• Energy Research

Abstract The technical lifetime of urban water infrastructure has a duration where climate change has to be considered when alterations to the system are planned. Also, models for urban water management are reaching a very high complexity level with, for example, decentralized stormwater control measures being included. These systems have to be evaluated under as close-to-real conditions as possible. Long term statistics (LTS) modelling with observational data is the most close-to-real solution for present climate conditions, but for future climate conditions artificial rainfall time series from weather generators (WGs) have to be used. In this study, we ran LTS simulations with four different WG products for both present and future conditions on two different catchments. For the present conditions, all WG products result in realistic catchment responses when it comes to the number of full flowing pipes and the number and volume of combined sewer overflows (CSOs). For future conditions, the differences in the WGs representation of the expectations to climate change is evident. Nonetheless, all future results indicate that the catchments will have to handle more events that utilize the full capacity of the drainage systems. Generally, WG products are relevant to use in planning of future changes to sewer systems.

We present a new framework for flexible testing of flood risk adaptation strategies in a variety of urban development and climate scenarios. This framework couples the 1D-2D hydrodynamic simulation package MIKE FLOOD with the agent-based urban development model DAnCE4Water and provides the possibility to systematically test various flood risk adaptation measures ranging from large infrastructure changes over decentralised water management to urban planning policies. We have tested the framework in a case study in Melbourne, Australia considering 9 scenarios for urban development and climate and 32 potential combinations of flood adaptation measures. We found that the performance of adaptation measures strongly depended on the considered climate and urban development scenario and the other implementation measures implemented, suggesting that adaptive strategies are preferable over one-off investments. Urban planning policies proved to be an efficient means for the reduction of flood risk, while implementing property buyback and pipe increases in a guideline-oriented manner was too costly. Random variations in location and time point of urban development could have significant impact on flood risk and would in some cases outweigh the benefits of less efficient adaptation strategies. The results of our setup can serve as an input for robust decision making frameworks and thus support the identification of flood risk adaptation measures that are economically efficient and robust to variations of climate and urban layout.

Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) can be defined as solutions based on natural processes that meet societal challenges and simultaneously provide human well-being and biodiversity benefits. These solutions are envisioned to contribute to operationalizing sustainable development strategies, especially in the context of adaptation to climate change (e.g. flood risk reduction). In order to quantify NBS performance, ease their uptake and advocate for them as alternatives to “business-as-usual” infrastructures, a comprehensive, holistic valuation of their multiple benefits (multiple advantages and disadvantages) is needed. This entails quantifying non-market benefits for people and nature in addition to determining the (direct) cost-benefit of the risk-reduction measure. Despite the importance given to the assessment of non-tangible benefits for people and nature in the literature, systematic data collection on these dimensions seems to be missing. This study reviews publications that used stated preference methods to assess non-market human benefits of NBS and NBS-like strategies. Its aim is to highlight any biases or knowledge gaps in this kind of evaluation. Our results show that the valuation of non-tangible benefits of NBS (e.g. increased recreation and well-being, enhanced biodiversity) still suffers from a lack of common framing. Despite some steps being taken on enabling interconnected benefit assessments, unexploited opportunities concerning the integrated assessment of non-market human and nature benefits predominate. Moreover, the research to-date appears based on a case-to-case approach, and thus a shared holistic method does not emerge from the present literature, potentially delaying the uptake of NBS. We argue that future research could minimize missed opportunities by focusing on and systematically applying holistic benefits assessments. Methods based on stated preference surveys may help to ensure holistic approaches are taken, as well as contributing to their replicability and application when upscaling NBS.

Nature-based solutions may actively reduce hydro-meteorological risks in urban areas as a part of climate change adaptation. However, the main reason for the increasing uptake of this type of solution is their many benefits for the local inhabitants, including recreational value. Previous studies on recreational value focus on studies of existing nature sites that are often much larger than what is considered as new NBS for flood adaptation studies in urban areas. We thus prioritized studies with smaller areas and nature types suitable for urban flood adaptation and divided them into four common nature types for urban flood adaptation: sustainable urban drainage systems, city parks, nature areas and rivers. We identified 23 primary valuation studies, including both stated and revealed preference studies, and derived two value transfer functions based on meta-regression analysis on existing areas. We investigated trends between values and variables and found that for the purpose of planning of new NBS the size of NBS and population density were determining factors of recreational value. For existing NBS the maximum travelling distance may be included as well. We find that existing state-of-the-art studies overestimate the recreational with more than a factor of 4 for NBS sizes below 5 ha. Our results are valid in a European context for nature-based solutions below 250 ha and can be applied across different NBS types and sizes.