Published February 25, 2026
| Version v1
Journal article
Open
Nature-based solutions with sponge functions: socio-economic importance and valuation
Authors/Creators
- 1. Faculty of Social and Economic Studies, J. E. Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic
- 2. Faculty of Humanities, Charles University, Prague 8 – Libeň, Czech Republic|Faculty of Social and Economic Studies, J. E. Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic
- 3. Department Conservation Biology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany
Description
This article examines the socio-economic importance and valuation of different types of wetland restoration as nature-based solutions (NBS). Wetlands, like other NBS, generate positive externalities in the form of ecosystem services, with benefits accruing to a wide range of societal beneficiaries beyond landowners. However, the implementation of wetlands and other NBS is often constrained by several barriers, including limited awareness of their socio-economic benefits. Qualitative and quantitative assessments of ecosystem services can help address this gap by providing evidence-based arguments for public communication and decision-making.
The study demonstrates such assessments using three case studies of wetlands implemented in different contexts: a rural wetland, an urban wetland, and large-scale floodplain restoration. Cost–benefit analysis is applied to illustrate how these measures can be evaluated and how their socio-economic feasibility can be communicated. In the first case study, the restoration of a natural pond with a wetland in Bratčice, Czech Republic, representing a rural wetland, the monetised benefits reach EUR 562,000 over a 25-year period and exceed costs by approximately EUR 60,000, with a payback period of 15 years. In the second case study, an urban wetland implemented as part of park revitalisation in Pilsen, Czech Republic, monetised benefits of EUR 14.2 million exceed costs by EUR 12.9 million over 25 years, resulting in a payback period of one year.
For the floodplain restoration case study in Germany, the results indicate that, even without monetising the primary flood protection function, the economic case for large-scale restoration can be substantial. Monetising only a single benefit (nutrient retention) accounts for half or more of total costs, highlighting the relevance of conservative economic valuation for supporting investment decisions in wetland restoration.
HighlightsWetlands are important nature-based solutions providing positive externalities;
Results show that the monetised benefits significantly exceed the costs;
Payback period for wetland case studies from a social perspective is 1 to 15 years;
Socio-economic analysis offers arguments for planning and decision-making;
Benefits in monetary terms are an important input for better communication.
Files
NC_article_164530.pdf
Files
(3.8 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:0e59dd219a852ebfe8d537c36384a8f3
|
3.7 MB | Preview Download |
|
md5:cb65675b4fe7490387b1ab81b36618ad
|
134.5 kB | Preview Download |
Linked records
Additional details
References
- Ainscough J, de Vries Lentsch A, Metzger M, Rounsevell M, Schröter M, Delbaere B, de Groot R, Staes J (2019) Navigating pluralism: Understanding perceptions of the ecosystem services concept. Ecosystem Services 36: 100892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.01.004
- Albert C, Schröter B, Haase D, Brillinger M, Henze J, Herrmann S, Gottwald S, Guerrero P, Nicolas C, Matzdorf B (2019) Addressing societal challenges through nature-based solutions: How can landscape planning and governance research contribute? Landscape and Urban Planning 182: 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.003
- Anderson CC, Renaud FG, Hanscomb S, Gonzalez-Ollauri A (2022) Green, hybrid, or grey disaster risk reduction measures: What shapes public preferences for nature-based solutions? Journal of Environmental Management 310: 114727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114727
- Baur I, Dobricki M, Lips M (2016) The basic motivational drivers of northern and central European farmers. Journal of Rural Studies 46: 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.06.001
- Blouin D, Bissonnette J-F, Goyette J-O, Cimon-Morin J, Mendes P, Torchio GM, Gosselin-Tapp J, Poulin M (2025) Ecosystem services concept: Challenges to its integration in government organizations. Ecosystem Services 71: 101691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101691
- Boda CS (2018) From economic choice to social choice in coastal management: A critical assessment of the use of cost-benefit analysis in the evaluation of an erosion control project in Flagler County, Florida, U.S.A. Ocean &. Coastal Management 162: 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.09.017
- Bolinches A, De Stefano L, Paredes-Arquiola J (2020) Too expensive to be worth it? A methodology to identify disproportionate costs of environmental measures as applied to the Middle Tagus River, Spain. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 63: 2402–2424. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1726731
- Born W, Meyer V, Scholz M, Kasperidus HD, Schulz-Zunkel C, Hans-Jürgens B (2012) Ökonomische Bewertung Ökosystemfunktionen von Flussauen. Ökosystemfunktionen von Flussauen – Analyse und Bewertung von Hochwasserretention, Nährstoffrückhalt, Kohlenstoffvorrat, Treibhausgasemissionen und Habitatfunktion. 124. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, 147–168.
