Ecological Economics 158 (2019) 194–205

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Analysis

Are Neighborhood-level SUDS Worth it? An Assessment of the Economic T

Value of Sustainable Urban Drainage System Scenarios Using Cost-Benefit
Analyses
Daniel Johnson , Sylvie Geisendorf
⁎

ESCP Europe Business School Berlin, Chair of Environment and Economics, Heubnerweg 8-10, 14059 Berlin, Germany

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) offer solutions to water quality and quantity problems in stormwater
Sustainable urban drainage systems management in urban areas in addition to numerous economic benefits in terms of urban ecosystem services.
Ecosystem services Cost-benefit analyses (CBA) of individual SUDS measures, such as green roofs and living walls, are investigated,
Cost-benefit analysis but economic analyses of complete SUDS for neighborhood-level application are still missing. CBA of neigh-
borhood-level SUDS applications can inform practitioners and decision makers for the proper assessment of
planned stormwater management projects. This paper estimates the benefits and economic value of urban
ecosystem services of SUDS for a neighborhood in Berlin, Germany, and compares these to typical cost estimates
found in literature. Benefits quantified include both private and social benefits. Three separate SUDS scenarios
with different combinations of measures for the same district are compared in terms of their net present values
(NPV), benefit-cost ratio (BCR) and benefit and cost efficiencies. Parameters of the NPV analysis are also ana-
lyzed in a sensitivity analysis. Our results show positive NPVs and BCRs above 1 for one scenario in an analysis of
private benefits. Inclusion of social benefits yields only slightly improved NPVs and BCRs. Overall, we de-
monstrate economic feasible SUDS for stormwater management.

1. Introduction (Fletcher et al., 2015). Increased retention of stormwater at the site

Urbanization and increased intensity of rainfall events as a result of
climate change are causing imminent problems for sustainable man-
agement of stormwater in major cities. Large amounts of sealed surfaces
in urban areas leads to the conveyance of excessive quantities of
stormwater to wastewater treatment plants in combined sewer systems
or directly to receiving water bodies in separated sewers systems.
Although these conventional “grey” solutions rapidly channel storm-
water away from the source to prevent flooding, there are major con-
sequences for receiving water bodies. With separated sewer systems,
increasing stormwater runoff poses problems for receiving water bodies
both in terms of quality, as dust and heavy metals and organic trace
substances from construction and transportation are washed from
streets and impervious surfaces (Wicke et al., 2015), and quantity, as
flow regimes are in receiving water bodies are altered (Niezgoda and
Johnson, 2005). On the other hand, sustainable urban drainage systems
(SUDS) offer solutions to these problems in stormwater management by
implementing measures for evapotranspiration, infiltration, and de-
tention at the source in order to achieve a more natural water cycle
decreases the amount of runoff draining directly into receiving rivers
and water bodies. Instead of focusing solely on rapid disposal of
stormwater to prevent flooding, strategies that implement SUDS oper-
ationalize the concept of multifunctionality (Hansen and Pauleit, 2014)
by bringing about multiple benefits and value to society.
SUDS provide additional benefits to communities in terms of urban
ecosystem services (Scholz et al., 2013). Urban ecosystem services
comprise the benefits that humans enjoy through ecosystems present in
urban contexts (Bolund and Hunhammer, 1999). For example, green
roofs and facade greening not only harvest rainfall and prevent runoff
from directly entering sewer and drainage systems but also decrease the
energy consumption of buildings through better insulation, reduce the
urban heat island effect in densely built areas, and add aesthetic value
to buildings (Besir and Cuce, 2018). Such ecosystem services can be
quantified and valued, also monetarily, which enables cost-efficient
planning of urban areas (Rode et al., 2017). Monetary valuation of
ecosystem services has gained momentum in recent years (Dehnhardt,
2014), although it is not always obvious how to express ecosystem
services in monetary terms and arguments against monetary evaluation

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: djohnson@escpeurope.eu (D. Johnson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.024
Received 27 July 2018; Received in revised form 27 November 2018; Accepted 28 December 2018
Available online 17 January 2019
0921-8009/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
D. Johnson, S. Geisendorf
do exist (e.g. Gowdy et al., 2010; Spangenberg and Settele, 2010). In-
cluding the values of non-marketable goods as benefits in cost-benefit
analyses (CBA) is meant to contribute to transparency in policy making
(Meyerhoff and Dehnhardt, 2009). The values of ecosystem services
represented monetarily provide a common unit of measure for com-
paring different alternatives against the costs given a range of bene-
ficiaries (Gerner et al., 2018). With the implementation of the Water
Framework Directive in the European Union (EU), policy makers are
encouraged to pursue economic analyses in basin management plan-
ning (European Commission, 2000). Furthermore, lack of information
regarding the economics of sustainable stormwater management ap-
proaches has been indicated by practitioners as being one of the bar-
riers to implementation (Sharma et al., 2016). In Germany, the inclu-
sion of the monetary valuation of ecosystem services in public planning
projects is lacking (Meyerhoff and Petschow, 2014), although water
policy makers generally exhibit positive attitudes towards economic
valuation in order to improve transparency and efficiency in the deci-
sion-making procedure (Dehnhardt, 2013). In recent years, steps to-
wards the ecosystem approach in public planning projects in Germany
have already been made (Hansen et al., 2015).
In order to improve economically efficient stormwater planning,
this paper pursues two aims. First, a monetary valuation of ecosystem
services for comparing different alternative measure scenarios at a
study site in Berlin is conducted. As a second step, the monetary va-
luation allows for a comparison of the benefits to the community in
terms of ecosystem services with the costs of the measure combinations
in CBA. This is important in order to estimate and include socio-eco-
nomic benefits in monetary valuations as suggested by many interna-
tional studies (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily et al., 2009; de Groot et al.,
2010; MA and Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Economic
analyses at the neighborhood level can inform the urban planning
process. Neighborhood spatial scales are one of the bases used in Ger-
many for urban planning, prediction and monitoring (Larondelle and
Lauf, 2016). Until now, no economic analyses of neighborhood-level
SUDS have been conducted in Germany.
Liu et al. (2016) investigated the benefits of low-impact develop-
ment for stormwater reduction in a CBA for a community in Beijing and
showed high benefit-cost ratios for integrated measures. In the UK, an
economic analysis of the benefits of SUDS demonstrating the positive
results of CBAs when incorporating the wider benefits also at the
neighborhood level (Ossa-Moreno et al., 2017). Other economic ana-
lyses of low-impact development and green infrastructure exclude non-
marketed benefits (Joksimovic and Alam, 2014; Liu et al., 2016;
Montalto et al., 2007; Spatari et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2013). Nu-
merous studies have included ecosystem services and wider economic
benefits in CBAs on single SUDS measures such as green roofs
(Bianchini and Hewage, 2012; Nurmi et al., 2016; Nurmi et al., 2013),
façade greening (Perini and Rosasco, 2013), rainwater harvesting
(Jianbing et al., 2010) and green spaces (Zhang et al., 2012) as well as
scaling the benefits of green roofs to the city level (Niu et al., 2010) or
combining green roofs with façade greening (Perini and Rosasco,
2016). While previous studies have valued specific measures of such
systems, for example the influence of green spaces on housing prices in
Berlin (Wüstemann and Kolbe, 2017), no study has highlighted the
multiple benefits generated by a combination of measures comprising
complete SUDS. Therefore, the current study contributes to the litera-
ture on the valuation of ecosystem services in urban contexts as well as
providing a method for comparing the economic performance of dif-
ferent SUDS scenarios for urban planning.
2. Methodology
This study assesses the economic feasibility of SUDS scenarios in
CBAs using the economic value of ecosystem services provided by them.
The basis of the analysis stems from the quantitative data of the hy-
drological scheme analysis in a project called KURAS, “Concepts for
195
Ecological Economics 158 (2019) 194–205
Quantitative data from KURAS
project
SUDS Scenarios
Definition of ecosystem
services
Quantitative data from literature
Economic Economic
Cost
valuation of valuation of social
private benefits benefits
estimations
Cost-benefit analysis
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of data collection for the cost-benefit analysis.
urban stormwater management and sewer systems” (German:
“Konzepte für urbane Regenwasserbewirtschaftung und
Abwassersysteme,” see www.kuras-project.de). The project, funded by
the Federal Ministry for Education and Research, developed methods
for the strategic planning of centralized and decentralized stormwater
management practices in urban areas by taking into account local re-
quirements and goals (Matzinger et al., 2017). In the project, several
non-monetary benefits of the scenarios were analyzed, such as biodi-
versity, urban heat island effect and the effects on receiving water
bodies. However, several ecosystem services remain unquantified and
not valued. By quantifying and monetizing the ecosystem services, a
more informed analysis of the scenarios is carried out. The present
study relies on literature of the private and public benefits as well as
ecosystem services of SUDS components as a basis for the CBA. The
conceptual framework for our analysis is shown in Fig. 1.
Numerous ecosystem services have been identified for stormwater
management and SUDS (Scholz et al., 2013). The ecosystem services
identified for the SUDS scenarios (Table 1) are categorized according to
provision, regulating, supporting and cultural services (TEEB – The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, 2011). We differentiate
between the private and social benefits. Private benefits are direct
monetary benefits accruing to either private individuals, the water
works company, or the city itself, and are evaluated in a financial
analysis. These benefits are derived from marketed goods and are ty-
pically valued using market price methods.
Social benefits are those that have no direct monetary value as there
is no market for them. These benefits can be valued monetarily by using
a variety of methods (TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity, 2011). Where possible, quantifiable values directly re-
levant for Berlin or Germany were used. In the cases where no method
could be directly adopted, a benefit transfer was applied by directly
utilizing the unit values in the literature for the study site (Richardson
et al., 2015). The ecosystem services of runoff reduction represent a
plurality of values. On the one hand, reducing runoff through SUDS is a
relief on the separated sewer system, reducing hydraulic loads and in-
frastructure costs (Liu et al., 2016). On the other hand, less stormwater
flowing from surfaces gathering dust, heavy metals and organic trace
substances is flowing directly into receiving water bodies (Wicke et al.,
2015), which emerges as a benefit to society through improved water
quality.
D. Johnson, S. Geisendorf Ecological Economics 158 (2019) 194–205

