Enhancing river floodplain management with nature‐based solutions: Overcoming barriers and harnessing enablers

Floodplains are regularly inundated areas of land that provide ecosystem benefits for the entire catchment area, along with numerous benefits for communities making them ideal for human settlement. The management of floodplains involves an ongoing dilemma; how best to balance the need to protect urban settlements from significant flood events with the benefits that inundation brings to the environmental and cultural values of the floodplain. These flood events have been traditionally addressed using technical flood protection measures. However, nature‐based solutions (NbS), provide a potential alternative approach. In this research, we analyze 29 global case studies centered on river floodplain management to investigate the barriers and enablers that affect the implementation of NbS, including floodplain restoration, mangroves, riparian forest restoration, wetland green infrastructure, among other strategies. The aim of this paper is to gain insights into improving floodplain management through the assessment of barriers and enablers evident in these case studies. The barriers and enablers were divided into six categories: social, technical, financial, political, institutional and economic and further into several sub‐divided categories. Social and technical categories were the most commonly described barriers and enablers closely followed by the institutional category. The discussion is centered around four topics: understanding community and decision‐maker risk perceptions, increased focus on stakeholders, managing multiple conflicting objectives, and consideration of multiple spatial scales. Further research on the uptake of NbS needs to focus on addressing risk communication and modeling, managing trade‐offs, and demonstration of delayed benefits.

