Nature-Based Solutions 1 (2021) 100002

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nature-Based Solutions
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nbsj

Is-it worth investing in NBS aiming at reducing water risks? Insights from
the economic assessment of three European case studies
Philippe Le Coent a,∗, Nina Graveline b, Monica A. Altamirano c, Nabila Arfaoui d,
Camilo Benitez-Avila c, Thomas Biffin e, Javier Calatrava f, Kieran Dartee e, Ali Douai g,
Amandine Gnonlonfin h, Cécile Hérivaux i, Roxane Marchal j, David Moncoulon j,
Guillaume Piton k
a G-EAU, BRGM, University Montpellier, Montpellier, France
b Innovation - University of Montpellier - INRA, CIRAD, Montpellier SupAgro, Montpellier, France
c
DELTARES, Delft, The Netherlands
d
Catholic Univ. of Lyon, ESDES, Lyon, France
e
Field Factors - 3016CH Delft, The Netherlands
f
Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, Cartagena, Spain
g
Groupe de recherche en droit, économie et gestion (GREDEG), Université Côte d’Azur, CNRS, Sophia Antipolis, France
h
IMREDD, Université Côte d’Azur, Nice, France
i
G-EAU, BRGM, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France
j
Caisse Centrale de Réassurance, Paris, France
k
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, INRAE, ETNA, Grenoble, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Economic narratives are largely put forward as an argument for the promotion of Nature Based Solutions (NBS).
Nature based solutions However, integrated economic evidence, taking into account direct and opportunity costs, avoided damages and
Ecosystem Services the multiplicity of co-benefits generated by NBS are still needed to support this argument and convince decision
Cost-Benefit Analysis
makers to invest in these solutions. To address this gap, we develop a methodological framework for the economic
Flood Damages
assessment of NBS for water related risks and present its application to three European case studies. We find that
the cost of implementation and maintenance is lower for NBS strategies than for grey solutions for the same
level of risk reduction, thereby confirming the cost-effectiveness advantage of these solutions. Benefits in terms
of avoided damages are however generally not sufficient to cover these costs. Co-benefits represent the major
share of the monetary value generated by NBS strategies. Finally, the results of the cost-benefit analysis reveal
context-specific results on the overall economic efficiency of NBS. These results urge decision makers to tailor
funding strategies to the specificity of NBS economic value.

Introduction effects through the modification of ecosystems [54], the limited capac-
ity of sewer systems to manage urban flooding with negative effects on
In Europe, climate change is expected to increase the frequency of water quality and the transfer of flood management risk downstream
extreme weather events. The IPCC indeed predicts that annual damages [30,60] and the tremendous investment and maintenance costs they
due to climate risk will rise by 77% in 2030 (IPCC 2014). Water re- generate [58].
lated risks will be particularly affected with an increased occurrence of There is a growing recognition and awareness that nature can help
droughts and floods. For example, the number of centennial floods is provide protection to humans through risk reduction properties of
expected to double in the next three decades [3]. Engineered solutions ecosystems [5,14,32]. The EU Floods Directive of 2008 already opened
or so-called grey infrastructure (e.g. floodwall) have been historically the way for more integrated flood management and a plurality of
largely used to manage flood risks. The reliance on these solutions has measures including the resort to Nature-Based-Solutions (NBS). River
nevertheless showed limits: limited adaptability in front of the expected restoration, the restoration of wetlands and flood plains in rural con-
modification of risks due to climate change [41], adverse environmental text and a number of green infrastructure in urban contexts such as

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Le Coent).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2021.100002
Received 30 June 2021; Received in revised form 30 July 2021; Accepted 30 July 2021
Available online 25 August 2021
2772-4115/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
P. Le Coent, N. Graveline, M.A. Altamirano et al. Nature-Based Solutions 1 (2021) 100002

bioswales, green roofs, and vegetated open retention basins are increas- carry out a thorough evaluation of the impact of NBS on the reduction
ingly considered as alternative or complementary solutions, to manage of risks, based on physical modelling mainly focusing on the impact on
flood risks. Besides their impact on water risks, ecosystems generate a hazard [16,36,38,56] and in some cases on the reduction of damages
wide diversity of ecosystem services essential to human life, understood they generate [57]. Other authors rather focus on the advanced val-
as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems [35]. Recently in urban uation methods of ecosystem services generated by different types of
contexts, the need for services provided by ecosystems, has been increas- NBS or of combinations of NBS: river restoration (Arfaoui and Gnonlon-
ingly highlighted [51]. For example, urban trees included in many NBS fin, [4] for a meta-analysis), urban parks (e.g [2]), Sustainable Urban
for water risks have been estimated to have an impact on carbon stor- Drainage Systems [30], green roofs [6,46], façade greening [50] and a
age and sequestration. An estimated 2,367,000 tonnes (approximately meta analysis of stated preference valuation of blue and green Nature in
15t/ha) of carbon is stored in London’s trees [52]. Zinzi and Agnoli cities [8]. Studies that combine both type of assessments generally have
[61] estimate a 10-14% energy saving for buildings with green roofs in a simplified approach of risk reduction or ecosystem services, using only
Barcelona due to reduced heating in winter and cooling effect in sum- value transfer methods.
mer. Aevermann and Schmude [2] provide a review of amounts for air This study therefore brings a novel contribution in the sense that it
pollution removal associated with urban green ranging from 1.97 to 3.80 provides a methodological framework for an advanced assessment of
g/m2 /yr of O3. Other examples of ecosystem services generated by NBS both NBS benefits on the reduction of water-related risk and for their
include twater cycle regulation, the creation of new habitats for bio- co-benefits. The evaluation of the reduction of water risk is based on
diversity and recreational services [26]. The need for these services is physical models of the impact of NBS on the reduction of flood haz-
expected to become even stronger in the context of climate change, with ard and on the use of sophisticated damage valuation methods (in two
for example the expected increase in occurrence of heat waves [28,37]. case studies out of 3). This evaluation is combined with thorough as-
However, the production of these services is increasingly threatened due sessment of co-benefits that does not only rely on value transfer but
to the degradation of ecosystems resulting from urban sprawl, pollution rather on stated preferences or direct valuation methods (see the meth-
and climate change. ods section for details). Finally, the paper presents the application of this
The terminology used to denominate these solutions is diverse: common methodological framework to different scales in three sites in
ecosystems based adaptation, green infrastructure, ecosystem based disaster two European countries: from the city neighbourhood (Dutch case), to
risk reduction, natural water retention measures [32] and sustainable ur- the river catchment level mixing urban, peri-urban and rural contexts
ban drainage systems (SUDs) [19]. More recently, the concept of Nature (two French cases).
Based Solutions (NBS) has gained momentum. NBS can be considered as The paper describes in section 2 the economic assessment framework
an umbrella term for these approaches that is defined by the EC1 as “so- and its application to the case studies. Section 3 presents the main results
lutions to societal challenges that are inspired and supported by nature, that can be drawn from the economic assessment carried out in the three
which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social case studies. In section 4, we discuss the results and conclude.
and economic benefits and help build resilience”.
Interestingly, the economic advantage of NBS is generally assumed,
as in the EC definition, with limited evidence to support this “fact”. The Economic assessment methodology of NBS aiming at reducing
economic assessment of NBS is however a key step in the evaluation water risks
of NBS. Indeed, assessing the value of costs and benefits of NBS and
being able to compare them to alternative strategies such as business General methodology of the economic assessment
as usual grey solutions is fundamental for decision makers to develop
these solutions and eventually turn them into implementable projects. The aim of the economic assessment methodology is to assess the
The limited adoption of NBS aiming at reducing water risks may actually relative economic value of alternative strategies, through a Cost benefit
be attributed to uncertainties regarding their economic performance, as Analysis (CBA). The relative economic value provides an evaluation of
in the case of SUDs [47,53]. Some evidence mainly focused on SUDs ac- the economic efficiency of a programme. CBA was initially developed to
tually show that risk reduction benefits may often not exceed the costs support policy development and justify environmental regulations in the
they generate [30,33,34,47]. But one particularity of NBS is their capac- US [48]. The method aims at ascertaining that benefits (gains in human
ity to generate a multiplicity of co-benefits [51], such as biodiversity well-being) exceed costs (losses in human well-being) before implement-
conservation, water availability and quality, air pollution, the regula- ing projects or programmes and if investable funds are limited, which
tion of air temperature. Economic assessment frameworks that accounts one of these projects or programmes should be selected [42,48]. The
for the multifunctional impacts of NBS are thus required. The aim of monetary value of these benefits and costs, revealed through choices in
this paper is to develop this framework for the economic assessment of markets, is expected to reflect human preferences [49]. Its application
NBS including specific methodologies to assess costs and benefits. We to environmental economics has raised the need to assign a monetary
then apply our methodology to three case studies of the H2020 “NAture value to environmental externalities, with methods mentioned in section
Insurance value: Assessment and Demonstration” (NAIAD) project, two 2.6.
in France and one in the Netherlands, in order to bring new evidence In our context, the CBA aims to compare alternatives to manage wa-
on the economic efficiency of NBS projects. ter risks. Depending on the case study, one or several alternatives are
The cost-benefit balance of NBS for water-related risks requires the compared which incorporate different levels of NBS and traditional grey
comparison between the cost of implementing and maintaining these infrastructure. NBS strategies are here the alternative projects we evalu-
solutions, and their opportunity costs, with the multiple benefits they ate that may incorporate a combination of NBS and grey infrastructure.
generate: i) the cost of damages they prevent due to the reduction of The CBA performed compares strategies without NBS (considered as the
water risks and ii) the co-benefits they provide. The evaluation of ben- Business as Usual (BAU) strategy) with one or several strategies includ-
efits of these NBS therefore calls for the combination of state of the ing NBS measures.
art methods for the estimation of flood damages prevented by NBS so- The CBA requires the estimation of all direct and indirect costs and
lutions with methods for the estimation of the monetary value of the benefits for the different NBS strategies under study in monetary value.
diversity of co-benefits they generate. In the scientific literature, previ- The following typology of monetary values associated with NBS strategy
ous studies tend to focus on either one benefit or the other. Some papers are considered:

