IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i12p2138-d1539841.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advancing Urban Flood Resilience: A Systematic Review of Urban Flood Risk Mitigation Model, Research Trends, and Future Directions

Author

Listed:
  • Anahita Azadgar

    (Department of Urban Architecture and Waterscapes, Faculty of Architecture, Gdańsk University of Technology, 11/12 Narutowicza Street, 80-233 Gdańsk, Poland)

  • Lucyna Nyka

    (Department of Urban Architecture and Waterscapes, Faculty of Architecture, Gdańsk University of Technology, 11/12 Narutowicza Street, 80-233 Gdańsk, Poland)

  • Stefano Salata

    (Lab PPTE, Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milano, Italy)

Abstract

Climate change has increased the frequency of extreme weather events, challenging traditional flood risk assessments. New methods, like InVEST’s urban flood risk mitigation model (UFRM), are crucial for assessing flood-prone areas, especially those vulnerable to pluvial flooding. This systematic review examines the utilization and limitations of the UFRM model for identifying flood-prone areas and designing adaptation plans in response to climate change, based on research articles published between 2019 and 2024. The articles were identified through Scinapse and Google Scholar using predefined criteria, including relevance to UFRM applications and publication within the specified timeframe. An analysis of the 21 selected papers using bibliometric techniques reveals geographic concentrations of the case studies that utilized the UFRM model primarily in Italy, Turkey, China, and the United States, with notable research gaps in Central Europe. The journal publication trends highlight the prominence of certain journals, such as the Journal of Land. A network analysis using VOSviewer identifies thematic clusters aligned with the UFRM research areas, including Urban Planning and Nature-Based Solutions (NBSs), Urbanization and Sustainable Development, the Economic and Social Effects of Flood Mitigation, Adaptation and Risk Management, and Resilience and Vulnerability. This review contributes to gaining a deeper understanding of the research landscape regarding the utilization of the UFRM model and provides recommendations for advancing sustainable and resilient urban development practices. The review was not preregistered in a formal registry. The finding reveals that integrating automation and optimization tools to suggest different solutions for problematic nodes in urban areas is crucial for addressing multiple issues simultaneously and optimizing adaptation plans effectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Anahita Azadgar & Lucyna Nyka & Stefano Salata, 2024. "Advancing Urban Flood Resilience: A Systematic Review of Urban Flood Risk Mitigation Model, Research Trends, and Future Directions," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:12:p:2138-:d:1539841
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/12/2138/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/12/2138/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ryohei Ogawa & Ye Zhang & Vouchlay Theng & Zhongyu Guo & Manna Wang & Chihiro Yoshimura, 2023. "Capacity Assessment of Urban Green Space for Mitigating Combined Sewer Overflows in the Tokyo Metropolitan Area," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Sofia Castelo & Miguel Amado & Filipa Ferreira, 2023. "Challenges and Opportunities in the Use of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Adaptation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-18, April.
    3. Sala, Serenella & Ciuffo, Biagio & Nijkamp, Peter, 2015. "A systemic framework for sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 314-325.
    4. Davide Marino & Margherita Palmieri & Angelo Marucci & Mariangela Soraci & Antonio Barone & Silvia Pili, 2023. "Linking Flood Risk Mitigation and Food Security: An Analysis of Land-Use Change in the Metropolitan Area of Rome," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, January.
    5. Yilun Zhao & Yan Rong & Yiyi Liu & Tianshu Lin & Liangji Kong & Qinqin Dai & Runzi Wang, 2023. "Investigating Urban Flooding and Nutrient Export under Different Urban Development Scenarios in the Rouge River Watershed in Michigan, USA," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-25, December.
    6. Kulczyk, Sylwia & Woźniak, Edyta & Derek, Marta, 2018. "Landscape, facilities and visitors: An integrated model of recreational ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 491-501.
    7. Colin Hultgren Egegård & Maja Lindborg & Åsa Gren & Lars Marcus & Meta Berghauser Pont & Johan Colding, 2024. "Climate Proofing Cities by Navigating Nature-Based Solutions in a Multi-Scale, Social–Ecological Urban Planning Context: A Case Study of Flood Protection in the City of Gothenburg, Sweden," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, January.
    8. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    9. Stefano Salata, 2023. "Filling the Gaps in Biophysical Knowledge of Urban Ecosystems: Flooding Mitigation and Stormwater Retention," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-22, March.
    10. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    11. Robert Steiger & Daniel Scott & Bruno Abegg & Marc Pons & Carlo Aall, 2019. "A critical review of climate change risk for ski tourism," Current Issues in Tourism, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(11), pages 1343-1379, July.