Floodplains represent regularly inundated swathes of land that carry significant value for social and ecological outcomes within a region (Perosa et al., 2021).Their proximity to water and flat, fertile land make them ideal for human settlements (Di Baldassarre et al., 2013), while simultaneously serving to deliver ecosystem benefits for the catchment as a whole (Jakubínský et al., 2021).Floodplains are highly fertile with alluvial sediments which improve water quality, provide wildlife habitat, and promote flood and erosion control (Benjankar et al., 2011;Nardi et al., 2006).Floodplains function by controlling the hydrologic cycle and by retaining and transforming nutrients in the river (Sanon et al., 2012;Weigelhofer & Hein, 2015).They are productive ecosystems (Opperman et al., 2010) with a high level of primary production and biodiversity (Tockner & Stanford, 2002).Floodplains are multifunctional due to the natural biodiversity (Funk et al., 2021) and are ranked as the second-best ecosystem type in the world with respect to the floodplains' per hectare value to society (Costanza et al., 1997).A few of the key ecosystem functions provided by floodplains are floodwater retention (Clilverd et al., 2016;Schober et al., 2015), greenhouse gas emission retention (Funk et al., 2021), water purification (Hein et al., 2016), groundwater recharge (Hein et al., 2004), and surface water filtration (Noe & Hupp, 2005).
The increasing human presence in floodplains presents an ongoing tension in floodplain management, where urban settlements require protection from large flood events, whilst environmental and cultural values of the floodplain are enhanced through inundation.Floodplains have been continually moved, controlled or eradicated to make way for human development needs (Jakubínský et al., 2021).Over thousands of years floodplains have been altered through the building of dams and channels for irrigation in agriculture.They represent much sought after sites for urban development (Montz, 2000), with river valleys often channelized to pave the way for urbanization and new transport routes (Hughes et al., 2012).Increasing urban development on floodplains has continued despite the negative impacts on flood hydrology characteristics, increasing flood risks and fluvial flooding (Montz, 2000).Similarly, waterways have been rerouted for flood protection, navigation, and energy production (Buijse et al., 2002;Jakubínský et al., 2021;Posthumus et al., 2010).As a result, recent years have seen a number of large flood events with significant human life and infrastructure costs (Crawford et al., 2022;Halgamuge & Nirmalathas, 2017).
Due to these constant anthropogenic changes, there has been a significant decline in functional floodplains over time (Schober et al., 2020;Tockner & Stanford, 2002).Statistics demonstrate the weakening of floodplains around the world.For instance, Europe and North America have already lost 90% of their intact floodplain coverage (Tockner & Stanford, 2002), while only 35% of Germany's floodplains are still functioning (Walz et al., 2019).In spite of the many benefits of floodplains, this unsustainable development has led to ecological degradations including erosion, groundwater pollution, loss of biodiversity and fisheries, and decline in aesthetics (Sabater et al., 2018;Tockner et al., 2011), as well as a decrease in the ecological condition of rivers and floodplains (Seppelt et al., 2011).The river floodplain modifications have also given rise to several water-based challenges for society including increase in the duration and intensity of floods, and reduction in water quality due to nitrogen and phosphorous pollution (Matthies et al., 2006).Urban development reduces the number of pervious surfaces thereby decreasing infiltration and increasing runoff.This excess runoff flows quickly into the river and causes higher magnitude floods at an increased frequency (Montz, 2000).Climate change is expected to exacerbate these risks with less predictable and erratic flood patterns (Pletterbauer et al., 2018), challenging our current approaches to floodplain management.
Traditional approaches to manage rivers and floodplains and reduce flood risk are engineered "grey" solutions like dams, channels, levees, pipes, tunnels, canals, flood detention areas, consolidation of embankment, and so forth (Vojinovic et al., 2021).These engineered structures arguably give a false sense of security making governments and communities prefer grey methods (Hartley & Kuecker, 2020;Vojinovic et al., 2021).This false sense of security stems from the lack of recognition of the negative impact they have upon natural processes, vis-à-vis side effects such as a loss of ecosystem services that detrimentally affect local communities (van Wesenbeeck et al., 2014).Grey solutions are capital-intensive and do not address all water-related challenges (Palmer et al., 2013;Zischg et al., 2018), and at the same time, cannot provide complete protection by themselves (Dige et al., 2017), including lack of resilience during extreme flood events (Perosa et al., 2021).Grey solutions eliminate small-scale floods which would have otherwise helped to recharge aquifers, raise level of "green water" stored in soil, deposit sediments, aid soil fertility, and prevent compaction and subsidence (Cook & Werner, 2022).Due to these disadvantages and as flood events are expected to be more frequent under climate change (Wasko et al., 2021), solutions that provide positive impacts for both the ecosystem and humans are growing in popularity.
Alternatively, nature-based solutions (hereafter referred to as "NbS") is based on natural processes and provides solutions for societal and environmental challenges (Nesshöver et al., 2017).The International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) definition for NbS is "actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural and modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits" (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016).Research demonstrates that NbS can offer effective protection against flood risks to people and property, while providing additional benefits like improving water quality, enhancing natural habitat for wildlife, and improving living conditions for humans.This is unlike the grey solutions which only focus on achieving the target with no focus on co-benefits (Dong et al., 2017;Grover & Krantzberg, 2013;Jongman, 2018).NbS is highly flexible and can be implemented alone or in integration with grey solutions depending on the place and societal requirement (Commission & Environment, 2021).NbS is an umbrella term which all other similar green approaches come under (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2019).These include but are not limited to green infrastructure (interconnected network of green spaces that are found in urban and urban-fringe environments (Mell, 2008), blue-green infrastructure (network of natural, adapted and human-made blue and green spaces incorporated into urban environments to replicate natural hydrological processes (Kaur & Gupta, 2022), water-sensitive urban design (an urban planning and design strategy that incorporates the urban water cycle, aiming to reduce hydrological impact on surrounding environment (Lloyd et al., 2002).The key difference between NbS and these other green approaches is that NbS addresses challenges that are both natural and anthropogenic (Commission & Environment, 2021).NbS has commonly been considered in urban environments to address urban flooding, with examples of NbS including green roofs (Davis & Naumann, 2017;Zölch et al., 2017), and pervious/permeable pavements (Fini et al., 2017;Santhanam & Majumdar, 2020).Deely et al. (2020), Dhakal and Chevalier (2017) and Heidari et al. (2023) provide reviews of NbS in urban environments.However, NbS are also relevant to river flood management-which is the key focus of this paper-where NbS methods include mangroves (Debrot et al., 2022;Morris et al., 2018), salt marshes (Baptist et al., 2021;Morris et al., 2018), floodplain restoration (Jakubínský et al., 2021;Perosa et al., 2021), and dry detention ponds (Brasil et al., 2021;Langergraber et al., 2021).
Over the last few years, research on NbS has exponentially increased with the number of papers in Web of Science increasing from three in 2015 to over 250 in 2020 (Data sourced on April 7, 2021) (Albert et al., 2021).However, most of the available literature is on NbS for urban areas (e.g., (Heidari et al., 2023;Kabisch et al., 2016), with implementation or investigation of NbS for river floods less common (Ruangpan et al., 2020).This is surprising considering the number of settlements that occur near these rivers.For NbS to be an effective solution, there are a plethora of factors that enable these projects.Methods that ease the implementation of NbS are in demand, to increase the uptake in large river basins (Kabisch et al., 2016).The aim of this paper is to better understand how to enhance river floodplain management by analyzing barriers and enablers from existing case studies, where NbS for river flooding have been implemented.We have focused on those NbS methods that have been considered within existing studies as relevant for floodplain management (which can be distinct from options available in urban settings).