• Cost of implementation are those that are necessary for the imple-
1
https://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/index.cfm?pg=nbs. mentation and maintenance of the NBS included in the NBS strategy;

2
P. Le Coent, N. Graveline, M.A. Altamirano et al. Nature-Based Solutions 1 (2021) 100002

Fig. 1. description of the cost-benefit analysis

approach for the economic valuation of NBS
within NAIAD (modified from Graveline et al
[22]).

• Opportunity costs are those that are foregone with the NBS strategy, horizon of the assessment.
for instance areas that are taken out of production, or land that is ∑𝑇 [ 𝐴𝐷𝑡 + 𝐶 𝐵𝑡 ]
used for NBS and that cannot be used for other purposes such as 𝑡=0 (1+𝑟)𝑡
𝐵𝐶𝑅 = ∑ [ ]
the construction of building. They are the indirect costs of the NBS 𝑇 𝐶𝑡 + 𝑂 𝐶𝑡
𝑡=0 (1+𝑟)𝑡
strategy.
• Avoided Damage Costs are the damages avoided due to the reduc- A BCR superior to 1 means that a project is economically efficient,
tion of water risks2 generated by NBS strategies. Avoided costs are i.e. that it improves the economic welfare and that it should be eligible
the primary benefit generated by NBS strategies aiming at reducing for investment by public funds. Decision makers may want to invest in
water risks. the alternative that present the highest BCR among different courses of
• Co-benefits are the additional environmental, economic, and social action.
benefits generated by NBS. In the CBA, we will focus on the ones In this study, we also look at partial CBA indicators in which we
that can be evaluated monetarily although they cover only part of focus on the primary benefit and consider only the direct cost of imple-
the co-benefits generated by NBS strategies or only a portion of their mentation. Although partial in economic terms, this indicator provides
overall value. indicators that may be contemplated by decision makers specifically in-
terested in the risk reduction challenge.
The methods used to estimate the monetary value of these different ∑ [ 𝑇
]
𝐴𝐷𝑡
costs and benefits are described in details in section 2.4 to 2.6. In Fig. 1, 𝑡=0 (1+𝑟)𝑡
Avoided damage∕Cost (rate) = ∑ [ ]
we present a schematic representation of the CBA method applied to the 𝑇 𝐶𝑡
evaluation of NBS aiming at reducing water risks. 𝑡=0 (1+𝑟)𝑡

Several indicators can be calculated to carry out a CBA. In this study, Finally, we also report on a cost effectiveness indicator, which in-
we mainly report on the Benefit Cost Ratio that is estimated with the dicates the cost incurred to achieve an output, expressed by a physical
following formula, where 𝐶 𝐵𝑡 is the Co-benefits in year t, 𝐴𝐷𝑡 is the indicator. This physical indicator is a proxy of the effectiveness of the
Avoided Damage in year t, 𝑟3 is the discounting factor, 𝐶𝑡 and 𝑂𝐶𝑡 are measure such as m3 of water retention for flood management. This in-
Implementations Costs and Opportunity Costs in year t and T is the time dicator is compiled only for individual NBS measures and not for NBS
strategies.
∑𝑇 [ 𝐶𝑡 ]
2
In this paper, the NBS considered are designed to reduce damages arising 𝑡=0 (1+𝑟)𝑡
from pluvial and fluvial flooding (see section 2.3 for case study description). The Cost ef fectiveness =
𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑓 𝑓 𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠
general approach could nevertheless apply also to reduce other types of water
risks such as coastal flooding or drought. The stepwise approach
3
Discounting arises because of the underlying value judgement in CBA taken
from welfare economics, that individuals give a higher value to a present benefit
A stepwise approach was used for the economic assessment of NBS
or cost than to a future one. The discounting factor is thus determined by the
rate at which individuals express. this “time preference” (Pearce et al., 2006b). in this project. This approach could be replicated in other contexts.
The European Commission recommends a discount factor ranging from 3 to 5% 1. Set scale and time horizon. The time horizon at which the strategies
(European Commission, 2014) whereas the French Quinet report recommend
are evaluated defines the number of years for which the benefits
a value of 2.5% (CGSP, 2013). In practice, the discounting factor varies in the
different case studies (2.5% to 3%) considering the value prevailing in the eval-
uation of investment projects at the country level. The value of the discounting ity, since long term benefits will be discounted strongly especially when high
factor may affect negatively the benefits associated with long-term sustainabil- discount factor are used.

