Climate inequity in natural flood management solutions

A new study co-authored by the University of Lincoln, U.K., reveals that competitive funding schemes designed to support nature-based solutions (NbS) for flood management may be unintentionally deepening inequalities—with deprived communities at greater flood risk missing out on crucial protection.

Using natural processes, NbS reduces flood risk by slowing water flow, increasing water storage. From the restoration of wetlands, to planting trees and reconnecting rivers to their natural floodplains, these methods are increasingly promoted worldwide as cost-effective and climate-friendly ways to reduce flood risk while boosting biodiversity.

The research, in collaboration with the universities of Leicester and Loughborough, identified that when such projects are funded through competitive tenders, wealthier communities are more likely to benefit. The study is published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment.

The team analyzed two U.K. Government programs which allocated more than £40 million to flood management projects between 2017 and 2023. They discovered that successful funding was favored in wealthier areas, with applications and awarded projects disproportionately located in more affluent communities, leaving deprived areas underrepresented—despite often facing higher flood vulnerability.

At funding application stages, noted barriers were that areas with fewer community resources and technical expertise were less likely to apply successfully for funding.

The research has also identified a climate resilience gap; while NbS aim to deliver synergistic benefits such as improved well-being and greener local spaces, the current system risks reinforcing existing inequalities instead of reducing them.

Bart Hill, project lead at the University of Lincoln and graduate of the same university, explained: “This isn’t an argument against competitive tenders; it’s a call to modernize them. We need to balance cost-benefit with fairness, with equity considerations in the assessment process, funding to support grant applications and build capacity in deprived areas, and monitoring who benefits and where.

“By doing so, we can ensure nature-based solutions deliver protection where it’s needed most, not just where it’s easiest to implement.”

Tim Marjoribanks, Senior Lecturer in Water Engineering at Loughborough University, added, “It’s encouraging to see growing attention on nature-based solutions for tackling flooding. These approaches not only help reduce flood risk but can also bring wider benefits, such as boosting biodiversity.

“At the same time, the research highlights a need to ensure this shift to funding more natural flood management is implemented carefully to avoid unintended consequences.”

The study highlights an urgent need to rethink NbS funding mechanisms if they are to deliver on their promise of equitable climate adaptation and makes several recommendations for improvement. These include simplifying the application process to support under-resourced communities, stratifying funding assessments to ensure deprived and high-risk areas are not overlooked. In addition, the study suggests that embedding equity and inclusion into tender design—much like employment diversity standards—will better serve the needs of these rural areas.

With climate change predicted to increase the frequency and severity of flooding across the UK and globally, ensuring fair access to NbS funding is vital. The researchers warn that without revision, competitive tendering could lock in a cycle where only affluent regions benefit from nature-led flood defenses, continuing to leave vulnerable communities exposed.