Designing a practical and rigorous framework for comprehensive evaluation and prioritisation of environmental projects
David J. Pannell A C E , Anna M. Roberts B C , Geoff Park C D and Jennifer Alexander B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
B Department of Primary Industries, RMB 1145 Rutherglen, Vic. 3685, Australia.
C Future Farm Industries Cooperative Research Centre, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
D North Central Catchment Management Authority, Huntly, Vic. 3551, Australia.
E Corresponding author. Email: David.Pannell@uwa.edu.au
Wildlife Research 40(2) 126-133 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR12072
Submitted: 8 April 2012 Accepted: 26 January 2013 Published: 18 February 2013
Abstract
Context: A framework was developed to help investors improve the delivery of environmental benefits from environmental programs. The framework, Investment Framework for Environmental Resources (INFFER), assists environmental managers to design projects, select delivery mechanisms and rank competing projects on the basis of benefits and costs.
Aims: To identify design requirements for an environmental investment framework on the basis of consideration of lessons from practical experience, and established theory from decision analysis and economics.
Methods: The design and delivery of the framework are based on extensive experience from working with environmental managers and policy makers. In addition, the developers have paid close attention to the need for processes that are theoretically rigorous, resulting in a tool that allows valid comparison of projects for different asset types, of different scales and durations.
Key results: From the practical experience outlined, several important lessons and implications are identified, including the need for simplicity, training and support of users, trusting relationships with users, transparency, flexibility, compatibility with the needs and contexts of users, and supportive institutional arrangements. Use of a theoretically correct metric to rank projects can deliver dramatically improved environmental values relative to a commonly used weighted additive metric.
Conclusions: Practical and theoretical considerations have strong implications for the design of a practical, effective and accurate tool to support decision making about environmental project priorities.
References
Auditor General (2008). ‘Regional Delivery Model for the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.’ Report no. 21 2007–08, Performance Audit. (Australian National Audit Office: Canberra.)Boardman, A., Greenberg, D., Vining, A., and Weimer, D. (2010). ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis.’ 4th edn. (Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.)
Carwardine, J., Wilson, K. A., Watts, M., Etter, A., Klein, C. J., and Possingham, H. P. (2008). Avoiding costly conservation mistakes: the importance of defining actions and costs in spatial priority settings. PLoS ONE 3, e2586.
| Avoiding costly conservation mistakes: the importance of defining actions and costs in spatial priority settings.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Champ, P. A., Boyle, K. J., and Brown, T. C. (2003). ‘A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation.’ (Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.)
Cleland, J. (2008). Western Australia’s Salinity Investment Framework: a study of priority setting in policy and practice. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, Perth.
Falconer, K., and Saunders, C. (2002). Transaction costs for SSSIs and policy design. Land Use Policy 19, 157–166.
| Transaction costs for SSSIs and policy design.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hajkowicz, S. (2009). The evolution of Australia’s natural resource management programs: towards improved targeting and evaluation of investments. Land Use Policy 26, 471–478.
| The evolution of Australia’s natural resource management programs: towards improved targeting and evaluation of investments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hajkowicz, S., and McDonald, G. (2006). The assets, threats and solvability (ATS) model for setting environmental priorities. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 8, 87–102.
| The assets, threats and solvability (ATS) model for setting environmental priorities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Joseph, L. N., Maloney, R. F., and Possingham, H. P. (2009). Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conservation Biology 23, 328–338.
| Optimal allocation of resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kanninen, B. J. (Ed.) (2007). ‘Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies: A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice.’ (Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.)
Marsh, S. P., Pannell, D. J., Curatolo, A., Park, G., and Roberts, A. M. (2010). Lessons from implementing INFFER with regional catchment management organisations. In ‘The 54th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society’, Adelaide, 10–12 February 2010. Available at http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/59100 [verified 31 January 2013].
Marshall, G. R., McNeill, J. M., and Reeve, I. J. (2011). ‘Economics for Accountability in Community-Based Environmental Governance, Institute for Rural Futures.’ (University of New England: Armidale, NSW.)
McAlinden, D., Sparks, T., Burnside, D., and Stelfox, L. (2003). Salinity Investment Framework interim report – phase 1, salinity and land use impacts. Report no. SLUI 32. Department of Environment, Perth.