Table 1 measures are represented spatially in Fig. 2 as obtained from the project
Ecosystem services valued for the implementation of SUDS. partners of Ingenieurgesellschaft Prof. Dr. Sieker mbH.
Ecosystem services Type of Valuation method Scenarios in the KURAS project were developed by the project
benefit partners based on local requirements prioritized by stakeholders for
effects relating to biodiversity, groundwater, receiving water bodies,
Provisioning Groundwater recharge Social Market price
urban climate, quality of free space, resource efficiency, and benefits at
Drinking water saved Private Market price
Regulating Runoff reduction
the building level (Matzinger et al., 2017). Local stakeholders included
Rainwater fee Private Market price the Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment,
Runoff reduction Social Benefit transfer (choice the Berlin water works company, administrations of the Pankow dis-
experiments) trict, real estate managers, and other public interest groups such as
Air quality improvements Social Damage cost avoided
environmental groups and urban planning agencies. According the
CO2 storage and Social Damage cost avoided
sequestration priorities defined by the stakeholders, three groups of project partners
Energy savings analyzed the feasibility of different measures and the problem areas of
Heating savings Private Market price the current situation to develop three scenarios of measure combina-
Indoor cooling Social Replacement cost
tions independently of one another. Overall, the objective was not a
Externalities of heating Social Damage cost avoided
Supporting Increasing building
mathematical optimization of measure combinations but rather a
longevity combination of measures that meet local requirements while attaining
Roof longevity Private Market price higher-level goals.
Façade longevity Private Market price
Habitat creation Social Replacement cost
2.3. Cost-Benefit Model
Cultural Aesthetic improvements
Property value (with Private Benefit transfer
façade greening) (hedonic price) The net present value (NPV) and benefit-cost ratio (BCR) (European
Property value (with Private Benefit transfer Commission, 2014) as well as the benefit efficiency and cost efficiency
green roof) (hedonic price) (Liu et al., 2014) were the chosen indices to be calculated for an eco-
nomic comparison of the scenarios. An NPV above zero and a BCR
above 1 indicate that present values of the discounted benefits out-
2.1. Study Site
weigh the costs over the time horizon. The benefit and cost efficiencies
are indices for economically comparing the scenarios given their ca-
A neighborhood located in the separated sewer system of Berlin was
pacity to reduce stormwater runoff and are given as a ratio of the
chosen for investigation. The study site comprises a Berlin neighbor-
present value of benefits or costs, respectively, to the reduction in
hood in the district of Pankow and is located just north of the city
stormwater runoff. A time horizon of 50 years is applied in order to
center. Runoff generated in this area is drained to the Panke river. The
account for typical lifetimes of green roofs and other SUDS measures
site was recently investigated in the KURAS project. The site was chosen
(Perini and Rosasco, 2013). A discount rate of 3% is used in this ana-
for the present study because much of the data calculated for the
lysis as in the KURAS project (Matzinger et al., 2017) and suggested for
neighborhood in the KURAS project (e.g. hydrological modeling and
German economic analyses (DWA, 2012). This rate resembles the
dimensioning of SUDS measures) can be directly transferred for the
average market interest rate for long term investments in the last four
CBA and the valuation of the ecosystem services. As the KURAS project
years according to the German Commercial Code (Deutsche
demonstrates real planning processes for urban water management,
Bundesbank, 2018). The same discount rate is applied for analysis of
inclusion of a CBA could inform the real planning process. Three sce-
both private and social benefits as the social discount rate has also been
narios for SUDS implementation in the same neighborhood were de-
estimated to be 3% (Schad and John, 2012; Zhuang et al., 2007).
veloped in the KURAS project on the basis of stakeholder input and
physical feasibility. Cost reduction was not a criterion in the choice and
2.4. Costs
placement of individual measures of the SUDS.

Unit installation costs as well as operation and maintenance costs

2.2. SUDS Scenarios were calculated in the KURAS project (Table 3). The KURAS project
derived median values from a sample of 700 indicator estimates also
SUDS scenarios developed in the KURAS project consist of in- using surveys among the project partners. Unit installation and opera-
dividual measures of SUDS including green roofs, façade greening, tree tion and maintenance costs were adapted from the median values to the
drains, swales, trough-trench systems, ponds, permeable pavement, site location and serve as guiding values. These values reflect the fact
rainwater harvesting, and retention soil filters (Matzinger et al., 2017). that installation must be carried out on buildings with several stories,
Each scenario comprises differences in the spatial implementation of and, therefore, estimations are assumed appropriate for use in this
the individual measures (Table 2). The scenarios with all the SUDS study, although the costs for specific measures do vary greatly in
comparison to other economic analyses of specific measures (Bianchini
Table 2 and Hewage, 2012; Perini and Rosasco, 2016). Permeable pavement is
Dimensioning of the scenarios according to individual SUDS measures. assumed to not bring about any additional costs than what is incurred
Measure Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C by the previous pavement. The total costs for each specific measure are
calculated using extrapolation of the unit costs of each measure
Extensive green roofs (m2) 58,515 72,926 121,658 (Table 4), which also reflect the service life of individual measures.
Façade greening (m2) 199,880 79,008 290,732
Installation and operation and maintenance costs for the retention soil
Tree drains (m2) 5341 10,631 10,118
Swales (m2) 2502 0 0 filters were calculated by the KURAS project partners separately ac-
Swale-trench systems (m2) 2425 2858 336 cording to the dimensioning and size of the connected and, therefore,
Swale-trench-beds (m2) 2022 0 0 are not included in the unit costs.
Ponds (m2) 695 12,607 626 Overall, costs may accrue to either individuals or real estate orga-
Permeable pavement (m2) 6284 3803 21,225
nizations owning residential properties, the city of Berlin, or the Berlin
Rainwater harvesting cistern (m3) 0 542 361
Retention soil filters (m2) 5250 1294 0 water works company. Building level measures, such as green roofs,
façade greening, rainwater harvesting cisterns and permeable

196
 D. Johnson, S. Geisendorf Ecological Economics 158 (2019) 194–205

Fig. 2. Configurations of SUDS measures for Scenarios A, B and C of a neighborhood in Pankow, Berlin. Retention soil filters depicted outside of Scenario A and inside
Scenario B.

Table 3 flooding zones. Additionally, as we consider extensive green roofs in

Unit costs of measures according to surface areas used in extrapolation for in- this study, we do not include scenic benefits of accessible rooftops as
stallation and operation and maintenance costs (Strehl and Offermann, 2017). might be the case for intensive green roofs (Nurmi et al., 2016). Further
I O&M benefits of SUDS could include noise attenuation (Veisten et al., 2012)
and biodiversity improvements through façade greening (Collins et al.,
Green roofs (€/m2) 20 1.50 2017) but were excluded from the present study due to the difficulty in
Façade greening (€/m2) 100 10.00
disentangling these benefits from aesthetic improvements and the
Train drains (€/m2) 303 1.21
Swales (€/m2) 20 1.05 subsequent double counting of benefits.
Swale-trench systems (€/m2) 55 1.10
Swale-trench-beds (€/m2) 460 1.50
Ponds (€/m2) 213 2.71 2.5.1. Rainwater Fee
Permeable pavement (€/m2) 50 0.00 With the installation of SUDS, higher percentages of stormwater are
Rainwater harvesting cistern (€/m3) 650 5.5 retained onsite which reduces the load on conventional stormwater
drainages systems. As the water works company in Berlin (Berliner
Wasserbetriebe) charges a rainwater fee of 1.804 €/m2 for property
pavement accrue costs to private individuals, whereas costs of tree owners with surface runoff draining into the sewer system (Berliner
drains, ponds, swales and retention soil filters would need to be covered Wasserbetriebe, 2017), one benefit accruing to the property owner is a
by either the city or the water works. reduction of this fee respective of the SUDS measure implemented. The
fee is charged per square meter of draining land and roof area. Instal-
ling a green roof reduces this fee by 50% per area of the green roof and
2.5. Private Benefits
incorporating rainwater harvesting cisterns further increases the re-
duction of the fee up to 85% total (Strehl and Offermann, 2017), given
Private benefits include reduction of the rainwater fee, drinking
the dimensioning of the cisterns. Trough-trench systems are also re-
water savings, energy savings in terms of heating savings, aesthetic
warded with a 50% reduction of the chargeable fee and any decreases
improvements as increased property values and increased longevity of
in overall coverage of sealed surfaces are given a reduction of rainwater
roofing and facades. Flood protection benefits accounted for significant
fee based on the sealing type and area (Berliner Wasserbetriebe, 2018).
benefits in other CBA (e.g., Bianchini and Hewage, 2012), but we ex-
cluded flood protection as the SUDS considered in this study would
likely not represent a quantifiable benefit in terms of extreme flooding 2.5.2. Heating Savings
1-3
events (Lamond et al., 2015), as the study site is not located within
3 notes:
Green roofs provide a source of insulation for buildings concerning

