Author
Listed:
- Chelli, Alessia
- Brander, Luke
- Geneletti, Davide
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.
Suggested Citation
Chelli, Alessia & Brander, Luke & Geneletti, Davide, 2025.
"Cost-Benefit analysis of urban nature-based solutions: A systematic review of approaches and scales with a focus on benefit valuation,"
Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
Handle:
RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:71:y:2025:i:c:s2212041624000913
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101684
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:71:y:2025:i:c:s2212041624000913. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.