Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A benefit–cost analysis of floodplain land acquisition for US flood damage reduction


Flooding is the costliest form of natural disaster and impacts are expected to increase, in part, due to exposure of new development to flooding. However, these costs could be reduced through the acquisition and conservation of natural land in floodplains. Here we quantify the benefits and costs of reducing future flood damages in the United States by avoiding development in floodplains. We find that by 2070, cumulative avoided future flood damages exceed the costs of land acquisition for more than one-third of the unprotected natural lands in the 100-yr floodplain (areas with a 1% chance of flooding annually). Large areas have an even higher benefit–cost ratio: for 54,433 km2 of floodplain, avoided damages exceed land acquisition costs by a factor of at least five to one. Strategic conservation of floodplains would avoid unnecessarily increasing the economic and human costs of flooding while simultaneously providing multiple ecosystem services.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Costs to acquire unprotected natural floodplain areas and avoided future damages.
Fig. 2: The area of each additional return period acquisition zone that exceeds a certain BCR.
Fig. 3: Map of counties and associated BCRs.
Fig. 4: Maps of selected counties showing the 1% AEP floodplain, unprotected natural floodplain land and areas projected to be developed by 2070 within it, with grid lines spaced 0.5 degrees apart.

Map data ©2019 Google

Fig. 5: Costs to acquire unprotected natural floodplain areas and avoided future damages.

Data availability

Publicly available data are available online as follows: USGS National Elevation Dataset (; HydroSHEDS (; USACE National Levee Database (; FEMA National Structure Inventory (; MRLC National Land Cover Database (; USGS PADUS (; Theobold (2014) National Land-Use Dataset (; EPA ICLUS scenarios (; FAO Harmonized World Soil Database (; NOAA Intensity–Duration–Frequency curves (; Elvidge et al. (2007) satellite luminosity data (; USDA Census of Agriculture (; and FHFA residential land price data ( Data available for non-commercial academic research purposes are available as follows: flood hazard data can be acquired by contacting Christopher Sampson at Fathom (; the hydraulic model can be found at LISFLOOD-FP (; and Global Runoff Data Center discharge data can be found at


  1. 1.

    Miller, S., Muir-Wood, R. & Boissonnade, A. in Climate Extremes and Society (eds Diaz, H. F. & Murnane, R. J.) 225–247 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008).

  2. 2.

    Hydrologic Information Center—Flood Loss Data (National Weather Service); accessed June 30, 2018.

  3. 3.

    Winsemius, H. C. et al. Global drivers of future river flood risk. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 381–385 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wing, O. E. J. et al. Estimates of present and future flood risk in the conterminous United States. Env. Res. Lett. 13, 034023 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    NRC, Levees and the National Flood Insurance Program: Improving Policies and Practices (National Academies, 2013);

  6. 6.

    Infrastructure Report Card 2017 (ASCE); accessed on July 20, 2018.

  7. 7.

    Tockner, K. & Stanford, J. Riverine flood plains: present and future trends. Env. Conserv. 29, 308–330 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Tockner, K., Pusch, M., Borchardt, D. & Lorang, M. S. Multiple stressors in coupled river–floodplain ecosystems. Freshw. Biol. 55, 131–151 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Guida, R. J., Remo, J. W. F. & Secchi, S. Tradeoffs of strategically reconnecting rivers to their floodplains: the case of the Lower Illinois River. Sci. Total Env. 572, 43–55 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kousky, C. & Walls, M. Floodplain conservation as a flood mitigation strategy: examining costs and benefits. Ecol. Econ. 104, 119–128 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Schober, B., Hauer, C. & Habersack, H. A novel assessment of the role of Danube floodplains in flood hazard reduction (FEM method). Nat. Hazards 75, 33–50 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Wing, O. E. J. et al. Validation of a 30m resolution flood hazard model of the conterminous United States. Water Resour. Res. 53, 7968–7986 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Theobald, D. M. Development and applications of a comprehensive land use classification and map for the US. PLoS ONE 9, E94628 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Discount Rates in the Economic Evaluation of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects CRS Report 44594 (Congressional Research Service, 2016);

  15. 15.

    USDA 2017 Census of Agriculture (US Government Printing Office, 2019).

  16. 16.

    Davis, M. A., Larson, W. D., Oliner, S. D. & Shui, J. The Price of Residential Land for Counties, ZIP Codes, and Census Tracts in the United States Working Paper Series 2019 (FHFA, 2019).

  17. 17.

    Isgin, T. & Forster, D. L. A hedonic price analysis of farmland option premiums under urban influences. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 54, 327–340 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Plantinga, A. J., Lubowski, R. N. & Stavins, R. N. The effects of potential land development on agricultural land prices. J. Urban Econ. 52, 561–581 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Brown, G. M. Jr. & Pollakowski, H. O. Economic valuation of shoreline. Rev. Econ. Stat. 59, 272–278 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Ferraro, P. J. Assigning priority to environmental policy interventions in a heterogenous world. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 22, 27–43 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Rose, A. in Modeling Spatial and Economic Impacts of Disasters (eds Okuyama, Y. & Chang, S. E.) 13–46 (Springer, 2004).