| METHOD
Existing literature was reviewed to identify and understand the barriers and enablers for NbS for river floodplain management.Google Scholar was the main database used to source the articles and the search was limited to documents uploaded to Google Scholar by September 28, 2022.The search terms used in various combinations included "naturebased solutions," "rivers," "floods," "floodplains," "floodplain management," "river floodplain," "barriers," "enablers," "enablers," "case study," with the full list of combinations shown in Table 1.The search of all the combinations yielded 87 relevant articles.The overall search provided a mix of NbS for various disasters such as coastal defense, storm surge, and urban flooding.As the research question focusses specifically on nature-based solutions for large river floodplain management, only case studies relevant to rivers, floodplains, and NbS were chosen.An initial read through of abstracts then yielded, 29 articles highlighting specific case studies relating to barriers and enablers for nature-based solutions in floodplain management.
The publication date of the identified articles ranged from 2009 to 2022 (2009-2012: 6.9%, 2013-2015: 3.5%, 2016-2019: 24.1%, 2020-2022: 65.5%) indicating that case studies applying NbS to floodplain management are relatively recent and the field of research still in its infancy.The full list of articles and their data extraction is provided in Appendix.
Each article was examined to identify: 1. challenges or problems being addressed; 2. types of NbS used for floodplain management; 3. barriers to the implementation of NbS; and 4. enablers to the implementation of NbS.
The barriers and enablers for NbS for floodplain management obtained from the case studies were grouped based on the six categories identified by Schulte et al. (2021): social, economic, technical, financial, political and institutional categories.Schulte et al. (2021) derived these themes based on the barriers and enablers to the implementation of AFOLU outlined in the 5th IPCC Assessment Report (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate, 2015).Table 2 describes the basis on which the barriers and enablers were classified into the different categories.A structured Intercoder Reliability (ICR) approach was adopted to finalize the categorization of the barriers and enablers.ICR quantifies the level of consensus between researchers on the same set of data.The purpose of doing ICR is to improve the consistency and transparency of the impressions of data and provide credibility to the analysis (O'Connor & Joffe, 2020).The assorted list of barriers and enablers were categorized independently by two authors without any prior discussion using Table 2 as a reference.A common measure of ICR is to derive the percentage of agreement between the researchers (Feng, 2014;Kolbe & Burnett, 1991) which is calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the total number of agreements and disagreements (Miles & Huberman, 1994).The calculated ICR was 90.54% which is greater than the standard agreement percentage of 80% (Landis & Koch, 1977;Miles & Huberman, 1994).The percentage of disagreement was sorted by discussing the divergencies to arrive at a joint decision as per O'Connor and Joffe (2020).The barriers and enablers in their respective categories were then further divided into sub-categories based on common themes.

Social
Relates to community, stakeholders, their attitudes, perception and engagement with the activities connected to NbS (e.g., stakeholder engagement, participation, etc.)

Economic
Relates to markets, goods and services, management of trade-offs (e.g., delivery of benefits, labor availability, etc.)

Technical
Relates to availability and understanding of technical information, methodology, data and analysis of technical information (e.g., technical assistance, information provision, etc.)

Financial
Relates to funding and expenses, loans and investments (e.g., long-term finance, expenses, etc.)

