Scholarlink

<p>Market-based instruments, including competitive tenders, are central to funding global environmental restoration and management projects. Recently, tenders have been utilised to fund Nature-based Solutions schemes for Natural Flood Management, with the explicit purpose of achieving co-benefits; flood management <i>and</i> reducing inequities. While multiple studies consider the efficacy of Nature-based Solutions for tackling inequities, no prior research has quantified whether the resource allocation for these projects has been conducted equitably. We analyse two national natural flood management programmes funded through competitive tenders in England to explore <i>who benefits</i> by considering the characteristics of projects, including socio-economic, geographical (e.g. rurality) and flood risk dynamics. Our results suggest that inequity occurs at both the application and funding stages of Nature-based Solutions projects for flood risk management. This reflects wider international challenges of using market-based instruments for environmental resource allocation. Competitive tenders have the potential to undermine the equitable benefits of Nature-based Solutions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Market-based instruments to fund nature-based solutions for flood risk management can disproportionately benefit affluent areas

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月28日

查看全文
  • Bartholomew Hill,
  • Tim Marjoribanks,
  • Harriet Moore,
  • Lee Bosher,
  • Mark Gussy

摘要

Market-based instruments, including competitive tenders, are central to funding global environmental restoration and management projects. Recently, tenders have been utilised to fund Nature-based Solutions schemes for Natural Flood Management, with the explicit purpose of achieving co-benefits; flood management and reducing inequities. While multiple studies consider the efficacy of Nature-based Solutions for tackling inequities, no prior research has quantified whether the resource allocation for these projects has been conducted equitably. We analyse two national natural flood management programmes funded through competitive tenders in England to explore who benefits by considering the characteristics of projects, including socio-economic, geographical (e.g. rurality) and flood risk dynamics. Our results suggest that inequity occurs at both the application and funding stages of Nature-based Solutions projects for flood risk management. This reflects wider international challenges of using market-based instruments for environmental resource allocation. Competitive tenders have the potential to undermine the equitable benefits of Nature-based Solutions.