Are NBS too Expensive to be Worth the Investment?

Written by Apostolos Malamakis, CERTH

The Myth

Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)—such as urban green spaces, restored wetlands, green roofs, or nature-based flood protection—are costly projects with uncertain returns.

The Reality

This perception often arises because the benefits of NBS are not always immediate or easily captured in traditional budget lines. As a result, they are sometimes viewed as “nice to have” extras rather than serious infrastructure options.

A growing body of evidence shows that NBS are frequently more cost-effective over time than conventional grey infrastructure. Studies by the European Commission¹ and the European Environment Agency² demonstrate that NBS can reduce long-term public spending by lowering flood damage, decreasing energy demand through urban cooling, improving air quality, and supporting public health. When these multiple benefits are considered together, NBS often deliver higher overall economic returns, while also increasing climate resilience and biodiversity at the same time.

image of an extended hand holding two 'earths' (one with colours one without).

Importantly, NBS are designed to work with natural processes³, which makes them more adaptable to future climate impacts⁴. Unlike rigid technical infrastructure, well-designed NBS can continue to deliver benefits as conditions change, reducing maintenance costs and avoiding expensive upgrades. For cities, regions, and communities, NBS should therefore be understood not as an added expense, but as a long-term investment in resilience, well-being, and sustainability.

Why this misconception matters

This misconception can discourage municipalities, educators, and local stakeholders from engaging with NBS or supporting their inclusion in education and planning. In the context of eNaBlS, it represents a risk to stakeholder buy-in, as NBS may be prematurely dismissed before their full economic and social value is understood.

References