4.6 Article

Socio-Economic Assessment of Green Infrastructure for Climate Change Adaptation in the Context of Urban Drainage Planning

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 12, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su12093792

Keywords

urban flood; water quality; cost-benefit analysis; modelling; combined sewer overflows

Funding

  1. BINGO European H2020 project [641739]
  2. RESCCUE European H2020 project [700174]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Green infrastructure (GI) contributes to improve urban drainage and also has other societal and environmental benefits that grey infrastructure usually does not have. Economic assessment for urban drainage planning and decision making often focuses on flood criteria. This study presents an economic assessment of GI based on a conventional cost-benefit analysis (CBA) that includes several benefits related to urban drainage (floods, combined sewer overflows and waste water treatment), environmental impacts (receiving water bodies) and additional societal and environmental benefits associated with GI (air quality improvements, aesthetic values, etc.). Benefits from flood damage reduction are monetized based on the widely used concept of Expected Annual Damage (EAD) that was calculated using a 1D/2D urban drainage model together with design storms and a damage model based on tailored flood depth-damage curves. Benefits from Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO) damage reduction were monetized using a 1D urban drainage model with continuous rainfall simulations and prices per cubic meter of spilled combined sewage water estimated from literature; other societal benefits were estimated using unit prices also estimated from literature. This economic assessment was applied to two different case studies: the Spanish cities of Barcelona and Badalona. The results are useful for decision making and also underline the relevancy of including not only flood damages in CBA of GI.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available