IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ant/wpaper/2016001.html

Decison-making for maritime innovation investments: The significance of cost benefit and cost effectiveness analysis

Author

Listed:
  • GIULIANO, Genevieve
  • KNATZ, Geraldine
  • HUDSON, Nathan
  • SYS, Christa
  • VANELSLANDER, Thierry
  • CARLAN, Valentin

Abstract

Six universities from Europe, Asia and the United States participated in an evaluation of the use of innovation in the port logistics and maritime sector. Led by the BNP Paribas Fortis Chair in Transport, Logistics and Ports from the University of Antwerp, the purpose of the study was to evaluate the decision-making process and adoption of innovation using quantitative tools. This paper focuses on one of those quantitative tools, cost benefit analysis. Seventy-four separate and highly diverse innovation projects undertaken by private businesses were examined to determine if a traditional cost benefit analysis was used as part of their decision-making process. The data showed that no projects performed comprehensive cost benefit analysis, although for some projects limited cost effectiveness data were collected after the innovation was implemented. Cost benefit analysis is both complex and time consuming. It is designed for public sector decision-making, where societal costs and benefits are of concern, and where alternative policy actions are evaluated. If these innovations were implemented mainly as a result of internal decisions, use of cost benefit analysis would not be expected. The data show that 37 (50%) of the innovation projects were undertaken because of external influences, 21 (28.3%) were purely internal company decisions and 16 (21.6%) were influenced by public subsidy. Several types of innovation projects examined in this research project could be candidates for a cost benefit or cost effectiveness assessment. These are projects where environmental benefits and costs can be quantified, or where quantifiable external benefits support public investment in capital costs or in an operating subsidy. It is found that port innovation would benefit from more formalized methods of project assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • GIULIANO, Genevieve & KNATZ, Geraldine & HUDSON, Nathan & SYS, Christa & VANELSLANDER, Thierry & CARLAN, Valentin, 2016. "Decison-making for maritime innovation investments: The significance of cost benefit and cost effectiveness analysis," Working Papers 2016001, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ant:wpaper:2016001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/59774f/131867.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin L. Weitzman, 2001. "Gamma Discounting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 260-271, March.
    2. Mark A. Moore & Anthony E. Boardman & Aidan R. Vining & David L. Weimer & David H. Greenberg, 2004. "“Just give me a number!” Practical values for the social discount rate," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 789-812.
    3. Hugo Priemus & Bent Flyvbjerg & Bert van Wee (ed.), 2008. "Decision-Making on Mega-Projects," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4112, August.
    4. Ernestos Tzannatos, 2010. "Costs and benefits of reducing SO2 emissions from shipping in the Greek seas," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 12(3), pages 280-294, September.
    5. Moore, Mark A. & Boardman, Anthony E. & Vining, Aidan R., 2013. "The choice of the social discount rate and the opportunity cost of public funds," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 401-409, December.
    6. Partha Dasgupta, 2008. "Discounting climate change," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 141-169, December.
    7. Wang, Michael Q., 2004. "Examining cost effectiveness of mobile source emission control measures," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 155-169, April.
    8. Christian Gollier, 2012. "Pricing the Planet's Future: The Economics of Discounting in an Uncertain World," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 9894.
    9. Graham, Daniel A, 1981. "Cost-Benefit Analysis under Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(4), pages 715-725, September.
    10. Richard O. Zerbe, 1998. "Is cost-benefit analysis legal? Three rules," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 419-456.
    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. Elena Di Pirro & Peter Roebeling & Lorenzo Sallustio & Marco Marchetti & Bruno Lasserre, 2023. "Cost-Effectiveness of Nature-Based Solutions under Different Implementation Scenarios: A National Perspective for Italian Urban Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Davidson, Marc D., 2014. "Zero discounting can compensate future generations for climate damage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 40-47.
    2. Freeman, Mark C. & Groom, Ben, 2016. "How certain are we about the certainty-equivalent long term social discount rate?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 152-168.
    3. Ben Groom & David Maddison Pr., 2019. "New Estimates of the Elasticity of Marginal Utility for the UK," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(4), pages 1155-1182, April.
    4. Rick Van der Ploeg, 2020. "Discounting And Climate Policy," OxCarre Working Papers 244, Oxford Centre for the Analysis of Resource Rich Economies, University of Oxford.
    5. David F. Burgess & Richard O. Zerbe, 2013. "Appropriate discounting for benefit–cost analysis," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 7, pages 247-263, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    7. Gluzberg, Victor E. & Katz, Yuri A., 2019. "Planetary boundaries of consumption growth: Declining social discount rates," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 521(C), pages 362-374.
    8. Peter Harrison Howard & Derek Sylvan, 2020. "Wisdom of the experts: Using survey responses to address positive and normative uncertainties in climate-economic models," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(2), pages 213-232, September.
    9. Therese Grijalva & Jayson Lusk & W. Shaw, 2014. "Discounting the Distant Future: An Experimental Investigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(1), pages 39-63, September.
    10. Rintaro Yamaguchi, 2019. "Intergenerational Discounting with Intragenerational Inequality in Consumption and the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 957-972, August.
    11. Adler, Matthew D. & Treich, Nicolas, 2017. "Utilitarianism, prioritarianism, and intergenerational equity: A cake eating model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 94-102.
    12. Frederick Ploeg & Armon Rezai, 2019. "Simple Rules for Climate Policy and Integrated Assessment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(1), pages 77-108, January.
    13. Gollier, Christian, "undated". "The Welfare Cost of Ignoring the Beta," FEEM Working Papers 309916, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    14. Gollier, Christian, 2016. "Gamma discounters are short-termist," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 83-90.
    15. Hänsel, Martin C. & Quaas, Martin F., 2018. "Intertemporal Distribution, Sufficiency, and the Social Cost of Carbon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 520-535.
    16. Pálinkó, Éva & Szabó, Márta, 2012. "Application of Social Discount Rate in Public Projects," Public Finance Quarterly, Corvinus University of Budapest, vol. 57(2), pages 184-199.
    17. Holger Strulik, 2021. "Hyperbolic discounting and the time‐consistent solution of three canonical environmental problems," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 23(3), pages 462-486, June.
    18. Axel Pierru & Walid Matar, 2014. "The Impact of Oil Price Volatility on Welfare in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Implications for Public Investment Decision-making," The Energy Journal, , vol. 35(2), pages 97-116, April.
    19. Frederick Ploeg, 2021. "Carbon pricing under uncertainty," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 28(5), pages 1122-1142, October.
    20. Rong Rong & Therese C. Grijalva & Jayson Lusk & W. Douglass Shaw, 2019. "Interpersonal discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 17-42, February.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ant:wpaper:2016001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joeri Nys (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ftufsbe.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.