A second important step is comparing the benefits of project alternatives. For this step, it is important to understand the strategic priorities and policy mechanisms of the agency developing the NNBF project. Different organizations will prioritize different types of benefits, and, as a result, different decision-support frameworks and conceptual models can be applied to compare these benefits. For some conservation groups or regulatory agencies, habitat restoration or water quality improvements may be objectives in themselves, whereas other institutions, such as emergency management and risk reduction agencies, insurance companies, and businesses, may focus on risk reduction benefits first and on co-benefits that can be monetized second. Project alternatives that include NNBF can be compared using different decision-support tools. For projects or organizations that focus exclusively on monetized benefits, a cost‑benefit analysis (CBA) may be used to compare alternatives. Projects and organizations that value cultural benefits (e.g., aesthetic quality), “intermediate” ecosystem services without a direct benefit to people (e.g., biodiversity and habitat outcomes, preventing erosion in an uninhabited area), nonmonetized indicators of societal value (e.g., count of families below the poverty line within the flood zone), or a mixture of monetized and nonmonetized benefits may use a variety of other decision-support tools, including multicriteria analysis (MCA), cost‑effectiveness analysis (CEA), or other less structured approaches to analyze trade-offs. The effect of considering a wider range of benefits and co-benefits is to raise the possibility of drawing multiple types of stakeholders into a project’s development and longevity (each interested in different types of co-benefits). A diversity of stakeholders can help identify a suite of co-benefits that can be monetized, rather than relying on a single project sponsor interested primarily in flood risk reduction, for example. In addition, stakeholders may serve as potential sources for project financing and provide capacity and support for implementation and maintenance. The enhanced perspectives and financial resources gained from a large stakeholder group should permit a more holistic, robust, and imaginative approach to the NNBF project.
6.1.3 Guidance Format for Assessing Costs and Benefits in the NNBF Framework NNBF benefits should be considered in each phase of the project and should be an integral part of project design. Each phase of the NNBF project development framework requires a different approach to benefits assessment (see Section 2.5 and Figure 2.3 in Chapter 2 and Figure 6.3 in this chapter), as follows:
06 | Benefits and Costs of NNBF
209