Political
Relates to government support, political involvement, legislature, law enforcement, relationship between government and community (e.g., political will, collaboration and coordination, etc.) Institutional Relates to frameworks, management strategies, decision making processes, structures and organizations that perform functions within a society (e.g., regulatory support, frameworks, etc.) 3 | RESULTS

| Barriers and enablers
The review captured key themes in the barriers (Table 3) and enablers (Table 4) for implementation of NbS for river floodplain management.These themes include considerations of social, economic, technical, financial, political, and institutional factors (Schulte et al., 2021).To enhance the categorization of barriers and enablers, sub-themes were employed within each overarching theme.

| DISCUSSION
Social, technical and institutional categories are revealed as the most regularly identified barriers and enablers to the design and/or implementation of NbS for river floodplain management (Tables 3 and 4).In this section, we highlight four themes that underpin many of these barriers and enablers that if addressed, could significantly improve the uptake of NbS for floodplains.These four themes underpin the social, technical and institutional enablers and are drawn from the case study reviews.These include (i) understanding community and decision-maker risk perceptions (ii) increased focus on stakeholders, (iii) managing conflicting objectives, and (iv) consideration of multiple spatial scales.

| Understanding community and decision-maker risk perceptions
A reoccurring theme across the literature was the challenge in communicating the benefits of NbS to decision makers and communities more generally.This came up in both the technical and social categories.This challenge is mainly due to the protracted time scales related to the implementation of NbS.On one hand, benefits may not be discerned for many years following installation (Vojinovic et al., 2021).On the other hand, risk is captured in existing processes to finalize options in the public sector (Love et al., 2012).If the effectiveness of a certain strategy is not rapidly seen, well understood and communicated, it can be perceived as high risk to continue with that option in lieu of another seen as more readily "performing," that is, a recognizable barrier for floods made with concrete (Seddon et al., 2020).As risk assessment models are highly dependent on perceptions, and often swayed by political risk (Kosovac et al., 2017), the beliefs and attitudes of community risk perceptions cannot be ignored in providing legitimacy to public sector funding allocations.Indeed, risk perceptions featured as a barrier within the social category.
Risk perceptions arguably guide decision-making and have a large impact on risk assessment in decision-making processes (Kosovac et al., 2019;Slovic, 1993;Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).In the space of flood risk management, there is a distinction between individual and public risk perceptions (Slovic et al., 1980).At the individual scale, actions taken to prepare for and respond to flood events are influenced by individuals' perception and understanding of flood risk combined with their perceived sense of safety from flood mitigation measures (Bradford et al., 2012;Santoro et al., 2019).Perception of risk is influenced by cognitive and situational factors (Tobin, 1997).For instances, not all stakeholders have the same level of knowledge of NbS options (Santoro et al., 2019;Turconi et al., 2020;Turkelboom et al., 2021;Watkin et al., 2019), interest in natural hazards (Loos & Rogers, 2016), or level of environmental concern (Berenguer et al., 2005;Freudenburg, 1991;Gifford & Nilsson, 2014) as others involved in the decision-making.This can lead to a lack of stakeholder engagement, creating differences between stakeholders, and resulting in diverging views related to risk perceptions (Giordano et al., 2020;Gottwald et al., 2021;Turconi et al., 2020), which can hamper decision-making processes.
At a public scale, the assessment of flood risk solutions must balance risk and benefits.As NbS involves working with nature, the environmental response to different hazard scenarios may be hard to predict and cost (Iacob et al., 2014).Considering high perceived risks, stakeholders tend to favor grey solutions due to the lack of evidence and (seeming) novelty of NbS (Pugliese et al., 2022).This does not reflect a consideration based on evidence.A major challenge to the widespread acceptance of NbS is the false sense of security that the technical grey solutions provide (Hartley & Kuecker, 2020;Vojinovic et al., 2021).Failure to incorporate risk perception understandings can lead to shortcomings in NbS implementation and effectiveness of flood risk management policies as it can hide biases that underpin many cognitive prompts (Bradford et al., 2012).
T A B L E 3 Barriers for the implementation of Nature-based Solutions for river floodplain management (including the number of mentions across reviewed case studies).

Category
Sub-category Barriers A current knowledge gap exists in understanding community attitudes to NbS and how this interacts with their flood risk perceptions.The lack of understanding in this area hinders the successful implementation and adoption of NbS strategies in flood-prone areas.Bridging this knowledge gap is crucial to effectively aligning NbS projects with stakeholders' perceptions and needs, fostering greater acceptance and ultimately enhancing their overall resilience to flooding events.

