Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Scientific evidence for ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction


Ecosystems play a potentially important role in sustainably reducing the risk of disaster events worldwide. Yet, to date, there are few comprehensive studies that summarize the state of knowledge of ecosystem services and functions for disaster risk reduction. This paper builds scientific evidence through a review of 529 English-language articles published between 2000 and 2019. It catalogues the extent of knowledge on, and confidence in, ecosystems in reducing disaster risk. The data demonstrate robust links and cost-effectiveness between certain ecosystems in reducing specific hazards, something that was revealed to be particularly true for the role of vegetation in the stabilization of steep slopes. However, the published research was limited in geographic distribution and scope, with a concentration on urban areas of the Global North, with insufficient relevant research on coastal, dryland and watershed areas, especially in the Global South. Many types of ecosystem can provide sustainable and multifunctional approaches to disaster risk reduction. Yet, if they are to play a greater role, more attention is needed to fill research gaps and develop performance standards.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Summary of the literature on the role of ecosystems in DRR between 2000 and 2019.
Fig. 2: Level of confidence in ecosystem functions and/or services in attenuating disaster risks.
Fig. 3: Geographic distribution of articles reviewed by continent and thematic group.
Fig. 4: Distribution of the number of hazards mentioned in the 529 articles reviewed.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request, mentioning any restrictions on availability.


  1. Sebesvari, Z. et al. Opportunities for monitoring green infrastructure and ecosystems in the Sendai Framework Monitor. Prog. Disaster Sci. (2019).

  2. Whelchel, A. W., Renaud, F. G., Sudmeier-Rieux, K. & Sebasvari, Z. Advancing ecosystems and disaster risk reduction in policy, planning, implementation and management. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 32, 1–3 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Estrella, M. & Saalismaa, N. in The Role of Ecosystem Management in Disaster Risk Reduction (eds Renaud, F. et al.) 30–31 (UNU Press, 2013).

  4. Chatenoux, B. & Peduzzi, P. Impacts from the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami: analysing the potential protecting role of environmental features. Nat. Hazards 40, 289–304 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cochard, R. The 2004 tsunami in Aceh and Southern Thailand: a review on coastal ecosystems, wave hazards and vulnerability. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 10, 3–40 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR, 2009);

  7. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015);

  8. Renaud, F. G., Nehren, U. Sudmeier-Rieux, K. & Estrella, M. in Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation in Practice (eds Renaud, F. G. et al.) 1–22 (Springer, 2016).

  9. Faivre, N., Fritz, M., Freitas, T., de Boissezon, B. & Vandewoestijne, S. Nature-based solutions in the EU: innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental challenges. Environ. Res. 159, 509–518 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Diaz, S. et al. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).

  11. Marois, D. E. & Mitsch, W. J. Coastal protection from tsunamis and cyclones provided by mangrove wetlands – a review. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 11, 71–83 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Narayan, S. et al. The effectiveness, costs and coastal protection benefits of natural and nature-based defences. PLoS ONE 11, e0154735 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Spalding, M. et al. The role of ecosystems in coastal protection: adapting to climate change and coastal hazards. Ocean Coast. Manag. 90, 50–57 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Moos, C. et al. Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction in mountains. Earth-Sci. Rev. 177, 497–513 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Arce-Mojica, T. J., Nehren, U., Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Miranda, J. P. & Anhuf, D. Nature-based solutions (NbS) for reducing the risk of shallow landslides: where do we stand? Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 41, 101293 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bullock, A. & Acreman, M. The role of wetlands in the hydrological cycle. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 7, 358–389 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Vollmer, D., Pribadi, D. O., Remondi, F., Rustiadi, E. & Grêt-Regamey, A. Prioritizing ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing river basins: a spatial multi-criteria analytic approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 20, 237–252 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bokhove, O., Kelmanson, M., Kent, T., Piton, G. & Tacnet, J. D. Communicating (nature-based) flood-mitigation schemes using flood-excess volume. River Res. Appl. (2019).