- Brander LM, Florax RJGM, Vermaat JE (2006) The empirics of wetland valuation: A comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environmental and Resource Economics 33: 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-005-3104-4
- Brander LM, Ghermandi A, Kuik O, Markandya A, Nunes PALD, Schaafsma M, Wagtendonk A (2010) Scaling up ecosystem services values: Methodology, applicability and a case study. SSRN Electronic Journal, 47 pp. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1600011
- Calliari E, Castellari S, Davis M, Linnerooth-Bayer J, Martin J, Mysiak J, Pastor T, Ramieri E, Scolobig A, Sterk M, Veerkamp C, Wendling L, Zandersen M (2022) Building climate resilience through nature-based solutions in Europe: A review of enabling knowledge, finance and governance frameworks. Climate Risk Management 37: 100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2022.100450
- Castellar JAC, Popartan LA, Pueyo-Ros J, Atanasova N, Langergraber G, Säumel I, Corominas L, Comas J, Acuña V (2021) Nature-based solutions in the urban context: Terminology, classification and scoring for urban challenges and ecosystem services. The Science of the Total Environment 779: 146237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146237
- Chairat S, Gheewala SH (2024) The conceptual quantitative assessment framework for Nature-based Solutions (NbS). Nature-Based Solutions 6: 100152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2024.100152
- Chelli A, Brander L, Geneletti D (2025) Cost-Benefit analysis of urban nature-based solutions: A systematic review of approaches and scales with a focus on benefit valuation. Ecosystem Services 71: 101684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101684
- Chen C, Loft L, Matzdorf B (2023) Lost in action: Climate friendly use of European peatlands needs coherence and incentive-based policies. Environmental Science & Policy 145: 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.04.010
- Claus K, Rousseau S (2012) Public versus private incentives to invest in green roofs: A cost benefit analysis for Flanders. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11: 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.07.003
- Costadone L, Zhang S (2025) Integrated valuation of the ecological, social and economic benefits provided by a multifunctional nature-based solution. Nature-Based Solutions 8: 100256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2025.100256
- Dehnhardt A, Scholz M, Mehl D, Schröder U, Fuchs E, Eichhorn A, Rast G (2015) Die Rolle von Auen und Fliessgewässern für den Klimaschutz und die Klimaanpassung. Naturkapital Deutschland – TEEB DE: Naturkapital und Klimapolitik – Synergien und Konflikte. Technische Universität Berlin. Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung – UFZ, Berlin, Leipzig, 172–181.
- Dehnhardt A, Grothmann T, Wagner J (2022) Cost-benefit analysis: What limits its use in policy making and how to make it more usable? A case study on climate change adaptation in Germany. Environmental Science & Policy 137: 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.08.005
- Dennig F (2018) Climate change and the re-evaluation of cost-benefit analysis. Climatic Change 151: 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2047-4
- Duffaut C, Frascaria-Lacoste N, Versini P-A (2022) Barriers and levers for the implantation of sustainable nature-based solutions in cities: Insights from France. Sustainability 14: 9975. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169975
- EFTEC (2010) Valuing Environmental Impacts: Practical Guidelines for the Use of Value Transfer in Policy and Project Appraisal Case Study 3 – Valuing Environmental Benefits of a Flood Risk Management Scheme. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/182376/vt-guidelines.pdf
- Eichhorn A, Rast G, Reichhoff L (2004) Naturschutzgroßprojekt Mittlere Elbe, Sachsen-Anhalt. Natur und Landschaft 2004: 423–429.
