Cost benefit analysis of peri-urban land use policy - Plurel

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Despite the evidence that the maximum wetland vision demonstrates higher benefits than the integrated vision, this does not necessarily suggest that the wetland vision is a better policy to adopt in economic terms. This is due to that there is no cost data available that we can draw upon to measure the costs side of each the planning visions. For example, it may require higher investment costs to convert the current project area to a maximum wetland condition, than to one of the integrated picture. Nevertheless, these benefits figures can be considered to be upper bounds of the costs of potential intervention measures associated with any of the two policy visions. That is, in a planning process, if the total costs with respect to achieving a maximum wetland vision would outnumber the extra benefits specified above, this would be considered to be economically unsound. The uncertainties in this analysis are significant. First, the use of benefit transfer of values can be critiqued. It would certainly be better to conduct a primary study, but these are costly and time consuming – and beyond the scope of the PLUREL project in the Manchester case. We also do not vary the values with different sizes of areas – we assume that the values applied are constant. Nonmarginal changes may have significantly different values – as the marginal rate of substitution between goods will change. There are also uncertainties over value transfer over time, in the case where there are social changes that may significantly alter preferences for environmental quality that we cannot take into account. We have adjusted our analysis to take into account some changes incomes over time, populations and agricultural crop yields. However, if the population in 2020 is far less interested in recreation outdoors because of developments in computer technology, this could not be taken into account. Conclusions We show there are significant benefits of interventions in the Mosslands case, be it in terms of the Maximum Wetland or Integrated Vision. The benefits may be between £6.8 and £21.1 million by 2025, depending on the socioeconomic scenario and vision. Overall, the Maximum Wetland seems to yield the highest benefit, but the uncertainties in the analysis and the need to consider the relative costs of getting to these visions of the future makes clear policy guidance difficult. 54
The use of the combining of socioeconomic scenarios with valuation and land use planning is clear. Future populations will change and will have different incomes to the current populations. If current preferences for environmental quality hold, this means that the value placed on better environmental quality will rise. Under different scenarios, there may be variation in the appropriate policy to implement – this is not shown here. For better peri-urban land use planning, tools such as cost-benefit analysis and environmental accounting may be useful in giving guidance to policy makers in weighing the advantages of different areas. References Agro Business Consultants (2008), ‘The agricultural budgeting & costing book - interim update – July 2008’, available online at: http://www.theandersonscentre.co.uk/uploads/Oli%27s%20Docs/Budgeting%20Pack%20July%20 08.pdf Alvarez-Farizo, B., Hanley, N., Wright, R. E. and Macmillan, D. (1999), ‘Estimating the benefits of agri-environmental policy: Econometric issues in open-ended contingent valuation studies,’ Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42 (1), pp 23-43 Bateman, I.J., Brainard, J.S., Lovett, A.A., Langford, I.H., Powe, N. and Saunders, C. (1998), ‘Transferring Multivariate Benefit Functions Using Geographical Information Systems’, World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Isola di San Giorgio, Venice, Italy 1998. Bateman, I. J., Diamand, E., Langford, H. and Jones, A. (1996), ‘Household Willingness to Pay and Farmers` Willingness to Accept Compensation for Establishing a Recreational Woodland’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 39(1), pp 21-43 Bateman, I.J., Garrod, G.D., Brainard, J.S. and Lovett, A.A. (1996), ‘Measurement Issues in the Travel Cost Method: A Geographical Information Systems Approach’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 47(2), pp 191-205 55
Page 1 and 2:
Sustainability Impact Assessment Mo
Page 3 and 4: Cost benefit analysis of transport
Page 5 and 6: Classification of results/outputs:
Page 7 and 8: Introduction The valuation of the p
Page 9 and 10: Golf Course Development in the Peri
Page 11 and 12: Costs and benefits A scoping of pot
Page 13 and 14: Compensation costs to the conversio
Page 15 and 16: We applied the marginal value estim
Page 17 and 18: Table 5: Development costs of golf
Page 19 and 20: The average house price in the poli
Page 21 and 22: Tourism Koper is located in the reg
Page 23 and 24: Results Taking the figures for the
Page 25 and 26: Navrud, S. and R. Ready(2002) Valui
Page 27 and 28: The Mosslands visioning project The
Page 29 and 30: Figure 2: Land Use Plan with Maximu
Page 31 and 32: Table 8: Specifications of each zon
Page 33 and 34: ⎛ Pop ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ T1 GDPT 1 V =
Page 35 and 36: Table 10: Valuation data for wetlan
Page 37 and 38: Table 11:Values for Hydrological Zo
Page 39 and 40: Agricultural zone Land use within t
Page 41 and 42: Table 12: Current Data on Agricultu
Page 43 and 44: Table 14: Gross margin (in 2008£)
Page 45 and 46: details are exhibited in Page 45
Page 47 and 48: Table 16: Profitability of horticul
Page 49 and 50: Public enjoyment and access zone Th
Page 51 and 52: Results and discussion Table 19 exh
Page 53: Figure 3:Net Benefits of Maximum We
Page 57 and 58: Economics for the Environment Consu
Page 59 and 60: Cost Benefit Analysis of Transport
Page 61 and 62: In relation with differing sustaina
Page 63 and 64: The MOLAND Model The MOLAND Model i
Page 65 and 66: Figure 1. Growth Paths and Spatial
Page 67 and 68: Scenarios for the GDA Within the fr
Page 69 and 70: Figure 3. Transport 21 Network Used
Page 71 and 72: towns (see Figure 6). In other word
Page 73 and 74: operation costs, travel time, accid
Page 75 and 76: Capital Cost Estimation of Rapid Ra
Page 77 and 78: Valuation of Traffic Safety It can
Page 79 and 80: Railway costs can be analysed as fi
Page 81 and 82: Table 6. Average Earnings-Wage, Sal
Page 83 and 84: value and discounted at a standard
Page 86 and 87: Table 9. Summary of Sensitivity Tes
Page 88 and 89: Source: Lavalle et.al. (2009) The c
Page 90 and 91: DKM Ltd. Economic Consultants. (199
Page 92 and 93: Orsini, F. and Williams, B. (2009)
Page 94 and 95: Applying Economic Valuation to Peri
Page 96 and 97: Table 1: Marginal damage costs of C
Page 98 and 99: Results GDP For the Leipzig-Halle c
Page 100 and 101: Open space Open space in Leipzig wa
Page 102 and 103: Discussion In this report, we have
Page 104:
Annex 1: Calculation of Amenity Los
show all

Cost benefit analysis of peri-urban land use policy - Plurel

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?