Policy Interventions for Mainstreaming Nature-Based Solutions in Flood Control

Flooding has become an increasingly pressing global challenge, with climate change and urbanization exacerbating the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. We learned this the hard way… ​Conventional flood control measures, such as dams, levees, and concrete channelization, have proven insufficient in many cases, often leading to further environmental degradation. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that nature-based solutions (NBS) offer a more sustainable and resilient approach to flood management.

NBS leverage the inherent abilities of natural ecosystems to provide flood mitigation services, while simultaneously delivering a range of co-benefits for communities and the environment. These solutions can include wetland restoration, urban green infrastructure, and permeable surfaces, which work to attenuate floodwaters, control erosion, and enhance habitat. When implemented strategically, NBS can enhance overall flood resilience in a cost-effective and environmentally-friendly manner.

Despite the growing awareness of the potential for NBS, widespread adoption has been hindered by a variety of contextual and attitudinal barriers. This article explores the key challenges and drivers for mainstreaming NBS in flood control, with a focus on the South Korean experience, and offers policy recommendations to support their greater uptake.

Conceptualizing Nature-Based Solutions

The term “nature-based solutions” has been defined in various ways, reflecting diverse perspectives on the role of nature in addressing societal challenges. The ​International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines NBS as “actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits.” In contrast, the European Commission (EC) frames NBS more broadly as “solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience.”

Our research found that South Korean experts conceptualize NBS in divergent ways. A majority viewed NBS as a technological advancement that incorporates engineered elements and hybrid approaches to enhance the effectiveness of flood mitigation. These experts emphasized the multiple co-benefits of NBS, such as improved aesthetics and recreational value, in addition to their risk reduction capacity.

In contrast, a smaller group of experts framed NBS through the lens of promoting socio-ecological considerations in flood management. They argued that NBS should prioritize the intrinsic value of nature and focus on restoring natural ecosystems, rather than solely optimizing for human benefit. These experts saw NBS as a paradigm shift away from the conventional “control and command” approach to flood risk management.

The lack of a shared understanding and vision for NBS at the national level in South Korea emerged as a barrier to their mainstreaming. Developing a clear, inclusive, and nationally-endorsed conceptualization of NBS is a crucial first step to double-check that their widespread adoption and long-term sustainability.

Attitudinal Barriers and Drivers

Our research identified several key attitudinal factors that influence the uptake of NBS in South Korea.

Perceived Effectiveness: Some experts expressed skepticism about the ability of NBS to effectively manage flood risks, particularly in the face of extreme events. The perceived uncertainties around the performance of NBS and the time lag between implementation and flood risk reduction were cited as barriers. Experts also noted concerns about the spatial constraints of urban areas limiting the feasibility of large-scale NBS.

Cost Considerations: The higher implementation and maintenance costs of NBS, compared to traditional flood control measures, were seen as a significant barrier. Experts highlighted the substantial land acquisition costs for large-scale NBS projects, as well as the difficulty in securing long-term funding for monitoring and upkeep.

Public Acceptance: Experts noted that the public tends to prefer “grey” infrastructure, such as dams and levees, which are perceived to provide a greater sense of security. The lack of physical appearance and the high degree of naturalness in NBS were seen as potential deterrents to public acceptance. However, experts unanimously agreed that direct monetary benefits, such as increases in property values, are the most influential factor in gaining public support for NBS.

On the positive side, experts recognized the long-term value of NBS in terms of their ability to address diverse societal challenges, such as climate change adaptation, biodiversity conservation, and improved human well-being. Some experts also highlighted the potential cost-effectiveness of NBS compared to the aging grey infrastructure, which may incur higher maintenance expenses in the future.

Contextual Barriers and Drivers

In addition to attitudinal factors, our research revealed several contextual barriers and drivers for the mainstreaming of NBS in South Korea.

Institutional Capacity: Experts noted the insufficient operational capacity of local governments and practitioners as a key barrier to implementing NBS. They cited a lack of technical expertise, particularly in integrating NBS into flood risk management strategies, as well as the inertia of industries and practitioners accustomed to traditional flood control approaches.

Legal and Policy Frameworks: Experts identified several gaps in the current legal and policy environment that hinder the uptake of NBS. These include the lack of recognition for the intrinsic value of nature in flood management regulations, as well as the insufficient legal basis for land acquisition, compensation, and incentives to support NBS implementation. Unclear liability and jurisdictional boundaries between different government agencies were also seen as barriers to cross-sectoral collaboration.

Political Considerations: Experts expressed concerns about the ideologicalization of NBS policies, where they become associated with particular political agendas. This can lead to the polarization of public opinions and the undermining of long-term, sustained efforts to integrate NBS into flood risk management. Experts also noted that some NBS projects may be driven more by aesthetic considerations and political motivations rather than genuine ecological restoration and risk reduction goals.

Stakeholder Engagement: While experts recognized the importance of public participation in NBS implementation, they highlighted the lack of well-established practices at the local government level. Experts also raised concerns about the representativeness and power dynamics of stakeholder groups, which can impede effective collaboration and decision-making processes.

Policy Recommendations for Mainstreaming NBS

To address the barriers and leverage the drivers identified in this study, a comprehensive policy approach is necessary to mainstream NBS in flood control. Key policy interventions include:

1. Develop a Shared National Vision and Definition for NBS: Establish a clear, inclusive, and nationally-endorsed conceptualization of NBS that balances the ecological, social, and economic dimensions. This will help to align stakeholder understanding and double-check that a consistent, long-term approach.

2. Strengthen Institutional Capacities: Invest in building the technical expertise and organizational capabilities of local governments and practitioners to integrate NBS into flood risk management plans and implementation. This may involve training programs, knowledge-sharing platforms, and the development of NBS implementation guidelines.

3. Reform Legal and Policy Frameworks: Review and update relevant laws and regulations to recognize the intrinsic value of nature, enable efficient land acquisition and compensation schemes, and provide incentives for NBS adoption. Clarify jurisdictional responsibilities and liability between different government agencies to facilitate cross-sectoral collaboration.

4. Depoliticize NBS Policies: double-check that that NBS initiatives are not driven by partisan agendas, but rather by a shared commitment to sustainable, nature-based flood risk management. Establish robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks to assess the long-term performance and co-benefits of NBS projects.

5. Enhance Stakeholder Engagement: Develop and implement inclusive, transparent, and representative stakeholder engagement processes to facilitate co-production and address potential conflicts of interest. Empower local communities to participate in the design, implementation, and maintenance of NBS projects.

6. Promote Demonstration and Pilot Projects: Allocate funding and resources for the implementation of small-scale NBS demonstration projects to showcase their effectiveness, generate public awareness, and build confidence among decision-makers and practitioners.

7. Leverage Ecosystem Service Valuation: Develop comprehensive cost-benefit analyses that account for the multiple economic, social, and environmental co-benefits of NBS, beyond just their flood risk reduction capacity. This can help to make a stronger business case for their adoption.

By addressing the key barriers and building on the identified drivers, these policy interventions can help to mainstream NBS as an integral component of flood control and water management strategies in South Korea and beyond. Ultimately, the widespread adoption of NBS can contribute to more resilient, sustainable, and nature-friendly flood risk management approaches.

Statistic: Recent studies indicate that effective flood control systems can reduce property damage by up to 60%