The Impact of Spatial Resolutions on Nature-Based Solution Suitability Mapping for Europe
Source abstract
Abstract
Flooding events, like in Germany in 2021, highlight the need for re-naturalising banks of rivers and streams to naturally mitigate future flooding. To identify potential areas for Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), the NBS Toolkit—a decision-support tool for Europe—was developed within the H2020 OPERANDUM project. The tool builds on suitability mapping, which is progressively adopted for pre-assessing areas for Nature-Based Solutions. The NBS Toolkit operates with European open-source data, which is available at different spatial resolutions. In this study, we performed a GIS-based analysis to examine the impact of different resolution data on the resulting suitability maps. The results suggest that for large-scale measures such as riparian forest buffers, coarser resolutions are sufficient and may save processing time and capacities. However, fine resolution datasets can bring added value to urban suitability mapping and are of greater importance for small-scale, local Nature-Based Solutions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Land Use and Ecosystem Services · Soil and Land Suitability Analysis · Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
KAJO s.r.o., Sladkovicova 228/8, 01401 Bytca, Slovakia
Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6UR, UK
Department of Physics and Astronomy (DIFA), Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6UR, UK
Funding
European Union’s (EU) Horizon2020 research and innovation program · European Union · Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
References (53)
Show source-provided references
1. Nature-Based Solutions Can Help Reduce the Impact of Natural Hazards: A Global Analysis of NBS Case Studies10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165824 ↗
2. Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C., and Maginnis, S. (2016). Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges, IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature.10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en ↗
3. Quantifying Co-Benefits and Disbenefits of Nature-Based Solutions Targeting Disaster Risk Reduction10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102966 ↗
4. Reducing Hydro-Meteorological Risks through Nature-Based Solutions: A Comprehensive Review of Enabling Policy Frameworks in the European Union10.1016/j.nbsj.2023.100097 ↗
5. Planning and Suitability Assessment of Large-Scale Nature-Based Solutions for Flood-Risk Reduction10.1007/s11269-021-02848-w ↗
6. The Nature-Based Solutions Planning Support System: A Playground for Site and Solution Prioritization10.1016/j.scs.2021.103608 ↗
7. (2024, April 23). PEDRR Opportunity Mapping. Available online: https://pedrr.org/mapping-eco-drr-opportunities/.
8. Choosing the Right Nature-Based Solutions to Meet Diverse Urban Challenges10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127337 ↗
9. A Review of Public Acceptance of Nature-Based Solutions: The ‘Why’, ‘When’, and ‘How’ of Success for Disaster Risk Reduction Measures10.1007/s13280-021-01502-4 ↗
10. Enhancing Nature-Based Solutions Acceptance through Stakeholders’ Engagement in Co-Benefits Identification and Trade-Offs Analysis10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136552 ↗
11. A Planning-Support Tool for Spatial Suitability Assessment of Green Urban Stormwater Infrastructure10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.051 ↗
12. Guerrero, P., Haase, D., and Albert, C. (2018). Locating Spatial Opportunities for Nature-Based Solutions: A River Landscape Application. Water, 10.10.3390/w10121869 ↗
13. (2024, April 23). OPERANDUM GeoIKP: NBS Toolkit. Available online: https://geoikp.operandum-project.eu/nbs/toolkit.
14. Identifying and Comparing Relatively High Soil Erosion Sites with Four DEMs10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.06.025 ↗
15. DEM Resolution Impact on the Estimation of the Physical Characteristics of Watersheds by Using SWAT
16. DEM Resolution Effects on Machine Learning Performance for Flood Probability Mapping10.1016/j.jher.2021.10.002 ↗
17. Resample or Not?! Effects of Resolution of DEMs in Watershed Modeling10.1002/hyp.7306 ↗
18. Sensitivity Analysis of the DEM Resolution and Effective Parameters of Runoff Yield in the SWAT Model: A Case Study10.2166/aqua.2019.044 ↗
19. The Impact of Land Use/Land Cover Scale on Modelling Urban Ecosystem Services10.1007/s10980-015-0337-7 ↗
20. Scale and Ecological Dependence of Ecosystem Services Evaluation: Spatial Extension and Economic Value of Freshwater Ecosystems in Italy10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.034 ↗
21. Crop Climate Suitability Mapping on the Cloud: A Geovisualization Application for Sustainable Agriculture10.1038/s41598-020-72384-x ↗
22. Strengthening Resilience in Reconstruction after Extreme Events—Insights from Flood Affected Communities in Germany10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103965 ↗
23. Brief Communication: Critical Infrastructure Impacts of the 2021 Mid-July Western European Flood Event10.5194/nhess-22-3831-2022 ↗
24. Fekete, A., and Sandholz, S. (2021). Here Comes the Flood, but Not Failure? Lessons to Learn after the Heavy Rain and Pluvial Floods in Germany 2021. Water, 13.10.3390/w13213016 ↗
25. Graziano, M.P., Deguire, A.K., and Surasinghe, T.D. (2022). Riparian Buffers as a Critical Landscape Feature: Insights for Riverscape Conservation and Policy Renovations. Diversity, 14.10.3390/d14030172 ↗
26. The Effects of Riparian Forest Management on the Freshwater Environment: A Literature Review of Best Management Practice10.5194/hess-8-286-2004 ↗
27. Weissteiner, C., Ickerott, M., Ott, H., Probeck, M., Ramminger, G., Clerici, N., Dufourmont, H., and de Sousa, A. (2016). Europe’s Green Arteries—A Continental Dataset of Riparian Zones. Remote Sens., 8.10.20944/preprints201608.0059.v1 ↗
28. Yirigui, Y., Lee, S.-W., Nejadhashemi, A.P., Herman, M.R., and Lee, J.-W. (2019). Relationships between Riparian Forest Fragmentation and Biological Indicators of Streams. Sustainability, 11.10.3390/su11102870 ↗
29. How Does Habitat Fragmentation Affect the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning Relationship?10.1007/s10980-018-0620-5 ↗
30. European Union, and Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2020). EU-Hydro, European Environment Agency.
