4.6 Article

Integrated Valuation of Nature-Based Solutions Using TESSA: Three Floodplain Restoration Studies in the Danube Catchment

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13031482

Keywords

Nature-Based Solutions (NBS); floodplain restoration; ecosystem services; TESSA; stakeholder participation; Danube River Basin

Funding

  1. European Union [DTP2-003-566 2.1, 776681]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines the co-benefits of floodplain restoration and monetizes them using various methods such as ES mapping and stakeholder engagement. Results demonstrate the utility of ES assessment and the economic benefits of floodplain restoration.
Floodplain restoration measures are among the most well-known nature-based solutions for flood risk reduction but practitioners see their limitations in comparison to technical measures when considering both their effectiveness and profitability. The aim of this study is to show the co-benefits (besides flood risk reduction) of floodplain restoration and handle them in terms of monetized ecosystem services (ES). Our work focused on six ES groups for three study areas in the Danube catchment along the Krka, Morava, and Danube rivers. ES mapping through stakeholder engagement is also considered. We applied the methodologies suggested in the Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-Based Assessment (TESSA) complemented with alternative methodologies (e.g., questionnaires on social media). Results show annual combined benefits of floodplain restoration in a range from 237,000 USD2019 at Krka to 3.1 million USD2019 at Morava, suggesting the utility of ES assessment. The combination of stakeholder workshops and the TESSA guidelines, as well as the newly developed methods, were all central tools to provide decision-makers with arguments to use nature-based solutions for an integrated and holistic riparian land use management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available