- European Commission (2015) Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects: economic appraisal tool for Cohesion Policy 2014 2020. Publications Office of the European Union, LU. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2769/97516 [November 3, 2021]
- European Commission (2022) Restoring nature: for the benefit of people, nature and the climate. Publications Office, LU. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/544824 [March 21, 2024]
- García-Herrero L, Lavrnić S, Guerrieri V, Toscano A, Milani M, Cirelli GL, Vittuari M (2022) Cost-benefit of green infrastructures for water management: A sustainability assessment of full-scale constructed wetlands in Northern and Southern Italy. Ecological Engineering 185: 106797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106797
- Ghaley BB, Vesterdal L, Porter JR (2014) Quantification and valuation of ecosystem services in diverse production systems for informed decision-making. Environmental Science & Policy 39: 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.004
- Greenhalgh S, Samarasinghe O, Curran-Cournane F, Wright W, Brown P (2017) Using ecosystem services to underpin cost–benefit analysis: Is it a way to protect finite soil resources? Ecosystem Services 27: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.005
- Gutman J (2019) Commentary: Urban Wetlands Restoration as NBS for Flood Risk Mitigation: From Positive Case to Legitimate Practice, in the View of Evidence-Based Flood Risk Policy Making. In: Hartmann T, Slavíková L, McCarthy S (Eds) Nature-Based Flood Risk Management on Private Land. Springer, Cham, 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23842-1_13
- Haines-Young R (2023) Common Internatioonal Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). V5.2 Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure.
- Heinzelmann C, Alexy M, Montenegro H (2016) Hochwasserschutz im Einklang mit Naturschutz: Die Deichrückverlegung Lenzen an der Elbe.
- Hekrle M, Liberalesso T, Macháč J, Matos Silva C (2023) The economic value of green roofs: A case study using different cost–benefit analysis approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production 413: 137531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137531
- Kabisch N, Frantzeskaki N, Pauleit S, Naumann S, Davis M, Artmann M, Haase D, Knapp S, Korn H, Stadler J, Zaunberger K, Bonn A (2016) Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: Perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society 21: 39. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239
- Keesstra S, Nunes J, Novara A, Finger D, Avelar D, Kalantari Z, Cerdà A (2018) The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. The Science of the Total Environment 610–611: 997–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.077
- Krčmářová J, Kala L, Brendzová A, Chabada T (2021) Building agroforestry policy bottom-up: Knowledge of Czech farmers on trees in farmland. Land (Basel) 10: 278. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10030278
- Klusmann C, Brotherton P, Schiller T, Wulf S, Marsden K (2026) Wetlands in the EU policy context. In: Kaden US, Schmid S, Wulf S, Marsden K, Klusmann C, Bonn A, Tockner K, Scholz M (Eds) Wetlands in a Changing Climate: Restoring Coasts and Floodplains. Nature Conservation 62: 317–335. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.62.163780
- Kremer P, Hamsted Z, McPhearson T (2016) The value of urban ecosystem services in New York City: A spatially explicit multicriteria analysis of landscape scale valuation scenarios. Environmental Science & Policy 62: 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.012
- Macháč J, Louda J (2019) Urban Wetlands Restoration in Floodplains: A Case of the City of Pilsen, Czech Republic. In: Hartmann T, Slavíková L, McCarthy S (Eds) Nature-Based Flood Risk Management on Private Land: Disciplinary Perspectives on a Multidisciplinary Challenge. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23842-1_12
- Macháč J, Dubová L, Louda J, Hekrle M, Zaňková L, Brabec J (2019) Methodology for Economic Assessment of Green and Blue Infrastructure in Human Settlements. https://www.ieep.cz/en/metodika-pro-ekonomicke-hodnoceni-zelene-a-modre-infrastruktury-v-lidskych-sidlech/ [September 10, 2024]
