49 research outputs found
Quantifying co-benefits and disbenefits of Nature-based Solutions targeting Disaster Risk Reduction
Nature-based Solutions function (NBS) as an umbrella concept for ecosystem-based approaches that are an alternative to traditional engineering solutions for Disaster Risk Reduction. Their rising popularity is explained partly by their entailing additional benefits (so-called co-benefits) for the environment, society, and economy. The few existing frameworks for assessing cobenefits are lacking guidance on co-benefit pre-assessment that is required for the NBS selection and permission process. Going beyond these, this paper develops a comprehensive guidance on quantitative pre-assessment of potential co-benefits and disbenefits of NBS tackling Disaster Risk Reduction. It builds on methods and frameworks from existing NBS literature and related disciplines. Furthermore, this paper discusses the evaluation of the quantified results of the pre-assessment. In particular, the evaluation focuses on the significance of change of the estimated co-benefits and dis-benefits as well as the sustainability of the NBS. This paper will support decision-making in planning processes on suitability and sustainability of Nature-based Solutions and
assist in the preparation of Environmental Impact Assessments of projects
Nature-based solutions can help reduce the impact of natural hazards: A global analysis of NBS case studies
The knowledge derived from successful case studies can act as a driver for the implementation and upscaling of nature-based solutions (NBS). This work reviewed 547 case studies to gain an overview of NBS practices and their role in reducing the adverse impact of natural hazards and climate change. The majority (60 %) of case studies are situated in Europe compared with the rest of the world where they are poorly represented. Of 547 case studies, 33 % were green solutions followed by hybrid (31 %), mixed (27 %), and blue (10 %) approaches. Approximately half (48 %) of these NBS interventions were implemented in urban (24 %), and river and lake (24 %) ecosystems. Regarding the scale of intervention, 92 % of the case studies were operationalised at local (50 %) and watershed (46 %) scales while very few (4 %) were implemented at the landscape scale. The results also showed that 63 % of NBS have been used to deal with natural hazards, climate change, and loss of biodiversity, while the remaining 37 % address socio-economic challenges (e.g., economic development, social justice, inequality, and cohesion). Around 88 % of NBS implementations were supported by policies at the national level and the rest 12 % at local and regional levels. Most of the analysed cases contributed to Sustainable Development Goals 15, 13, and 6, and biodiversity strategic goals B and D. Case studies also highlighted the co-benefits of NBS: 64 % of them were environmental co-benefits (e.g., improving biodiversity, air and water qualities, and carbon storage) while 36 % were social (27 %) and economic (9 %) co-benefits. This synthesis of case studies helps to bridge the knowledge gap between scientists, policymakers, and practitioners, which can allow adopting and upscaling of NBS for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation and enhance their preference in decision-making processes
An engine for social-ecological risk analysis and NBS recommendation to support risk mitigation management
Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological hazards: revised concepts, classification schemes and databases
Hydro-meteorological hazards (HMHs) have had a strong impact on human societies and ecosystems. Their impact is projected to be exacerbated by future climate scenarios. HMHs cataloguing is an effective tool to evaluate their associated risks and plan appropriate remediation strategies. However, factors linked to HMHs origin and triggers remain uncertain, which poses a challenge for their cataloguing. Focusing on key HMHs (floods, storm surge, landslides, droughts, and heatwaves), the goal of this review paper is to analyse and present a classification scheme, key features, and elements for designing nature-based solutions (NBS) and mitigating the adverse impacts of HMHs in Europe. For this purpose, we systematically examined the literature on NBS classification and assessed the gaps that hinder the widespread uptake of NBS. Furthermore, we critically evaluated the existing literature to give a better understanding of the HMHs drivers and their interrelationship (causing multi-hazards). Further conceptualisation of classification scheme and categories of NBS shows that relatively few studies have been carried out on utilising the broader concepts of NBS in tackling HMHs and that the classification and effectiveness of each NBS are dependent on the location, architecture, typology, green species, environmental conditions as well as interrelated non-linear systems. NBS are often more cost-effective than hard engineering approaches used within the existing systems, especially when taking into consideration their potential co-benefits. We also evaluated the sources of available data for HMHs and NBS, highlighted gaps in data, and presented strategies to overcome the current shortcomings for the development of the NBS for HMHs. We highlighted specific gaps and barriers that need to be filled since the uptake and upscaling studies of NBS in HMHs reduction is rare. The fundamental concepts and the key technical features of past studies reviewed here could help practitioners to design and implement NBS in a real-world situation
