Nature-based solutions for flood risk reduction – public perception

Nature-based solutions, such as wetlands, floodplains and riparian zones, are increasingly being touted as an effective alternative to traditional technical infrastructure in an attempt to reduce the risk of flooding. However, their implementation still faces significant social barriers. Researchers at the University of Vermont in the United States set out to investigate how their compatriots perceive the role of nature in reducing flood risk, what benefits they see in such solutions, and what public support for their public funding depends on.

Nature-based solutions for flood protection

Floods are among the world’s costliest natural disasters. Between 2000 and 2019, they affected more than 1.65 billion people, causing economic losses of $651 billion. The risk of floods is increasing with climate change and urbanization. More intense precipitation, an increase in impervious surfaces and the loss of floodplains and wetlands are causing rainwater to run off faster and in greater quantities into rivers, increasing the risk to people and infrastructure.

One way to deal with the situation is through Nature-based Solutions (NbS), such as protecting and restoring wetlands, floodplains and riparian zones. Natural areas retain water, slow down surface runoff and increase infiltration, reducing both river and rainfall flooding. At the same time, they provide numerous co-benefits – improving the environment, supporting biodiversity and enhancing the quality of life for residents.

Despite these advantages, more than 3.4 million square ^kilometers of wetlands and floodplains around the world have been drained, and technical solutions such as dams or embankments still dominate the practice of flood control.

What do Americans know about nature’s role in flood control?

The authors of the study, the results of which were published January 6, 2026 in the journal People and Nature, surveyed a representative sample of 925 people to see how the public perceives the role of wetlands and riparian zones in reducing flood risk.

The results show a significant knowledge gap:

• Only 51.8 percent of respondents felt that wetlands and strips of riparian vegetation reduce the risk of flooding;
• 28.2 percent could not determine their impact;
• Nearly 19 percent thought they were irrelevant or even increased the risk.

This means that more than 40 percent of the American public does not recognize or understand the flood control function of these ecosystems. The vast majority of respondents (more than 99 percent) acknowledged the benefits of wetlands and riparian zones, but the extent of their knowledge in this regard was limited. They mainly pointed to benefits in the form of habitat for wildlife or an increase in biodiversity, while social benefits such as improved living conditions or access to recreation were much less common. The authors conclude that limited awareness of intangible benefits may hinder the acceptance of nature-based solutions at the local level.

Nature or concrete? Social investment preferences

When asked about the spending of public funds, respondents most often opted for mixed solutions: 28.4 percent favored an equal split of investment (50/50) between NbS and technical infrastructure. Extreme options were rare: 3.6 percent supported only nature-based solutions, and 3 percent supported only technical infrastructure.

The analysis showed that the preference for compromise was not due to a lack of knowledge, but to a genuine belief that the two approaches should complement each other.

Statistical models showed that perceptions of NbS as effective flood control tools were more often observed in people who were older, better educated, familiar with basic flood terminology and aware of whether they lived in a flood-prone area.

Those identifying themselves as politically conservative were less likely to recognize the effectiveness of NbS and less likely to support investing public funds in it. Political views proved to be a significant social barrier.

From knowledge to advocacy – a key conclusion

The study’s most important conclusion is clear: the better people understand that nature-based solutions reduce flood risk and offer multiple benefits, the more willing they are to support their funding. Lack of knowledge fosters the perpetuation of the dominance of technical infrastructure, even if it does not offer additional benefits for the environment and communities.

The authors stress that the growing threat of flooding calls for greater implementation of NbS-type solutions. However, without active education and public engagement, it will be difficult to change entrenched beliefs. The need to clearly explain the mechanisms of NbS, emphasize their multifunctional benefits, and conduct a dialogue tailored to different social and political groups was identified as key.

The survey shows that the barriers to implementing NbS are not just technical or financial – they are largely social and perceptual. Overcoming them can determine the effectiveness of future flood protection.

---

Source:

Balerna, J. A., Fisher, B., Wemple, B. C., Myers, M., Soares, R., Quainoo, R., Ali Khan, M., Merrill, S. C., & Shrum, T. R. (2026). Survey-based study of public perceptions and preferences for mitigating flood risk via nature-based solutions in the United States. People and Nature, 00, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70229