- Macháč J, Hekrle M, Vacková A, Krpešová M (2020) Aplikace přírodě blízkých opatření v povodí Olešky: Výsledky socioekonomických šetření. https://www.ieep.cz/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Strima_studie_Oleska_Socioekonomicke_setreni_2020.pdf
- Macháč J, Trantinová M, Zaňková L (2021) Externalities in agriculture: How to include their monetary value in decision-making? International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 18: 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-02752-7
- Macháč J, Hekrle M, Brabec J, Louda J (2022) Metodika pro hodnocení adaptace hl. m. Prahy na změnu klimatu z pohledu ekosystémových služeb. https://www.ireas.cz/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Metodika-pro-hodnoceni-adaptace_Praha.pdf
- Macháč J, Hekrle M, Dubová L, Louda J (2023) MODROZELENÁ MĚSTA: Příklady adaptačních opatření v ČR a jejich ekonomické hodnocení. 1. Univerzita Jana Evangelisty Purkyně v Ústí nad Labem, Ústí nad Labem: Institut pro ekologickou a ekonomickou politiku (IEEP), 86 pp. https://www.ieep.cz/modrozelena-mesta-priklady-adaptacnich-opatreni-v-cr-a-jejich-ekonomicke-hodnoceni/
- Markanday A, Lliso B, Sorman AH (2024) Investing in nature: Assessing the effects of monetary and non-monetary valuations on decision-making. Ecological Economics 219: 108135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108135
- Martin JGC, Scolobig A, Linnerooth-Bayer J, Irshaid J, Aguilera Rodriguez JJ, Fresolone-Caparrós A, Oen A (2025) The nature-based solution implementation gap: A review of nature-based solution governance barriers and enablers. Journal of Environmental Management 388: 126007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126007
- Masur J, Posner E (2018) Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Judicial Role. The University of Chicago Law Review. University of Chicago. Law School 85: e3. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol85/iss4/3
- Meierová T, Chvátalová V (2022) Frustrated or fulfilled? Motivation of Czech farmers to implement climate change adaptation measures on the landscape level. Journal of Rural Studies 92: 354–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.04.013
- Mewes M (2006) Die volkswirtschaftlichen Kosten einer Stoffausträge in die Ostsee minimierenden Landnutzung (Dissertation Universität Greifswald).
- Nelson DR, Bledsoe BP, Ferreira S, Nibbelink NP (2020) Challenges to realizing the potential of nature-based solutions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 45: 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.09.001
- Otte-Witte K (2018) Oberfächenströmungsmodell zur numerischen Simulation des Hochwasserabflusses der Elbe.
- Patrick E, Randall A (2013) International Meta-analysis of Green Space for Benefit Transfer. Sydney. http://www.aares.org.au/aares/documents/2013AC/Handbook.pdf
- Potočki K, Hartmann T, Slavíková L, Collentine D, Veidemane K, Raška P, Barstad J, Evans R (2022) Land Policy for Flood Risk Management—Toward a New Working Paradigm. Earth's Future 10: e2021EF002491. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002491
- Promny M, Hammer M, Busch N (2014) Untersuchungen zur Wirkung der Deichrückverlegung auf das Hochwasser vom Juni 2013 an der unteren Mittelelbe.
- Saarikoski H, Aapala K, Artell J, Grammatikopoulou I, Hjerppe T, Lehtoranta V, Mustajoki J, Pouta E, Primmer E, Vatn A (2022) Multimethod valuation of peatland ecosystem services: Combining choice experiment, multicriteria decision analysis and deliberative valuation. Ecosystem Services 57: 101471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101471
- Sarabi S, Han Q, Romme AGL, de Vries B, Valkenburg R, den Ouden E (2020) Uptake and implementation of Nature-Based Solutions: An analysis of barriers using Interpretive Structural Modeling. Journal of Environmental Management 270: 110749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110749
- Scholz M (2022) Novel water retention and nutrient management technologies and strategies supporting agricultural water management in continental, Pannonian and Boreal Regions. Water (Basel) 14: 1486. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14091486
- Scholz M, Mehl D, Schulz-Zunkel C, Kasperidus HD, Born W, Henle K (2012) Ökosystemfunktionen von Flussauen – Analyse und Bewertung von Hochwasserretention, Nährstoffrückhalt, Kohlenstoffvorrat, Treibhausgasemissionen und Habitatfunktion.