3
P. Le Coent, N. Graveline, M.A. Altamirano et al. Nature-Based Solutions 1 (2021) 100002

and costs are taken into account in the economic analysis. This time and restoring 13 ha of riparian forest and 11 ha of wetlands. It would
horizon varies depending on the type of investment and is usually also require buying and demolishing 50 to 70 houses.
set at the expected lifetime of the considered investment. The Rotterdam case study focuses on Spangen, a low-lying neigh-
2. Define and describe strategies. This step is crucial for the analysis. bourhood in the West of the city, spanning roughly 65 ha with around
The identification of NBS strategies is undertaken using a participa- 10,000 inhabitants. With the low elevation and shortage of pervious
tory process involving stakeholders of the territory. NBS strategies surface area due to intense urbanisation, the neighbourhood has been
are identified as a response to the main territorial challenges in terms suffering frequent pluvial flooding during heavy rain events. To add re-
of water risks and other territorial issues that may be addressed by tention capacity to the area for dealing with these rain events, and to
NBS. sustain a reliable supply of fresh water in times of droughts, a so-called
3. Impact assessment. The impacts of NBS strategies must be estab- Urban Waterbuffer (UWB) was realised on the square next to the Sparta
lished against a reference scenario in order subsequently assess the Stadium in 2018. As the Rotterdam case study is interlinked with this
economic value of these impacts. This requires first that NBS strate- implemented piece of hybrid infrastructure, it provides important in-
gies be translated into usable inputs for modelling. Either this can sights that may not have been gleaned from modelling and forecasting
be done through a simple quantification of some physical variables alone. The Rotterdam case study also constitutes a comparison of three
that characterize strategies (such as the number of trees planted in (green – grey – hybrid) neighbourhood wide strategies to address the
the different NBS strategies) or by developing maps that locate the economic impact of NBS approaches for the area.
different NBS and associated variables (land use change, retention
volume). This quantification of NBS strategies is then used to esti-
mate their impact using a diversity of models. Given the focus of this Assessment of implementation and opportunity costs
study on water risks, detailed hydrologic and hydraulic models are
developed to estimate the impact of NBS strategies on flood dam- The evaluation of implementation costs was estimated following the
age. Other simplified models have been mobilized to estimate the Life cycle costs (LCC) principles, also named Total Cost of Ownership
physical impact of NBS on co-benefits. (TCO). It considers the total cost of acquisition, use/administration,
4. Assessment of costs and benefits: The details of the economic assess- maintenance and disposal of a given item/service [17]. The accurate
ment methods are presented in section 2.4 to 2.6. identification of LCC provides the information to assess the magnitude
5. Cost Benefit Analysis: Finalization of the CBA by compiling the ben- of investments for maintaining socio-technical system functionality over
efits and costs defined above. time. This methodology focuses on identifying the generating activities
and cost determining factors to maintain the main functionality of NBS:
Description of the case studies avoiding water-related risks. Cost generating activities can be grouped
into six LCC components namely: 1) capital expenditures, 2) operating
This paper reports on the economic assessment of NBS in three case and minor maintenance expenditures, 3) capital maintenance, 4) expen-
studies: the Brague and the Lez case in southern France and the Rotter- diture on direct support, 5) expenditure on indirect support and 6) cost
dam case in the Netherlands. The results presented here are based on of capital.
original data collected during the H2020 Naiad Project by the authors In the Rotterdam case study, the full LCC method was mobilized to
of this article. The paper presents a cross-caste studies analysis of the directly estimate cost figures for costs related to measures and activi-
results presented in project deliverable 6.3 of the H2020 NAIAD Project ties related to the realized UWB, as data could be collected in the pilot
[11–13,21]. A diversity of contexts in terms of water risk, scale and ur- project. For the other NBS included in Rotterdam and in the Lez and
ban/rural setting were selected in order to increase the robustness of the Brague case studies, cost were estimated based on reference values from
economic results: a neighbourhood scale with pluvial flooding issues in the scientific literature, national databases of market prices and expert
urban context (Rotterdam), a watershed scale with pluvial flooding is- opinions. Cost per units of surface (or volume) of individual NBS mea-
sues in an urban context (Lez Catchment) and a watershed scale with a sures, composing NBS strategies were first evaluated, then these costs
river flooding issue in an urban-rural context (Brague River catchment). were extrapolated at the NBS strategy levels, to estimate the overall cost
The Lez catchment in France (746 km2 ) is characterized by a rapid associated with NBS strategies. The estimation of costs based on value
urbanization around the city of Montpellier and pluvial flooding risks transfer presents large range of uncertainty, which is reported.
(78% of damages in the last major event of 2014 [11]. The catchment The opportunity costs are those costs associated with the foregone
also faces typical challenges of large Mediterranean cities: heat island alternative, which can be measured by the net foregone benefit (because
effects, air pollution, water scarcity and biodiversity loss mainly due to the resources that provide the services cannot be used in their next ben-
urban sprawl. Two NBS strategies based on two levels of development eficial use, [55]). NBS implementation because of its relatively large
of green infrastructures in cities were designed to address these issues spatial footprint usually requires large-scale land use changes from pro-
based on a stakeholder consultation process: i) “NBS 1” includes small ductive uses to other uses. When NBS are implemented on private land,
bioswales, city deproofing and permeable pavement, and ii) “NBS 2” the cost can be integrated in the capital expenditure related to land pur-
includes NBS1 measures plus green roofs, open retention basins, larger chase, but when NBS are mainly implemented on public owned land, op-
vegetated bioswales. The paper presents the results of the economic as- portunity cost should be considered [18]4 . However, in urban cases NBS
sessment of these strategies compared to a business as usual strategies are implemented on marginal spaces, such as on a share of the sidewalk
with no intervention. or even on concrete spaces, without specific use or value (roundabouts,
The Brague River catchment in France (68 km2 ) meets the Mediter- forecourts, plaza etc.). Sometimes the use value will not be altered (e.g.
ranean Sea in the city of Antibes. The catchment mid part is hilly and greening parking spaces) so there are no opportunity costs. Sometimes
forested while the upper part is a plateau with a suburban land use. the question of whether a change of land use generates an opportunity
The flat floodplain of the lowlands experiences high flood risks, e.g.,
in Oct. 2015, an extreme flash flood caused 4 casualties and triggered 4
“Many public investment projects use land as a capital asset, which may be state-
dozens M€ of damages. The grey strategy initially proposed was to build
owned or purchased from the general government budget. Whenever there are alterna-
large flood retention dams. The NBS strategy under study relies on small tive options for its use, land should be valued at its opportunity cost […]. This must be
natural retention measures spread in the catchment over 200 ha, along done even if land is already owned by the public sector. Ifit is reasonable to assume
with an ambitious river corridor restoration to give room to the river in that market price captures considerations about land’s utility, desirability and
the lowlands. It consists in building five light structures aiming to trap scarcity, then it can generally be considered reflective of the economic value of
woody debris, widening the channel by 50–100%, modifying 3 bridges land.”