197
 D. Johnson, S. Geisendorf Ecological Economics 158 (2019) 194–205

Table 4
Installation (I) and annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs (€) of the three scenarios (Strehl and Offermann, 2017).
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

I O&M I O&M I O&M

Extensive green roofs 1,170,294 87,772 1,458,511 109,388 2,433,156 182,487

Façade greening 19,988,560 1,998,856 7,900,800 709,080 29,073,220 2,907,322
Train drains 1,618,348 5988 3,221,973 11,921 3,065,945 11,344
Swales 50,030 2627 0 0 0 0
Swale-trench systems 133,381 2668 157,190 3144 18,480 370
Swale-trench-beds 929,908 3033 0 0 0 0
Ponds 147,778 1881 2,684,497 34,165 133,086 1694
Permeable pavement 314,211 0 190,145 0 1,061,228 0
Rainwater harvesting cisterns 0 0 352,298 2981 234,647 1985
Retention soil filter 671,682 8903 398,373 2909 0 0

Totals 25,024,192 2,111,728 16,363,787 954,588 36,019,762 3,105,202

Present value of all costs 79,358,455 40,925,111 115,915,877

04 heat transfer, which accrues both heating and cooling savings (Berardi
et al., 2015). Through absorption of solar radiation in photosynthesis
piñan Estupiñanand the reflection of solar radiation, less heat is transferred through the
5-7 roof. The specific amount of heat saved per square meter by using a
3 notes:green roof as opposed to a conventional roof is given according to the
heat flux calculation (Clark et al., 2008):
1 1 1 green roofs and facade greening. Estimates for the cooling effect of
Hsav = × HDD15 °C × 24 h days
R conv RGR
where Hsav is the specific heat savings (kWh/m2), Rconv and RGR are the
thermal resistance values of conventional and green roofs respectively,
8-9
and HDD15°C is the number of average annual heating degree days for
2 notes:
the standard temperature of 15 °C. Heating degree days refer to the
coldness of a location compared to the standard temperature; the higher
10 the number of heating degree days, the colder the location. Heating
degree days are calculated by summing over the positive values when
piñan Estupiñanthe mean daily temperature is subtracted from standard temperature for
a given year. Larger differences between the mean daily temperature
and the standard temperature and more days with lower mean daily
temperature than the standard temperature yield a higher number of
heating degree days.
11
Direct monetary savings on heating costs are calculated by multi-
piñan Estupiñanplying the Hsav by the total area of the green roof and the average price
of gas for conventional heating of residential buildings. The reference
12-15 value for the 2 1
thermal transmittance of a conventional roof in Germany
4 notes:is 0.5 W/m K (EnEV, 2015). An extensive green roof reduces the heat
transfer and results in a thermal transmittance of 0.24 W/m2K (Clark
et al., 2008). The average annual number of heating degree days at
15 °C for Berlin over the past 30 years is 3393.6. Considering that the
16-17 majority of the buildings in the study site are residential, savings are
2 notes:achieved through reduced energy consumption of natural gas with an
average price for 2017 of 0.0578 € per kilowatt hour (kWh) (BDEW,
2017a).
As a social benefit, we also adopt the valuation of the externalities of
household heating as provided by the Federal Environment Agency
18-20 (“Umweltbundesamt”), which results in avoided damage costs in terms
3 notes:of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution at approximately
0.029 €/kWh of the heating savings from each scenario
(Umweltbundesamt, 2012). This is the average between the costs at-
tributable to district heating and heating with natural gas since the
21 neighborhood in Pankow is roughly split between these two sources
(Umweltatlas Berlin, 20052).
piñan Estupiñan
1
Thermal transmittance is the inverse of the thermal resistance and is pro-
vided here in watts per square meter kelvin (W/m2 K).
2
“Umweltatlas”, or environmental atlas, is an online portal providing
2.5.3. Cooling Savings
As the study site is primarily composed of residential buildings with
no cooling systems, the benefits of reduced cooling costs are not directly
calculated. In this study, we quantify the monetary savings of cooling
costs as an ecosystem service to residents using the substitute cost
method. Multiplying Csav by the average cost of electricity per kWh
provides a cost estimate of the cooling substituted through the use of
(1) façade greening have shown a 1.7 °C decrease in nighttime tempera-
tures of indoor walls (Hoelscher et al., 2015). We assume this estimate
is equivalent to at least the value of cooling to residents living in
buildings with the SUDS measures. By replacing HDD15°C in (1) with the
number of average annual cooling degree days for a mean daily stan-
dard temperature of 18.3 °C (CDD18.3°C), the annual cooling savings
(Csav) through the use of green roofs can be calculated:
1 1 1
Csav = × CDD18.3 × 24 h × days
°C
R conv RGR (2)
The average price of electricity in Germany of 0.29 €/kWh (BDEW,
2017b) is then multiplied by the cooling savings to obtain the mon-
etized benefit of cooling by façade greening and green roofs.
2.5.4. Longevity
Green roofs and façade greening contribute to the protection of
building materials against weathering (Kosareo and Ries, 2007; Wong
et al., 2010). Conventional roofs need maintenance after 25–30 years
due to UV rays, temperature changes and deterioration resulting from
rain, ice and air pollution. Green roofs extend the lifetimes to range
from 40 to 55 years because plants and the soil layer act as a protecting
layer against environmental conditions (Clark et al., 2008). Some green
roofs in Berlin have been estimated to last 90 years with significant
repairs or replacement (Porsche and Köhler, 2003). With the applica-
tion of green roofs, direct cost savings for the property owner are as-
sumed to accrue at the 25th year as the frequency of maintenance and
repairs is reduced. Savings approximated at 62 €/m2 are assumed to
accrue to the building owner for roof sealing replacement, repairs and
insulation costs (Hämmerle, 2010). This remains as a low estimate
compared to other studies investigating the longevity increases with
green roofs (e.g. Bianchini and Hewage, 2012; Perini and Rosasco,
2016). Façade greening provides a protection against environmental
conditions for the plaster coating on the surface faces of buildings.
(footnote continued)
numerous geospatially referenced data and project results from the Senate
Department for Urban Housing and development and the Senate department for
Environment, Transport and Climate Protection.

