Details
Originalsprache | Englisch |
---|---|
Aufsatznummer | 101684 |
Fachzeitschrift | Ecosystem Services |
Jahrgang | 71 |
Frühes Online-Datum | 29 Nov. 2024 |
Publikationsstatus | Elektronisch veröffentlicht (E-Pub) - 29 Nov. 2024 |
Abstract
Urban nature-based solutions (NBS) are increasingly recognized as an effective strategy to address urban sustainability challenges. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a widely used method for assessing the economic feasibility of NBS interventions and supporting decision-makers in comparing different investment alternatives. Performing a CBA, however, is complex and requires making methodological choices and assumptions, such as choosing the discount rate and the temporal horizon, which can significantly affect the outcome estimates. Moreover, the inclusion of the full range of costs and benefits can be challenging due to difficulties and uncertainties in estimating their monetary value and accounting for their spatial and temporal dynamics. The objective of this research is to critically analyze current applications of CBA on urban NBS in the scientific literature, identifying trends, limitations, and research gaps. To achieve this, we conducted a systematic review of articles published between 2000 and 2022, resulting in 114 observations of CBAs for urban NBS. The review compared CBA approaches and scales, focusing on the monetary valuation of costs and benefits, as well as the spatial and temporal dynamics of benefits. Our results indicate a predominance of CBAs with a social, as opposed to private, perspective, and with a focus on building solutions and small-scale NBS interventions. Moreover, we found a general lack of consideration for environmental externalities among the costs, and an incomplete inclusion of the full range of benefits, often due to difficulties in estimating their monetary values. We also found that CBA studies usually do not consider the variability in NBS performance over time. Finally, most studies reported a positive CBA outcome, suggesting that NBS are generally economically advantageous.
ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete
- Umweltwissenschaften (insg.)
- Globaler Wandel
- Sozialwissenschaften (insg.)
- Geografie, Planung und Entwicklung
- Umweltwissenschaften (insg.)
- Ökologie
- Agrar- und Biowissenschaften (insg.)
- Agrar- und Biowissenschaften (sonstige)
- Umweltwissenschaften (insg.)
- Natur- und Landschaftsschutz
- Umweltwissenschaften (insg.)
- Management, Monitoring, Politik und Recht
Zitieren
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTex
- RIS
in: Ecosystem Services, Jahrgang 71, 101684, 02.2025.
Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Übersichtsarbeit › Forschung › Peer-Review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-Benefit analysis of urban nature-based solutions
T2 - A systematic review of approaches and scales with a focus on benefit valuation
AU - Chelli, Alessia
AU - Brander, Luke
AU - Geneletti, Davide
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s)
PY - 2024/11/29
Y1 - 2024/11/29
N2 - Urban nature-based solutions (NBS) are increasingly recognized as an effective strategy to address urban sustainability challenges. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a widely used method for assessing the economic feasibility of NBS interventions and supporting decision-makers in comparing different investment alternatives. Performing a CBA, however, is complex and requires making methodological choices and assumptions, such as choosing the discount rate and the temporal horizon, which can significantly affect the outcome estimates. Moreover, the inclusion of the full range of costs and benefits can be challenging due to difficulties and uncertainties in estimating their monetary value and accounting for their spatial and temporal dynamics. The objective of this research is to critically analyze current applications of CBA on urban NBS in the scientific literature, identifying trends, limitations, and research gaps. To achieve this, we conducted a systematic review of articles published between 2000 and 2022, resulting in 114 observations of CBAs for urban NBS. The review compared CBA approaches and scales, focusing on the monetary valuation of costs and benefits, as well as the spatial and temporal dynamics of benefits. Our results indicate a predominance of CBAs with a social, as opposed to private, perspective, and with a focus on building solutions and small-scale NBS interventions. Moreover, we found a general lack of consideration for environmental externalities among the costs, and an incomplete inclusion of the full range of benefits, often due to difficulties in estimating their monetary values. We also found that CBA studies usually do not consider the variability in NBS performance over time. Finally, most studies reported a positive CBA outcome, suggesting that NBS are generally economically advantageous.
AB - Urban nature-based solutions (NBS) are increasingly recognized as an effective strategy to address urban sustainability challenges. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a widely used method for assessing the economic feasibility of NBS interventions and supporting decision-makers in comparing different investment alternatives. Performing a CBA, however, is complex and requires making methodological choices and assumptions, such as choosing the discount rate and the temporal horizon, which can significantly affect the outcome estimates. Moreover, the inclusion of the full range of costs and benefits can be challenging due to difficulties and uncertainties in estimating their monetary value and accounting for their spatial and temporal dynamics. The objective of this research is to critically analyze current applications of CBA on urban NBS in the scientific literature, identifying trends, limitations, and research gaps. To achieve this, we conducted a systematic review of articles published between 2000 and 2022, resulting in 114 observations of CBAs for urban NBS. The review compared CBA approaches and scales, focusing on the monetary valuation of costs and benefits, as well as the spatial and temporal dynamics of benefits. Our results indicate a predominance of CBAs with a social, as opposed to private, perspective, and with a focus on building solutions and small-scale NBS interventions. Moreover, we found a general lack of consideration for environmental externalities among the costs, and an incomplete inclusion of the full range of benefits, often due to difficulties in estimating their monetary values. We also found that CBA studies usually do not consider the variability in NBS performance over time. Finally, most studies reported a positive CBA outcome, suggesting that NBS are generally economically advantageous.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85210351850&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101684
DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101684
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85210351850
VL - 71
JO - Ecosystem Services
JF - Ecosystem Services
SN - 2212-0416
M1 - 101684
ER -