4
P. Le Coent, N. Graveline, M.A. Altamirano et al. Nature-Based Solutions 1 (2021) 100002

Overall the total damage computed for one event is:

𝑁𝐸
∑ ( )
𝐷𝐸 = 𝑉𝑖 (𝐻𝐸 𝑋𝑖 , 𝑌𝑖 )
𝑖=1

Where DE is the damage of event E, 𝑁𝐸 is the number of assets at risk

for event E, i is the index of each asset, Xi Yi are the coordinate of asset i,
HE is the hazard intensity for event E and 𝑉𝑖 is the vulnerability of asset
i which is usually computed using a damage curve, i.e., a curve relating
the vulnerability to the hazard intensity𝐻𝐸 . This approach was followed
in the Lez and Brague cases, while a simplified approach was used in
the Rotterdam case to better suit the small scale of the focus area. The
strategies in the Rotterdam case were designed to all provide a similar
level of flood risk reduction to assess which is the most favourable choice
in terms of associated costs and co-benefits provided, when comparing a
grey, a hybrid and a green strategy for mitigating a T10-rain event (52,9
Fig. 2. The principle for assessing avoided damage costs. mm of rain over 12 h) in Spangen. An estimation of the magnitude of
avoided damages was derived from another recent study on climate risk
mitigation in the neighbourhood of Spangen [1].
cost is subject to interpretation when public road or parking space is The characterisation of the flood hazard event (𝐻𝐸 ) in the different
concerned. case studies has been done by using or adapting hazard models. In the
In the Lez and Rotterdam case, we applied a conservative approach, Lez a 25 m-resolution runoff model developed at the French scale by
which is to consider land market prices as a proxy of opportunity costs, the CCR [43] has been adapted to integrate the local information about
although alternative possible use of this land is uncertain. We therefore land use and slopes taking into account water heights on each mesh.
estimate an upper bound of opportunity costs. In Brague, NBS strate- This method sprawls water along short watercourses, instead of being
gies involve privately owned land use change. In this case, following blocked in the banks and is possible in terms of calculation duration. It
recommendations from the water agency5 , land acquisition costs were was calibrated on the Oct. 2014 event. In the Brague, a 2D model com-
included in investments costs while additional opportunity costs were puted on a 2 m mesh represented the flooding in the whole floodplain
estimated based on profits private landowners could have obtained from [7]. The model was built using topographical data and land use maps. It
the use of this land (estimated by revenues they could have perceived includes bridges and culverts. It was calibrated on the Oct. 2015 event
over this land). and validated on the Nov. 2011 event

Estimating the impact of NBS on hazards

Assessment of avoided damages
This step involves modelling how NBS strategies would change the
intensity and location of the hazard (hazard unit). For the Lez case,
Overall approach to the assessment of avoided damages
the hydraulic model used could not directly model the impact of NBS
The overall approach to the estimation of the avoided damage asso-
on flood hazards because of model limitations: too large resolution of
ciated with NBS strategies comprises two main steps: 1) estimation of
the model and underlying equations (description of flow not integrat-
the relation between water related hazards and damages (catastrophe
ing small-scale obstacles). An inverse approach was thus undertaken to
risk models (CAT) model) and 2) estimation of the impact of NBS strate-
approach the avoided damages related to NBS. Various values of runoff
gies on the modification of hazard (droughts or floods) through phys-
reduction (in %) were forced in the model and their effects in terms of
ical models5 . The combination of these two steps leads to the estima-
damage reduction was computed. A relationship between the reduction
tion of damages under different NBS strategies and without these (BAU)
of runoff and the reduction of damage was therefore estimated. The re-
(Fig. 2). The difference between damages in the BAU and NBS strate-
duction of runoff (in %) resulting from NBS strategies was estimated
gies provides an estimation of the avoided damage, which is expressed
simply by considering it equal to the % of rainfall stored in NBS (due to
in Mean Annual (Avoided) Damage (MA (A) D) and can be integrated
water retention capacity). Both, these estimations provided the building
in the overall economic evaluation. The general approach was adapted
block to assess avoided damages due to NBS.
to each case study according to specificities and data availability.
In the Brague case, the NBS strategy was directly included in the
model by modifying bridge geometries, widening the river channel,
Estimating the relation between hazard and damage costs: the CAT model lowering ground level on wetlands, changing the roughness coefficients
framework where land use changed and removing effects of woody debris
The CAT model aims to establish the costs of an event based on its
magnitude, its spatial distribution (event intensity), and the vulnerabil- Assessing avoided damages
ity of the elements at risk [44]. This involves the following steps [20,39]: The Mean Annual Avoided Damages (MA(A)D) is evaluated by esti-
mating the reduction of damages obtained with NBS strategies for differ-
• Mapping of event’s hazard intensity.
ent return period and by summing the product of the avoided damages
• Assessment of the exposure of the assets/elements at risk.
multiplied by the probability of occurrence of each rainfall event.
• Definition of damage functions/models.
In the Lez and Brague case studies, the calibrated damage curves on
• Calculation of the value of the damage cost.
residential houses has been used to simulate the effect of runoff reduc-
tion (Lez) and flow depth reduction (Brague) on damage. Damage was
Consequently, the structure of CAT models relies on three units: haz-
computed for several return periods (10, 20, 50 and 100 years in the Lez,
ard, vulnerability and damage (Fig. 3).
20, 100 and 500 years in the Brague) and then averaged. Differences be-
tween BAU and strategies enabled to compute the avoided damages. In
5
AERMC (2011). Elaboration d’un outil de détermination des coûts de restaura- the Lez case, an increase of 28% was subsequently applied as compared
tion hydromorphologique des cours d’eau du bassin versant local et des bassins RMC. to residential damages to account for total direct damages (This ratio
Agence De l’Eau Rhone Mediterranee Et Corse. was estimated for the 2014 events).

5
P. Le Coent, N. Graveline, M.A. Altamirano et al. Nature-Based Solutions 1 (2021) 100002

Fig. 3. Structure of any CAT models (adapted

from [20,39]).

Fig. 4. Stepwise approach for ES valuation

when direct valuation approaches are used
[25].

Co-benefits assessment physical indicators (e.g., annual carbon sequestration expressed in t-

