IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Taking a closer look at multiple criteria analysis and economic evaluation

  • Hajkowicz, Stefan
Registered author(s):

    Multiple criteria analysis (MCA) has been widely applied within the field of natural resource management since the 1970s. During this period MCA has undergone considerable methodological advancement with numerous methods for capturing decision maker preferences, ranking or scoring decision options, handling uncertainty and presenting results. This paper explores the role of MCA within the economist’s evaluation toolkit, which also contains benefit cost analysis (BCA), cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost utility analysis (CUA). A process for selecting an appropriate evaluation tool is proposed, which is partly dependent on the extent to which environmental goods can be valued in monetary units.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/139785
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society in its series 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia with number 139785.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 2006
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:aare06:139785
    Contact details of provider: Postal: AARES Central Office Manager, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Canberra ACT 0200
    Phone: 0409 032 338
    Web page: http://www.aares.info/
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Brouwer, Roy & van Ek, Remco, 2004. "Integrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 1-21, September.
    2. Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2004. "What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 419-443, 09.
    3. Charles W. Abdalla & Brian A. Roach & Donald J. Epp, 1992. "Valuing Environmental Quality Changes Using Averting Expenditures: An Application to Groundwater Contamination," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(2), pages 163-169.
    4. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    5. Cullen, Ross & Fairburn, Geoffrey A. & Hughey, Kenneth F. D., 2001. "Measuring the productivity of threatened-species programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 53-66, October.
    6. Robert T. Eckenrode, 1965. "Weighting Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 180-192, November.
    7. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    8. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aare06:139785. 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: (AgEcon Search)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.