years before their success and performance in different environments is fully established and such approaches become mainstream.
Towards Urban Sustainability: Impact of Blue and Green Infrastructure on Building Smart, Climate Resilient and Livable Cities
Published in Vikram Bali, Rajni Mohana, Ahmed A. Elngar, Sunil Kumar Chawla, Gurpreet Singh, Handbook of Sustainable Development through Green Engineering and Technology, 2022
The purpose of this research study is to create a knowledge base on the understanding of the BGI approach from the perspective of urban practitioners and policy makers. The paper illustrates the knowledge outcomes of the research as a beginner's guide for urban practitioners, city leaders, and decision makers to apprehend the role of BGI and implement the concepts in the urban development and planning agenda. The study highlights various examples of integrating nature-based solutions within the urban-development process and the environmental, ecological, socio-cultural, and economic benefits that could play a pivotal role to improve the overall quality of an urban environment.
Variation in the hydrological response within the Quebrada Seca watershed in Costa Rica resulting from an increase of urban land cover
Published in Urban Water Journal, 2023
Ricardo Bonilla Brenes, Martín Morales, Rafael Oreamuno, Jochen Hack
In watersheds characterized by a high level of urbanization, measures to counteract the flood-generating effects of soil impermeabilization are usually limited. This is due to the high costs involved in replacing the existing infrastructure with one that meets current hydrological requirements, or due to a lack of space for developing new infrastructure complementing existing facilities. In such cases, the implementation of green infrastructure as Nature-based Solutions promoting rainwater infiltration and retention (e.g. green roofs, bio-gardens or bioretention areas) are a promising alternative, since they can be adapted to fit in with the existing infrastructure – as a form of retrofitting (Hack and Schröter 2021). In the context of the SEE-URBAN-WATER research project, such solutions have been studied in different scenarios for the Quebrada Seca watershed (Singh, Kumar Sarma, and Hack 2020; Arthur and Hack 2022; Chapa, Pérez, and Hack 2020; Fluhrer, Chapa, and Hack 2021). However, in cases where introducing green infrastructure is not feasible or where its effect is not sufficient to mitigate the associated problems, an early warning system (EWS) could be developed as a management tool. In small and highly urbanized watersheds, such as the Quebrada Seca watershed, any EWS should be based on precipitation thresholds, allowing the population, especially in the lower reaches, to be warned of potential flash floods.
Understanding integration within the Dutch multi-layer safety approach to flood risk management
Published in International Journal of River Basin Management, 2023
Mattia Bosoni, Barbara Tempels, Thomas Hartmann
A greater contribution to the understanding of integration may be further researched within other integration dimensions such as institutional integration, and integration of different management systems. Also, it might be interesting how nature-based solutions, as one of the upcoming trends in flood risk management since some years (Schanze, 2017), influence the multi-layer safety approach. Nature-based solutions, namely, in essence require much more integrative approaches and stakeholder involvement (Hartmann et al., 2019). The embedment of water safety regulations into spatial planning (and not the other way around) extends what can be found in the literature, or rather that the role of layer 1 remains the more important for flood risk management, it cannot be substituted neither by spatial planning nor by disaster management in the multi-layer safety approach (Kaufmann et al., 2016; Pötz et al., 2014; Ritzema & Van Loon-Steensma, 2018).
Applying the sustainable system-of-systems framework: wastewater(s) in a rapidly urbanising South African settlement
Published in Ergonomics, 2022
Andrew Thatcher, Geneviève S. Metson, Motshwaedi Sepeng
Given that centralised wastewater systems may not be a desirable or possible solution in the long run, even though the need for such service delivery in informal settlements is acute, alternatives must be examined. Urban ecological infrastructure, an encompassing term for nature-based solutions that highlights the important role of ‘blue’ and ‘turquoise’ ecosystem features such as wetlands and hybrid green and grey infrastructure types, is likely part of the solution (Childers et al. 2019). Urban ecological infrastructure often differs from grey infrastructure projects in that they are more adaptable to changing conditions (such as climate change) and provide more than one service at a time (Childers et al. 2019). For example, a public park along a river prone to flooding can provide both recreation and stormwater protection for residents. Separating wastewater types opens-up more sustainable solutions for urban ecological infrastructure, but there is no clear panacea for what sustainable sanitation (Brands 2014; Öberg et al. 2020), stormwater (Barbosa, Fernandes, and David 2012), or greywater (Li, Wichmann, and Otterpohl 2009) treatment should look like. A nimble understanding of the context surrounding these systems is paramount. Cities are complex systems that require researchers and practitioners to examine the social, ecological, and technological perspectives of infrastructure development and the transformational changes needed for cities to sustainably deliver services (Depietri and McPhearson 2017; McPhearson et al. 2021).