Comparison between hard-engineered and nature-based solutions for flood risk management: A case study of Bin Brook
洪水リスク管理におけるハードエンジニアリングと自然解決策の比較：ビンブルック流域の事例研究 (AI 翻訳)
Xiangyi Chai, Hiroshi Cho, Rongling Zhang, Dongfang Liang
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、英国ビンブルック流域を対象に、洪水リスク管理におけるハードエンジニアリング対策と自然解決策（NbS）の効果を比較した。モデル解析の結果、ハード対策は水位低減に優れ、NbSはピーク流量の遅延と非同期化に効果的であり、両者を組み合わせることで相乗効果が得られることが示された。
English
This paper compares hard-engineered and nature-based solutions (NbS) for flood risk management in the Bin Brook catchment, UK. Hydraulic modeling shows hard-engineered measures are most effective at lowering water levels, while NbS delay peak flows and desynchronize runoff. Combining both approaches yields complementary benefits and greater flood risk reduction than either alone.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本でも気候変動に伴う豪雨災害が増加しており、グリーンインフラやNbSへの関心が高まっている。本論文は、対策の組み合わせによる相乗効果を定量的に示しており、日本の治水計画においても参考となる。
In the global GX context
As climate change increases flood risks globally, this study provides quantitative evidence of the complementary effects of combining hard infrastructure with nature-based solutions, relevant to integrated flood risk management strategies under frameworks like the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a methodology for comparing flood mitigation approaches using hydraulic modeling, useful for integrated water resource management research.
🏢実務担当者:Offers evidence for designing hybrid flood risk systems that combine traditional and nature-based measures, applicable to urban drainage and catchment planning.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights the benefits of integrated flood risk strategies, supporting policies that promote nature-based solutions alongside conventional infrastructure.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Abstract Flood risk management systems have traditionally relied on hard-engineered measures to improve conveyance and local hydraulic capacity, while nature-based solutions that slow, store, or desynchronise flows are increasingly being promoted for their capabilities in adapting to changing climate conditions and wider environmental benefits. However, the comparative effectiveness of these approaches and the extent to which they can complement one another as an integrated approach remains to be explored further and better characterised. This study evaluates and compares hard-engineered, nature-based solutions (NbS), and their integration for flood risk management using a one-dimensional unsteady flow hydraulic model of the Bin Brook catchment in the UK, where recurrent property flooding is driven by an undersized culvert. Modelled results show that hard-engineered scenarios are most effective in lowering water surface elevations, whereas NbS produce greater delays in peak flow arrival times and desynchronise runoff from rural upstream sub-catchments. When combined, these approaches produce complementary effects and achieve greater flood risk reduction than either approach could accomplish alone.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.26599/lles.2026.9660018first seen 2026-06-17 05:31:28 · last seen 2026-06-17 07:13:47
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。