A conceptual framework for integrating ecosystem services and social welfare into flood hazard mitigation benefit-cost analysis

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

3-31-2026

Abstract

Flood hazard mitigation and adaptation require the evaluation of structural, nonstructural, and nature-based projects across different scenarios. Traditional assessments have focused on reducing average annual structural losses, but new methods have considered ecosystem services (ES), social co-benefits, and distributional impacts. Decision makers compare project benefits and costs to identify favourable options or confirm a positive benefit-cost ratio (BCR). However, such evaluations are often specific to individual projects. More comprehensive benefit-cost analysis (BCA) frameworks, which address social and environmental goods, require greater use of non-market valuations and the inclusion of environmental and social vulnerability and welfare impacts relevant to specific populations. This study introduces a logic model (LM) framework to clarify how BCA tools assess ES and social welfare impacts, with the aim of standardizing BCA approaches. To create a clear and consistent approach, the LM framework consists of eight steps: environmental effects, category of benefits/costs, metrics, valuation methods, impact area identification methods, impacted population characterization methods, vulnerability adjustment methods, and BCR calculation, thereby making it easier to structure and compare BCA models. The goal is to illustrate how to construct conceptual LMs of BCA tools for flood hazard mitigation, addressing (a) downstream ES impacts, non-market monetization, and quantification, and (b) distributional impacts by property damage and different economic vulnerability weighting approaches. We review relevant literature, apply it within the LM framework, and compare BCA frameworks through hypothetical, stylized alternative processes, comparing a traditional channelization project and a natural channel design project. We demonstrate how our approach can transparently compare different BCAs using various valuation methods in a way that can be credibly communicated to stakeholders and decision-makers across diverse disciplinary backgrounds.

Publication Source (Journal or Book title)

Environmental Research Infrastructure and Sustainability

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS