Nature-based solutions (NbS): A management paradigm shift in practitioners’ perspectives on riverbank soil bioengineering
Fiche du document
2022
- handle: 10670/1.zz36jo
- hal: hal-03563134
- doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114638
- PUBMED: 35149400
- WOS: 000783050400007
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114638
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/35149400
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/ , info:eu-repo/semantics/OpenAccess
Mots-clés
Soil bioengineering techniques nature-based solutions riverbank erosion control river management paradigm shift practitioners’ perceptionsSujets proches
Soil Mould, Vegetable Vegetable mold Earth (Soils) Mold, Vegetable Biological engineering Life science engineeringCiter ce document
Clémence Moreau et al., « Nature-based solutions (NbS): A management paradigm shift in practitioners’ perspectives on riverbank soil bioengineering », HAL-SHS : droit et gestion, ID : 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114638
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are promoted as practical and theoretical solutions that simultaneously provide human well-being and biodiversity benefits. One example is soil bioengineering using construction techniques based on living vegetation, and is frequently used for riverbank stabilization, flood protection, and erosion control. Compared with civil engineering, NbS offer many advantages such as cost reduction, limited impact on the environment, and production of ecosystem services. However, their use is still marginal for riverbank control, especially in urban areas. In this paper, we focus on soil bioengineering techniques for riverbank protection in an urban context from the practitioners’ perspective. We question to what extent NbS require a shift in management paradigm. We used qualitative methods to interview 17 practitioners working in the Rhone Alps basin (France). Our results reveal that switching from civil engineering to soil bioengineering is not only a technical change, but also requires a shift from a “predict and control” paradigm to an “adaptive management” paradigm because of three major reasons. First, soil bioengineering techniques require redefinition of the performance of engineering structures with the inclusion of ecological and social dimensions. Second, the adoption of soil bioengineering techniques requires that practitioners, elected people and inhabitants reconsider risk sharing and acceptance. Third, the techniques require practitioners to adopt a new posture, with new soft skills (humility and daring) and a new collective organization (collective feedback). Finally, we identify three levers for a broader use of such techniques: (i) systematic assessment of the ecological, economical, and social benefits of such techniques; (ii) improving risk acceptance and sharing; (iii) fostering of social learning among practitioners through collective or technical feedback.