  19. Doswald, N. et al. Effectiveness of ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation: review of the evidence-base. Clim. Dev. 6, 185–201 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ruangpan, L. et al. Nature-based solutions for hydro-meteorological risk reduction: a state-of-the-art review of the research area. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 243–270 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mastandrea, M. et al. The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups. Clim. Change 108, 675–691 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (eds Field, C. B. et al.) 370–371 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

  23. Häyhä, T., Franzese, P. P., Paletto, A. & Fath, B. D. Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in alpine forests. Ecosyst. Serv. 14, 12–23 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Taylor, E. B., Gibeaut, J. C., Yoskowitz, D. W. & Starek, M. J. Assessment and monetary valuation of the storm protection function of beaches and foredunes on the Texas coast. J. Coast. Res. 31, 1205–1216 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kousky, C. & Walls, M. Floodplain conservation as a flood mitigation strategy: examining costs and benefits. Ecol. Econ. 104, 119–128 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ming, J., Xian-Guo, L., Lin-Shu, X., Li-juan, C. & Shouzheng, T. Flood mitigation benefit of wetland soil — a case study in Momoge National Nature Reserve in China. Ecol. Econ. 61, 217–223 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cordonnier, T., Courbaud, B., Berger, F. & Franc, A. Permanence of resilience and protection efficiency in mountain Norway spruce forest stands: a simulation study. For. Ecol. Manag. 256, 347–354 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Olschewski, R., Bebi, P., Teich, M., Hayek, U. W. & Grêt-Regamey, A. Avalanche protection by forests — a choice experiment in the Swiss Alps. For. Policy Econ. 17, 19–24 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hessburg, P. F., Reynolds, K. M., Keane, R. E., James, K. M. & Salter, R. B. Evaluating wildland fire danger and prioritizing vegetation and fuels treatments. For. Ecol. Manag. 247, 1–17 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yao, L., Chen, L., Wei, W. & Sun, R. Potential reduction in urban runoff by green spaces in Beijing: a scenario analysis. Urban For. Urban Green. 14, 300–308 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Brisson, C. P., Coverdale, T. C. & Bertness, M. D. Salt marsh die-off and recovery reveal disparity between the recovery of ecosystem structure and service provision. Biol. Conserv. 179, 1–5 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Biron, P. M. et al. Freedom space for rivers: a sustainable management approach to enhance river resilience. Environ. Manag. 54, 1056–1073 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Metcalfe, P., Beven, K., Hankin, B. & Lamb, R. A modelling framework for evaluation of the hydrological impacts of nature-based approaches to flood risk management, with application to in-channel interventions across a 29-km2 scale catchment in the United Kingdom. Hydrol. Process. 31, 1734–1748 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Singh, N. K., Wemple, B. C., Bomblies, A. & Ricketts, T. H. Simulating stream response to floodplain connectivity and revegetation from reach to watershed scales: implications for stream management. Sci. Total Environ. 633, 716–727 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bathurst, J. C. et al. Forest impact on floods due to extreme rainfall and snowmelt in four Latin American environments 1: Field data analysis. J. Hydrol. 400, 281–291 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wahren, A., Schwärzel, K. & Feger, K.-H. Potentials and limitations of natural flood retention by forested land in headwater catchments: evidence from experimental and model studies. J. Flood Risk Manag. 5, 321–335 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pierce, R. S. in International Symposium Forest Hydrology (eds Sopper, W. E. & Lull, H. W.) 247–253 (Pergamon Press, 1967).

  38. Qi, J.-H. et al. Water-holding capacity of an evergreen broadleaf forest in Ailao Mountain and its functions in mitigating the effects of Southwest China drought. Acta Ecol. Sin. 32, 1692–1702 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kloos, J. &. Renaud, F. G. in Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk: Reduction and Adaptation in Practice (eds Renaud, F. et al.) 199–226 (Springer, 2016).

