Distribution of Nature-Based Solutions in Dutch Cities: Is it Strategic and Fair? A spatial and equity analysis of urban climate adaptation practices in the Netherlands

Abstract

Cities worldwide face increasing risks from urban flooding and heat stress. In response, Dutch municipalities are implementing Nature-Based Solutions (NBS). However, deployment has often been opportunistic and socially uneven, potentially neglecting the most vulnerable areas. This research quantitatively assesses whether the distribution of NBS in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Utrecht is both strategic and equitable.

The study utilizes a neighborhood-level analysis, integrating geospatial data from ClimateScan.nl, climate risk maps from the Klimaateffectatlas, and socio-economic statistics from CBS. To move beyond simple area measurements, I developed Weighted NBS Scores that account for the functional effectiveness of different NBS types in mitigating specific heat and flood risks. Using Multiple Linear and Quantile Regression in R, I examined how provision aligns with neighborhood-level climate vulnerability and SES.

The results reveal strong spatial inequality and a pronounced Matthew Effect, with NBS expansion concentrated in already well-served neighborhoods and under-served areas facing a clear barrier to entry. Although climate vulnerability consistently influences where NBS are placed, a significant per-capita privilege remains, as residents in high-SES neighborhoods receive a substantially higher amount of NBS per person. Moreover, strategic alignment varies by function. Heat-mitigating NBS shows stronger alignment with climate risk, whereas flood-mitigating NBS are more constrained by technical and spatial limitations. Comparing the three cities, Amsterdam exhibits the most balanced distribution, while Rotterdam shows the highest level of unmet need. To guide future action, I developed a composite Priority Index and spatial equity maps that highlight ‘no-regret’ investment zones where climate risk, social need, and NBS deficiency most urgently overlap. These findings provide an evidence-based tool for urban planners to shift from ‘general climate resilience policy’ toward integrated, inclusive, and resilient climate adaptation strategies.