  22. 22.

    Hallegatte, S. An adaptive regional input–output model and its application to the assessment of the economic cost of Katrina. Risk Anal. 28, 779–799 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Koks, E. E., Bočkarjova, M., de Moel, H. & Aerts, J. C. J. H. Integrated direct and indirect flood risk modeling: development and sensitivity analysis. Risk Anal. 35, 882–900 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Di Baldassarre, G. et al. HESS Opinions: an interdisciplinary research agenda to explore the unintended consequences of structural flood protection. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 22, 5629–5637 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Heine, R. A. & Pinter, N. Levee effects upon flood levels: an empirical assessment. Hydrol. Process. 26, 3225–3240 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Arnell, N. W. & Gosling, S. N. The impacts of climate change on river flood risk at the global scale. Climatic Change 134, 387–401 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Slater, L. J. & Villarini, G. Recent trends in US flood risk. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 12428–12436 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Xu, Y. J. Transport and retention of nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon in North America’s largest river swamp basin, the Atchafalaya River Basin. Water 5, 379–393 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Schindler, S. et al. Multifunctional floodplain management and biodiversity effects: lessons from six European countries. Biodivers. Conserv. 25, 1349–1382 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Lehner, B., Verdin, K. & Jarvis, A. New global hydrography derived from spaceborne elevation data. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 89, 93–94 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Neal, J., Schumann, G. & Bates, P. A subgrid channel model for simulating river hydraulics and floodplain inundation over large and data sparse areas. Water Resour. Res. 48, W11506 (2012).

  32. 32.

    Bates, P. D., Horritt, M. S. & Fewtrell, T. J. A simple inertial formulation of the shallow water equations for efficient two-dimensional flood inundation modelling. J. Hydrol. 387, 33–45 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Smith, A., Sampson, C. & Bates, P. Regional flood frequency analysis at the global scale. Water Resour. Res. 51, 539–553 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Morin, J. & Benyamini, Y. Rainfall infiltration into bare soils. Water Resour. Res. 13, 813–817 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Elvidge, C. D. et al. Global distribution and density of constructed impervious surfaces. Sensors 7, 1962–1979 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    What is the Updated Flood Map for Surface Water? (UK Environment Agency, accessed January 2013);

  37. 37.

    EPA Updates to the Demographic and Spatial Allocation Models to Produce Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios (ICLUS) Version 2, EPA/600/R-16/366F (National Center for Environmental Assessment, 2016);

  38. 38.

    Homer, C. G. et al. Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States—representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 81, 345–354 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Meyer, V., Haase, D. & Scheuer, S. Flood risk assessment in European river basins—concept, methods, and challenges exemplified at the Mulde River. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 5, 17–26 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Moore, M. A., Boardman, A. E. & Vining, A. R. More appropriate discounting: the rate of social time preference and the value of the social discount rate. J. Benefit–Cost Anal. 4, 1–16 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Freeman, M. C., Groom, B., Panopoulou, E. & Pantelidis, T. Declining discount rates and the Fisher Effect: inflated past, discounted future? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 73, 32–49 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Alonso, W. Location and Land Use: Toward a General Theory of Land Rent (Harvard Univ. Press 1964).

  43. 43.

    Mills, E. S. An aggregative model of resource allocation in a metropolitan area. Am. Econ. Rev. 57, 197–210 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Muth, R. F. Cities and Housing; The Spatial Pattern of Urban Residential Land Use (Univ. Chicago Press, 1969).

  45. 45.

    Brueckner, J. K. The structure of urban equilibria: a unified treatment of the Muth—Mills model. Handb. Reg. Urban Econ. 2, 821–845 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Davis, M. A., Oliner, S. D., Pinto, E. J. & Bokka, S. Residential land values in the Washington, DC metro area: new insights from big data. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 66, 224–246 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This study was made possible by funding for the Nature Conservancy from the Kresge Foundation. P.B. was supported by a Leverhulme Research Fellowship and a Wolfson Research Merit Award from the Royal Society in the United Kingdom. We thank Philip Morefield for providing the ICLUS data. W.D.L contributed to this research in his personal capacity and not as part of his official duties at the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The analysis and conclusions are those of the authors alone and should not be represented or interpreted as conveying an official Federal Housing Finance Agency position, policy, analysis, opinion or endorsement. Any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Author information




K.A.J., O.W., P.B., J.F., T.K., C.S. and A.S. designed the research. O.W., T.K., W.L., J.F. and K.A.J. completed the analyses. K.A.J. drafted the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and edited and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Kris A. Johnson or Oliver E. J. Wing.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

K.A.J., J.F, T.K. and W.D.L. have no competing interests. O.W., P.B., C.S. and A.S. have an interest in or are employed by Fathom, a flood analytics company based in the United Kingdom.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Discussion, Methods, Figs. 1–5 and Tables 1–4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johnson, K.A., Wing, O.E.J., Bates, P.D. et al. A benefit–cost analysis of floodplain land acquisition for US flood damage reduction. Nat Sustain 3, 56–62 (2020).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing