@article{Pannell:102455,
      recid = {102455},
      author = {Pannell, David J. and Roberts, Anna M. and Park, Geoff and  Curatolo, April and Marsh, Sally P. and Alexander,  Jennifer},
      title = {Integrated assessment of public investment in land-use  change to protect environmental assets in Australia},
      address = {2011-01-11},
      number = {1784-2016-141905},
      series = {Working paper},
      pages = {20},
      month = {Jan},
      year = {2011},
      note = {This is a pre-publication version of:
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(2): 377-387.},
      abstract = {A framework for comprehensive integrated assessment of  environmental projects is
developed and applied in  partnership with a regional environmental body. The  framework
combines theory with practice, bringing a  pragmatic and efficient approach to the rigorous assessment  of projects for a large number of environmental assets in  the north central region of the state of Victoria,  Australia. Key features of the study include extensive  participation of decision makers and stakeholders,  integration of a comprehensive set of information  about
projects, explicit assessment of uncertainties and  information gaps, and analysis of the most appropriate  policy mechanism for each project. The process of applying  the framework involved four steps: identification of around  300 important environmental assets in the region,
filtering  the list of assets to remove those that are less likely to  provide opportunities for cost effective
public investment,  development and detailed assessment of projects for a  subset of
assets, and negotiation of funding for projects.  The analysis assisted the environmental body to make strong  business cases for a number of environmental projects,  resulting in funding for those projects. Implications for  land-use policy include that environmental projects  vary
widely in their cost-effectiveness, requiring careful  targeting of funds if environmental benefits are to be  maximised. Many existing environmental programs use  simplistic analyses to support decision making, resulting  in missed opportunities for substantially greater  environmental benefits. Promoting adoption of improved  analytical methods is very challenging, requiring changes  in mind-set and culture in environmental  organisations.
Widespread adoption is unlikely unless  funders create incentives by rewarding those project  proponents who undertake rigorous and comprehensive project  assessments that focus on achievement of environmental  outcomes.},
      url = {http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/102455},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.102455},
}