18 June 2026
Written by Julia Klawitter, UHOH ~ Edited by Ann-Catrin Fender, UHOH
The Myth
Creating and implementing Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) costs too much money.
The Reality
NBS are cost-effective actions inspired and supported by nature. They protect, manage or restore natural or modified ecosystems to address challenges such as flooding, heat, pollution, and biodiversity decline while also supporting human well-being1(pp.4-5),2(pp.4-5),3. Using NBS for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction is a valid and effective socio-economic option that increases resilience and provides many societal benefits. This includes health improvements and new job opportunities4(pp.11-12). In other words, NBS are not decorative add-ons: they are a form of practical, green infrastructure.
Looking at the numbers, the main financial problem in Europe is not ‘too much spending on NBS’, but too little adaptation overall. The EEA estimates that weather- and climate-related extremes caused around 822 billion EUR in economic losses in the EU between 1980 and 2024 (in 2024 prices), with less than 20% of those losses privately insured5. Another EEA assessment on the economics of adaptation states verbatim that a “lack of adaptation action is costly”. It notes that adaptation measures are generally considered cost-efficient when their benefit-cost ratio (benefits divided by costs) is above 1.56. Recent assessments report high benefit-cost ratios for many NBS: they prevent damage and deliver extra benefits such as cleaner air, cooler urban areas, and more attractive public spaces1(pp.7&10),4(pp. 17-18,22&36).
NBS can also be cheaper or more cost-effective than traditional ‘grey’ infrastructure, such as concrete dykes or sea walls. IEEP’s review of NBS for disaster risk reduction reports that they are “often cheaper than traditional hard engineering approaches such as dykes, dams, storm barriers and sea walls” and “very often highly cost-effective measures for climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction, particularly when the many co-benefits are considered”1(pp.7&10). A Europe-wide study of river flood risk published in Nature Climate Change finds that reducing flood peaks using detention (or ‘retention’) areas – essentially giving rivers more space by restoring or creating floodplains – is the most economically attractive adaptation option at European scale, outperforming strategies that focus mainly on raising dykes when both costs and avoided damages are considered7. Taken together, this evidence suggests that the expensive option is not to invest in NBS, but to keep paying rising disaster bills and emergency recovery costs.
Why this misconception matters
If NBS are portrayed as ‘too expensive’, governments and citizens may delay preventative action – and keep spending on disaster relief and reconstruction instead, relying on old routines and industries. NBS can create entire new industries and thus new jobs. Further, the evidence indicates that well-designed NBS are often among the cheapest ways to protect people, infrastructure, and public finances from climate risks and consequences of biodiversity loss.
References
18 June 2026