- Sharbaf AS, Schneider-Marin P (2025) Cost-benefit analysis of sustainable upgrades in existing buildings: A critical review. Energy and Building 328: 115142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.115142
- Slavíková L, Raška P (2019) This Is My Land! Privately Funded Natural Water Retention Measures in the Czech Republic. In: Hartmann T, Slavíková L, McCarthy S (Eds) Nature-Based Flood Risk Management on Private Land: Disciplinary Perspectives on a Multidisciplinary Challenge. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23842-1_6
- Solheim A, Capobianco V, Oen A, Kalsnes B, Wullf-Knutsen T, Olsen M, Del Seppia N, Arauzo I, Garcia Balaguer E, Strout JM (2021) Implementing nature-based solutions in rural landscapes: Barriers experienced in the PHUSICOS Project. Sustainability 13: 1461. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031461
- Stammel B, Jähnig SC, Mehl D, Pusch M, Srđević Z, Tschikof M, Wulf S, Scholz M (2026) Assessing ecosystem services across scales to support nature-based solutions in river floodplains: a review of non-monetary tools. In: Kaden US, Schmid S, Wulf S, Marsden K, Klusmann C, Bonn A, Tockner K, Scholz M (Eds) Wetlands in a Changing Climate: Restoring Coasts and Floodplains. Nature Conservation 62: 95–119. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.62.148716
- Stoffers T, Schultze A-K, Ehlert T, Kaiser L, Scholz M, Nagelkerke LAJ (2026) Challenges and opportunities in restoring European free-flowing rivers. In: Kaden US, Schmid S, Wulf S, Marsden K, Klusmann C, Bonn A, Tockner K, Scholz M (Eds) Wetlands in a Changing Climate: Restoring Coasts and Floodplains. Nature Conservation 62: 355–381. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.62.173762
- Tal-maon M, Portman ME, Broitman D, Housh M (2024) Identifying the optimal type and locations of natural water retention measures using spatial modeling and cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 368: 122229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122229
- Valencia Cotera R, Guillaumot L, Sahu R-K, Nam C, Lierhammer L, Máñez Costa M (2023) An assessment of water management measures for climate change adaptation of agriculture in Seewinkel. The Science of the Total Environment 885: 163906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163906
- van Dijk WFA, Lokhorst AM, Berendse F, de Snoo GR (2016) Factors underlying farmers' intentions to perform unsubsidised agri-environmental measures. Land Use Policy 59: 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.09.003
- Vejchodská E (2015) Cost-benefit analysis: Too often biased. E+M. Ekonomie a Management 2015: 68–77. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2015-4-005
- Vicuña S, Bonilla CA, Gaxiola A, Rivera JI, Gonzalez D, Aedo-Quililongo S, Vega A, Pastén P, Bustos E, Melo O, Labatut R, Herane JP, Gironás J, Suárez F, Marquet PA (2025) Water security in a semiarid environment: An approach to assess costs and benefits of high-Andean nature-based solutions. Ecosystem Services 76: 101784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101784
- Viti M, Löwe R, Sørup HJD, Rasmussen M, Arnbjerg-Nielsen K, McKnight US (2022) Knowledge gaps and future research needs for assessing the non-market benefits of Nature-Based Solutions and Nature-Based Solution-like strategies. The Science of the Total Environment 841: 156636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156636
- Wheeler R, Lobley M (2021) Managing extreme weather and climate change in UK agriculture: Impacts, attitudes and action among farmers and stakeholders. Climate Risk Management 32: 100313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100313
- Wantzen KM, Cao Y (2026) Cultural practices in European riverine floodplains: formation, typology, co-decline of biocultural diversity, and emerging drivers of conservation and sustainable management. In: Kaden US, Schmid S, Wulf S, Marsden K, Klusmann C, Bonn A, Tockner K, Scholz M (Eds) Wetlands in a Changing Climate: Restoring Coasts and Floodplains. Nature Conservation 62: 195–215. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.62.156771
- Zak D, Tschikof M, Natho S, Jes Petersen R, Kronvang B, Hoffmann CC, Liu H, Wang M, Kaden US (2026) Floodplains and coastal wetlands as nutrient sinks: a restoration perspective. In: Kaden US, Schmid S, Wulf S, Marsden K, Klusmann C, Bonn A, Tockner K, Scholz M (Eds) Wetlands in a Changing Climate: Restoring Coasts and Floodplains. Nature Conservation 62: 175–193. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.62.158302
- Zaňková L, Macháč J, Hekrle M (2025) In harmony or against each other? Czech farmers' and residents' attitudes towards nature-based solutions on agricultural land. GeoScape 19: 64–76. https://doi.org/10.2478/geosc-2025-0005