McKenney, B. A., and Kiesecker, J. M. (2010). Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environmental Management 45, 165–176.
| Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meyer, B. C., and Grabaum, R. (2008). MULBO: model framework for multicriteria landscape assessment and optimization. A support systems for spatial land use decisions. Landscape Research 33, 155–179.
| MULBO: model framework for multicriteria landscape assessment and optimization. A support systems for spatial land use decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell, D. J. (2005). Farm, food and resource issues: politics and dryland salinity. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 1471–1480.
| Farm, food and resource issues: politics and dryland salinity.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell, D. J. (2008). Public benefits, private benefits, and policy intervention for land-use change for environmental benefits. Land Economics 84, 225–240.
Pannell, D. J. (2009). Technology change as a policy response to promote changes in land management for environmental benefits. Agricultural Economics 40, 95–102.
| Technology change as a policy response to promote changes in land management for environmental benefits.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell, D. J., and Roberts, A. M. (2009). Conducting and delivering integrated research to influence land-use policy: salinity policy in Australia. Environmental Science & Policy 12, 1088–1098.
| Conducting and delivering integrated research to influence land-use policy: salinity policy in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell, D. J., and Roberts, A. M. (2010). The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality: a retrospective assessment. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 54, 437–456.
| The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality: a retrospective assessment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell, D. J., and Wilkinson, R. (2009). Policy mechanism choice for environmental management by non-commercial ‘lifestyle’ rural landholders. Ecological Economics 68, 2679–2687.
| Policy mechanism choice for environmental management by non-commercial ‘lifestyle’ rural landholders.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell, D. J., Marshall, G. R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F., and Wilkinson, R. (2006). Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46, 1407–1424.
| Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pannell, D., Ridley, A., Seymour, E., Marsh, S., and Wilkinson, R. (2008). ‘Capacity Building in Regional NRM: Issues in Prioritisation, Planning and Implementation of Environmental Works at the Regional Level.’ RIRDC publication no. 08/181, RIRDC Project No UWA-92A. (RIRDC: Canberra.) Available at https://rirdc.infoservices.com.au/items/08-181 [verified 31 January 2013].
Pannell, D. J., Roberts, A. M., Park, G., Alexander, J., Curatolo, A., and Marsh, S. (2012). Integrated assessment of public investment in land-use change to protect environmental assets in Australia. Land Use Policy 29, 377–387.
| Integrated assessment of public investment in land-use change to protect environmental assets in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Park, G., Roberts, A., Alexander, J., McNamara, L., and Pannell, D. (2013). The quality of resource condition targets in regional natural resource management in Australia. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management , .
Pezzey, J. C. V. (2003). Emission taxes and tradeable permits: a comparison of views on long-run efficiency. Environmental and Resource Economics 26, 329–342.
| Emission taxes and tradeable permits: a comparison of views on long-run efficiency.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ridley, A., and Pannell, D. J. (2005). The role of plants and plant-based R&D in managing dryland salinity in Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 1341–1355.
| The role of plants and plant-based R&D in managing dryland salinity in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Roberts, A., and Pannell, D. (2009). Piloting a systematic framework for public investment in regional natural resource management: dryland salinity in Australia. Land Use Policy 26, 1001–1010.
| Piloting a systematic framework for public investment in regional natural resource management: dryland salinity in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Roberts, A. M., Pannell, D. J., Doole, G., and Vigiak, O. (2012). Agricultural land management strategies to reduce phosphorus loads in the Gippsland Lakes, Australia. Agricultural Systems 106, 11–22.
| Agricultural land management strategies to reduce phosphorus loads in the Gippsland Lakes, Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Seymour, E., Pannell, D., Roberts, A., Marsh, S., and Wilkinson, R. (2008). Decision-making by regional bodies for natural resource management in Australia: current processes and capacity gaps. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 15, 211–221.
| Decision-making by regional bodies for natural resource management in Australia: current processes and capacity gaps.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sparks, T., George, R., Wallace, K., Pannell, D., Burnside, D., and Stelfox, L. (2006). Salinity Investment Framework phase II. Salinity and land use impacts series report no. SLUI 34. Department of Water, Perth.
Stoneham, G., Chaudhri, V., Ha, A., and Strappazzon, L. (2003). Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s BushTender trial. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47, 477–500.
| Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s BushTender trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Weinberg, M., and Claassen, R. (2006). ‘Conservation Program Design: Rewarding Farm Practices versus Environmental Performance.’ Economic brief number 5. (United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC.)
