@article{HanKuhlicke2019,
  author    = {Han, Sungju and Kuhlicke, Christian},
  title     = {Reducing Hydro-Meteorological Risk by Nature-Based Solutions: What Do We},
  series = {Water},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Water},
  number    = {12},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {2073-4441},
  doi       = {10.3390/w11122599},
  pages     = {23},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Nature-based solutions (NBS) have recently received attention due to their potential ability to sustainably reduce hydro-meteorological risks, providing co-benefits for both ecosystems and affected people. Therefore, pioneering research has dedicated efforts to optimize the design of NBS, to evaluate their wider co-benefits and to understand promoting and/or hampering governance conditions for the uptake of NBS. In this article, we aim to complement this research by conducting a comprehensive literature review of factors shaping people's perceptions of NBS as a means to reduce hydro-meteorological risks. Based on 102 studies, we identified six topics shaping the current discussion in this field of research: (1) valuation of the co-benefits (including those related to ecosystems and society); (2) evaluation of risk reduction efficacy; (3) stakeholder participation; (4) socio-economic and location-specific conditions; (5) environmental attitude, and (6) uncertainty. Our analysis reveals that concerned empirical insights are diverse and even contradictory, they vary in the depth of the insights generated and are often not comparable for a lack of a sound theoretical-methodological grounding. We, therefore, propose a conceptual model outlining avenues for future research by indicating potential inter-linkages between constructs underlying perceptions of NBS to hydro-meteorological risks.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{DirnitrovHoviSprinzetal.2019,
  author    = {Dirnitrov, Radoslav and Hovi, Jon and Sprinz, Detlef F. and Saelen, H{\aa}kon and Underdal, Arild},
  title     = {Institutional and environmental effectiveness},
  series = {Wiley interdisciplinary reviews : Climate change},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Wiley interdisciplinary reviews : Climate change},
  number    = {4},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1757-7780},
  doi       = {10.1002/wcc.583},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {The 2015 Paris Agreement (PA) has been widely hailed as a diplomatic triumph and a breakthrough in global climate cooperation. However, it is commonly accepted that the PA's collective goal—keeping global warming "well below" 2°C above preindustrial levels—remains ambitious. Making matters even more challenging, in 2017, global CO2 emissions resumed growth after 3 years of near standstill. In 2018, this growth accelerated. It is therefore extremely important that the PA's institutional architecture meet expectations concerning its ability to induce member countries to promise and deliver emissions reductions. This study offers a review of the rapidly growing literature on the PA, to assess its strengths and weaknesses, its significance, and its prospects. We focus on evaluations of its institutional structure and its ability to induce member countries to implement policies. We frame the issues as a trilemma: the challenge of simultaneously satisfying all three main conditions for effectiveness—broad participation, deep commitments, and satisfactory compliance rates. Based on our review, we conclude that the key challenge for the PA will likely be to facilitate sufficiently fast ratcheting-up of nationally determined contributions, while keeping compliance rates high.},
  language  = {en}
}