Nature-Based Solutions for Managing Urban Pluvial Flood Risk: A Systematic Review of Hazard Drivers, Modelling Approaches, and Climate Scenario Integration

Abstract

Urban pluvial flood risk is intensifying under climate change, driving growing interest in nature-based solutions and blue–green infrastructure as adaptation measures. However, substantial heterogeneity in hazard characterisation, intervention types and design, modelling approaches, performance metrics, and climate scenario integration limits evidence comparability and policy applicability. This study systematically reviews 538 peer-reviewed articles (2000–2025) following PRISMA guidelines, with inter-rater reliability assessment confirming robust data extraction (Cohen’s κ = 0.76–0.95). A three-tier framework was developed to evaluate climate scenario integration, alongside a quality-of-evidence assessment. Results show that 30% of studies incorporate formal IPCC climate scenarios (Tier-1), ~40% employ climate-informed but non-standardised approaches (Tier-2), and ~29% lack explicit climate scenario representation (Tier-3). High-emission pathways (RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5) dominate formal assessments, while CMIP6-based projections remain underrepresented. The Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) is the most widely applied modelling platform, with green roofs, bioretention systems, and permeable pavements being the most frequently evaluated interventions. Notably, only ~14% of studies provide high-confidence evidence combining calibrated modelling, formal climate scenarios, and quantitative performance evaluation. The review identifies persistent methodological inconsistencies and recommends harmonised climate scenario reporting, multi-pathway assessments, standardised performance metrics, and stronger empirical validation, particularly at catchment scales and under extreme and compound events. Addressing these gaps is essential to improving the robustness, transferability, and policy relevance of evidence supporting climate-resilient urban flood management.