scholarly journals Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Gillespie ◽  
Marit E. Kragt

Strategic inquiries into coal mining by Australian Governments advocate increased use of comprehensive benefit cost analyses and nonmarket valuation studies when assessing individual project proposals. The study reported in this paper addresses these Government concerns, by integrating results of a choice experiment into a benefit cost analysis undertaken for a Colliery in the Southern Coalfield of New South Wales, Australia. Results of the study were used to aid the State government in evaluating proposals for continued underground coal mining. We show that impacts of mine subsidence on streams, swamps, and Aboriginal sites negatively affect community wellbeing. Social welfare increases with the length of time that the mine provides direct employment. We demonstrate how implicit price estimates from the choice experiment can be incorporated into a benefit cost analysis of continued mining. Benefit cost analyses were carried out for a range of policy scenarios—including policies that would restrict mining activities at the Colliery and protect environmental and cultural features in the Southern Coalfield. Notwithstanding the environmental impacts generated by mining operations, continued mining is shown to be a more economically efficient course of action.

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 341-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Gillespie ◽  
Jeff Bennett

A requirement for project proponents to include a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) as a component of their environmental impact assessments is implied in planning approval legislation in New South Wales, Australia. Fulfilling that requirement in the context of three large-scale expansions of coal mines has led to the application of choice modeling to estimate values for the main environmental, social, and heritage impacts. A number of particular issues have emerged in those applications: the framing of choice sets so that incentive-compatible willingness-to-pay questions are asked; the inclusion of “existence values” associated with employment opportunities provided by mines; and the incorporation of environmental offsets as part of the choice task given to respondents. The benefit-cost analyses of the coal mining projects have proven controversial. While the government agency responsible for administering the project approval process has used them as an input to decision-making, in some cases its recommendations have been “over-ridden” by the imposition of subjectively determined administrative rules. In one case, an appeal through legal channels against an approval was successful in part because the judge who heard the appeal dismissed the BCA findings because it was contrary to his own viewpoint of the merits of the case. In response, the state government has introduced legislation that requires greater “weight” to be given to the development benefits of coal mining. These responses have left the role of BCA and nonmarket valuation in the decision-making process in “limbo,” with practitioners and policy makers unsure as to the future of the methods in politically charged contexts.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e0147665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Doran ◽  
Rod Ling ◽  
Joshua Byrnes ◽  
Melanie Crane ◽  
Anthony P. Shakeshaft ◽  
...  

1991 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Leigh ◽  
H.B. Mulder ◽  
G.V. Want ◽  
N.P. Farnsworth ◽  
G.G. Morgan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document