Perceived qualities of riverine nature-based and technical solutions to flooding

Authors and Affiliations: 

Sarah Gottwald1*
Christian Albert1,2

1) Leibniz Universität Hannover, Institute of Environmental Planning, Hannover, Germany
2) Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department Environmental Politics, Leipzig, Germany

Corresponding author: 
Sarah Gottwald

Arguably riverine nature based solutions (NbS) offer an innovative approach addressing water related societal challenges such as floods, droughts or poor water quality. Although a commonly agreed-upon definition does not yet exist, the umbrella term of NbS includes measures which are ‘inspired by, supported by or copied from nature’ (European Commission 2015, p. 4) and thus favours an eco-centric approach over pure technical solutions. They include, for example, the maintenance or restoration of wetlands, the widening of floodplains and usage of geo-textiles against erosion (Sutherland et al. 2014).
NbS should have simultaneous benefits for ecology, society and economy (European Commission 2015). While some evidence is increasingly available on the positive effects of NbS on the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainment of essential ecosystem services (e.g. Rousseau et al. 2008), little is known so far about the preferences and values that laypeople attach to NbS. The concept of place attachment offers a useful approach, describing the affective bond between people and place (Altman and Low 1992). Enhancing our understanding about the relationships between NbS and place attachment is crucial for ensuring that local knowledge and values are appropriately considered in the safeguarding or development of NbS.
The aim of this contribution is to explore how citizens interact with, value, and feel attached to existing NbS and technical solutions. Our case study is the Lahn river landscape in Hessen, Germany. The research questions are: (1) Which different meanings and emotional connections do stakeholder report to land uses associated with NbS and technical solutions? and (2) Which differences can be identified in the actual use of land with or without NBS?
The assessment of social data on place meanings, attachment, and interaction, used a public participation GIS (PPGIS) survey method. PPGIS applications are widely used in the fields of urban development (child friendliness, accessibility, environmental justice, etc.), and landscape planning (recreation, ecosystem services, etc.) (Raymond et al. 2009, 2016, Broberg et al. 2013, Brown et al. 2014, Kyttä et al. 2015, Strickland-Munro et al. 2016). This study used an Internet-based PPGIS survey collecting participant’s perception of their environment on a map. Non-spatial questions completed the survey. Invitations to the survey were distributed through local online and print media. For statistical robustness, personal invitation letters were sent out to 1500 households. The survey data was assessed using hotspot- and coldspot-analyses as well as correlation analyses between place meanings, attachment, and interaction and nature-based and technical solutions.
Our results provide insights into the relation between place attachment, local knowledge and the perception of existing NbS. Further, it is discussed how the identified values and meanings could be systematically integrated within the further planning process, and which potential added value this information would yield.


Altman, I. and Low, S.M., 1992. Place Attachment. In: Place Attachment. Boston, MA: Springer US, 1–12.
Broberg, A., Kyttä, M., and Fagerholm, N., 2013. Child-friendly urban structures: Bullerby revisited. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 110–120.
Brown, G., Weber, D., and de Bie, K., 2014. Assessing the value of public lands using public participation GIS (PPGIS) and social landscape metrics. Applied Geography, 53, 77–89.
European Commission, 2015. Towards an EU Research and Innovation policy agenda for Nature-Based Solutions & Re-Naturing Cities.
Kyttä, M., Broberg, A., Haybatollahi, M., and Schmidt-Thomé, K., 2015. Urban happiness: context-sensitive study of the social sustainability of urban settings. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 47, 1–24.
Raymond, C.M., Bryan, B.A., MacDonald, D.H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., and Kalivas, T., 2009. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 68 (5), 1301–1315.
Raymond, C.M., Gottwald, S., Kuoppa, J., and Kyttä, M., 2016. Integrating multiple elements of environmental justice into urban blue space planning using public participation geographic information systems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 153.
Rousseau, D.P.L., Lesage, E., Story, A., Vanrolleghem, P.A., and De Pauw, N., 2008. Constructed wetlands for water reclamation. Desalination, 218 (1–3), 181–189.
Strickland-Munro, J., Kobryn, H., Brown, G., and Moore, S.A., 2016. Marine spatial planning for the future: Using Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) to inform the human dimension for large marine parks. Marine Policy, 73, 15–26.
Sutherland, W.J., Gardner, T., Bogich, T.L., Bradbury, R.B., Clothier, B., Jonsson, M., and Kapos, V., 2014. Ecology and Society: Solution scanning as a key policy tool: identifying management interventions to help maintain and enhance regulating ecosystem services, 19 (2).

Oral or poster: 
Oral presentation
Abstract order: