IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A bottom-up approach to environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis


  • Johannes Friedrich Carolus

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

  • Nick Hanley

    () (University of Glasgow, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health & Comparative Medicine)

  • Søren Bøye Olsen

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

  • Søren Marcus Pedersen

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)


Cost-Benefit Analysis is a method to assess the effects of policies and projects on social welfare. CBAs are usually applied in a top-down approach, in the sense that a decision-making body first decides on which policies or projects are to be considered, and then applies a set of uniform criteria to identifying and valuing relevant cost and benefit flows. This paper investigates the possible advantages, prerequisites and limitations of applying CBA in what may be considered an alternative, “bottom-up”. Instead of starting out with a pre-defined policy option, the suggested approach begins with the underlying environmental problem, and then assesses costs and benefits of various strategies and solutions suggested by local and directly affected stakeholders. For empirical case studies concerning two river catchments in Sweden and Latvia, the bottom-up CBA approach utilises local knowledge, assesses plans which are not only developed for local conditions but are also likely to be more acceptable to local society, and sheds additional light on possible distributional effects. By not only benefitting from, but also supporting participative environmental planning, bottom-up CBA is in line with the growing trend of embedding stakeholder participation into environmental policy and decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Johannes Friedrich Carolus & Nick Hanley & Søren Bøye Olsen & Søren Marcus Pedersen, 2018. "A bottom-up approach to environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2018-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
  • Handle: RePEc:sss:wpaper:2018-03

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri & Yiannis Kountouris, "undated". "Using the Choice Experiment Method to Inform River Management in Poland: Flood Risk Reduction vs. Habitat Conservation in the Upper Silesia Region," DEOS Working Papers 0802, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Scasný, Milan, 2010. "Study on benefit transfer in an international setting. How to improve welfare estimates in the case of the countries' income heterogeneity?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2409-2416, October.
    3. Thomas C Beierle & David M Konisky, 2001. "What are we Gaining from Stakeholder Involvement? Observations from Environmental Planning in the Great Lakes," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 19(4), pages 515-527, August.
    4. Human, Brett A. & Davies, Amanda, 2010. "Stakeholder consultation during the planning phase of scientific programs," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 645-654, May.
    5. Neal Hockley, 2014. "Cost–Benefit Analysis: A Decision-Support Tool or a Venue for Contesting Ecosystem Knowledge?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 283-300, April.
    6. Kaul, Sapna & Boyle, Kevin J. & Kuminoff, Nicolai V. & Parmeter, Christopher F. & Pope, Jaren C., 2013. "What can we learn from benefit transfer errors? Evidence from 20 years of research on convergent validity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 90-104.
    7. Grizzetti, B. & Liquete, C. & Antunes, P. & Carvalho, L. & Geamănă, N. & Giucă, R. & Leone, M. & McConnell, S. & Preda, E. & Santos, R. & Turkelboom, F. & Vădineanu, A. & Woods, H., 2016. "Ecosystem services for water policy: Insights across Europe," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 179-190.
    8. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Liebe, Ulf & Hartje, Volkmar, 2009. "Benefits of biodiversity enhancement of nature-oriented silviculture: Evidence from two choice experiments in Germany," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 37-58, January.
    9. Ek, Kristina & Persson, Lars, 2016. "Priorities and preferences in the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive - A case study of the river Alsterån," CERE Working Papers 2016:18, CERE - the Center for Environmental and Resource Economics.
    10. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Ahtiainen, Heini & Artell, Janne & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Choosing a Functional Form for an International Benefit Transfer: Evidence from a Nine-country Valuation Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 104-113.
    11. Hall, N. & Ashworth, P. & Devine-Wright, P., 2013. "Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 200-208.
    12. Queiroz, Luciana de Souza & Rossi, Sergio & Calvet-Mir, Laura & Ruiz-Mallén, Isabel & García-Betorz, Sara & Salvà -Prat, Júlia & Meireles, Antônio Jeovah de Andrade, 2017. "Neglected ecosystem services: Highlighting the socio-cultural perception of mangroves in decision-making processes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 137-145.
    13. Bertram, Christine & Dworak, Thomas & Görlitz, Stefan & Interwies, Eduard & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2014. "Cost-benefit analysis in the context of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive: The case of Germany," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 307-312.
    14. Atkinson, Giles & Groom, Ben & Hanley, Nicholas & Mourato, Susana, 2018. "Environmental Valuation and Benefit-Cost Analysis in U.K. Policy," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 97-119, April.
    15. Thomas C Beierle & David M Konisky, 2001. "What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 19(4), pages 515-527, August.
    16. Sunstein, Cass R, 2000. "Cognition and Cost-Benefit Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 1059-1103, June.
    17. Sabatier, Paul A., 1986. "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 21-48, January.
    18. repec:reg:rpubli:98 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Turner, R. Kerry & Georgiou, Stavros & Gren, Ing-Marie & Wulff, Fredric & Barrett, Scott & Soderqvist, Tore & Bateman, Ian J. & Folke, Carl & Langaas, Sindre & Zylicz, Tomasz, 1999. "Managing nutrient fluxes and pollution in the Baltic: an interdisciplinary simulation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 333-352, August.
    20. Luigi Pellizzoni, 2003. "Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 12(2), pages 195-224, May.
    21. David W. Pearce, 2006. "Framework for Assessing the Distribution of Environmental Quality," Chapters, in: Ysé Serret & Nick Johnstone (ed.), The Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    22. Barton, David N., 2002. "The transferability of benefit transfer: contingent valuation of water quality improvements in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 147-164, August.
    23. Nick Johnstone & Ysé Serret, 2006. "Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy: Introduction," Chapters, in: Ysé Serret & Nick Johnstone (ed.), The Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    24. de Groot, Rudolf & Brander, Luke & van der Ploeg, Sander & Costanza, Robert & Bernard, Florence & Braat, Leon & Christie, Mike & Crossman, Neville & Ghermandi, Andrea & Hein, Lars & Hussain, Salman & , 2012. "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 50-61.
    25. Wright, Stuart A.L. & Fritsch, Oliver, 2011. "Operationalising active involvement in the EU Water Framework Directive: Why, when and how?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2268-2274.
    26. Ysé Serret & Nick Johnstone, 2006. "Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy: Conclusions and Policy Implications," Chapters, in: Ysé Serret & Nick Johnstone (ed.), The Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    27. Dick, Jan & Turkelboom, Francis & Woods, Helen & Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & Primmer, Eeva & Saarela, Sanna-Riikka & Bezák, Peter & Mederly, Peter & Leone, Michael & Verheyden, Wim & Kelemen, Eszter & H, 2018. "Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 552-565.
    28. Harriet Bulkeley & Arthur P.J. Mol, 2003. "Participation and Environmental Governance: Consensus, Ambivalence and Debate," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 12(2), pages 143-154, May.
    29. Maes, Joachim & Liquete, Camino & Teller, Anne & Erhard, Markus & Paracchini, Maria Luisa & Barredo, José I. & Grizzetti, Bruna & Cardoso, Ana & Somma, Francesca & Petersen, Jan-Erik & Meiner, Andrus, 2016. "An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 14-23.
    30. H. Spencer Banzhaf, 2009. "Objective or Multi-Objective? Two Historically Competing Visions for Benefit-Cost Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(1), pages 3-23.
    31. Klauer, Bernd & Sigel, Katja & Schiller, Johannes, 2016. "Disproportionate costs in the EU Water Framework Directive—How to justify less stringent environmental objectives," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 10-17.
    32. Neal Hockley, 2014. "Cost–benefit analysis: a decision-support tool or a venue for contesting ecosystem knowledge?," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 32(2), pages 283-300, April.
    33. Posner, Stephen & Getz, Christy & Ricketts, Taylor, 2016. "Evaluating the impact of ecosystem service assessments on decision-makers," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 30-37.
    34. Robert W. Hahn & Paul C. Tetlock, 2008. "Has Economic Analysis Improved Regulatory Decisions?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 67-84, Winter.
    35. Ysé Serret & Nick Johnstone (ed.), 2006. "The Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3800.
    36. Albert, Christian & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph & Hansjürgens, Bernd & Dehnhardt, Alexandra & Döring, Ralf & Job, Hubert & Köppel, Johann & Krätzig, Sebastian & Matzdorf, Bettina & Reutter, Mich, 2017. "An economic perspective on land use decisions in agricultural landscapes: Insights from the TEEB Germany Study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 69-78.
    37. Arnout R.H. Fischer & Meike T. A. Wentholt & Gene Rowe & Lynn J. Frewer, 2014. "Expert involvement in policy development: A systematic review of current practice," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 332-343.
    38. Grizzetti, B. & Lanzanova, D. & Liquete, C. & Reynaud, A. & Cardoso, A.C., 2016. "Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 194-203.
    39. John M Bryson, 2004. "What to do when Stakeholders matter," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 21-53, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Endre Kildal Iversen & Kristine Grimsrud & Henrik Lindhjem & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, 2019. "Trade-offs between carbon sequestration, landscape aesthetics and biodiversity in a cost-benefit analysis of land use options in Norway," Discussion Papers 915, Statistics Norway, Research Department.

    More about this item


    Environmental Planning; Stakeholder Approach; Participatory Approaches; Ecosystem Services; Water Framework Directive; Catchment Management;

    JEL classification:

    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:sss:wpaper:2018-03. 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: (Laure Kuhfuss). General contact details of provider: .

    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.