Nature-Based Solutions to Hydro-Climatic Risks: Barriers and Triggers for Their Implementation in Seville (Spain)
Nature-based solutions (NbS) are currently a priority of international institutions (UN and EU) to improve urban resilience to hydro-climatic risks. However, responsible institutions, such as river basin authorities and local governments, while still prioritizing gray infrastructure, often present r...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Sevilla (US) |
| Repositorio: | idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:idus.us.es:11441/145607 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/11441/145607 https://doi.org/10.3390/land11060868 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | nature-based solutions barriers and triggers urban green infrastructure climate change adaptation |
| Sumario: | Nature-based solutions (NbS) are currently a priority of international institutions (UN and EU) to improve urban resilience to hydro-climatic risks. However, responsible institutions, such as river basin authorities and local governments, while still prioritizing gray infrastructure, often present resistance to these strategies. This paper analyzes this issue in the case of Seville (Spain). We identify historical and recent institutional practices related to the development of gray infrastructure and the experience of citizens’ movements that demand the implementation of green infrastructure and the naturalization of urban space. Based on the theoretical framework of the sustainability transition, the article contributes to the identification of the factors that hinder or trigger the processes of change, drawing from the results of a case with a long tradition in hydro-climatic disaster management. The research has included an in-depth review of risk planning in the city of Seville, semi-structured interviews with 24 social and institutional actors, and participant observation of both urban planning processes and the practices of citizen movements. Our results show that the generation of shared visions clashes, first with conflicting perceptions of the city’s strengths and weaknesses regarding risks; second, with contradictions between institutional discourses and practices, and finally, with the operational limitations of public participation processes. |
|---|