Published November 22, 2025
0 views Journal article Open Access Open Access

A Systematic Framework for Assessing the Temporally Variable Protective Capacity of Nature-Based Solutions Against Natural Hazards

  • 1. Department of Landscape, Water and Infrastructure, Institute of Mountain Risk Engineering, BOKU University, Peter-Jordan-Straße 82, 1190 Vienna, Austria
  • 2. Department of Landscape, Water and Infrastructure, Institute of Soil Bioengineering and Landscape Construction, BOKU University, Peter-Jordan-Straße 82, 1190 Vienna, Austria
  • 3. UNESCO Chair on Water-Related Disaster Risk Reduction & Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Jamova Cesta 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
  • 4. University of Ljubljana
  • 5. Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway
  • 6. Norwegian University of Science and Technology
  • 7. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 7491 Trondheim, Norway
  • 8. Alchemia-Nova Research & Innovation Gemeinnützige GmbH, Climate Lab, Spittelauer Lände 45, 1090 Wien, Austria
  • 9. ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal

Description

Natural hazards pose an increasing threat to infrastructures, lives, and livelihoods in alpine regions due to climate change and the growing demand for settlement space. While grey protective structures are commonly deployed to provide immediate safety, their sustainability, and thus protective function, is limited by cost-intensive maintenance. Nature-based solutions (NbS) can alleviate these shortcomings by offering cost-effective, adaptive protection that strengthens over time, making their deployment a key factor in building resilience to climate-induced hazards. This paper introduces a systematic methodology for the strategic deployment of NbS to enhance climate resilience. It integrates a three-level hazard classification system with an expert-led assessment rating 74 NbS against 29 hazards. A subsequent Principal Component Analysis (PCA) synthesises these into six functional groupings based on their shared mitigation characteristics. The core of this framework introduces two key innovations: a novel Mitigation Score and a Hazard Mitigation Profile. Together, they evaluate NbS effectiveness dynamically through the different phases of natural hazards, surpassing traditional static ratings by evaluating NbS performance across the hazard management cycle—from predisposition to post-event recovery. Significant variation in mitigation scoring was observed for individual hazard classes and types. Erosion processes (e.g., sheet, rill, and gully erosion) achieved the highest mitigation scores (1.90), as they can be addressed by many highly effective NbS (21–33 types). Conversely, flood-related hazards, such as fluvial and pluvial floods, showed moderate scores (1.64–1.66) with a balanced mix of mitigative and supportive NbS, while options for mitigating impact floods and coastal floods were far more limited (1.00–1.42). The resulting methodology provides a crucial, practical link between specific climate-related threats and viable, nature-based responses, serving as a robust framework to guide the decisions of planners, engineers, and policymakers. By enabling a more strategic and temporally aware deployment of NbS, our findings inform the development of adaptive management strategies to ensure their long-term effectiveness.
Enabled by The Lens

Open Access

Licence Attribution (CC BY)
Publisher Website Access full text