Multi-criteria Cost-benefit Analysis Research Articles

Ecological impact and cost-effectiveness of wildlife crossings in a highly fragmented landscape: a multi-method approach

ContextRoad infrastructure construction is integral to economic development, but negatively affects biodiversity. To mitigate the negative impacts of infrastructure, various types of wildlife crossings are realized worldwide, but little is known about their effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness.ObjectiveThe paper contributes to the methodological and empirical discussion on the effectiveness of wildlife crossings for enhancing the quality of surrounding nature and its cost-effectiveness by analyzing a large-scale wildlife-crossings program in the Netherlands.MethodA multi-criteria cost–benefit analysis is applied, comprised of monetary and non-monetary measures, and a mixed-method approach is used to determine ecological effects. Ecological effects are expressed in the standardized weighted hectare measurement of threat-weighted ecological quality area (1 T-EQA = 1 ha of 100% ecological quality, averagely threatened). Cost-effectiveness is calculated comparing the monetary costs of intervention with ecological benefits (Euro costs/T-EQA), for different types of wildlife crossings and for two other nature policies.ResultsThe Dutch habitat defragmentation program has induced an increase in nature value of 1734 T-EQA at a cost of Euro 283 million. Ecological gains per hierarchically ordered groups of measures differ strongly: The most effective are ecoducts (wildlife crossing bridges) followed by shared-use viaducts and large fauna tunnels. Ecoducts generated the largest gain in nature value, but were also the most costly measures. In terms of cost-effectiveness, both large fauna tunnels and shared-use viaducts for traffic and animals outperformed ecoducts.ConclusionsEcoducts deliver ecologically, but their cost-effectiveness appears modest. Purchasing agricultural land for restoration of nature appears more cost-effective than building wildlife crossings. Yet, reducing environmental pressures or their effects on existing nature areas is likely to be most cost-effective.

Planning nature in urbanized countries. An analysis of monetary and non-monetary impacts of conservation policy scenarios in the Netherlands.

Planning and conserving nature areas are challenging tasks in urbanized and intensively used countries like the Netherlands. This paper supports decision making and public policy debate about these tasks in both an empirical and a methodological way. Empirically, we explore policy alternatives by determining the potential consequences of different nature policy scenarios in the Netherlands. Methodologically, we employ a mixed monetary and non-monetary evaluation method known as multi-criteria cost-benefit analysis (MCCBA). We evaluate four new future directions of Dutch nature policy that address four dominant stakeholder demands: biodiversity conservation, the provision of ecosystem services, recreational potential as well as economic gains. To balance compact presentation of evaluation outcomes on the one hand and information richness of results on the other, we distinguish between two impact indicator sets: three “headline” and ten “elaborate” indicators. Using these indicators we discuss the quantitative assessment of the four nature policy scenarios by comparing them to two other scenarios, reflecting the 2010 stand-still baseline situation (2010) as well as a reference policy (Trend). In total, we evaluate six scenarios; four present new directions and two reflect existing or recently (2010) halted practices. Our findings first of all show that even in an urbanized country like the Netherlands, with its intensive competition among land use functions, serious gains in national and international biodiversity are possible. Second, we find that it is doubtful whether stimulating the provision of regulating ecosystem services in a country which applies intensive and profitable agricultural techniques is beneficial. Other countries or areas that are less suitable for intensive agricultural practices may be more logical for this. Finally we demonstrate that increasing urban recreational green space − a common challenge for many urban areas − can only be achieved at relatively high costs, while it does not seem to lead to relatively high scores on nature appreciation. Nature appreciation seems to be served better by wilder nature than by park-like nature.

Beyond monetary measurement: How to evaluate projects and policies using the ecosystem services framework

Abstract In this paper we focus on how to achieve better decision support when decision-makers use the ecosystem services (ESS) framework to broaden their evaluations. We contribute to the debate on valuation of ecosystem services by inquiring into how the ESS framework relates to the judgement and measurement provided by Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) evaluation techniques. We argue that Multi-Criteria Cost-Benefit Analysis (MCCBA), which is a carefully designed combination of CBA and MCA, provides a good starting point for the evaluation of projects or policies involving changes in agricultural and natural ecosystem services. The main characteristic of this MCCBA approach linked to ESS framework is its threefold evaluative endpoint structure to account for (i) basic health, (ii) economic welfare, and (iii) higher well-being. The third endpoint includes concerns about the well-being of nature. The MCCBA approach utilises highly standardised cardinal or ratio scale measurements, in particular we use two existing measurements, known as Disability Adjusted Life Years for basic health, and monetary Net Present Values for economic welfare. We also introduce one new measurement: Threat weighted Ecological Quality Area to account for nature's well-being. We argue that evaluation of projects or policies involving many different ecosystem services should use these three endpoint measurements.