Nature-based solutions efficiency evaluation against natural hazards: Modelling methods, advantages and limitations
Nature-based solutions (NBS) for hydro-meteorological risks (HMRs) reduction and management are becoming increasingly popular, but challenges such as the lack of well-recognised standard methodologies to evaluate their performance and upscale their implementation remain. We systematically evaluate the current state-of-the art on the models and tools that are utilised for the optimum allocation, design and efficiency evaluation of NBS for five HMRs (flooding, droughts, heatwaves, landslides, and storm surges and coastal erosion). We found that methods to assess the complex issue of NBS efficiency and cost-benefits analysis are still in the development stage and they have only been implemented through the methodologies developed for other purposes such as fluid dynamics models in micro and catchment scale contexts. Of the reviewed numerical models and tools MIKE-SHE, SWMM (for floods), ParFlow-TREES, ACRU, SIMGRO (for droughts), WRF, ENVI-met (for heatwaves), FUNWAVE-TVD, BROOK90 (for landslides), TELEMAC and ADCIRC (for storm surges) are more flexible to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of specific NBS such as wetlands, ponds, trees, parks, grass, green roof/walls, tree roots, vegetations, coral reefs, mangroves, sea grasses, oyster reefs, sea salt marshes, sandy beaches and dunes. We conclude that the models and tools that are capable of assessing the multiple benefits, particularly the performance and cost-effectiveness of NBS for HMR reduction and management are not readily available. Thus, our synthesis of modelling methods can facilitate their selection that can maximise opportunities and refute the current political hesitation of NBS deployment compared with grey solutions for HMR management but also for the provision of a wide range of social and economic co-benefits. However, there is still a need for bespoke modelling tools that can holistically assess the various components of NBS from an HMR reduction and management perspective. Such tools can facilitate impact assessment modelling under different NBS scenarios to build a solid evidence base for upscaling and replicating the implementation of NBS
Nature-based solutions efficiency evaluation against natural hazards: modelling methods, advantages and limitations
Nature-based solutions (NBS) for hydro-meteorological risks (HMRs) reduction and management are becoming increasingly popular, but challenges such as the lack of well-recognised standard methodologies to evaluate their performance and upscale their implementation remain. We systematically evaluate the current state-of-the art on the models and tools that are utilised for the optimum allocation, design and efficiency evaluation of NBS for five HMRs (flooding, droughts, heatwaves, landslides, and storm surges and coastal erosion). We found that methods to assess the complex issue of NBS efficiency and cost-benefits analysis are still in the development stage and they have only been implemented through the methodologies developed for other purposes such as fluid dynamics models in micro and catchment scale contexts. Of the reviewed numerical models and tools MIKE-SHE, SWMM (for floods), ParFlow-TREES, ACRU, SIMGRO (for droughts), WRF, ENVI-met (for heatwaves), FUNWAVE-TVD, BROOK90 (for landslides), TELEMAC and ADCIRC (for storm surges) are more flexible to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of specific NBS such as wetlands, ponds, trees, parks, grass, green roof/walls, tree roots, vegetations, coral reefs, mangroves, sea grasses, oyster reefs, sea salt marshes, sandy beaches and dunes. We conclude that the models and tools that are capable of assessing the multiple benefits, particularly the performance and cost-effectiveness of NBS for HMR reduction and management are not readily available. Thus, our synthesis of modelling methods can facilitate their selection that can maximise opportunities and refute the current political hesitation of NBS deployment compared with grey solutions for HMR management but also for the provision of a wide range of social and economic co-benefits. However, there is still a need for bespoke modelling tools that can holistically assess the various components of NBS from an HMR reduction and management perspective. Such tools can facilitate impact assessment modelling under different NBS scenarios to build a solid evidence base for upscaling and replicating the implementation of NBS
Towards an operationalisation of nature-based solutions for natural hazards
