Introduction: Clarifying the return on investment in disaster management is vitally important for quantifying its value, attracting funding, policy deployment, and eventually promoting this field. The study aimed to consolidate evidence of social return on investment in natural disaster management and to incorporate insights from health perspectives to figure out future directions. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines, using databases including PubMed and Web of Science. The search strategy employed keywords related to disaster management and cost-benefit analysis. The exclusion criteria encompassed non-English language publications, man-made disasters, and studies in which costs and benefits were not quantified in monetary value. Results: A literature search was conducted on August 15, 2024, and resulted in identifying 972 documents, of which 46 were selected for further analysis. Additionally, 56 grey literatures were identified, with 14 adopted. A total of 220 disaster management interventions were found, addressing various disasters such as floods, typhoons, and earthquakes. The interventions included hard infrastructure measures, warning systems, and green infrastructure development, encompassing pond maintenance and afforestation. The benefits primarily consisted of the estimated damage that could be avoided. The benefit-cost ratios distributed from approximately zero to over 2000, with a median of 2.30 and quartiles of 1.07 and 5.00. Approximately half of the literature assessed the value of human life by converting the number of deaths into monetary values. The impact on health as a benefit is infrequently taken into account. Conclusion: The benefit-cost ratios of disaster management are generally high and sometimes very high, with three-quarters exceeding 1 and one-quarter exceeding 5. Furthermore, these benefits are likely underestimated, as the impacts on health are rarely measured. When assessing social return on investment in disaster management, it is considered mandatory to take health into account.
D et al. (Sun,) studied this question.