| Increased focus on stakeholders
Tables 3 and 4 both highlight a strong focus on stakeholders in design and implementation of NbS, with numerous factors falling within the social category.When defining NbS, IUCN emphasizes the active role of NbS in tackling societal challenges (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2019), which highlights the importance of better understanding the role of stakeholders.Acknowledging and embracing stakeholder engagement in decision-making is crucial in the effective design and implementation of NbS.
T A B L E 4 Enablers for the implementation of nature-based solutions for river floodplain management (including the number of mentions across reviewed case studies).Stakeholder engagement throughout a whole NbS project plays a number of crucial roles.Firstly, it creates trust and helps stakeholders take ownership of the process (Ferreira et al., 2020).Secondly, it benefits knowledge exchange between parties to build common system understanding (Phillipson et al., 2012).In doing this, it is important to integrate local and indigenous knowledge (Kabisch et al., 2016;Raymond et al., 2017), as different perspectives and knowledge basis can create greater understanding in outcomes (Jacobs et al., 2016;Small et al., 2017).Finally, stakeholder engagement improves legitimacy in public planning (Giordano et al., 2020).Stakeholder engagement contributes to input legitimacy (building trust in the process of decision making), which in turn leads to output legitimacy (acceptance of the decision made) (Mena & Palazzo, 2012).

Social
There are a number of well documented approaches to stakeholder engagement, including workshops, surveys, interviews and questionnaires (Gobetti et al., 2021;Martín et al., 2020;Perosa et al., 2021;Watkin et al., 2019).However, despite a plethora of stakeholder engagement techniques and best practice, there is a history of poor stakeholder engagement for engineering-based projects (Bryson et al., 2014).When implementing a novel approach, it is much harder to be successful without a well-designed stakeholder engagement plan (Reed, 2008).There is an opportunity to link the stakeholder methods based on risk perception attitudes in the region (Section 4.1).Engineering driven options often jump to identifying solutions, however enabling NbS solutions will require more time working with stakeholders to understand objectives, concerns and attitudes at the outset of the project (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2019).

| Managing conflicting objectives
Working with stakeholders often result in the coexistence of multiple conflicting objectives, which need to be considered for effective decision-making in environmental management (Kennedy et al., 2008).The challenge of decisionmaking given these conflicting objectives is a commonly cited barrier to implementation for NbS (Table 3).Another commonly cited barrier that challenges decision-making is urban expansion and hence, the limited available land area for NbS implementation (Table 3).Often managing for these different objectives is the responsibility of different departments within an organization-or different organizations-and driven by different policy or regulatory needs.Addressing these silos with their distinct visions, goals and regulatory frameworks is challenging as it requires complex cross-sectoral cooperation (Bark et al., 2021;Santoro et al., 2019;Vojinovic et al., 2021).Nevertheless, the benefits of NbS lie in addressing a range of social, economic and environmental outcomes simultaneously, and realizing these benefits determines appropriate decision-making between NbS, grey, and hybrid solutions (Perosa et al., 2021;van Wesenbeeck et al., 2014).
There are currently no frameworks available to support decision making given the multiple and sometimes conflicting objectives of flood management and NbS.This is cited in case studies as a reason for NbS being sparsely implemented (van Wesenbeeck et al., 2014;Watkin et al., 2019).Establishment of suitable frameworks would provide tools for NbS implementation (Cohen-Shacham et al., 2016;Kabisch et al., 2016), as well as the fostering of robust collaborative partnerships between all parties involved in the decision-making process (Bark et al., 2021).

