4.5 Article

Analysis of potential nature-based solutions for the Mun River Basin, Thailand

期刊

WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 87, 期 6, 页码 1496-1514

出版社

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/wst.2023.050

关键词

drought; flood hazard; flooding; land use change; MCDA-GIS; nature-based solutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the growing research and applications of nature-based solutions (NBS), there is a lack of application and quantitative assessment of NBS in South East Asia. This study addresses this gap by using MCDA-GIS analysis to map the potential impact of NBS on flood hazard reduction in the Mun River Basin, Thailand. Wetlands, re/afforestation, and changing crop types were found to be effective strategies for mitigating flood and drought hazards. The results show that implementing NBS in the catchment decreases flood hazard, particularly through reforestation, and even more so when a combination of NBS is applied.
Despite the growth in research and applications of nature-based solutions (NBS) within the literature, there are limited applications in South East Asia, moreover studies which quantitatively assess the impacts of NBS could have on hazard reduction are scarce. This paper addresses this gap by developing and validating MCDA-GIS analysis to map how potential nature strategies could mitigate fiood hazard if applied within the Mun River Basin, Thailand. Through a literature review, the top three solutions for fiood and drought hazards were found: wetlands, re/ afforestation, and changing crop types. These strategies were reviewed and validated with a MCDA-GIS methodology, through land use change (LUC) maps to depict different future scenarios. The results found that fiood hazard did decrease when NBS were implemented in the catchment, especially for A/Reforestation, and to a greater extent when a combination of NBS were applied. This article provides specific insights into the current gaps of NBS publications, specifically considering the case of the Mun River Basin, Thailand.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据