Nature-based solutions (NBS) have emerged as a promising approach to enhance flood resilience and deliver multiple environmental and social co-benefits. However, despite growing interest and supportive policies, NBS have yet to be widely adopted as a mainstream flood management strategy. Identifying and addressing the key barriers to implementation is crucial to unlock the full potential of these nature-focused techniques.
In the UK, the term “natural flood management” (NFM) is commonly used to describe NBS for flood management. NFM employs natural hydrological processes and interventions to slow the flow of water, creating a landscape-scale flood management system. While NFM has garnered significant attention, a range of barriers have hindered its widespread adoption. Overcoming these policy and institutional obstacles is essential to mainstreaming nature-based flood control.
Integrated Catchment Management: The Foundation for NBS Delivery
NBS for flood management require a holistic, integrated approach that considers the entire catchment or watershed. This is reflected in the “catchment-based approach” (CaBA) established in England, which encourages collaboration among diverse stakeholders to coordinate land and water management activities across a catchment.
Catchment partnerships, led by environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), play a crucial role in driving integrated water management. These partnerships bring together various sectors, including flood risk authorities, conservation groups, and agricultural landowners, to identify mutual benefits and deliver multiple outcomes. Flood risk management is a key priority for the majority of catchment partnerships, making them well-positioned to facilitate the delivery of catchment-wide NFM.
However, the CaBA model is not without its challenges. Catchment partnerships face acute financial uncertainties, relying on limited government funding and the goodwill of participants rather than regulatory reform. Additionally, the diverse perspectives and priorities of the stakeholders involved can create barriers to effective coordination and decision-making.
Institutional and Social Barriers to NFM Adoption
Transitioning from traditional, hard-engineered flood control measures to nature-based solutions requires a fundamental shift in mindset and practices within the flood risk management sector. A growing body of research has identified a range of institutional and social barriers that have hindered the mainstream adoption of NFM.
Policy and Regulation
One of the key barriers is the lack of alignment between the different sectors and policy frameworks involved in land and water management. The responsibilities for flood risk management in England are divided among various authorities, each with their own priorities and regulatory requirements. This fragmentation makes it challenging to coordinate the integrated, catchment-scale approach required for effective NFM delivery.
Furthermore, current flood risk models and cost-benefit analysis frameworks often fail to adequately capture the multi-functional benefits of NBS, resulting in a bias towards traditional, hard-engineered solutions. The long timescales and distributed, landscape-scale nature of NFM interventions can also make it difficult to demonstrate their immediate impact on flood risk reduction, further complicating the justification for investment.
Public Perception and Engagement
Public perception and attitudes towards NBS can also pose significant barriers to their adoption. There is often a reluctance to embrace “new” or “unfamiliar” techniques, with a preference for traditional flood control measures that are perceived as more reliable and “flood-proof.” The long timescales associated with NFM processes, which may not align with public expectations of “instant” results, can also undermine support for these nature-based approaches.
Engaging landowners, whose cooperation is crucial for the implementation of NFM measures, can be a complex challenge. Concerns about liability, long-term management responsibilities, and the potential impact on land use can discourage landowner participation. Effectively communicating the benefits of NBS and addressing these concerns is essential for securing the necessary land access and commitment.
Institutional Culture and Capacity
The flood risk management sector itself can also be resistant to change, with established practices and ways of thinking deeply entrenched. Flood risk authorities are often more comfortable with traditional, engineered solutions that align with their existing technical expertise and decision-making frameworks. Transitioning to a more holistic, collaborative approach required for NFM can be perceived as a significant departure from the traditional “command and control” model of flood management.
Furthermore, the technical knowledge and evidence base for NFM is still evolving, with uncertainties around the effectiveness and long-term performance of these nature-based techniques. This can create hesitation among flood risk professionals, who may prioritize the perceived reliability of familiar, hard-engineered solutions.
Overcoming Barriers through Transdisciplinary Collaboration
Addressing the complex, multifaceted barriers to NFM adoption requires a transdisciplinary approach that brings together diverse stakeholders, integrates different knowledge systems, and fosters collaborative problem-solving.
A recent study in the UK employed a group concept mapping (GCM) methodology to examine the perceptions and experiences of flood risk management professionals and catchment partnership practitioners. The study revealed that while both groups recognized the importance of technical knowledge and evidence, they placed greater emphasis on the significance of institutional, social, and political barriers.
Flood risk authorities tended to prioritize public perception as a key barrier, highlighting the challenges of working with communities and addressing concerns about the reliability and “flood-proofing” of NBS. In contrast, catchment partnership practitioners were more focused on the policy and regulatory barriers, citing the need for better cross-sectoral coordination and alignment of priorities.
These differences in perspectives underscore the importance of fostering meaningful dialogue and knowledge exchange across disciplines and institutional boundaries. By engaging a diverse range of stakeholders, including policymakers, researchers, flood risk managers, and community representatives, a shared understanding of the barriers and potential solutions can emerge.
Pathways to Mainstream Adoption of NBS
Overcoming the barriers to mainstream NBS adoption will require a multifaceted approach that addresses both the technical and institutional dimensions of flood management.
On the technical side, continued research and evidence-gathering are needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of NBS in reducing flood risk, as well as their broader environmental and social benefits. Developing robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks, and sharing best practices across international contexts, can help build confidence in these nature-based approaches.
At the same time, institutional and policy reforms are crucial to create an enabling environment for NBS. This may include:
-
Integrated Catchment Management: Strengthening the role and capacity of catchment partnerships to coordinate cross-sectoral collaboration and deliver integrated, landscape-scale NBS.
-
Aligned Regulations and Policies: Harmonizing the policies and regulatory frameworks across different sectors (e.g., flood risk management, water resource management, land use planning) to support the implementation of NBS.
-
Innovative Financing Mechanisms: Developing new funding streams and incentives, such as payment for ecosystem services or green infrastructure bonds, to facilitate the adoption of NBS by private landowners and community stakeholders.
-
Public Engagement and Education: Investing in outreach and awareness-raising campaigns to improve public understanding of the benefits of NBS and address concerns about their reliability and long-term performance.
-
Capacity Building within Flood Risk Authorities: Fostering a culture of innovation and collaboration within flood risk management institutions, and equipping professionals with the necessary skills and knowledge to plan, design, and implement NBS.
By addressing these multifaceted barriers through a collaborative, transdisciplinary approach, the flood management sector can unlock the full potential of nature-based solutions and mainstream their adoption as a key strategy for enhancing community resilience and delivering environmental and social co-benefits.
Tip: Regularly inspect and maintain flood barriers and drainage systems
