4.6 Article

Combining Co$ting Nature and Suitability Modeling to Identify High Flood Risk Areas in Need of Nature-Based Services

Journal

LAND
Volume 10, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/land10080853

Keywords

resilience; geographic information systems; green infrastructure; flood risk; spatial analysis

Funding

  1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Superfund [P42ES027704-01]
  2. Environmental Defense Fund/National Academy of Sciences 'Development of Gulf Coast Resiliency Management Plan Using Sentinel Species and Natural Infrastructure' [M2101136]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study evaluates ecosystem services along the Texas Coast using models, showing that only around 13% of the area has high nature-based solutions, while nearly 1/4 has low NBS. Due to development increases, most areas are at risk of becoming low NBS areas in the future if no action is taken.
Coastal areas are often subject to the severe consequences of flooding from intense storms or hurricanes. Increases in coastal development have amplified both flooding intensity and negative impacts for coastal communities. Reductions in pervious land cover and replacement with impervious ones have reduced the amount of ecosystem services. This research examines the services provided by nature-based solutions by applying outputs from Co$ting Nature models into suitability models to quantify ecosystem services along the Texas Coast. Results show that only around 13% of the Houston-Galveston coastal area has relatively high NBS, and nearly 1/4 of the area shows relatively low NBS. The majority of the areas lie in the middle, which, due to increases in development, are at particular risk for becoming areas offering low NBS in the future if not treated. Such vulnerability assessment informs future implementation strategies for NBS in coastal communities to protect people and property from flooding.

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