| Consideration of multiple spatial scales
Assessing the performance of NbS is influenced by our understanding of spatial scale.While not directly mentioned in the results, scale is a concept that connects to technical solutions, institutions and financing.Scale and flood risk management go hand in hand, with scale being addressed in methods and financing considerations for flood risk assessment and management (De Moel et al., 2015;Gusyev et al., 2016).
While there is a growing emphasis on adopting a landscape approach, the monitoring of NbS is often constrained by spatial limitations (Odongo et al., 2022).Our analysis of the 29 case study articles demonstrated a suite of different types of NbS that have been implemented to manage flood risks.The articles highlighted the importance of scale in determining appropriate NbS mechanisms.The concept of scale is subjective and the scaling of a particular space or NbS differs between stakeholders (Raška et al., 2019) just like how stakeholders have diverse perceptions regarding NbS design and decision-making.Raška et al. (2019) propose that NbS be tailored for individual spatial domains considering flood types, as a NbS designed for a particular scale and flood type may exhibit contradictory effects at a different scale and flood type.Small-scale NbS can combat small weather events, whereas, large-scale NbS and hybrid solutions can be used for larger weather events (Vojinovic et al., 2021).To ensure community safety, it is crucial to intertwine multiple spatial scales and adopt an integrated approach that emphasizes local solutions.This is necessary due to the potential risks posed by small-scale NbS in the face of large-scale catastrophic weather events (Fletcher et al., 2015).However, scale mismatch in NbS implementation happens due to a mismatch between the scale of environmental variations and the scale of management (Cumming et al., 2006;Gunderson & Holling, 2002).Governance approaches must embrace a broader perspective that considers various factors and prepares for uncertainties in order to effectively manage and adapt to evolving circumstances driven by social and economic parameters (Duit et al., 2010).
Financing strategies and obstacles to implementing NbS are influenced by the scale of investment, including factors such as investment size and payback period (Toxopeus & Polzin, 2021).The long-term benefits of NbS investments require a significant timeframe and large scale to be realized.However, discounting of future values often leads to less weight being given to long-term benefits in current financing decisions (Guerry et al., 2015).Implementing a NbS for floodplain management upstream can effectively mitigate downstream flooding by slowing down and storing excess water (Alves et al., 2018;Dige et al., 2017).However, in the absence of incentives provided to upstream users by downstream users, there might be a lack of motivation to consider downstream interests in decision-making processes (Brears, 2022).Thus, one challenging aspect revolves around the spatial equity of costs and benefits associated with the establishment of NbS (Nelson et al., 2020).The implementation of NbS at large spatial scales faces challenges related to jurisdictional issues, as it requires the engagement, negotiation and collaboration of multiple stakeholders (Albert et al., 2019).The involvement of diverse stakeholders heightens the complexity of organizing, reaching consensus on, enforcing rules and implementing NbS (Odongo et al., 2022).However, in the context of scale, the presence of multiple stakeholders brings forth diverse knowledge sources, different perceptions and conflicting objectives.This diversity helps bridge the gap between different types of information, such as generalized knowledge from formal science and practical insights from local or traditional knowledge sources (Cash et al., 2006;Palomo et al., 2021).

| CONCLUSION
There is growing momentum around the use of NbS to manage floods, with a growing number of case studies related to floodplain management.These case studies have highlighted a number of remaining barriers for widescale uptake, and opportunities to improve the implementation of NbS for river floodplain management.
The four themes underpinning NbS barriers and enablers and knowledge gaps in the literature highlighted key areas where future research could help enable NbS uptake for floodplains: 1. Risk communication and modeling: Effective risk communication strategies need to be based off the latest public risk perception empirical data.This should cater to the different scales, as well as multiple objectives and needs of both experts and non-experts, fostering trust and understanding between them.2. Managing trade-offs: NbS, when well-designed and executed, have the potential to manage trade-offs and create synergistic opportunities, leading to more effective decision-making across scales.3. Demonstration of delayed benefits: Impacts of NbS may take time to become visible and need to be observed through a longer-term lens to assess the trade-offs between positive and negative impacts, to understand that the relevance to stakeholders' objective may evolve with time, and to comprehend how NbS address different perceptions and scales over time.
The lessons learned from existing case studies around floodplain management, underscore the interconnected nature of barriers and enablers for implementing NbS, regardless of specific categories.While all categories hold importance, the distribution of identified barriers and enablers across them is not even, with financial and economic themes being relatively underrepresented and less explored.NbS implementation can occur at various spatial scales, necessitating tailored designs that cater to specific requirements and considerations in each context.Our findings call for further research in this area to promote a more comprehensive understanding.Presently, there is a notable reliance on conventional approaches, emphasizing the need to prioritize environmentally friendly solutions like NbS in floodplain management.To effectively address the challenges posed by climate change, robust and resilient NbS must consider all barriers and enablers across diverse categories.However, it is worth noting that this study solely focused on river floodplain management, necessitating additional research to explore barriers and enablers associated with other environmental issues.This comprehensive approach will lead to a more holistic and impact integration of NbS in addressing environmental challenges.
Search terms to identify articles on NbS and floodplain management.floodplain management using nature-based solutions T A B L E 2 Description of the six categories based on Schulte et al. (2021).
measurable targets, monitoring and intervention 3Strategies to combat flood risk must account for a community's specific vulnerabilities, local economic, social and environmental conditions by involving economic housing and activity in the floodplain 1