Nature-based solutions (NBS) are being promoted as adaptive measures against predicted increasing hydrometeorological hazards (HMHs), such as heatwaves and floods which have already caused significant loss of life and economic damage across the globe. However, the underpinning factors such as policy framework, end-users' interests and participation for NBS design and operationalisation are yet to be established. We discuss the operationalisation and implementation processes of NBS by means of a novel concept of Open-Air Laboratories (OAL) for its wider acceptance. The design and implementation of environmentally, economically, technically and socio-culturally sustainable NBS require inter- and transdisciplinary approaches which could be achieved by fostering co-creation processes by engaging stakeholders across various sectors and levels, inspiring more effective use of skills, diverse knowledge, manpower and resources, and connecting and harmonising the adaptation aims. The OAL serves as a benchmark for NBS upscaling, replication and exploitation in policy-making process through monitoring by field measurement, evaluation by key performance indicators and building solid evidence on their short- and long-term multiple benefits in different climatic, environmental and socio-economic conditions, thereby alleviating the challenges of political resistance, financial barriers and lack of knowledge. We conclude that holistic management of HMHs by effective use of NBS can be achieved with standard compliant data for replicating and monitoring NBS in OALs, knowledge about policy silos and interaction between research communities and end-users. Further research is needed for multi-risk analysis of HMHs and inclusion of NBS into policy frameworks, adaptable at local, regional and national scales leading to modification in the prevalent guidelines related to HMHs. The findings of this work can be used for developing synergies between current policy frameworks, scientific research and practical implementation of NBS in Europe and beyond for its wider acceptance
Towards operationalisation of nature-based solutions for natural hazards
Nature-based solutions (NBS) are being promoted as adaptive measures against predicted increasing hydrometeorological hazards (HMHs), such as heatwaves and floods which have already caused significant loss of life and economic damage across the globe. However, the underpinning factors such as policy framework, end-users' interests and participation for NBS design and operationalisation are yet to be established. We discuss the operationalisation and implementation processes of NBS by means of a novel concept of Open-Air Laboratories (OAL) for its wider acceptance. The design and implementation of environmentally, economically, technically and socio-culturally sustainable NBS require inter- and transdisciplinary approaches which could be achieved by fostering co-creation processes by engaging stakeholders across various sectors and levels, inspiring more effective use of skills, diverse knowledge, manpower and resources, and connecting and harmonising the adaptation aims. The OAL serves as a benchmark for NBS upscaling, replication and exploitation in policy-making process through monitoring by field measurement, evaluation by key performance indicators and building solid evidence on their short- and long-term multiple benefits in different climatic, environmental and socio-economic conditions, thereby alleviating the challenges of political resistance, financial barriers and lack of knowledge. We conclude that holistic management of HMHs by effective use of NBS can be achieved with standard compliant data for replicating and monitoring NBS in OALs, knowledge about policy silos and interaction between research communities and end-users. Further research is needed for multi-risk analysis of HMHs and inclusion of NBS into policy frameworks, adaptable at local, regional and national scales leading to modification in the prevalent guidelines related to HMHs. The findings of this work can be used for developing synergies between current policy frameworks, scientific research and practical implementation of NBS in Europe and beyond for its wider acceptance
Recommended from our members
Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
Background
Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations.
Methods
The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model—a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates—with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality—which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds.
Findings
The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2–100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1–290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1–211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4–48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3–37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7–9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles.
Interpretation
Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere
Recommended from our members
Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
Background
Accurate assessments of current and future fertility—including overall trends and changing population age structures across countries and regions—are essential to help plan for the profound social, economic, environmental, and geopolitical challenges that these changes will bring. Estimates and projections of fertility are necessary to inform policies involving resource and health-care needs, labour supply, education, gender equality, and family planning and support. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 produced up-to-date and comprehensive demographic assessments of key fertility indicators at global, regional, and national levels from 1950 to 2021 and forecast fertility metrics to 2100 based on a reference scenario and key policy-dependent alternative scenarios.
