Assessing the Environmental Co-Benefits of Climate Change Actions

Hamilton, Kirk; Akbar, Sameer

doi:10.1596/27605

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They are often cited in the context of climate-related decision making as factors that can significantly change the outcomes of direct cost-benefit evaluations (1)(2)(3). However, although often referred to and argued with, they are rarely measured, quantified, or monetized, and even less frequently do they enter the quantitative decision-making frameworks applied to climate change.…”

Section: Rationales: Going Beyond the Direct Financial Assessment Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation

Ürge-Vorsatz¹,

Herrero²,

Dubash

et al. 2014

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

200

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceCo-benefits rarely enter quantitative decision-support frameworks, often because the methodologies for their integration are lacking or not known. This review fills in this gap by providing comprehensive methodological guidance on the quantification of co-impacts and their integration into climate-related decision making based on the literature. The article first clarifies the confusion in the literature about related terms and makes a proposal for a more consistent terminological framework, then emphasizes the importance of working in a multiple-objective–multiple-impact framework. It creates a taxonomy of co-impacts and uses this to propose a methodological framework for the identification of the key co-impacts to be assessed for a given climate policy and to avoid double counting. It reviews the different methods available to quantify and monetize different co-impacts and introduces three methodological frameworks that can be used to integrate these results into decision making. On the basis of an initial assessment of selected studies, it also demonstrates that the incorporation of co-impacts can significantly change the outcome of economic assessments. Finally, the review calls for major new research and innovation toward simplified evaluation methods and streamlined tools for more widely applicable appraisals of co-impacts for decision making

show abstract

Section: Rationales: Going Beyond the Direct Financial Assessment Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation

Ürge-Vorsatz¹,

Herrero²,

Dubash

et al. 2014

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

200

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Depending on the sector and mitigation actions considered, the development-related impacts and associated criteria to be used in the classification and prioritisation of actions could include those related to health (measured as, say, disability adjusted life years or cost of illness avoided (Wilkinson et al, 2009; Preval, Chapman, Pierse, Howden-Chapman & The Housing, 2010)), employment opportunities (measured through indicators such as increased employment opportunities and distance to public transport (Porter, Lee, Dennelein & Dowel, 2015;Moreno & Lopez, 2008;Tourkolias & Mirasgedis, 2011)), biodiversity impacts (number of species and hectares of forest restored (Phelps, Webb & Adams, 2012;Strassburg et al, 2012)) or water quality (water quality and soil composition (Wilcock, Quinn, Hudson & Parkyn, 2008;Hamilton & Akbar, 2010)).…”

Section: Problem Type 1: Ranking and Prioritisation Of Individual Mitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-criteria decision analysis in policy-making for climate mitigation and development

Cohen

Blanco²,

Dubash

et al. 2018

Climate and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation policy making has largely been conducted in isolation of development considerations. An emerging literature, bolstered by the "nationally determined" nature of the Paris Agreement, explores the identification and assessment of the co-impacts of mitigation actions. There is now a recognised need to consider mitigation an integral part of a multi-objective development challenge. However, the literature on how to practically and effectively apply this in policy making, particularly in developing economies, is limited. This paper explores the potential for using approaches that fall under the umbrella of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in guiding analyses and policy-making that relate to the climate mitigation-development interface. It categorizes three distinct types of decision problems in the broad area of climate and development policy-making, and presents lessons from three case studies, in India, Chile, and Peru and Colombia taken together, where aspects of MCDA approaches were explored. Based on these reviews, the paper concludes that MCDA approaches, despite certain limitations, can add substantive and procedural credibility to existing toolkits supporting climate and development decision-making. Key contributions of the approach are to structure the analyses, systematically include stakeholder deliberations, and provide tools to rigorously incorporate quantitative and qualitative co-impacts in multipleobjective based decisions.

show abstract

“…Research has shown that links to economic development make rural communities more willing to enact environmental protections (Warner et al 1999). Co-benefits play an important role because they connect local benefits to the local costs of action, and are often the reason some municipalities decide to tackle climate change in the absence of other drivers (Hamilton and Akbar 2010). Cost savings are a major motivator of municipal greenhouse gas reduction programmes (Kousky and Schneider 2003).…”

Section: Local Framing/local Knowledge -Policies That Survivementioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Change and the Co‐Production of Knowledge and Policy in Rural USA Communities

Homsy

Warner

2013

Sociologia Ruralis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change requires action at multiple levels of government. We focus on the potential for climate change policy creation among small rural governments in the USA. We argue that co‐production of scientific knowledge and policy is a communicative approach that encompasses local knowledge flowing up from rural governments as well as expertise and power (to coordinate and ensure compliance) flowing down from higher level authority. Using environmental examples related to land use policy, natural gas hydro‐fracturing, and watershed protection, we demonstrate the importance of knowledge flows, power, and coordination in policy creation. Co‐production of knowledge and policy requires respect for local knowledge and a broader framing of issues to include both environmental and economic perspectives. While we see potential for local action, we caution that polycentric approaches lead to externality problems that require multilevel governance to ensure coordination and compliance.

show abstract

Assessing the Environmental Co-Benefits of Climate Change Actions

Cited by 13 publications

References 22 publications

Measuring the Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation

Measuring the Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation

Multi-criteria decision analysis in policy-making for climate mitigation and development

Climate Change and the Co‐Production of Knowledge and Policy in Rural USA Communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About