eqCO2/year; water availability expressed in m3/year) derived from
The co-benefits assessment was carried out with a two-stage ap- models, functions or reference values obtained in similar contexts;
proach with (1) the identification of co-benefits and (2) the monetary • Step 2: the monetary valuation of the change in the ecosystem ser-
valuation of those co-benefits. As recommended by Nesshöver et al. vice level derived from market prices (when market exists), replace-
[45], a strong involvement of local stakeholders was organised through- ment costs (costs required to provide a similar ecosystem service
out the process in order to integrate their perceptions and knowledge. with a human engineered solution) or avoidance costs (costs that
would occur if the ecosystem service were lost).
Identification of co-benefits
These approaches provide biophysical and monetary indicators for
In the three case studies, the identification of co-benefits relied on the
each ecosystem service. However, they do not reflect the total economic
organisation of focus groups in which potential benefits of NBS strate-
value of these ecosystem services, as they only capture direct use values.
gies were discussed with local stakeholders. Three existing co-benefits
Results should thus be considered as lower bound estimates.
classifications and frameworks were used as a basis for discussion: (i) the
Stated preference approaches, namely the Contingent Valuation
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [40], (ii) the common international
Method and the Discrete Choice Experiment [31], were used in the
classification of ecosystem services (CICES) [23], (iv) the Intergovern-
Brague and the Lez case respectively. These approaches rely on rep-
mental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
resentative surveys of the population to estimate people’s willingness
(IPBES) framework [15] for the identification ecosystem services. The
to pay for a hypothetical modification of the environment (400 respon-
EKLIPSE framework was used [51] for the identification of challenges
dents in the Lez and 405 in the Brague), here the implementation of
in urban contexts.
NBS strategies. In both cases, the survey aims at evaluating residents’
These frameworks were finally combined in order to embrace a wide
Willingness to pay for different NBS strategies. They allow the estima-
range of potential co-benefits and specific local issues. In the Lez case
tion of total monetary values of NBS strategies and associated bundles
study, for instance -a watershed with 50% of natural areas and 30% of
of ecosystem services, without seeking to evaluate ecosystem services
agricultural areas- ecosystem services classifications (MEA and IPBES)
one by one. The stated preferences surveys are detailed in Gnonlonfin
were used, while in the Rotterdam case study – an urban neighbourhood
et al. [21] and Hérivaux and Le Coent [24].
- the EKLIPSE framework was used as a core framework for co-benefits
identification due to its comprehensive coverage of urban issues. In the
Brague, the co-benefit list was tailored after three focus group meeting Cost-Benefit Analysis of NBS in the three case studies
dedicated to flood protection, environment and quality of life.
The results of the monetary assessment in the three case studies are
Co-benefits valuation summarized in Table 1 and Fig. 5.
Despite our acknowledgement of the diversity of values associated In Brague and Rotterdam the cost of implementation and mainte-
with NBS co-benefits [29], we focus in this paper only on the monetary nance of grey solutions is higher than the cost of NBS strategies for the
valuation of co-benefits with the view to carry out the CBA. Two differ- same level of risk management (grey alternatives were not evaluated
ent valuation techniques were used to undertake a monetary valuation in the Lez case). This confirms statements mentioning that NBS may be
of co-benefits in the different case studies: direct valuation approaches more cost effective solutions than grey solutions as they are less costly.
and stated-preference approaches. Indeed, for the same level of avoided damage, the NBS solutions are
Direct valuation approaches (market price and cost-based methods) were 15% and 63% less costly than the grey solutions, in the Rotterdam and
used in the Rotterdam case study, to valuate seven co-benefits, namely the Brague case study respectively.
climate mitigation through carbon storage, air quality regulation, water The cost effectiveness of individual NBS measures has also been in-
cycle regulation, urban regeneration, human health and wellbeing, and vestigated in the Lez. In this case, the cost of different measures is com-
aesthetic amenities. These approaches rely on two main steps (Fig. 4): pared with a proxy of the level of service: here the cost per m3 of wa-
ter retention. This analysis shows a very large heterogeneity of cost-
• Step 1: the quantification of the level of ecosystem services pro- effectiveness of individual NBS measures. For example, in the Lez case
vided by the NBS strategy (compared with the baseline) with bio- study, the cost-effectiveness of green roofs is extremely low because of

6
P. Le Coent, N. Graveline, M.A. Altamirano et al. Nature-Based Solutions 1 (2021) 100002

Table 1
Overview of results of the economic analysis in net present value in millions € discounted over the time horizon of the evaluation.
Average values are indicated in bold and value ranges reflecting uncertainty (when evaluated) are indicated in italic between brackets.

Case study Brague Rotterdam Lez

Strategy Grey NBS Grey Hybrid Green NBS 1 NBS 2

Time Horizon 2070 2070 2070 2070 2070 2040 2040

Discount rate 2.5% 2.5% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.5% 2.5%

Implementation Cost of NBS 169 61 8.2 8.1 6.9 52 120

scenarios (M€) (87–270) (45–97) (39–65) (92–148)

Opportunity cost (M€) 0.6 19 0 4.9 13.0 210 318

(0.5–0.7) (14–35) (135–285) (239–396)

Avoided damages (M€) 13 14 0.7 0.7 0.7 3.4 29

(5–19) (6–21) (0.4–0.9) (0.4–0.9) (0.4–0.9)

Co-benefits (M€) – 68 0.004 6.0 10.7 287 363

(25–103)

Avoided damage/ Cost (rate) 0.1 0.2 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.24
(0.1–0.1) (0.1–0.2) (0.05–0.11) (0.05–0.11) (0.06–0.13) (0.05–0.09) (0.2–0.3)

BCR 0.1 1.0 0.08 0.50 0.57 1.3 1.0

(0.1–0.1) (0.2–2.1) (0.05–0.11) (0.46–0.53) (0.56–0.58) (0.8–1.7) (0.7–1.2)

BCR exc opportunity costs 0.1 1.3 0.08 0.82 1.65 6.0 3.5
(0.1–0.1) (0.3–2.8) (0.05–0.11) (0.79–0.85) (1.61–1.68) (4.5–7.5) (2.7–4.3)

the large cost of green roofs as compared to their limited water storage considered, it could not be considered a valid alternative for municipal-
capacity with 1282–1582€ of investment/m3 of retention while vege- ities aiming at addressing flood risks and should therefore be combined
tated bioswales cost 102–131 of investment/m3 of water retention. This with other flood management strategies.
large difference of magnitude is confirmed in the Rotterdam case (See
Appendix A) Discussion and conclusion
In urban areas, taking into account the opportunity costs of NBS can
totally change the estimation of their cost advantage. Considering that This article presents a methodological approach for the evaluation
NBS require a large spatial extent as compared to traditional grey strate- of NBS aiming at water risk and the results of its application to three
gies, the inclusion of opportunity costs has a strong weight in the overall case studies. This process has led to the identification of lessons learnt
cost estimation, especially in urban areas where land value is high. As on the methodology.
mentioned in the methodological section, we however estimate higher The economic valuation of NBS strategies first requires a large ef-
bound of opportunity cost. This point is discussed in the last section. fort for the design of strategies. This step requires the participation of
In the three cases, avoided damages benefits are not sufficient to stakeholders and preliminary modelling approaches. It is fundamental
cover investment and maintenance costs, as can be seen in the three because the quantification of the physical characteristics and impacts
case studies. This result needs to be nuanced because our estimations (e.g. retention capacity, number of trees) is the basis for the estimation
only accounts for a share of the avoided damages, with a restriction on of their costs and benefits. The design of alternatives is also a key step in
direct damages. Indirect damages, such as the macro-economic impact the economic assessment of any project. The innovative nature of NBS
of floods, due to their effect are not considered, although they can be strategies as compared to traditional solutions nevertheless requires an
significant. The assessment also does not consider the potential of pro- additional effort in that aspect, since knowledge is not always available;
tection measures on other non-monetary but essential indicators such participants need to be informed and engineering capacity for the design
as the capacity to reduce the exposition (number of residents in flood of option may not be available.
prone areas), limiting risk of deaths, injuries or post-traumatic stress. Second, cost estimates mainly rely on the transfer of existing val-
Co-benefits represent the largest share of the value generated by NBS ues evaluated in other projects except in the Rotterdam case in which
strategies in all three studies. This result does not depend on the method specific cost evaluation was undertaken for some NBS measures. This re-
used for the estimation of co-benefits, since revealed preference methods liance on a diversity of sources gives rise to a high level of uncertainty.
have been used in the Lez and Brague case studies while direct valuation Costs can indeed vary greatly depending on the exact feature of the NBS
has been used in Rotterdam. and on local contexts. In order to reduce uncertainty, costs should either
There are no clear-cut conclusions on the overall economic efficiency be directly valued locally or rely on local references presenting the same
of NBS in our assessments. Indeed, NBS strategies have a BCR close to 1 technical specifications.
or slightly superior on average in Lez and Brague and below one in Rot- Third, on opportunity cost, the approximation we used to estimate
terdam whatever the strategy. The picture is more positive if we exclude opportunity costs is relatively coarse and may lead to an overestimation
opportunity costs from the economic analysis. Interestingly however, for of this cost. In Lez and Rotterdam, two urban cases, land price is used as
Brague and Rotterdam, the economic efficiency of NBS strategies is nev- a proxy of opportunity costs, even though NBS are developed on public
ertheless much higher than the one of grey strategies. areas. It provides an estimation of the fact that this space cannot be
The Benefit Cost ratio should however not be the only criteria con- used for other profitable uses. Whether all public space may have other
sidered. For example, the level 1 NBS strategy in the Lez has the highest profitable use, such as sidewalks for example, is unclear. This area may
Cost-Benefit ratio however, the rate of avoided damages on implemen- need further investigation in the future.
tation cost is extremely low, since this strategy has very limited effect Forth, in order to assess the avoided damages granted to NBS strate-
on flood protection and is thus not satisfactory to reach flood risk reduc- gies, both simple, straightforward methods and advanced models are
tion goals. Although this strategy may be cost-efficient if all benefits are necessary to estimate fully the effect of NBS on the intensity and spa-

7
P. Le Coent, N. Graveline, M.A. Altamirano et al. Nature-Based Solutions 1 (2021) 100002

ation approaches of ecosystem services that target single value-types,

be it economic, ecological or socio-cultural values fail to capture the
importance of nature and to represent fully the society and its world-
views, interests and preferences. As a response, integrated valuation ap-
proaches are increasingly put forward (Gómez-Baggethun and Barton,
2013; [29]). In this article, we only report on the monetary valuation
of co-benefits that could be integrated in the CBA, although other valu-
ation methods of co-benefits using socio-cultural or ecological methods
could be integrated.
Finally, our economic assessment methodology bears the limits in-
herent to every economic analysis with ecological or environmental
variables. The multiplicity of models required for the estimation of the
different costs and benefits increases their overall uncertainty. Only the
magnitude of costs and benefits should be compared rather than the pre-
cise values we have presented. In addition, only indicators that could be
evaluated monetarily are included in this study. Other indicators such
as non-monetary impacts on flood risk, co-benefits that could not be or
partially be valued monetarily such as social and environmental indica-
tors are important in the decision making process for the development of
NBS. Their inclusion would require the development of a Multi Criteria
Decision Analysis framework.
Some recommendations can be drawn from the main results of this
study. First, NBS aiming at reducing water risks cannot be assumed to
improve systematically economic welfare, since BCR lie between 0.5
and 1.3. It is therefore fundamental to carry out thorough case-specific
economic valuations of a diversity of strategies, involving NBS, grey
and hybrid solutions, in order to identify the most adequate strategy for
water risk management and to address territorial challenges. In a context
of limited public resources, economic valuation can help identifying the
adequate solution to address water risks.
A preliminary step to screen measures to improve the overall eco-
nomic efficiency of NBS strategies would be to carry assessments of the
cost effectiveness (in terms of risk reduction) of the individual mea-
sures constituting these strategies. This preliminary assessment could
help designing economically efficient NBS strategies, with combinations
of cost-effective NBS measures (e.g. [9,10]). This rule of thumb should
however not overlook the importance of co-benefits in the value of NBS.
For example, small bioswales with simple plant cover may be more cost
effective for water retention than large bioswales planted with trees but
their production of co-benefits is also very limited; in this case, pub-
lic money available for biodiversity or nature in city might help decide
upon the two strategies.
The large share of co-benefits in the overall value of NBS aiming at
reducing water risks combined with the limited avoided damages has
strong implications on NBS funding and business models. Indeed, sup-
port from sectoral policies is generally conditioned to a positive cost-
benefit analysis on the specific benefit they target, such as for example
flood risk reduction in our cases. However, NBS appear to be economi-
Fig. 5. Net Present Value of the costs and benefits included in the CBA of cally efficient only when all the benefits they generate are considered.
Brague, Rotterdam, Lez and Medina for the various strategies. The average BCR
Implications for project set up and financing are very significant. Rules
is indicated above histograms.
applying for the public funding of NBS should therefore be adapted in
order to take into account cross-sectoral benefits of NBS. This requires
modifications of the silo approach currently still prevailing in the ap-
tial extent of hazards, especially when assessments are carried out at plication of public water risk policies. On the other hand, considering
the catchment scale. The evaluation of avoided damages depends on the significance of co-benefits for NBS economic value, it is important
the availability of data to be able to link the reduction of hazard to a to ensure that the co-benefits are maximized during NBS design and
reduction of damages. The synthetic character of this paper presenting implementation. For example, if an open retention basin is created in
multiple case studies should not mask the important disciplinary and an urban environment, the vegetation included as well as its facilities
interdisciplinary work behind each economic analysis [11]. for recreational activities should be considered with as much care as
Fifth, we report on the assessment of co-benefits through monetary the technical specifications required for flood management. This con-
approaches. The valuation of nature or ecosystem with monetary ap- clusion invites decision makers to consider non-built environment, es-
proaches is a highly divisive question among scholars. These last years, pecially in urban environment, as rare multifunctional space for which
there is a growing number of scientists and practitioners who explore the production of overall benefits should be maximized (risk reduction
how combinations of ecological, socio-cultural and economic valuation and “co”-benefits). This also suggests developing research methodolo-
tools can support environment valuation and land-use decision-making. gies that facilitate the identification of optimal spatial layout of NBS in
In fact, there is a growing body of literature, which argues that valu- a constrained urban environment [27,59].

8
P. Le Coent, N. Graveline, M.A. Altamirano et al. Nature-Based Solutions 1 (2021) 100002

Declaration of Competing Interest [14] B. Denjean, B. Denjean, M.A. Altamirano, N. Graveline, R. Giordano, P. Van der Keur,
D. Moncoulon, J. Weinberg, M. Máñez Costa, Z. Kozinc, M. Mulligan, P. Pengal,
J. Matthews, N. van Cauwenbergh, E. López Gunn, D.N. Bresch, B. Denjean, Natural
The authors whose names are listed immediately below certify that assurance scheme: a level playing field framework for Green-Grey infrastructure
they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or en- development, Environ. Res. 159 (2017) 24–38.
tity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; [15] S. Díaz, U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martín-López, R.T. Watson, Z. Molnár, R. Hill,
K.M.A. Chan, I.A. Baste, K.A. Brauman, S. Polasky, A. Church, M. Lonsdale, A. Lar-
participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consul- igauderie, P.W. Leadley, A.P.E. van Oudenhoven, F. van der Plaat, M. Schröter,
tancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony S. Lavorel, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, E. Bukvareva, K. Davies, S. Demissew, G. Erpul,
or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as per- P. Failler, C.A. Guerra, C.L. Hewitt, H. Keune, S. Lindley, Y. Shirayama, Assessing
nature’s contributions to people, Science 359 (2018) 270–272.
sonal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in
[16] A.H. Elliott, S.A. Trowsdale, A review of models for low impact urban stormwater
the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. drainage, Environ. Model. Softw. 22 (2007) 394–405.
LE COENT Philippe, GRAVELINE Nina, ALTAMIRANO Monica, AR- [17] L. Ellram, Total cost of ownership: an analysis approach for purchasing, Int. J. Phys.
Distrib.amp; Logist. Manage. 25 (1995) 4–23.
FAOUI Nabila, BENITEZ-AVILA Camilo, CALATRAVA Javier, DOUAI
[18] European Commission, 2014. Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects.
Ali, GNONLONFIN Amandine, HERIVAUX Cécile, MARCHAL Roxane, [19] T.D. Fletcher, W. Shuster, W.F. Hunt, R. Ashley, D. Butler, S. Arthur, S. Trowsdale,
MONCOULON David, PITON Guillaume S. Barraud, A. Semadeni-Davies, J.L. Bertrand-Krajewski, P.S. Mikkelsen, G. Rivard,
Thomas Biffin and Kieran Wilhelmus Jacobus Dartée, hereby declare M. Uhl, D. Dagenais, M. Viklander, SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more – the evolu-
tion and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage, Urban Water J. 12
that Field Factors B.V., nor their personal affiliation with Field Factors (2015) 525–542.
B.V. as employees raise any pecuniary or other conflicting interests, di- [20] S. Foudi, N. Osés-Eraso, I. Tamayo, Integrated spatial flood risk assessment: the case
rect or indirect, in any matter with their contribution to the research of Zaragoza, Land Use Policy 42 (2015) 278–292.
[21] Gnonlonfin, A., Piton, G., Marchal, R., Badar, M., Wang, Z.X., Moncoulon, D., Mas,
conducted for the paper “Is-it worth investing in NBS aiming at mitigating A., Arnaud, P., Tacnet, J., Douai, A., Gnonlonfin, A., Piton, G., Marchal, R., Munir,
water risks? Insights from the economic assessment of NAIAD case studies.” M.B. and Wang, Z.X., 2019. DELIVERABLE 6.3 DEMO Insurance value assessment
report- Part 7: France – Brague DEMO.
[22] Graveline, N., Joyce, J., Calatrava, J., Douai, A., Arfaoui, N., Moncoulon, D., Manez,
Acknowledgement M., Ryke, M. de and Kozinj, Z., 2017. General Framework for the Economic assess-
ment of NBS and their insurance value. DELIVERABLE 4.1 : EU Horizon 2020 NAIAD
Project, Grant Agreement N°730497 Dissemination.
This research was funded by the H2020 project NAIAD (Grant [23] R. Haines-Young, M.B. Potschin, Common International Classification of Ecosystem
730497) from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innova- Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure,
Available from (2018) www.cices.eu.
tion programme. We are grateful to Elena Lopez-Gunn and Laura Vay for [24] C. Hérivaux, P. Le Coent, Introducing nature into cities or preserving existing per-
their dedicated coordination of the project. We also want to thank local i-urban ecosystems ? analysis of preferences in a rapidly urbanizing catchment, Sus-
stakeholders for their involvement in the design and implementation of tainability 13 (2021) 1–34.
[25] Herivaux, C., Le Coent, P. and Gnonlonfin, A., 2019. Natural Capital and Ecosystem
the economic assessments in the three case studies. Services to Valuate Co-Benefits of NBS in Water Related Risk Management. DELIV-
ERABLE 4.4 : EU Horizon 2020 NAIAD Project, Grant Agreement N°730497 Dissem-
ination.
Supplementary materials [26] Hérivaux, C., Le Coënt, P. and Gnonlonfin, A., 2019. Natural Capital and Ecosystem
Services to Valuate Co-Benefits of NBS in Water Related Risk Management. Deliver-
able D4.4 of the NAIAD UE Reserach project.
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in [27] H. Hu, B. Fu, Y. Lü, Z. Zheng, SAORES: a spatially explicit assessment and optimiza-
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.nbsj.2021.100002. tion tool for regional ecosystem services, Landscape Ecol. 30 (2015) 547–560.
[28] IPCC, Special Report Global Warming of 1.5°C (2018).
[29] S. Jacobs, N. Dendoncker, B. Martín-lópez, D. Nicholas, E. Gomez-baggethun,
References F. Boeraeve, F.L. Mcgrath, K. Vierikko, D. Geneletti, K.J. Sevecke, N. Pipart, E. Prim-
mer, P. Mederly, S. Schmidt, A. Aragão, H. Baral, R.H. Bark, T. Briceno, D. Brogna,
[1] Arcadis. (2019). MKBA Klimaatbestendige Inrichting Pilotwijken: Pilot Spangen P. Cabral, R.De Vreese, C. Liquete, H. Mueller, S. Peh, A. Phelan, A.R. Rincón,
(Rotterdam) en Mariahoeve (Den Haag). Arnhem, Netherlands. S.H. Rogers, F. Turkelboom, W.Van Reeth, B.T.Van Zanten, H. Karine, C. Wash-
[2] T. Aevermann, J. Schmude, Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosys- bourne, A new valuation school : integrating diverse values of nature in resource
tem services in Munich, Germany, Zeitschrift fur Wirtschaftsgeographie 59 (2015) and land use decisions, Ecosyst. Serv. 22 (2016) 213–220.
188–200. [30] D. Johnson, S. Geisendorf, Are neighborhood-level SUDS worth it? An assessment of
[3] L. Alfieri, P. Burek, L. Feyen, G. Forzieri, Global warming increases the frequency of the economic value of sustainable urban drainage system scenarios using cost-benefit
river floods in Europe, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 19 (2015) 2247–2260. analyses, Ecol. Econ. 158 (2019) 194–205.
[4] N. Arfaoui, A. Gnonlonfin, The economic value of NBS restoration measures and [31] Vic R.J. Johnston, K.J. Boyle, W Adamowicz, J. Bennett, R. Brouwer, T.A. Cameron,
their benefits in a river basin context : a meta-analysis regression, FAERE Working W.M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, M. Ryan, R. Scarpa, R. Tourangeau, C.A. Vossler, Con-
Paper (2019) 09. temporary guidance for stated preference studies, J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ.
[5] S. Baumgärtner, S. Strunz, The economic insurance value of ecosystem resilience, 4 (2017) 319–405.
Ecol. Econ. 101 (2014) 21–32. [32] Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Artmann, M., Haase, D.,
[6] F.S. Bianchini, K.C. Hewage, Probabilistic social cost-benefit analysis for green roofs: Knapp, S., Korn, H. and Stadler, J., 2016. Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change
a lifecycle approach, Build. Environ. 58 (2012) 152–162. Mitigation and Adaptation in Urban Areas : Perspectives on Indicators, Knowledge
[7] E. Bladé, L. Cea, G. Corestein, E. Escolano, J. Puertas, E. Vázquez-Cendón, J. Dolz, Gaps, Barriers, and: Ecology and Society, 21.
A. Coll, Iber: herramienta de simulación numérica del flujo en ríos, Revista Interna- [33] M. Kenney, P. Wilcock, Is urban stream restoration worth it? 1, J. Am. Water Assoc.
cional de Métodos Numéricos para Cálculo y Diseño en Ingeniería 30 (2014) 1–10. 48 (2012) 603–615.
[8] M. Bockarjova, W.J.W. Botzen, M.J. Koetse, Economic valuation of green and blue [34] W. Liu, W. Chen, Q. Feng, C. Peng, P. Kang, Cost-benefit analysis of green infrastruc-
nature in cities: a meta-analysis, Ecol. Econ. 169 (2020) 106480. tures on community stormwater reduction and utilization: a case of Beijing, China,
[9] O. Bokhove, M.A. Kelmanson, T. Kent, G. Piton, J.M. Tacnet, A cost-effectiveness Environ. Manage. 58 (2016) 1015–1026.
protocol for flood-mitigation plans based on leeds’ boxing day 2015 floods, Water [35] MA, 2005. Millenium Ecological Assessment. Millennium Ecosystem and Human
(Switzerland) 12 (2020) 1–30. Well-being: A framework for Assessment (W. D. C. Island Press, Ed.)
[10] CGSP, 2013. Rapport Quinet: Évaluation Socioéconomique Des Investissements [36] MacDonald, K. and Jefferies, C., 2003. Performance and Design Details of SUDS:
Publics. National Hydrology Seminar„ p. 93–102.
[11] Le Coent, P., Herivaux, C., Farina, G., Forey, I., Zi-Xiang, W., Graveline, N., Cala- [37] T.K.R. Matthews, R.L. Wilby, C. Murphy, Communicating the deadly consequences of
traval, J., Martinez-Granados, D., Marchal, R., Moncoulon, D., Scriecu, A., Mayor, global warming for human heat stress, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114 (2017) 3861–3866.
B., Burke, S., Mulligan, M., Douglas, A., Soesbergen, A., Giordano, R., Dartee, K., [38] J. Mentens, D. Raes, M. Hermy, Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater runoff
Biffin, T., Pena, K., Van der Keur, P., Kidmose, J., Gnonlonfin, A., Douai, A., Piton, problem in the urbanized 21st century? Landsc. Urban Plan. 77 (2006) 217–226.
G., Munir, M., Mas, A. and Tacnet, J., 2019a. Demo Insurance Value Assessment. [39] B. Merz, H. Kreibich, R. Schwarze, A. Thieken, Review article ‘assessment of eco-
DELIVERABLE 6.3 : EU Horizon 2020 NAIAD Project, Grant Agreement N°730497 nomic flood damage, Nat. Hazards and Earth Syst. Sci. 10 (2010) 1697–1724.
Dissemination. http://naiad2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/D6.3.pdf. [40] Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodi-
[12] Le Coent, P., Marchal, R., Farina, G., Moncoulon, D., Forey, I., Zi-Xiang, W. and versity Synthesis.
Graveline, N., 2019b. DELIVERABLE 6.3 DEMO Insurance value assessment report- [41] P.C.D. Milly, J. Betancourt, M. Falkenmark, R.M. Hirsch, Z.W. Kundzewicz, D.P. Let-
Part 4 : FRANCE – Lez. tenmaier, R.J. Stouffer, Climate change: stationary is dead: Whither water manage-
[13] Dartee, K., Biffin, T. and Pena, K., 2019. DELIVERABLE 6.3 DEMO Insurance Value ment? Science 319 (2008) 573–574.
Assessment Report - Part 5: NETHERLANDS – Rotterdam DEMO. [42] E.J. Mishan, E. Quah, Cost-benefit analysis: Routledge (2020).