198
 D. Johnson, S. Geisendorf
Removal of plaster layers and subsequent painting may be required for
typical facades every 25 to 30 years or more, but façade greening can be
22-23 assumed to increase the longevity of the coating by another 15 years
2 notes:resulting in a cost recovery at the 35th year since maintenance would
be required after the end of the time horizon (Perini and Rosasco,
2016). In Germany, costs of façade restoration and repainting range
from 6000 to 19,300 € for a 100 m2 façade (kostenblick.de, 2018).
Taking an average at 126.5 €/m2 results in a cost recovery for the
24-25 property owner at the 35th year.
2 notes:
26-28 2.5.5. Aesthetic Improvements
3 notes:
Green roofs and façade greening provide aesthetic improvements to
buildings which can be valued using hedonic pricing methods.
Wüstemann and Kolbe (2017) observed an increase in property values
of 410 € in Berlin for a 1% increase in green space within a 500 m ra-
29-30 dius. The increase of urban green space has also been positively asso-
2 notes:ciated with the quality of life of residents in Germany (Krekel et al.,
2016). An increase of the coverage of green space through green roofs
and façade greening can therefore increase the provision of ecosystem
31 services in terms of the cultural service of aesthetic values.
The effects of green roofs on housing prices and rental incomes has
piñan Estupiñanonly been investigated in a few studies (Veisten et al., 2012). Ichihara
32 and Cohen (2011) demonstrated a 16% increase in rental rates of
buildings with green roofs compared to buildings with conventional
piñan Estupiñanroofs. Perini and Rosasco (2016) attributed green roofs to the aesthetic
value of buildings using estimates for increases of property values of
green roofs in the range of 3.8% for semi-peripheral and 8.2% for
33-35
historic areas. As no study on the effects of green roofs on housing
3 notes:
prices in Germany exist, a simple benefit transfer as used in Bianchini
and Hewage (2012) is adopted for the present study. The authors
36
suggested property value increases of building with green roofs to range
piñan Estupiñanfrom 2 to 5%. Based on this estimation and the previous studies, we use
a 3.5% increase of property values as a moderate estimate. For façade
greening, Veisten et al. (2012) provided unit value estimates of the
aesthetic value of corridor greening in the range of 0.5–2.4 €/m2-
37
person-yr for all individuals residing in a building with a view to the
piñan Estupiñansmall patch of façade greening. Adopting these crude unit value esti-
mates in direct benefit transfer would result in falsely overestimated
values that would almost double the rental rates of residential apart-
ments in the district as much larger façade areas are greened. For the
present study, a 3.5% increase in property value is assumed also for
façade greening, which aligns with an empirical study by Des Rosiers
38 et al. (2002) for Canadian homes.
The average purchasing price per area of apartments in the Pankow
2
piñan Estupiñandistrict (2521 €/m ) is obtained from the Committee of Valuation
Experts (Gutachterausschuss für Grundstückswerte, 2018). Increases in
property value as a result of green roofs and façade greening accrue to
39-41 all stories of the residential building. The area of green roofs is multi-
3 notes:
plied by 4 to obtain an approximate average number of stories accruing
value in residential buildings of the district (Umweltatlas Berlin, 2016).
Similarly, the areas of the floor space of the buildings to receive façade
greening is also multiplied by 4 to reflect the value of façade greening
that accrues to multiple stories.
42
piñan EstupiñanTable 5
Pollutant removal rates of trees, green roofs and facade greening and the corresponding economic value of pollutants.
Pollutants Removal rates (g/m2-yr)
Trees (Aevermann and Schmude, 2015) Green roofs (Yang et al., 2008)
NO2 3.10 2.23
O3 (NMVOC) 4.10 4.42
SO2 0.40 0.595
PM10 4.00 1.19
PM2.5 0.60
199
Ecological Economics 158 (2019) 194–205
2.6. Social Benefits
The ecosystem services provided to society through SUDS included
groundwater recharge, runoff reduction, air quality improvements,
carbon reduction, habitat creation and externalities of heating.
2.6.1. Groundwater Recharge
Permeable pavement, trough-trench systems, swales and tree drains
promote the natural infiltration of stormwater and subsequent rechar-
ging of groundwater bodies (Matzinger et al., 2017). Although some
areas of Berlin suffer from high groundwater levels as a result of the
closing of several water works since 1989, the aquifer that the site in
Pankow drains into is independent of the main aquifers suffering from
high levels (Senate Department for Urban Development and Housing,
2016). As all groundwater abstraction and drinking water supply in
Berlin takes place within the borders, we assess the ecosystem service of
groundwater recharge through the SUDS measures. The total increase
in infiltration for each of the scenarios is obtained from modeling of
experimental data on SUDS measures performed in the KURAS project.
The increase in infiltration volume per year is then multiplied by the
groundwater fee for Berlin (0.31 €/m3) (Berliner Wasserbetriebe, 2017)
and is taken to be the value of the groundwater that is recharged
through increased natural infiltration.
2.6.2. Runoff Reduction
While a reduction of the rainwater fee represents a direct monetary
benefit to the property owner, society benefits from cleaner receiving
waters as a result of runoff reduction. The study site is located in the
separated sewer system of Berlin, which directly drains stormwater into
the Panke. Stormwater gathers dust, heavy metals and organic trace
substances as it is washed from streets and impervious surfaces (Wicke
et al., 2015). In order to value the improved water quality of the Panke
as a result of the SUDS implementation and consequent reduction of
surface runoff, the willingness-to-pay of Berlin citizens for an im-
provement of river water quality was adopted through a direct benefit
transfer (Richardson et al., 2015). Meyerhoff et al. (2014) estimated the
willingness-to-pay for an improvement of the Spree from poor to
moderate water quality status according to a modified scale of the
Water Framework Directive to be 9.5 €/person/year. We assume that
the reduction of runoff will realize only a moderate water quality
condition as there are also other sources for pollution in the river. We
modify this value respective of the percent reduction in runoff draining
into the Panke and aggregate over the total number of residents in the
neighborhood.
2.6.3. Air Quality Improvements
Trees, green roofs and façade greening contribute to the improve-
ment of air quality in urban areas by removing pollutants (Aevermann
and Schmude, 2015; Perini and Rosasco, 2013; Yang et al., 2008).
Specifically in Berlin, annual average concentrations of particulate
matter (PM10) and NO2 often exceed the World Health Organizations
(WHO) guidelines of 20 μg/m3 and 40 μg/m3 respectively (Guerreiro
et al., 2016), especially along highly-driven streets at the study site in
Pankow (Umweltatlas Berlin, 2012a, 2012b). Air pollutants settle and
Unit values (€/ton)
Façade greening (50% of green roofs) (Umweltbundesamt, 2012)
1.15 15,400
2.21 1600
0.298 13,200
0.595 39,700
55,400
 D. Johnson, S. Geisendorf
are absorbed by plants such as trees and through green roofs and façade
greening. The removal rates of NO2, O3, SO2, PM2.5 and PM10 vary
between each of the measures (Table 5). Façade greening is assumed to
43 only remove 50% of the pollutants as compared to green roofs (Perini
and Rosasco, 2013). Unlike Perini and Rosasco (2013) we adopt the
piñan Estupiñanremoval rates from Yang et al. (2008) instead of Currie and Bass (2008),
since the latter study used a model specifically built for trees and
shrubs.
The economic value of air quality improvements is calculated
44-45 through avoided damage costs in terms of health as air pollutants such
2 notes:as nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM10), ozone and sulfur
oxides (SOx) cause respiratory diseases and problems as well as heart-
46 related issues (Brunekreef and Holgate, 2002). The costs associated
with mortality and hospital admissions are considered in the valuation
piñan Estupiñanapproach by the Federal Environment Agency of Germany, whose es-
timates are recommended for economic valuation of the pollutants
(Umweltbundesamt, 2012).
2.6.4. CO2 Storage and Sequestration
Trees, green roofs and façade greening provide the ecosystem ser-
vice of carbon dioxide uptake through photosynthesis and therefore
47 contribute to the reduction of atmospheric carbon. Trees are significant
sources of carbon storage with rates at 7.57 kg C/m2 in Germany
piñan Estupiñan(Strohbach and Haase, 2012). An average annual sequestration rate for
urban trees is assumed to be 0.2 kg C/m2-yr (Nowak and Crane, 2002).
Lower sequestration rates have been cited in the literature for green
roofs and façade greening with 168 g C/m2-yr (Getter et al., 2009) and
3.89 g C/m2-yr (Perini and Rosasco, 2013), respectively. Carbon re-
duction through façade greening is excluded from the analysis due to
48 the very low carbon sequestration rates. The economic value of the
reduction of carbon dioxide is calculated through the avoided damage
piñan Estupiñanand cost approach and is assigned a value of 80 € per ton of CO2
equivalent (€/t CO2-eq) as recommended by the Federal Environment
Agency for the social cost of carbon (Umweltbundesamt, 2012).
2.6.5. Habitat Creation
Green roofs provide more natural space in urban areas for organisms
49 as resting or stopover places in comparison to traditional roofs (Currie
and Bass, 2010). Although extensive green roofs do not replace natural
piñan Estupiñanhabitats, it is at least possible to assume a positive contribution to
biodiversity (Schrader and Böning, 2006). MacMullan et al. (2008)
estimated the costs of buying and restoring land to a natural habitat to
be approximately $275,000 per acre (55.24 €/m2). The benefit of ad-
ditional habitat space is assumed to be at least as valuable as the cost of
50 creating it, but the benefit is reduced to only 15% of the original esti-
mate in order to account for the lower quality of an extensive green roof
piñan Estupiñancompared to a complete natural habitat on the surface (Bianchini and
Hewage, 2012).
3. Results
Results of the calculation of the present value of the stream of pri-
vate and social benefits over a 50-year time horizon are shown in
Table 6. Private benefits include the reduction of the rainwater fee,
saved drinking water costs, heat savings, property value increases
through the installation of green roofs and façade greening, and in-
creases in the longevity of roofs and facades. Results from Scenario C
show the highest total present value of benefits accruing to private
persons, while Scenario A and B result in considerably lower total
benefits. In all scenarios, property value increases generated by the
installation of green roofs represent the largest benefit.
Monetized benefits accruing to society (Table 6) through ecosystem
services of SUDS measures revealed only minor benefits in comparison
to the private benefits. Scenario C also obtained the highest total pre-
sent value of social benefits, almost double that of Scenario A and B. In
all scenarios, improved water quality in the receiving Panke river as a
200
Ecological Economics 158 (2019) 194–205
result of runoff reduction achieved the highest benefit to society.
Cost-benefit indices were calculated for each of the scenarios
(Table 7) using the present value of all private and social benefits in
Table 6 and the present value of all costs in Table 4. The NPV and BCR
calculations of Scenario B resulted in a positive outcome indicating
reasoning for project acceptance. Although Scenario A did not achieve
economic sustainability (NPV = −22.9 × 106 €, BCR = 0.71), the
highest cost efficiency and the second highest benefit efficiency was
obtained with this scenario.
For each of the scenarios, sensitivity analyses were performed on
the NPV calculation that included private and social benefits following
the approaches of Bianchini and Hewage (2012) and Perini and Rosasco
(2016). Sensitivity analyses are important for addressing uncertainties
of the sources of the valuations as well as for considering the differences
in costs in comparison to other studies. The NPV is assumed to be
sensitive to parameters if a 20% change in the parameter induces a 20%
change in the NPV (European Commission, 2014). The NPV calculation
for Scenario A was sensitive to variation in private and economic
parameters including the installation cost and the operation and
maintenance cost (Fig. 3). The installation cost, operation and main-
tenance cost and the property value increase with green roofs lead to
significant variation in the NPV of Scenario B (Fig. 4) and Scenario C
(Fig. 5). In terms of the social benefits, none of the parameters led to
significant variation of the NPV calculation for any of the scenarios and
were thus excluded from the figures.
Given the sensitivity of the NPVs of the different scenarios to several
parameters in the analysis, it is important to consider realistic varia-
tions of these parameters. For Scenario A, no variation up to 20% of the
parameters shifted the NPV from negative to positive. A reduction of
the installation costs and operation and maintenance costs by 20% still
results in an NPV of −17.9 × 106 € and −12.0 × 106 €, respectively. In
other words, given a wide range of variation among all of the para-
meters, the NPV remains negative. Similar results were obtained for
Scenario C. Scenario B, on the other hand, was characterized by a po-
sitive NPV for all variations of the parameters including increases in the
costs of 20%. A 33% increase in the total present value of all costs
would be required to shift the NPV of Scenario B from positive to ne-
gative. The cost estimates from the KURAS project used in the analysis
serve to be guiding values, and we assume a 33% increase in the present
value of total costs to be within a range of reasonable doubt to maintain
the positive outcome of this scenario. Furthermore, although the NPV of
Scenario B was sensitive to property value increases with green roofs,
adopting the lower estimate of 2% increase in property value from
Bianchini and Hewage (2012) would still result in an NPV of
2.75 × 106 €.
As a 20% variation of the discount rate led to a range of only 2.4%
to 3.6%, a further investigation of the effect of the discount rate on the
NPV was deemed appropriate. Increased variation of the discount rate
to a range of 1% to 5% yielded similar results to the baseline scenario at
3% (Table 8). Only scenario B is distinguished with a positive NPV for a
wider range of discounting, indicating the robustness of the economic
feasibility of this scenario.
4. Discussion
CBA has been used here as a method of analyzing alternative sce-
narios of SUDS implementation at the neighborhood level for a neigh-
borhood in Berlin, Germany. Of the three scenarios financially eval-
uated, only one achieved a positive NPV and a BCR above 1. Inclusion
of the social benefits through the monetary valuation increased the
cost-benefit indices, but only Scenario B remained economically bene-
ficial. Scenario B was characterized by a relatively low amount of
façade greening and using the methods in this analysis reveals that
greening many building façades incurs costs that are not recovered in
terms of the benefits provided. Even small sections of green façade can
result in high benefits as not only the residents in the building receiving
D. Johnson, S. Geisendorf Ecological Economics 158 (2019) 194–205