31. Dottori, F., Alfieri, L., Bianchi, A., Skoien, J., and Salamon, P. (2021). River Flood Hazard Maps for Europe and the Mediterranean Basin Region, European Commission.10.5194/essd-2020-313 ↗
32. Addy, S., and Wilkinson, M. (2017). The Bowmont Catchment Initiative: An Assessment of Catchment Hydrology and Natural Flood Management Measures, Scottish Government.
33. Jerrentrup, H., and Efthimiou, G. (2013, January 11–13). Results of Riparian Forest Restoration in Nestos Delta, NE-Greece 10 Years after Plantation. Proceedings of the European River Restoration Conference, Vienna, Austria.
34. EEA (2015). Water-Retention Potential of Europe’s Forests: A European Overview to Support Natural Water-Retention Measures, European Environment Agency.
35. Rooting Depths, Lateral Root Spreads and Below-ground/Above-ground Allometries of Plants in Water-limited Ecosystems10.1046/j.1365-2745.2002.00682.x ↗
36. Simulation Model of Soil Compaction and Root Growth: II. Model Performance and Validation10.1007/BF00779171 ↗
37. Kumar, A., Verma, P., and Sharma, M.K. (2021). Irrigation Management in Stone Fruits. Production Technology of Stone Fruits, Springer.10.1007/978-981-15-8920-1_6 ↗
38. How Did Fixed-Width Buffers Become Standard Practice for Protecting Freshwaters and Their Riparian Areas from Forest Harvest Practices?10.1899/11-031.1 ↗
39. Ngo, T., Yoo, D., Lee, Y., and Kim, J. (2016). Optimization of Upstream Detention Reservoir Facilities for Downstream Flood Mitigation in Urban Areas. Water, 8.10.3390/w8070290 ↗
40. Goodchild, M.F., Maguire, D.J., and Rhind, D.W. (1999). Multi-Criteria Evaluation and GIS. Geographical Information Systems, Longley, John Wiley and Sons.
41. European Union, and Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2020). Corine Land Cover (CLC) 2018, Version 2020_20u1, European Environment Agency.
42. Batista, F., and Pigaiani, C. (2021). LUISA Base Map 2018, European Commission.
43. OpenStreetMap Germany [Dataset]; 2022.
44. European Union, and Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2018). Tree Cover Density 2018, European Environment Agency.
45. Corbane, C., and Sabo, F. (2019). ESM R2019—European Settlement Map from Copernicus Very High Resolution Data for Reference Year 2015, European Commission.
46. ISRIC World Soil Information (2017). SoilGrids250m 2017-03—Absolute Depth to Bedrock, ISRIC.
47. Mapping Topsoil Physical Properties at European Scale Using the LUCAS Database10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.07.006 ↗
48. LecoS—A QGIS Plugin for Automated Landscape Ecology Analysis
49. McGarigal, K., and Marks, B.J. (1995). FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure, US Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station.10.2737/PNW-GTR-351 ↗
50. The Spatial Allocation of Population: A Review of Large-Scale Gridded Population Data Products and Their Fitness for Use10.5194/essd-11-1385-2019 ↗
51. Separation of Floodplain Flow and Bankfull Discharge: Application of 1D Momentum Equation Solver and MIKE 21C10.3390/civileng4030050 ↗
52. European Commission (2021). Evaluating the Impact of Nature-Based Solutions: A Handbook for Practitioners, Publications Office of the European Union.
53. A Nature-Based Solution Selection Framework: Criteria and Processes for Addressing Hydro-Meteorological Hazards at Open-Air Laboratories across Europe10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117183 ↗