Assessing the environmental and social co-benefits and disbenefits of natural risk management measures.

Risk management measures (RMM) participate in the sustainability of cities and communities through the protection of these socio-eco-environmental systems against threatening events, and by ensuring system recovery. They include structural measures that are grey or green/blue solutions, or hybrid solutions combining the two former types. These measures can provide environmental and social co-benefits (e.g., improved biodiversity, recreational services) and disbenefits (e.g., the development of unwanted flora, concentrations of pollutants). The aim of this article is to provide an approach to assess and compare RMMs by considering these different dimensions. An application to three natural hazards - floods, coastal floods and wildfires - is proposed. The approach takes the form of a procedure to assess the co-benefits/disbenefits of the various RMMs and some technical specifications. It allows comparing the performances of one RMM against another and collectively discussing the choice of RMMs that takes into account a wide range of dimensions. The approach is based on the formulation of eight sustainability criteria and thirty-one indicators. The results were graphically displayed as several types of diagram: one radar chart per RMM, compiling all the indicators; one radar chart by type of risk studied (flood, wildfire and coastal flooding) based on averages of indicators per criterion; a table of the global score assigned to each RMM calculated with an arithmetic mean or a weighted mean. The approach relies on an interdisciplinary research team and involves end-users in a focus group for the validation step. This approach constitutes a transparent base for decision-making processes in the context of sustainable spatial planning against natural risks.