Traditional ways of reducing flood risk have encountered limitations in a climate-changing and rapidly urbanizing world. For instance, there has been a demanding requirement for massive investment in order to maintain a consistent level of security as well as increased flood exposure of people and property due to a false sense of security arising from the flood protection infrastructure. Against this background, nature-based solutions (NBS) have gained popularity as a sustainable and alternative way of dealing with diverse societal challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss. In particular, their ability to reduce flood risks while also offering ecological benefits has recently received global attention. Diverse co-benefits of NBS that favor both humans and nature are viewed as promising a wide endorsement of NBS. However, people’s perceptions of NBS are not always positive. Local resistance to NBS projects as well as decision-makers’ and practitioners’ unwillingness to adopt NBS have been pointed out as a bottleneck to the successful realization and mainstreaming of NBS. In this regard, there has been a growing necessity to investigate people’s perceptions of NBS. Current research has lacked an integrative perspective of both attitudinal and contextual factors that guide perceptions of NBS; it not only lacks empirical evidence, but a few existing ones are rather conflicting without having underlying theories. This has led to the overarching research question of this dissertation, "What shapes people’s perceptions of NBS in the context of flooding?" The dissertation aims to answer the following sub-questions in the three papers that make up this dissertation: 1. What are the topics reflected in the previous literature influencing perceptions of NBS as a means to reduce hydro-meteorological risks? (Paper I) 2. What are the stimulating and hampering attitudinal and contextual factors for mainstreaming NBS for flood risk management? How are NBS conceptualized? (Paper II) 3. How are public attitudes toward the NBS projects shaped? How do risk-and place-related factors shape individual attitudes toward NBS? (Paper III) This dissertation follows an integrative approach of considering “place” and “risk”, as well as the surrounding context, by analyzing attitudinal (i.e., individual) and contextual (i.e., systemic) factors. “Place” is mainly concerned with affective elements (e.g., bond to locality and natural environment) whereas “risk” is related to cognitive elements (e.g., threat appraisal). The surrounding context provides systemic drivers and barriers with the possibility of interfering the influence of place and risk for perceptions of NBS. To empirically address the research questions, the current status of the knowledge about people’s perceptions of NBS for flood risks was investigated by conducting a systematic review (Paper I). Based on these insights, a case study of South Korea was used to demonstrate key contextual and attitudinal factors for mainstreaming NBS through the lens of experts (Paper II). Lastly, by conducting a citizen survey, it investigated the relationship between the previously discussed concepts in Papers I and II using structural equation modeling, focusing on the core concepts, namely risk and place (Paper III). As a result, Paper I identified the key topics relating to people’s perceptions, including the perceived value of co-benefits, perceived effectiveness of risk reduction effectiveness, participation of stakeholders, socio-economic and place-specific conditions, environmental attitude, and uncertainty of NBS. Paper II confirmed Paper I's findings regarding attitudinal factors. In addition, several contextual hampering or stimulating factors were found to be similar to those of any emerging technologies (i.e., path dependence, lack of operational and systemic capacity). Among all, one of the distinctive features in NBS contexts, at least in the South Korean case, is the politicization of NBS, which can lead to polarization of ideas and undermine the decision-making process. Finally, Paper III provides a framework with the core topics (i.e., place and risk) that were considered critical in Paper I and Paper II. This place-based risk appraisal model (PRAM) connects people at risk and places where hazards (i.e., floods) and interventions (i.e., NBS) take place. The empirical analysis shows that, among the place-related variables, nature bonding was a positive predictor of the perceived risk-reduction effectiveness of NBS, and place identity was a negative predictor of supportive attitude. Among the risk-related variables, threat appraisal had a negative effect on perceived risk reduction effectiveness and supportive attitude, while well-communicated information, trust in flood risk management, and perceived co-benefit were positive predictors. This dissertation proves that the place and risk attributes of NBS shape people’s perceptions of NBS. In order to optimize the NBS implementation, it is necessary to consider the meanings and values held in place before project implementation and how these attributes interact with individual and/or community risk profiles and other contextual factors. With the increasing necessity of using NBS to lower flood risks, these results make important suggestions for the future NBS project strategy and NBS governance.