Testing metrics to prioritise environmental projects

David Pannell and Fiona L. Gibson

No 163211, Working Papers from University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics

Abstract: Decision makers responsible for the allocation of funds to environmental projects commonly use project scoring metrics that are not consistent with basic economic theory. As a result, there is often a loss of environmental benefits due to poor prioritisation of projects. The magnitudes of these losses are estimated for various metrics that deviate from theory. We examine cases where relevant variables are omitted from the benefits metric, project costs are omitted, and where parameters are weighted and added when they should be multiplied. Distributions of parameters are estimated from 129 environmental projects from Australia, New Zealand and Italy for which Benefit: Cost Analyses had previously been completed. The cost of using poor prioritisation metrics (in terms of lost environmental values) is often high – up to 80 per cent in the scenarios examined. The cost is greater where the budget is smaller. The most costly errors were found to be omitting information about environmental values, project costs or the effectiveness of management actions, and using a weighted additive decision metric for variables that should be multiplied. The latter three of these are errors that occur commonly in real-world decision metrics, often reducing potential environmental benefits by 30 to 50 per cent.

Keywords: Environmental; Economics; and; Policy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 18
Date: 2014-02-03
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-cdm, nep-env, nep-ppm and nep-sog
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/163211/files/WP0001401.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ags:uwauwp:163211

DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.163211

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by AgEcon Search ().