A Bottom-up Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis

Abstract

Cost-Benefit Analysis is a method to assess the effects of policies and projects on social welfare.CBAs are usually applied in a top-down approach, in the sense that a decision-making body first decides on which policies or projects are to be considered, and then applies a set of uniform criteria to identifying and valuing relevant cost and benefit flows. This paper investigates the possible advantages, prerequisites and limitations of applying CBA in what may be considered an alternative, "bottom-up". Instead of starting out with a pre-defined policy option, the suggested approach begins with the underlying environmental problem, and then assesses costs and benefits of various strategies and solutions suggested by local and directly affected stakeholders. For empirical case studies concerning two river catchments in Sweden and Latvia, the bottom-up CBA approach utilises local knowledge, assesses plans which are not only developed for local conditions but are also likely to be more acceptable to local society, and sheds additional light on possible distributional effects. By not only benefitting from, but also supporting participative environmental planning, bottom-up CBA is in line with the growing trend of embedding stakeholder participation into environmental policy and decision-making.JEL CODES: B41, D61

Impact of Geography on Adaptation for the Future Sustainability of Human Society on Earth

“…These societies overcame their environmental problems by adopting a bottom-up, and top-down approaches to solving environmental problems at the individual, and societal levels (Diamond, 2005). At the individual level, bottom-up decision making translated into a collective objective of reducing challenges in the environment (Carolus et al, 2018;Diamond, 2005;Tseng et al, 2018). The top-down approach has also been useful in addressing the environmental challenges of large societies with a centralized political organization, including playing important role in the Swedish government's climate policy decision-making process (Krook-Riekkola et al, 2017).…”

The Relationship among Government, Enterprise, and Public in Environmental Governance from the Perspective of Multi-Player Evolutionary Game

“…Serra-Llobet et al (2016) compare how IWRM and flood risk management have been operationalized within “top-down” and “bottom-up” governance arrangements in the European Union and the United States, results show that the San Francisco Bay Area’s strongly collaborative and participatory approach has generated new connections among flood managers and other stakeholders [7]. Carolus et al (2018) investigate the possible advantages, prerequisites and limitations of applying CBA (cost-benefit analysis) in what may be considered as an alternative, “bottom-up” manner [8]. Mohamad et al (2015) explored the case for using “community-based shared values” as a potential driver for the “Heartware” aspects of governance in integrated watershed management (IWM)—from a Japan–Malaysia policy learning perspective [9].…”

A critically modern ecological economics for the Anthropocene

“…For example, in response to flaws in contingent valuation methods, scholars have proposed “deliberative monetary valuation,” which draws on this body of theory and the notion of constructed preferences more broadly (Lo and Spash, 2013). Similarly, in response to challenges in making social or collective choices, ecological economists have proposed social multi-criteria decision analysis (Munda, 2008), environmental cost-benefit analysis (Carolus et al, 2018), mediated modeling (van den Belt, 2004), and other participatory research methodologies.…”