  40. Wallemacq, P. & House, R. Economic Losses, Poverty & Disasters 1998-2017 (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters and UNISDR United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2018);

  41. Disaster Losses and Statistics (UNDRR, 2021);

  42. Martin, L. J., Blossey, B. & Ellis, E. Mapping where ecologists work: biases in the global distribution of terrestrial ecological observations. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 195–201 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kanai, J. M., Grant, R. & Jianu, R. Cities on and off the map: a bibliometric assessment of urban globalisation research. Urban Stud. 55, 2569–2585 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wilson, K. A. et al. Conservation research is not happening where it is most needed. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002413 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kabisch, N. et al. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol. Soc. 21, 39 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being (Island Press, 2005).

  47. Tavakol-Davani, H., Burian, S. J., Devkota, J. & Apul, D. Performance and cost-based comparison of green and gray infrastructure to control combined sewer overflows. J. Sustain. Water Built Environ. (2016).

  48. Hornung, L., Podschun, S. & Pusch, M. Linking ecosystem services and measures in river and floodplain management. Ecosyst. People 15, 214–231 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A. T., Zimmermann, J. & Nicholls, J. Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding - a global assessment. PLoS ONE 10, e0118571 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Villa, F. et al. The misconception of ecosystem disservices: how a catchy term may yield the wrong messages for science and society. Ecosyst. Serv. 10, 52–53 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pullin, A. S. et al. (eds) Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management Version 5.0 (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2018; accessed 6 March 2020);

  53. Munroe, R. et al. Review of the evidence base for ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation to climate change. Environ. Evid. 1, 13 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, accessed 2 June 2019);

  55. Scopus (Elsevier, accessed 2 June 2019);

  56. The International Disaster Database (EM-DAT, accessed 6 March 2020);

Download references


The authors are grateful to the many other people who made substantial contributions to this paper, including M. Estrella, H. Rossum, A. Gomez, M. Ford, T. Chareyre (UN Environment Programme, Crisis Management Branch, Switzerland), R. Lin (Institute for Environment and Human Security, United Nations University (UNU-EHS), Germany), I. Katrinnada, L. S. Ern (Yale-NUS College, Singapore), K. Compton (University of Massachusetts-Amherst, USA) and A. Casteller. We offer special thanks to Yale-NUS College, UNU-EHS and the University of Massachusetts-Amherst for funding research assistants who contributed to this article and M. Jaboyedoff (University of Lausanne, Switzerland) for funding the main author’s salary at the beginning of this research project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Project administration: K.S.R. Funding acquisition: B.G.M., F.G.R. and M.V. Conceptualization: K.S.R., B.G.M. and U.N. Methodology: K.S.R., B.G.M., M.V., F.G.R., S.S., U.N., T.A.M., N.D. and P.P. Data curation: K.S.R., L.S., T.A.M., Y.W., B.G.M., F.G.R. and S.S. Formal analysis of the thematic category articles reviewed: urban: S.S., F.G.R., W.L., A.T., H.J. and L.N.; coastal: U.N., D.A.F. and C.L.; forests/vegetation: H.J.B. and S.G.; economics: M.V., L.E. and J.M.; rivers/wetlands: M.v.S., P.v.E., T.T. and L.N.; mountains: C.M. and T.A.M.; agroecosystems: P.L., Y.W. and M.H.; drylands: P.L. and Y.W.; multiple ecosystems: K.S.R., Z.S. and N.D.; out-of-scope thematic category articles reviewed: climate-related: K.S.R. and P.P.; geology: B.G.M. and T.A.M.; health: B.G.M. and T.A.M.; hydrology/pollution: Z.S., M.H. and K.S.R.; wildlife: S.G. and H.J.B. Writing—original draft preparation: K.S.R., U.N., S.S. and B.G.M. Writing—review and editing: K.S.R., S.G., H.J., U.N., D.A.F., M.H., P.P., B.G.M., C.L., F.G.R., S.S., M.V., L.E., C.M., H.J.B., N.D., J.M., Z.S., Y.W., P.L., T.A.M., L.S., M.v.S. and W.L. Visualization: L.S., P.P., U.N. and B.G.M.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Sudmeier-Rieux.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks Ana Bugnot and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–3 and Tables 1–6.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Arce-Mojica, T., Boehmer, H.J. et al. Scientific evidence for ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction. Nat Sustain 4, 803–810 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing