Faculty of Applied science, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands; Department of Water Supply, Sanitation and Environmental Engineering, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands.
Department of Water Supply, Sanitation and Environmental Engineering, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands; Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia; College for Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, UK.
J Environ Manage. 2024 Feb 14;352:119985. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119985. Epub 2024 Jan 6.
Flooding is expected to increase due to climate change, urbanisation, and land use change. To address this issue, Nature-Based Solutions (NBSs) are often adopted as innovative and sustainable flood risk management methods. Besides the flood risk reduction benefits, NBSs offer co-benefits for the environment and society. However, these co-benefits are rarely considered in flood risk management due to the inherent complexities of incorporating them into economic assessments. This research addresses this gap by developing a comprehensive methodology that integrates the monetary analysis of co-benefits with flood risk reduction in economic assessments. In doing so, it aspires to provide a more holistic view of the impact of NBS in flood risk management. The assessment employs a framework based on life-cycle cost-benefit analysis, offering a systematic and transparent assessment of both costs and benefits over time supported by key indicators like net present value and benefit cost ratio. The methodology has been applied to the Tamnava basin in Serbia, where significant flooding occurred in 2014 and 2020. The methodology offers valuable insights for practitioners, researchers, and planners seeking to assess the co-benefits of NBS and integrate them into economic assessments. The results show that when considering flood risk reduction alone, all considered measures have higher costs than the benefits derived from avoiding flood damage. However, when incorporating co-benefits, several NBS have a net positive economic impact, including afforestation/reforestation and retention ponds with cost-benefit ratios of 3.5 and 5.6 respectively. This suggests that incorporating co-benefits into economic assessments can significantly increase the overall economic efficiency and viability of NBS.
预计由于气候变化、城市化和土地利用变化,洪水会增加。为了解决这个问题,通常采用基于自然的解决方案(NBS)作为创新和可持续的洪水风险管理方法。除了减少洪水风险的好处外,NBS 还为环境和社会带来了共同效益。然而,由于将这些共同效益纳入经济评估的固有复杂性,这些共同效益在洪水风险管理中很少被考虑。本研究通过开发一种综合方法来解决这一差距,该方法将共同效益的货币分析与经济评估中的洪水风险减少相结合。这样做,旨在提供对 NBS 在洪水风险管理中的影响的更全面的看法。该评估采用基于生命周期成本效益分析的框架,随着时间的推移,通过净现值和效益成本比等关键指标为成本和效益提供系统和透明的评估。该方法已应用于塞尔维亚的塔姆瓦瓦流域,该流域在 2014 年和 2020 年发生了重大洪水。该方法为寻求评估 NBS 的共同效益并将其纳入经济评估的从业者、研究人员和规划者提供了有价值的见解。结果表明,仅考虑减少洪水风险时,所有考虑的措施的成本都高于避免洪水破坏带来的收益。然而,当纳入共同效益时,几种 NBS 具有净正的经济影响,包括造林/重新造林和滞留池,其成本效益比分别为 3.5 和 5.6。这表明将共同效益纳入经济评估可以显著提高 NBS 的整体经济效率和可行性。