    12. Stefano Salata & Silvia Ronchi & Carolina Giaimo & Andrea Arcidiacono & Giulio Gabriele Pantaloni, 2021. "Performance-Based Planning to Reduce Flooding Vulnerability Insights from the Case of Turin (North-West Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-25, May.
    13. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    14. David H. Fletcher & Joanne K. Garrett & Amy Thomas & Alice Fitch & Phil Cryle & Simon Shilton & Laurence Jones, 2022. "Location, Location, Location: Modelling of Noise Mitigation by Urban Woodland Shows the Benefit of Targeted Tree Planting in Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, June.
    15. Anna Biasin & Mauro Masiero & Giulia Amato & Davide Pettenella, 2023. "Nature-Based Solutions Modeling and Cost-Benefit Analysis to Face Climate Change Risks in an Urban Area: The Case of Turin (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-32, January.
    16. Yue Wang & Qi Fu & Tinghui Wang & Mengfan Gao & Jinhua Chen, 2022. "Multiscale Characteristics and Drivers of the Bundles of Ecosystem Service Budgets in the Su-Xi-Chang Region, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-26, October.
    17. Merve Ersoy Mirici, 2022. "The Ecosystem Services and Green Infrastructure: A Systematic Review and the Gap of Economic Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guglielmo Pristeri & Viviana di Martino & Silvia Ronchi & Stefano Salata & Francesca Mazza & Andrea Benedini & Andrea Arcidiacono, 2023. "An Operational Model to Downscale Regional Green Infrastructures in Supra-Local Plans: A Case Study in an Italian Alpine Sub-Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-25, July.
    2. Stephen C. L. Watson & Adrian C. Newton, 2018. "Dependency of Businesses on Flows of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from the County of Dorset, UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Sipei Pan & Jiale Liang & Wanxu Chen & Jiangfeng Li & Ziqi Liu, 2021. "Gray Forecast of Ecosystem Services Value and Its Driving Forces in Karst Areas of China: A Case Study in Guizhou Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-20, November.
    4. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    5. Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Belton, Valerie & Hjerppe, Turo & Marttunen, Mika, 2020. "Utilizing ecosystem service classifications in multi-criteria decision analysis – Experiences of peat extraction case in Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. Nápoles-Vértiz, Sonia & Caro-Borrero, Angela, 2024. "Conceptual diversity and application of ecosystem services and disservices: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    7. Luca Battisti & Federica Larcher & Stefania Grella & Nunzio Di Bartolo & Marco Devecchi, 2022. "Management and Mapping Ecosystem Services in a Privately Owned Natura 2000 Site: An Insight into the Stellantis–La Mandria Site (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, March.
    8. Finisdore, John & Rhodes, Charles & Haines-Young, Roy & Maynard, Simone & Wielgus, Jeffrey & Dvarskas, Anthony & Houdet, Joel & Quétier, Fabien & Lamothe, Karl A. & Ding, Helen & Soulard, François & V, 2020. "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    9. Marco Marcelli & Sergio Scanu & Francesco Manfredi Frattarelli & Emanuele Mancini & Filippo Maria Carli, 2018. "A Benthic Zonation System as a Fundamental Tool for Natural Capital Assessment in a Marine Environment: A Case Study in the Northern Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-14, October.
    10. Moriah Bostian & Tommy Lundgren, 2022. "Valuing Ecosystem Services for Agricultural TFP: A Review of Best Practices, Challenges, and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, March.
    11. Hooper, Tara & Cooper, Philip & Hunt, Alistair & Austen, Melanie, 2014. "A methodology for the assessment of local-scale changes in marine environmental benefits and its application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 65-74.
    12. H. Spencer Banzhaf & James Boyd, 2012. "The Architecture and Measurement of an Ecosystem Services Index," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-32, March.
    13. Wang, Shifeng & Wang, Sicong & Smith, Pete, 2015. "Quantifying impacts of onshore wind farms on ecosystem services at local and global scales," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1424-1428.
    14. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    15. Shujun Liu & Xinzhuan Yao & Degang Zhao & Litang Lu, 2021. "Evaluation of the ecological benefits of tea gardens in Meitan County, China, using the InVEST model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 7140-7155, May.
    16. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    17. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    18. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    19. Cordier, Mateo & Pérez Agúndez, José A. & Hecq, Walter & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2014. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological–economic modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 86-96.
    20. Hahn, Thomas & McDermott, Constance & Ituarte-Lima, Claudia & Schultz, Maria & Green, Tom & Tuvendal, Magnus, 2015. "Purposes and degrees of commodification: Economic instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services need not rely on markets or monetary valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 74-82.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:12:p:2138-:d:1539841. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.