Table 6
Present value of private and social benefits (€) over 50 years discounted at 3% for the three scenarios.
Ecosystem services Type of benefit Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

Provisioning Groundwater recharge Social 102,521 120,568 106,745

Drinking water saved Private 0 116,787 246,646
Regulating Runoff reduction
Rainwater fee Private 6,488,789 8,209,107 9,096,810
Runoff reduction Social 1,018,660 1,530,475 1,605,011
Air quality improvements Social 317,870 256,077 555,561
CO2 storage and sequestration Social 95,929 135,682 195,446
Energy savings
Heating savings Private 1,842,809 2,296,651 3,831,380
Indoor cooling Social 380,883 394,401 732,970
Externalities of heating Social 918,216 1,144,352 1,909,061
Supporting Increasing building longevity
Roof longevity Private 1,732,711 2,159,438 3,602,475
Façade longevity Private 8,985,805 3,551,884 13,070,148
Habitat creation Social 470,791 586,737 978,821
Cultural Aesthetic improvements
Property value (with façade greening) Private 14,038,596 8,896,971 18,522,905
Property value (with green roof) Private 20,050,658 24,988,683 41,687,285
Totals 56,444,239 54,387,812 96,141,263

Table 7 effect was excluded here due to a lack of estimates in the literature for
Net present values (NPV), benefit-cost ratios (BCR), cost efficiencies and benefit the economic valuation of reduced ambient air temperatures as a result
efficiencies of the three scenarios including private and social benefits. of such countermeasures. Including a valuation of SUDS measures for
NPV BCR Cost efficiency Benefit efficiency the alleviation of the urban heat island effect could certainly improve
(106 €) (102 €/m3) (102 €/m3) the economic benefits as approximately 1600 deaths per year in Berlin
can be attributed to heat-related stress (Scherer et al., 2013), and a 50%
Scenario A −22.9 0.71 10.38 7.38
decrease in deaths could be expected for even a 0.8 K decrease in mean
Scenario B 13.5 1.33 3.56 4.74
Scenario C −19.8 0.83 9.62 7.98 ambient temperature (Buchin et al., 2016). The combination of SUDS
measures for improving air quality and reducing the urban heat island
effect could also lead to synergistic benefits as there are increased risks
greening enjoy benefits but also surrounding residents with a view to of mortality as a result of the interactive effects of high air pollution and
the green façade (Veisten et al., 2012). Further research on the eco- urban temperatures (Burkart et al., 2013).
nomic value of façade greening to residents could improve CBA esti- Scenario B was also characterized by the highest area of ponds and
mates not only for quantifying aesthetic values but also for the urban tree drains. Replacing sealed surfaces with ponds can fully alleviate
heat island effect. A study in Berlin on façade greening as a counter- stormwater runoff of the proposed area leading to a reduction in the
measure to urban heat stress showed only slight improvements in the rainwater fee, while tree drains also benefit from a reduction of the
ambient air temperature outside of buildings (Jänicke et al., 2015). As rainwater fee. Furthermore, operation and maintenance costs are rela-
the green façade size in that study was relatively small, it would be tively low for ponds and tree drains. Therefore, SUDS combinations
interesting to investigate the effects of large scale implementation of should aim for high coverage areas of these measures.
façade greening on urban climate and how temperatures improvements High initial installation as well as maintenance costs of individual
might also be achieved in combination with other measures such as SUDS measures likely makes it difficult for private individuals to invest
permeable pavement and tree drains because increasing the natural in measures for stormwater runoff reduction. However, considering the
surface fraction can decrease urban temperatures (Schubert and costs and benefits of SUDS measures on the building scale in CBA has
Grossman-Clarke, 2013). The valuation of reduced urban heat island shown that such measures are economically sustainable (Bianchini and

60% Installa on cost

40% Opera on and maintenance cost

Roof longevity
20%
NPV variaon (%)

Facade Longevity
0%
Property value (w/ facade
greening)
-20% Property value (w/ green roof)

-40% Heat savings

Discount rate
-60%
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20% Stormwater charge
Variaon

Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis of Scenario A for the private, social and economic factors.

201
D. Johnson, S. Geisendorf Ecological Economics 158 (2019) 194–205

50% Installa on cost

40% Opera on and
30% maintenance cost
Roof longevity
20%

NPV variaon (%)

Facade Longevity
10%
0% Property value (w/ facade
greening)
-10% Property value (w/ green
-20% roof)
Heat savings
-30%
Discount rate
-40%
-50% Stormwater charge
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
Drinking water savings
Variaon
Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of Scenario B for the private, social and economic factors.

Hewage, 2012; Perini and Rosasco, 2013). Perini and Rosasco (2016)
showed that combining green roofs and green façades on single build-
ings is economically feasible and that certain costs savings can be ex-
pected, although no cost savings were assumed in the present study.
Scaling the analysis to analyze SUDS on the neighborhood level in the
present study showed that economic sustainability is also achieved if
the systems are configured appropriately.
Of the numerous SUDS measures configured in the scenarios, only a
few accrue monetary benefits and increase the provision of ecosystem
services besides the savings on the rainwater fee. Green roofs and
façade greening bring about numerous additional monetary benefits
and ecosystem services, but no additional benefits or services could be
quantified for other measures including permeable pavement, swales,
retention soil filter, trenches, and drainage ditches. Studies have also
shown aesthetic benefits of swales and ponds in the form of increased
property value as a result of swales, ponds and drainage basins (Wolf
et al., 2015), but there are also arguments against such aesthetic ap-
preciation for drainage basins (Irwin et al., 2017). In this analysis, we
argue that no such increase in aesthetic value is achieved as façade
greening already results in considerable increases in green space, and
the areas of the swales and trenches configured in the scenarios is al-
ready primarily occupied by grass or trees. Additionally, although only
20% of the urban population in major German cities reside within
500 m of water bodies (Wüstemann et al., 2017) and property values
are positively associated with the coverage of water bodies within a
500 m radius (Wüstemann and Kolbe, 2017), we do not quantify the
Table 8
NPV (106 €) of each scenario in response to higher and lower discount rates.
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C
1% −31.7 15.6 −31.5
3% (baseline) −22.9 13.5 −19.8
5% −18.5 11.7 −14.0
value of increases in property value as a result of the building of ponds
in the scenarios. The ponds in each of the scenarios are located within
building corridors which allows only limited access for others outside of
the building complex. As a result, only those residing directly near the
ponds would likely receive a benefit. Valuing the increase of property
value of buildings directly within the vicinity of the ponds according to
Wüstemann and Kolbe (2017) would result in benefits less than a few
hundred euros and is therefore excluded from the analysis.
It should be noted that the cost estimates used in this analysis were
obtained from the final reports of the KURAS project, which undertook
a thorough analysis of literature values as well as expert estimations
from the project members. The installation cost of green roofs used here
(20 €/m2) is considerably higher than costs advertised by green roof
installation companies in Germany (12 €/m2) but still remains lower
than the estimates used in some other studies (e.g. Bianchini and
Hewage, 2012; Perini and Rosasco, 2016). Furthermore, façade
greening contributed the largest amount of costs to each scenario and

100% Installa on cost

80% Opera on and maintenance cost
60%
Roof longevity
40%
NPV variaon (%)

Facade Longevity
20%
0% Property value (w/ facade
greening)
-20% Property value (w/ green roof)
-40% Heat savings
-60%
Discount rate
-80%
Stormwater charge
-100%
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20% Drinking water savings
Variaon
Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis of Scenario C for the private, social and economic factors.

