Application of BCA in Europe – Experiences and Challenges

Andersson, Henrik

doi:10.1017/bca.2018.5

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is not the first European Symposium hosted by the JBCA. A previous one was published in 2018, with Andersson (2018) as guest editor. It included four papers: on economic appraisal of transport projects in Sweden (Andersson et al, 2018), on the mainstreaming of environmental valuation in BCA in the UK (Atkinson et al, 2018), on cost-benefit analysis in the EU legislation on chemicals (Georgiou et al, 2018), on the BCA of infrastructure projects in the context of EU regional policy (Florio et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

European and International Perspectives on Benefit-Cost Analysis: Symposium Introduction

Florio¹

2021

J. Benefit Cost Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea of assessing the costs and benefits of public and private projects is not new to Europe, dating back to studies at the Ecole des Ponts et Chaussees (Paris) in the XIX century. Later on, in the last century, Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) in its current form has been more extensively used in the United States than in Europe. In the last two decades, however, there has been a rapid increase in its use in a number of European countries and at the European Union (EU) level. European governments often undertake tasks that would be done by private companies in the United States, such as the provision of transport, energy, water and waste management, health services, etc. In the United States the focus of BCA has often been regulatory impact analysis, rather than public project evaluation. One might, therefore, expect that Europeans might approach some things differently from their American counterparts and that new insights might result from these efforts. The articles in this symposium, taken from the recent European Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis (SBCA) conference in Toulouse, illustrate some of these differences and some converging themes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

European and International Perspectives on Benefit-Cost Analysis: Symposium Introduction

Florio¹

2021

J. Benefit Cost Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The theory of social cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was founded by the economists Nicholas Kaldor and John Hicks in the 1930s [5] and has been developed independently of environmental valuation to appraise projects (or policies) from a societal perspective rather than a private one [6]. Yet, as Pearce argues: "… Two of the triumphs of environmental economics have been to emphasize the incompleteness of appraisals that omit environmental change and to develop the means of incorporating environmental values into appraisal …" [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, the U.S. Flood Control Act of 1936 is often regarded as the first use of CBA [5]. In Europe, the interest in CBA arose in the 1980s as a result of growing awareness of the US applications [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the use of environmental economics in the mining industry

Menegaki¹,

Damigos²

2021

Journal of Sustainable Mining

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental economics is increasingly being used in project appraisals, environmental liability estimates and design of market-based instruments. Mining, an actor capable of causing adverse effects on the environment, human health and well-being, has already been affected by these developments, at a great extent. Up to date, several research studies have been carried out to monetise the externalities of mining projects. Nevertheless, a systematic review of these publications has not been carried out, yet. This paper aims to fill this gap in the literature by investigating (i) the main non-market valuation techniques used; (ii) the main external costs or benefits of mining projects monetised; and (iii) the monetary estimates of mining-related externalities. The analysis shows that practically all economic valuation techniques have been implemented towards assessing, in monetary terms, the mining impacts on the environment. However, the findings from the statistical analysis reveal a wide range of monetary estimates, which are attributed not only to the valuation methods and assumptions used but also to the specific characteristics of the mining projects in question. Also, the research draws directions for future work, as the analysis of the published studies indicates areas of limited availability of estimates or high heterogeneity between the available estimates.

show abstract

“…Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a powerful tool for public decision makers to economically evaluate probable strategies in FRM and disaster risk reduction. The renowned English and French economists Dupuit, Marshall and Pigou first introduced CBA in Europe in the 19 th Century (Andersson, 2018;Porter, 1995). Nowadays, rational approaches to evaluate public investments in FRRMs become even more important as climate change mitigation funds are finite (Kind et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifting from asset damage to well-being loss within flood risk management

Hattum¹,

Ruig²,

Bos³

et al. 2021

Science and Practice for an Uncertain Future

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Floods can be a cause of poverty. Poverty itself magnifies the impact of floods as poor people are more vulnerable and less resilient. Traditional flood risk assessments (FRAs) focus mostly on asset damages. Yet, poor people own little assets and are often highly exposed to floods. Consequently, traditional FRAs often conclude that it is inefficient to protect the poor and are thus biased against flood risk reduction measures protecting them. The aim of this study is to evaluate FRRIs in a CBA based on the social welfare flood risk reduction benefits. A framework to assess the social welfare flood risk through a Monte Carlo approach is presented herein. A case study illustrates that it is not yet reliable to economically evaluate FRRIs based on the monetized social welfare benefits in CBAs. In addition, a targeted social protection scenario emphasizes the potentially high social welfare benefits that can be realized through risk transfer. Therefore, poverty reduction through risk transfer mechanisms should be considered as a holistic approach to foster socioeconomic growth as such risk transfer mechanisms build socioeconomic resilience in the face of natural disasters. It could have a considerable impact on the lives of people living in vulnerable areas.

show abstract

Application of BCA in Europe – Experiences and Challenges

Cited by 15 publications

References 19 publications

European and International Perspectives on Benefit-Cost Analysis: Symposium Introduction

European and International Perspectives on Benefit-Cost Analysis: Symposium Introduction

A systematic review of the use of environmental economics in the mining industry

Shifting from asset damage to well-being loss within flood risk management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About