IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v36y2016i2d10.1007_s10669-016-9594-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Program efficiency analysis within the environmental landscape

Author

Listed:
  • Erin A. Hopkins

    (Virginia Tech)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the importance of accounting for environmental impacts in project feasibility. Cost–benefit analysis, a germane tool for measuring a project’s feasibility, can be utilized for projects with environmental consequences. This paper first provides a background on cost–benefit analysis as well as a background on environmental cost–benefit analysis. It then provides the steps taken in order to perform this type of analysis. With this cost–benefit analysis and environmental cost–benefit analysis framework in mind, six international case studies are reviewed to demonstrate how cost–benefit analysis is applied to various environmental projects around the world using different methods and from both a public and private sector viewpoint. Recommendations are then put forward to address the need for continued consideration and implementation of environmental impacts on cost–benefit analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Erin A. Hopkins, 2016. "Program efficiency analysis within the environmental landscape," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 209-216, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:36:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s10669-016-9594-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-016-9594-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-016-9594-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-016-9594-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Project evaluation with democratic decision-making: What does cost–benefit analysis really measure?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 124-131.
    2. K. G. Willis, 2010. "Is All Sustainable Development Sustainable? A Cost-Benefit Analysis Of Some Procurement Projects," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 12(03), pages 311-331.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qifeng Qiao & Peter A. Beling, 2016. "Decision analytics and machine learning in economic and financial systems," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 109-113, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    2. Nurmi, Väinö & Ahtiainen, Heini, 2018. "Distributional Weights in Environmental Valuation and Cost-benefit Analysis: Theory and Practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 217-228.
    3. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    4. Jasper N. Meya & Stefan Baumgärtner & Moritz A. Drupp & Martin F. Quaas, 2020. "Inequality and the Value of Public Natural Capital," CESifo Working Paper Series 8752, CESifo.
    5. Juutinen, Artti & Tolvanen, Anne & Saarimaa, Miia & Ojanen, Paavo & Sarkkola, Sakari & Ahtikoski, Anssi & Haikarainen, Soili & Karhu, Jouni & Haara, Arto & Nieminen, Mika & Penttilä, Timo & Nousiainen, 2020. "Cost-effective land-use options of drained peatlands– integrated biophysical-economic modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    6. Ekaterina Nikitina, 2019. "Opportunity Cost of Environmental Conservation in the Presence of Externalities: Application to the Farmed and Wild Salmon Trade-Off in Norway," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(2), pages 679-696, June.
    7. Niek Mouter, 2017. "Dutch politicians’ use of cost–benefit analysis," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1127-1145, September.
    8. Victor Champonnois & Olivier Chanel, 2023. "Accounting for subsistence needs in non-market valuation: a simple proposal," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 66(5), pages 1037-1060, April.
    9. Jaithri Ananthapavan & Marj Moodie & Andrew J. Milat & Rob Carter, 2021. "Systematic Review to Update ‘Value of a Statistical Life’ Estimates for Australia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-17, June.
    10. Djukic, Malisa & Jovanoski, Iljcho & Ivanovic, Olja Munitlak & Lazic, Milena & Bodroza, Dusko, 2016. "Cost-benefit analysis of an infrastructure project and a cost-reflective tariff: A case study for investment in wastewater treatment plant in Serbia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1419-1425.
    11. Sui, Bo & Sharma, Susan Sunila & Yao, Liu-Yang & Ni, Guo-Hua & Chang, Chun-Ping, 2024. "Does aging affect renewable energy? The role of extreme events and economic development," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    12. Van Oijstaeijen, Wito & Van Passel, Steven & Back, Phil & Cools, Jan, 2022. "The politics of green infrastructure: A discrete choice experiment with Flemish local decision-makers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    13. Khalifa Mohammed Al-Sobai & Shaligram Pokharel & Galal M. Abdella, 2020. "Perspectives on the Capabilities for the Selection of Strategic Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-20, October.
    14. Eggert, Håkan & Kataria, Mitesh & Lampi, Elina, 2018. "Difference in Preferences or Multiple Preference Orderings? Comparing Choices of Environmental Bureaucrats, Recreational Anglers, and the Public," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 131-141.
    15. Kits, Gerda J., 2017. "Good for the Economy? An Ecological Economics Approach to Analyzing Alberta’s Bitumen Industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 68-74.
    16. Thijs Dekker & Paul (P.R.) Koster & Niek Mouter, 2019. "The economics of participatory value evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-008/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    17. Mouter, Niek & Cabral, Manuel Ojeda & Dekker, Thijs & van Cranenburgh, Sander, 2019. "The value of travel time, noise pollution, recreation and biodiversity: A social choice valuation perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    18. Rintaro Yamaguchi, 2021. "Genuine Savings and Sustainability with Resource Diffusion," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 80(2), pages 451-471, October.
    19. Olivier Chanel & Pavitra Paul, 2022. "Do differences in brute luck influence preferences for redistribution in favour of the environment and health?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    20. Väinö Nurmi & Karoliina Pilli-Sihvola & Hilppa Gregow & Adriaan Perrels, 2019. "Overadaptation to Climate Change? The Case of the 2013 Finnish Electricity Market Act," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 161-190, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:36:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s10669-016-9594-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.