202
D. Johnson, S. Geisendorf
the assumed relative installation cost was 100 €/m2. We argue that this
estimate is very conservative for direct green façades which were va-
lued at 30–45 €/m2 for the study in Italy (Perini and Rosasco, 2013).
As the overall goal of SUDS is to reduce the amount of stormwater
runoff, additional cost-benefit indices were calculated for each of the
scenarios. The cost efficiency represents the total present value of all
cost for the achieved level of runoff reduction while the benefit effi-
ciency considers the total present value of all benefits. Scenario B
performed the best in terms of the cost efficiency but was outperformed
by the other scenarios for the benefit efficiency. From this we can
conclude that the lowest cost per cubic meter of runoff reduced is
achieved with Scenario B, but there are significant additional benefits
associated with the other scenarios. These benefits, however, are out-
weighed by the higher costs.
This analysis considered overall private and social benefits accruing
to property owners, the water works company and the city. However,
the benefits and costs were not distributed among these stakeholders as
the aim was to analyze the economic performance of the SUDS as a
whole. Although this has some drawbacks in terms of the financial
analysis, there are several advantages for understanding the benefit of
SUDS to society. At the study site, the residential buildings are pri-
marily composed of rented apartments. Although landlords and
building owners reap the benefits of increased property value and
longevity of roofs and façades, the tenants reap the benefits of reduced
heating and improved cooling. Therefore, considering an unequal dis-
tribution of cost and benefits, this analysis demonstrates the financial
profitability of SUDS as well as the economic feasibility.
The results of the CBA demonstrated the benefits of SUDS to a
neighborhood equipped with a separated sewer system. Such systems
already deliver significant benefits in terms of improved water quality
of receiving water bodies in comparison to combined sewer systems.
High-intensity rainfall in areas with combined sewer systems can lead
to combined sewer overflows, which can be highly valued in terms of
water quality impairments (Wolf et al., 2015). As Berlin is fitted with
both systems, future research could be carried out on the economic
value of relieving combined sewer overflows in Berlin and whether the
application of SUDS leads to potentially high benefits and value to so-
ciety.
5. Conclusion
Urban areas are susceptible to challenges in managing stormwater
runoff as rates of sealed surfaces increase with urbanization. SUDS
implementation is seen as one solution to handling stormwater runoff
while also generating multiple benefits. Although costs are high, SUDS
provide the opportunity to bring additional value to society and en-
gender multifunctionality in the planning process. In order to ensure
economic efficiency in the planning process, the purpose of this study is
to analyze the economic feasibility of different SUDS alternatives. We
make two contributions to the literature on the valuation of ecosystem
services in urban contexts. First, a monetary valuation of ecosystem
services of different SUDS scenarios for a neighborhood in Berlin is
conducted. While previous studies have focused on single SUDS mea-
sures or single building investigations, our study proposes a method of
economically analyzing complete SUDS for neighborhood-level appli-
cation which can inform the urban planning process. Second, the
monetary valuation is used for a comparison of the benefits in terms of
ecosystem services with the costs of the measure combinations in a
CBA. We show that economically feasible SUDS at the neighborhood
level can be achieved. Based on a comparison of the SUDS alternatives,
scenarios should focus on high areas of relatively cheap measures, such
as tree drains, and ponds, which contribute directly to a reduction of
stormwater runoff. Although scenarios with large areas of façade
greening provide many additional benefits at the building level, costs
rise considerably and are not fully recovered in the CBA. Using the
method proposed in this study, practitioners and decision makers can
203
Ecological Economics 158 (2019) 194–205
make more informed plans for reducing stormwater problems while
incorporating multiple ecosystem services to improve the value to ci-
tizens compared with conventional solutions in stormwater manage-
ment.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Nepomuk Dunz, Florian Lüdeke-
Freund and four anonymous reviewers for the insightful comments and
valuable suggestions. Furthermore, we would like to thank Matthias
Pallasch, Clemens Strehl and Ingenieurgesellschaft Prof. Dr. Sieker mbH
for providing and aiding in the use of the data from the KURAS research
project. No financial funding was received to support the work in this
research paper.
References
Aevermann, T., Schmude, J., 2015. Quantification and monetary valuation of urban
ecosystem services in Munich, Germany. Z. Wirtsch. 59, 188–200. https://doi.org/
10.1515/zfw-2015-0304.
BDEW, 2017a. BDEW-Gaspreisanalyse Mai 2017. Bundesverband der Energie- und
Wasserwirtschaft e.V., Berlin WWW Document. https://www.bdew.de/service/
daten-und-grafiken/bdew-gaspreisanalyse/, Accessed date: 5 September 2017.
BDEW, 2017b. BDEW-Strompreisanalyse Mai 2017. Bundesverband der Energie- und
Wasserwirtschaft e.V., Berlin WWW Document. https://www.bdew.de/service/
daten-und-grafiken/bdew-strompreisanalyse/ accessed 9.7.17.
Berardi, U., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., 2015. State-of-the-art analysis of
the environmental benefits of green roofs. Appl. Energy 115, 411–428. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.047.
Berliner Wasserbetriebe, 2017. Tarife für Trinkwasser, Schmutzwasser,
Niederschlagswasser, Fäkalwasser und Fäkalschlamm vom 1. Januar 2016 bis 31.
December 2017 [WWW Document]. http://www.bwb.de/content/language1/html/
204.php (accessed 4.5.18).
Berliner Wasserbetriebe, 2018. Allgemeine Bedingungen für die Entwässerung in Berlin.
WWW Document. http://www.bwb.de/content/language1/downloads/ABE.pdf (ac-
cessed 4.5.18).
Besir, A.B., Cuce, E., 2018. Green roofs and facades: a comprehensive review. Renew.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 82, 915–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.106.
Bianchini, F., Hewage, K., 2012. Probabilistic social cost-benefit analysis for green roofs: a
lifecycle approach. Build. Environ. 58, 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.
2012.07.005.
Bolund, P., Hunhammer, S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 29,
293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0.
Brunekreef, B., Holgate, S.T., 2002. Air pollution and health. Lancet 360, 1233–1242.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11274-8.
Buchin, O., Hoelscher, M.-T., Meier, F., Nehls, T., Ziegler, F., 2016. Evaluation of the
health-risk reduction potential of countermeasures to urban heat islands. Energy
Build. 114, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.06.038.
Burkart, K., Canário, P., Breitner, S., Schneider, A., Scherber, K., Andrade, H., Alcoforado,
M.J., Endlicher, W., 2013. Interactive short-term effects of equivalent temperature
and air pollution on human mortality in Berlin and Lisbon. Environ. Pollut. 183,
54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.06.002.
Clark, C., Adriaens, P., Talbot, F.B., 2008. Green roof valuation: a probabilistic economic
analysis of environmental benefits. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 2155–2161. https://
doi.org/10.1021/es0706652.
Collins, R., Schaafsma, M., Hudson, M.D., 2017. The value of green walls to urban bio-
diversity. Land Use Policy 64, 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.
02.025.
Costanza, C., D'Arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997.
The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260.
https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0.
Currie, B.A., Bass, B., 2008. Estimates of air pollution mitigation with green plants and
green roofs using the UFORE model. J. Urban Econ. 11, 409–422. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11252-008-0054-y.
Currie, B.A., Bass, B., 2010. Using Green Roofs to Enhance Biodiversity in the City of
Toronto, Discussion Paper for Toronto City Planning. Toronto.
Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts,
T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making:
time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1890/080025.
Dehnhardt, A., 2013. Decision-makers' attitudes towards economic valuation–a case study
of German water management authorities. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2, 201–221.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2013.766483.
Dehnhardt, A., 2014. Zur Ökonomisierung umweltpolitsicher Entscheidungsfindung.
Ökologisches Wirtschaften 29, 22–24. https://doi.org/10.14512/OEW290222.
Des Rosiers, F., Thériault, M., Kestens, Y., Villeneuve, P., 2002. Landscaping and house
values: an empirical investigation. J. Real Estate Res. 23, 139–162.
Deutsche Bundesbank, 2018. Tables - Discount interest rates: Discount interest rates
pursuant to section 253 (2) of the German Commercial Code [WWW Document].
https://www.bundesbank.de/Navigation/EN/Statistics/Money_and_capital_markets/
D. Johnson, S. Geisendorf
Interest_rates_and_yields/Discount_interest_rates/Tables/table.html (accessed
4.10.18).
DWA, 2012. Leitlinien zur Durchführung dynamischer Kostenvergleichsrechnungen
(KVR-Leitlinien). 8 (überarb. ed).
EnEV, 2015. Verordnung über energiesparenden Wärmeschutz und energiesparende
Anlagentechnik bei Gebäuden vom 24.07.2007 [WWW Document]. In:
Energieeinsparverordnung vom 24. Juli 2007 (BGBl. I S. 1519), die zuletzt durch
Artik. 3 der Verordnung vom 24. Oktober 2015 (BGBl. I S. 1789) geändert worden ist,
. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/enev_2007/BJNR151900007.html accessed
2.15.18.
European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in
the Field of Water Policy.
European Commission, 2014. Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects. In:
Economic Appraisal Tool for Cohesion Policy, pp. 2014–2020. https://doi.org/10.
2776/97516.
Fletcher, T.D., Shuster, W., Hunt, W.F., Ashley, R., Butler, D., Arthur, S., Trowsdale, S.,
Barraud, S., Semadeni-Davies, A., Bertrand-Krajewski, J.-L., Mikkelsen, P.S., Rivard,
G., Uhl, M., Dagenais, D., Viklander, M., Steen Mikkelsen, P., 2015. SUDS, LID, BMPs,
WSUD and more–the evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban
drainage. Urban Water J. 12, 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2014.
916314.
Gerner, N.V., Nafo, I., Winking, C., Wencki, K., Strehl, C., Wortberg, T., Niemann, A.,
Anzaldua, G., Lago, M., Birk, S., 2018. Large-scale river restoration pays off: a case
study of ecosystem service valuation for the Emscher restoration generation project.
Ecosyst. Serv. 30, 327–338 (doi:S2212041617303753).
Getter, K., Rowe, D.B., Cregg, B.M., Andresen, J.A., 2009. Carbon sequestration potential
of extensive green roofs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 7564–7570. https://doi.org/10.
1021/es901539x.
Gowdy, J., Hall, C., Klitgaard, K., Krall, L., 2010. What every conservation biologist
should know about economic theory. Conserv. Biol. 24, 1440–1447. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01563.x.
de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in in-
tegrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, man-
agement and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecocom.2009.10.006.
Guerreiro, C., Gonzalez Ortiz, A., de Leeuw, F., Viana, M., Horalek, J., 2016. Air Quality
in Europe—2016 Report. European Environment Agencyhttps://doi.org/10.2800/
413142.
Gutachterausschuss für Grundstückswerte, 2018. Immobilienpreis-Info
Wohnungseigentum [WWW Document]. https://aks-berlin.poet.de/aks-immobilien/
control/flowcontroller.html;jsessionid=6B726E4BF9E9ACEEE04F51055F9E3C28?
jCfxL1lD=YWRXoJKTu&_flowId=root&_flowExecutionKey=e1s4, Accessed date: 9
April 2018.
Hämmerle, F., 2010. Die Wirtschaftlichkeit von Gründächern aus der Sicht des Bauherrn
[WWW Document]. http://www.haemmerle-gruendach.de/artigr/wirtvongd.html
(accessed 12.11.17).
Hansen, R., Pauleit, S., 2014. From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A
conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for
urban areas. Ambio 43, 516–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0510-2
From.
Hansen, R., Frantzeskaki, N., Mcphearson, T., Rall, E., Kabisch, N., Kaczorowska, A., Kain,
J., Artmann, M., Pauleit, S., 2015. The uptake of the ecosystem services concept in
planning discourses of European and American cities. Ecosyst. Serv. 12, 228–246.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.013.
Hoelscher, M.-T., Nehls, T., Jänicke, B., Wessolek, G., 2015. Quantifying cooling effects of
facade greening: shading, transpiration and insulation. Energy Build. 114, 283–290.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.06.047.
Ichihara, K., Cohen, J.P., 2011. New York City property values: what is the impact of
