Barriers and Drivers for Mainstreaming Nature-Based Solutions for Flood Risks: The Case of South Korea

Sungju Han; Christian Kuhlicke

doi:10.1007/s13753-021-00372-4

Volume 12 Issue 5

Dec. 2021

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > International Journal of Disaster Risk Science > 2021 > 12(5): 661-672

Sungju Han, Christian Kuhlicke. Barriers and Drivers for Mainstreaming Nature-Based Solutions for Flood Risks: The Case of South Korea[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2021, 12(5): 661-672. doi: 10.1007/s13753-021-00372-4

Citation:

Sungju Han, Christian Kuhlicke. Barriers and Drivers for Mainstreaming Nature-Based Solutions for Flood Risks: The Case of South Korea[J]. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2021, 12(5): 661-672. doi: 10.1007/s13753-021-00372-4

Citation:

PDF

Barriers and Drivers for Mainstreaming Nature-Based Solutions for Flood Risks: The Case of South Korea

doi: 10.1007/s13753-021-00372-4

Sungju Han^{1,2
,
,},
Christian Kuhlicke^1,2,3

1. Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology, UFZ—Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, 04318, Leipzig, Germany;
2. Institute for Environmental Sciences and Geography, University of Potsdam, 14468, Potsdam-Golm, Germany;
3. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

Funds:

Sungju Han acknowledges the support from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). Christian Kuhlicke acknowledges the support received from the Horizon 2020 RECONECT (Regenerating ECOsystems with Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological risk rEduCTion) project, under the Grant Agreement No. 776866.

Available Online: 2021-12-25

Abstract

Abstract

Nature-based solutions (NBS) are seen as a promising adaptation measure that sustainably deals with diverse societal challenges, while simultaneously delivering multiple benefits. Nature-based solutions have been highlighted as a resilient and sustainable means of mitigating floods and other hazards globally. This study examined diverging conceptualizations of NBS, as well as the attitudinal (for example, emotions and beliefs) and contextual (for example, legal and political aspects) barriers and drivers of NBS for flood risks in South Korea. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 11 experts and focused on the topic of flood risk measures and NBS case studies. The analysis found 11 barriers and five drivers in the attitudinal domain, and 13 barriers and two drivers in the contextual domain. Most experts see direct monetary benefits as an important attitudinal factor for the public. Meanwhile, the cost-effectiveness of NBS and their capacity to cope with flood risks were deemed influential factors that could lead decision makers to opt for NBS. Among the contextual factors, insufficient systems to integrate NBS in practice and the ideologicalization of NBS policy were found to be peculiar barriers, which hinder consistent realization of initiatives and a long-term national plan for NBS. Understanding the barriers and drivers related to the mainstreaming of NBS is critical if we are to make the most of such solutions for society and nature. It is also essential that we have a shared definition, expectation, and vision of NBS.
- Climate change,
- Flood risk management,
- Nature-based solutions (NBS),
- South Korea

FullText(HTML)

References(51)

References

Albert, C., B. Schröter, D. Haase, M. Brillinger, J. Henze, S. Herrmann, S. Gottwald, and P. Guerrero et al. 2019. Addressing societal challenges through nature-based solutions: How can landscape planning and governance research contribute?. Landscape and Urban Planning 182: 12–21.

Albert, C., J.H. Spangenberg, and B. Schröter. 2017. Nature-based solutions: Criteria. Nature 543(7645): 315.

Barthelemy, C., and G. Armani. 2015. A comparison of social processes at three sites of the French Rhone River subjected to ecological restoration. Freshwater Biology 60(6): 1208–1220.

Brillinger, M., A. Dehnhardt, R. Schwarze, and C. Albert. 2020. Exploring the uptake of nature-based measures in flood risk management: Evidence from German federal states. Environmental Science & Policy 110: 14–23.

Buletti Mitchell, N., and O. Ejderyan. 2021. When experts feel threatened: Strategies of depoliticisation in participatory river restoration projects. Area 53(1): 151–160.

Cha, Y.J., M.-P. Shim, and S.K. Kim. 2011. The four major rivers restoration project. Paper presented at the UN-Water international conference, 3−5 October 2011, Zaragoza.

Chou, R.-J. 2016. Achieving successful river restoration in dense urban areas: Lessons from Taiwan. Sustainability 8(11): Article 1159.

