Premium
Assessing cost‐effectiveness when environmental benefits are bundled: agricultural water management in Great Barrier Reef catchments
Author(s) -
Rolfe John,
Windle Jill,
McCosker Kevin,
Northey Adam
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
australian journal of agricultural and resource economics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.683
H-Index - 49
eISSN - 1467-8489
pISSN - 1364-985X
DOI - 10.1111/1467-8489.12259
Subject(s) - agriculture , cost–benefit analysis , great barrier reef , environmental resource management , risk analysis (engineering) , pollutant , environmental economics , water quality , agricultural pollution , business , environmental planning , environmental science , reef , economics , ecology , chemistry , organic chemistry , fishery , biology
Using economic analysis to prioritise improvements in environmental conditions is particularly difficult when multiple benefits are involved. This includes ‘bundling’ issues in agricultural pollution management, where a change in management action or farming systems generates multiple improvements, such as reductions in more than one pollutant. In this study, we conceptualise and compare two different approaches to analysing cost‐effectiveness when varying bundles of benefits are generated for a single project investment. Each approach requires data to be transformed in some way to allow the analysis to proceed. The index approach requires the transformation on the benefits side so that the effects of multiple pollutant changes can be combined into a measure for each project which can then be compared to costs. By comparison, the disaggregation approach requires the transformation on the costs side where costs for each project have to be apportioned across the different pollutants involved. The paper provides novel insights with an application to agricultural water quality improvements into the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, demonstrating that while both approaches are effective in prioritising projects by cost‐effectiveness, the disaggregation approach provides more insightful results and values that may be relevant for use as upper value guidelines in future project selection.