green roofs on rental pricing? Lett. Spat. Resour. Sci. 4, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12076-010-0046-4.
Irwin, N.B., Klaiber, H.A., Irwin, E.G., 2017. Do Stormwater basins generate co-benefits?
Evidence from Baltimore County, Maryland. Ecol. Econ. 141, 202–212. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.030.
Jänicke, B., Meier, F., Hoelscher, M.-T., Scherer, D., Scherer, D., 2015. Evaluating the
effects of façade greening on human bioclimate in a complex urban environment.
Adv. Meteorol. 2015, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/747259.
Jianbing, Z., Changming, L., Hongxing, Z., 2010. Cost–benefit analysis for urban rain-
water harvesting in Beijing. Water Int. 35, 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02508061003667271.
Joksimovic, D., Alam, Z., 2014. Cost efficiency of Low Impact Development (LID)
stormwater management practices. Procedia Eng. 89, 734–741. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.proeng.2014.11.501.
Kosareo, L., Ries, R., 2007. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of green
roofs. Build. Environ. 42, 2606–2613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.06.
019.
kostenblick.de, 2018. Was kostet eine Fassadensanierung? [WWW Document]. https://
kostenblick.de/was-kostet-eine-fassadensanierung/, Accessed date: 15 January 2018.
Krekel, C., Kolbe, J., Wüstemann, H., 2016. The greener, the happier? The effect of urban
land use on residential well-being. Ecol. Econ. 121, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.005.
Lamond, J.E., Rose, C.B., Booth, C.A., 2015. Evidence for improved urban flood resilience
by sustainable drainage retrofit. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Urban Des. Plan. 168, 101–111.
https://doi.org/10.1680/udap.13.00022.
Larondelle, N., Lauf, S., 2016. Balancing demand and supply of multiple urban ecosystem
services on different spatial scales. Ecosyst. Serv. 22, 18–31. https://doi.org/10.
204
Ecological Economics 158 (2019) 194–205
1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.008.
Liu, W., Chen, W., Peng, C., 2014. Assessing the effectiveness of green infrastructures on
urban flooding reduction: a community scale study. Ecol. Model. 291, 6–14. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.07.012.
Liu, W., Chen, W., Feng, Q., Peng, C., Kang, P., 2016. Cost-benefit analysis of green in-
frastructures on community stormwater reduction and utilization: a case of Beijing,
China. Environ. Manag. 58, 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-
0765-4.
MA, Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current
State and Trends. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
MacMullan, E., Reich, S., Puttman, T., Rodgers, Kelly, 2008. Cost-benefit evaluation of
Ecoroofs, in: Low impact development for urban ecosystem and habitat protection.
pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/41009(333)87.
Matzinger, A., Riechel, M., Remy, C., Schwarzmüller, H., Rouault, P., Schmidt, M.,
Offermann, M., Strehl, C., Nickel, D., Sieker, H., Pallasch, M., Köhler, M., Kaiser, D.,
Möller, C., Büter, B., Leßmann, D., von Tils, R., Säumel, I., Pille, L., Winkler, A.,
Bartel, H., Heise, S., Heinzmann, B., Joswig, K., Rehfeld-Klein, M., Reichmann, B.,
2017. Zielorientierte Planung von Maßnahmen der Regenwasserbewirtschaftung–
Ergebnisse des Projektes KURAS. (Berlin).
Meyerhoff, J., Dehnhardt, A., 2009. On the “non” use of environmental valuation esti-
mates. In: Döring, R. (Ed.), Sustainability, Natural Capital and Nature Conservation.
Metropolis, Marburg, pp. 143–166.
Meyerhoff, J., Petschow, U., 2014. Perspektiven der ökonomischen Bewertung von
Ökosystemleistungen. Ökologisches Wirtschaften 29, 27. https://doi.org/10.14512/
OEW290227.
Meyerhoff, J., Boeri, M., Hartje, V., 2014. The value of water quality improvements in the
region Berlin–Brandenburg as a function of distance and state residency. Water
Resour. Econ. 5, 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wre.2014.02.001.
Montalto, F., Behr, C., Alfredo, K., Wolf, M., Arye, M., Walsh, M., 2007. Rapid assessment
of the cost-effectiveness of low impact development for CSO control. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 82, 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.004.
Niezgoda, S.L., Johnson, P.A., 2005. Improving the urban stream restoration effort:
identifying critical form and processes relationships. Environ. Manag. 35, 579–592.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0088-8.
Niu, H., Clark, C., Zhou, J., Adriaens, P., 2010. Scaling of economic benefits from green
roof implementation in Washington, DC. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 4302–4308.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es902456x.
Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E., 2002. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the
USA. Environ. Pollut. 116, 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(01)
00214-7.
Nurmi, V., Votsis, A., Perrels, A., Lehvävirta, S., 2013. Cost-benefit analysis of green roofs
in urban areas: case study in Helsinki. Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki.
Nurmi, V., Votsis, A., Perrels, A., Lehvävirta, S., 2016. Green roof cost-benefit analysis:
special emphasis on scenic benefits. J. Benefit-Cost Anal. 7, 488–522. https://doi.
org/10.1017/bca.2016.18.
Ossa-Moreno, J., Smith, K.M., Mijic, A., 2017. Economic analysis of wider benefits to
facilitate SuDS uptake in London, UK. Sustain. Cities Soc. 28, 411–419. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.10.002.
Perini, K., Rosasco, P., 2013. Cost-benefit analysis for green façades and living wall
systems. Build. Environ. 70, 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.
012.
Perini, K., Rosasco, P., 2016. Is greening the building envelope economically sustainable?
An analysis to evaluate the advantages of economy of scope of vertical greening
systems and green roofs. Urban For. Urban Green. 20, 328–337. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ufug.2016.08.002.
Porsche, U., Köhler, M., 2003. Life cycle costs of green roofs–a comparison of Germany,
USA, and Brazil. In: RIO 3 - World Climate & Energy Event. Rio de Janeiro, pp.
461–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-009-0416-y.
Richardson, L., Loomis, J., Kroeger, T., Casey, F., 2015. The role of benefit transfer in
ecosystem service valuation. Ecol. Econ. 115, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2014.02.018.
Rode, J., Le Menestrel, M., Cornelissen, G., 2017. Ecosystem service arguments enhance
public support for environmental protection - but beware of the numbers!. Ecol. Econ.
141, 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.028.
Schad, M., John, J., 2012. Towards a social discount rate for the economic evaluation of
health technologies in Germany: an exploratory analysis. Eur. J. Health Econ. 13,
127–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-010-0292-9.
Scherer, D., Fehrenbach, U., Lakes, T., Lauf, S., Meier, F., Schuster, C., 2013.
Quantification of heat-stress related mortality hazard, vulnerability and risk in Berlin,
Germany. 144. DIE ERDE – J. Geogr. Soc., Berlin, pp. 238–259. https://doi.org/10.
12854/ERDE.V144I3-4.49.
Scholz, M., Uzomah, V., Almuktar, S., Radet-Taligot, J., 2013. Selecting sustainable
drainage structures based on ecosystem service variables estimated by different sta-
keholder groups. WaterSA 5, 1741–1759. https://doi.org/10.3390/w5041741.
Schrader, S., Böning, M., 2006. Soil formation on green roofs and its contribution to urban
biodiversity with emphasis on Collembolans. Pedobiologia (Jena) 50, 347–356.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2006.06.003.
Schubert, S., Grossman-Clarke, S., 2013. The influence of green areas and roof albedos on
air temperatures during extreme heat events in Berlin, Germany. Meteorol. Z. 22,
131–143. https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0393.
Senate Department for Urban Development and Housing, 2016. Groundwater Levels of
the Main Aquifer and Panke Valley Aquifer [WWW Document]. http://www.
stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/edr212_05.htm (accessed 4.18.18).
Sharma, A., Pezzaniti, D., Myers, B., Cook, S., Tjandraatmadja, G., Chacko, P., Chavoshi,
S., Kemp, D., Leonard, R., Koth, B., Walton, A., 2016. Water sensitive urban design:
an investigation of current systems, implementation drivers, community perceptions
D. Johnson, S. Geisendorf
and potential to supplement urban water services. WaterSA 8, 272. https://doi.org/
10.3390/w8070272.
Spangenberg, J.H., Settele, J., 2010. Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of eco-
system services. Ecol. Complex. 7, 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.
04.007.
Spatari, S., Yu, Z., Montalto, F.A., 2011. Life cycle implications of urban green infra-
structure. Environ. Pollut. 159, 2174–2179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.
01.015.
Strehl, C., Offermann, M., 2017. Schlussbericht des Forschungsvorhabens KURAS. In:
IWW-Teilbericht: Ökonomische Effekte der Regenwasserbewirtschaftung am Beispiel
Berlins. Berlin.
Strohbach, M.W., Haase, D., 2012. Above-ground carbon storage by urban trees in
Leipzig, Germany: analysis of patterns in a European city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 104,
95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.001.
TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, 2011. TEEB Manual for Cities:
Ecosystem Services in Urban Management. www.teebweb.org.
Umweltatlas Berlin, 2005. Versorgungsanteile der einzelnen Energieträger 2005
(Umweltatlas) [WWW Document]. https://fbinter.stadt-berlin.de/fb/index.jsp?
loginkey=zoomStart&mapId=k08_02_01uebheiz2005@senstadt&bbox=22908,
24283,29401,27283 accessed 11.3.17.
Umweltatlas Berlin, 2012a. Luftreinhalteplan 2011–2017: Szenarios NO2 Kfz-Verkehr
2015 (Umweltatlas) [WWW Document]. https://fbinter.stadt-berlin.de/fb/index.jsp?
loginkey=zoomStart&mapId=k03_11_3_no2_lrp@senstadt&bbox=23753,24889,
28235,26989 accessed 11.13.17.
Umweltatlas Berlin, 2012b. Luftreinhalteplan 2011–2017: Szenarios PM10 Kfz-Verkehr
2015 (Umweltatlas) [WWW Document]. https://fbinter.stadt-berlin.de/fb/index.jsp?
loginkey=zoomStart&mapId=k03_11_3_pm10_lrp@senstadt&bbox=23709,24782,
28191,26882 accessed 11.13.17.
Umweltatlas Berlin, 2016. Städtebauliche Dichte - Grundflächenzahl (GRZ) 2015
(Umweltatlas) [WWW Document]. https://fbinter.stadt-berlin.de/fb/index.jsp?
loginkey=zoomStart&mapId=k06_09_02grz2015@senstadt&bbox=389757,
5822716,396124,5825658 accessed 11.7.17.
Umweltbundesamt, 2012. Ökonomische Bewertung von Umweltschäden:
Methodenkonvention 2.0 zur Schätzung von Umweltkosten [WWW Document].
205
Ecological Economics 158 (2019) 194–205
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/
uba_methodenkonvention_2.0_-_2012.pdf accessed 1.9.18.
Veisten, K., Smyrnova, Y., Klæboe, R., Hornikx, M., Mosslemi, M., Kang, J., 2012.
Valuation of green walls and green roofs as soundscape measures: including mone-
tised amenity values together with noise-attenuation values in a cost-benefit analysis
of a green wall affecting courtyards. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 9, 3770–3788.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9113770.
Wicke, D., Matzinger, A., Rouault, P., 2015. Relevanz organischer Spurenstoffe im
Regenwasserabfluss Berlins. Kompetenzzentrum Wasser Berlin, Berlin.
Wolf, D.F., Duffy, A.M., Heal, K.V., 2015. Whole life costs and benefits of sustainable
urban drainage systems in Dunfermline, Scotland. In: Proceedings of the ASCE
International Low Impact Development Conference Houston, TX, USA, 19–21
January.
Wong, N.H., Kwang Tan, A.Y., Chen, Y., Sekar, K., Tan, P.Y., Chan, D., Chiang, K., Wong,
N.C., 2010. Thermal evaluation of vertical greenery systems for building walls. Build.
Environ. 45, 663–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.08.005.
Wüstemann, H., Kolbe, J., 2017. Der Einfluss städtischer Grünflächen auf die
Immobilienpreise: Eine hedonische Analyse für die Stadt Berlin. In: Raumforsch und
Raumordnung - Spat. Res. Plan. 75. pp. 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13147-
017-0485-0.
Wüstemann, H., Kalisch, D., Kolbe, J., 2017. Accessibility of urban blue in German major
cities. Ecol. Indic. 78, 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.035.
Yang, J., Yu, Q., Gong, P., 2008. Quantifying air pollution removal by green roofs in
Chicago. Atmos. Environ. 42, 7266–7273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.
07.003.
Zhang, B., Xie, G., Zhang, C., Zhang, J., 2012. The economic benefits of rainwater-runoff
reduction by urban green spaces: a case study in Beijing, China. J. Environ. Manag.
100, 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.01.015.
Zhang, G., Hamlett, J.M., Reed, P., Tang, Y., 2013. Multi-objective optimization of low
impact development designs in an urbanizing watershed. Open J. Optim. 2, 95–108.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ojop.2013.24013.
Zhuang, J., Liang, Z., Lin, T., De Guzman, F., 2007. Theory and Practice in the Choice of
Social Discount Rate for Cost-Benefit Analysis: a Survey. (Metro Manila).
Annotations

