IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v91y2013icp98-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disaggregated economic impact analysis incorporating ecological and social trade-offs and techno-institutional context: A case from the Western Ghats of India

Author

Listed:
  • Lele, Sharachchandra
  • Srinivasan, Veena

Abstract

Economic valuation of ecosystem benefits and their aggregation in a benefit–cost analysis (BCA) framework is the norm in mainstream environmental economics. But valuation and BCA have also attracted criticisms. ‘Internal’ criticisms point to the absence of alternative scenarios in valuation, overlooking of ecological trade-offs and dis-services, and inattention to context. Others criticize aggregation across diverse stakeholders and the problem of non-monetizable benefits, and dismiss BCA as fatally flawed. They suggest approaches such as deliberative decision-making and multi-criteria analysis. We propose a middle path that uses the strengths of economic analysis for decision support while avoiding the pitfalls. We disaggregate economic impacts by stakeholder groups, link ecosystem changes to benefits as well as dis-benefits, and examine how socio-technological context shapes the magnitude of economic impact. We illustrate this approach by studying the impact of creating the Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple wildlife sanctuary in the Western Ghats forests of southern India. Our analysis shows that while some stakeholders are net beneficiaries, others are net losers. Changes in forest rights, irrigation technologies, and ecosystem dynamics influence the magnitude of benefits and sometimes convert gainers into losers. Such disaggregated analysis can provide useful information for deliberative decision-making and important academic insights on how economic value is generated.

Suggested Citation

  • Lele, Sharachchandra & Srinivasan, Veena, 2013. "Disaggregated economic impact analysis incorporating ecological and social trade-offs and techno-institutional context: A case from the Western Ghats of India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 98-112.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:91:y:2013:i:c:p:98-112
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.03.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800913001286
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arrow, Kenneth J. & Cropper, Maureen L. & Eads, George C. & Hahn, Robert W. & Lave, Lester B. & Noll, Roger G. & Portney, Paul R. & Russell, Milson & Schmalensee, Richard & Smith, V. Kerry & Stavins, , 1997. "Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, and safety regulation?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(02), pages 195-221, May.
    2. Sutton, Paul C. & Costanza, Robert, 2002. "Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover, and ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 509-527, June.
    3. van Beukering, Pieter J. H. & Cesar, Herman S. J. & Janssen, Marco A., 2003. "Economic valuation of the Leuser National Park on Sumatra, Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 43-62, February.
    4. V. Kerry Smith, 1993. "Nonmarket Valuation of Environmental Resources: An Interpretive Appraisal," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(1), pages 1-26.
    5. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    6. E B Barbier & A Markandya & D W Pearce, 1990. "Environmental sustainability and cost - benefit analysis," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 22(9), pages 1259-1266, September.
    7. Bromley, Daniel W., 1990. "The ideology of efficiency: Searching for a theory of policy analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 86-107, July.
    8. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    9. Azar, Christian & Sterner, Thomas, 1996. "Discounting and distributional considerations in the context of global warming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 169-184, November.
    10. Richard S. J. Tol, 2009. "The Economic Effects of Climate Change," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 23(2), pages 29-51, Spring.
    11. Simon Niemeyer & Clive L Spash, 2001. "Environmental Valuation Analysis, Public Deliberation, and their Pragmatic Syntheses: A Critical Appraisal," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 19(4), pages 567-585, August.
    12. Stephen Polasky & Erik Nelson & Derric Pennington & Kris Johnson, 2011. "The Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case Study in the State of Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 219-242, February.
    13. Sagoff, M., 1998. "Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 213-230, February.
    14. Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 712-724, May.
    15. Chomitz, Kenneth M & Kumari, Kanta, 1998. "The Domestic Benefits of Tropical Forests: A Critical Review," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 13(1), pages 13-35, February.
    16. Croitoru, Lelia, 2007. "How much are Mediterranean forests worth?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 536-545, January.
    17. Wilson, Matthew A. & Howarth, Richard B., 2002. "Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 431-443, June.
    18. Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Kramer, Randall A., 2001. "Worth of watersheds: a producer surplus approach for valuing drought mitigation in Eastern Indonesia," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(01), pages 123-146, February.
    19. Gil Yaron, 2001. "Forest, Plantation Crops or Small-scale Agriculture? An Economic Analysis of Alternative Land Use Options in the Mount Cameroon Area," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(1), pages 85-108.
    20. Seidl, Andrew F. & Moraes, Andre Steffens, 2000. "Global valuation of ecosystem services: application to the Pantanal da Nhecolandia, Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-6, April.
    21. Aylward, Bruce & Echeverr a, Jaime, 2001. "Synergies between livestock production and hydrological function in Arenal, Costa Rica," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(03), pages 359-381, July.
    22. Norton-Griffiths, Michael & Southey, Clive, 1995. "The opportunity costs of biodiversity conservation in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 125-139, February.
    23. Wendy Proctor & Martin Drechsler, 2006. "Deliberative multicriteria evaluation," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 24(2), pages 169-190, April.
    24. Laura Nahuelhual & Pablo Donoso & Antonio Lara & Daisy Núñez & Carlos Oyarzún & Eduardo Neira, 2007. "Valuing Ecosystem Services Of Chilean Temperate Rainforests," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 481-499, November.
    25. P.M.S. Jones, 1994. "The Value of Diversity," Energy & Environment, , vol. 5(3), pages 215-225, September.
    26. Vatn, Arild, 2005. "Rationality, institutions and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 203-217, November.
    27. Cacho, Oscar J. & Marshall, Graham R. & Milne, Mary, 2005. "Transaction and abatement costs of carbon-sink projects in developing countries," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(05), pages 597-614, October.
    28. Partha Dasgupta, 2008. "Discounting climate change," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 141-169, December.
    29. Arnold, J. E. Michael & Perez, M. Ruiz, 2001. "Can non-timber forest products match tropical forest conservation and development objectives?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 437-447, December.
    30. Purushothaman, Seema & Hegde, Seema S. & Patil, Sheetal & Kashyap, Sham, 2009. "People’s Perception of Benefits from a Protected Catchment: A Case Study of Gundal Command in Karnataka," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(4).
    31. Nick Hanley, 2001. "Cost - benefit analysis and environmental policymaking," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 19(1), pages 103-118, February.
    32. Farrow, Scott, 1998. "Environmental equity and sustainability: rejecting the Kaldor-Hicks criteria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 183-188, November.
    33. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    34. Turner, R. Kerry & Paavola, Jouni & Cooper, Philip & Farber, Stephen & Jessamy, Valma & Georgiou, Stavros, 2003. "Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 493-510, October.
    35. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2207-2215, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pollesch, N. & Dale, V.H., 2015. "Applications of aggregation theory to sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 117-127.
    2. repec:eee:ecoser:v:22:y:2016:i:pb:p:238-249 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:eee:ecoser:v:14:y:2015:i:c:p:56-66 is not listed on IDEAS

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:91:y:2013:i:c:p:98-112. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.