IN-PERSON Manchester Livable Cities

Abstract

Flood resilience solutions are usually classified into Engineering Solutions (ES), Nature-based Solutions (NbS), and Hybrid Solutions (HS), each offering distinct approaches to flood management. While ES emphasize control through standardized, hard-engineered infrastructure, and NbS promote adaptive, ecosystem-based strategies, growing environmental uncertainty and urban complexity have exposed the limitations of relying on any single approach. Hybrid Solutions attempt to bridge this gap, yet their evaluation often remains fragmented and lacks a unifying analytical perspective. This study introduces a novel evaluation framework that shifts the focus from solution typology toward the level of spatial and functional integration within the urban fabric. A key methodological contribution is the application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to systematically assess and weight these criteria, enabling a structured, expert-based evaluation of integration levels. Through pairwise comparisons, AHP supports the prioritization of criteria and quantifies the relative performance of ES, NbS, and HS within a unified analytical structure. The framework defines three integration levels—low, medium, and high—capturing how flood resilience measures interact with urban systems, landscapes, and socio-ecological processes. Rather than assessing solutions solely by technical performance, the proposed model incorporates multiple criteria, including hydrological function, intended purpose (e.g., defence, impact reduction, or water utilization), ecological contribution, and adaptability to flood dynamics. By operationalizing urban integration as a measurable criterion, the proposed framework offers a robust decision-support tool for planners and policymakers, facilitating the transition toward more adaptive, multifunctional, and resilient urban flood management strategies.