Are Neighborhood-level SUDS Worth it? An Assessment of

the Economic Value of Sustainable Urban Drainage System
Scenarios Using Cost-Benefit Analyses
Johnson, Daniel; Geisendorf, Sylvie

01 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 4

16/5/2019 2:30

02 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 4

16/5/2019 2:30

03 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 4

16/5/2019 2:31

04 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 2:34

05 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 0:50

06 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 2:34

07 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 2:34

08 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 1:25

09 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 0:57
10 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5
16/5/2019 0:58

11 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 1:05

12 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 1:29

13 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 1:29

14 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 1:08

15 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 1:09

16 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 1:31

17 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 1:12

18 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 1:14

19 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 1:17

20 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 1:34

21 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 5

16/5/2019 1:38
22 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6
16/5/2019 1:37

23 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 1:54

24 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 1:37

25 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 1:59

26 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 1:59

27 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 1:42

28 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 1:42

29 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 1:42

30 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 1:58

31 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 1:43

32 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 1:45

33 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 2:04
34 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6
16/5/2019 1:45

35 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 1:47

36 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 2:03

37 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 2:02

38 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 1:50

39 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 2:06

40 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 2:06

41 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 1:53

42 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 6

16/5/2019 2:08

43 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 7

16/5/2019 2:09

44 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 7

16/5/2019 2:11

45 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 7

16/5/2019 2:10
46 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 7
16/5/2019 2:11

47 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 7

16/5/2019 2:13

48 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 7

16/5/2019 2:14

49 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 7

16/5/2019 2:16

50 Juan Camilo Estupiñan Estupiñan Page 7

16/5/2019 2:16