@article{ART003248174},
author={Hyeongsu Koo and Jisoo Sim},
title={Assessing Social Acceptability of Nature-based Solutions: A Spatial Constructionist Approach to Flood Risk Perception},
journal={The Korea Spatial Planning Review},
issn={1229-8638},
year={2025},
volume={126},
pages={185-211},
doi={10.15793/kspr.2025.126..010}
TY - JOUR
AU - Hyeongsu Koo
AU - Jisoo Sim
TI - Assessing Social Acceptability of Nature-based Solutions: A Spatial Constructionist Approach to Flood Risk Perception
JO - The Korea Spatial Planning Review
PY - 2025
VL - 126
IS - null
PB - 국토연구원
SP - 185
EP - 211
SN - 1229-8638
AB - As the limitations of structural flood‑control measures have become evident, nature‑based solutions (NbS) have emerged as a promising alternative. Despite their benefits, substantial obstacles remain to scaling up NbS in practice, foremost among them the need to alleviate residents’ concerns about unfamiliar interventions. In this study, we measured flood risk perceptions among residents of Gurye‑gun and applied the ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) concept from quantitative risk assessment to define stages of acceptability. Based on these results, we derived spatial acceptability thresholds for flood risk and analyzed how social acceptability changes when NbS are installed. The findings indicate that perceived flood risk is spatially non‑random, tending to be higher in areas that have experienced inundation or lie adjacent to rivers. Nevertheless, some localities displayed the opposite pattern, confirming the existence of gaps between objective hazard and subjective perception. We further show that strategically installing NbS to reduce inundation in areas where risk perceptions are spatially fixed can substantially enhance social acceptability. This suggests that, rather than relying solely on ex post remedial measures, planners can identify more socially acceptable configurations from the outset by conducting simulation experiments during the early co‑design phase.
KW - Nature-based Solutions;Social Acceptability;Flood Risk Perception;Spatial Constructionist Approach
DO - 10.15793/kspr.2025.126..010
ER -
Hyeongsu Koo and Jisoo Sim. (2025). Assessing Social Acceptability of Nature-based Solutions: A Spatial Constructionist Approach to Flood Risk Perception. The Korea Spatial Planning Review, 126, 185-211.
Hyeongsu Koo and Jisoo Sim. 2025, "Assessing Social Acceptability of Nature-based Solutions: A Spatial Constructionist Approach to Flood Risk Perception", The Korea Spatial Planning Review, vol.126, pp.185-211. Available from: doi:10.15793/kspr.2025.126..010
Hyeongsu Koo, Jisoo Sim "Assessing Social Acceptability of Nature-based Solutions: A Spatial Constructionist Approach to Flood Risk Perception" The Korea Spatial Planning Review 126 pp.185-211 (2025) : 185.
Hyeongsu Koo, Jisoo Sim. Assessing Social Acceptability of Nature-based Solutions: A Spatial Constructionist Approach to Flood Risk Perception. 2025; 126 185-211. Available from: doi:10.15793/kspr.2025.126..010
Hyeongsu Koo and Jisoo Sim. "Assessing Social Acceptability of Nature-based Solutions: A Spatial Constructionist Approach to Flood Risk Perception" The Korea Spatial Planning Review 126(2025) : 185-211.doi: 10.15793/kspr.2025.126..010
Hyeongsu Koo; Jisoo Sim. Assessing Social Acceptability of Nature-based Solutions: A Spatial Constructionist Approach to Flood Risk Perception. The Korea Spatial Planning Review, 126, 185-211. doi: 10.15793/kspr.2025.126..010
Hyeongsu Koo; Jisoo Sim. Assessing Social Acceptability of Nature-based Solutions: A Spatial Constructionist Approach to Flood Risk Perception. The Korea Spatial Planning Review. 2025; 126 185-211. doi: 10.15793/kspr.2025.126..010
Hyeongsu Koo, Jisoo Sim. Assessing Social Acceptability of Nature-based Solutions: A Spatial Constructionist Approach to Flood Risk Perception. 2025; 126 185-211. Available from: doi:10.15793/kspr.2025.126..010
Hyeongsu Koo and Jisoo Sim. "Assessing Social Acceptability of Nature-based Solutions: A Spatial Constructionist Approach to Flood Risk Perception" The Korea Spatial Planning Review 126(2025) : 185-211.doi: 10.15793/kspr.2025.126..010