Methods
To estimate fertility indicators from 1950 to 2021, mixed-effects regression models and spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression were used to synthesise data from 8709 country-years of vital and sample registrations, 1455 surveys and censuses, and 150 other sources, and to generate age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) for 5-year age groups from age 10 years to 54 years. ASFRs were summed across age groups to produce estimates of total fertility rate (TFR). Livebirths were calculated by multiplying ASFR and age-specific female population, then summing across ages 10–54 years. To forecast future fertility up to 2100, our Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) forecasting model was based on projections of completed cohort fertility at age 50 years (CCF50; the average number of children born over time to females from a specified birth cohort), which yields more stable and accurate measures of fertility than directly modelling TFR. CCF50 was modelled using an ensemble approach in which three sub-models (with two, three, and four covariates variously consisting of female educational attainment, contraceptive met need, population density in habitable areas, and under-5 mortality) were given equal weights, and analyses were conducted utilising the MR-BRT (meta-regression—Bayesian, regularised, trimmed) tool. To capture time-series trends in CCF50 not explained by these covariates, we used a first-order autoregressive model on the residual term. CCF50 as a proportion of each 5-year ASFR was predicted using a linear mixed-effects model with fixed-effects covariates (female educational attainment and contraceptive met need) and random intercepts for geographical regions. Projected TFRs were then computed for each calendar year as the sum of single-year ASFRs across age groups. The reference forecast is our estimate of the most likely fertility future given the model, past fertility, forecasts of covariates, and historical relationships between covariates and fertility. We additionally produced forecasts for multiple alternative scenarios in each location: the UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for education is achieved by 2030; the contraceptive met need SDG is achieved by 2030; pro-natal policies are enacted to create supportive environments for those who give birth; and the previous three scenarios combined. Uncertainty from past data inputs and model estimation was propagated throughout analyses by taking 1000 draws for past and present fertility estimates and 500 draws for future forecasts from the estimated distribution for each metric, with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) given as the 2·5 and 97·5 percentiles of the draws. To evaluate the forecasting performance of our model and others, we computed skill values—a metric assessing gain in forecasting accuracy—by comparing predicted versus observed ASFRs from the past 15 years (2007–21). A positive skill metric indicates that the model being evaluated performs better than the baseline model (here, a simplified model holding 2007 values constant in the future), and a negative metric indicates that the evaluated model performs worse than baseline.
Findings
During the period from 1950 to 2021, global TFR more than halved, from 4·84 (95% UI 4·63–5·06) to 2·23 (2·09–2·38). Global annual livebirths peaked in 2016 at 142 million (95% UI 137–147), declining to 129 million (121–138) in 2021. Fertility rates declined in all countries and territories since 1950, with TFR remaining above 2·1—canonically considered replacement-level fertility—in 94 (46·1%) countries and territories in 2021. This included 44 of 46 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, which was the super-region with the largest share of livebirths in 2021 (29·2% [28·7–29·6]). 47 countries and territories in which lowest estimated fertility between 1950 and 2021 was below replacement experienced one or more subsequent years with higher fertility; only three of these locations rebounded above replacement levels. Future fertility rates were projected to continue to decline worldwide, reaching a global TFR of 1·83 (1·59–2·08) in 2050 and 1·59 (1·25–1·96) in 2100 under the reference scenario. The number of countries and territories with fertility rates remaining above replacement was forecast to be 49 (24·0%) in 2050 and only six (2·9%) in 2100, with three of these six countries included in the 2021 World Bank-defined low-income group, all located in the GBD super-region of sub-Saharan Africa. The proportion of livebirths occurring in sub-Saharan Africa was forecast to increase to more than half of the world's livebirths in 2100, to 41·3% (39·6–43·1) in 2050 and 54·3% (47·1–59·5) in 2100. The share of livebirths was projected to decline between 2021 and 2100 in most of the six other super-regions—decreasing, for example, in south Asia from 24·8% (23·7–25·8) in 2021 to 16·7% (14·3–19·1) in 2050 and 7·1% (4·4–10·1) in 2100—but was forecast to increase modestly in the north Africa and Middle East and high-income super-regions. Forecast estimates for the alternative combined scenario suggest that meeting SDG targets for education and contraceptive met need, as well as implementing pro-natal policies, would result in global TFRs of 1·65 (1·40–1·92) in 2050 and 1·62 (1·35–1·95) in 2100. The forecasting skill metric values for the IHME model were positive across all age groups, indicating that the model is better than the constant prediction.
Interpretation
Fertility is declining globally, with rates in more than half of all countries and territories in 2021 below replacement level. Trends since 2000 show considerable heterogeneity in the steepness of declines, and only a small number of countries experienced even a slight fertility rebound after their lowest observed rate, with none reaching replacement level. Additionally, the distribution of livebirths across the globe is shifting, with a greater proportion occurring in the lowest-income countries. Future fertility rates will continue to decline worldwide and will remain low even under successful implementation of pro-natal policies. These changes will have far-reaching economic and societal consequences due to ageing populations and declining workforces in higher-income countries, combined with an increasing share of livebirths among the already poorest regions of the world