9
P. Le Coent, N. Graveline, M.A. Altamirano et al. Nature-Based Solutions 1 (2021) 100002

[43] D. Moncoulon, D. Labat, J. Ardon, E. Leblois, T. Onfroy, C. Poulard, S. Aji, A. Rémy, [53] A.H. Roy, S.J. Wenger, T.D. Fletcher, C.J. Walsh, A.R. Ladson, W.D. Shuster,
A. Quantin, Analysis of the French insurance market exposure to floods: a stochastic H.W. Thurston, R.R. Brown, Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-s-
model combining river overflow and surface runoff, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 14 cale urban stormwater management: Lessons from Australia and the United States,
(2014) 2469–2485. Environ. Manage. 42 (2008) 344–359.
[44] J.P. Naulin, D. Moncoulon, S. Le Roy, R. Pedreros, D. Idier, C. Oliveros, Estimation [54] E. van Slobbe, H.J. de Vriend, S. Aarninkhof, K. Lulofs, M. de Vries, P. Dircke, Build-
of insurance-related losses resulting from coastal flooding in France, Nat. Hazards ing with Nature: in search of resilient storm surge protection strategies, Nat. Hazards
Earth Syst. Science (2016) 14. 66 (2013) 1461–1480.
[45] C. Nesshöver, T. Assmuth, K.N. Irvine, G.M. Rusch, K.A. Waylen, B. Delbaere, [55] Tietenberg, T. and Lewis, L., 2015. Environmental & Natural Resource Eco-
D. Haase, L. Jones-Walters, H. Keune, E. Kovacs, K. Krauze, M. Külvik, F. Rey, J. van nomics/Tom Tietenberg, Emeritus, Colby College, Lynne Lewis, Bates College.
Dijk, O.I. Vistad, M.E. Wilkinson, H. Wittmer, The science, policy and practice of na- [56] C. Viavattene, J.B. Ellis, The management of urban surface water flood risks: SUDS
ture-based solutions: an interdisciplinary perspective, Sci. Total Environ. 579 (2017) performance in flood reduction from extreme events, Water Sci. Technol. 67 (2013)
1215–1227. 99–108.
[46] V. Nurmi, A. Votsis, A. Perrels, S. Lehvävirta, Green roof cost-benefit analysis: special [57] Vincent, S.U., Radhakrishnan, M., Hayde, L. and Pathirana, A., 2017. Enhancing
emphasis on scenic benefits, J. Benefit-Cost Anal. 7 (2016) 488–522. the Economic Value of Large Investments in Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)
[47] J. Ossa-Moreno, K.M. Smith, A. Mijic, Economic analysis of wider benefits to facili- Through Inclusion of Ecosystems Services Benefits: Water (Switzerland), 9.
tate SuDS uptake in London, UK, Sustain. Cities Soc. 28 (2017) 411–419. [58] P.A. Wilderer, Applying sustainable water management concepts in rural and urban
[48] Pearce, D., Atkinson, G. and Mourato, S., 2006a. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the En- areas: some thoughts about reasons, means and needs, Water Sci. Technol. 49 (2004)
vironment: Recent Developments: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and de- 7–16.
velopment. [59] S. Wise, J. Braden, D. Ghalayini, J. Grant, C. Kloss, E. MacMullan, S. Morse, F. Mon-
[49] Pearce, D., Atkinson, G. and Mourato, S., 2006b. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the En- talto, D. Nees, D. Nowak, S. Peck, S. Shaikh, C. Yu, Integrating valuation methods
vironment Recent Developments: OECD Publishing. to recognize green infrastructure’s multiple benefits, In: Low Impact Development
[50] K. Perini, P. Rosasco, Is greening the building envelope economically sustainable? an 2010: Redefining Water in the City - Proceedings of the 2010 International Low
analysis to evaluate the advantages of economy of scope of vertical greening systems Impact Development Conference (2010) 1123–1143.
and green roofs, Urban Forest. Urban Green. 20 (2016) 328–337. [60] Q. Zhou, A review of sustainable urban drainage systems considering the climate
[51] C.M. Raymond, N. Frantzeskaki, N. Kabisch, P. Berry, M. Breil, M. Razvan, change and urbanization impacts, Water (Switzerland) 6 (2014) 976–992.
D. Geneletti, C. Calfapietra, A framework for assessing and implementing the co-ben- [61] M. Zinzi, S. Agnoli, Cool and green roofs. an energy and comfort comparison between
efits of nature-based solutions in urban areas, Environ. Sci. Policy 77 (2017) 15–24. passive cooling and mitigation urban heat island techniques for residential buildings
[52] K. Rogers, K. Sacre, J. Goodenough, K. Doick, Valuing London’s Urban forest (2015). in the Mediterranean region, Energy Build. 55 (2012) 66–76.

10