Cohen-Shacham, E., G. Walters, C. Janzen, and S. Maginnis. 2016. Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Collentine, D., and M.N. Futter. 2018. Realising the potential of natural water retention measures in catchment flood management: Trade-offs and matching interests. Journal of Flood Risk Management 11(1): 76–84.

Daigneault, A., P. Brown, and D. Gawith. 2016. Dredging versus hedging: Comparing hard infrastructure to ecosystem-based adaptation to flooding. Ecological Economics 122: 25–35.

Dushkova, D., and D. Haase. 2020. Not simply green: Nature-based solutions as a concept and practical approach for sustainability studies and planning agendas in cities. Land 9(1): Article 19.

Eisenack, K., S.C. Moser, E. Hoffmann, R.J.T. Klein, C. Oberlack, A. Pechan, M. Rotter, and C.J.A.M. Termeer. 2014. Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nature Climate Change 4(10): 867–872.

European Commission. 2015. Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities: Final report of the Horizon 2020 expert group on “Nature-based solutions and re-naturing Cities”. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, and Q. Dahe. 2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gain, A.K., J.J. Rouillard, and D. Benson. 2013. Can integrated water resources management increase adaptive capacity to climate change adaptation? A critical review. Journal of Water Resource and Protection 5(4A): 11–20.

Gray, J.D.E., K. O’Neill, and Z.Y. Qiu. 2017. Coastal residents’ perceptions of the function of and relationship between engineered and natural infrastructure for coastal hazard mitigation. Ocean & Coastal Management 146: 144–156.

Haase, A. 2017. The contribution of nature-based solutions to socially inclusive urban development—Some reflections from a social-environmental perspective. In Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas: Linkages between science, policy and practice, ed. N. Kabisch, H. Korn, J. Stadler, and A. Bonn. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Han, S., and C. Kuhlicke. 2019. Reducing hydro-meteorological risk by nature-based solutions: What do we know about people’s perceptions? Water 11(12): Article 2599.

Hirabayashi, Y., R. Mahendran, S. Koirala, L. Konoshima, D. Yamazaki, S. Watanabe, H. Kim, and S. Kanae. 2013. Global flood risk under climate change. Nature Climate Change 3(9): 816–823.

Jongman, B. 2018. Effective adaptation to rising flood risk. Nature Communications 9(1): Article 1986.

K-Water (Korea Water Resources Corporation). 2019. A preliminary study on development of guidance for estimating dam’s OM&R cost. Deajeon, Korea: Korea Water Resources Corporation (in Korean).

Kabisch, N., N. Frantzeskaki, S. Pauleit, S. Naumann, M. Davis, M. Artmann, D. Haase, S. Knapp, et al. 2016. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: Perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society 21(2): Article 39.

Kwon, Y., S. Joo, S. Han, and C. Park. 2017. Mapping the distribution pattern of gentrification near urban parks in the case of Gyeongui Line Forest Park, Seoul, Korea. Sustainability 9(2): Article 231.

Lah, T., Y. Park, and Y.J. Cho. 2015. The four major rivers restoration project of South Korea: An assessment of its process, program, and political dimensions. The Journal of Environment & Development 24(4): 375–394.

Lee, S., J. Kim, B. Choi, G. Kim, and J. Lee. 2019. Harmful algal blooms and liver diseases: Focusing on the areas near the four major rivers in South Korea. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C 37(4): 356–370.

MacKinnon, K., C. Sobrevila, and V. Hickey. 2008. Biodiversity, climate change, and adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank portfolio. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Martinez-Juarez, P., A. Chiabai, C. Suarez, and S. Quiroga. 2019. Insights on urban and periurban adaptation strategies based on stakeholders’ perceptions on hard and soft responses to climate change. Sustainability 11(3): Article 647.

Maskrey, S., T. Vilcan, E. O’Donnell, and J. Lamond. 2020. Using Learning and Action Alliances to build capacity for local flood risk management. Environmental Science & Policy 107: 198–205.

Matthews, T., A.Y. Lo, and J.A. Byrne. 2015. Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landscape and Urban Planning 138: 155–163.

Millington, N. 2015. From urban scar to “park in the sky”: Terrain vague, urban design, and the remaking of New York City’s High Line Park. Environment and Planning A 47(11): 2324–2338.

Moosavi, S., G.R. Browne, and J. Bush. 2021. Perceptions of nature-based solutions for urban water challenges: Insights from Australian researchers and practitioners. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 57: Article 126937.

