The practice of valuing the environment in cost-benefit analyses in transport and spatial projects

J.A. Annema, C.C. Koopmans

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Scientific debates on environmental impacts in cost-benefit analysis (CBA) focus on methodological questions. The literature, however, contains very little information on the influence of these debates on CBAs made in spatial planning practice. In this paper, this gap is filled by a qualitative analysis of 67 CBAs made in the Netherlands between 2000 and 2011. From the literature on environmental valuation, we derive criteria to evaluate the quality of CBA practice, such as completeness and the inclusion of uncertainties. The analysis shows that in many cases relevant environmental effects are omitted or not monetised. Moreover, non-monetised effects are often not included in CBA conclusions. If impacts are monetised, the methods used are frequently not very sophisticated. The consequences of assumptions are often not communicated, for example, where high discount rates make long-term effects seem unimportant. In this research we identify four main points for good practice. © 2014 © 2014 University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1635-1648
JournalJournal of Environmental Planning and Management
Volume58
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Cost benefit analysis
cost-benefit analysis
Environmental impact
costs
Costs
discount rate
planning practice
spatial planning
qualitative analysis
valuation
environmental effect
best practice
environmental impact
Netherlands
inclusion
uncertainty
Planning
cost-benefit
project
literature

Cite this

@article{675ce41445804af48df79b5fbbd3c0b9,
title = "The practice of valuing the environment in cost-benefit analyses in transport and spatial projects",
abstract = "Scientific debates on environmental impacts in cost-benefit analysis (CBA) focus on methodological questions. The literature, however, contains very little information on the influence of these debates on CBAs made in spatial planning practice. In this paper, this gap is filled by a qualitative analysis of 67 CBAs made in the Netherlands between 2000 and 2011. From the literature on environmental valuation, we derive criteria to evaluate the quality of CBA practice, such as completeness and the inclusion of uncertainties. The analysis shows that in many cases relevant environmental effects are omitted or not monetised. Moreover, non-monetised effects are often not included in CBA conclusions. If impacts are monetised, the methods used are frequently not very sophisticated. The consequences of assumptions are often not communicated, for example, where high discount rates make long-term effects seem unimportant. In this research we identify four main points for good practice. {\circledC} 2014 {\circledC} 2014 University of Newcastle upon Tyne.",
author = "J.A. Annema and C.C. Koopmans",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1080/09640568.2014.941975",
language = "English",
volume = "58",
pages = "1635--1648",
journal = "Journal of Environmental Planning and Management",
issn = "0964-0568",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "9",

}

The practice of valuing the environment in cost-benefit analyses in transport and spatial projects. / Annema, J.A.; Koopmans, C.C.

In: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 58, No. 9, 2015, p. 1635-1648.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The practice of valuing the environment in cost-benefit analyses in transport and spatial projects

AU - Annema, J.A.

AU - Koopmans, C.C.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Scientific debates on environmental impacts in cost-benefit analysis (CBA) focus on methodological questions. The literature, however, contains very little information on the influence of these debates on CBAs made in spatial planning practice. In this paper, this gap is filled by a qualitative analysis of 67 CBAs made in the Netherlands between 2000 and 2011. From the literature on environmental valuation, we derive criteria to evaluate the quality of CBA practice, such as completeness and the inclusion of uncertainties. The analysis shows that in many cases relevant environmental effects are omitted or not monetised. Moreover, non-monetised effects are often not included in CBA conclusions. If impacts are monetised, the methods used are frequently not very sophisticated. The consequences of assumptions are often not communicated, for example, where high discount rates make long-term effects seem unimportant. In this research we identify four main points for good practice. © 2014 © 2014 University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

AB - Scientific debates on environmental impacts in cost-benefit analysis (CBA) focus on methodological questions. The literature, however, contains very little information on the influence of these debates on CBAs made in spatial planning practice. In this paper, this gap is filled by a qualitative analysis of 67 CBAs made in the Netherlands between 2000 and 2011. From the literature on environmental valuation, we derive criteria to evaluate the quality of CBA practice, such as completeness and the inclusion of uncertainties. The analysis shows that in many cases relevant environmental effects are omitted or not monetised. Moreover, non-monetised effects are often not included in CBA conclusions. If impacts are monetised, the methods used are frequently not very sophisticated. The consequences of assumptions are often not communicated, for example, where high discount rates make long-term effects seem unimportant. In this research we identify four main points for good practice. © 2014 © 2014 University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

U2 - 10.1080/09640568.2014.941975

DO - 10.1080/09640568.2014.941975

M3 - Article

VL - 58

SP - 1635

EP - 1648

JO - Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

JF - Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

SN - 0964-0568

IS - 9

ER -