Narayan, S., M.W. Beck, B.G. Reguero, I.J. Losada, B. van Wesenbeeck, N. Pontee, J.N. Sanchirico, and J.C. Ingram et al. 2016. The effectiveness, costs and coastal protection benefits of natural and nature-based defences. PloS One 11(5): e0154735.

O’Donnell, E.C., J.E. Lamond, and C.R. Thorne. 2017. Recognising barriers to implementation of blue-green infrastructure: A Newcastle case study. Urban Water Journal 14(9): 964–971.

Palmer, M.A., J. Liu, J.H. Matthews, M. Mumba, and P. D’Odorico. 2015. Manage water in a green way. Science 349(6248): 584–585.

Pauleit, S., T. Zölch, R. Hansen, T.B. Randrup, and C. Konijnendijk van den Bosch. 2017. Nature-based solutions and climate change—Four shades of green. In Nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation in urban areas: Linkages between science, policy and practice, ed. N. Kabisch, H. Korn, J. Stadler, and A. Bonn, 29–49. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Pfadenhauer, M. 2009. At eye level: The expert interview—a talk between expert and quasi-expert. In Interviewing experts, ed. A. Bogner, B. Littig, and W. Menz, 81–97. Amsterdam: Springer.

Piacentini, S.M., and R. Rossetto. 2020. Attitude and actual behaviour towards water-related green infrastructures and sustainable drainage systems in four North-Western Mediterranean Regions of Italy and France. Water 12(5): Article 1474.

Raymond, C.M., N. Frantzeskaki, N. Kabisch, P. Berry, M. Breil, M.R. Nita, D. Geneletti, and C. Calfapietra. 2017. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environmental Science & Policy 77: 15–24.

Sarabi, S.E., Q. Han, A.G.L. Romme, B. de Vries, and L. Wendling. 2019. Key enablers of and barriers to the uptake and implementation of nature-based solutions in urban settings: A review. Resources 8(3): Article 121.

Schröter, B., A. Zingraff-Hamed, E. Ott, J. Huang, F. Hüesker, C. Nicolas, and N.J.S. Schröder. 2020. The knowledge transfer potential of online data pools on nature-based solutions. Science of The Total Environment 762: Article 143074.

Seddon, N., A. Chausson, P. Berry, C.A.J. Girardin, A. Smith, and B. Turner. 2020. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 375(1794): Article 20190120.

Seddon, N., A. Smith, P. Smith, I. Key, A. Chausson, C. Girardin, J. House, S. Srivastava, and B. Turner. 2021. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Global Change Biology 27(8): 1518–1546.

Shafique, M., and R. Kim. 2018. Recent progress in low-impact development in South Korea: Water-management policies, challenges and opportunities. Water 10(4): Article 435.

Song, H., and M.J. Lynch. 2018. Restoration of nature or special interests? A political economy analysis of the four major rivers restoration project in South Korea. Critical Criminology 26(2): 251–270.

Thieken, A.H., H. Cammerer, C. Dobler, J. Lammel, and F. Schöberl. 2016. Estimating changes in flood risks and benefits of non-structural adaptation strategies—A case study from Tyrol, Austria. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 21(3): 343–376.

UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2015. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. Geneva: UNISDR.

Watkin Lui, F., M. Kiatkoski Kim, A. Delisle, N. Stoeckl, and H. Marsh. 2016. Setting the table: Indigenous engagement on environmental issues in a politicized context. Society & Natural Resources 29(11): 1263–1279.

Wells, J., J.C. Labadz, A. Smith, and M.M. Islam. 2019. Barriers to the uptake and implementation of natural flood management: A social-ecological analysis. Journal of Flood Risk Management 13(S1): e12561.

van Wesenbeeck, B.K., and S. IJff, B. Jongman, S. Balog, S. Kaupa, L. Bosche, G.-M Lange, N. Holm-Nielsen, et al. 2017. Implementing nature based flood protection: Principles and implementation guidance. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

Xing, Y., P. Jones, and I. Donnison. 2017. Characterisation of nature-based solutions for the built environment. Sustainability 9(1): Article 149.

Zellner, M., D. Massey, E. Minor, and M. Gonzalez-Meler. 2016. Exploring the effects of green infrastructure placement on neighborhood-level flooding via spatially explicit simulations. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 59: 116–128.

Relative Articles

Supplements(0)

Cited By

Proportional views